HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-08-2016 POSTED IN CITY HALL March 4, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2016
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. Approval of Draft Minutes for January 12, 2016 Planning Commission
meeting.
6. Clydesdale Market Place, LLC – Amendment to Planned Unit
Development at 345 Clydesdale Trail to replace existing monument sign
(PID #12-118-23-24-0026 and 12-118-23-13-0036).
7. Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code regarding exterior
building materials and architectural standards in the Uptown Hamel-1
and Uptown Hamel-2 Zoning Districts.
8. Wealshire of Medina – Site Plan Review for construction of 150-
resident memory care facility – NW Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Road
9. Update on Comprehensive Plan Update Process
10. Council Meeting Schedule
11. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 March 2, 2016
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: February 25, 2016
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates March 2, 2016 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Enclave at Brockton 6th Addition – Lennar has requested final plat approval for the final phase of
the Enclave project. Staff is reviewing the submitted material and will present to the City Council at
the March 2 meeting.
B) Tomann Preserve Lot Line Rearrangment – The City of Medina has requested approval of a lot line
rearrangement between Tomann Park Preserve and property at 4003 Apache Road to add a wooded
portion of property into the Preserve. The City Council will review at the March 2 meeting.
C) Deer Hill Preserve (Stonegate Farms) Final Plat – Property Resources Development Company has
requested final plat approval for the Deer Hill Preserve CD-PUD subdivision, formerly known as
Stonegate Farms. The first phase of the development is proposed to include 10 lots in the northeast
corner of the site, near the current termination of Deerhill Road. Staff is conducting a preliminary
review and will present to the City Council when complete.
D) Clydesdale Marketplace Sign PUD Amendment – northeast corner of Highway 55 and Clydesdale
Trail. Clydesdale Marketplace LLC has requested an amendment to the Medina Clydesdale
Marketplace PUD in order to allow construction of a monument sign at the northeast corner of
Highway 55 and Clydesdale Trail. This sign would replace the sign on top of the large retaining
wall and provide additional space for more tenants. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will
present to the Planning Commission when complete, potentially at the March 8 meeting.
E) Kal Point Site Plan Review, PUD Amendment – 340 Clydesdale Trail – Kalyan Vempaty has
requested an amendment to the Medina Clydesdale Marketplace PUD and a Site Plan Review to
construct a commercial building containing a restaurant and upstairs office space on the final lot
within Clydesdale Marketplace. Staff is conducting a preliminary review to determine if the
application is complete for review. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the
December 8 meeting and recommended approval. The Council reviewed on January 5 and directed
staff to prepare resolution of approval, which will be presented after the applicant secures approvals
for the proposed shared parking.
F) Wealshire LLC Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan Review – Wealshire, LLC has
requested a site plan review for construction of a 173,000 sf memory care facility. The request also
includes a rezoning from RR-UR to Business Park and an Interim Use Permit to permit continued
agricultural use of the portion of the property not proposed to be developed. The Met Council has
also approved of the previous Comp Plan amendment. The Planning Commission reviewed the
rezoning, site plan review and interim use permit at the February 10 meeting and unanimously
recommended approval. The City Council reviewed at the May 19 meeting and directed staff to
prepare approval documents. The applicant has subsequently changed their proposed site plan which
was presented to the Planning Commission and Council. The applicant is working on finalizing
construction plans.
G) Hamel Brewery Site Plan Review and CUP – 22 Hamel Road – 22 Hamel Road LLC has requested
a site plan review for construction of a brew pub with food service. The applicant has also requested
A CUP for an outdoor seating area. A Public Hearing was held at the January 12 Planning
Commission meeting, following which the Commission recommended approval. The City Council
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 March 2, 2016
City Council Meeting
adopted a resolution of approval at the February 16 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant on
the conditions of approval before construction.
H) Bradford Creek Plat and ROW Vacation – 2872 Ardmore Ave. – Susan Prodahl, Carl Henderson,
and Paul Henderson have requested plat approval in order to re-plat eight substandard lots in
Independence Beach into two buildable lots. The applicants have also requested that the City vacate
a portion of right-of-way to the north of the subject site in which there is currently no roadway
improvements. Staff is conducting a preliminary review to determine if the application is complete
for review. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the December 8 meeting and
recommended approval. The Council adopted resolutions of approval on January 19. Staff will
work with the applicant on the conditions of approval.
I) Medina Mini-Storage Site Plan Review; Text Amendment – 4790 Rolling Hills Road – Highway 55
Rental Portable Storage, LLC has requested a site plan review to construct three additional mini-
storage buildings. The applicant has also requested an amendment to the City’s zoning code to
allow fiber-cement (“Hardiboard”) exterior building materials in the Rural Business and Rural
Commercial Holding districts. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the October 13
meeting. The Commission supported fiber cement materials (lap siding only) in the RBH and RCH
districts and recommended approval of the site plan review. The City Council adopted the ordinance
on November 4 and adopted a resolution of approval on the site plan on November 17. Staff will
work with applicant on the conditions of approval before construction begins.
J) St. Peter and Paul Cemetery and Hamel Place –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) Stonegate Conservation Design Subdivision, Woods of Medina, Capital Knoll– These preliminary
plats have been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat application
L) Hamel Haven, Buehler subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is
working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before construction begins.
M) Wright-Hennepin Solar Panels – WH has requested a conditional use permit for the installation of a
solar garden approximately an acre in area at their substation on Willow Drive, south of Highway
55. The Council adopted a resolution of approval at the June 16 meeting. Staff will work with the
applicant to meet the conditions of approval before construction.
Other Projects
A) Comprehensive Plan – the Steering Committee held a meeting on February 24 which was continued
to February 26. The Steering Committee is considering a conceptual land use plan which will be
analyzed by the City Engineer for infrastructure implications in an iterative process. Staff also met
with the Elm Creek and Pioneer-Sarah watersheds to discuss expectations for the City’s surface
water management plan. Staff is hopeful that this meeting will help refine the scope of the plan to
reduce the cost of completion.
B) City Hall Lower Level Improvements – staff met with the architect and mechanical engineers to
discuss HVAC options for the lower level as well as air conditioning improvements for the Council
Chambers.
C) 45 Highway 55 Annexation – the City Council approved the annexation of the property at the
February 16 meeting. Staff routed the application to the Office of Administrative Hearings for
approval.
D) MSA Revision – staff routed the request to add Sioux Drive as a Municipal State Aid route to
MnDOT and will prepare a resolution for Council consideration upon receiving MnDOT
authorization.
E) Internet Availability Discussions – staff met with a vendor about possibilities to provide improved
wireless internet options in the City in order to provide access to owners at a reasonable cost.
