HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-12-2017 POSTED IN CITY HALL DECEMBER 8, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2017
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 – Mark of Excellence Homes – 1952 Chippewa Road
and NE corner of Hwy 55 and Mohawk Dr. – PUD Concept Plans for 78
lot twinhome subdivision on 79.82 acres and 60 lot subdivision (36
single-family, 24 townhomes) on 52 acres.
6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 related to keeping
of chickens and the keeping of bees.
7. Public Hearing – Hennepin County Public Works – 1600 Prairie Drive –
Amendment to Planned Unit Development for installation of 2500
square foot fabric covered storage structure.
8. Approval of November 14, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes
9. Council Meeting Schedule
10. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 December 5, 2017
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: November 30, 2017
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – December 5, 2017 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Crosby Lot Combination and CUP Amendment – David and Kitty Crosby have requested a lot
combination of their property at 2402 Hamel Road and the adjacent 33 acres. The applicants have
also requested an amendment to the recently adopted CUP for a 2nd home on the 2402 Hamel Road
property so that the CUP will apply to the entirety of the combined parcel. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing at the November 14 meeting and unanimously recommended
approval of the amendment to the CUP. The Council is scheduled to review on December 5.
B) Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept Plan – 1952 Chippewa Road – Mark of Excellence
Homes has requested review of a PUD concept plan for the development of 74 twinhomes on 80
acres (~28 buildable) east of Mohawk Drive, and north of Chippewa Road. The applicant has
revised the plan and reduced from 94 twinhomes as previously shown. The Planning Commission is
scheduled to hold a public hearing on December 12 in connection with the Hardwood Hills concept
(below). The City Council is tentatively scheduled to review at the December 19 meeting.
C) Hardwood Hills (Mark Smith) PUD Concept Plan – NE corner of Highway 55 and Mohawk Drive
– Mark Smith of Mark of Excellence Homes has also requested a PUD Concept Plan related to a 60-
lot subdivision immediately south of the Weston Woods project. The project proposes 36 single-
family and 24 townhomes, 5 acres commercial, and a 5 acre preserved wooded area. The Planning
Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on December 12 in connection with the Weston
Woods concept (above). The City Council is tentatively scheduled to review at the December 19
meeting.
D) Hennepin County Storage Building PUD Amendment – 1600 Prairie Drive – Hennepin County
Emergency Management has requested an amendment to the Hennepin County Public Works PUD
to allow a 2500 square foot fabric storage building within the storage yard at the Hennepin County
Public Works Facility. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the
request at the December 12 meeting and the City Council may review on December 19.
E) Maxxon Text Amendment (Fiber Cement) – Maxxon has requested that the City consider allowing
fiber cement panels as an allowed exterior building material to re-side existing masonry structures to
prevent moisture intrusion. Fiber cement panels are not currently permitted as an exterior material.
The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to review at the January 9 meeting.
F) Maxxon Site Plan Review – 900-920 Hamel Road – Maxxon has requested a site plan review for a
4,854 square foot addition between the two existing buildings on their property. The applicant
proposes to convert existing bituminous to pervious surfacing because no more hardcover can be
added as a result of the Elm Creek Shoreland Overlay District. The Planning Commission is
tentatively scheduled to review at the January 9 meeting.
G) School Lake Nature Preserve CD-PUD – Wally and Bridget Marx have requested review of a PUD
General Plan of development and preliminary plat for a conservation design subdivision to include 6
lots and conservation of 70 acres (11.76 buildable). The Planning Commission held a Public
Hearing at the June 13 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. The applicant has
adjusted plans in light of recent City Council direction to include a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres in
rural CD-PUD projects. The City Council adopted an ordinance and resolution of approval at the
October 17 meeting. Staff will await a final plat application.
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 December 5, 2017
City Council Meeting
H) Lunski Final Plat – Lunski, Inc. has applied for final approval of the subdivision related to
the development of 80 units of mixed senior housing and 24,000 s.f. of office north of
Highway 55 and west of Mohawk Drive. The Council adopted a resolution of approval at
the November 16 meeting. Staff will work with applicant on conditions of approval before
construction begins.
I) Reserve of Medina Second Addition – Toll Brothers has requested approval of the second
phase of the Reserve of Medina project. The City Council adopted approval documents on
September 19. Staff will work with the developer related to the conditions of approval.
J) Johnson ADU CUP, 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 – This preliminary plat has been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat
application
L) Hamel Road Thirty Two, 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) Comprehensive Plan – The City Council completed review of the draft Comprehensive Plan update
at the November 16 meeting and directed staff to submit for Met Council review. Staff is putting
together the formal submission and will attempt to submit by the end of the week.
B) Small Cellular Antennae ordinance – Planning staff will be coordinating amendments to the City’s
right-of-way ordinance related to recent changes to state law which mandate the City to permit cell
phone companies to attach small antennas to City street posts. Staff intends to present the ordinance
at the December 5 meeting.
C) Chicken and Bee ordinances – staff intends to present information related to the keeping of
chickens and bees on smaller lots in the City. Cities have seen an increased interest in “urban
agriculture” and a number have adopted ordinances to permit. Staff will present potential ordinances
for a public hearing at the December 12 meeting.
D) Hickory Drive Stormwater Improvement – staff prepared an application for potential Elm Creek
Watershed funding for stormwater improvements for the Hickory Drive area. The City is planning a
street project in the next few years and staff is evaluating if there are opportunities to incorporate
water quality improvements.
Mark Smith – Roy and Cavanaugh Property Page 1 of 11 December 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plans Review Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: December 7, 2017
MEETING: December 12, 2017 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Public Hearing – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) –
E of Mohawk Dr., N. of Hwy 55 and 1952 Chippewa Road –
PUD Concept Plans – Weston Woods and Hardwood Hills
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: September 15, 2017
Review Deadline: January 13, 2018
Summary of Request
Mark Smith has requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a proposed
development of two properties north of Highway 55 and east of Mohawk Drive. The Planning
Commission and City Council previously reviewed one concept plan for each site and provided
comments. The applicant had previously applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment related
to the southern parcel, but has withdrawn the request. Much of the background information for
this updated set of concept plans is unchanged from the previous review. The concept plans
have been updated substantially.
The concept plan proposes 74 twinhomes on the northern property (Roy property) and a
combination of uses on the southern property. The southern concept (Cavanaugh property)
includes 36 single-family lots, 24 townhomes, 5.75 acre of commercial/business land (future
development) and 5-acres of park/open space.
The Roy property is guided for Low Density Residential development within the current staging
period. The Low Density Residential land use anticipates development between 2-3.5 units per
acre.
The Cavanaugh property is predominantly guided for Mixed Use development in the current
Comprehensive Plan within the immediate 2011-2020 staging period, although the southern 5
acres (3 buildable acres) is guided for commercial. The Mixed-Use land use requires a minimum
of ½ of the property to be developed with a mix of residential land uses at a net density between
3.5-7 units per acre. Both parcels are zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve, which is an
interim zoning designation for property until development occurs consistent with the Comp Plan.
An aerial of the site and surrounding property can be found at the top of the following page. The
Roy property is 75 acres in area but is over ½ wetland, with only approximately 28 acres outside
of wetland and required wetland buffer. Much of the upland property is tilled farmland. There is
an existing home and farm buildings in the southwest corner of the site. The Cavanaugh
property is 55 acres in size, and includes 14+ acres of wetland on the east and additional
approximate 3 acres of wetland drainageways which divide the site into three areas (south,
Mark Smith – Roy and Cavanaugh Property Page 2 of 11 December 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plans Review Planning Commission Meeting
northwest, and northeast). In addition, there are approximately 13 acres of woods which bisect
the site along the ridge. These woods abut the large wetland in the southern portion of the site
and bisect the northern portion of the site. There are two 4-acre farmed areas along Mohawk
Drive and approximately 6.5 acres of vacant grassland on the northeast of the site.
The Wealshire is currently under construction to the west, and is zoned Business Park. Polaris is
also located to the west of the subject property. OSI is southeast of the large wetland, along with
additional Business property to the north of OSI. The Bridgewater neighborhood is located
across the large wetland to the northeast of the site.
Although the subject property is planned for development in the current Staging period in the
existing comprehensive plan, it is important to note that the draft Comprehensive Plan Update
has proposed changes for both sites. The Roy property is proposed to continue to be guided for
Low Density Residential development, but is proposed to be staged after 2025. The Cavanaugh
property is proposed to be changed from Mixed Use to Business, but would continue to be staged
for current development.
The applicant has explained why they have proposed a PUD and how they feel the proposal
meets the purposes of the PUD ordinance. Generally, the PUD allows for a mix of housing
Mark Smith – Roy and Cavanaugh Property Page 3 of 11 December 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plans Review Planning Commission Meeting
styles and to shift home sites in order to preserve other areas of open space. The applicant has
also indicated that it is not possible to develop the Roy property at 2 units/acre as required by the
Comprehensive Plan by following the R1 zoning district. As such, the applicant states that some
alternative zoning would need to be utilized to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and
has suggested a PUD as a good tool.
The applicant has stated that they recognize that the City is within the process of updating its
Comprehensive Plan, but seeks to work with the City to provide the infrastructure improvements
identified as a need in this portion of the City, including a street connection between Mohawk
Drive and Arrowhead Drive, a watermain connection between Mohawk and Arrowhead, and a
City park. The applicant believes permitting a coordinated residential development in
connection both sides of future Chippewa Road can provide the revenue for them to provide
these improvements.
The purpose of a PUD Concept Plan is to provide feedback to the applicant prior to a formal
application. The Planning Commission and City Council does not take any formal action and the
feedback is purely advisory. The applicant had previously requested a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, but the request has been withdrawn.
Purpose of a Planned Unit Development
According to Section 827.25, PUD provisions are established to provide comprehensive
procedures and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the development of
neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing
for a mixture of uses. The PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this
Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is
intended to encourage:
1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic
expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the
conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
2. Higher standards of site and building design.
3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality
natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the
prevention of soil erosion.
4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which
result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of
the City.
5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding
open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses.
6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly
development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and
service facilities.
7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower
development costs and public investments.
8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD
is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)
9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application
on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
Mark Smith – Roy and Cavanaugh Property Page 4 of 11 December 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plans Review Planning Commission Meeting
Comprehensive Plan
As noted above, the Cavanaugh property is guided Mixed Use (MU) in the current Comp Plan,
which would anticipate residential development with a net density of 3.5-7 units per acre over a
minimum of ½ of the property. MU would anticipate some non-residential component as well.
The property is staged for development after 2011. The southern 5-acres is guided for
Commercial development.
The Roy property is guided Low Density Residential (LDR) in the current Comp Plan, which
would anticipate residential development with a net density of 2-3.5 units per acre. The
property is staged for development after 2016.
The City is currently in the midst of its decennial Comprehensive Plan update. The Steering
Committee, Planning Commission and City Council have completed a draft of the Plan, which
has been submitted for Metropolitan Council review. The City anticipates that the Plan update
will be approved by the Met Council early in 2018, potentially in March or April.
The draft 2040 Comp Plan update designates the Roy property as Low Density Residential, but
delays the staging of the property to 2025. The density range of LDR was also adjusted to 2.0-
3.0 units per acre. Property to the north and northwest of the site has been guided as Rural
Residential within the draft Plan update, no longer being included within the Metropolitan Urban
Service Area (MUSA). The applicant’s concept plan proposes density near the top of this range.
The draft 2040 Comp Plan proposes to designate the Cavanaugh property as Business and
continues to stage development for the current staging period.
Staff included information related to the Vision/Goals/Strategies and the Land Use Plan of both
the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan and the draft Comprehensive Plan update during previous
review by the Planning Commission and Council. The information is available on the City’s
website. Staff can also email or print the information again upon request.
As proposed in the amended concept plan, the proposed development density appears to be
generally consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. The current Comprehensive Plan
states that “the primary use in the [LDR land use] (Roy property) is single-family development.”
As a result, the R1 zoning district does not permit twinhomes and generally results in a density
closer to 2 units/acre. Staff believes the “primary use” language would leave flexibility to permit
twinhomes (attached single-family) through a PUD, provided the density is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan range. The draft Comprehensive Plan update does anticipate single-family
and twinhomes. The City will need to amend the zoning regulations after the Plan update is in
place to address twinhomes with the zoning planned for LDR property.
Because the draft Comprehensive Plan update is within the review process, staff believes it is
relevant to consider in connection with a proposed development, even if it is not yet in effect. In
fact, if the City is in the process of considering an amendment of the comprehensive plan, state
law allows the City to enact an interim ordinance which can restrict or prohibit development for
up to one year. In order to do so, the City would have to determine that the moratorium would
be necessary to protect the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
This option is provided to cities in order to allow time to consider the comprehensive plan,
Mark Smith – Roy and Cavanaugh Property Page 5 of 11 December 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plans Review Planning Commission Meeting
especially if significant changes are being considered. Staff generally recommends that a
moratorium only be considered in extraordinary cases where significant changes are proposed in
the Comprehensive Plan and a potential development would have the potential of impacting the
goals, objectives or implementation of the Plan.
Proposed Site Layout
On the Cavanaugh property, the applicant proposes 36 single-family lots between 9,000-12,000
square feet in size, 24 townhomes and 5.75 acre for commercial.
The property is currently guided for Mixed Use development. The MU zoning district permits
smaller single-family lots, with a width of 60 feet and a minimum size of 8,000 square feet. The
applicant has proposed lots which appear to exceed the minimum dimensional standards of the
MU district. The following summarizes the single family lots proposed on the Cavanaugh
property compared to the MU district requirements:
MU Requirement Proposed
Minimum Lot Size 8,000 s.f. 9,500 s.f.
Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 70 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 90 feet 125 feet
Front Yard Setback 25 feet 25 feet
Front Yard Setback (garage) 30 feet 30 feet
Side Yard Setback (combined) 15 feet (10 & 5) 20 feet (10 & 10)
Side Yard (corner) 25 feet 25 feet
Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 30 feet
Max. Hardcover 50% Not specified
The MU zoning district permits townhome development up to 7 units/acre, provided design
elements such as sound suppression between units, oversized garages, and community amenities
are provided. It appears that the townhome area of the concept plan is approximately 8.57
units/acres. A reduction of required lot area per unit could be provided through the PUD process
if it serves the purpose of the PUD. Staff would recommend that the design integrate the extra
design elements described in the MU zoning district if density is greater than 5 units/acre. Staff
also recommends that the townhome layout be adjusted either so that there is sufficient depth in
the driveway to park a vehicle, or additional parking be considered. The following summarizes
the townhomes proposed on the Cavanaugh property compared to the MU district requirements:
MU Requirement Proposed
Minimum Net Area per Unit 6,222 s.f. 5,100 s.f.
Maximum Net Area per Unit 12,500 s.f. 5,100 s.f.
Minimum Setback from Perimeter 20 feet 26 feet
Front Yard Setback 25 feet 30 feet
Local Road Setback 40 feet 26 feet
Private Road Setback 25 feet 15 feet
Minimum Distance Between Buildings 30 feet 46 feet
Max. Hardcover 50% 42%
Mark Smith – Roy and Cavanaugh Property Page 6 of 11 December 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plans Review Planning Commission Meeting
The proposed commercial/business property far exceeds the minimum dimensional standards
required in the MU district for commercial property. In fact, it is possible that the property may
be further subdivided based on the needs of a future buyer.
On the Roy property, the applicant proposes 74 twinhome units. As noted above, the R1 zoning
district does not provide minimum standards for twinhomes. Additionally, the applicant’s
concept shows small lots around the twinhomes with Association owned open space between
each pad. These factors reduce the value of comparing the lots on the concept to the R1 district
standards. To provide a better comparison, staff measured the area around a series of twinhome
buildings to account for the common open space between lots and to more accurately report the
setbacks between buildings. As noted above, flexibility could be permitted through the PUD
process to vary the general standards of the ordinance, provided that such flexibility serves the
purposes described on page 3. The following table summarizes these measurements:
R1 Requirement
Proposed
Minimum Lot Size 11,000 s.f. 8,000 s.f. per unit
Minimum Lot Width 90 feet 57.5 feet per unit
Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 135 feet
Front Yard Setback 25 feet 15 feet
Front Yard Setback (garage) 30 feet 15 feet
Side Yard Setback (combined) 25 feet (15 & 10) 15 feet (30 feet between buildings)
Side Yard (corner) 25 feet 30 feet
Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 30 feet
Max. Hardcover 40% 40%
Tree Preservation and Buffer Yards
The Cavanaugh site includes a wooded area approximately 13 acres in area. The northern 3-
acres of the woods is designated as a moderate quality oak forest in the City’s land cover
classification system. Approximately 1-2 acres of the southern wooded area is designated as a
moderate quality maple-basswood forest. The remaining area is an altered deciduous woodland.
Few trees are located on the Roy property.
The applicant’s concept proposes to preserve approximately 5 acres of the woods through
dedication of the property to the City for park dedication. The applicant proposes to preserve an
additional ½ acre of wooded area in the eastern portion of the site. The request would be subject
to the City’s tree preservation ordinance, which would require expansive replacement for all
removal in excess of 15% of the significant trees on the site.
Staff visited the site with the City’s natural resource specialist. A summary of his observations is
attached. The southern portion of the wooded area, especially located on the knoll which is
proposed to be dedicated to the City, was well varied in terms of tree age and species, and had
comparatively low levels of buckthorn intrusion. This portion of the woods appeared to be a
long-term sustainable natural area of a comparatively good quality within Medina.
Mark Smith – Roy and Cavanaugh Property Page 7 of 11 December 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plans Review Planning Commission Meeting
Wetlands and Floodplain
The large wetland to the east of the proposed development is a Preserve wetland which is
mapped as a Site of Biodiversity Significance. This type of wetland requires an average buffer
of 50 feet in width. Most of the other wetlands on the sites are Preserve wetlands, requiring an
average buffer of 35 feet. The wetland area in the center of the development on the Roy property
is a Manage 3 wetland, requiring a buffer with an average width of 20 feet. The City’s wetland
protection ordinance also requires homes to be set back an additional 15 feet from these required
buffers.
It appears that the applicant is identifying appropriate buffers on the concept plan, but this will
need to be verified if there is a future formal application.
FEMA maps identified a Zone A floodplain within the location of the large wetland. The
floodplain does not have a Base Flood Elevation established, so the applicant will need to
provide information on which to establish an elevation in order to verify that there will be no
impacts.
Transportation
The concept plan identifies a single access to the twinhome neighborhood off of Mohawk Drive.
The single family area is proposed to have access on Mohawk Drive and new Chippewa Road,
and the commercial area and townhomes are proposed to be accessed off of Mohawk Drive.
Staff would recommend improvements in proposed access locations and connectivity. For
example, the twinhome neighborhood entrance should align with the Wealshire driveway. The
southern access point to the commercial and townhome area should align or increase off-set from
the Polaris driveway. In addition, the number of cul-de-sacs should be reduced.
Pedestrian connections should also be provided throughout the neighborhoods to the open space
areas.
Mohawk Drive has limited right-in/right-out access to the south of the site. As a result,
eastbound traffic would currently be required to travel west on Chippewa Road to Willow Drive
in order to turn left onto Highway 55. This would add approximately 1.3 miles to each east-
bound trip. The City has identified a future connection of Chippewa Road east of Mohawk Drive
to connect with Arrowhead Drive. Staff believes this connection is important to support
development of the subject site and others in the area of Chippewa Road/Mohawk Drive. This
connection is important for public safety purposes as well, providing better emergency access to
the area and also providing an alternative route in case of an emergency on Highway 55.
The applicant has proposed to construct the Chippewa Road extension from Mohawk Drive to
Arrowhead Drive in connection with development of the property. A common developer
between the two sites provides the unique opportunity for the project to be completed by the
developer. Under the DRAFT Comp Plan update, the subject site is proposed to be guided for
Business development and the property to the north guided for Low Density Residential after
2025. It is extremely unlikely that a common developer would be involved under the draft Plan
update. The City would, therefore, need to coordinate its construction and funding.
Mark Smith – Roy and Cavanaugh Property Page 8 of 11 December 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plans Review Planning Commission Meeting
If the subject site were to develop before other properties west of Arrowhead Drive, it provides
the opportunity to secure right-of-way and potential funding obligations for the extension of
Chippewa Road east of Mohawk Drive. If other properties west of Arrowhead Drive develop
first and result in the need to construct Chippewa Road, road acquisition costs could increase and
the process could become more complicated. Previous estimates for the street were around $1
million in construction costs and an additional $600,000-$1 million in soft costs and wetland
mitigation costs.
Sewer/Water
Existing sewer and water mains are located within Mohawk Drive, which the applicant proposes
to extend throughout the site.
The applicant has indicated that the subject site could be served through gravity sewer lines to
the existing system, but this would need to be confirmed.
Currently, the subject property and other sites in the area are served by a single water main along
Highway 55 (to Mohawk) without any looping. The City Engineer and Public Works emphasize
that having a second means to route water to this neighborhood and other properties in the area is
extremely important. The City’s water plan identifies a water main along new Chippewa Road
from Mohawk Drive east to Arrowhead Drive. This water main connection is not yet in place
and staff believes that it is important that provisions are made for construction of this connection
before additional property develops west of Arrowhead Drive. The applicant has indicated that
they would construct this watermain extension from Arrowhead Drive along with construction of
either this project, or the project to the north.
Providing this connection would be an important benefit for the City, because Public Works and
Engineering are currently beginning the planning process for potential construction in the next
few years. If it is constructed in connection with a development, it would relieve the City of
completing this project.
Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review
The Concept Plan does not include full grading or stormwater plans. Any development proposal
would ultimately be subject to relevant stormwater standards.
Park Dedication
The City’s subdivision regulations require up to 10% of the buildable property to be dedicated
for park purposes. The City may also choose to accept cash in-lieu of all or a portion of this land
dedication in an amount equal to 8% of the pre-developed market value, with a minimum of
$3500 and a maximum of $8000 per home.
In this case, there are approximately 75 upland acres, for a potential 7.5 acres of park land. If the
City determines that land should not be required in this case, staff believes the fee would be in
the mid of the range, potentially around $600,000-$800,000. However, this value will be
determined more precisely during the preliminary plat review if the applicant proceeds with a
formal application.
Mark Smith – Roy and Cavanaugh Property Page 9 of 11 December 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plans Review Planning Commission Meeting
The City’s park and trail plan identify the need for a neighborhood park in this area. The Park
Commission has discussed potentially requiring land either at this subject site or at the other
planned residential property west on Chippewa Road, depending on which project would move
forward first. The Park Commission reviewed this concept in connection with the request to the
north during their September 20 meeting. If both the Roy and Cavanaugh property were to move
ahead at this time, the Park Commission supported securing as much park land as possible
between the two projects, which would be approximately 7-7.5 acres. The Commission
supported some recreational park land for the single family development, but believed there was
not as much of a need for the twinhome development. The Park Commission saw an opportunity
to preserve the woods.
Review Criteria
The purpose of the PUD Concept Plan is to provide purely advisory comments to the applicant
for their consideration whether and how to continue with a formal application. The City has a
great deal of discretion when reviewing a PUD because it is a rezoning, which is a legislative
action. A PUD should only be approved if it achieves the purposes of the PUD district
(described on page 3), the Comprehensive Plan, and other City policies. The Planning
Commission and Council should provide comments based upon this information.
Staff Comments
While the purpose of the PUD provides the primary guidance during review, the objectives and
strategies of the Comprehensive Plan also should be considered, and are actually referenced as
one of the PUD purposes. Because the City has submitted its draft 2020-2040 Comprehensive
Plan update for review by the Metropolitan Council, staff also believes that it is appropriate to
consider the concept plan within context of the draft Plan Update.
Until the 2020-2040 Plan Update is approved by the Metropolitan Council and formally adopted
by the City, the current Comprehensive Plan continues to be in effect. As such, the City could
approve of a proposed land use application which is consistent with the existing Plan, even if it is
different than contemplated within the draft Update. The City would need to address that
discrepancy in the draft 2020-2040 Plan Update before it formally adopts the Update. Doing so
may require additional review by the Metropolitan Council. The Met Council only requires that
the City stage development in 10 year increments, so earlier development of the Roy property is
not likely to require significant review. Adding an additional 60 units of residential to the
Cavanaugh property would increase the City’s forecasted growth by approximately 6%, which
may require some additional Met Council review. That being said, the Met Council has generally
indicated that they would work with communities who had reduced forecasts from the 2010 Plan
if the community desired to not reduce the planned residential development all of the way to the
new forecast.
In terms of the draft 2020-2040 Plan Update, the proposed concept would develop approximately
½ of the Cavanaugh property with residential uses, when the draft Plan proposed to change the
use to Business. Doing so would result in some additional residential development beyond the
forecasted growth within the draft Comp Plan. One of the goals during the process was to guide
the minimum amount of land for residential development to just meet the forecasts. The Steering
Committee had discussed the Business land use in relation to the subject site as potentially
offering a better opportunity to preserve some of the woodland on the property.
Mark Smith – Roy and Cavanaugh Property Page 10 of 11 December 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plans Review Planning Commission Meeting
On the other hand, the applicant proposes to meet various infrastructure objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. Providing for the street and water main connection between Mohawk
Drive and Arrowhead Drive without substantial public or broader assessment funding serves
objectives of the plan to be fiscally prudent and development efficient infrastructure systems.
The applicant argues that a coordinated residential development between the two sites is likely
the best opportunity to meet these objectives in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.
Likewise, a larger-scale residential development provides the best opportunity to secure a larger
contiguous piece of park land.
The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update has been submitted for Met Council review. The
Met Council will inform the City in the next few weeks whether our submission is complete for
review. Once complete, the Met Council has up to 120 days to review and take action on the
plan. After the Met Council approves the plan, the City can choose to immediately formally
adopt the plan and put it into effect, but has up to nine months to do so.
If the Planning Commission and City Council find that the proposal does not meet the purpose of
the PUD District, the development could not move forward proposed.
It is possible that the Planning Commission and City Council could determine that the proposal
would meet the purpose of the PUD district, but also determine that a moratorium is necessary to
protect the planning process for any development which is inconsistent with the pending update
to the Comprehensive Plan.
As noted above, if the Planning Commission and City Council support the proposed
development, staff would recommend that the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update be
changed to account for the change in staging for the Roy property and land use for the
Cavanaugh property.
Staff has provided comments throughout the report to be incorporated into any future formal
application. These comments are summarized below:
1) Any future application shall be subject to all relevant City regulations and policies.
2) The applicant shall provide information necessary to confirm that gravity sewer service is
practical.
3) The applicant shall provide information to determine a base flood elevation and to verify
no floodplain impacts will occur.
4) The applicant shall provide a wetland delineation and meet all requirements of the
wetland protection ordinance.
5) Access locations and circulations shall be improved as recommended by City staff.
6) Additional trail connections shall be provided.
7) An east-west trail connection shall be provided. Locations should be considered which
provide convenient access, opportunities for separation from roadways, and connections
with the existing and planned trail network.
8) A street and watermain connection between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive shall
be constructed in connection with the development.
9) Architectural standards for all residential structures shall be submitted for City review
and approval. Minimum design standards shall be established to ensure high quality
Mark Smith – Roy and Cavanaugh Property Page 11 of 11 December 12, 2017
PUD Concept Plans Review Planning Commission Meeting
design and construction contemplated by the purpose of the PUD district. Standards may
include limitation of twinhome height to one-story.
10) A substantial buffer shall be provided from adjacent rural property. The buffer shall
include an appropriate combination of distance, berming, vegetation and potentially
fencing.
11) The “requirements for maximum density” described in the Mixed Use district shall be
incorporated into the townhome design.
12) Townhome layout shall be adjusted to allow sufficient space to park in driveways or
additional parking shall be considered.
13) The applicant shall provide information requested by the City Engineer to determine
whether street improvements are necessary to support the development.