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday, January 12, 2016 4
5
1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson V. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Chris Barry, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, 8
Robin Reid, Victoria Reid, and Janet White. 9
10
Absent: None. 11
12
Also Present: Planning Consultant Nate Sparks and City Planner Dusty Finke 13
14
2. Introduction of Commission Members 15
16
V. Reid acknowledged and welcomed the two new members of the Commission. 17
18
Barry introduced himself and provided some background information on his experience. 19
20
R. Reid introduced herself noting that she has previously served on the Planning and Park 21
Commissions. 22
23
3. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 24
25
There were none. 26
27
4. Update from City Council Proceedings 28
29
Anderson provided an update on the recent activity of the City Council noting that the 30
Council agreed with the recommendations of the Planning Commission on the Bradford 31
Creek Addition, the PUD amendment for Kal Point, the rezoning of the Just for Kix parcel, 32
and denial of the sign setback variance request from Woodland Hill Preserve. 33
34
5. Planning Department Report 35
36
Finke provided an update. 37
38
White referenced the Vickerman right-of-way request and asked for additional information. 39
40
Finke provided a brief summary of the request and noted that if you did not know better, you 41
would already think the right-of-way was part of their property. 42
43
6. Approval of Meeting Minutes. 44
45
December 8, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting 46
47
Motion by White, seconded by Foote, to approve the December 8, 2015, Planning 48
Commission minutes with noted changes. Motion carries unanimously. 49
50
December 15, 2015 Concurrent City Council and Planning Commission Meeting 51
2
Motion by Albers, seconded by White, to approve the December 15, 2015, concurrent City 52
Council and Planning Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. 53
54
7. Hamel Brewery – 22 Hamel Road – Site Plan Review and Conditional Use 55
Permit for Outdoor Dining and Drinking Area – Public Hearing 56
57
Finke presented a request from Hamel Brewing, 22 Hamel Road, for two land use requests 58
which would allow for the development of the property as proposed; a Site Plan review to 59
allow the building to be constructed as proposed and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the 60
outdoor seating area. He stated that the site is currently vacant with trees around the 61
perimeter of the site. He noted that the Commission previously reviewed an application for 62
an eight-unit apartment building on the site, but advised that the one year time period has 63
lapsed and that particular application is no longer valid. He displayed the proposed Site Plan, 64
noting that the deck would be set back five feet from the property line as required. He stated 65
that the building is proposed to be 5,300 square feet and the main level would contain the bar 66
and food service area, while the basement would contain the brewery operation and storage 67
and the mezzanine level would have additional seating for the bar operations. He stated that 68
there are 24 parking spaces proposed to the north and reviewed the setback requirements in 69
the Uptown Hamel zoning district noting that the dimensional standards of the district are met 70
by the request. He reviewed the proposed building materials, noting that the hardy board 71
siding proposed is not currently included in the list of allowable materials. He stated that the 72
material was added as an allowed material in another similar zoning area and stated that staff 73
is not opposed to adding hardy board siding as an allowed material in the Uptown Hamel 74
zoning district, as the material would complement nearby residential development. He 75
continued to review the required and proposed design elements. He reviewed the parking 76
requirements, noting a total requirement of 50 spaces, with perhaps a few additional spaces 77
for food pickup. He stated that flexibility is provided in the Uptown Hamel zoning district, 78
noting that available on-street parking can be considered, and advised that there are 25 on-79
street parking stalls available. He referenced the City owned parking lot which is 80
approximately 1,000 feet from this site. He stated that perhaps there would be another 81
adjacent use with an off-peak use that could provide shared parking, such as an office or the 82
chiropractor clinic. He noted that the outdoor seating area would only be available during the 83
warmer weather months of the year, therefore during the colder months only 34 stalls would 84
be needed as the outdoor seats could be removed from the calculation. He reviewed the 85
proposed tree removal and tree replacement that would be required; noting that the applicant 86
is requesting a waiver from the ordinance. He stated that the outdoor seating area requires a 87
CUP, which allows the City to place conditions on that approval. He stated that the privacy 88
fence would help to minimize the impact of the outdoor seating on the adjacent properties. 89
90
Murrin referenced the aerial view of the property and pointed out an area north of Hamel 91
Road, asking if there is an easement that would allow for an extension of Brockton Lane, 92
noting that could realign the driveway and possibly provide an area for additional parking. 93
94
Finke stated that the property is owned by the adjacent property owner to the east, noting that 95
there is not right-of-way in that location for extension of public services. He stated that it 96
could be possible for the parcel of property to be purchased, but noted that is not what is 97
proposed in this application. 98
99
Albers referenced the deck and confirmed the distance between the deck and neighboring 100
commercial property which is currently listed for sale. 101
102
Foote referenced the City owned parking lot, which was mentioned and confirmed that is a 103
parking lot for the park. 104
3
Barry asked if the privacy wall was taken into account for the window calculations. 105
106
Finke stated that just the building itself is taken into account for those calculations. 107
108
V. Reid asked if suggestions were made to the applicant regarding shared parking 109
arrangements. 110
111
Finke stated that staff recommended that the applicant look into that and noted that the 112
applicant will follow up to determine options. 113
114
V. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. 115
116
Jordan Lockner, ATSR Architects, stated that there were some comments in the report 117
regarding granting of the right-of-way easement and noted that they may want to have a title 118
search done before granting that. He referenced the storm sewer line and the easement 119
requested for that, stating that they would be open to that. He also noted that an 120
accommodation to the owner of the property may be needed if the City desired to expand the 121
line in the future, as that could impact the building/site. 122
123
Foote asked if the applicant has any similar businesses to this in the metro area, noting that 124
perhaps an accurate parking estimate could be made using the other business as a model. 125
126
Todd Murley stated that they do not have other businesses like this. He noted that most of the 127
tap rooms that he has visited in the metro are in urban areas and therefore on-street parking is 128
used. He did not think it would be too far to walk from the City lot. 129
130
V. Reid stated that she was concerned with the overhang and porch requirement, noting that 131
the City has worked hard to establish a friendly look in the Uptown Hamel area. She stated 132
that while she likes the barn type look of the building she would like to see a more friendly 133
view and expanded porch for the front side of the building. 134
135
Joe Anton, ATSR Architects, stated that a number of versions were reviewed for the front 136
façade of the building, specifically the porch and overhang. He stated that a much larger 137
porch and overhang had been proposed, but because of the service of alcohol the owner of the 138
business does not want to encourage patrons to hang out on the front porch area. He stated 139
that they are attempting to create a point of intrigue on the front façade with the glazing. 140
141
V. Reid referenced the fence for the patio, noting that staff recommends a more transparent 142
fence, and asked if the applicant would be open to replacing the solid fence with a more 143
transparent fence. 144
145
Anton stated that he would be open to that, but would have to speak with the business owner. 146
147
Lockner stated that the applicant’s view is to keep the activity within the site and screen 148
unwanted activity from the adjacent users. He noted that the benefit was not to the outdoor 149
seating area, but the adjacent uses and therefore they would be open to a more transparent 150
fence. 151
152
Barry asked why there are two garage doors proposed for the loading dock area. 153
154
Lockner stated that the door to east would allow equipment and forklifts to come in at grade 155
and enter the basement level, while there is a three-foot difference in the loading dock. 156
4
V. Reid referenced the issue of the front porch and asked if drinking would be a concern for 157
staff. 158
159
Finke stated that he did not believe it would naturally draw people to hang out in that area 160
and noted that it would require policing by the applicant. 161
162
V. Reid noted that the intent for Uptown Hamel is to make it feel older like a welcoming 163
neighborhood and that is why she would like to see the porch. 164
165
Lockner stated that they designed the site to keep people off the street, but noted that it 166
sounds like the City would actually desire the opposite. He stated that they did have a design 167
that had a larger porch and is more what V. Reid is speaking of, but they had thought that the 168
City would probably want to keep the patrons on the site more and that is why they made the 169
design choices they did. 170
171
Albers asked if the awning should be made larger while the steps remain the same with the 172
larger deck on the other side. 173
174
Finke stated that the theory would be that you would be walking on the sidewalk and walk 175
underneath the awnings but noted that the grade for this property provides separation that 176
would not make that possible in this location. 177
178
White asked how far along the landscaping plan is and whether it is known as to if there is 179
room for additional tree replacement on site. 180
181
Lockner stated that the site is pretty tight and they tucked in as many trees as they could, 182
therefore there is not much additional space to plant more trees without impacting the site and 183
plowing capability. He stated that native plant material and grasses would be used on the site 184
in order to blend in with the trees on neighboring sites. He stated that the site will have a 185
natural feel because of the heavy trees that exist on neighboring sites. 186
187
V. Reid referenced the issue of parking. 188
189
Murley stated that in regard to parking they attempted to fit as many spaces on the site as they 190
could and are hoping to work with the City in order to make this work. He confirmed that 191
they have not approached other businesses, such as the VFW. He stated that they are in the 192
process of possibly obtaining additional land as well that could assist with parking, but noted 193
that would not be complete by the time the application moves forward. He stated that for the 194
majority of the time he did not think the business would need the amount of parking required 195
by the City. He stated that hopefully they will be able to work with the VFW to obtain shared 196
parking, but did not want that to be a sticking point for the approval of the application. 197
198
Finke stated that this would be similar to the Kal Point application the Commission recently 199
reviewed in regard to parking and shared parking. He noted that the layout of the site, 200
placing the building towards the front to fit into the Uptown Hamel model, forgoes additional 201
parking that could be gained by placing the building to the rear of the site. 202
203
White asked the anticipated hours of the business. 204
205
Murley replied with the anticipated hours of the tap room, noting that the business would be 206
closed on Mondays and Tuesdays. He stated that the brew room would be open on Monday 207
and Tuesday with a minimum number of employees working, maybe two or three. 208
209
5
Murrin asked and received the response that there would be four business partners investing 210
in the business. She asked if the business partners would be doing the brewing themselves. 211
212
Murley stated that he will start out brewing with one assistant. 213
214
Murrin asked if the partners would be running the restaurant themselves or whether they 215
would hire someone to run the restaurant. 216
217
Dave Unitan stated that they are still working on the details. 218
219
Murley stated that they would be in charge of the tap room and the kitchen would be its own 220
entity that would supply the food. He stated that their desire would be to have a general 221
manager that would manage the restaurant and tap room. 222
223
Murrin asked if any of the partners have experience in restaurants or tap rooms or whether 224
this is a new venture. 225
226
Murley stated that he grew up working in the food service industry, but does not have 227
experience running a restaurant. He stated that he does have experience in home brewing, but 228
would also be bringing in another person with experience. 229
230
Jim Tiller, Treasurer of Arnt Hamel property, stated that his primary interest is drainage. He 231
stated that in the material he has seen it appears there is a stormwater improvement or pipe to 232
the east and north. He stated that the site slopes to the north and asked where the storm pipes 233
exit. 234
235
Finke stated that the stormwater system is part of the Uptown Hamel system and provided 236
additional details. He stated that the parking lot would be guttered and would enter the 237
system to flow into Rainwater Park. 238
239
Tiller stated that there is a lot of water that flows downhill currently across the tracks and 240
onto the Arnt property. He noted that his concern is that additional water would flow down 241
onto the property. 242
243
Finke stated that in most instances this will be an improvement in that area, but noted in 244
heavy rain events water could still flow down the hill. 245
246
Tiller asked where snow storage would occur, noting that if placed on the railroad property 247
that melting snow would melt downhill onto the Arnt property. 248
249
Lockner stated that they would obviously push it where they can, but noted that if it becomes 250
a problem they could stockpile it in the back parking stalls or haul it off site. He stated that it 251
could be put on the greenspace between the deck and south parking stalls. 252
253
Dave Truax stated that he is interested in beer and has been listening to the discussion. He 254
stated that he lives near the site and walks by quite often. He used the example of Loretto 255
that has businesses right on the road that do not have a lot of parking and seem to work well. 256
257
R. Reid noted similar types of businesses in neighboring cities that have limited parking and 258
use on street parking. She stated that they do want that type of activity in Uptown Hamel, but 259
was unsure whether a lot of on street parking is the best. 260
261
6
Murley stated that the applicant should talk to the VFW as that is the easiest location to share 262
parking and that is most likely where patrons would park if needed. 263
264
V. Reid closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. 265
266
V. Reid reviewed the issues that the Commission should discuss and come to consensus on. 267
She asked the applicant how important the hardy board siding would be for use. 268
269
Anton stated that the hardy board siding is less susceptible to rot and therefore was attractive. 270
He stated that if it was necessary to go without that material, the applicant would be able to 271
pick a different product. 272
273
V. Reid stated that the Commission has recently allowed the material for use in another 274
zoning district. 275
276
Murrin asked if there was a reason the Commission wants to approve the material for the 277
district as a whole or just for the one application. 278
279
V. Reid stated that she would just prefer to allow the material within the Uptown Hamel 280
district. She confirmed the consensus of the Commission. 281
282
Finke stated that the Commission would need to hold a public hearing for that action at a 283
future meeting. 284
285
Murrin asked if the material could be approved for this application to allow the applicant to 286
continue to move forward. 287
288
Finke explained that the approval could be conditioned on either an approval of the amended 289
ordinance or amending the exterior materials to those allowed in the district. 290
291
Murrin stated that she would like a more transparent design for the fence that allows people 292
to see into the patio seating area. She referenced the stairs on the front and was unsure the 293
purpose. 294
295
Anton provided additional details on the purpose for the stairs, noting that will assist in 296
mitigating the grade of the site. 297
298
V. Reid stated that there should be large railings for safety. 299
300
Murrin referenced the layout of the stairs and suggested they be laid out in another direction. 301
302
Anton explained that there would not be sufficient space for that layout. He provided 303
additional information on the loading dock area and its impact on the height of the building. 304
He provided additional information on the design of the loading dock. 305
306
V. Reid stated that there are comments regarding the mass in the front, but no solutions have 307
been presented from the Commission. She agreed that it would help to reduce the mass by 308
making the side fence more transparent. She asked how the railing would look. 309
310
Lockner replied that the railing would be on both sides of the steps and would follow the 311
steps. 312
313
7