Attachments
1. Document List – Weston Woods
2. Document List – Hardwood Hills
3. Natural Resource Specialist comments dated 10/6/2017
4. Engineering Comments – Weston Woods – 11/29/2017
5. Engineering Comments – Hardwood Hills – 11/30/2017
6. Except from 9/12/2017 Planning Commission minutes
7. Except from 10/10/2017 Planning Commission minutes
8. Excerpt from draft 9/20/2017 Park Commission minutes
9. Excerpt from 10/17/2017 City Council minutes
10. Public Comments received
a. Kim Hofstede – 9/11/2017
b. Pete and Kate Nohre – 9/12/2017
c. Craig Roy – 10/26/2017
d. Pete Nohre – 10/25/2017
11. Applicant Narrative
12. Photos of twinhomes
13. Concept Plan
12/8/2017 Project: LR‐17‐216 – Mark Smith‐Cavanaugh Comp Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan 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 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 3 Y Y Withdraw‐Comp Plan Am. 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 1 Y Y Fee 9/15/2017 9/12/2017 2 Y Y 2 checks; $1000, $2000 Mailing Labels 1 Y Y 4 pages w/ map and list Mailing Labels‐Updated 10/6/2017 10/6/2017 1 Y Y 2 pages w/ map Narrative 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 1 Y Y Narrative – Updated 11/16/2017 11/15/2017 3 Y Y Narrative – Updated 11/28/2017 11/27/2017 3 Y Y PUD Purpose Summary 11/30/2017 11/30/2017 4 Y Y 9 pages w/ attachments Concept Plan Set 9/15/2017 9/14/2017 4 Y Y Exhibit with both concepts 9/15/2017 NA 1 Y N Concept Plan – Updated 11/16/2017 11/14/2017 1 Y Y Concept Plan – Updated 11/28/2017 11/14/2017 1 Y Y Wetland Buffer Exhibit 11/28/2017 11/10/2017 1 Y Y Interior home photos 11/16/2017 N/A 12 Y Y Exterior home photos 11/28/2017 N/A 3 Y Y (Continued on back)
12/8/2017 Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 9/25/2017 3 Y Engineering Comments 11/30/2017 3 Y Fire Marshal Comments 9/29/2017 1 Y Fire Marshal Comments 11/20/2017 1 Y Elm Creek Comments 9/19/2017 1 Y MnDOT Comments 9/26/2017 2 Y Natural Resource Comments 10/6/2017 2 Y Preliminary Review 10/3/2017 2 Y Legal Notice 9/26/2017 5 Y Legal Notice – Additional addresses 10/6/2017 6 Y Legal Notice – December 12/1/2017 5 Y 12 pages w/affidavit Planning Commission Report 10/5/2017 9 Y 81 pages w/ attachments City Council Report 10/12/2017 10 Y Planning Commission Report 12/7/2017 11 Y Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Email from P. Nohre 10/25/2017 Y Planning Commission minutes 10/10/2017 Y City Council minutes 10/17/2017 Y
12/8/2017 Project: LR‐17‐215 – Weston Woods PUD Concept Plan 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 8/14/2017 8/14/2017 3 Y Y Fee 8/14/2017 8/14/2017 1 Y Y $1000 Mailing Labels 8/14/2017 8/10/2017 6 Y Y Narrative 8/14/2017 NA 4 Y Y Narrative – Updated 11/16/2017 11/15/2017 3 Y Y Narrative – Updated 11/28/2017 11/27/2017 3 Y Y PUD Purpose Summary 11/30/2017 11/30/2017 4 Y Y 9 pages w/ attachments Concept Plan Set 8/14/2017 8/11/2017 4 Y Y Narrative – Updated 8/24/2017 N/A 2 Y Y Concept Plan‐Updated 8/30/2017 8/30/2017 5 Y Y Exhibit with both concepts 9/15/2017 NA 1 Y N Concept Plan – Updated 11/16/2017 11/14/2017 1 Y Y Concept Plan – Updated 11/28/2017 11/14/2017 1 Y Y Wetland Buffer Exhibit 11/28/2017 11/10/2017 1 Y Y Interior home photos 11/16/2017 N/A 12 Y Y Exterior home photos 11/28/2017 N/A 3 Y Y Applicant Extension 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 1 Y Y Extend deadline to 1/13/2018 (Continued on back)
12/8/2017 Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 8/25/2017 2 Y Engineering Comments 9/25/2017 3 Y Engineering Comments 10/19/2017 3 Y Engineering Comments 11/29/2017 3 Y Elm Creek Comments 8/22/2017 2 Y Building Official Comments 8/18/2017 1 Y Building Official Comments 11/20/2017 1 Y Preliminary Review 8/25/2017 2 Y Legal Notice 9/1/2017 6 Y 13 pages w/ Affidavit and labels 120‐day Review Letter 10/3/2017 1 Y Legal Notice – December 12/1/2017 5 Y 12 pages w/affidavit Planning Commission Report 9/6/2017 8 Y 34 pages w/ attachments City Council Report 10/11/2017 9 Y Planning Commission Report 12/7/2017 11 Y (continued on back) Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Email from Kim Hofstede 9/11/2017 Y Email from Pete and Kate Nohre 9/12/2017 Y Planning Commission minutes 9/12/2017 Y Email from Craig Roy 10/26/2017 Y
1
Dusty Finke
From:Tony Havranek <THavranek@wsbeng.com>
Sent:Friday, October 06, 2017 12:34 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Cc:Steve Scherer
Subject:RE: Medina - Mark Smith/Cavanaugh site visit
Dusty,
Here are my notes from today’s site visit:
I would classify the forested portion of the eastern side of the parcel as quality woodland, as opposed to low quality,
with some pockets of high quality.
The northeastern portion of the woodland, north of the ditch, is correctly classified by the Hennepin County Nat Res
layer as a mesic oak woodland. Both white oak and red oak occur in this portion of the forest. All oak would be
classified as large to very large trees (DBH > 21”). The oak component would be classified as even age, meaning that
these are all mature trees. No oak regeneration was observed (sapling/seedling size class). The number of individual
trees is small compared to other species (ash), but the size of the trees causes them to be the dominant species in terms
of canopy coverage and basal area.
It should be noted that there were a small number of very large sugar maple as well.
The understory in this location was dominated by buckthorn, with some ironwood. Without management, this area
would more than likely transition to buckthorn/elm/basswood/ash due to oak mortality due to wind events, disease,
and old age;.
The area between the knoll and south of the ditch, maintains an oak component similar to the one described above, but
ash becomes more prevalent (pole to medium tree size 5‐10” DBH). The buckthorn is much smaller here (seedlings) and
is not as dense.
The knoll consists of a uneven‐age sugar maple stand with some large ‐very large white oak. This portion of the forest
would more than likely be sustainable for the long term since the seedling/sapling/pole size class will succeed the
mature trees as they die. Very little to no buckthorn is found here. This area is typed as a basswood/sugar maple by the
Hennepin County Nat Res inventory. The basswood component is present, but somewhat minor when compared to the
sugar maple component.
The southern portion of the forest is similar to what was observed in the northeast portion described in the first
paragraph.
While the tree inventory shows that ash is dominant as a percentage of individual trees, it should be noted that from a
canopy/basal area perspective, white oak, sugar ample, and red oak are the domiant tree species throughout the
woodland.
Let me know if you need something else,
Tony Havranek
Sr. Environmental Scientist
P (651) 286-8473 | M (612) 246-9346
2
WSB & Associates, Inc. | 178 East 9th Street, Suite 200 | St. Paul, MN 55101
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for
the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, please delete this email from
your system. Any use of this email by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited.
WSB does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a result
of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy.
From: Dusty Finke [mailto:dusty.finke@medinamn.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 8:14 AM
To: Tony Havranek <THavranek@wsbeng.com>
Cc: Steve Scherer <steve.scherer@medinamn.gov>
Subject: RE: Medina ‐ Mark Smith/Cavanaugh site visit
Tony,
I will meet you over there. Steve Scherer from Public Works may come also.
Thanks,
Dusty
From: Tony Havranek [mailto:THavranek@wsbeng.com]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 6:36 AM
To: Dusty Finke
Cc: Jim Stremel
Subject: RE: Medina - Last minute site visit?
Dusty,
I reviewed the docs that you sent over. My main focus was the inventory data. Looks like there is some good diversity
out there, with some large seed trees. As stated in the S & S report, while the dominant species is green/white ash,
these trees still provide value.
I took a look at the Hennepin county nat resources data. There are two ecologically significant areas present on the
parcel. A small section of maple‐basswood forest on the north side, and an oak forest‐mesic subtype. I will pay
particular attention to these areas.
Is anyone meeting me there, or were planning on just having me, walk the area by myself and report back to you?
Any issues with accessing the property without notice to the landowner?
Thanks,
Tony Havranek
Sr. Environmental Scientist
P (651) 286-8473 | M (612) 246-9346
WSB & Associates, Inc. | 178 East 9th Street, Suite 200 | St. Paul, MN 55101
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
K:\010653-000\Admin\Docs\2017-11-16 Submittal\_2017-10-27 Weston Woods Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
November 29, 2017
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept Plan – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-17-215
WSB Project No. 010653-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept plan submittal dated November 16,
2017. The plans propose to construct 39 two-unit buildings (78 total homes) on a 76-acre site.
The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general
engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with
regards to engineering and stormwater management matters.
Site Plan & Streets
1. Add typical street section to plans meeting the City’s standard.
2. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building
structures as required by the Fire Marshall.
3. City design standards require horizontal and vertical curve lengths to meet a 30 MPH design
speed, at minimum.
4. The City may require that a trail corridor is established through the property to connect to
future developments to the north. Consider a trail connection to the upland area to the
northeast of the proposed lots.
5. The developer is proposing private roadways through the development. If the City requires
public streets, wider right-of-way will be required.
6. Show the Wealshire access on the plans. The access shown to Mohawk Drive will need to
align with that of the Wealshire site on the west side.
Water/Sewer Utilities
7. The City may require that sanitary sewer and watermain be encompassed by drainage and
utility easements where located outside of public road right of way.
8. Watermain looping connections will be needed to minimize long dead-end watermain
sections. Consideration of further watermain looping needs will be required and reviewed
with future submittals.
Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept – Engineering Review
November 29, 2017
Page 2
K:\010653-000\Admin\Docs\2017-11-16 Submittal\_2017-10-27 Weston Woods Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
9. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for those lots served by City water.
10. The watermain alignment and connection along the proposed Chippewa Road alignment will
be reviewed by the City in further detail with future submittals. The City’s preference for
watermain materials is PVC C900. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the Fire
Marshal.
11. City design standards require 10.5’ sanitary sewer manhole builds; at no point shall build
depths be less than 8’. Show sanitary sewer service lines and invert elevations on plans; the
City requires a minimum depth of 4’ from low floor elevations. If a gravity connection is not
feasible to serve all or a portion of the site, a lift station may be required.
12. City design standards require that sanitary sewer manholes are placed within boulevards or
non-paved areas.
13. Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (Ten States Standards) guidance does not
allow oversizing of mains to achieved full-flow velocities at flatter grades. Confirm capacity
and need for larger main, if shown.
Traffic
14. The City may require the applicant to contribute to the costs for extending Chippewa Road
and watermain utilities between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Dive.
15. A traffic analysis should be completed documenting the capacity and safety impacts from the
site including following:
o Traffic generation from the site traffic
o Impact the site traffic has at the operation at the site entrance and the adjacent
development driveway, including the need for turn lanes.
o Safety (sight line) analysis at the site driveway
o Impact the site traffic has on the operations at the intersection of Mohawk Dr at
Chippewa Rd.
Stormwater
16. The developer will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent
with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. The City requires two feet of freeboard from
structure low openings to 100-year high water levels and EOF’s. Provide maintenance access
to all ponding facilities.
17. The development will need to meet the City’s infiltration requirement, which can be met by
constructing infiltration basins or reusing stormwater from the proposed ponds for irrigation.
Previous submittals stated that a “re-use/infiltration system” will be used, but more
information will be required with future submittals.
18. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards and submit for
permits.
19. Drainage from properties to the west of Mohawk Drive are conveyed through the
southeasterly portion of the Weston Woods property into the wetland(s). The stormwater
modeling and storm sewer design will need to accommodate this flow and conveyance.
Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept – Engineering Review
November 29, 2017
Page 3
K:\010653-000\Admin\Docs\2017-11-16 Submittal\_2017-10-27 Weston Woods Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
Wetlands
20. The concept plan shows wetland impact in several locations. Wetland delineations and
replacement plan approval is required prior to any wetland impact.
21. A wetland delineation has been completed for the project site and is currently under review.
The applicant should verify that the most recent wetland boundaries are being used for
project design.
22. Upland buffers and buffer setbacks will be required for the project. The wetland east of the
project is partially mapped as a DNR Site of Biodiversity Significance, and the wetlands in
the project are classified as a Preserve by the city’s Wetland Functional Classification
mapping. The plans will need to show the upland buffers widths, structure setbacks, and
where the buffer markers will be placed.
23. Interior roadways are shown to cross wetlands in multiple locations. In order to maintain
hydrology between the wetland basins, plans should include culverts under these roadways. If
culverts are not proposed, any secondary impacts to wetlands because of reduced hydrology
will require replacement at a minimum 2:1 ratio.
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
K:\010801-000\Admin\Docs\2017-11-16 Submittal\_2017-11-27 Mark Smith Cavanaugh Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
November 29, 2017
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Mark Smith/Cavanaugh PUD Concept Plan – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-17-216
WSB Project No. 010801-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed the Mark Smith/Cavanaugh PUD Concept plan submittal dated November 16,
2017. The plans propose to construct 36 single family and 24 townhome urban serviced lots and a 5-
acre City park area dedication all on 52 acres.
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 & Streets
1. Add typical street section to plans meeting the City’s standard.
2. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building
structures as required by the Fire Marshall.
3. The City may require a roadway connection to the proposed Chippewa Road extension
and/or further south along Mohawk to reduce dead ends within proposed development.
4. City design standards require horizontal and vertical curve lengths to meet a 30 MPH design
speed, at minimum.
5. Show the existing access drive location to the Polaris site off Mohawk Drive. Complete.
Water/Sewer Utilities
6. The City may require that sanitary sewer and watermain be encompassed by drainage and
utility easements where located outside of public road right of way.
7. The City’s preference for watermain materials is PVC C900, update on plans and related
notes. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the Fire Marshal.
8. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for those lots served by City water.
Mark Smith/Cavanaugh PUD Concept – Engineering Review
November 29, 2017
Page 2
K:\010801-000\Admin\Docs\2017-11-16 Submittal\_2017-11-27 Mark Smith Cavanaugh Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
9. City design standards require 10.5’ sanitary sewer manhole builds. Show sanitary sewer
service lines and invert elevations on plans; the City requires a minimum depth of 4’ from
low floor elevations.
10. City design standards require that sanitary sewer manholes are placed within boulevards or
non-paved areas.
11. Watermain looping connections will be needed to minimize long dead-end watermain
sections. Consideration of further watermain looping needs will be required and reviewed
with future submittals.
Traffic
12. The City may require the applicant to contribute to the costs for extending Chippewa Road
and watermain utilities between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Dive.
13. A traffic analysis should be completed documenting the capacity and safety impacts from the
site including following:
a. Traffic generation from the site traffic
b. Impact the site traffic has at the operation at the site entrance and the adjacent
development driveway
c. Safety (sight line) analysis at the site driveway
d. Impact the site traffic has on the operations at the intersection of Mohawk Dr at
Chippewa Rd.
Stormwater
14. The developer will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent
with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. The City requires two feet of freeboard from
structure low openings to 100-year high water levels and EOF’s. Provide maintenance access
to all ponding facilities.
15. The development will need to meet the City’s infiltration requirement, which can be met by
constructing infiltration basins or reusing stormwater from the proposed ponds for irrigation.
16. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards and submit for
permits.
Wetlands
17. The concept plan shows wetland impact in several locations. Wetland replacement plan
approval is required prior to any wetland impact.
18. Confirm whether the wetlands shown on the plan reference the US Fish and Wildlife
Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), an inventory which is outdated and has been
updated by the MN Department of Natural Resources or the wetland delineation that was
approved for this location in October 2013 (Application No. W-13-121). The wetland
boundaries approved by that delineation should be shown on the plan sheets and must be
used to calculate wetland impacts.
19. Upland buffers and buffer setbacks will be required for the project. The wetlands adjacent are
classified as a Preserve by the city’s Wetland Functional Classification mapping. The plans
Mark Smith/Cavanaugh PUD Concept – Engineering Review
November 29, 2017
Page 3
K:\010801-000\Admin\Docs\2017-11-16 Submittal\_2017-11-27 Mark Smith Cavanaugh Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
will need to show the upland buffers widths, structure setbacks, and where the buffer markers
will be placed.
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Meeting Minutes
1
Mark of Excellence Homes – 1952 Chippewa Road – PUD Concept Plan for 94 Lot
Twinhome Subdivision on 79.82 Acres
Finke stated that this is a PUD Concept Plan review for a 94 lot twinhome subdivision. He stated that the
total site is approximately 80 acres, but noted that approximately 30 net acres is wetland. He stated that
this property is under the current staging plan for the current Comprehensive Plan, but noted that the
property staging is proposed to be delayed to the 2025 staging period under the draft Comprehensive Plan
that is out for review. He explained that the R-1 zoning district was created to implement low density
residential, detached townhomes, but noted that twinhomes could fit within the density range. He stated
that the R-1 district does not, however, allow for twinhomes under the existing Comprehensive Plan, which
is why the PUD would be requested. He stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan does identify twinhomes
as an allowed use in the R-1 district. He reviewed the adjacent property uses. He presented the Concept
Plan proposed by the applicant, noting the twinhomes and large amount of wetland. He stated that the
purpose of a PUD is to allow flexibility to the zoning code in return for meeting purposes outlined by the
PUD Ordinance. He stated that there is an emphasis on protection of natural resources, wetland, and open
space within those purposes. He stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan is expected to be adopted in
early 2018 and therefore the formal public hearing has been held on that update. He stated that staff
believes that it would be appropriate to review requests under both forms of the Comprehensive Plan
(existing and draft versions), noting that the primary difference would be the change in staging from the
current period to 2025. He noted that a wetland delineation has not yet been completed, but estimated a
density range at three units per acre and recommended that the density range remain between two to three
units per acre. He stated that the table in the staff report summarizes what is allowed in the R-1 district and
compares that to what is proposed in this Concept Plan. He noted that it would not be an apple to apples
comparison as the R-1 district currently only allows detached townhomes and therefore items such as
setbacks would be different with twinhomes. He stated that there is a single access from Mohawk Drive
and a secondary emergency access. He noted that another future access could be shown from Chippewa
Road. He stated that staff recommends that if the project moves forward, that the northern portion of the
site provides additional buffering, including a mix of housing styles, as the land use to the north is going to
be rural residential. He stated that a large portion of the site is wetland and therefore the delineation is
important. He stated that the large wetland to the east is mapped by the DNR and therefore requires a large
buffer of 50 feet on average, noting the different buffer requirements for two additional wetlands, and
noting that adjustments to the plan may be necessary to provide the necessary buffers. He noted that the
floodplain would also need to be established for review. He stated that most of the site is tilled farmland
and therefore there would not be a lot of tree removal proposed. He highlighted the proposed
transportation information provided, noting that this is very similar to the request the Commission
considered the previous month. He stated that the City has identified a watermain connection to provide
better looping of the City’s water supply, which has been a primary importance identified this summer. He
noted that the connection would occur through this site. He stated that the applicant proposes to provide
the connection as a piece of the improvements they would construct as part of this project. He highlighted
the trails and parks aspects of the review, noting that if this is meant for empty nesters, perhaps this would
not be a good location for a park, whereas if this is meant for families perhaps a closer park would be
desired. He stated that some trail connections would be proposed. He stated that the intent of this review is
for the applicant to receive input from the City to determine changes that would be necessary and whether
they should continue to move forward down the PUD path.
Reid asked where the Lunski development is located in relation to this parcel.
Finke highlighted the location.
Mark Smith, owner of Mark of Excellence Homes, stated that they have built over 800 twinhomes in ten
different communities over the past 28 years. He stated that people are buying this empty nester product at
a younger and younger age. He stated that these are low impact buyers with kids that have left the home
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Meeting Minutes
2
and are looking for homes with less maintenance that can allow them to live the lives they want. He stated
that most buyers like to travel and may have multiple homes and therefore the lawncare and snow removal
is completed by the association. He stated that this would be a low impact use of the buyers, as the
association controls the lawncare and there are not playgrounds and trampolines in the yards. He stated
that they are only developing 30 to 35 acres of the site, while the balance of the property would remain
natural and wetland. He stated that this is an increasing market that will continue to grow for the next ten
years with the baby boom generation continuing to age. He stated that this would be a great transition next
to Wealshire. He stated that most of their buyers are coming out of larger single-family homes that are then
available on the market for growing families and takes pressure off the construction of new larger homes.
He stated that they would plan to create the watermain connection which would create the necessary loop in
the system and they would also plan to contribute to the extension of Chippewa Road.
Murrin asked why the applicant selected this property.
Mr. Smith noted that they are picky in the sites they choose and do not want just rows of homes. He stated
that they prefer homes on one side of the street which creates a better view for the buyers. He stated that
this would also fill a demand in the Medina market.
DesLauriers asked if the market value of $450,000 to $600,000 would be for each unit or the twinhome as a
whole.
Mr. Smith replied that the value would be for each unit of the twinhome.
White stated that the Commission would need to consider a higher standard of building and site design and
noted that she did not notice anything about the buildings in the packet.
Mr. Smith apologized for not including that information in the packet. He stated that they began this
product in 1990 and the overall concept has remained the same with vaulted ceilings and open kitchen and
living rooms with a four-season porch. He stated that the master bedroom and laundry are on the first level
with possibly a second bedroom on another level. He stated that the homes are very elegant. He stated that
the exterior of the homes would look very similar and would have a lot of landscaping. He stated that the
backyards would have a beautiful view of the wetlands. He stated that a taller garage door is installed to
make the appearance better with a focus on main floor living.
White referenced the comment made by Finke regarding density transitioning and asked Mr. Smith if he
would be open to less density in that area with additional landscaping.
Mr. Smith stated that perhaps the road could be moved further north and remove the homes buffering the
north property; and instead simply have the road and trees and increase the size of the holding pond in that
area. He confirmed that they would control the stormwater to reuse for irrigation. He stated that while they
do not call themselves a 55 and older community, the design and cost of the home lends itself to that type
of living, as the low number of bedrooms exclude larger families. He provided additional details on the
exterior materials proposed for the homes which would include vinyl siding and cedar shakes.
White opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m.
Donald Atkinson, 2000 Pawnee Road, stated that there has been talk that Chippewa is a road and that is not
true. He stated that Chippewa needs to be updated to a road before this is considered. He stated that
driveways along Mohawk are pretty sacred and therefore the driveways should be added to Chippewa
rather than Mohawk.
Bret Palmer, 4673 Bluebell Trail North, stated that he shared the concern with the Chippewa Road
extension. He asked if the Chippewa Road extension is being considered as a community, or whether the
applicant is suggesting that.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Meeting Minutes
3
White explained that the Council has decided that Chippewa Road needs to be extended, but the method for
creating that extension has not yet been decided.
Mr. Palmer asked if they have considered the impact that this would have on traffic, as you cannot go east
on Highway 55.
Finke stated that the purpose of the Chippewa extension is to provide that eastbound route.
Mr. Palmer stated that you are then putting that impact on a minimum maintenance road that is already
under a lot of pressure. He expressed concern with the infrastructure that is needed to support these
developments and believed that this would be creating a similar problem to what exists on CR 116. He
stated that this would then put a lot of pressure onto Arrowhead.
Finke provided additional details on transportation planning.
Jeff Pederson stated that he owns the property due north of this project. He appreciated the comments
regarding density transitioning to protect his rural residential designation. He stated that he has concern
that there would not be water that drains off this property onto his property. He asked that adequate
screening occur. He noted that he does not object to this project and believes that the Chippewa connection
would be an important element if this project moves forward. He stated that Chippewa was a road when he
was younger, but the City quit maintaining the road a number of years ago. He referenced the staging, and
noted that this property existed as low density when the Wealshire property was constructed. He stated that
the current Comprehensive Plan designates this property to be developed now.
Kate Nory, 4412 Bluebell Trail South, stated that her main concern is the timeline. She believed that the
City Plan mentions 2025 for development and therefore was concerned that this is being talked about now.
She stated that the density also seems to vary from the plan. She stated that they moved to Medina about
one year ago and 94 homes that look the same does not seem to fit with the unique character of Medina.
White closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
White noted that no action will occur tonight, as this is simply an opportunity for the Commission to
provide input to the applicant.
Reid stated that she does not have a problem with the twinhome product, but would like to see more variety
in the price point. She stated that there are infrastructure advantages. She stated that the Chippewa
extension will be expensive and will most likely take more than one developer to get it done. She stated
that opportunity will still exist in 2025. She stated that because they are already in the review process for
the draft Comprehensive Plan and the City has already denied other applications for that reason, she did not
see that this would move forward under the existing Comprehensive Plan. She did not believe that this
application would meet the criteria of the PUD and would have to have stronger elements in order to
qualify. She stated that while she understands the desire for uniformity, she would like to see some variety
in the aesthetics of the homes. She stated that this property staging was moved to 2025 under the draft
Comprehensive Plan because of the infrastructure needed. She stated that while she does not object to the
development, she did not see it qualifying under the existing Comprehensive Plan.
Nester agreed with the comments of Reid. She stated that this is a quick transition of densely populated
homes against the rural residential homes to the north and the single-family homes on the other side of the
property.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Meeting Minutes
4
Amic agreed with the comments thus far and agreed that he would like to see more variance in the
aesthetics of the homes.
Murrin referenced the option for the jump ahead and stated that she is in favor of maintaining greenspace.
She stated that she would hate to see this override the years of planning that was put into the Comp Plan
process and while she would welcome reviewing this application in the future under the appropriate
staging, she would not support this application at this time. She stated that she would also like to see less
density to fall within the required density for the R-1 district and larger lots. She stated that the
connectivity to Highway 55 should also be addressed in the future.
DesLauriers agreed that the criteria for a PUD should be stronger. He noted that nine areas were identified
under the R-1 zoning and only a few of those were met, therefore that should also be strengthened. He
stated that if the developer is willing to pay for half the cost of the Chippewa Road extension and for the
looping of the watermain; that could benefit the City. He asked for more information on the share the
developer would foot.
Finke stated that staff has looked at the cost conceptually and the watermain connection would move
forward prior to the 2025 staging period and would have a cost of $250,000 to $300,000. He stated that
without any improvements in this area the project would be twice that cost. He stated that there have only
been rough preliminary cost estimates for the Chippewa Road extension, noting that land acquisition and
the wetland are key elements. He noted that if this moved forward, the land acquisition would be provided
free of cost. He stated that the street cost is roughly estimated at $1,200,000 or $1,300,000. He stated that
most of the cost would be assessed to the landowners and it would be difficult to do that in a piecemeal
way.
DesLauriers stated there would then be a significant benefit for the City in terms of the watermain loop and
Chippewa Road extension with the contributions that this developer is willing to contribute. He asked if
private roads are typically allowed in the City.
Finke stated that in terms of an urban neighborhood with City sewer and water there are not any private
road communities.
DesLauriers asked if there would ever be a public park if there is a private road maintained by the
association.
Finke stated that the City would probably look for an access so that people would not have to drive on
private roads if there were a public park. He noted that you would not want to put a public park on private
roads.
White asked the type of challenges that would occur if the City needs to maintain City water under private
roads.
Finke stated that the City would have all easement rights and the ability to do so. He stated that the City
does a great job of putting things back together, should there be a watermain problem. He confirmed that a
private road would be built to the same standards as a public road.
White noted that a lot of her comments have already been addressed and thanked the members of the public
that also provided input. She hoped that the developer received the input he desired.
Finke noted that the Park Commission will consider this request on September 20th and the City Council is
tentatively scheduled to review this on October 3rd.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Mark Smith – NE Corner of Hwy 55 and Mohawk Drive –
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for 48 Lot Subdivision with 7
Acre Park on 52 Acres (PIDs 03-118-23-42-0001, 03-118-23-41-0001, and 03-118-23-43-
0005)
Finke presented a request to amend the current Comprehensive Plan as well as a PUD Concept Plan. He
noted that the proposed amendment would change the future land use from the current designation of
mixed use to low density residential to create a 48-lot subdivision with a seven-acre park. He noted that
the draft plan guides the property for business designation. He noted that the applicant is proposing a
PUD to allow the single-family home lots to be narrower than typical lot width. He noted that while the
width would be smaller, the minimum lot size would still be met. He stated that the same applicant
presented a PUD Concept the previous month for the property to the north. He reviewed the adjacent
property zoning and highlighted site features including the wetland and wooded areas. He stated that the
drainage ways on the site divide the site into three areas. He presented the Concept Plan from the
applicant along with the Concept Plan presented the previous month to identify how the plans would fit
together. He stated that the seven-acre park would be proposed on the southern portion of the site with a
single access point onto Mohawk Drive. He stated that the City is in an awkward position between the
current Comprehensive Plan and the draft plan, noting that the draft plan is expected to be in place in
early 2018 and therefore any applications could be considered under the draft plan. He stated that the
City is allowed to enact a moratorium, if desired, to protect the planning process. He stated that there is a
lot of information from both versions of the Comprehensive Plan included in the Commission packet to
help the Commission review the request. He stated that while technically the existing Comprehensive
Plan is in effect, the context of the draft plan is also important. He noted that the property is proposed to
be changed through the draft plan from mixed-use to business and therefore the property zoning would
not match either of those zoning districts. He reviewed the requirements of the mixed-use zoning district,
noting that the residential portion of the property would have higher density than what is proposed. He
noted that if approved, there could be concern from the Metropolitan Council that the City has eaten up
the low-density housing and therefore is not leaving sufficient space for the remaining required density.
He stated that there is more flexibility within the draft update, as the overall density is slightly higher and
therefore the City will meet the density requirements in the long-term. He reviewed the elements that
must be considered for a PUD request, noting that the primary objective from the applicant’s narrative in
reducing the lot width is to accommodate both the park and residential development. He stated that the
PUD also requests a five-foot reduction to the setback. He stated that the mixed-use zoning district does
allow for single-family homes with smaller lots, but in conjunction with another housing product to meet
the required density. He reviewed the proposed access from Mohawk, noting that the concept would need
to be updated with an accurate wetland delineation and required wetland buffer. He stated that there is a
12-13 acre wooded area on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to the wetland and bisecting the
northern portion of the site. He stated that the City’s natural resource inventory identifies two higher
quality portions of the woods on the southern portion of the site. He noted that the central and north
wooded areas are rated as lower quality. He noted that the concept would remove the vast majority of the
wooded areas to support the development. He noted that the applicant is proposing to grade the area to
use on other portions of the site, which would reduce the ability to preserve trees. He stated that
extensive tree removal would be required if the application moves forward in this method. He suggested
that if this moves forward, perhaps there is a way to preserve the higher quality knoll and reduce the
recreational amenities within the park. He noted that some of the comments will be similar, as the same
comments have been made on the other concept plans that were recently reviewed. He expressed concern
with the transportation proposed. He noted that the applicant stated that development of these two sites
would contribute towards the extension of the nearby roadway. He stated that the City has identified an
important watermain connection and the applicant is proposing to install that connection as part of the
development of these sites. He stated that the applicant is proposing to incorporate the park identified for
this area as well. He stated that if the Commission and Council move forward with this project, it would
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes
2
provide the infrastructure elements identified by the City. He stated that staff would caution against
amending the existing Comprehensive Plan as that would be cumbersome during this planning process to
update and finalize the draft plan. He stated that if the change is desired, staff would recommend making
that change to the draft plan. He stated that one of the main objectives of the draft plan is to minimize the
residential growth in the community to match the goals identified by the Met Council and this would
increase that residential growth. He stated that the Steering Committee also believed that a business
guiding for the property may help to preserve the high-quality tree knoll on the property that would be
removed under this request. He stated that the infrastructure that would be provided is consistent with the
objectives of the draft plan and therefore there are competing interests in the development of this
property.