Murrin asked if the building could be set back further on the site to put the steps in the front 314
rather than on the side. 315
316
Anton replied that there are setbacks for the back and additional parking stalls would be lost 317
as well. He noted that the intent of Uptown Hamel is to have buildings in the front of the site. 318
319
White stated that one of the conditions could state that the patio on the west has railings 320
similar to the patio as shown on the south elevation. 321
322
V. Reid asked if it would be possible to have more of an overhang on the front. 323
324
Barry replied that the windows would need to be smaller. 325
326
Murrin stated that she likes the bigger windows. She stated that perhaps the porch could be 327
made to look like a walkout but not really a walkout, noting that there is another one of that 328
example in Uptown Hamel, similar to a balcony that is just for show. 329
330
Anton replied that would be more costly. He stated that he could mention that to the office to 331
determine if a reasonable compromise could be found, such as extending the overhang over 332
the stairway to soften that aspect. 333
334
V. Reid stated that the extended overhang would meet the requirements of the district. She 335
also confirmed that the applicant would be comfortable with the more transparent fence. 336
337
R. Reid referenced the wall in front of the stairs and asked what kind of material that would 338
be, specifically whether it would be natural stone or manufactured stone. 339
340
Lockner stated that the material would be stone. He stated that the architect would like to use 341
a material similar to the stone band around the base of the building. He stated that most 342
likely the stone would go around the base of the stoop similar to the base of the building. 343
344
R. Reid stated that she does not like manufactured stone and simply wanted to ensure that the 345
material would not look manufactured or like a retaining wall. 346
347
Anton replied that natural stone would most likely be used as well. 348
349
Finke provided additional details on the tree preservation ordinance and waiver requirements. 350
351
White stated that her first thought is that a number of properties have requested the waiver 352
and the Commission has not granted the waiver request and instead required offsite planting; 353
therefore, she would not support the waiver. 354
355
Finke stated that waivers have been issued in the past, using the Fields of Medina 356
development as an example. He noted that is a different type of development and does not 357
set precedent. 358
359
Murrin asked if the applicant is requesting a waiver in order to not pay the offsite planting 360
fees. 361
362
Finke stated that is not technically a waiver, as that could be done without a waiver. 363
364
Murrin agreed that there would not be an area to plant the trees on this site. 365
366
8
V. Reid stated that this is the type of business the City wants and asked if the Commission 367
wanted to grant a partial waiver. 368
369
Foote stated that he would support a partial waiver, as the applicant will be preserving the 370
Black Walnut Trees on the site. 371
372
R. Reid stated that perhaps Uptown Hamel should be looked at differently, as the City does 373
want higher density and trees will need to be removed that cannot be replanted on the site. 374
She stated that residential development is different because of the available space for trees. 375
376
Murrin stated that it would still be good to collect the funds and plant trees elsewhere in the 377
City to keep the City green. She stated that she would support a 50 percent waiver and still 378
collect funds to plant additional trees. 379
380
R. Reid stated that her only concern with parking would be the proximity to Inn Kahoots, 381
which may also use some of the on street parking. 382
383
V. Reid stated that she is not a fan of more parking than needed as she does not like to see 384
empty parking lots. She stated that they may be able to ease into the parking now, but as the 385
business becomes more popular more parking may be needed. She stated that a shared 386
parking arrangement for an additional ten spaces would be preferred. She stated that in the 387
summer people can walk and utilize the City lots. 388
389
Foote stated that directional signage could be posted directing patrons to the appropriate 390
spots, such as the City owned lots. 391
392
Murrin stated that she would support a shared parking arrangement as well and would also 393
support the agreement only covering the ten additional spots. 394
395
V. Reid asked how busy Inn Kahoots is on the weekends. 396
397
Marilyn Larson, Inn Kahoots, stated that her business is busy and the lot is full on the 398
weekends and for events. She stated that some people will always prefer to park on the street. 399
She stated that if people want to go the business they will find somewhere to park. She stated 400
that she is not worried about patrons taking parking spaces that might otherwise be used by 401
her patrons. 402
403
Finke stated that staff did review the other similar businesses in neighboring cities, with 404
businesses close to the street and little parking. He stated that ultimately staff discussed this 405
issue and came down to the bigger concern of the negative impacts to other business owners. 406
407
Murrin stated that perhaps more than ten stalls should be included in the shared parking 408
agreement because of the possibility that snow storage may occur on the back stalls. 409
410
White stated that she disagrees that a larger number of stalls would be required. She stated 411
that if people are going to go to the business they will find a spot to park. She believed that 412
the Commission should follow a similar path as the Kal Point application, noting that if 413
parking in neighboring lots becomes a problem the applicant shall install signage directing 414
patrons to available parking stalls. She stated parking spaces cannot be created where they do 415
not exist. 416
417
9
R. Reid stated that people will walk, and noted that she and her husband often walk when 418
visiting businesses in this type of development and have no issue with it. She stated that the 419
area needs this type of development and she would not require a parking agreement. 420
Finke stated that perhaps additional signage could be posted alerting of the City owned lots as 421
well as increasing the visibility of those lots. 422
423
V. Reid agreed that this is a good business which she wants to encourage, but wanted to 424
ensure that this would not set the business up for parking issues in the future. She stated that 425
she is encouraged by the fact that Inn Kahoots does not have issues with parking. 426
427
Murrin referenced the hardy board siding and wanted to ensure that the siding is installed per 428
manufacturer’s specifications. 429
430
V. Reid stated that would be discussed further at the public hearing for that item. 431
432
Murrin asked if staff believed additional windows should be installed. 433
434
Finke stated that the applicant has done what they can from the point of staff and it would be 435
hard to add more windows without redesigning the building or putting windows into the 436
loading dock area. 437
438
Motion by Murrin, seconded by R. Reid, to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review 439
and Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Dining and Drinking Area for Hamel Brewery at 22 440
Hamel Road, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report, modified as follows: 441
442
1. Change the condition related to exterior building materials so that approval is 443
contingent either on an amendment to the Code or to plans being updated with 444
materials that meet the Code; 445
2. Add a condition that plans be updated to extend the overhang on the front of the 446
building further to the west; 447
3. Add a condition that plans be updated so that the fence on the south of the outdoor 448
seating area is more transparent; 449
4. Add a condition stating that approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining an 450
agreement with another property owner to use a minimum of ten parking stalls; 451
5. Add a condition requiring 50 percent of the replacement trees to be provided on-site, 452
or through a contribution to the environmental fund. 453
454
Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Foote, to amend the motion to delete the condition related 455
to shared parking. Motion approved 6-1 (Murrin opposed). 456
457
Motion by Foote, seconded by White, to amend the motion to delete the condition related to 458
tree replacement, in order to grant the tree replacement waiver requested by the applicant. 459
Motion approved 6-1 (Murrin opposed). 460
461
The amended motion carries unanimously. 462
463
V. Reid briefly recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. 464
465
V. Reid reconvened the meeting at 9:03 p.m. 466
467
8. Election of 2016 Planning Commission Chair and Vice-Chair 468
469
Finke opened nominations for the position of Chair for 2016. 470
10
471
R. Reid nominated V. Reid as Chair for 2016. There were no other nominations. V. Reid 472
was elected as Chair upon unanimous consent. 473
Finke opened the nominations for Vice Chair for 2016. 474
475
V. Reid nominated White as Vice Chair. There were no other nominations. White was 476
elected as Vice Chair upon unanimous consent. 477
478
9. Update on Comprehensive Plan Update Process 479
480
Finke stated that information was provided in the packet from the last meeting of the Steering 481
Committee and advised that the Commission can discuss the vision and the goals that were 482
mentioned in order to provide feedback. 483
484
Murrin referenced the list of household forecasts and asked why Stonegate is not included. 485
486
Finke stated that development is not finalized yet and will also be rural, which is not included 487
in the forecast, as it is not in the sewer area of the City. 488
489
Finke left the meeting. 490
491
V. Reid stated that there have been several meetings of the Steering Committee. She stated 492
that Commissioners can sign up to receive updates through the City website. 493
494
Barry noted that he did study up on the Comprehensive Plan in order to be more informed 495
before joining the Commission. 496
497
V. Reid stated that a vision statement and community goals have bene developed in draft 498
format and strategies would be developed next. 499
500
White stated that there were not really any substantial changes to the vision statement. 501
502
V. Reid noted that there were other changes suggested that were not added. 503
504
White referenced the wording of the statement. She stated that Cousineau also had some 505
good suggestions and wordsmithing that was not included. She noted that rural character 506
could be interpreted differently by other people and stated that perhaps that should be more 507
defined. 508
509
Foote stated that vision statements are all well and good and at some point it needs to be well 510
enough. 511
512
White stated that she was surprised that the comments made were not included. 513
514
Albers stated that the comments made at the group meeting in December were not reflected 515
by the vision statement. He explained that the vision statement can be amended throughout 516
the process as the goals and strategies are more developed. 517
518
R. Reid stated that she does not like the first sentence and believed that there could be a better 519
way to say that. 520
521
V. Reid noted that R. Reid could put a proposal on ‘my sidewalk.’ 522
523
11
Murrin stated that the statement is overly simplified. 524
525
R. Reid believed that there would be a better way to say that. 526
Murrin stated that the statement could say that Medina is one city that is trying to work 527
together to be integrated and working together to meet city-wide goals. She stated that the 528
last sentence is one very long run-on. 529
530
V. Reid confirmed the consensus of the Commission that the vision statement needs 531
wordsmithing. She referenced the goals, which she believed are much improved. 532
533
White agreed that the goals are improved. 534
535
Murrin suggested using an alternate word for investments in the education goal. 536
537
Albers stated that he would skip over the schools goal, as the City does not have control over 538
the School District. 539
540
V. Reid stated that the City does though, because they make the decision on where 541
development occurs. 542
543
Murrin stated that utilities should also be considered in planning and should be mentioned in 544
the goals. She referenced the goal regarding events serving the entire community and noted 545
that it would be difficult to find an event appropriate for the entire community. 546
547
R. Reid stated that the intent would be that the events are open to the entire community and 548
acknowledged that the entire community would most likely not choose to attend. 549
550
V. Reid stated that there is a north south divide and the attempt would be to connect the two. 551
552
Murrin provided some wordsmithing ideas for the goal statement. 553
554
Albers suggested that the Commission wordsmith their suggestions and put them on ‘my 555
sidewalk.’ He moved onto the idea of housing and diversified housing. The Commission 556
further discussed the housing and density requirements. 557
558
V. Reid stated that she would prefer to spread out the higher density areas so that it is not all 559
crammed into one place, noting that others on the Committee had the opposite opinion 560
wanting to keep the high density housing all in one area. 561
562
Murrin stated that if only the development in the area with sewer is counted, that would force 563
development along Highway 55 rather than spread outside of that area. 564
565
Foote stated that developers can petition the Metropolitan Council to move the MUSA. 566
567
R. Reid stated that the Metropolitan Council builds the main lines for the sewer and then the 568
developer would pay to connect to their sites being developed. 569
570
The Commission further discussed future development possibilities and what could occur in 571
the future regarding development. 572
573
White stated that the Steering Committee appears to be doing a great job in attempting to 574
spread development. 575
576
12
V. Reid stated that she would not be opposed to a three story residential building in Uptown 577
Hamel, as that could be an appropriate setting. 578
579
Murrin noted that Plymouth will be adding a large development on the other side of Brockton 580
and if high density residential is added in Uptown Hamel that would change the character of 581
that area. 582
583
V. Reid stated that specific ideas or wordsmithing could be uploaded to the ‘my sidewalk’ 584
portion of the City website. 585
586
10. Council Meeting Schedule 587
588
Albers volunteered to represent the Commission at the next Council meeting. 589
590
11. Adjourn 591
592
Motion by Murrin, seconded by Foote, to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Motion carried 593
unanimously. 594
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 1 March 8, 2016
Uptown Hamel Building Materials Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: March 3, 2016
MEETING: March 8, 2016 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment: Uptown Hamel building materials – Public Hearing
Background
While reviewing the Hamel Brewing site plan, the Planning Commission and City Council
discussed their request to utilize fiber-cement lap siding (commonly referred to with the
Hardiboard brand name) on the building.
The Uptown Hamel (UH) zoning districts, unlike most of the City’s commercial zoning districts,
allow wood as an exterior building material. This is consistent with the objective of integrating
new development with the historic Hamel town center. Fiber-cement lap siding is similar in
appearance to wood, but generally has lower on-going maintenance requirements and may offer
additional longevity.
During discussions in connection with Hamel Brewing, it appeared that the Planning
Commission and City Council supported adding fiber-cement lap siding as a permitted exterior
building material in the Uptown Hamel area. The City also added fiber-cement lap siding as a
permitted exterior building material in the Rural Commercial Holding districts last year.
Ordinance Amendment
The attached ordinance is very straight forward, merely adding fiber-cement lap siding as a
permitted material in the Uptown Hamel area. The language can be found on page 3 of the
ordinance.
Potential Action
If the Planning Commission supports adding fiber-cement lap siding as a permitted building
material in the Uptown Hamel area, the following motion would be in order:
Move to recommend adoption of the ordinance regarding exterior building materials in
the Uptown Hamel zoning districts.
Attachment
1. Draft ordinance
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS IN THE
UPTOWN HAMEL ZONING DISTRICTS;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 834.1.07 Subd. 1(g) of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is
amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 834.1.07. Design and Development Standards. Design and developments standards
are established for this district to achieve an attractive, liveable and viable town center consistent
with the purpose of this district and to assure that land uses, buildings and functions are
compatible within the district. Additional standards may be identified during the review and
approval process, due to the particular characteristics of each site, the proposed development of
the site, and the uses on adjacent property. The plans and proposed use of a property shall
conform to the design and development standards prior to approval of a construction or land use
permit. The applicant or owner shall supply plans and data necessary to demonstrate such
conformance.
Subd. 1. Buildings - Architectural Standards:
(a) General. All new buildings, structures, expansions, remodeling, and development
plans shall conform to these design standards and be compatible and
complementary to the buildings proposed to be retained downtown. Elements of
compatibility include, but are not limited to: building height, form, mass and
bulk, fenestration, exterior material appearance, color, exterior material durability,
detailing, setbacks, landscaping, exterior lighting and site improvements.