Reid stated that she recalled that the Commission was not supposed to consider financial aspects when
reviewing requests.
Finke stated that in general terms that is true, but infrastructure is identified in the draft plan that provide
for the quality of life for residents.
Murrin referenced the staff report which notes that the applicant is proposing to build 48 single-family
homes on 50 acres, but elsewhere it provides different information.
Finke confirmed that the concept includes 48 lots. He confirmed that the density calculations are based
on 48 lots.
Murrin referenced the infrastructure elements, which state that the improvements would be constructed in
conjunction with the development of this property and the property to the north; and asked if that
infrastructure would only be built if both parcels are approved.
Finke said the applicant has stated that the water connection would be provided with the twinhome
property concept plan on the northern parcel and the road funding would be provided through the
development of the southern parcel.
Amic stated that it is difficult because the City is between plans. He asked the implications of removing a
business parcel from the draft plan.
Finke stated that in reality there are a lot of wetlands on this parcel and available business properties are
limited.
DesLauriers referenced the comment that if the property were zoned business, perhaps that would
preserve some of the wooded area. He asked for input on why this parcel is proposed to change to the
business zoning district.
Finke stated that one of the objectives was to reduce the overall residential development and explained
how the Steering Committee reviewed properties to determine additional business opportunities.
Mark Smith, applicant, stated that Finke did a great job of explaining the request. He stated that he is
attempting to not only bring forward this request, but also show how this would tie together with the site
to the north that he brought forward to a previous meeting. He noted that both parcels are within the
current staging period and if the direction of the Commission and Council align with his desires, he would
bring forward the two concepts as one application. He stated that perhaps the density between the two
parcels could be calculated together to balance the density and raise the density on the lower parcel. He
stated that after reviewing the tree inventory, he would propose to leave the knoll in place unless directed
to remove that by the park department. He stated that he did not believe that business or mixed-use would
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes
3
be a good fit and would be better used by a park on the southern portion and residential on the northern
portion of the site. He asked for direction from the Commission.
Murrin asked if the road extension would be dependent on both projects being approved.
Smith noted that the road extension would be dependent on both concepts being approved. He stated that
he could provide the watermain connection if only the northern portion is approved, but if both concepts
are approved he would construct the watermain and provide right-of-way for the road extension.
Amic referenced the comment that no business would want to be on this land because of the heavily
wooded portion of the site. He would hope that the City would have thought about that. He asked for
more information.
Smith noted that there are three separate parcels of land divided by creeks and wetlands and therefore the
property is not very conducive for one complex or campus. He stated that the heavily wooded area would
also require heavy removal in order to support a building or parking lot. He stated that the southern
portion is also covered by trees that would block visibility from the highway. He stated that the right
in/right out is also not a preference for a business.
Amic asked if that has been thought out by the Steering Committee.
Finke replied that there are some sites that get more specific discussion throughout the process and stated
that there was specific discussion on this property. He noted that while there are knolls on the site, there
are also flat portions of the site and park dedication could be given for preservation of the knolls. He
stated that access was recognized, noting that commercial would not be ideal, but business would allow
for office type uses. He noted other business uses that were constructed with the knowledge of the right-
in/right-out.
White opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Tim Cavanaugh, 3320 Lanewood Lane, stated that he is the owner of the property and noted that he
attended public meetings and was opposed to the business use. He did not feel that people walked the
property to fully understand the topography. He stated that to be any type of a business use you would
need contiguous land for development. He noted that if the road and watermain is also going to be
burdened onto the property in conjunction with the tree removal and topography of the site, it would not
be feasible for business development. He stated that this proposal has decreased the density from the
original proposal and the D.R. Horton proposal that came before that. He felt that the use proposed would
be the best the City can hope for and is also the best he can hope for. He believed the land would be
worthless as a business use with the non-contiguous topography.
DesLauriers asked for input on the discussion that occurred regarding the reguiding of the property under
the draft plan.
Cavanaugh stated that the property is currently zoned mixed-use and he was asking for residential and not
business. He stated that this proposal would be a good fit and would also provide the needed
infrastructure in this area.
Murrin asked what the land was originally zoned for when he purchased the property.
Cavanaugh stated that the land has been in his family for an excess of 50 years and was originally
agricultural.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes
4
White closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
Reid stated that she sees updating the current Comprehensive Plan as futile and would not want the
developers to waste their money on this when the City is not going to amend the existing plan. She stated
that the City could review a Concept Plan under the draft Comprehensive Plan. She stated that changing
the draft Comprehensive Plan could be open to discussion.
White agreed that she did not believe the City Council would have interest in amending the existing
Comprehensive Plan at this time. She agreed that a proposal could be considered under the text of the
draft Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Steering Committee put a lot of work into the guiding for
this property and the guiding for this property is important; not only for the parcel, but also in the overall
rate of residential development allowed. She stated that the Steering Committee would most likely want
to review a request for additional residential designation to determine if development should then be
delayed on another parcel.
Murrin asked what would happen if the Steering Committee were to swap the use of this parcel with
another parcel and whether that would require the City to resend the plan for comments.
Finke stated that he fully expects there to be changes to the draft plan coming out of the comment period,
noting that is the purpose of receiving comments. He explained that the level of public input and whether
the plan would need additional jurisdictional review, would depend upon the significance of the changes.
He noted that jurisdictional review would not necessarily be required when swapping land use for 40
acres here and there, but stated that the City may want to gain additional public input. He provided an
update on the timeline for the draft Comprehensive Plan process.
Amic asked for additional information on the ability to amend the draft plan once adopted. He noted that
perhaps a moratorium would be the best route to prevent the City from continually receiving requests that
are not going to be considered until the draft plan is adopted.
DesLauriers stated that he would agree with the comments of Reid that the City continues to receive
requests that are not being considered right now because of the timing between the existing
Comprehensive Plan and the draft plan. He stated that the item that is missing from this discussion is the
fact that this development would contribute to the extension of the road and to the water infrastructure
and park system.
Murrin agreed that the City would be considering those improvements, but noted that the north property is
not staged until 2025, so while the City would gain that benefit right now it is unknown as to whether the
City will need that extension. She stated that one core value in the plan is to maintain greenspace. She
questioned whether the City needs the road extension now, or when the property to the north is
developed.
Finke stated that the road extension will be needed. He stated that three remaining sites have all had
concept plans within the last few months. He stated that the risk is that the site to the north does not
develop as soon as it is staged; and then the road still needs to be constructed before the development of
that parcel. He stated that the watermain looping is needed and the City will move forward on that
element regardless of development activity. He stated that the water will be less of an impact on existing
users, as connection fees could be adjusted to fund that improvement over time. He stated that the road
extension is harder to define the funding responsibility of. He stated that if there is not an opportunity to
provide that connection in conjunction through development, the City would need to go through a 429
assessment and general tax dollars would need to supply the difference in funding, as the assessments
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes
5
would not fund the project. He agreed that it would be a substantial share of the roadway costs that would
be paid by the taxpayers of Medina.
Reid stated that the parcel was not staged because this was a business property and therefore if this is
rezoned to residential the staging should then be pushed back to 2025. She explained that while the City
would like to encourage any business development, the residential development has been pushed back.
Murrin agreed that she would have a problem jumping ahead of the residential development because of
the decision that was made to phase out residential property because of the high amount of development
the City has had in the past years. She stated that she would be willing to push the issue down the road as
the road connection is not needed right now.
Reid stated that she was inclined to want to leave the zoning business because the parcel is adjacent to
other business properties, but acknowledged the challenges to this parcel that may lend to residential. She
also did not believe that a park that close to Hwy 55 would be a good fit.
Amic stated that this is a tricky issue and agreed that this would be a gamble. He stated that this is a nice
plan, noting that he would not have a problem with a park near Hwy 55. He stated that he does like the
plan with a creative layout incorporating the wetland and topography. He stated that although it has been
said that this should be pushed back, he is unsure that there will be a better deal than this and the City
could end up with something a lot worse than this. He recognized the concern that this site may not be
right for business use and acknowledged those points. He stated that he would fear that those factors are
not considered as much as they should be. He stated that it does matter if this site is even good for
business in the future and is important for the City to think about.
Nester referenced the nearby Lunski property which has three businesses on one lot and stated that she
would not see a reason that could not be done on this property as well.
White asked if the Commission could include a recommendation with the motion tonight for the Steering
Committee to review this property to determine if business is the right fit for this parcel.
Finke confirmed that the group can provide input on that direction through consensus of formal motion.
It was the consensus of the Commission to take separate action of the request and direction for the
Steering Committee.
Motion by Reid, seconded by Nester, to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers)
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Amic, to request that the Steering Committee review the guiding
of the subject property within the draft Comprehensive Plan update to confirm that business is the
appropriate land use. Motion carries 5-1. (Murrin opposed) (Absent: Albers)
Murrin noted that a lot of time and effort has been put into the draft Comprehensive Plan and therefore
would like to take the recommendation of the Steering Committee as is.
Reid acknowledged that this plan would give the City a lot, but stated that even if the property were
reguided for residential, the staging would be delayed to 2025.
White stated that she did like the plan, but would want to see more connection between the two areas,
with a more centrally located park and access to the development from Chippewa.
Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 9/20/2017 Meeting Minutes
1
Mark of Excellence Homes – Weston Woods – 1952 Chippewa Road – PUD Concept Plan for
94 lot Twinhome Subdivision on 79.82 Acres – Park Dedication Review
Gallup provided a brief staff report. She stated that the applicant has requested a PUD concept
plan review for a 94-lot twinhome subdivision on 79.82 acres (approximately 30 net acres). She
stated that the property is guided as Low Density Residential (LDR) within the 2016-2020 Staging
Period.
Gallup stated that the updated draft Comprehensive Plan that is currently out for area jurisdictional
review identifies the property as LDR, within the 2025-2030 Staging Period.
Gallup noted that the PUD is primarily to allow the twinhomes. The LDR district in the current
Comprehensive Plan speaks primarily of single-family homes, while the current draft plan speaks
of single and two-family dwellings in the LDR zoning district.
Gallup stated that the applicant has also submitted a concept plan for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to the south of the subject site. The proposed amendment is to change the zoning
from mixed use to LDR. The site is proposed to be guided as Business in the updated draft
Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the concept plan shows 48 single family homes with a
proposed 7.5 acre park.
Gallup showed maps of the subject sites with the two proposals side-by-side. She noted that these
sites are located east of Mohawk Drive, west of Arrowhead Drive, and just north and south of
Chippewa Road.
The Park Commission reviewed a map that showed the surrounding parcels in the active park
study area and each parcel’s proposed land use.
Gallup noted that the Park and Trail map shows a future neighborhood park identified in this area.
She noted that the Park Commission’s Master Plan identifies a neighborhood park as four to ten
acres in size. She also stated the map identifies a future east/west trail connecting Mohawk and
Arrowhead, with the plan identifying a trail connection between future neighborhoods and
especially to parks.
Gallup explained the park dedication ordinance in terms of this application, noting that the city
could require up to 10% of the buildable land, which would equate to about 3 to 3.5 acres on each
parcel, 8% of the pre-developed value, potentially $3,500-$8,000 per lot, or a combination.
Gallup briefly reviewed the size of three existing neighborhood parks and the features each park
possessed:
– Fields of Medina = 10 acres (7 acres active after removing future water tower and
pond)
• Soccer field (1.1 acre)
• Playground/Basketball Court (0.75 acre)
• Tennis Court (0.25 acre)
• Volleyball Court (0.15 acre)
• Parking Lot (0.45 acre)
Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 9/20/2017 Meeting Minutes
2
– Hunter Lions Park = 4.25 acres active; 2.7 acre passive
• Baseball field (2.0 acre)
• Playground (0.2 acre)
• Tennis/Basketball Courts (0.26 acre)
• Volleyball Court (0.15 acre)
• Parking lot (0.6 acre)
– Morningside Park = 2.3 acres
• Baseball field (1.16 acre)
• Playground (0.35 acre)
Gallup noted that parks tend to be at least two times or more the size of the improvements to allow
for space between improvements.
Mark Smith with Mark of Excellence Homes stated that he had been building twinhomes for 28
years. His homes are ramblet style with a full walk-out basement which caters to empty nesters.
He described the buildable property as “fingers” of upland surrounded by wetlands, which makes
for great views and privacy.
Smith noted that he attended the August 16, 2017 Park Commission meeting to listen to what the
Park Commission had to say about the Excelsior Group application that was before them. He
submitted the concept plan to the south to fulfill the Park Commission’s desire for a future park.
He noted that the proposed park land has a number of mature trees on the site. He would leave it to
the Park Commission to decide how many trees they wanted to keep and how much active play
area they would need. He stated he would be happy to grade as much or as little of the site as they
desired.
Lee questioned the applicant on what he would do with the proposed park space if it was not a
future park?
Smith noted the need for some trees and the park to create a buffer from Highway 55 to the
proposed homes.
The Park Commission discussed the three possible future residential sites within this park study
area, which includes the Excelsior Group proposal to the west of Wealshire and the two proposals
from Mark of Excellence Homes to the east of Wealshire. The discussion focused on the final park
dedication decision being made based on who develops first. There was also a consensus that two
smaller parks with complimentary uses would make sense.
Lee polled the Park Commissioners asking them for their initial thoughts on the proposed concept
plans.
Beddor stated that the proposed 7.5 acre park was a nice size, but it was not in the best location
being up against Highway 55. She questioned if the park could be moved to a more central
location between the proposed developments.
Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 9/20/2017 Meeting Minutes
3
Weir stated that she would like to see some of the mature trees kept along the highway as a buffer
to the park and neighborhood.
Weir inquired if the developer would consider adding a tot lot to the twinhome development to the
north, noting that many empty nesters have grandchildren.
Smith stated that the twinhome development would have private roads and the residents are
typically empty nesters who would not need a private tot lot. He stated that in his experience, these
residents do not want to pay for additional private amenities that they will have to maintain.
Meehan stated that it would be hard to visualize a park on Highway 55 with the noise and smell.
Scherer stated that we would want some type of buffer if it was a park or homes.
Lee asked the developer if he had thought about a trail along Chippewa to connect to the trail
along Arrowhead Drive.
Smith stated that he could give up more right-of-way to make a trail happen.
Lee confirmed that the Park Commission would like to see a trail along Chippewa and connecting
the two developments with the park.
Discussion took place if the development to the north went in, but the concept plan to the south
remained in the business zoning district. How would the Park Commission envision the future
park needs?
Weir stated that she would like to see at least a tot lot in the twinhome development, if the
development to the south did not happen.
Lee stated that he would want to take the cash and build a better park in the other proposed
residential zoning district to the west of Mohawk Drive.
Weir encouraged the City Council to strongly consider the applicant’s request for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment if the applicant was serious about building and financing the
construction of the new section of Chippewa Road connecting Mohawk and Arrowhead and
providing the water main connection and water main loop.
Smith agreed that it was their intention to install these two infrastructure improvements as part of
this project.
The Park Commission’s final thoughts were that they would like to see a proposed park on the
southern lot with as many trees preserved as reasonable to create a buffer and still be able to have
an active park. They also stated they would still like a park on the other proposed residential lot
west of Mohawk Drive. These two parks would have complimentary uses.
1
Dusty Finke
From:Kim Hofstede <kimberly.hofstede@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2017 8:41 PM
To:Al Hofstede; Dusty Finke; Kate Nohre
Subject:Re: Excellence Homes proposed project - Arrowhead
Dusty,
As I mentioned last week, I cannot attend the planning commission meeting tomorrow since I will be traveling
for work.
I would like to encorage staff and the planning commission to take the draft comp plan update into
consideration when reviewing this proposal. There has been a lot of time and thought to develop that draft and
there is a reason this land is being slated for 2025 or after and reducing the density to 2-3 units per acre. We
greatly enjoy living in Medina and we don't want to see it developed too fast. I am also interested to see the plan
once they delineate all the wetlands and are providing the appropriate required buffers.
Please share my comments at the meeting if you can. I copied my neighbor Kate who will likely be in
attendance.
If the applicant makes a formal submittal in the future, will there be another public hearing or is this our only
chance to provide feedback?
Thanks.
Kim Hofstede
4418 Bluebell Trail S, Medina
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:06 PM Dusty Finke <dusty.finke@medinamn.gov> wrote:
Hi Kim,
The staff report is attached. Have a good one!
Dusty
1
Dusty Finke
From:Pete Nohre <pete2404@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 2:47 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Cc:Kate Nohre
Subject:Re: Excellence Homes proposed project - Arrowhead
Dear Dusty,
As another resident of the Bridgewater neighborhood, we would like to add our comments and questions
regarding the proposed development to this e-mail. I apologize for the lengthily e-mail, but hopefully it
will communicate our support of the amended Comprehensive Plan and bring up some relevant
questions regarding the narrative for the proposed development.
Thank you.
Pete and Kate Nohre
Bluebell Tr. S.
On Jan. 20, 2015 the City Council approved an amendment to the City’s Staging and Growth Plan within
the Comprehensive Plan. (Resolution No. 2015-13)
Base on that approved plan, the property for the proposed development is:
Affected by the approved amendment per Map 5-3 - Staging and Growth.
Currently slated for development in 2025 (Map 5-4, Staging and Growth).
Currently designated at Low Density Residential (Map 5-2, Future Land Use
Plan). Typically thought of as single-family.
Also as it relates to the plan:
Primary changes to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan from the executive summary
include “Reduction of property planned for residential development” and “Delay
for some residential development.” The proposed Excellence Homes, Weston
Woods development is contradictory to those changes as it would accelerate the
residential development as compared to the plan (unless other significant reductions
would be made elsewhere).
As it relates to properties to “jump ahead” - it is indicated there is a flexibility for
two years for residential and mixed use properties (Chapter 5, Staging Plan). This
would indicate the property could move ahead to 2023.
An objective of the City is to be consistent with the Plan...
Housing Objectives:
2
"9. Require new urban residential development to be consistent with the City’s
Staging and Growth Plan." (Chapter 4, Housing and Neighborhoods)
We know a lot of work, insight, research and good reasoning went into updating the
Comprehensive Plan and would question why a deviation would be made to allow for the
proposed development. That would seem to put into question the work, thoughts and
recommendations of the planning commission, staff and interested parties that went into
the amended Plan.
Outside of the Comprehensive Plan, there appear to be some additional points that could use clarification.
Based on the information available on-line on the City website, the following questions stem from the
Narrative portion of the application materials for the propose development (in italics).
“It provides housing for many surrounding businesses like Polaris and OSI. Our buyers are empty nesters and low
impact.” “They don’t travel at rush hour."
Are employees of these companies looking for twin-home options in the area? How many
employees of these companies are empty nesters?
If they don’t travel at rush hour it can be assumed they are not working. How will this population
be a benefit for the businesses mentioned (Polaris and OSI)?
“…empty nesters living in Medina 20 to 40 years….move here to free up their Medina homes to
younger families that can’t afford or find properties. This will help slow development….”
This appears to be relying heavily on assumptions and/or speculation. Has a study been done and
concluded that 1) existing Medina empty-nester residents will be attracted to and purchase these
twin-homes? 2) That their move will free up affordable and desirable homes for younger
families? 3) That #1 and #2 will actually happen so it will help the City slow other
development? Or, does this proposal actually accelerate the development and residences that the
City Plan has recently decided to slow down?
“Proximity to existing development - Weston Woods of Medina is surrounded by development. We are across the
street from both Wealshire memory care and Bridgewater development.”
I would not consider this location “surrounded by development”. The Wealshire memory care is
across there street, but rest of the development would be in a relatively undeveloped area. This
depends on what one considers to be “surrounded by development”.
“Limited impacts on city services - As mentioned our buyers are low impact residents. ….putting little pressure
on water, sewer and streets”
Is there such a thing as a “low impact resident?” Can the City plan differently that these residents
will supposedly use less water, sewer and streets? How does the city plan for some residents to
use 30% or 20% or 80% less of the city resources? Is there any supporting documentation or
3
regulations that help support the statements that 1) “low impact residents” will be the ones
purchasing the residences and 2) that they will then actually use fewer of these resources?
“In addition the streets are private so the City will not have to spend it’s resources plowing and maintaining them, a
big cost savings to the City.”
What is the cost saving calculation? What is considered a “big cost savings” and how is it being
calculated?
“In addition, many of our buyers will be leaving the home they raised their family in and by moving here are
providing older more affordable housing inventory for those younger buyers.”
Again, this appears to be relying heavily on assumptions and/or speculation that the buyers will
be existing Medina residents and that the residence they are vacating will be affordable
and desirable to younger buyers. What research or information is available to support this?
“The development will create a large number of jobs during the development of the site and the building
of the homes. The association will also create jobs after the construction is done. This development has the potential
to provide a live/work environment for the neighboring Polaris and OSI and Wealshire memory care.”
The large number of jobs during the development will of course be temporary. Is temporary labor
something the City of Medina is trying to increase? Jobs are great, but the local benefit of this
temporary work would seem to be minimal - except in the short term.
How many jobs is the association expected to create? Will those jobs reside in Medina?
It has been stated in the narrative that the development is targeted to empty-nesters, those who
have 2nd and 3rd homes and "low impact” residents. What percentage of the workforce at those
employers mentioned have those characteristics? Has any research been done to determine the
demographics of the workforce at those employers as well as their desired place to live?
From: Kim Hofstede <kimberly.hofstede@gmail.com>
Date: September 11, 2017 at 8:40:45 PM CDT
To: Al Hofstede <ahofstede@onedigital.com>, Dusty Finke
<dusty.finke@medinamn.gov>, Kate Nohre <kate.nohre@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Excellence Homes proposed project - Arrowhead
Dusty,
As I mentioned last week, I cannot attend the planning commission meeting
tomorrow since I will be traveling for work.
I would like to encorage staff and the planning commission to take the draft comp
plan update into consideration when reviewing this proposal. There has been a lot
of time and thought to develop that draft and there is a reason this land is being
slated for 2025 or after and reducing the density to 2-3 units per acre. We greatly
enjoy living in Medina and we don't want to see it developed too fast. I am also
1
Dusty Finke
From:Kathleen Martin
Sent:Thursday, October 26, 2017 12:27 PM
To:Craig Roy
Cc:Dusty Finke
Subject:Re: Roy farm @ 1952 Chippewa Road
Thanks for the presentation and your email. I’d recommend you work with staff (specifically Dusty Finke to
further refine the proposal. Dusty has a great collective sense of the Council’s views, and understands our
development ordinances extremely well.
I hope you have a grand party for your mom’s 89th birthday—that’s something to celebrate. My mom would
have been 100 this past August. She’s no longer here, but her 93 years were a blessing to us all.
On Oct 25, 2017, at 4:14 PM, Craig Roy <csroy769@gmail.com> wrote:
Ms. Martin,
I'm Craig Roy and my mother, Elaine Roy, has owned the farm located at 1952 Chippewa Road
since 1954. Mom will be turning 89 in December and is now living at The Heathers in
Crystal. Luckily for us, mom is still able to have her own apartment and requires the lowest
level care at the Assisted Living facility, however, that could change at anytime. The primary
reason that we are currently trying to sell the farm is to make sure that we have the financial
resources to pay for her care and comfort, especially if she would require full nursing or hospice
care. Obviously, you know that can be very expensive, and, even though Mom and Dad were
savers, her current cash position wouldn't be able to sustain a prolonged stay in a nursing home.
Mark Smith, our potential buyer, made a presentation to the City Council last week on a couple
of different plans, but , I'd like to focus on our property which is directly east of the new
Wealstead facility, currently under construction.
As you know Mr. Smith is proposing 45 twin homes for our property which is located in the
Rockford School district. If you have ever tried to sell real estate in the Rockford School district
in Medina, you would know that can be very challenging. The concept of town houses next to
the Dementia facility seemed to make a lot of sense to us, especially if a loved one had to be
placed there. The family could live nearby and it would be convenient for them to go visit as
often as they wanted. Also, most town house dwellers are empty nesters so the school district
wouldn't be as important as to them as opposed to a family that wanted their children to attend
Wayzata.
Mr Smith came away from last week's meeting thinking that town homes did not have the
support of the Council and made a revised proposal to my mother assuming 45 single family, 95
foot wide, lots. Needless to say, we were shocked at how low his offer was. We would be just
as well off trying to sell the property to a local farmer and you know how low farm property
values are, especially in Medina.
2
We've been told the idea of town homes on our property isn't totally dead and with a few tweaks
here and there that maybe some concept featuring town homes would be able to gain enough
support on the Council. Unfortunately, we don't know what tweaks need to be made to get
enough support to go forward.
We know the City needs the waterline needs to be put in and that the Chippewa Road extension
needs to be built and Mr Smith has stated that he would complete those projects, however if he is
limited to single family homes with 95 foot wide lots, he won't be able to generate enough
revenue to complete those projects and finalize the sale of the farm with my mother.
Sorry, I tend to get a little long winded, but are there any changes we could make to the concept
plan besides building just single family homes that would gain your support?
Thank you for taking the time to read this and have a great day.
If you would like to discuss this over the phone, my land line number is 763-427-6617.
Sincerely,
Craig Roy
1
Dusty Finke
From:Pete Nohre <pete2404@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 25, 2017 9:24 PM
To:Dusty Finke; Jeff Pederson; Bob Mitchell; Lorie Cousineau; Kathleen Martin; John
Anderson
Subject:Feedback - Mark Smith Concept Plan and CPA
Dear All,
As a Medina resident, I wanted to make sure you had additional feedback to the proposed Mark Smith Concept
Plan. Bottom line, I am not supportive of changes to the draft Comprehensive Plan. I know there are
upcoming meetings (26th) with the Steering Committee and others regarding this topic so I want to get you this
feedback prior to relevant upcoming dialog. My apologies for the last minute input, but this is part of the
problem with making last minute changes to the existing draft plan.
I am familiar with the proposed concept and have received feedback from the last City Council meeting.
My input (echoed by others in my neighborhood) is outlined below. I would hope these points are expressed
and taken into account during the dialog on the proposed Mark Smith Concept Plan and CPA.
A good Plan already exits. A Comprehensive Plan draft has been approved locally and submitted to
the Metropolitan Council. That draft plan was developed through extensive public input as well as
many hours of work and expertise by committees and staff. Changes to plan at this point in the
process would seem to undermine the planning process and disregard previous public comments and all
of the work that has been done the past 18 months. Why is the Mark Smith Concept Plan and CPA,
particularly the Weston Woods PUD, even being considered?
o Specifically to the Weston Woods proposal...
The Weston Woods property is slated for development in 2025.
The Weston Woods property is not for multi-family development.
o How has the residentail population increase associated with both of the Mark Smith
developments been accounted for in the total population planning and projections? What is the
impact on infrastructure needs, traffic flow and safety, and its impact on other planned
development already accounted for?
Little, if any, financial benefit. At the last city council meeting the point was brought up regarding the
fiscal impact of having a road and some costs supported by the builder. Although we appreciate the
fiscal responsibility to consider that, it should not be a major factor in the decision process. First, it is
not as though financial incentive or opportunity will be forgone - it just may not be realized
today. The land will eventually be developed (per the current draft Comp. Plan) and those types of
incentives will no doubt be on the table for future development. In fact, the incentives will likely be
even greater given the potential appreciation of the land and opportunity for a builder. Second, I would
question that more citizens would be in favor of a short term, relatively small financial incentive
compared to the long term, permanent changes to the city that two mostly unplanned developments
would cause. Has a survey or public input been collected on this topic? What financial impact would
2
the potential financial incentive by the builder have on the average citizens taxes? I would
encourage the City Council to seek more feedback from the community on this topic.
o On a related note regarding fiscal responsibility... I would hope the city would also be
considering the costs (time, labor, opportunity cost, etc.) that have gone into creating the existing
Comprehensive Plan as well as additional costs that would have to go into redrafting, receiving
comments, reviewing and finalizing changes to create another version of the Comprehensive
Plan. As taxpayers, we have already paid for this effort in the current Comprehensive Plan and it
does not appear to be in the communities best interest, fiscally or otherwise, to redo the
exiting draft plan.
Unknown infrastructure impact with no known studies or analysis. The two proposed
developments in the Mark Smith Concept Plan and CPA will have a significant impact on traffic and
other infrastructure. What studies have been done to determine their impact and cost? Shouldn’t some
efforts be put forth to educate and get feedback from the public, particularly in those areas, as to the
impact of the developments? How do developments get approved without these infrastructure concerns
being addressed (if they have been addressed, I have not been able to find the results and predicted
impact to the community).
Little public involvement and no known support. It does not feel that a good process has taken place
to make significant changes to the draft Comprehensive Plan at a very late stage in its approval. There is
no public input that I can find that support the proposed deviation from the current draft Comprehensive
Plan. There is no impact analysis regarding the infrastructure changes needed to support the potential
changes. I have not heard of or seen the Planning Commission supporting a change. Why would a
change to the draft comprehensive plan be considered? The perception is that an exception is potentially
going to be made at the last minute (fast-tracked) for the benefit of a builder and small numbers of land
owners - rather than for the community.