(b) Building - Street. Building design shall make the street visually more interesting,
functionally more enjoyable and useful and economically more viable. Buildings,
porches, and plaza spaces shall be designed to bring the building and its activity
more in contact with the street.
(c) New Building and Major Expansions. New buildings and major expansions of
existing buildings should be compatible with adjacent and nearby buildings.
Buildings shall be designed and oriented consistent with this ordinance, proposed
use of the property, uses on adjacent properties and nearby amenities. Buildings
shall be designed and oriented so as not to detract from one another or vistas.
Views from the residential areas should be protected. Where these views exist,
partial loss of the view may be an unintended but justified result when
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
development takes place consistent with other provisions of this ordinance.
Entrances shall be placed for easy access from the street. Utilities shall be placed
underground and meters and transformers shall be hidden from view.
(d) Integrate – Coordinate. New buildings, structures, remodeling and expansion shall be
integrated and coordinated with development on abutting property. Elements for
integration and coordination include, but are not limited to, sidewalk and
pedestrian ways and their continuity; site lighting; site access; building
orientation; building entrances; and utilitarian functions which are to be totally
screened from view or which are contained within the building and which include
loading, trash, and mechanical and electrical equipment.
(e) Porches (Overhangs – Canopies – Arcades). Porches, which overhang into walks, are
one of Uptown Hamel’s trademarks. These features should be preserved,
enhanced, and improved. New commercial structures on Hamel Road and Sioux
Drive are expected to be designed and constructed with these features. New
porches, arcades or similar structures which overhang or extend into the right-of-
way may be allowed by the city through approval of the plan, but must be
supported in a way which does not obstruct the traveled portion of the right-of-
way. The property owner may be required to obtain a license from the city or to
execute an agreement with the city governing its use, maintenance and other
factors.
Porch/Overhang/Canopy/Arcade Design criteria/guidelines are as follows:
i. Height: If projecting into the public right-of-way, a pedestrian clearance of
at least eight feet and a height consistent with the architecture of the
building shall be provided.
ii. Width: At least six feet.
iii. Columns: Shall be traditional in design and made from durable materials
such as finished anodized metal, wrought iron or wood in a color
compatible with the building. Wood columns must be cedar or redwood
lumber, at least six inches by six inches, which may be stained or painted.
Columns are not allowed to be affixed to the ground within the right-of-
way.
iv. Roof: Shall be durable and meet the wind and snow loads required by
code. Slopes should be to the street and away from pedestrians.
(f) Height. New building heights shall not exceed three stories, except as described
herein. Along all street frontages and park property lines, building heights
exceeding two stories shall have the third story set back at least six feet from the
front line of the building, and the fourth story shall be set back 12 feet from the
front line of the building. Basement levels shall not be considered a story, so long
as more than 50 percent of the basement structure is below grade at the average of
all areas around the building. Total building height shall not exceed 50 feet,
except structures such as belfries, chimneys, flues, monuments, cupolas and
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
domes which do not contain living space, are permitted, provided they are not
higher than 10 feet above the height of the building. In the case that the distance
from grade to the eave (or top corner of a flat roof) of a structure exceeds 30 feet,
additional fire suppression apparatuses may be required by the city. A fourth
story may be allowed if ten percent of residential units are dedicated affordable
housing units.
(g) Materials. Exterior materials shall consist of one or more of the following: natural
brick, stucco, stone, wood, and glass, or commercial grade fiber cement lap siding
installed per manufacturer’s specifications. Treated or anodized metal may be used
for trim.
(h) Roofs. Roofs may be pitched, mansard, flat, or planted “green roofs.” Flat roofs shall
have an architectural treatment (a “cap”) of an acceptable design. On pitched
roofs, materials and colors must be compatible with the district. All roof run-off
must drain onto the property that creates the run-off. Rain gardens are
encouraged.
(i) Equipment. Equipment shall not be mounted on the roof unless it can be
demonstrated that there is no other reasonable alternative. If allowed, rooftop
equipment shall be screened using the architectural elements and material from
the building, provided they are consistent with these design standards.
(j) Fenestration – Modulation. Windows and openings shall be generous, especially on
the street side, and their placement and design shall express the pedestrian-
friendly, livability of the town center. To this end, third stories or higher must be
tiered back from the street a minimum of six feet per story. Buildings shall be
modulated a minimum of once per 40 feet in frontage to avoid long, monotonous
building walls. This modulation may include varying building height, building
setback, or building materials/design. At the street level, at least 30 percent of the
façade should be glass in windows and doors.
(k) Landscaping and Setbacks. At least 5 percent of the site shall be plaza or landscaped.
Landscaping shall consist of a combination of: decorative deciduous and
coniferous trees, shrubs, flowers, ground covers and rain gardens. Landscaped
areas and pockets shall be delineated and separated by any of the following:
curbing, decorative fencing, decorative walls, planter boxes, containers, “cut outs”
in a plaza, or by similar means. An approved plaza in which at least 20 percent of
the plaza is open to the ground allowing full penetration of water into the ground
can be counted to meet this requirement. All that part of the site not taken up by
buildings, walks, or plazas or approved parking and loading shall be landscaped.
Grades and drainage must meet city requirements.
(l) Fences and Walls. Fences and walls shall be decorative using a traditional design and
may be used to delineate and separate spaces and to protect topographic change.
Fence material shall be wrought iron, anodized steel or aluminum, or wood.
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
Walls shall be made of brick, concrete brick, decorative block, cedar or redwood
or stucco on concrete. Fences and walls shall not be located to prevent desirable
access through areas.
(m) Utilities. All utilities serving the buildings and facilities shall be underground.
(n) Recycling and Trash Facilities. All materials and facilities for recycling and trash
shall be kept inside the principal buildings or within a completely screened area.
If a completely screened area is used it must 1) be architecturally compatible with
and made of the same or better material used on the principal building, and 2)
meet the architectural and development standards of the district.
(o) Hazardous Materials. Provisions for storage of hazardous materials must be included
in the building and be identified on the plans.
(p) Other Materials. All storage of other materials shall be stored inside the building in a
suitable area in accordance with the approved plan.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this ____ day of _______________, 2016.
______________________________
Bob Mitchell, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Published in the Crow River News on the ____day of __________________, 2016.
Wealshire of Medina Page 1 of 8 March 8, 2016
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: March 4, 2016
MEETING: March 8, 2016 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Wealshire of Medina – Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit –
PID 03-118-23-24-0003
Background
The Wealshire of Bloomington proposes to construct a 163,000 s.f. one-story (w/ partial lower
level), 150-resident memory care facility at the northwest corner of Mohawk Drive and
Chippewa Road. The applicant currently operates a facility in Bloomington and previously
operated the Wealstead of Rogers.
The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the applicants request last year and was
never officially approved. The applicant has subsequently updated the plans mid-way through
the process in order to cut costs from the project. As such, staff has reviewed the updated plans
for consistency with relevant codes.
The primary changes from the earlier version reviewed by the Commission and Council is to
eliminate the underground parking from the plans and to provide additional surface parking. The
applicant determined that the underground parking was cost prohibitive. This change also
adjusted the orientation of the loading dock slightly, although it would still be in approximately
the same location and located behind an 8-10 foot tall retaining wall and berm.
The applicant is still determining how much of the total project to include in the first phase.
They are currently deciding between 79,000 square feet or 115,000 s.f. of the total structure
shown on the site plan. This would include either 56 or 84 resident rooms. The applicant
intends to begin construction on Phase I this summer. Staff recommends reviewing the entire
project so that the applicant would not need to seek a future Site Plan Review approval to
construct a future phase if requested within a reasonable amount of time.
Various land use approvals would be necessary to permit the construction proposed by the
applicant:
1) Rezoning the property from its current Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR)
designation to the Business Park district.
2) Site Plan Review for construction of a new commercial building.
3) Interim Use Permit – the applicant has requested an Interim Use Permit to permit the
continued agricultural use of the southern 1/3 of the site until future development.
The City approved of a Comprehensive Plan amendment at the end of 2014 to re-guide the
subject site General Business (rather than Low Density Residential) to permit the proposed use.
This amendment has been approved by the Metropolitan Council, but it is not in effect until this
proposed development is carried through with.
Wealshire of Medina Page 2 of 8 March 8, 2016
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
The subject site is predominantly tilled farm land. A wetland bisects the property west-to-east
into a northern portion and a southern portion. The applicant proposes to develop the northern
portion of the site. The site slopes from the northwest corner down to the wetland in the center
of the site.
Polaris’s corporate headquarters is located to the south of the site and remaining surrounding
uses are rural residential. However, property to the west, north, and east is all planned for future
low-density residential development. An aerial of the site can be found below.
Rezoning
The applicant requests a rezoning to the Business Park (BP) zoning district. This rezoning was
contemplated and expected when the City reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The
BP district is the less-intensive district which is meant to implement the General Business land
use of the Comprehensive Plan. The other choice would be the Business district, which permits
more intensive uses, taller structures, and requires smaller setbacks.
According to Section 832.1.01, “the purpose of the BP district is to provide an attractive, high
quality business park primarily for office, high quality manufacturing and assembly, and non-
Wealshire of Medina Page 3 of 8 March 8, 2016
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
retail uses in developments which provide a harmonious transition to residential development
and neighborhoods by: 1) conducting all business activities and essentially all storage inside
buildings, 2) consisting of low profile, high quality and attractive buildings which blend in with
the environment, 3) providing open space, quality landscaping and berming which achieve a
park-like setting; 4) including berming and buffering of parking, loading docks and other similar
functions; and 5) protecting and enhancing the natural environment.”
According to Section 825.35, “the [City] may adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and
zoning map. Such amendments shall not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a
means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or
changes in conditions in the City.” Staff believes the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
new land use designation of General Business. The BP zoning district is intended to apply to
General Business property adjacent to residential uses as a transition to more intensive zoning
districts.
Site Plan Review
Section 825.55 requires Site Plan Review approval prior to issuance of permits for new
commercial developments to determine whether it is consistent with relevant requirements. The
following review of the Site Plan is based on the requirements of the BP district, contingent upon
the City adopting the Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezoning discussed above.
Proposed Use
The applicant proposes a memory care facility, specializing in dementia and Alzheimer’s care.
Such facilities are licensed as housing with services establishments (assisted living facilities).
“Nursing homes and assisted living facilities” are a permitted use in the BP district.
Setbacks/Lot Dimensions
The following table summarizes the requirements of the BP district and the proposed
construction. The proposed construction appears to meet all of the dimensional standards,
provided a 70% opaque landscaping screen is provided along the north (residential zoning
district).
Business Park Requirement Proposed
Minimum Lot Area 3 acres 17.59 acres
Minimum Lot Width 200 feet 1413 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet 2608 feet
Minimum Front Yard Setback 50 feet 90 feet
Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback 30 feet 137 feet
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 83 feet
Street Setback 50 feet 90 feet
Setback from Residential 100 feet; or 75 feet (w/ 70%
opaque landscaping)
83 feet (north)
137 feet (west)
Minimum Parking Setbacks
Front Yard
Rear/Interior Side Yards
Residential
35 feet
20 feet
100 ft;or 60 (w/ 70% opaque)
35 feet
60 feet
60 feet
Maximum Impervious Surface 70% 26.8%
Wealshire of Medina Page 4 of 8 March 8, 2016
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
Wetlands/Floodplain
There is a wetland basin in the center of the property which includes “fingers” to the northwest,
northeast, southwest and southeast. The applicant proposes 1.39 acres of wetland impacts,
including filling the northwestern and northeastern “fingers” and additional impacts along the
northern edge of the larger basin. The applicant will need to obtain approval of a wetland
replacement plan for the proposed wetland impacts. The applicant proposes to mitigate the
wetland impacts on site by expanding the larger wetland to the south of the proposed building.
This mitigation will provide 2:1 replacement, resulting in a larger basin upon completion.
The wetlands are identified as Manage 2, requiring an upland buffer with an average width of 25
feet. Staff recommends a condition that these buffers be installed around the entire wetland,
including on the south side of the larger wetland. The applicant will also need to provide
required easements and signage.
FEMA floodplain maps show no floodplains on the subject property.
Stormwater/LID
The applicant proposes a series of biofiltration basins throughout the property in order to meet
City volume control and water quality standards. A pond to the southwest of the building will
meet rate control standards. The applicant is proposing to utilize curb cuts and swales to convey
much of the parking lot runoff to the stormwater system rather than pipes.
Building Materials
The applicant proposes stucco exterior building materials with some stone and brick accents.
The roof materials are proposed to be asphalt shingles. These building materials provide more of
a residential feel than a commercial building (although obviously the scale is substantially
greater). The BP district requires a minimum of 20% brick, stone or stucco and the plan meets
the standard.
Building Modulation
The BP zoning code states that “buildings shall be designed to avoid long, monotonous building
walls. Modulation may include varying building height, building setback, or building
materials/design. Generally, a particular building elevation shall include a minimum of one
element of modulation per 100 feet of horizontal length, or portion thereof.” The proposed
building design includes various modulation techniques including varying roof pitches, varying
building setbacks, courtyards, and some material differentiation.
Building Fenestration
The BP code states that “building elevations which face a public street shall include generous
window coverage. Alternative architectural elements may be approved by the city when
windows are not practical.” Staff believes the eastern elevation includes generous window
coverage.
Multi-sided Architecture
The BP code requires that “any rear or side building elevation which faces a public street or a
residential zoning district shall include design and architectural elements of a quality generally
Wealshire of Medina Page 5 of 8 March 8, 2016
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
associated with a front façade.” The western façade, which faces residential property, appears to
have fewer accents than the north and east facades.
Tree Preservation/Landscaping
The subject property is farmed and includes almost no trees. A single tree is proposed to be
removed, and it is not significant and not regulated by the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Landscaping requirements are based upon the lot perimeter, including:
1) 1 overstory tree per 50 feet of perimeter
2) 1 ornamental tree per 100 feet of perimeter
3) 1 shrub per 30 feet of perimeter
The minimum code requirement would be 59 overstory trees, 30 ornamental trees, and 99 shrubs.