Poor communication and short timeline. It does not appear that the public has been well informed of
the potential changes to the Comprehensive Plan given that this proposal (MS Concept Plan) has been
proposed and reviewed so quickly. I can tell you that many people in the area I have spoken with are
unaware of the Mark Smith Concept Plan and CPA.
Hwy. 55 impact and safety. To have both developments would there would surely need to be a
restructuring of the intersection of Hwy. 55 and Mohawk? This would be the logical entry and exit
point for both developments. What impact does that have to the flow, and safety, of traffic on Hwy.
55?
We are relatively new to Medina. We chose to live here because it is less developed than nearby suburbs like
Plymouth and Maple Grove. I support the current version of the draft Comprehensive Plan and feel that
potentially making these types of development exceptions detract from Medina’s attraction - its value in green
space, well planned growth and quality of life that differentiate it from neighboring communities.
N 29 2017
Li
LI Lc6wli
WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA AND HARDWOOD HILL
NARRATIVE November 27, 2017
With great suggestions and ideas from staff, the Planning Commission,
and the City Council this proposal of Weston Woods of Medina and
Hardwood Hill meet the density requirements of the current comp plan
while Preserving more open space and protecting a large area of the
City's natural resources.
This was done by concentrating fewer homes in a smaller area, thus
saving 2 large areas of open space and providing one of the criteria's
for allowing a PUD.
On the North parcel we reduced the number of homes from 94 to 74.
We removed all the homes and added heavy landscape where the
property backs up to the rural area to the north. We added heavy
landscape along Mohawk Road. Most importantly we removed the
housing from the 4+ acre thumb on the east side of the development.
This provides additional open space and adds another 500 feet of
buffer from our closest home to the Bridgewater development, creating
over a quarter mile of distance from our closest home to Bridgewater's
closest home.
We reduced the amount of bituminous surface by 25%, and added
additional space between the homes. Even with the reduced
development area and larger spacing we are at 2.94 units per acre, still
below the current LDR density limit of 3.49/units per acre.
Our housing product while somewhat predictable on the exterior, it is
far from that on the inside. We have features found in million dollar
homes, like rounded corners, 2 story closets, roll in showers, central
vac, and 15 foot ceilings. From the inside and even out they don't look
or feel like an attached home because of the extensive use of glass that
creates an abundance of natural light coming in from 3 sides of these
homes.
Also our deep garages provide room for owners to keep their trash cans
in their garage.
As mentioned our exteriors do need a little work so we have hired a
designer to work on that feature.
Also on the North parcel it should be noted that we did layout a pure
conforming LDR plan with 90' lots. What we found was, that even using
all the developable land, including the 4 plus acre thumb, the fingers of
land and the wetland buffer setbacks reduced the buildable area so
much we couldn't get more than 1.6 units per acre. There is 40.12
acres of delineated upland on this property but when you subtracted
the wetland buffers and setbacks, many on both sides of the same
finger, you lose over 13 acres or one third of the buildable area. This is
a hardship for this property and the land owner.
On the South property we preserved over a quarter mile of shoreline
along with the 5 acre knob/hill and 300 hardwood trees that will
become the neighborhood Park for both parcels. We added a
recreational area too. There will also be trails and roads that will
provide access to this great natural resource for residence to enjoy as
well as the general public. In addition, we are also preserving a large
bank of trees on the southeast tip of the single family homes.
We have met the requirements of the Mixed Use zoning with at least
3.5 homes per acre on at least 51% of the property. We are at 3.6
homes per acre without an apartment. The rest of the property is
business/highway commercial and Park.
A tremendous amount of thoughtful time and energy has been used
trying to create a development that meets the goals and visions of the
City.
We are preserving and or not developing over 10 acres up upland over
the 2 properties. One of the comments made by the Planning
Commission and City Council was leaving the properties green for as
long as possible. This plan guarantees that 20 percent of the property
will remain undeveloped and remain green indefinitely. Any future
development is likely to provide for no more than the 10 percent
required and not necessarily where you want it.
We meet the current density requirements.
We meet the purpose and standards to support and use a PUD.
The development by itself provides many benefits to the City and it's
residence and should be approved on it's own merit. However, in
addition to meeting these high standards, protecting acres of natural
resources and creating a beautiful development, we are still willing to
build Chippewa Road from Mohawk Road to Arrowhead Road and loop
the water main.
Thank you,
Mark Smith
Memorandum
To: Dusty Finke, City Planner, City of Medina
From: Bill Griffith
Date: November 30, 2017
Re: Mark of Excellence Home Concept Plan – Satisfaction of PUD Criteria
INTRODUCTION
Mark of Excellence Homes (the “Applicant”) has resubmitted a Concept Plan which has been
significantly revised to address the feedback provided by the Planning Commission and City
Council. The Applicant has eliminated the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment,
reduced density and increased open space throughout the development. The Applicant’s
narrative dated November 27, 2017, and a revised Concept Plan F dated November 14, 2017, are
attached to this Memorandum.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this memorandum is to demonstrate the Applicant’s compliance with the criteria
for approval of a planned unit development. City Code § 827.25 sets forth the purpose of the
PUD and the criteria for approval. It is clear from review of the criteria that the statements are
guidance for consideration of the PUD and not strict requirements, such that each and every
subdivision must be satisfied for approval of the PUD. Thus, while the Applicant may
demonstrate compliance with each of the criteria, such compliance is not a legal requirement for
approval of the PUD.
SATISFACTION WITH PUD CRITERIA
The Applicant meets the following criteria for approval of the PUD which are excerpted from the
City Code.
1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic
expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the
conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
RESPONSE 1: On the north parcel, the number of homes was reduced from 94 to 74. The
homes that were located next to the rural area on the north were eliminated and development of
2.
the 4-acre peninsula to the east and most closely related to the Bridgewater development was
also eliminated. These changes provide additional open space and add a buffer of approximately
1,300 feet between the Bridgewater development and the nearest home within the development.
On the south parcel, the new plan preserves over one-quarter mile of wetland boundary in its
natural state. The plan also dedicates a five acre park/open space area containing over 300
hardwood trees. The park area will become a neighborhood asset providing open space and trail
facilities for use by the residents of the development and the general public. This protects and
preserves one of the City’s great natural resources.
2. Higher standards of site and building design.
RESPONSE 2: The development provides a variety of high-quality housing styles, including
single family lots, row homes and townhomes in a high-quality design. The single family homes
will be located adjacent to natural areas, including wetlands, park and open space, and preserved
woodlands. The townhomes have features found in million-dollar homes, such as rounded
corners, two-story closets, roll-in showers, central vacuum and 15-foot ceilings. The exteriors
will use an extensive amount of glass creating an abundance of natural light on three sides. Deep
garages will provide plenty of room for homeowners to keep trash cans in their garages and roll
them out on collection day. To improve exteriors, the Applicant has hired a designer to create a
variety of architectural features to enhance the front of the building units. The addition of the
row homes in the center of the south parcel provides a housing option for newer families close to
the park and open space. This amenity makes the row homes highly valuable and marketable.
3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high
quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and
the prevention of soil erosion.
RESPONSE 3: On the north parcel, two-thirds of the site will be preserved in wetlands and
woodlands providing natural buffer areas within the development. In fact, all units have been
removed from the four acre thumb on the east side of the development which provides a 1,300
foot buffer between the Bridgewater neighborhood and the nearest home in the development. On
the south, more than two-thirds of the site is preserved in wetlands, woodlands and park and
open space. Specifically, the developer will dedicate a 5.05 acre park/open space area preserving
the existing wooded knob and over 300 hardwood trees. This preservation effort will become a
defining feature of the development and will preserve one of the City’s finest natural resources.
4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices
which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard
requirements of the City.
RESPONSE 4: The Concept Plan shows a number of ponding areas designed to manage storm
water and minimize storm water impacts from the development. The Applicant will work with
the City to incorporate low impact development practices throughout the development. For
instance, the plan proposes construction of stormwater reservoirs to provide irrigation to
landscaping on the north parcel.
3.
5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to
surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower
intensity uses.
RESPONSE 5: As stated, the north parcel preserves and enhances wetland and woodland areas
creating large buffers to surrounding developments; on the south, the development preserves
significant wetlands, woodlands and park and open space. The Applicant will work with the
City to enhance buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses. For instance, heavy
landscaping and tree planting along Mohawk Road will provide a buffer to roadways.
6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly
development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and
service facilities.
RESPONSE 6: The Applicant has revised the plan to create a creative use of land and related
physical development which allows the placement of homes in a way that preserves wetlands,
woodlands and open space while still meeting the required density contained within the City’s
regulatory documents. The overall net density on the northerly parcel is 2.94 units per acre; on
the south parcel, the overall net density is 3.62 units per acre. The development plan preserves
future commercial and mixed use areas on the southerly end of the south parcel close to the
intersection with Highway 55.
Subd. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby
lower development costs and public investments.
RESPONSE 7: The Applicant has designed the PUD to maximize the use of developable land
while preserving natural features such as wetlands, woodlands and upland buffers to nearby
development. On both parcels, the footprint and density of housing was reduced by over 20
percent resulting in reduction in impervious surface, as well as a reduction in the size and length
of infrastructure serving the development. In addition, the Applicant has proposed construction
of new infrastructure, such as the extension of Chippewa Street and the water loop which will
serve surrounding neighborhoods and reduce the City’s public investment in infrastructure.
Subd. 8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive
Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)
RESPONSE 8: The Applicant has prepared the Development Concept Plan to effectuate the
objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the developer has eliminated the
need for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and fully satisfies the planning and zoning
principles as stated in more detail above.
Subd. 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict
application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
RESPONSE 9: The use of the PUD not only results in a more desirable and creative
environment, but is absolutely essential to approval of the plan as proposed. In addition, the
developer has provided a number of public benefits, including the preservation of woodlands,
4.
wetlands and open spaces and a reduction in density and impervious surface as discussed in the
sections above, along with the provision of the extension of Chippewa Road and the water loop.
CONCLUSION
As stated in this memorandum, the developer has put significant time and effort into revising the
Concept Plan to take into account the feedback of members of the Planning Commission and
City Council. The resulting Concept Plan not only satisfies the requirements of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning, but goes well beyond minimum requirements by preserving
natural resources including woodlands, wetlands and open space, and dedicating park space for
residents of the development and the general public. The provision of critical infrastructure,
including Chippewa Road and the water loop, are additional benefits that support not only the
development but adjoining development and neighborhoods. For these reasons, we ask the
Planning Commission and the City Council to support the Concept Plan presented.
4820-8965-0518, v. 2
12/8/2017 Project: LR‐17‐216 – Mark Smith‐Cavanaugh Comp Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan 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 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 3 Y Y Withdraw‐Comp Plan Am. 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 1 Y Y Fee 9/15/2017 9/12/2017 2 Y Y 2 checks; $1000, $2000 Mailing Labels 1 Y Y 4 pages w/ map and list Mailing Labels‐Updated 10/6/2017 10/6/2017 1 Y Y 2 pages w/ map Narrative 9/15/2017 9/15/2017 1 Y Y Narrative – Updated 11/16/2017 11/15/2017 3 Y Y Narrative – Updated 11/28/2017 11/27/2017 3 Y Y PUD Purpose Summary 11/30/2017 11/30/2017 4 Y Y 9 pages w/ attachments Concept Plan Set 9/15/2017 9/14/2017 4 Y Y Exhibit with both concepts 9/15/2017 NA 1 Y N Concept Plan – Updated 11/16/2017 11/14/2017 1 Y Y Concept Plan – Updated 11/28/2017 11/14/2017 1 Y Y Wetland Buffer Exhibit 11/28/2017 11/10/2017 1 Y Y Interior home photos 11/16/2017 N/A 12 Y Y Exterior home photos 11/28/2017 N/A 3 Y Y (Continued on back)
12/8/2017 Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 9/25/2017 3 Y Engineering Comments 11/30/2017 3 Y Fire Marshal Comments 9/29/2017 1 Y Fire Marshal Comments 11/20/2017 1 Y Elm Creek Comments 9/19/2017 1 Y MnDOT Comments 9/26/2017 2 Y Natural Resource Comments 10/6/2017 2 Y Preliminary Review 10/3/2017 2 Y Legal Notice 9/26/2017 5 Y Legal Notice – Additional addresses 10/6/2017 6 Y Legal Notice – December 12/1/2017 5 Y 12 pages w/affidavit Planning Commission Report 10/5/2017 9 Y 81 pages w/ attachments City Council Report 10/12/2017 10 Y Planning Commission Report 12/7/2017 11 Y Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Email from P. Nohre 10/25/2017 Y Planning Commission minutes 10/10/2017 Y City Council minutes 10/17/2017 Y
12/8/2017 Project: LR‐17‐215 – Weston Woods PUD Concept Plan 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 8/14/2017 8/14/2017 3 Y Y Fee 8/14/2017 8/14/2017 1 Y Y $1000 Mailing Labels 8/14/2017 8/10/2017 6 Y Y Narrative 8/14/2017 NA 4 Y Y Narrative – Updated 11/16/2017 11/15/2017 3 Y Y Narrative – Updated 11/28/2017 11/27/2017 3 Y Y PUD Purpose Summary 11/30/2017 11/30/2017 4 Y Y 9 pages w/ attachments Concept Plan Set 8/14/2017 8/11/2017 4 Y Y Narrative – Updated 8/24/2017 N/A 2 Y Y Concept Plan‐Updated 8/30/2017 8/30/2017 5 Y Y Exhibit with both concepts 9/15/2017 NA 1 Y N Concept Plan – Updated 11/16/2017 11/14/2017 1 Y Y Concept Plan – Updated 11/28/2017 11/14/2017 1 Y Y Wetland Buffer Exhibit 11/28/2017 11/10/2017 1 Y Y Interior home photos 11/16/2017 N/A 12 Y Y Exterior home photos 11/28/2017 N/A 3 Y Y Applicant Extension 11/16/2017 11/16/2017 1 Y Y Extend deadline to 1/13/2018 (Continued on back)
12/8/2017 Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 8/25/2017 2 Y Engineering Comments 9/25/2017 3 Y Engineering Comments 10/19/2017 3 Y Engineering Comments 11/29/2017 3 Y Elm Creek Comments 8/22/2017 2 Y Building Official Comments 8/18/2017 1 Y Building Official Comments 11/20/2017 1 Y Preliminary Review 8/25/2017 2 Y Legal Notice 9/1/2017 6 Y 13 pages w/ Affidavit and labels 120‐day Review Letter 10/3/2017 1 Y Legal Notice – December 12/1/2017 5 Y 12 pages w/affidavit Planning Commission Report 9/6/2017 8 Y 34 pages w/ attachments City Council Report 10/11/2017 9 Y Planning Commission Report 12/7/2017 11 Y (continued on back) Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Email from Kim Hofstede 9/11/2017 Y Email from Pete and Kate Nohre 9/12/2017 Y Planning Commission minutes 9/12/2017 Y Email from Craig Roy 10/26/2017 Y
1
Dusty Finke
From:Tony Havranek <THavranek@wsbeng.com>
Sent:Friday, October 06, 2017 12:34 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Cc:Steve Scherer
Subject:RE: Medina - Mark Smith/Cavanaugh site visit
Dusty,
Here are my notes from today’s site visit:
I would classify the forested portion of the eastern side of the parcel as quality woodland, as opposed to low quality,
with some pockets of high quality.
The northeastern portion of the woodland, north of the ditch, is correctly classified by the Hennepin County Nat Res
layer as a mesic oak woodland. Both white oak and red oak occur in this portion of the forest. All oak would be
classified as large to very large trees (DBH > 21”). The oak component would be classified as even age, meaning that
these are all mature trees. No oak regeneration was observed (sapling/seedling size class). The number of individual
trees is small compared to other species (ash), but the size of the trees causes them to be the dominant species in terms
of canopy coverage and basal area.
It should be noted that there were a small number of very large sugar maple as well.
The understory in this location was dominated by buckthorn, with some ironwood. Without management, this area
would more than likely transition to buckthorn/elm/basswood/ash due to oak mortality due to wind events, disease,
and old age;.
The area between the knoll and south of the ditch, maintains an oak component similar to the one described above, but
ash becomes more prevalent (pole to medium tree size 5‐10” DBH). The buckthorn is much smaller here (seedlings) and
is not as dense.
The knoll consists of a uneven‐age sugar maple stand with some large ‐very large white oak. This portion of the forest
would more than likely be sustainable for the long term since the seedling/sapling/pole size class will succeed the
mature trees as they die. Very little to no buckthorn is found here. This area is typed as a basswood/sugar maple by the
Hennepin County Nat Res inventory. The basswood component is present, but somewhat minor when compared to the
sugar maple component.
The southern portion of the forest is similar to what was observed in the northeast portion described in the first
paragraph.
While the tree inventory shows that ash is dominant as a percentage of individual trees, it should be noted that from a
canopy/basal area perspective, white oak, sugar ample, and red oak are the domiant tree species throughout the
woodland.
Let me know if you need something else,
Tony Havranek
Sr. Environmental Scientist
P (651) 286-8473 | M (612) 246-9346
2
WSB & Associates, Inc. | 178 East 9th Street, Suite 200 | St. Paul, MN 55101
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for
the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, please delete this email from
your system. Any use of this email by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited.
WSB does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a result
of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy.
From: Dusty Finke [mailto:dusty.finke@medinamn.gov]
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 8:14 AM
To: Tony Havranek <THavranek@wsbeng.com>
Cc: Steve Scherer <steve.scherer@medinamn.gov>
Subject: RE: Medina ‐ Mark Smith/Cavanaugh site visit
Tony,
I will meet you over there. Steve Scherer from Public Works may come also.
Thanks,
Dusty
From: Tony Havranek [mailto:THavranek@wsbeng.com]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 6:36 AM
To: Dusty Finke
Cc: Jim Stremel
Subject: RE: Medina - Last minute site visit?
Dusty,
I reviewed the docs that you sent over. My main focus was the inventory data. Looks like there is some good diversity
out there, with some large seed trees. As stated in the S & S report, while the dominant species is green/white ash,
these trees still provide value.
I took a look at the Hennepin county nat resources data. There are two ecologically significant areas present on the
parcel. A small section of maple‐basswood forest on the north side, and an oak forest‐mesic subtype. I will pay
particular attention to these areas.
Is anyone meeting me there, or were planning on just having me, walk the area by myself and report back to you?
Any issues with accessing the property without notice to the landowner?
Thanks,
Tony Havranek
Sr. Environmental Scientist
P (651) 286-8473 | M (612) 246-9346
WSB & Associates, Inc. | 178 East 9th Street, Suite 200 | St. Paul, MN 55101
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
K:\010653-000\Admin\Docs\2017-11-16 Submittal\_2017-10-27 Weston Woods Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
November 29, 2017
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept Plan – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-17-215
WSB Project No. 010653-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept plan submittal dated November 16,
2017. The plans propose to construct 39 two-unit buildings (78 total homes) on a 76-acre site.
The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general
engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with
regards to engineering and stormwater management matters.
Site Plan & Streets
1. Add typical street section to plans meeting the City’s standard.
2. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building
structures as required by the Fire Marshall.
3. City design standards require horizontal and vertical curve lengths to meet a 30 MPH design
speed, at minimum.
4. The City may require that a trail corridor is established through the property to connect to
future developments to the north. Consider a trail connection to the upland area to the
northeast of the proposed lots.
5. The developer is proposing private roadways through the development. If the City requires
public streets, wider right-of-way will be required.
6. Show the Wealshire access on the plans. The access shown to Mohawk Drive will need to
align with that of the Wealshire site on the west side.
Water/Sewer Utilities
7. The City may require that sanitary sewer and watermain be encompassed by drainage and
utility easements where located outside of public road right of way.
8. Watermain looping connections will be needed to minimize long dead-end watermain
sections. Consideration of further watermain looping needs will be required and reviewed
with future submittals.
Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept – Engineering Review
November 29, 2017
Page 2
K:\010653-000\Admin\Docs\2017-11-16 Submittal\_2017-10-27 Weston Woods Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
9. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for those lots served by City water.
10. The watermain alignment and connection along the proposed Chippewa Road alignment will
be reviewed by the City in further detail with future submittals. The City’s preference for
watermain materials is PVC C900. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the Fire
Marshal.
11. City design standards require 10.5’ sanitary sewer manhole builds; at no point shall build
depths be less than 8’. Show sanitary sewer service lines and invert elevations on plans; the
City requires a minimum depth of 4’ from low floor elevations. If a gravity connection is not
feasible to serve all or a portion of the site, a lift station may be required.
12. City design standards require that sanitary sewer manholes are placed within boulevards or
non-paved areas.
13. Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (Ten States Standards) guidance does not
allow oversizing of mains to achieved full-flow velocities at flatter grades. Confirm capacity
and need for larger main, if shown.
Traffic
14. The City may require the applicant to contribute to the costs for extending Chippewa Road
and watermain utilities between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Dive.
15. A traffic analysis should be completed documenting the capacity and safety impacts from the
site including following:
o Traffic generation from the site traffic
o Impact the site traffic has at the operation at the site entrance and the adjacent
development driveway, including the need for turn lanes.
o Safety (sight line) analysis at the site driveway
o Impact the site traffic has on the operations at the intersection of Mohawk Dr at
Chippewa Rd.
Stormwater
16. The developer will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent
with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. The City requires two feet of freeboard from
structure low openings to 100-year high water levels and EOF’s. Provide maintenance access
to all ponding facilities.
17. The development will need to meet the City’s infiltration requirement, which can be met by
constructing infiltration basins or reusing stormwater from the proposed ponds for irrigation.
Previous submittals stated that a “re-use/infiltration system” will be used, but more
information will be required with future submittals.
18. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards and submit for
permits.
19. Drainage from properties to the west of Mohawk Drive are conveyed through the
southeasterly portion of the Weston Woods property into the wetland(s). The stormwater
modeling and storm sewer design will need to accommodate this flow and conveyance.
Weston Woods of Medina PUD Concept – Engineering Review
November 29, 2017
Page 3
K:\010653-000\Admin\Docs\2017-11-16 Submittal\_2017-10-27 Weston Woods Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
Wetlands
20. The concept plan shows wetland impact in several locations. Wetland delineations and
replacement plan approval is required prior to any wetland impact.
21. A wetland delineation has been completed for the project site and is currently under review.
The applicant should verify that the most recent wetland boundaries are being used for
project design.
22. Upland buffers and buffer setbacks will be required for the project. The wetland east of the
project is partially mapped as a DNR Site of Biodiversity Significance, and the wetlands in
the project are classified as a Preserve by the city’s Wetland Functional Classification
mapping. The plans will need to show the upland buffers widths, structure setbacks, and
where the buffer markers will be placed.
23. Interior roadways are shown to cross wetlands in multiple locations. In order to maintain
hydrology between the wetland basins, plans should include culverts under these roadways. If
culverts are not proposed, any secondary impacts to wetlands because of reduced hydrology
will require replacement at a minimum 2:1 ratio.
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800
Building a legacy – your legacy.
Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com
K:\010801-000\Admin\Docs\2017-11-16 Submittal\_2017-11-27 Mark Smith Cavanaugh Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
November 29, 2017
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Mark Smith/Cavanaugh PUD Concept Plan – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-17-216
WSB Project No. 010801-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed the Mark Smith/Cavanaugh PUD Concept plan submittal dated November 16,
2017. The plans propose to construct 36 single family and 24 townhome urban serviced lots and a 5-
acre City park area dedication all on 52 acres.
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 & Streets
1. Add typical street section to plans meeting the City’s standard.
2. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building
structures as required by the Fire Marshall.
3. The City may require a roadway connection to the proposed Chippewa Road extension
and/or further south along Mohawk to reduce dead ends within proposed development.
4. City design standards require horizontal and vertical curve lengths to meet a 30 MPH design
speed, at minimum.
5. Show the existing access drive location to the Polaris site off Mohawk Drive. Complete.
Water/Sewer Utilities
6. The City may require that sanitary sewer and watermain be encompassed by drainage and
utility easements where located outside of public road right of way.
7. The City’s preference for watermain materials is PVC C900, update on plans and related
notes. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the Fire Marshal.
8. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for those lots served by City water.
Mark Smith/Cavanaugh PUD Concept – Engineering Review
November 29, 2017
Page 2
K:\010801-000\Admin\Docs\2017-11-16 Submittal\_2017-11-27 Mark Smith Cavanaugh Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
9. City design standards require 10.5’ sanitary sewer manhole builds. Show sanitary sewer
service lines and invert elevations on plans; the City requires a minimum depth of 4’ from
low floor elevations.
10. City design standards require that sanitary sewer manholes are placed within boulevards or
non-paved areas.
11. Watermain looping connections will be needed to minimize long dead-end watermain
sections. Consideration of further watermain looping needs will be required and reviewed
with future submittals.
Traffic
12. The City may require the applicant to contribute to the costs for extending Chippewa Road
and watermain utilities between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Dive.
13. A traffic analysis should be completed documenting the capacity and safety impacts from the
site including following:
a. Traffic generation from the site traffic
b. Impact the site traffic has at the operation at the site entrance and the adjacent
development driveway
c. Safety (sight line) analysis at the site driveway
d. Impact the site traffic has on the operations at the intersection of Mohawk Dr at
Chippewa Rd.
Stormwater
14. The developer will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling consistent
with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. The City requires two feet of freeboard from
structure low openings to 100-year high water levels and EOF’s. Provide maintenance access
to all ponding facilities.
15. The development will need to meet the City’s infiltration requirement, which can be met by
constructing infiltration basins or reusing stormwater from the proposed ponds for irrigation.
16. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards and submit for
permits.
Wetlands
17. The concept plan shows wetland impact in several locations. Wetland replacement plan
approval is required prior to any wetland impact.
18. Confirm whether the wetlands shown on the plan reference the US Fish and Wildlife
Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), an inventory which is outdated and has been
updated by the MN Department of Natural Resources or the wetland delineation that was
approved for this location in October 2013 (Application No. W-13-121). The wetland
boundaries approved by that delineation should be shown on the plan sheets and must be
used to calculate wetland impacts.
19. Upland buffers and buffer setbacks will be required for the project. The wetlands adjacent are
classified as a Preserve by the city’s Wetland Functional Classification mapping. The plans
Mark Smith/Cavanaugh PUD Concept – Engineering Review
November 29, 2017
Page 3
K:\010801-000\Admin\Docs\2017-11-16 Submittal\_2017-11-27 Mark Smith Cavanaugh Concept Plan - WSB Comments.docx
will need to show the upland buffers widths, structure setbacks, and where the buffer markers
will be placed.
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Meeting Minutes
1
Mark of Excellence Homes – 1952 Chippewa Road – PUD Concept Plan for 94 Lot
Twinhome Subdivision on 79.82 Acres
Finke stated that this is a PUD Concept Plan review for a 94 lot twinhome subdivision. He stated that the
total site is approximately 80 acres, but noted that approximately 30 net acres is wetland. He stated that
this property is under the current staging plan for the current Comprehensive Plan, but noted that the
property staging is proposed to be delayed to the 2025 staging period under the draft Comprehensive Plan
that is out for review. He explained that the R-1 zoning district was created to implement low density
residential, detached townhomes, but noted that twinhomes could fit within the density range. He stated
that the R-1 district does not, however, allow for twinhomes under the existing Comprehensive Plan, which
is why the PUD would be requested. He stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan does identify twinhomes
as an allowed use in the R-1 district. He reviewed the adjacent property uses. He presented the Concept
Plan proposed by the applicant, noting the twinhomes and large amount of wetland. He stated that the
purpose of a PUD is to allow flexibility to the zoning code in return for meeting purposes outlined by the
PUD Ordinance. He stated that there is an emphasis on protection of natural resources, wetland, and open
space within those purposes. He stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan is expected to be adopted in
early 2018 and therefore the formal public hearing has been held on that update. He stated that staff
believes that it would be appropriate to review requests under both forms of the Comprehensive Plan
(existing and draft versions), noting that the primary difference would be the change in staging from the
current period to 2025. He noted that a wetland delineation has not yet been completed, but estimated a
density range at three units per acre and recommended that the density range remain between two to three
units per acre. He stated that the table in the staff report summarizes what is allowed in the R-1 district and
compares that to what is proposed in this Concept Plan. He noted that it would not be an apple to apples
comparison as the R-1 district currently only allows detached townhomes and therefore items such as
setbacks would be different with twinhomes. He stated that there is a single access from Mohawk Drive
and a secondary emergency access. He noted that another future access could be shown from Chippewa
Road. He stated that staff recommends that if the project moves forward, that the northern portion of the
site provides additional buffering, including a mix of housing styles, as the land use to the north is going to
be rural residential. He stated that a large portion of the site is wetland and therefore the delineation is
important. He stated that the large wetland to the east is mapped by the DNR and therefore requires a large
buffer of 50 feet on average, noting the different buffer requirements for two additional wetlands, and
noting that adjustments to the plan may be necessary to provide the necessary buffers. He noted that the
floodplain would also need to be established for review. He stated that most of the site is tilled farmland
and therefore there would not be a lot of tree removal proposed. He highlighted the proposed
transportation information provided, noting that this is very similar to the request the Commission
considered the previous month. He stated that the City has identified a watermain connection to provide
better looping of the City’s water supply, which has been a primary importance identified this summer. He
noted that the connection would occur through this site. He stated that the applicant proposes to provide
the connection as a piece of the improvements they would construct as part of this project. He highlighted
the trails and parks aspects of the review, noting that if this is meant for empty nesters, perhaps this would
not be a good location for a park, whereas if this is meant for families perhaps a closer park would be
desired. He stated that some trail connections would be proposed. He stated that the intent of this review is
for the applicant to receive input from the City to determine changes that would be necessary and whether
they should continue to move forward down the PUD path.
Reid asked where the Lunski development is located in relation to this parcel.
Finke highlighted the location.
Mark Smith, owner of Mark of Excellence Homes, stated that they have built over 800 twinhomes in ten
different communities over the past 28 years. He stated that people are buying this empty nester product at
a younger and younger age. He stated that these are low impact buyers with kids that have left the home
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Meeting Minutes
2
and are looking for homes with less maintenance that can allow them to live the lives they want. He stated
that most buyers like to travel and may have multiple homes and therefore the lawncare and snow removal
is completed by the association. He stated that this would be a low impact use of the buyers, as the
association controls the lawncare and there are not playgrounds and trampolines in the yards. He stated
that they are only developing 30 to 35 acres of the site, while the balance of the property would remain
natural and wetland. He stated that this is an increasing market that will continue to grow for the next ten
years with the baby boom generation continuing to age. He stated that this would be a great transition next
to Wealshire. He stated that most of their buyers are coming out of larger single-family homes that are then
available on the market for growing families and takes pressure off the construction of new larger homes.
He stated that they would plan to create the watermain connection which would create the necessary loop in
the system and they would also plan to contribute to the extension of Chippewa Road.
Murrin asked why the applicant selected this property.
Mr. Smith noted that they are picky in the sites they choose and do not want just rows of homes. He stated
that they prefer homes on one side of the street which creates a better view for the buyers. He stated that
this would also fill a demand in the Medina market.
DesLauriers asked if the market value of $450,000 to $600,000 would be for each unit or the twinhome as a
whole.
Mr. Smith replied that the value would be for each unit of the twinhome.
White stated that the Commission would need to consider a higher standard of building and site design and
noted that she did not notice anything about the buildings in the packet.
Mr. Smith apologized for not including that information in the packet. He stated that they began this
product in 1990 and the overall concept has remained the same with vaulted ceilings and open kitchen and
living rooms with a four-season porch. He stated that the master bedroom and laundry are on the first level
with possibly a second bedroom on another level. He stated that the homes are very elegant. He stated that
the exterior of the homes would look very similar and would have a lot of landscaping. He stated that the
backyards would have a beautiful view of the wetlands. He stated that a taller garage door is installed to
make the appearance better with a focus on main floor living.
White referenced the comment made by Finke regarding density transitioning and asked Mr. Smith if he
would be open to less density in that area with additional landscaping.
Mr. Smith stated that perhaps the road could be moved further north and remove the homes buffering the
north property; and instead simply have the road and trees and increase the size of the holding pond in that
area. He confirmed that they would control the stormwater to reuse for irrigation. He stated that while they
do not call themselves a 55 and older community, the design and cost of the home lends itself to that type
of living, as the low number of bedrooms exclude larger families. He provided additional details on the
exterior materials proposed for the homes which would include vinyl siding and cedar shakes.
White opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m.
Donald Atkinson, 2000 Pawnee Road, stated that there has been talk that Chippewa is a road and that is not
true. He stated that Chippewa needs to be updated to a road before this is considered. He stated that
driveways along Mohawk are pretty sacred and therefore the driveways should be added to Chippewa
rather than Mohawk.
Bret Palmer, 4673 Bluebell Trail North, stated that he shared the concern with the Chippewa Road
extension. He asked if the Chippewa Road extension is being considered as a community, or whether the
applicant is suggesting that.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Meeting Minutes
3
White explained that the Council has decided that Chippewa Road needs to be extended, but the method for
creating that extension has not yet been decided.
Mr. Palmer asked if they have considered the impact that this would have on traffic, as you cannot go east
on Highway 55.
Finke stated that the purpose of the Chippewa extension is to provide that eastbound route.
Mr. Palmer stated that you are then putting that impact on a minimum maintenance road that is already
under a lot of pressure. He expressed concern with the infrastructure that is needed to support these
developments and believed that this would be creating a similar problem to what exists on CR 116. He
stated that this would then put a lot of pressure onto Arrowhead.
Finke provided additional details on transportation planning.
Jeff Pederson stated that he owns the property due north of this project. He appreciated the comments
regarding density transitioning to protect his rural residential designation. He stated that he has concern
that there would not be water that drains off this property onto his property. He asked that adequate
screening occur. He noted that he does not object to this project and believes that the Chippewa connection
would be an important element if this project moves forward. He stated that Chippewa was a road when he
was younger, but the City quit maintaining the road a number of years ago. He referenced the staging, and
noted that this property existed as low density when the Wealshire property was constructed. He stated that
the current Comprehensive Plan designates this property to be developed now.
Kate Nory, 4412 Bluebell Trail South, stated that her main concern is the timeline. She believed that the
City Plan mentions 2025 for development and therefore was concerned that this is being talked about now.
She stated that the density also seems to vary from the plan. She stated that they moved to Medina about
one year ago and 94 homes that look the same does not seem to fit with the unique character of Medina.
White closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
White noted that no action will occur tonight, as this is simply an opportunity for the Commission to
provide input to the applicant.
Reid stated that she does not have a problem with the twinhome product, but would like to see more variety
in the price point. She stated that there are infrastructure advantages. She stated that the Chippewa
extension will be expensive and will most likely take more than one developer to get it done. She stated
that opportunity will still exist in 2025. She stated that because they are already in the review process for
the draft Comprehensive Plan and the City has already denied other applications for that reason, she did not
see that this would move forward under the existing Comprehensive Plan. She did not believe that this
application would meet the criteria of the PUD and would have to have stronger elements in order to
qualify. She stated that while she understands the desire for uniformity, she would like to see some variety
in the aesthetics of the homes. She stated that this property staging was moved to 2025 under the draft
Comprehensive Plan because of the infrastructure needed. She stated that while she does not object to the
development, she did not see it qualifying under the existing Comprehensive Plan.
Nester agreed with the comments of Reid. She stated that this is a quick transition of densely populated
homes against the rural residential homes to the north and the single-family homes on the other side of the
property.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/12/2017 Meeting Minutes
4
Amic agreed with the comments thus far and agreed that he would like to see more variance in the
aesthetics of the homes.
Murrin referenced the option for the jump ahead and stated that she is in favor of maintaining greenspace.
She stated that she would hate to see this override the years of planning that was put into the Comp Plan
process and while she would welcome reviewing this application in the future under the appropriate
staging, she would not support this application at this time. She stated that she would also like to see less
density to fall within the required density for the R-1 district and larger lots. She stated that the
connectivity to Highway 55 should also be addressed in the future.
DesLauriers agreed that the criteria for a PUD should be stronger. He noted that nine areas were identified
under the R-1 zoning and only a few of those were met, therefore that should also be strengthened. He
stated that if the developer is willing to pay for half the cost of the Chippewa Road extension and for the
looping of the watermain; that could benefit the City. He asked for more information on the share the
developer would foot.
Finke stated that staff has looked at the cost conceptually and the watermain connection would move
forward prior to the 2025 staging period and would have a cost of $250,000 to $300,000. He stated that
without any improvements in this area the project would be twice that cost. He stated that there have only
been rough preliminary cost estimates for the Chippewa Road extension, noting that land acquisition and
the wetland are key elements. He noted that if this moved forward, the land acquisition would be provided
free of cost. He stated that the street cost is roughly estimated at $1,200,000 or $1,300,000. He stated that
most of the cost would be assessed to the landowners and it would be difficult to do that in a piecemeal
way.
DesLauriers stated there would then be a significant benefit for the City in terms of the watermain loop and
Chippewa Road extension with the contributions that this developer is willing to contribute. He asked if
private roads are typically allowed in the City.
Finke stated that in terms of an urban neighborhood with City sewer and water there are not any private
road communities.
DesLauriers asked if there would ever be a public park if there is a private road maintained by the
association.
Finke stated that the City would probably look for an access so that people would not have to drive on
private roads if there were a public park. He noted that you would not want to put a public park on private
roads.
White asked the type of challenges that would occur if the City needs to maintain City water under private
roads.
Finke stated that the City would have all easement rights and the ability to do so. He stated that the City
does a great job of putting things back together, should there be a watermain problem. He confirmed that a
private road would be built to the same standards as a public road.
White noted that a lot of her comments have already been addressed and thanked the members of the public
that also provided input. She hoped that the developer received the input he desired.
Finke noted that the Park Commission will consider this request on September 20th and the City Council is
tentatively scheduled to review this on October 3rd.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Mark Smith – NE Corner of Hwy 55 and Mohawk Drive –
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for 48 Lot Subdivision with 7
Acre Park on 52 Acres (PIDs 03-118-23-42-0001, 03-118-23-41-0001, and 03-118-23-43-
0005)
Finke presented a request to amend the current Comprehensive Plan as well as a PUD Concept Plan. He
noted that the proposed amendment would change the future land use from the current designation of
mixed use to low density residential to create a 48-lot subdivision with a seven-acre park. He noted that
the draft plan guides the property for business designation. He noted that the applicant is proposing a
PUD to allow the single-family home lots to be narrower than typical lot width. He noted that while the
width would be smaller, the minimum lot size would still be met. He stated that the same applicant
presented a PUD Concept the previous month for the property to the north. He reviewed the adjacent
property zoning and highlighted site features including the wetland and wooded areas. He stated that the
drainage ways on the site divide the site into three areas. He presented the Concept Plan from the
applicant along with the Concept Plan presented the previous month to identify how the plans would fit
together. He stated that the seven-acre park would be proposed on the southern portion of the site with a
single access point onto Mohawk Drive. He stated that the City is in an awkward position between the
current Comprehensive Plan and the draft plan, noting that the draft plan is expected to be in place in
early 2018 and therefore any applications could be considered under the draft plan. He stated that the
City is allowed to enact a moratorium, if desired, to protect the planning process. He stated that there is a
lot of information from both versions of the Comprehensive Plan included in the Commission packet to
help the Commission review the request. He stated that while technically the existing Comprehensive
Plan is in effect, the context of the draft plan is also important. He noted that the property is proposed to
be changed through the draft plan from mixed-use to business and therefore the property zoning would
not match either of those zoning districts. He reviewed the requirements of the mixed-use zoning district,
noting that the residential portion of the property would have higher density than what is proposed. He
noted that if approved, there could be concern from the Metropolitan Council that the City has eaten up
the low-density housing and therefore is not leaving sufficient space for the remaining required density.
He stated that there is more flexibility within the draft update, as the overall density is slightly higher and
therefore the City will meet the density requirements in the long-term. He reviewed the elements that
must be considered for a PUD request, noting that the primary objective from the applicant’s narrative in
reducing the lot width is to accommodate both the park and residential development. He stated that the
PUD also requests a five-foot reduction to the setback. He stated that the mixed-use zoning district does
allow for single-family homes with smaller lots, but in conjunction with another housing product to meet
the required density. He reviewed the proposed access from Mohawk, noting that the concept would need
to be updated with an accurate wetland delineation and required wetland buffer. He stated that there is a
12-13 acre wooded area on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to the wetland and bisecting the
northern portion of the site. He stated that the City’s natural resource inventory identifies two higher
quality portions of the woods on the southern portion of the site. He noted that the central and north
wooded areas are rated as lower quality. He noted that the concept would remove the vast majority of the
wooded areas to support the development. He noted that the applicant is proposing to grade the area to
use on other portions of the site, which would reduce the ability to preserve trees. He stated that
extensive tree removal would be required if the application moves forward in this method. He suggested
that if this moves forward, perhaps there is a way to preserve the higher quality knoll and reduce the
recreational amenities within the park. He noted that some of the comments will be similar, as the same
comments have been made on the other concept plans that were recently reviewed. He expressed concern
with the transportation proposed. He noted that the applicant stated that development of these two sites
would contribute towards the extension of the nearby roadway. He stated that the City has identified an
important watermain connection and the applicant is proposing to install that connection as part of the
development of these sites. He stated that the applicant is proposing to incorporate the park identified for
this area as well. He stated that if the Commission and Council move forward with this project, it would
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes
2
provide the infrastructure elements identified by the City. He stated that staff would caution against
amending the existing Comprehensive Plan as that would be cumbersome during this planning process to
update and finalize the draft plan. He stated that if the change is desired, staff would recommend making
that change to the draft plan. He stated that one of the main objectives of the draft plan is to minimize the
residential growth in the community to match the goals identified by the Met Council and this would
increase that residential growth. He stated that the Steering Committee also believed that a business
guiding for the property may help to preserve the high-quality tree knoll on the property that would be
removed under this request. He stated that the infrastructure that would be provided is consistent with the
objectives of the draft plan and therefore there are competing interests in the development of this
property.
Reid stated that she recalled that the Commission was not supposed to consider financial aspects when
reviewing requests.
Finke stated that in general terms that is true, but infrastructure is identified in the draft plan that provide
for the quality of life for residents.
Murrin referenced the staff report which notes that the applicant is proposing to build 48 single-family
homes on 50 acres, but elsewhere it provides different information.
Finke confirmed that the concept includes 48 lots. He confirmed that the density calculations are based
on 48 lots.
Murrin referenced the infrastructure elements, which state that the improvements would be constructed in
conjunction with the development of this property and the property to the north; and asked if that
infrastructure would only be built if both parcels are approved.
Finke said the applicant has stated that the water connection would be provided with the twinhome
property concept plan on the northern parcel and the road funding would be provided through the
development of the southern parcel.
Amic stated that it is difficult because the City is between plans. He asked the implications of removing a
business parcel from the draft plan.
Finke stated that in reality there are a lot of wetlands on this parcel and available business properties are
limited.
DesLauriers referenced the comment that if the property were zoned business, perhaps that would
preserve some of the wooded area. He asked for input on why this parcel is proposed to change to the
business zoning district.
Finke stated that one of the objectives was to reduce the overall residential development and explained
how the Steering Committee reviewed properties to determine additional business opportunities.
Mark Smith, applicant, stated that Finke did a great job of explaining the request. He stated that he is
attempting to not only bring forward this request, but also show how this would tie together with the site
to the north that he brought forward to a previous meeting. He noted that both parcels are within the
current staging period and if the direction of the Commission and Council align with his desires, he would
bring forward the two concepts as one application. He stated that perhaps the density between the two
parcels could be calculated together to balance the density and raise the density on the lower parcel. He
stated that after reviewing the tree inventory, he would propose to leave the knoll in place unless directed
to remove that by the park department. He stated that he did not believe that business or mixed-use would
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes
3
be a good fit and would be better used by a park on the southern portion and residential on the northern
portion of the site. He asked for direction from the Commission.
Murrin asked if the road extension would be dependent on both projects being approved.
Smith noted that the road extension would be dependent on both concepts being approved. He stated that
he could provide the watermain connection if only the northern portion is approved, but if both concepts
are approved he would construct the watermain and provide right-of-way for the road extension.
Amic referenced the comment that no business would want to be on this land because of the heavily
wooded portion of the site. He would hope that the City would have thought about that. He asked for
more information.
Smith noted that there are three separate parcels of land divided by creeks and wetlands and therefore the
property is not very conducive for one complex or campus. He stated that the heavily wooded area would
also require heavy removal in order to support a building or parking lot. He stated that the southern
portion is also covered by trees that would block visibility from the highway. He stated that the right
in/right out is also not a preference for a business.
Amic asked if that has been thought out by the Steering Committee.
Finke replied that there are some sites that get more specific discussion throughout the process and stated
that there was specific discussion on this property. He noted that while there are knolls on the site, there
are also flat portions of the site and park dedication could be given for preservation of the knolls. He
stated that access was recognized, noting that commercial would not be ideal, but business would allow
for office type uses. He noted other business uses that were constructed with the knowledge of the right-
in/right-out.
White opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Tim Cavanaugh, 3320 Lanewood Lane, stated that he is the owner of the property and noted that he
attended public meetings and was opposed to the business use. He did not feel that people walked the
property to fully understand the topography. He stated that to be any type of a business use you would
need contiguous land for development. He noted that if the road and watermain is also going to be
burdened onto the property in conjunction with the tree removal and topography of the site, it would not
be feasible for business development. He stated that this proposal has decreased the density from the
original proposal and the D.R. Horton proposal that came before that. He felt that the use proposed would
be the best the City can hope for and is also the best he can hope for. He believed the land would be
worthless as a business use with the non-contiguous topography.
DesLauriers asked for input on the discussion that occurred regarding the reguiding of the property under
the draft plan.
Cavanaugh stated that the property is currently zoned mixed-use and he was asking for residential and not
business. He stated that this proposal would be a good fit and would also provide the needed
infrastructure in this area.
Murrin asked what the land was originally zoned for when he purchased the property.
Cavanaugh stated that the land has been in his family for an excess of 50 years and was originally
agricultural.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes
4
White closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
Reid stated that she sees updating the current Comprehensive Plan as futile and would not want the
developers to waste their money on this when the City is not going to amend the existing plan. She stated
that the City could review a Concept Plan under the draft Comprehensive Plan. She stated that changing
the draft Comprehensive Plan could be open to discussion.
White agreed that she did not believe the City Council would have interest in amending the existing
Comprehensive Plan at this time. She agreed that a proposal could be considered under the text of the
draft Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Steering Committee put a lot of work into the guiding for
this property and the guiding for this property is important; not only for the parcel, but also in the overall
rate of residential development allowed. She stated that the Steering Committee would most likely want
to review a request for additional residential designation to determine if development should then be
delayed on another parcel.
Murrin asked what would happen if the Steering Committee were to swap the use of this parcel with
another parcel and whether that would require the City to resend the plan for comments.
Finke stated that he fully expects there to be changes to the draft plan coming out of the comment period,
noting that is the purpose of receiving comments. He explained that the level of public input and whether
the plan would need additional jurisdictional review, would depend upon the significance of the changes.
He noted that jurisdictional review would not necessarily be required when swapping land use for 40
acres here and there, but stated that the City may want to gain additional public input. He provided an
update on the timeline for the draft Comprehensive Plan process.
Amic asked for additional information on the ability to amend the draft plan once adopted. He noted that
perhaps a moratorium would be the best route to prevent the City from continually receiving requests that
are not going to be considered until the draft plan is adopted.
DesLauriers stated that he would agree with the comments of Reid that the City continues to receive
requests that are not being considered right now because of the timing between the existing
Comprehensive Plan and the draft plan. He stated that the item that is missing from this discussion is the
fact that this development would contribute to the extension of the road and to the water infrastructure
and park system.
Murrin agreed that the City would be considering those improvements, but noted that the north property is
not staged until 2025, so while the City would gain that benefit right now it is unknown as to whether the
City will need that extension. She stated that one core value in the plan is to maintain greenspace. She
questioned whether the City needs the road extension now, or when the property to the north is
developed.
Finke stated that the road extension will be needed. He stated that three remaining sites have all had
concept plans within the last few months. He stated that the risk is that the site to the north does not
develop as soon as it is staged; and then the road still needs to be constructed before the development of
that parcel. He stated that the watermain looping is needed and the City will move forward on that
element regardless of development activity. He stated that the water will be less of an impact on existing
users, as connection fees could be adjusted to fund that improvement over time. He stated that the road
extension is harder to define the funding responsibility of. He stated that if there is not an opportunity to
provide that connection in conjunction through development, the City would need to go through a 429
assessment and general tax dollars would need to supply the difference in funding, as the assessments
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/10/2017 Meeting Minutes
5
would not fund the project. He agreed that it would be a substantial share of the roadway costs that would
be paid by the taxpayers of Medina.
Reid stated that the parcel was not staged because this was a business property and therefore if this is
rezoned to residential the staging should then be pushed back to 2025. She explained that while the City
would like to encourage any business development, the residential development has been pushed back.
Murrin agreed that she would have a problem jumping ahead of the residential development because of
the decision that was made to phase out residential property because of the high amount of development
the City has had in the past years. She stated that she would be willing to push the issue down the road as
the road connection is not needed right now.
Reid stated that she was inclined to want to leave the zoning business because the parcel is adjacent to
other business properties, but acknowledged the challenges to this parcel that may lend to residential. She
also did not believe that a park that close to Hwy 55 would be a good fit.
Amic stated that this is a tricky issue and agreed that this would be a gamble. He stated that this is a nice
plan, noting that he would not have a problem with a park near Hwy 55. He stated that he does like the
plan with a creative layout incorporating the wetland and topography. He stated that although it has been
said that this should be pushed back, he is unsure that there will be a better deal than this and the City
could end up with something a lot worse than this. He recognized the concern that this site may not be
right for business use and acknowledged those points. He stated that he would fear that those factors are
not considered as much as they should be. He stated that it does matter if this site is even good for
business in the future and is important for the City to think about.
Nester referenced the nearby Lunski property which has three businesses on one lot and stated that she
would not see a reason that could not be done on this property as well.
White asked if the Commission could include a recommendation with the motion tonight for the Steering
Committee to review this property to determine if business is the right fit for this parcel.
Finke confirmed that the group can provide input on that direction through consensus of formal motion.
It was the consensus of the Commission to take separate action of the request and direction for the
Steering Committee.
Motion by Reid, seconded by Nester, to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers)
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Amic, to request that the Steering Committee review the guiding
of the subject property within the draft Comprehensive Plan update to confirm that business is the
appropriate land use. Motion carries 5-1. (Murrin opposed) (Absent: Albers)
Murrin noted that a lot of time and effort has been put into the draft Comprehensive Plan and therefore
would like to take the recommendation of the Steering Committee as is.
Reid acknowledged that this plan would give the City a lot, but stated that even if the property were
reguided for residential, the staging would be delayed to 2025.
White stated that she did like the plan, but would want to see more connection between the two areas,
with a more centrally located park and access to the development from Chippewa.
Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 9/20/2017 Meeting Minutes
1
Mark of Excellence Homes – Weston Woods – 1952 Chippewa Road – PUD Concept Plan for
94 lot Twinhome Subdivision on 79.82 Acres – Park Dedication Review
Gallup provided a brief staff report. She stated that the applicant has requested a PUD concept
plan review for a 94-lot twinhome subdivision on 79.82 acres (approximately 30 net acres). She
stated that the property is guided as Low Density Residential (LDR) within the 2016-2020 Staging
Period.
Gallup stated that the updated draft Comprehensive Plan that is currently out for area jurisdictional
review identifies the property as LDR, within the 2025-2030 Staging Period.
Gallup noted that the PUD is primarily to allow the twinhomes. The LDR district in the current
Comprehensive Plan speaks primarily of single-family homes, while the current draft plan speaks
of single and two-family dwellings in the LDR zoning district.
Gallup stated that the applicant has also submitted a concept plan for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to the south of the subject site. The proposed amendment is to change the zoning
from mixed use to LDR. The site is proposed to be guided as Business in the updated draft
Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the concept plan shows 48 single family homes with a
proposed 7.5 acre park.
Gallup showed maps of the subject sites with the two proposals side-by-side. She noted that these
sites are located east of Mohawk Drive, west of Arrowhead Drive, and just north and south of
Chippewa Road.
The Park Commission reviewed a map that showed the surrounding parcels in the active park
study area and each parcel’s proposed land use.
Gallup noted that the Park and Trail map shows a future neighborhood park identified in this area.
She noted that the Park Commission’s Master Plan identifies a neighborhood park as four to ten
acres in size. She also stated the map identifies a future east/west trail connecting Mohawk and
Arrowhead, with the plan identifying a trail connection between future neighborhoods and
especially to parks.
Gallup explained the park dedication ordinance in terms of this application, noting that the city
could require up to 10% of the buildable land, which would equate to about 3 to 3.5 acres on each
parcel, 8% of the pre-developed value, potentially $3,500-$8,000 per lot, or a combination.
Gallup briefly reviewed the size of three existing neighborhood parks and the features each park
possessed:
– Fields of Medina = 10 acres (7 acres active after removing future water tower and
pond)
• Soccer field (1.1 acre)
• Playground/Basketball Court (0.75 acre)
• Tennis Court (0.25 acre)
• Volleyball Court (0.15 acre)
• Parking Lot (0.45 acre)
Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 9/20/2017 Meeting Minutes
2
– Hunter Lions Park = 4.25 acres active; 2.7 acre passive
• Baseball field (2.0 acre)
• Playground (0.2 acre)
• Tennis/Basketball Courts (0.26 acre)
• Volleyball Court (0.15 acre)
• Parking lot (0.6 acre)
– Morningside Park = 2.3 acres
• Baseball field (1.16 acre)
• Playground (0.35 acre)
Gallup noted that parks tend to be at least two times or more the size of the improvements to allow
for space between improvements.
Mark Smith with Mark of Excellence Homes stated that he had been building twinhomes for 28
years. His homes are ramblet style with a full walk-out basement which caters to empty nesters.
He described the buildable property as “fingers” of upland surrounded by wetlands, which makes
for great views and privacy.
Smith noted that he attended the August 16, 2017 Park Commission meeting to listen to what the
Park Commission had to say about the Excelsior Group application that was before them. He
submitted the concept plan to the south to fulfill the Park Commission’s desire for a future park.
He noted that the proposed park land has a number of mature trees on the site. He would leave it to
the Park Commission to decide how many trees they wanted to keep and how much active play
area they would need. He stated he would be happy to grade as much or as little of the site as they
desired.
Lee questioned the applicant on what he would do with the proposed park space if it was not a
future park?
Smith noted the need for some trees and the park to create a buffer from Highway 55 to the
proposed homes.
The Park Commission discussed the three possible future residential sites within this park study
area, which includes the Excelsior Group proposal to the west of Wealshire and the two proposals
from Mark of Excellence Homes to the east of Wealshire. The discussion focused on the final park
dedication decision being made based on who develops first. There was also a consensus that two
smaller parks with complimentary uses would make sense.
Lee polled the Park Commissioners asking them for their initial thoughts on the proposed concept
plans.
Beddor stated that the proposed 7.5 acre park was a nice size, but it was not in the best location
being up against Highway 55. She questioned if the park could be moved to a more central
location between the proposed developments.
Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 9/20/2017 Meeting Minutes
3
Weir stated that she would like to see some of the mature trees kept along the highway as a buffer
to the park and neighborhood.
Weir inquired if the developer would consider adding a tot lot to the twinhome development to the
north, noting that many empty nesters have grandchildren.
Smith stated that the twinhome development would have private roads and the residents are
typically empty nesters who would not need a private tot lot. He stated that in his experience, these
residents do not want to pay for additional private amenities that they will have to maintain.
Meehan stated that it would be hard to visualize a park on Highway 55 with the noise and smell.
Scherer stated that we would want some type of buffer if it was a park or homes.
Lee asked the developer if he had thought about a trail along Chippewa to connect to the trail
along Arrowhead Drive.
Smith stated that he could give up more right-of-way to make a trail happen.
Lee confirmed that the Park Commission would like to see a trail along Chippewa and connecting
the two developments with the park.
Discussion took place if the development to the north went in, but the concept plan to the south
remained in the business zoning district. How would the Park Commission envision the future
park needs?
Weir stated that she would like to see at least a tot lot in the twinhome development, if the
development to the south did not happen.
Lee stated that he would want to take the cash and build a better park in the other proposed
residential zoning district to the west of Mohawk Drive.
Weir encouraged the City Council to strongly consider the applicant’s request for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment if the applicant was serious about building and financing the
construction of the new section of Chippewa Road connecting Mohawk and Arrowhead and
providing the water main connection and water main loop.
Smith agreed that it was their intention to install these two infrastructure improvements as part of
this project.
The Park Commission’s final thoughts were that they would like to see a proposed park on the
southern lot with as many trees preserved as reasonable to create a buffer and still be able to have
an active park. They also stated they would still like a park on the other proposed residential lot
west of Mohawk Drive. These two parks would have complimentary uses.
1
Dusty Finke
From:Kim Hofstede <kimberly.hofstede@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 11, 2017 8:41 PM
To:Al Hofstede; Dusty Finke; Kate Nohre
Subject:Re: Excellence Homes proposed project - Arrowhead
Dusty,
As I mentioned last week, I cannot attend the planning commission meeting tomorrow since I will be traveling
for work.
I would like to encorage staff and the planning commission to take the draft comp plan update into
consideration when reviewing this proposal. There has been a lot of time and thought to develop that draft and
there is a reason this land is being slated for 2025 or after and reducing the density to 2-3 units per acre. We
greatly enjoy living in Medina and we don't want to see it developed too fast. I am also interested to see the plan
once they delineate all the wetlands and are providing the appropriate required buffers.
Please share my comments at the meeting if you can. I copied my neighbor Kate who will likely be in
attendance.
If the applicant makes a formal submittal in the future, will there be another public hearing or is this our only
chance to provide feedback?
Thanks.
Kim Hofstede
4418 Bluebell Trail S, Medina
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:06 PM Dusty Finke <dusty.finke@medinamn.gov> wrote:
Hi Kim,
The staff report is attached. Have a good one!
Dusty
1
Dusty Finke
From:Pete Nohre <pete2404@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 2:47 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Cc:Kate Nohre
Subject:Re: Excellence Homes proposed project - Arrowhead
Dear Dusty,
As another resident of the Bridgewater neighborhood, we would like to add our comments and questions
regarding the proposed development to this e-mail. I apologize for the lengthily e-mail, but hopefully it
will communicate our support of the amended Comprehensive Plan and bring up some relevant
questions regarding the narrative for the proposed development.
Thank you.
Pete and Kate Nohre
Bluebell Tr. S.
On Jan. 20, 2015 the City Council approved an amendment to the City’s Staging and Growth Plan within
the Comprehensive Plan. (Resolution No. 2015-13)
Base on that approved plan, the property for the proposed development is:
Affected by the approved amendment per Map 5-3 - Staging and Growth.
Currently slated for development in 2025 (Map 5-4, Staging and Growth).
Currently designated at Low Density Residential (Map 5-2, Future Land Use
Plan). Typically thought of as single-family.
Also as it relates to the plan:
Primary changes to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan from the executive summary
include “Reduction of property planned for residential development” and “Delay
for some residential development.” The proposed Excellence Homes, Weston
Woods development is contradictory to those changes as it would accelerate the
residential development as compared to the plan (unless other significant reductions
would be made elsewhere).
As it relates to properties to “jump ahead” - it is indicated there is a flexibility for
two years for residential and mixed use properties (Chapter 5, Staging Plan). This
would indicate the property could move ahead to 2023.
An objective of the City is to be consistent with the Plan...
Housing Objectives:
2
"9. Require new urban residential development to be consistent with the City’s
Staging and Growth Plan." (Chapter 4, Housing and Neighborhoods)
We know a lot of work, insight, research and good reasoning went into updating the
Comprehensive Plan and would question why a deviation would be made to allow for the
proposed development. That would seem to put into question the work, thoughts and
recommendations of the planning commission, staff and interested parties that went into
the amended Plan.
Outside of the Comprehensive Plan, there appear to be some additional points that could use clarification.
Based on the information available on-line on the City website, the following questions stem from the
Narrative portion of the application materials for the propose development (in italics).
“It provides housing for many surrounding businesses like Polaris and OSI. Our buyers are empty nesters and low
impact.” “They don’t travel at rush hour."
Are employees of these companies looking for twin-home options in the area? How many
employees of these companies are empty nesters?
If they don’t travel at rush hour it can be assumed they are not working. How will this population
be a benefit for the businesses mentioned (Polaris and OSI)?
“…empty nesters living in Medina 20 to 40 years….move here to free up their Medina homes to
younger families that can’t afford or find properties. This will help slow development….”
This appears to be relying heavily on assumptions and/or speculation. Has a study been done and
concluded that 1) existing Medina empty-nester residents will be attracted to and purchase these
twin-homes? 2) That their move will free up affordable and desirable homes for younger
families? 3) That #1 and #2 will actually happen so it will help the City slow other
development? Or, does this proposal actually accelerate the development and residences that the
City Plan has recently decided to slow down?
“Proximity to existing development - Weston Woods of Medina is surrounded by development. We are across the
street from both Wealshire memory care and Bridgewater development.”
I would not consider this location “surrounded by development”. The Wealshire memory care is
across there street, but rest of the development would be in a relatively undeveloped area. This
depends on what one considers to be “surrounded by development”.
“Limited impacts on city services - As mentioned our buyers are low impact residents. ….putting little pressure
on water, sewer and streets”
Is there such a thing as a “low impact resident?” Can the City plan differently that these residents
will supposedly use less water, sewer and streets? How does the city plan for some residents to
use 30% or 20% or 80% less of the city resources? Is there any supporting documentation or
3
regulations that help support the statements that 1) “low impact residents” will be the ones
purchasing the residences and 2) that they will then actually use fewer of these resources?
“In addition the streets are private so the City will not have to spend it’s resources plowing and maintaining them, a
big cost savings to the City.”
What is the cost saving calculation? What is considered a “big cost savings” and how is it being
calculated?
“In addition, many of our buyers will be leaving the home they raised their family in and by moving here are
providing older more affordable housing inventory for those younger buyers.”
Again, this appears to be relying heavily on assumptions and/or speculation that the buyers will
be existing Medina residents and that the residence they are vacating will be affordable
and desirable to younger buyers. What research or information is available to support this?
“The development will create a large number of jobs during the development of the site and the building
of the homes. The association will also create jobs after the construction is done. This development has the potential
to provide a live/work environment for the neighboring Polaris and OSI and Wealshire memory care.”
The large number of jobs during the development will of course be temporary. Is temporary labor
something the City of Medina is trying to increase? Jobs are great, but the local benefit of this
temporary work would seem to be minimal - except in the short term.
How many jobs is the association expected to create? Will those jobs reside in Medina?
It has been stated in the narrative that the development is targeted to empty-nesters, those who
have 2nd and 3rd homes and "low impact” residents. What percentage of the workforce at those
employers mentioned have those characteristics? Has any research been done to determine the
demographics of the workforce at those employers as well as their desired place to live?
From: Kim Hofstede <kimberly.hofstede@gmail.com>
Date: September 11, 2017 at 8:40:45 PM CDT
To: Al Hofstede <ahofstede@onedigital.com>, Dusty Finke
<dusty.finke@medinamn.gov>, Kate Nohre <kate.nohre@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Excellence Homes proposed project - Arrowhead
Dusty,
As I mentioned last week, I cannot attend the planning commission meeting
tomorrow since I will be traveling for work.
I would like to encorage staff and the planning commission to take the draft comp
plan update into consideration when reviewing this proposal. There has been a lot
of time and thought to develop that draft and there is a reason this land is being
slated for 2025 or after and reducing the density to 2-3 units per acre. We greatly
enjoy living in Medina and we don't want to see it developed too fast. I am also
1
Dusty Finke
From:Kathleen Martin
Sent:Thursday, October 26, 2017 12:27 PM
To:Craig Roy
Cc:Dusty Finke
Subject:Re: Roy farm @ 1952 Chippewa Road
Thanks for the presentation and your email. I’d recommend you work with staff (specifically Dusty Finke to
further refine the proposal. Dusty has a great collective sense of the Council’s views, and understands our
development ordinances extremely well.
I hope you have a grand party for your mom’s 89th birthday—that’s something to celebrate. My mom would
have been 100 this past August. She’s no longer here, but her 93 years were a blessing to us all.
On Oct 25, 2017, at 4:14 PM, Craig Roy <csroy769@gmail.com> wrote:
Ms. Martin,
I'm Craig Roy and my mother, Elaine Roy, has owned the farm located at 1952 Chippewa Road
since 1954. Mom will be turning 89 in December and is now living at The Heathers in
Crystal. Luckily for us, mom is still able to have her own apartment and requires the lowest
level care at the Assisted Living facility, however, that could change at anytime. The primary
reason that we are currently trying to sell the farm is to make sure that we have the financial
resources to pay for her care and comfort, especially if she would require full nursing or hospice
care. Obviously, you know that can be very expensive, and, even though Mom and Dad were
savers, her current cash position wouldn't be able to sustain a prolonged stay in a nursing home.
Mark Smith, our potential buyer, made a presentation to the City Council last week on a couple
of different plans, but , I'd like to focus on our property which is directly east of the new
Wealstead facility, currently under construction.
As you know Mr. Smith is proposing 45 twin homes for our property which is located in the
Rockford School district. If you have ever tried to sell real estate in the Rockford School district
in Medina, you would know that can be very challenging. The concept of town houses next to
the Dementia facility seemed to make a lot of sense to us, especially if a loved one had to be
placed there. The family could live nearby and it would be convenient for them to go visit as
often as they wanted. Also, most town house dwellers are empty nesters so the school district
wouldn't be as important as to them as opposed to a family that wanted their children to attend
Wayzata.
Mr Smith came away from last week's meeting thinking that town homes did not have the
support of the Council and made a revised proposal to my mother assuming 45 single family, 95
foot wide, lots. Needless to say, we were shocked at how low his offer was. We would be just
as well off trying to sell the property to a local farmer and you know how low farm property
values are, especially in Medina.
2
We've been told the idea of town homes on our property isn't totally dead and with a few tweaks
here and there that maybe some concept featuring town homes would be able to gain enough
support on the Council. Unfortunately, we don't know what tweaks need to be made to get
enough support to go forward.
We know the City needs the waterline needs to be put in and that the Chippewa Road extension
needs to be built and Mr Smith has stated that he would complete those projects, however if he is
limited to single family homes with 95 foot wide lots, he won't be able to generate enough
revenue to complete those projects and finalize the sale of the farm with my mother.
Sorry, I tend to get a little long winded, but are there any changes we could make to the concept
plan besides building just single family homes that would gain your support?
Thank you for taking the time to read this and have a great day.
If you would like to discuss this over the phone, my land line number is 763-427-6617.
Sincerely,
Craig Roy
1
Dusty Finke
From:Pete Nohre <pete2404@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 25, 2017 9:24 PM
To:Dusty Finke; Jeff Pederson; Bob Mitchell; Lorie Cousineau; Kathleen Martin; John
Anderson
Subject:Feedback - Mark Smith Concept Plan and CPA
Dear All,
As a Medina resident, I wanted to make sure you had additional feedback to the proposed Mark Smith Concept
Plan. Bottom line, I am not supportive of changes to the draft Comprehensive Plan. I know there are
upcoming meetings (26th) with the Steering Committee and others regarding this topic so I want to get you this
feedback prior to relevant upcoming dialog. My apologies for the last minute input, but this is part of the
problem with making last minute changes to the existing draft plan.
I am familiar with the proposed concept and have received feedback from the last City Council meeting.
My input (echoed by others in my neighborhood) is outlined below. I would hope these points are expressed
and taken into account during the dialog on the proposed Mark Smith Concept Plan and CPA.
A good Plan already exits. A Comprehensive Plan draft has been approved locally and submitted to
the Metropolitan Council. That draft plan was developed through extensive public input as well as
many hours of work and expertise by committees and staff. Changes to plan at this point in the
process would seem to undermine the planning process and disregard previous public comments and all
of the work that has been done the past 18 months. Why is the Mark Smith Concept Plan and CPA,
particularly the Weston Woods PUD, even being considered?
o Specifically to the Weston Woods proposal...
The Weston Woods property is slated for development in 2025.
The Weston Woods property is not for multi-family development.
o How has the residentail population increase associated with both of the Mark Smith
developments been accounted for in the total population planning and projections? What is the
impact on infrastructure needs, traffic flow and safety, and its impact on other planned
development already accounted for?
Little, if any, financial benefit. At the last city council meeting the point was brought up regarding the
fiscal impact of having a road and some costs supported by the builder. Although we appreciate the
fiscal responsibility to consider that, it should not be a major factor in the decision process. First, it is
not as though financial incentive or opportunity will be forgone - it just may not be realized
today. The land will eventually be developed (per the current draft Comp. Plan) and those types of
incentives will no doubt be on the table for future development. In fact, the incentives will likely be
even greater given the potential appreciation of the land and opportunity for a builder. Second, I would
question that more citizens would be in favor of a short term, relatively small financial incentive
compared to the long term, permanent changes to the city that two mostly unplanned developments
would cause. Has a survey or public input been collected on this topic? What financial impact would
2
the potential financial incentive by the builder have on the average citizens taxes? I would
encourage the City Council to seek more feedback from the community on this topic.
o On a related note regarding fiscal responsibility... I would hope the city would also be
considering the costs (time, labor, opportunity cost, etc.) that have gone into creating the existing
Comprehensive Plan as well as additional costs that would have to go into redrafting, receiving
comments, reviewing and finalizing changes to create another version of the Comprehensive
Plan. As taxpayers, we have already paid for this effort in the current Comprehensive Plan and it
does not appear to be in the communities best interest, fiscally or otherwise, to redo the
exiting draft plan.
Unknown infrastructure impact with no known studies or analysis. The two proposed
developments in the Mark Smith Concept Plan and CPA will have a significant impact on traffic and
other infrastructure. What studies have been done to determine their impact and cost? Shouldn’t some
efforts be put forth to educate and get feedback from the public, particularly in those areas, as to the
impact of the developments? How do developments get approved without these infrastructure concerns
being addressed (if they have been addressed, I have not been able to find the results and predicted
impact to the community).
Little public involvement and no known support. It does not feel that a good process has taken place
to make significant changes to the draft Comprehensive Plan at a very late stage in its approval. There is
no public input that I can find that support the proposed deviation from the current draft Comprehensive
Plan. There is no impact analysis regarding the infrastructure changes needed to support the potential
changes. I have not heard of or seen the Planning Commission supporting a change. Why would a
change to the draft comprehensive plan be considered? The perception is that an exception is potentially
going to be made at the last minute (fast-tracked) for the benefit of a builder and small numbers of land
owners - rather than for the community.
Poor communication and short timeline. It does not appear that the public has been well informed of
the potential changes to the Comprehensive Plan given that this proposal (MS Concept Plan) has been
proposed and reviewed so quickly. I can tell you that many people in the area I have spoken with are
unaware of the Mark Smith Concept Plan and CPA.
Hwy. 55 impact and safety. To have both developments would there would surely need to be a
restructuring of the intersection of Hwy. 55 and Mohawk? This would be the logical entry and exit
point for both developments. What impact does that have to the flow, and safety, of traffic on Hwy.
55?
We are relatively new to Medina. We chose to live here because it is less developed than nearby suburbs like
Plymouth and Maple Grove. I support the current version of the draft Comprehensive Plan and feel that
potentially making these types of development exceptions detract from Medina’s attraction - its value in green
space, well planned growth and quality of life that differentiate it from neighboring communities.
N 29 2017
Li
LI Lc6wli
WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA AND HARDWOOD HILL
NARRATIVE November 27, 2017
With great suggestions and ideas from staff, the Planning Commission,
and the City Council this proposal of Weston Woods of Medina and
Hardwood Hill meet the density requirements of the current comp plan
while Preserving more open space and protecting a large area of the
City's natural resources.
This was done by concentrating fewer homes in a smaller area, thus
saving 2 large areas of open space and providing one of the criteria's
for allowing a PUD.
On the North parcel we reduced the number of homes from 94 to 74.
We removed all the homes and added heavy landscape where the
property backs up to the rural area to the north. We added heavy
landscape along Mohawk Road. Most importantly we removed the
housing from the 4+ acre thumb on the east side of the development.
This provides additional open space and adds another 500 feet of
buffer from our closest home to the Bridgewater development, creating
over a quarter mile of distance from our closest home to Bridgewater's
closest home.
We reduced the amount of bituminous surface by 25%, and added
additional space between the homes. Even with the reduced
development area and larger spacing we are at 2.94 units per acre, still
below the current LDR density limit of 3.49/units per acre.
Our housing product while somewhat predictable on the exterior, it is
far from that on the inside. We have features found in million dollar
homes, like rounded corners, 2 story closets, roll in showers, central
vac, and 15 foot ceilings. From the inside and even out they don't look
or feel like an attached home because of the extensive use of glass that
creates an abundance of natural light coming in from 3 sides of these
homes.
Also our deep garages provide room for owners to keep their trash cans
in their garage.
As mentioned our exteriors do need a little work so we have hired a
designer to work on that feature.
Also on the North parcel it should be noted that we did layout a pure
conforming LDR plan with 90' lots. What we found was, that even using
all the developable land, including the 4 plus acre thumb, the fingers of
land and the wetland buffer setbacks reduced the buildable area so
much we couldn't get more than 1.6 units per acre. There is 40.12
acres of delineated upland on this property but when you subtracted
the wetland buffers and setbacks, many on both sides of the same
finger, you lose over 13 acres or one third of the buildable area. This is
a hardship for this property and the land owner.
On the South property we preserved over a quarter mile of shoreline
along with the 5 acre knob/hill and 300 hardwood trees that will
become the neighborhood Park for both parcels. We added a
recreational area too. There will also be trails and roads that will
provide access to this great natural resource for residence to enjoy as
well as the general public. In addition, we are also preserving a large
bank of trees on the southeast tip of the single family homes.
We have met the requirements of the Mixed Use zoning with at least
3.5 homes per acre on at least 51% of the property. We are at 3.6
homes per acre without an apartment. The rest of the property is
business/highway commercial and Park.
A tremendous amount of thoughtful time and energy has been used
trying to create a development that meets the goals and visions of the
City.
We are preserving and or not developing over 10 acres up upland over
the 2 properties. One of the comments made by the Planning
Commission and City Council was leaving the properties green for as
long as possible. This plan guarantees that 20 percent of the property
will remain undeveloped and remain green indefinitely. Any future
development is likely to provide for no more than the 10 percent
required and not necessarily where you want it.
We meet the current density requirements.
We meet the purpose and standards to support and use a PUD.
The development by itself provides many benefits to the City and it's
residence and should be approved on it's own merit. However, in
addition to meeting these high standards, protecting acres of natural
resources and creating a beautiful development, we are still willing to
build Chippewa Road from Mohawk Road to Arrowhead Road and loop
the water main.
Thank you,
Mark Smith
Memorandum
To: Dusty Finke, City Planner, City of Medina
From: Bill Griffith
Date: November 30, 2017
Re: Mark of Excellence Home Concept Plan – Satisfaction of PUD Criteria
INTRODUCTION
Mark of Excellence Homes (the “Applicant”) has resubmitted a Concept Plan which has been
significantly revised to address the feedback provided by the Planning Commission and City
Council. The Applicant has eliminated the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment,
reduced density and increased open space throughout the development. The Applicant’s
narrative dated November 27, 2017, and a revised Concept Plan F dated November 14, 2017, are
attached to this Memorandum.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this memorandum is to demonstrate the Applicant’s compliance with the criteria
for approval of a planned unit development. City Code § 827.25 sets forth the purpose of the
PUD and the criteria for approval. It is clear from review of the criteria that the statements are
guidance for consideration of the PUD and not strict requirements, such that each and every
subdivision must be satisfied for approval of the PUD. Thus, while the Applicant may
demonstrate compliance with each of the criteria, such compliance is not a legal requirement for
approval of the PUD.
SATISFACTION WITH PUD CRITERIA
The Applicant meets the following criteria for approval of the PUD which are excerpted from the
City Code.
1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic
expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the
conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
RESPONSE 1: On the north parcel, the number of homes was reduced from 94 to 74. The
homes that were located next to the rural area on the north were eliminated and development of
2.
the 4-acre peninsula to the east and most closely related to the Bridgewater development was
also eliminated. These changes provide additional open space and add a buffer of approximately
1,300 feet between the Bridgewater development and the nearest home within the development.
On the south parcel, the new plan preserves over one-quarter mile of wetland boundary in its
natural state. The plan also dedicates a five acre park/open space area containing over 300
hardwood trees. The park area will become a neighborhood asset providing open space and trail
facilities for use by the residents of the development and the general public. This protects and
preserves one of the City’s great natural resources.
2. Higher standards of site and building design.
RESPONSE 2: The development provides a variety of high-quality housing styles, including
single family lots, row homes and townhomes in a high-quality design. The single family homes
will be located adjacent to natural areas, including wetlands, park and open space, and preserved
woodlands. The townhomes have features found in million-dollar homes, such as rounded
corners, two-story closets, roll-in showers, central vacuum and 15-foot ceilings. The exteriors
will use an extensive amount of glass creating an abundance of natural light on three sides. Deep
garages will provide plenty of room for homeowners to keep trash cans in their garages and roll
them out on collection day. To improve exteriors, the Applicant has hired a designer to create a
variety of architectural features to enhance the front of the building units. The addition of the
row homes in the center of the south parcel provides a housing option for newer families close to
the park and open space. This amenity makes the row homes highly valuable and marketable.
3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high
quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and
the prevention of soil erosion.
RESPONSE 3: On the north parcel, two-thirds of the site will be preserved in wetlands and
woodlands providing natural buffer areas within the development. In fact, all units have been
removed from the four acre thumb on the east side of the development which provides a 1,300
foot buffer between the Bridgewater neighborhood and the nearest home in the development. On
the south, more than two-thirds of the site is preserved in wetlands, woodlands and park and
open space. Specifically, the developer will dedicate a 5.05 acre park/open space area preserving
the existing wooded knob and over 300 hardwood trees. This preservation effort will become a
defining feature of the development and will preserve one of the City’s finest natural resources.
4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices
which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard
requirements of the City.
RESPONSE 4: The Concept Plan shows a number of ponding areas designed to manage storm
water and minimize storm water impacts from the development. The Applicant will work with
the City to incorporate low impact development practices throughout the development. For
instance, the plan proposes construction of stormwater reservoirs to provide irrigation to
landscaping on the north parcel.
3.
5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to
surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower
intensity uses.
RESPONSE 5: As stated, the north parcel preserves and enhances wetland and woodland areas
creating large buffers to surrounding developments; on the south, the development preserves
significant wetlands, woodlands and park and open space. The Applicant will work with the
City to enhance buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses. For instance, heavy
landscaping and tree planting along Mohawk Road will provide a buffer to roadways.
6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly
development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and
service facilities.
RESPONSE 6: The Applicant has revised the plan to create a creative use of land and related
physical development which allows the placement of homes in a way that preserves wetlands,
woodlands and open space while still meeting the required density contained within the City’s
regulatory documents. The overall net density on the northerly parcel is 2.94 units per acre; on
the south parcel, the overall net density is 3.62 units per acre. The development plan preserves
future commercial and mixed use areas on the southerly end of the south parcel close to the
intersection with Highway 55.
Subd. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby
lower development costs and public investments.
RESPONSE 7: The Applicant has designed the PUD to maximize the use of developable land
while preserving natural features such as wetlands, woodlands and upland buffers to nearby
development. On both parcels, the footprint and density of housing was reduced by over 20
percent resulting in reduction in impervious surface, as well as a reduction in the size and length
of infrastructure serving the development. In addition, the Applicant has proposed construction
of new infrastructure, such as the extension of Chippewa Street and the water loop which will
serve surrounding neighborhoods and reduce the City’s public investment in infrastructure.
Subd. 8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive
Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)
RESPONSE 8: The Applicant has prepared the Development Concept Plan to effectuate the
objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the developer has eliminated the
need for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and fully satisfies the planning and zoning
principles as stated in more detail above.
Subd. 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict
application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
RESPONSE 9: The use of the PUD not only results in a more desirable and creative
environment, but is absolutely essential to approval of the plan as proposed. In addition, the
developer has provided a number of public benefits, including the preservation of woodlands,
4.
wetlands and open spaces and a reduction in density and impervious surface as discussed in the
sections above, along with the provision of the extension of Chippewa Road and the water loop.
CONCLUSION
As stated in this memorandum, the developer has put significant time and effort into revising the
Concept Plan to take into account the feedback of members of the Planning Commission and
City Council. The resulting Concept Plan not only satisfies the requirements of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning, but goes well beyond minimum requirements by preserving
natural resources including woodlands, wetlands and open space, and dedicating park space for
residents of the development and the general public. The provision of critical infrastructure,
including Chippewa Road and the water loop, are additional benefits that support not only the
development but adjoining development and neighborhoods. For these reasons, we ask the
Planning Commission and the City Council to support the Concept Plan presented.
4820-8965-0518, v. 2
SITE DATA - ROY PARCEL
Gross Site Area: 74.72 Ac.
(less mohawk dr. & chippewa road row)
Existing Wetland & Buffer Area: 46.68 Ac.
Openspace: 2.90 Ac.
Net Developable Area: 25.14 Ac.
Twin Home Residential: 74 Units
(Lots & Local Roads, Private Drive 29’ B-B)
Setbacks:
25’ front from curb
30’ from county road
30’ min. between buildings
15’ structure setback from buffer.
Overall Net Density 2.94 u/a
(74 units / 25.14 ac)
SITE DATA - CAVANAUGH PARCEL
Gross Site Area: 53.55 Ac.
(less mohawk dr. & chippewa road row)
Existing Wetland & Buffer Area: 26.17 Ac.
Park / Openspace: 5.05 Ac.
Commercial: 5.75 Ac.
Net Residential Developable Area: 16.58 Ac.
(Lots & Local Roads)
Overall Residential Units: 60 Units
Single Family lots 70’ x 130’ 36 lots
ROW Townhomes 24 lots
Setbacks:
30’ front / rear
35’ from county road
10’ side
15’ structure setback from buffer.
Overall Net Density 3.62 u/a
(60 lots/units / 16.58 ac)
* All areas approximate. Developable area
estimated from County GIS topography as
measured against local codes.50’ Public R/W (typ.)Buffer
Mohawk Drive
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
Pond
70’ S.F.
70’ S.F.
70’ S.F.R/W (typ.)Park / Openspace
Future Commercial /
Mixed-Use
Row
Townhomes
Exist.
Woods to
Remain
BufferBuffer
Buffe
r
Trail
Trail
Trail
Highway 55Chippewa RoadArrowhead Drive
29’ Private Drive (typ.)
Pkg.50’ Public Playground
BufferWetlandWetland
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 4 December 12, 2017
Keeping of Chickens and Bees Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nick Kieser, Planning Intern and Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: December 1, 2017
MEETING: December 12, 2017 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment – Keeping Chickens and Bees in Residential Districts
– Public Hearing
Background
Over the past few years, staff’s impression is that Medina has experienced an increased interest
in keeping chickens on smaller rural residential lots. Currently in Medina, chicken and bees are
allowed only in rural residential districts. Livestock or traditional farm animals are permitted
only on properties two acres or greater and are subject to maximum density limitations.
Animal structures are required to be set back a minimum of 150 feet from all property lines. This
setback has made it difficult or impossible for smaller rural lots (generally under 3 acres) to
locate a chicken coop.
Staff has also received a number of inquiries from residents of more suburban neighborhood
properties. Currently, city code does not permit the keeping of chickens except in the rural area.
There is a growing trend for communities throughout the state (in fact, throughout the US) to
allow the keeping of chickens on urban/suburban lots, subject to certain limitations.
Since Medina was going to address chicken coop setbacks on smaller rural lots, staff thought it
would be a good opportunity to have a broader discussion related to “urban agriculture” in
general and the keeping of chickens and bees more specifically.
The attached ordinance addresses the setback for small chicken coops on smaller rural lots, but it
also provides language to allow the keeping of chickens and bees on urban/suburban lots for
discussion purposes.
The proposed bee ordinance came from a model ordinance written by the Minnesota Hobby
Beekeepers Association. Many communities in the metro area utilize an ordinance similar to this
model. Similarly, communities in the metro area have relatively similar ordinances related to the
keeping of chickens on urban lots.
A survey of 32 cities around the Twin Cities metro area was completed by the staff of another
city to determine how cities differ in the keeping of bees and chickens. The results are attached
for reference and a summary of the survey can be found below:
Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 4 December 12, 2017
Keeping of Chickens and Bees Planning Commission Meeting
32 cities contacted (27 allow chickens) (5 do not allow chickens)
The following are some of the findings of the 27 cities that allow chickens:
Codes 21 have a chicken code
6 have no code
Hens allowed From 1-10. The average is about 5-7
Complaints Very few
Total Permits Average less than 20 per city
Setback The range in urban residential is 5-20 feet from property lines.
Permit fees 5 have a one-time permit fee only
4 have a large initial permit fee, then smaller fees in following years
8 charge fees semi-annually
10 have no permit fees
32 cities contacted (21 allow bees) (11 do not allow bees)
The following are some of the findings of the 21 cities that allow bees:
Codes 9 have a bee code
12 have no code
Hives allowed From 2 - Any. The average is 3-4
Complaints All report zero to very few complaints
Total Permits Average about 5 per city
Permit fees 4 have a one-time permit fee only
2 have a large initial permit fee, then smaller fees in following years
3 charge fees semi-annually
12 have no permit fees
Summary of Ordinance Related to Keeping Chickens
Sections I-III, address keeping chickens in the Rural Residential District, Rural Residential
Urban Reserve District, and the Rural Residential 1 District. The existing 150-foot setback for
animal structures in these districts would still be in place. A property owner who places a
chicken coop 150 feet or more from property lines would not be subject to specific restrictions.
There are more general existing animal density and nuisance standards which would apply.
The proposed ordinance would add an exception to the 150-foot setback for chicken coops in the
rural residential districts in order to reduce the setback to 50 feet. With the 50-foot setback, only
eight hens (no roosters) would be allowed and the structure shall not exceed 200 square feet in
area. Staff is suggesting that the City require a permit before placing a coop between 50-150 feet
from the property line. This will provide the opportunity to provide relevant requirements and
verify the location of the coop.
Sections V- IX, address keeping chickens in the Suburban Residential, Urban Residential, Single
Family Residential and Two Family Residential Districts. The maximum number of allowed
chickens in these districts is six. A 10-foot setback from property lines is required and may only
be allowed in rear yards. The chicken coop is required to be kept in good repair and shall not
Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 4 December 12, 2017
Keeping of Chickens and Bees Planning Commission Meeting
exceed 120 square feet in area. Food and manure shall be kept in a way that does not attract
rodents or act as a nuisance to neighboring properties. Staff is suggesting that the City require a
permit before placing a coop and keeping chickens.
Section XI clarifies that accessory structures (including chicken coops) are subject to their own
setback requirements beyond general accessory structure ordinance which allows small sheds to
be located with only a 5-foot setback.
Summary of Proposed Ordinance Related to Keeping Bees
This ordinance proposes to allow bees in residential and commercial districts with certain
restrictions. In rural residential districts bees are allowed with no restrictions.
In the urban residential and commercial districts a bee structure may be placed with a setback of
10 feet and shall not be allowed in the front yard. In the requirements, a maximum of four bee
colonies shall be allowed in all rural districts.
A flyway barrier is required to be built to deter the bees from entering neighboring properties at
eye-level. The beekeeper shall keep a water source near the hives to keep the hive healthy. All
beekeeping equipment shall be stored in sealed containers or inside a building to deter outside
bees from staying on the property. The current draft ordinance would require a permit before
placing the hives on an urban/suburban property.
Staff discussed the draft ordinance with two local beekeepers (from rural properties). Generally,
these residents believed the limitations made sense for an urban lot. The residents suggested
removing the permitting and inspection requirements because they did not believe there would
be concerns based on the limitations.
Staff recently had to request that a property owner remove their bees from an urban property, and
a commercial property owner has expressed interest in keeping a few hives. Staff does not recall
receiving additional inquiries for bees on urban property.
Policy Discussion
Staff supports a reduction of setback for chicken coops in the rural area. The primary question is
whether the limitations similar to an urban lot are necessary in the rural area, even if the structure
is only 50 feet from the property line. The limitations could be removed and only apply to urban
areas.
The following policy direction is requested with regard to keeping chickens and bees on non-
rural property:
• The primary question is whether the Planning Commission and Council want to allow
chickens and bees on smaller lots.
• The Planning Commission and Council can discuss whether a permit should be required
before placing the coop or hive and keeping chickens or bees. Staff does not advocate an
on-going or annual permit.
Ordinance Amendment Page 4 of 4 December 12, 2017
Keeping of Chickens and Bees Planning Commission Meeting
• The Planning Commission and Council should review the limitations to determine if they
are appropriate. As noted, the limitations were largely based on other communities.
Potential Action
Following the public hearing and review of the ordinance, the Planning Commission can request
any additional information they desire. The following actions would be in order if the Planning
Commission favored allowing chickens and bees on urban lots and believe the limitations
suggested are appropriate:
• Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance regarding keeping chickens
• Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance regarding keeping bees
Attachments
1. Draft ordinance regarding keeping chickens
2. Draft ordinance regarding keeping bees
3. Results from survey of cities
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING KEEPING
CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Rural Residential District, Section 826.25, Subd. 5 of the code of ordinances of the
City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Subd. 5. Animal structure setbacks:
(a) Structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals,
including paddocks, shall not be erected within 150 feet of any lot line.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a structure or building to house chickens
(“chicken coop”) may be erected within 150 feet of any lot line, but may not be
erected within 50 feet of any lot line, provided the following standards are met:
(i) No person shall keep a rooster or crowing hen unless the chicken
coop is located 150 feet or more from lot lines.
(ii) No person shall keep more than eight chickens unless the chicken
coop is located 150 feet or more from lot lines.
(iii) Chicken coops and/or runs shall be kept clean and in good
repair so as to not constitute a nuisance.
(iv) A chicken coop located less than 150 feet from a lot line shall
not exceed 200 square feet in area.
(v) Permit required. No chicken coop of any size may be erected
less than 150 feet from a lot line until the owner has received a
chicken coop permit.
SECTION II. Rural Residential Urban Reserve District, Section 826.25.5. Subd. 5 of the code of
ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Subd. 5. Animal structure setbacks:
(a) Structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals,
including paddocks, shall not be erected within 150 feet of any lot line.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a structure or building to house chickens
(“chicken coop”) may be erected within 150 feet of any lot line, but may not be
erected within 50 feet of any lot line, provided the following standards are met:
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
(i) No person shall keep a rooster or crowing hen unless the chicken
coop is located 150 feet or more from lot lines.
(ii) No person shall keep more than eight chickens unless the chicken
coop is located 150 feet or more from lot lines.
(iii) Chicken coops and/or runs shall be kept clean and in good
repair so as to not constitute a nuisance.
(iv) A chicken coop located less than 150 feet from a lot line shall
not exceed 200 square feet in area.
(v) Permit required. No chicken coop of any size may be erected
less than 150 feet from a lot line until the owner has received a
chicken coop permit.
SECTION III. Rural Residential 1, Section 826.26, Subd. 3 of the code of ordinances of the City
of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Subd. 3. Structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals in the RR 1
district shall be subject to the following:
(a) All structures shall be set back at least 75 feet from all property lines and at least 150 feet
from any street or right-of-way;
(b) No structure shall exceed 1,000 square feet of gross floor area;
(c) All structures shall be of a design which is compatible with the principal structure;
(d) No structure shall be erected prior to construction of a principal building;
(e) No structure shall be used to house any type of livestock except horses;
(f) No structure shall be used to house more than two horses, except that a third horse which
is the foal of one of said two horses may be kept on the premises for a period not to
exceed six months during any 12 month period; and
(g) The owners of structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals
approved pursuant to this section shall comply with the requirements of section 330
of the city code regarding removal of manure.
(h) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a structure or building to house chickens (“chicken
coop”) may be erected within 75 feet of any lot line, but may not be erected within
50 feet of any lot line, provided the following standards are met:
(i) No person shall keep a rooster or crowing hen unless the chicken coop is
located 150 feet or more from lot lines.
(ii) No person shall keep more than eight chickens unless the chicken coop is
located 150 feet or more from lot lines.
(iii) Chicken coops and/or runs shall be kept clean and in good repair so as to
not constitute a nuisance.
(iv) A chicken coop located less than 150 feet from a lot line shall not exceed
200 square feet in area.
(v) Permit required. No chicken coop of any size may be erected less than
150 feet from a lot line until the owner has received a chicken coop
permit.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
SECTION IV. Suburban Residential District, Section, 826.26.3, Subd. 2 of the code of ordinances
of the City of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined
language as follows:
Subd. 2. Agricultural land uses, except keeping livestock RESERVED
SECTION V. Suburban Residential District, Section, 826.26.5, Subd. 7 of the code of ordinances
of the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Subd. 8. Keeping of chickens in compliance with standards of Section 828.21 of this
ordinance.
SECTION VI. Urban Residential District, Section, 826.33, Subd. 8 of the code of ordinances of
the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Subd. 8. Keeping of chickens in compliance with standards of Section 828.21 of this
ordinance.
SECTION VII. Single Family Residential, Section 840.1.04 of the code of ordinances of the City
of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
(7) Keeping of chickens in compliance with standards of Section 828.21 of this ordinance.
SECTION VIII. Two Family Residential District, Section 840.2.04 of the code of ordinances of
the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
(7) Keeping of chickens in compliance with standards of Section 828.21 of this
ordinance.
SECTION IX. New Section 828.21 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is added as
follows:
Section 828.21 Keeping of Chickens on residential property.
Subd. 1. Keeping of Chickens on non-rural property. The keeping of chickens on non-
rural property shall be subject to the following standards:
(a) No person may keep a rooster or crowing hen.
(b) No person shall keep more than 6 chickens.
(c) No person may allow chickens to range freely without fencing or without a mobile
pen.
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
(d) Chickens shall be provided a secure and well ventilated roofed structure (“chicken
coop”)
(e) Coops and the subject property shall be maintained in good repair and in a clean and
sanitary manner and may be subject to City inspection as may be deemed necessary.
(f) Coop structures shall be set back at least 10 feet from property lines and shall only be
located in rear yards
(f)(g) The chicken coop shall not exceed 120 square feet in area.
(g)(h) Food shall be stored in watertight, rodent-proof container.
(i) Manure, bedding compost and other waste materials removed from the coop or runs
shall not be piled or accumulated for more than seven days.
(h)(j) Permit required. No chicken coop of any size may be erected and no chickens
may be kept on non-rural property until the owner has received a chicken coop
permit.
Subd. 2. Keeping of Chickens on rural property. Keeping of Chickens on property zoned
Agricultural Preservation, Rural Residential, Rural Residential-Urban Reserve, Rural
Residential-1, and Rural Residential-2 shall be regulated within the standards of each
district.
SECTION XI. Accessory Structures, Section 825.19 of the code of ordinances of the City of
Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows:
Subd. 5. One additional accessory building that has a footprint of 120 square feet or less,
such as a shed, chicken coop, or similar type of building, is permitted. The footprint of
this type of accessory building shall not count towards the maximum accessory building
size allowance for the property as required above. In residential and agricultural districts,
any detached accessory building of less than 120 square feet may be located within five
feet of the rear or side lot line, with the exception of animal structures and chicken coops,
which shall abide by the specific setback requirements in respective district. All detached
accessory building exceeding 120 square feet or larger must meet the setbacks required
for principal buildings in the district.
SECTION X. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this __ day of ________, 2018.
______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the ___ day of ______, 2018.
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING KEEPING OF BEES;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. New Section 828.22 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is added as
follows:
Section 828.22. Keeping of Bees on Non-Rural Property. The following standards shall apply
to the keeping of bees on non-rural property within the City. These standards shall not apply to
the keeping of bees on property within the Agricultural Preservation, Rural Residential, Rural
Residential-Urban Reserve, Rural Residential-1, or Rural Residential-2 zoning districts.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish certain requirements for
beekeeping on non-rural property within the City, to avoid issues which might otherwise
be associated with beekeeping in populated areas.
Subd. 2. Definitions. The following words and terms, wherever they appear within this
section, are defined as follows:
(1) Apiary- the assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single location.
(2) Beekeeper- a person who owns or has charge of one or more colonies of bees.
(3) Beekeeping equipment- anything used in the operation of an apiary, such as hive
bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards and extractors.
(4) Colony- an aggregate of bees consisting principally of workers, but having, when
perfect, one queen and at times drones, brood, combs, and honey.
(5) Hive- the receptacle inhabited by a colony that is manufactured for that purpose.
(6) Honey bee- all life stages of the common domestic honey bee, apis mellifera species.
(7) Nucleus Colony- a small quantity of bees with a queen housed in a smaller than usual
hive box designed for a particular purpose.
Subd. 3. Beekeeping Standards. The following shall apply to all beekeeping:
(a) Beekeeping shall be allowed in the Suburban Residential, Urban Residential, Single-
Family Residential, Two-Family Residential, Commercial, Business, and Industrial
Park Districts.
(b) Honey bee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames, which shall be kept
in sound and usable condition.
(c) Hives must be located at least 10 feet from all property lines.
(d) Hives may not be located in a front yard.
(e) No person is permitted to keep more than 4 colonies.
(f) For each colony permitted to be maintained under this ordinance, there may also be
maintained upon the same apiary lot, one nucleus colony in a hive structure not to
exceed one standard 9-5/8 inch depth 10-frame hive with no supers.
(g) Each beekeeper shall ensure that a convenient source of water is available to the
colony so long as colonies remain active outside the hive.
(h) Each beekeeper shall ensure that no wax comb or other material that might encourage
robbing by other bees are left upon the grounds of the apiary lot. Such materials once
removed from the site shall be handled and stored in sealed containers, or placed
within a building or other insect-proof container.
(i) Each beekeeper shall maintain their beekeeping equipment in good condition. It shall
not be a defense to this ordinance that a beekeeper’s unused equipment attracted a
swarm and that the beekeeper is not intentionally keeping bees.
(j) Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, in each instance where a colony is kept
less than 25 feet from a property line of the lot upon which the apiary is located, as
measured from the nearest point on the hive to the property line, the beekeeper shall
establish and maintain a flyway barrier at least 6 feet in height. The flyway barrier may
consist of a wall, fence, dense vegetation or a combination there of, such that bees will
fly over rather than through the material to reach the colony. The flyway barrier must
continue parallel to the apiary lot line for 10 feet in either direction from the hive, or
contain the hive or hives in an enclosure at least 6 feet in height. A flyway barrier is
not required if the property adjoining the apiary lot line (1) is zoned rural or
agricultural, or (2) is a wildlife management area or naturalistic park land with no
horse or foot trails located within 25 feet of the apiary lot line.
(k) If the beekeeper serves the community by removing a swarm or swarms of honey bees
from locations where they are not desired, the beekeeper shall not be considered in
violation the portion of the ordinance limiting the number of colonies if he temporarily
houses the swarm on the apiary lot in compliance with the standards of practice set out
in this ordinance for no more than 30 days from the date acquired.
(l) A designated City official shall have the right to inspect any apiary for the purpose of
ensuring the compliance with this ordinance at any reasonable time.
(m) Each beekeeper on non-rural property shall obtain a beekeeping permit prior to
installing hives or keeping bees.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this __ day of ________, 2018.
______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the ___ day of ______, 2018.
Initial InitialBee's Bee Permit Permit Chickens Chicken Permit PermitCityallowedcodefeefeeallowedcodefeefeeComments1Maplewood No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes $50/1yr $752Oakdale Yes No $0 ‐ Yes No $0 ‐3White Bear Lake Yes Yes ‐ $30 Yes Yes ‐ $504Stillwater Yes Yes $50/2yr ‐ Yes Yes $50/2yr ‐5Mahtomedi Yes Yes $30/5yr ‐ Yes Yes $30/5yr ‐6Roseville Yes No $0 ‐ Yes No ‐ $75 Storage shed permit for coop7Lake Elmo Yes Yes $25/2yr ‐ Yes Yes $25/2yr ‐8Arden Hills Yes ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes ‐ ‐ ‐ If 200' setback is met 9Blaine No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐ $4510Brooklyn Park Yes Yes ‐ $75 No ‐‐‐11Brooklyn Center Yes No $0 ‐ No ‐‐‐12St Paul Yes Yes $28/1yr $76 Yes Yes $16/1yr $2613Anoka Agricultural zones only ‐ ‐ Yes Yes $0 ‐14Savage Yes No $0 ‐ Yes No $0 ‐15Shakopee Yes No $0 ‐ Yes No $0 ‐16Shoreview Yes No $0 ‐ Yes Yes $30/2yr ‐17Forest Lake18South St Paul No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes $75/2yr ‐19Falcon Heights No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes $50/1yr ‐20Burnsville No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes $52/2yr ‐21Sunfish Lake Yes Yes ‐ $200 Yes Yes ‐ $20022Eagan Yes Yes $25/1yr $50 Yes Yes $25/1yr $5023St Michael Yes No $0 ‐ Yes No $0 ‐Rural Res only. Residential requests at least one per year.24Medina Yes No $0 ‐ Yes Yes $0 ‐Rural Res only, 150ft setback, Considering Res in future.25Ham Lake Yes No ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐ ‐ Bees allowed, no code26ChamplinNo ‐ ‐ ‐ NoThey get requests but tell them sorry.27Coon RapidsNo ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐ $10028Plymouth No ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes No $0 ‐Allowed on 2 1/2 Acres and up. Res requests at least one per year29LexingtonNo ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes $75/1yr ‐ 2 coops allowed in city30Mounds ViewYes Yes ‐ $50 Yes Yes $30/1yr $10031Little CanadaNo ‐ ‐ ‐ No ‐ ‐ ‐ They get very few requests32Apple ValleyNo ‐ ‐ ‐ No ‐ ‐ ‐ They get very few requestsChickensBeesYes ‐ Agricultural zones above 5 acres only Yes ‐ Agricultural zones above 5 acres only
Permits Permits Neighbor Permits Permits NeighborCityBee issued issued Total Inspection Training consent Colonies Chicken issued issued Total Inspection Training consent HensCommentsMycode 2016 2017 Permits Complaints Required Required Required allowed code 2016 2017 Permits Complaints Required Required Required allowedcontactMaplewood NoYes 10 7 29Almost monthlyYes annuallyNoYes, all within 150'10One request for bees in last four years. Chickens are a headache because of 150ft neighbor notification. Many appeals to council because of it. Looking at eliminating the 150ft notification clause because of appeals, disagreements, time, and cost for mailings. Chicken interest has exploded in last couple years. 3 permits denied because lack of 100% neighbor approval. They get complaints at nearly all Council meetings.Michelle Larson 651‐249‐2001Oakdale No * 0 1 1 0As necessaryNoYes, all within 150'No quantity in codeNo * 0 5 5 1No, as necessaryNoYes, all within 150'1Oakdale does not have a code specific to Bee's or Chickens. * Residents submit a permit for the animal they intend to keep and then Oakdale decides the terms and limits they will allow for the property. Complaints are handled under the animal and nuisance code.Michelle Stark & Ryan Stuart 651‐702‐5204White Bear LakeYes2014 ‐ 1 2015 ‐ 2 2016 ‐ 10 4 1 No YesYes, all within 100'4 Yes 6 3 9 2 per yearYes initial onlyNoYes, if less than 50' from neighbor house4WBL has a have a combined Chicken and Pigeon code. They also have two active pigeon keepers and one in progress. They get about 2 Chicken complaints each year. They have had one bee complaint since inception.Samantha Crosby 651‐429‐8534Stillwater Yes 3 3 11 0 No YesYes, all within 150'2 Yes2013 ‐ 9 2014 ‐ 5 2015 ‐ 14 2016 ‐ 7338 3 NoRead BrochureYes, all within 150'5The only complaints he believes are from neighbors that don't like each other within the 150' notification area. The council then always approves the permit with a 1 year renewal rather than 2 years.Eric 651‐430‐8818Mahtomedi YesNo, as necessaryYesYes, all within 350'4 YesNo, as necessaryYes No 6White Bear Lake takes care of code enforcement for the City of Mahtomedi. Mahtomedi just approved allowing chickens or bees within the past month. They have had no complaints for chickens or bees at this time.Samantha Crosby 651‐429‐8534Roseville No * 0 No No Noany amountNo * Very few No No Noany amountRoseville does not regulate chickens or bees. For chickens they require a shed permit for the coop. They don't make any inspections. They make recommendations only, ie: Roosters cannot make noise, suggest training, cleanup waste, notify neighbors, etc. The code enforcement officer says they had about 20 calls mostly for chickens. Permits are not needed. *Complaints handled under the animal and nuisance code.Brian Coughlin 651‐792‐7082Eagan Yes 4 0Yes annuallyYes No 2* Yes 260 maybe 1Yes annuallyYes No 5 *Numorous bee hives allowed if large acreageCarol Tumini 651‐675‐5031ChickensBeesAll since 2016All since 2015
Hennepin County Public Works Facility Page 1 of 6 December 12, 2017
PUD Amendment for Fabric Storage Structure Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debra Peterson, Associate Planner; through City Planner Dusty Finke
DATE: November 29, 2017
MEETING: December 12, 2017 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Public Hearing – Hennepin County Public Works Facility – 1600 Prairie Dr.
PUD Amendment for Installation of a Fabric Storage Structure
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: December 1, 2017
Review Deadline: January 30, 2018
Overview of Request
Hennepin County requests an amendment to its existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) to
construct a 50’ x 50’ (2,500 sf) fabric structure within their existing outside storage area. The
fabric structure is for storage of equipment that needs to be ready on short notice and out of the
elements for the Emergency Management Team.
The subject property is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. State Hwy 55 is immediately to
the north of the site, with CH, Commercial Highway zoned properties to the north of Hwy 55.
Properties to the south are zoned RR, Rural Residential. Properties to the west are zoned RR,
and BP, Business Park and to the east across Arrowhead Road zoned Industrial Park and PUD.
An aerial of the property and surrounding land is shown at the top of the following page.
PUD History
The property was rezoned from Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial to a PUD on September
5, 1995. On June 18, 1996, a PUD was approved for the construction of the Hennepin County
Public Works Facility, a 420 foot radio transmission tower, and the ability to construct accessory
structures up to 65,124 square feet. A Wind Energy Conversion System (Wind Turbine) and
Civil Defense Siren were also approved on November 8, 2008. The Wind Turbine has not been
constructed to date. These documents are attached for reference.
The 1996 PUD approving the Public Works Facility (PWF) building was constructed and is
approximately 254,000 square feet in size. The following on-site accessory structures were also
constructed:
Scale House 4,930 square feet
Salt-Sand Storage Structure 25,157 square feet
Fueling Station 6,971 square feet
TOTAL: 37,058 square feet
The proposed 2,500 square foot fabric storage structure would fall within the 65,124 square feet
of accessory structures contemplated by the PUD. The primary reason that the applicant is
Hennepin County Public Works Facility Page 2 of 6 December 12, 2017
PUD Amendment for Fabric Storage Structure Planning Commission Meeting
proposing an amendment to the PUD is because exterior building materials were expected to
meet City requirements. The zoning code does not generally permit fabric structures as a
permitted material. This matter will be discussed further later in this report.
Hennepin County Public Works Facility Page 3 of 6 December 12, 2017
PUD Amendment for Fabric Storage Structure Planning Commission Meeting
Planned Unit Development
PUD provisions are established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards designed to
allow greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas by
incorporating design modifications and allowing for a mixture of uses. In order to make
modifications to an existing PUD, an Amendment is required unless otherwise specified in the
PUD. Under review of the PUD, the Commission and Council have the ability to review the
change in materials required by building code. The use of fabric as an exterior building material
for a structure is a deviation from the current exterior building material requirements. A PUD
should only be approved if it meets the purposes of the PUD district, which are provided below.
Staff believes it is appropriate to consider the broader PUD when considering a request for an
amendment, especially when the amendment relates to such a small structure when compared to
the broader development. In other words, the City can consider how the broader setbacks,
screening, etc. of the Public Works facility help serve the purpose of the PUD, as well as
considering the specific facts surrounding the new structure. Following are the purposes of the
PUD district:
1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic
expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the
conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
2. Higher standards of site and building design.
3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality
natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features, and the
prevention of soil erosion.
4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which
result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of
the City.
5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding
open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses.
6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly
development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and
service facilities.
7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets, thereby lower
development costs and public investments.
8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD
is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)
9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application
on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
The underlying zoning district for the original PUD was Rural Industrial. This district does not
apply to any property within the City, and is essentially an obsolete district. As a result, staff
also reviewed this request within the context of the Industrial Park (IP) district, which staff felt is
a good comparison based on the use of the property and more current development standards.
Outdoor Storage Area/Location of Fabric Structure/Screening
An approved outdoor storage area is located at the rear of the PWF and is screened from all
roadways and adjacent properties by berms, evergreen trees, and buildings. This area stores a
wide variety of materials for Hennepin County ranging from vehicles to light poles. The
proposed location of the 50’ x 50’ fabric structure is within the outdoor storage area and is in a
Hennepin County Public Works Facility Page 4 of 6 December 12, 2017
PUD Amendment for Fabric Storage Structure Planning Commission Meeting
corner of the storage yard as shown on the attached site plan.
Both the Rural Industrial and Industrial Park districts limit outside storage to an area the size of
20% of the footprint of the principal structure. The approved storage area for the Public Works
facility is substantially larger, over 300% the size of the structure, as approved in the PUD.
The applicant is proposing to store equipment that is currently inside the main principal
structure. The equipment doesn’t need to be stored in warm temperatures, but does need to be
covered from the elements and easily accessible.
The proposed structure is located 668 feet from the nearest property line and far exceeds the
setback requirements of the RI and IP zoning district. The IP zoning district requires a minimum
of 100 foot setback from residential property. The proposed structure is 668 feet from rural
residential property to the west and 720 feet from rural residential property to the south.
Hardcover
The Industrial Park District allows for a maximum of 70 percent impervious coverage. The
existing facility is currently under 25% impervious. The current base material of the storage
yard is compacted gravel/asphalt and is considered impervious/hardcover for review purposes.
The structure is proposed to be placed upon existing hardcover, so does not increase hardcover
on the property.
Fabric Structure Height
The proposed fabric structure is approximately 25 feet in height. The RI limits structures to 30
feet in height and the IP district limits buildings to 30 feet unless sprinkled. The height of the
proposed structure is lower than the PWF building and is not visible from adjacent properties.
Exterior Building Materials
At the time of approval of the PUD, the zoning code required that for industrial buildings: “no
visible exterior building surface shall be constructed of any material except face brick, stone,
architecturally treated concrete, cast in place or pre-cast panels, decorative block, glass, redwood
or cedar boards, metal or a combination thereof. Metal may be used on a maximum of 20 percent
of the visible exterior building surface.”
The IP District requires “all exterior building materials to be durable and non-combustible
(except for wood used as an allowed accent material), consisting of one or more of the following:
At least 20 percent shall be brick, natural stone, granite, stucco (but not – Exterior Insulation and
Finish System (EIFS)), copper or glass. Up to 20 percent may be wood, anodized aluminum or
similar metals which may be used as an accent material if appropriately integrated into the
overall building design and, in the case of wood, not subject to damage caused by heavy use or
exposure. When requested, samples of the external materials shall be submitted to the City.
Concrete and pre-cast concrete panels may be allowed provided the total of such material does
not make up more than 80 percent of the exterior material.”
Brick and masonry, with metal garage doors are the current exterior materials for the principal
building. The accessory buildings are either masonry or metal.
Hennepin County Public Works Facility Page 5 of 6 December 12, 2017
PUD Amendment for Fabric Storage Structure Planning Commission Meeting
Fabric structures are not listed within the historical building material list or the current IP zoning
district. As described above, flexibility could be permitted through the PUD process, provided
the PUD meets the purposes of the PUD district. The applicant has described in their narrative
how they believe the purposes of the PUD district are met, and how the fabric structure fits in.
Previously Approved Fabric Structures
This is not the first request for a fabric structure in the City. In 2016 the City approved a fabric
structure for “We Can Ride” at the Three Rivers Park District Public Safety Facility along
County Road 24 for the use of riding lessons. In 2013 the City approved one at Medina’s Public
Works/Police Facility for salt storage which is located on Clydesdale Trail. Medina City Hall
also has a fabric structure which was approved in 2004. The fabric structure was initially used
for the storage of salt, but when PW relocated to Clydesdale Trail, the materials stored changed
to black dirt and landscaping materials that needed to be kept dry.
Analysis of Request
The applicant states that they need covered storage within their already existing storage yard.
After reviewing the current PUD against current zoning for storage, staff does not have concerns
related to the installation of the fabric structure. The covered area would not increase impervious
surface area since it is proposed in an area already considered impervious.
The area in which the structure would be placed is screened by the principal PWF building,
berms, and pine trees on top of the berms. The area is already permitted for the outside storage
of materials, so covering those materials with a fabric structure would not seem to cause
additional impacts. The fabric structure, in essence, is screening the storage; and the berm, trees,
and PWF are screening the fabric structure. Staff would most likely not support the fabric
structure if it were outside of a fully-screened storage area. In addition, the proposed fabric
structure is less than 2% of the size of the principal structure. Given the circumstances, the
structure would not be significantly different from uncovered storage.
During review, staff discussed whether allowing fabric or metal structures more broadly within
outside storage areas would be an appropriate ordinance change in the future. Staff would
recommend that the Planning Commission discuss whether this would seem appropriate.
If the Commission finds that the PUD Amendment criteria are met (criteria attached), staff
would recommend the following conditions be attached to any recommendation of approval:
1) The applicant shall obtain a building permit meeting all State Building Codes for fabric
structure prior to its installation.
2) The evergreen trees on the existing berms shall continue to be maintained to provide
required screening.
3) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the PUD Amendment.
Hennepin County Public Works Facility Page 6 of 6 December 12, 2017
PUD Amendment for Fabric Storage Structure Planning Commission Meeting
Potential Motion
If the Commission finds that the PUD Amendment Criteria are met, the following motion would
be in order:
Move to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment based upon the findings noted in the
staff report and subject to conditions recommended by staff above.
Attachments
1. Document List
2. Applicant Narrative
3. Site Plan showing Fabric Structure Location
4. Fabric Structure Details
12/8/2017 Project: LR‐17‐221 – Hennepin County PUD Amendment 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 11/21/2017 11/21/2017 3 Y Y Fee 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 1 Y Y $5000 Narrative 11/21/2017 11/21/2017 1 Y Y Plans 11/16/2017 NA 11 Y Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 11/27/2017 1 Y Planning Commission Report 6 Y Legal Notice 12/1/2017 5 Y 12 w/ affidavit Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes
Hennepin County Public Works Facility Added Storage Narrative November 21,2017
The following narrative addresses Hennepin County's request to have a fabric storage structure installed
behind our Public Works Facility at 1600 Prairie Drive in Medina. The structure is for use by our
Emergency Management team to store equipment that needs to be ready at short notice and is required
to be protected from the elements. The area behind the building is a large paved area that is used to
store large snow plows, county vehicles and equipment. This request does not change the use or expand
the existing storage area. There are several other structures in the yard including a fueling station, sand
storage and a truck wash. Tours of the yard are available.
The original PUD allowed for 65,124 square feet of accessory structures. It only allows for finishes that
include brick, masonry, concrete, metal panels and stucco for exterior materials. Our proposed structure
is 2,500 square feet reinforced fabric structure. We are not creating a brick or masonry addition to the
building because the expansion of the building would be too costly and approval by the county board
would take at least two years for capital funding and construction if it was approved. No addition to the
building is being considered at this point because the need is just to protect stored items from the
elements.
The proposed structure is a 50 foot by 50 foot steel framed building with a gabled roof. The walls and
roof are reinforced waterproof fabric. It has a single 14 foot by 14 foot overhead manual garage door. It
is entered by a secure 3 foot by 7 foot door. The height of the roof peak is about 25 feet. We are
assuming helical piers for a foundation system. We have hired an engineer to determine the soils
capacity. The building will have no mechanical systems. The structure may have electrical power run to
it in the future. The color of the structure will be off-white or tan depending on final availability.
The floor of the structure will be the existing recycled asphalt surface. This is a semi -permeable surface
used in storage areas throughout the storage yard. The structure will not increase or change site run off.
The entire vehicle and equipment storage area was designed to reduce run off through smart storm
water management systems which are all in place to protect the surrounding areas. The area is flat so
therewill be no grading or earthwork required.
The location of the structure will be tucked into the corner of the existing equipment storage yard. The
existing Public Works building was designed to shield the view of the yard from adjacent properties or
roadways. The fabric structure is shielded by a very tall earthen berm with evergreen trees planted
along the top. The fabric structure will not be taller than the berm or the trees. The site was designed to
hide the equipment yard from views around the site. The west side of the yard is screened by a shorter
hill and an open wetland that extends quite a way to a wooded area. No other structures are visible
from our property that would be affected by our new structure.
The structure will be used to store equipment that is needed in case of emergency. This equipment
includes emergency generators, emergency sirens, trailers and other materials that are needed by the
emergency management team. No automobiles or trucks will be stored inside the structure. No fuel
tanks or other types of combustible fuels will be stored in the structure.
wo eure t11w6.2
795106 NO IIID sLSA¢
AICHEN/1AI AILtAI11E
Malan
11111111.11/1
SElialff Eee
M«a .a��r
1111 .=EMILMN r s
ay pasta` o
�w N ro MR 1N
s.YY r
M Yr fRa 4glY r
ma tAPlt•
L1v .rM
�YII ~'Yw wsY r+I
Y. If I MF
O NOM NM . IN.
O1N00�l N w. L 1w1
Mom. th
bawl A
Mow At
BL IR
At..l
HENNEPIN COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITY
MEDINA, MN
BD PA 01AQ NO. 2 MOM
66166'1. AN9 MN. 41E NgpC
11C1.1 0031 7211
IVCC7{ J79aw
ISSUED FOR
CONSTRUCTION
071.00 FOR N0t11NCN7+
REIASE0 0 11011 7.�NOV . I, 1996
C
71
Design —Legacy Building Solutions
LE(7.= y
;tfs�
BUILDING SO LUTIONS
Hennepin County Emergency Management
h0
•
0
50' -0"0U7--TO-OUT OF SILT
D
I
ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
!! NOT FUR EMS TRUCTIEN !!
This doc umen t is pre limina ry an d for bidding purposes only.
Dia= 5/8"
O
1 1/2"
See Plan
DETAIL A
Dia= 1/2"
90
1 1/2"
EW
Dia= 5/8"
co
0 0
'Po
fP
0
1 1/2"
S ee Plan
DETAIL B
1 1/2"
EW
Dia= 3/4"
DETAIL C
O
w
8"
4 1/2"
2 3/4'
3"
2 3/4"
SW
Dia= 3/4 "
0
2 3/ 4"
See Pla n
DETAIL D
4 1/2"
2 3/4"
5W
2 1/4"
L
0
0
3"
2 1/2"
EW/
SW
1 1/2"
See Plan
DETAIL E
H NUT FOR CONSTRUCTION H
This docu me nt is pre lim ina ry a nd fo r bidding pu rpo ses only,
NOTES F OR RE ACTI ONS
Building rea ctions a re based on
the following b uildi ng d at a:
Width (ft)
Length (Ft) = 50 .0
Eo vc H eight (13) = 13.5/ 13 .5
R oof Sl ope (rise/12 ) v. 6.0/6.0
Dead L oad (psf ) 2.0
Collater al L oad (psf )= 1 .0
R oof Live L oad(ppsf '• 20.0
Frame Li ve L ood(psf )= 12 .0
Snow L oad (psf ) = 23 .9
Wi nd Sp eed (mph ) - 105.0
Wi nd Code = MNBC 15 (IBC
Exosure
Closed/Op en = C
Importance Wind = 1 .0 0
Imp orta nce S eismic - 1.00
S eismic Zon e = A
Seismic Coeff (Fo'S s) = 0,08
ID Description
1 De ad +Coll at eral +S no w+Slide-Snow
2 0 .6 0ead +0.6WI nd_Lefti
3 0.60ead+0 .6Wind_Rightl
4 0 .6D ead4-0.6Wind_La nglL
5 0.60 ead +0.6Wind_Long2L
6 0.6Dead +0.6Wind_Right2+0.6WI nd_S uctio n
7 0.6Dead +0 .6Wi nd-Pr essure+0 .6Wind_Lo ng2t
5 De nd+ 0.6Wl nd- Rlght2+0 .6WInd_Su cti on
ANCHOR BOLT SUMMARY
Din
Qty Locate (in) Type
0 8 Jamb 1/2" A307
0 16 E ndw all 5/8" 4307
W 32 Fram e 3/4" A307
Total Bend
L en L en Pr o]
(i n) (in) (in)
3.75
.3 .75
1.50
1 .50
3 .00 2.50
FRAME LINES:1 2 .1 4
12)
H
V
COLUMR LI NE
RIGID FRAME.: MAXI MU M REACTIONS, ANCHOR BOLTS, & B ASE PLATES
C olumn_Re acti ons(k ) -
Frm Col Load Hmax V Lood Hmin V B olt(in) Bos e- Plal e(in) Gro ut
Li ne Lin e Id H Vmax Id H Vmin Qty Di e
Width L ength ihick (In)
1• A 1 5 .0 13.4 2 -2.1 -2.0 4 0.750 8.000 12.50 0 .375 0.0
4 0 .5 -3.7
1' D 3 2 .1 -2.0 1 -5.0 13 .4 4 0.750 8.000 12.50 0 .375 0.0
1 -5 .0 13 .4 5 -0.5 -3 .7
1• Fram e li nes:1 2 3 4
BUILDING BRACING REACTI ONS
f Reoctio ns(k ) P anel Sh ear
---W all C ol --Wind-- --Seismic (lb/ft)
L ac Li ne Lin e H orz V ert Horz Vert Wind 5els Note
L-EW1 __ .._-� .- (h).
F_SW 0 1, 2 2.0 1,4 0 .1 0.1
3,4 2.0 1.4 0.1 0 .1
R-EW 4 (h)
0_SW A 4,3 2.0 1.4 0 .1 0.1
2,1 2.0 1.4 0 .1 0 .1
(h)Rigid fr am e at endw all
RIGID FRAME: BASIC COLUMN REACTIONS (8 )
Li neLin e Horiz
D ea Horiz Vertd-- Hor iolla Vertl H od .- -Li ve
Horiz Ve rt -H .. F ne Vert11 _ Herizd 11-
Vert
1• A 0.6 1 .8 0.2 0.5 2.1 5.3 4.2 11.1 -4.2 -5.1 1 .6 -4.f
1• D •- 0. 6 1.8 --0 .2 0.5 -2.1 5 .3 -4.2 11.1 -1,8 - 4,7 a.2 --5.1
Fram e C olum n --Wind Left2--Wind_Right2-- --Wi nd_L oegl--Wind_L ong7-Seiam k_Lell S ehmle_Pigh1
Lin e Li ne H oriz Vert H oriz Vert Horiz V ert Horiz Vert Hord V est 4-lari r V ert
1• A -4.1 -1.9 1 .7 -1 .0 0.3 -8 .0 -1.2 -7.6 = 0.1 0. 0 0,1 0.0
1' D -1 .7 -.1.0 4.1 -1.9 1 .2 -7.6 -0,3 -8 .0 9 .D 0.0 17:0 0.0
Fr am e C olum n-S el smlc_L ong FIUNB_SL_L- F1UN0_SL_R-
Li ne Lin e Horiz Vert Horiz V ert Horiz Vert
1• 8 0 .0 -0.1 3.8 1 0. 0 3.8 6.2
1' D 0.0-0 .1 -3 .8 6 .2 -3.8 10.0
1' Fram e li nes: 1 2 3 4
END WALI. COLUMN:BASIC COLUMN REACTIONS (k )
Wi nd Wi nd
Frm C ol D ead Pr ess Se ct
Line Line V ert H arz Horz
1 B 0 .2 -3.4 3 .7
1 C 0.2
4 C 0.3 -3.4 3.7
4 B 0.3 -3.4 3 .7
ENDWALL COLUMNSIAXIMU M RE ACTIO NS, ANCHOR BOLTS, & BASE PLATES
c olumn_Reacnon s(k )
Frm C ol L oad Hmax V L oad Hmi n V B olt(in)
Li ne Line Id H Vm ox Id H Vmin Sty Di a
B ose_Pl at e( ' ) Gr out
Width Length Thick (in)
1 B 6 2.2 0.1 7 --2.0 0 .1 4 0.625 5. 00 0 8.00 0 0.250 0,0
8 2.2 0.2
1 C 6 2 .2 0.1 7 -2.0 0.1 4 0 .625 5 .000 10 .00 0.250 0.0
8 2 .2 0 .2
4 C 6 2.2 0.2 7 -2.0 0.2 4 0 .625 5 .000 8.000 0.250 0.0
8 2.2 0.3
4 B 6 2.2 0.2 7 -2.0 0.2 4 0.625 5 .000 8.000 0.250 0.0
8 2.2 0.3
H NET FOR CONSTRUCTION !!
This documen t Is pre limina ry a nd -F or kpIdding purpos es only,
Q6"
12
1'-F..
17'-6"
50'-0"OUT-TO-OUT OF STEEL
O O
L.
[.
]
CL -1 L I
IE�C-2
7 -1" 14'-17` .E'L
Di -4-2
0
17-6 "
r._
ENDWALL FRAMING: FRAME LINE 1
1! NET f ❑R CONSTRUCTION !
J
1
B OLT TABLE
FRAME LINE 1
LOCATION
Col um ns/Raf
6" 12
16
Thic NOCu rnent is }I^ lirninary cAnd For k-Oc•'in0 lurprs es nnly,
I QUAN TYPE DIA LENGTH
I 4 A325 3/4" 2"
CONNECTI ON PLATE
FRAME LINE 1
0 I MARK/PART
1 b1
2 b2
3 b3
4 b4
5 b5
6 b6
7 b7
BOLT TABLE
FRAME LINE 4
12
1
50'-0"OUT-T0.OUT OF STEEL
`J
L
15'-0"
17'-5'
LOCATION
C of um ns7Rof
6'
12
C .-4.
/�
i , G-7 tea_
ENDWALL FRAM ING: FRAM E LINE 4
a
J
H N❑T F❑R CONSTRUCTION !I
This doc umen t Is ❑E''e no, y and f'nr kidding purpo ses only
. QUAN TYPE DIA LENGTH
4 A325 3/4" 2"
CONNECTION PLATES
FR AME LINE 4
L71D MARK/PART
1 68
2 b6
3 b9
4 610
5 b7
12
50'-O" OUT -TO -OUT OF STEEL
CLEAR + /-
1'-4 1/
� -U
RIGID FRAME ELEVATION: FRAME LINE 1 2
3
4
H N❑T R❑R C❑NSTRUCTI❑N H
This doc ument is pre limina ry an d fo r bidding purposes only,
12/8/2017 Project: LR‐17‐221 – Hennepin County PUD Amendment 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 11/21/2017 11/21/2017 3 Y Y Fee 12/1/2017 12/1/2017 1 Y Y $5000 Narrative 11/21/2017 11/21/2017 1 Y Y Plans 11/16/2017 NA 11 Y Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 11/27/2017 1 Y Planning Commission Report 6 Y Legal Notice 12/1/2017 5 Y 12 w/ affidavit Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes
Hennepin County Public Works Facility Added Storage Narrative November 21,2017
The following narrative addresses Hennepin County's request to have a fabric storage structure installed
behind our Public Works Facility at 1600 Prairie Drive in Medina. The structure is for use by our
Emergency Management team to store equipment that needs to be ready at short notice and is required
to be protected from the elements. The area behind the building is a large paved area that is used to
store large snow plows, county vehicles and equipment. This request does not change the use or expand
the existing storage area. There are several other structures in the yard including a fueling station, sand
storage and a truck wash. Tours of the yard are available.
The original PUD allowed for 65,124 square feet of accessory structures. It only allows for finishes that
include brick, masonry, concrete, metal panels and stucco for exterior materials. Our proposed structure
is 2,500 square feet reinforced fabric structure. We are not creating a brick or masonry addition to the
building because the expansion of the building would be too costly and approval by the county board
would take at least two years for capital funding and construction if it was approved. No addition to the
building is being considered at this point because the need is just to protect stored items from the
elements.
The proposed structure is a 50 foot by 50 foot steel framed building with a gabled roof. The walls and
roof are reinforced waterproof fabric. It has a single 14 foot by 14 foot overhead manual garage door. It
is entered by a secure 3 foot by 7 foot door. The height of the roof peak is about 25 feet. We are
assuming helical piers for a foundation system. We have hired an engineer to determine the soils
capacity. The building will have no mechanical systems. The structure may have electrical power run to
it in the future. The color of the structure will be off-white or tan depending on final availability.
The floor of the structure will be the existing recycled asphalt surface. This is a semi -permeable surface
used in storage areas throughout the storage yard. The structure will not increase or change site run off.
The entire vehicle and equipment storage area was designed to reduce run off through smart storm
water management systems which are all in place to protect the surrounding areas. The area is flat so
therewill be no grading or earthwork required.
The location of the structure will be tucked into the corner of the existing equipment storage yard. The
existing Public Works building was designed to shield the view of the yard from adjacent properties or
roadways. The fabric structure is shielded by a very tall earthen berm with evergreen trees planted
along the top. The fabric structure will not be taller than the berm or the trees. The site was designed to
hide the equipment yard from views around the site. The west side of the yard is screened by a shorter
hill and an open wetland that extends quite a way to a wooded area. No other structures are visible
from our property that would be affected by our new structure.
The structure will be used to store equipment that is needed in case of emergency. This equipment
includes emergency generators, emergency sirens, trailers and other materials that are needed by the
emergency management team. No automobiles or trucks will be stored inside the structure. No fuel
tanks or other types of combustible fuels will be stored in the structure.
wo eure t11w6.2
795106 NO IIID sLSA¢
AICHEN/1AI AILtAI11E
Malan
11111111.11/1
SElialff Eee
M«a .a��r
1111 .=EMILMN r s
ay pasta` o
�w N ro MR 1N
s.YY r
M Yr fRa 4glY r
ma tAPlt•
L1v .rM
�YII ~'Yw wsY r+I
Y. If I MF
O NOM NM . IN.
O1N00�l N w. L 1w1
Mom. th
bawl A
Mow At
BL IR
At..l
HENNEPIN COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITY
MEDINA, MN
BD PA 01AQ NO. 2 MOM
66166'1. AN9 MN. 41E NgpC
11C1.1 0031 7211
IVCC7{ J79aw
ISSUED FOR
CONSTRUCTION
071.00 FOR N0t11NCN7+
REIASE0 0 11011 7.�NOV . I, 1996
C
71
Design —Legacy Building Solutions
LE(7.= y
;tfs�
BUILDING SO LUTIONS
Hennepin County Emergency Management
h0
•
0
50' -0"0U7--TO-OUT OF SILT
D
I
ANCHOR BOLT PLAN
!! NOT FUR EMS TRUCTIEN !!
This doc umen t is pre limina ry an d for bidding purposes only.
Dia= 5/8"
O
1 1/2"
See Plan
DETAIL A
Dia= 1/2"
90
1 1/2"
EW
Dia= 5/8"
co
0 0
'Po
fP
0
1 1/2"
S ee Plan
DETAIL B
1 1/2"
EW
Dia= 3/4"
DETAIL C
O
w
8"
4 1/2"
2 3/4'
3"
2 3/4"
SW
Dia= 3/4 "
0
2 3/ 4"
See Pla n
DETAIL D
4 1/2"
2 3/4"
5W
2 1/4"
L
0
0
3"
2 1/2"
EW/
SW
1 1/2"
See Plan
DETAIL E
H NUT FOR CONSTRUCTION H
This docu me nt is pre lim ina ry a nd fo r bidding pu rpo ses only,
NOTES F OR RE ACTI ONS
Building rea ctions a re based on
the following b uildi ng d at a:
Width (ft)
Length (Ft) = 50 .0
Eo vc H eight (13) = 13.5/ 13 .5
R oof Sl ope (rise/12 ) v. 6.0/6.0
Dead L oad (psf ) 2.0
Collater al L oad (psf )= 1 .0
R oof Live L oad(ppsf '• 20.0
Frame Li ve L ood(psf )= 12 .0
Snow L oad (psf ) = 23 .9
Wi nd Sp eed (mph ) - 105.0
Wi nd Code = MNBC 15 (IBC
Exosure
Closed/Op en = C
Importance Wind = 1 .0 0
Imp orta nce S eismic - 1.00
S eismic Zon e = A
Seismic Coeff (Fo'S s) = 0,08
ID Description
1 De ad +Coll at eral +S no w+Slide-Snow
2 0 .6 0ead +0.6WI nd_Lefti
3 0.60ead+0 .6Wind_Rightl
4 0 .6D ead4-0.6Wind_La nglL
5 0.60 ead +0.6Wind_Long2L
6 0.6Dead +0.6Wind_Right2+0.6WI nd_S uctio n
7 0.6Dead +0 .6Wi nd-Pr essure+0 .6Wind_Lo ng2t
5 De nd+ 0.6Wl nd- Rlght2+0 .6WInd_Su cti on
ANCHOR BOLT SUMMARY
Din
Qty Locate (in) Type
0 8 Jamb 1/2" A307
0 16 E ndw all 5/8" 4307
W 32 Fram e 3/4" A307
Total Bend
L en L en Pr o]
(i n) (in) (in)
3.75
.3 .75
1.50
1 .50
3 .00 2.50
FRAME LINES:1 2 .1 4
12)
H
V
COLUMR LI NE
RIGID FRAME.: MAXI MU M REACTIONS, ANCHOR BOLTS, & B ASE PLATES
C olumn_Re acti ons(k ) -
Frm Col Load Hmax V Lood Hmin V B olt(in) Bos e- Plal e(in) Gro ut
Li ne Lin e Id H Vmax Id H Vmin Qty Di e
Width L ength ihick (In)
1• A 1 5 .0 13.4 2 -2.1 -2.0 4 0.750 8.000 12.50 0 .375 0.0
4 0 .5 -3.7
1' D 3 2 .1 -2.0 1 -5.0 13 .4 4 0.750 8.000 12.50 0 .375 0.0
1 -5 .0 13 .4 5 -0.5 -3 .7
1• Fram e li nes:1 2 3 4
BUILDING BRACING REACTI ONS
f Reoctio ns(k ) P anel Sh ear
---W all C ol --Wind-- --Seismic (lb/ft)
L ac Li ne Lin e H orz V ert Horz Vert Wind 5els Note
L-EW1 __ .._-� .- (h).
F_SW 0 1, 2 2.0 1,4 0 .1 0.1
3,4 2.0 1.4 0.1 0 .1
R-EW 4 (h)
0_SW A 4,3 2.0 1.4 0 .1 0.1
2,1 2.0 1.4 0 .1 0 .1
(h)Rigid fr am e at endw all
RIGID FRAME: BASIC COLUMN REACTIONS (8 )
Li neLin e Horiz
D ea Horiz Vertd-- Hor iolla Vertl H od .- -Li ve
Horiz Ve rt -H .. F ne Vert11 _ Herizd 11-
Vert
1• A 0.6 1 .8 0.2 0.5 2.1 5.3 4.2 11.1 -4.2 -5.1 1 .6 -4.f
1• D •- 0. 6 1.8 --0 .2 0.5 -2.1 5 .3 -4.2 11.1 -1,8 - 4,7 a.2 --5.1
Fram e C olum n --Wind Left2--Wind_Right2-- --Wi nd_L oegl--Wind_L ong7-Seiam k_Lell S ehmle_Pigh1
Lin e Li ne H oriz Vert H oriz Vert Horiz V ert Horiz Vert Hord V est 4-lari r V ert
1• A -4.1 -1.9 1 .7 -1 .0 0.3 -8 .0 -1.2 -7.6 = 0.1 0. 0 0,1 0.0
1' D -1 .7 -.1.0 4.1 -1.9 1 .2 -7.6 -0,3 -8 .0 9 .D 0.0 17:0 0.0
Fr am e C olum n-S el smlc_L ong FIUNB_SL_L- F1UN0_SL_R-
Li ne Lin e Horiz Vert Horiz V ert Horiz Vert
1• 8 0 .0 -0.1 3.8 1 0. 0 3.8 6.2
1' D 0.0-0 .1 -3 .8 6 .2 -3.8 10.0
1' Fram e li nes: 1 2 3 4
END WALI. COLUMN:BASIC COLUMN REACTIONS (k )
Wi nd Wi nd
Frm C ol D ead Pr ess Se ct
Line Line V ert H arz Horz
1 B 0 .2 -3.4 3 .7
1 C 0.2
4 C 0.3 -3.4 3.7
4 B 0.3 -3.4 3 .7
ENDWALL COLUMNSIAXIMU M RE ACTIO NS, ANCHOR BOLTS, & BASE PLATES
c olumn_Reacnon s(k )
Frm C ol L oad Hmax V L oad Hmi n V B olt(in)
Li ne Line Id H Vm ox Id H Vmin Sty Di a
B ose_Pl at e( ' ) Gr out
Width Length Thick (in)
1 B 6 2.2 0.1 7 --2.0 0 .1 4 0.625 5. 00 0 8.00 0 0.250 0,0
8 2.2 0.2
1 C 6 2 .2 0.1 7 -2.0 0.1 4 0 .625 5 .000 10 .00 0.250 0.0
8 2 .2 0 .2
4 C 6 2.2 0.2 7 -2.0 0.2 4 0 .625 5 .000 8.000 0.250 0.0
8 2.2 0.3
4 B 6 2.2 0.2 7 -2.0 0.2 4 0.625 5 .000 8.000 0.250 0.0
8 2.2 0.3
H NET FOR CONSTRUCTION !!
This documen t Is pre limina ry a nd -F or kpIdding purpos es only,
Q6"
12
1'-F..
17'-6"
50'-0"OUT-TO-OUT OF STEEL
O O
L.
[.
]
CL -1 L I
IE�C-2
7 -1" 14'-17` .E'L
Di -4-2
0
17-6 "
r._
ENDWALL FRAMING: FRAME LINE 1
1! NET f ❑R CONSTRUCTION !
J
1
B OLT TABLE
FRAME LINE 1
LOCATION
Col um ns/Raf
6" 12
16
Thic NOCu rnent is }I^ lirninary cAnd For k-Oc•'in0 lurprs es nnly,
I QUAN TYPE DIA LENGTH
I 4 A325 3/4" 2"
CONNECTI ON PLATE
FRAME LINE 1
0 I MARK/PART
1 b1
2 b2
3 b3
4 b4
5 b5
6 b6
7 b7
BOLT TABLE
FRAME LINE 4
12
1
50'-0"OUT-T0.OUT OF STEEL
`J
L
15'-0"
17'-5'
LOCATION
C of um ns7Rof
6'
12
C .-4.
/�
i , G-7 tea_
ENDWALL FRAM ING: FRAM E LINE 4
a
J
H N❑T F❑R CONSTRUCTION !I
This doc umen t Is ❑E''e no, y and f'nr kidding purpo ses only
. QUAN TYPE DIA LENGTH
4 A325 3/4" 2"
CONNECTION PLATES
FR AME LINE 4
L71D MARK/PART
1 68
2 b6
3 b9
4 610
5 b7
12
50'-O" OUT -TO -OUT OF STEEL
CLEAR + /-
1'-4 1/
� -U
RIGID FRAME ELEVATION: FRAME LINE 1 2
3
4
H N❑T R❑R C❑NSTRUCTI❑N H
This doc ument is pre limina ry an d fo r bidding purposes only,
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday November 14, 2017 4
5
1. Call to Order: Chairperson White called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Aaron Amic, Dino DesLauriers, Kerby 8
Nester, Robin Reid, and Janet White. 9
10
Absent: Planning Commissioner Kim Murrin. 11
12
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke. 13
14
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 15
16
No comments made. 17
18
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19
20
Anderson reported that the Council met the previous week to consider the renewal of the 21
Hamel Fire Department contract extension request and a zoning amendment for the Lunski 22
storm sewer taxing district. He stated that the Council also considered the Woodlake Landfill 23
zoning, noting that members of the MPCA were present at the meeting. He stated that the 24
Council approved the actions as recommended by the Planning Commission. He stated that 25
the Council also met in worksession the previous week to conduct a thorough review of the 26
draft Comprehensive Plan. 27
28
4. Planning Department Report 29
30
Finke provided an update. 31
32
5. Public Hearing – David and Katherine Crosby – 2404 Hamel Road – 33
Amendment of Existing Conditional Use Permit and Lot Combination 34
35
Finke stated that the Commission approved the CUP for a second house with the lot being 70 36
acres in size. He stated that since that time the applicant has purchased additional land that 37
they would like to combine into one lot. He stated that staff would recommend approval of 38
the amendment to the CUP as presented. 39
40
White opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. 41
42
No comments. 43
44
White closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. 45
46
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the amendment to 47
the Conditional Use Permit for David and Katherine Crosby for a second principal dwelling 48
at 2402 Hamel Road, based upon the findings noted in the staff report and subject to the 49
conditions recommended by staff. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Murrin) 50
51
2
6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Regarding Small 52
Wireless Facilities within the Right-of-Way 53
54
Finke provided an update on recent changes in the law regarding small wireless facilities 55
within the public right-of-way. He reviewed the proposed elements of the ordinance that 56
would regulate these activities. 57
58
Albers asked for clarification on which actions would require a CUP and which actions 59
would simply require a permit. 60
61
DesLauriers asked if the data usage has to be justified. 62
63
Finke stated that his understanding was that the push to get the law through was for the Super 64
Bowl, so that companies could install in Minneapolis and St. Paul without barriers from those 65
cities in order to cover the data usage that will be in demand during that time. He noted that 66
following that, there may be a push to compete with cable companies to provide broadband 67
service to residential customers. He suggested additional language that could minimize the 68
visual impact. 69
70
White opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. 71
72
No comments. 73
74
White closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. 75
76
Motion by Reid, seconded by DesLauriers, to recommend approval of the ordinance 77
regarding small wireless facilities within the public right-of-way. Motion carries 78
unanimously. (Absent: Murrin) 79
80
7. 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Review of Jurisdictional Comments 81
82
Finke reviewed the draft Comprehensive Plan process, noting that the comments received 83
from the jurisdictional review were summarized within the staff report. He provided 84
additional details on the comments received from Loretto and Corcoran and their desire to see 85
additional development in Medina to help justify their desire for the Metropolitan Council to 86
extend regional infrastructure to Loretto. 87
88
Amic asked if Medina will see additional requests for development, if Medina is the piece 89
that locks out Corcoran. 90
91
Finke stated that area of Medina was slated for development in 2025; but in the draft version 92
of the plan, the development would be pushed out even further. He summarized the other 93
comments received from other municipalities that were not as substantial. He identified the 94
potential long-term sewer service area of the City, noting that the plan exceeds the period of 95
the draft Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Steering Committee expressed an interest in 96
trying to reduce the footprint for the long-term. He noted that there was a comment from the 97
Metropolitan Council that was inconsistent with their regional treatment plan. He provided 98
additional details on the long-term sewer service area plans for the City, noting that the 99
Metropolitan Council agreed that 867 net areas could be removed from the long-term sewer 100
service area within the City. He stated that the Metropolitan Council has stated that it is not 101
efficient to serve parcels over ten acres in size with City sewer and water. He stated that staff 102
believes that if the City works with the Metropolitan Council in the future when the 103
3
Metropolitan Council works on their next regional comprehensive plan that could help to 104
further reduce the City’s long-term sewer service area. 105
106
Finke reviewed comments received in regard to the staging of the high-density residential 107
housing. He stated that it will be identified as an inconsistency with the housing plan of the 108
Metropolitan Council. He stated that the staging plan allows flexibility in that it allows 109
development up to two years prior to the identified staging. He stated that if the staging was 110
identified as 2020, those properties would be able to develop in 2018, but noted that the 111
development process may be more complicated because of the higher standards that would 112
need to be met. He stated that changing the staging would be consistent with the 113
Metropolitan Council’s plan. He stated that the Steering Committee supported changing the 114
staging to be consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s plan if Met Council staff continued 115
to take the position that allowing development as soon as the plan was in effect was a 116
concern. He stated that an estimate of uses for Uptown Hamel was requested and therefore 117
provided. He stated that staff made a number of small changes to the plan that came up 118
during the past six months and provided a brief summary. He stated that the Commission had 119
an opportunity to make a final review of the plan before it goes to the Council this week to 120
consider formal submission to the Metropolitan Council. He reviewed the timeline from that 121
point, noting that the Metropolitan Council will have 120 days to review if they consider the 122
plan to be complete. He stated that if the Metropolitan Council approves of the plan, the 123
Council could then adopt the plan to make it effective. 124
125
Reid asked for input on the Mark of Excellence applications. 126
127
Finke stated that the Council tabled the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the existing 128
Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it did not seem that the application was moving towards 129
approval and therefore the applicant asked for the item to be tabled. He stated that the 130
Steering Committee reevaluated the land use designation for the property and left the south 131
portion of the property business and reaffirmed the 2025 staging for the northern portion of 132
property. 133
134
DesLauriers stated that he agrees with not pushing forward on the staging for the high-135
density. He asked for additional information on the ratios for Uptown Hamel. 136
137
Finke stated that there is no need for regulatory impacts, but is simply a projection of 40 138
percent residential use, 40 percent commercial use, and 20 percent office use. 139
140
DesLauriers referenced that staging in the area of Mohawk and Chippewa does jump out on 141
the map, as there is a parcel guided for development in 2025, while the parcels around that 142
are all guided for 2018 or 2020. 143
144
Finke explained how the staging was determined. He noted that some of those surrounding 145
parcels are commercial and therefore available for development. He stated that because of 146
the reduction in the residential projections from the Metropolitan Council, there is less land 147
available for residential and therefore less parcels to be divided into the different staging 148
areas. He explained how the Metropolitan Council develops its system statements and then 149
allocates those projections between cities. 150
151
White noted that while the City can plan for high-density housing and affordable housing, 152
that does not mean that a developer will come forward wanting to develop that type of 153
product. 154
155
4
Albers asked if there will be additional requirements for high-density housing in the next 156
system statements for the City, specifically whether the requirement would start fresh or 157
whether additional units would be added to the units already required. 158
159
Finke stated that it would be difficult to guess how the Metropolitan Council would move 160
forward. He stated that in this cycle there did not seem to be a value on whether you met the 161
previous requirement or failure to meet that estimate. He noted that the health of the 162
economy and job market have a bigger impact on the system statements. 163
164
Reid complimented the staff for the amount of work that they have contributed to this 165
process, along with the Steering Committee. She stated that the plan is carefully thought out 166
and everyone did a great job. 167
168
Motion by Reid, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the 2040 Comprehensive 169
Plan as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Murrin) 170
171
8. Approval of the October 10, 2017 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 172
173 Motion by Amic, seconded by Reid, to approve the October 10, 2017, Planning 174
Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Murrin) 175
176
9. Council Meeting Schedule 177
178
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting Thursday, November 16, 2017, and Finke 179
volunteered to provide an update on tonight’s meeting. 180
181
10. Adjourn 182
183
Motion by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Motion 184
carried unanimously. 185