In addition to this landscaping, the site requires a vegetative screen to the north in order to allow
a 75 foot setback.
Staff has calculated that the northern vegetative screen is short by at least 9 plantings from
meeting the 70% opacity requirement. In addition, the overall landscaping plan requires an
addition 8 overstory trees, 22 ornamental trees, and 21 shrubs. Staff recommends this as a
condition of approval.
The applicant does not show landscaping for Phase II. Staff recommends that the landscaping
plan be updated so that it can be approved. In this way, the City can grant Site Plan Review
approval for Phase II if construction occurs within a few years. If the applicant proposes similar
plantings around the south of the building as the rest of the site, it would appear that the plan
would exceed the landscaping requirements, with the exception of the northern landscape screen.
The applicant also does not propose to landscape the southern 3 acres of the site, south of the
wetland. The applicant proposes for landscaping to occur in this location when construction is
proposed. Staff believes this is reasonable, and recommends a condition noting this requirement.
The area will need to be seeded and established in order to prevent erosion.
A minimum of 8% of the total land area of parking lots and loading dock areas are required to
landscaped. The site plan provides 8.00% of this area as landscaping.
Transportation
The applicant proposes to access the facility with a driveway approximately 1100 feet north of
Chippewa Road, 650 feet south of Pawnee Road. The applicant also shows a fire lane
connection on the south of the building. The proposed parking lot connects with this fire lane in
order to allow an exit from this parking lot. Staff recommends that this fire lane be signed
“Emergency Access Only” from Mohawk, so as to encourage all traffic to enter at the main
entrance, where there will potentially be future turn lanes. The City Engineer does not believe
the expected traffic generation from the site would trigger the need for turn lane improvements at
this time. However, assuming traffic from Phase II and traffic increases with surrounding future
development, the development of this site will likely require turn lanes or bypass lanes, likely in
connection with improvements for development to the east. Rather than require the
Wealshire of Medina Page 6 of 8 March 8, 2016
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
improvements today, staff recommends a condition that the applicant enter into an agreement
with the City to potentially construct in the future.
Mohawk Drive is restricted to a right-in/right-out at Highway 55. Anyone desiring to go east
would first need to head west almost a mile. Police raised concerns related to this limitation.
The City plans for a future extension of Chippewa Road to Arrowhead Drive. Staff recommends
a condition that the developer enter into an agreement with the City related to contributing to the
future cost of the roadway. Staff estimates that the proposed development would contribute
approximately 6.25% of the future expected traffic which necessitates the improvement. This
percentage of the expected project cost would be approximately $71,920.
Off-Street Parking
The applicant proposes 103 parking spaces, located generally in front of the building. City
minimum parking standards do not list assisted living/nursing homes specifically. Code requires
1 stall per 2 beds for hospitals, 1 stall per 250 feet of office and requires that “uses not
specifically noted” provide parking “as determined by the City Council following review by the
Planning Commission.”
Using the hospital standard, minimum parking requirements would be 75 stalls (150 beds/2) + 1
stall per 250 s.f. of office. With the proposed parking of 103 stalls, administrative offices would
be limited to 7,000 square feet.
Staff believes the parking needs for an assisted living would likely be lower than a hospital.
Staffing may be comparable per bed, but expected visitation would be lower. The applicant
estimates approximately 175 employees, but only around 60 expected on the largest shift. This
would leave 43 stalls for guests and visitors. Staff believes the proposed 103 parking stalls
would support the proposal.
Sewer/Water
The applicant proposes to extend sewer and water infrastructure from the intersection of
Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Road to the northern property line. The applicant also proposes to
stub a watermain to the west in order to permit future looping.
Staff recommends a condition that the applicant provides adequate easements over all public
utilities, which may necessitate shifting the proposed monument sign.
The applicant has questioned the number of SAC units assigned to the building by the
Metropolitan Council and submitted water usage data from their Bloomington facility suggesting
lower usage by approximately 30%. Staff has suggested the possibility of an agreement with the
property owner which states that the City would collect a lower fee based on the suggested water
usage, but would allow the City to collect the higher fee if actual water usage is higher when the
facility begins operation.
Loading Docks
The applicant will accept deliveries in the underground parking area, which will serve as their
loading dock. The district limits the loading dock area to 10% of the building perimeter, and this
single dock is well below that threshold. Loading docks within 300 feet of residential property is
Wealshire of Medina Page 7 of 8 March 8, 2016
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
required to be separated from residential property by the building or a wing wall, unless the City
approves other alternatives for noise abatement and screening. In this case, the loading dock sits
behind a 10-foot tall retaining wall/berm from the east and a proposed 5 foot berm with
substantial landscaping from the north. Staff believes this is adequate, especially considering it
is a single loading dock.
Utilities/Mechanical Equipment/Trash and Recycling
All utilities are required to be underground. Transformers and mechanical equipment is required
to be screened with walls or opaque landscaping. The applicant proposes to place this equipment
in the area of the entrance to the underground parking/loading dock area, which will be screened
with walls.
Trash and recycling is required to be within the principal structure, within an accessory structure,
or within an enclosed area adjacent to the structure. The applicant proposes to store these in the
loading dock area which is acceptable.
Interim Use Permit
The applicant originally requested that the City consider an Interim Use Permit to allow
continued agricultural use of the property to the south of the wetland. The property is currently
farmed, and the applicant sought to to rent this portion of the site for agriculture until
redeveloped.
With the increased wetland impacts and required mitigation, staff does not believe the continued
agricultural use makes sense because the remaining area is only a few acres in size. Staff has
suggested that the applicant withdraw the request.
Review Criteria/Planning Commission Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review the requests in the following order: 1) Rezoning
from RR-UR to Business Park; 2) Site Plan Review.
Rezoning
A rezoning is a legislative decision on which the City has a great deal of discretion. As noted
above, a rezoning “shall not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to
reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in
conditions in the City.” The Planning Commission found the proposed rezoning is consistent
with the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and recommends approval.
Site Plan Review
A Site Plan Review is a quasi-judicial act on which the City has a relatively low level of
discretion. The purpose of the review is to ensure development is consistent with the standards
of the zoning ordinance and other City policy. The City may attach conditions with approval of
a Site Plan Review to ensure consistency with City requirements and to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare. The Planning Commission found that, subject to the conditions suggested
below, the proposal is consistent with City requirements and recommended approval.
Wealshire of Medina Page 8 of 8 March 8, 2016
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Interim Use Permit Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at their February 2015 meeting. The
Commission again reviewed an updated site plan at the September 2015 meeting. Following
discussion (minutes are attached), the Commission recommended approval. Staff would
recommend approval subject to the following conditions
1) The applicant shall construct the improvements as displayed on the plans received by the
City on 1/19/2016 and 3/3/2016, except as modified herein.
2) This approval shall be valid for one calendar year for Phase I and three calendar years for
Phase II. The applicant may request a permit to construct Phase II within this time frame
without obtaining Site Plan Review approval.
3) This approval is contingent upon approval of a wetland replacement plan for wetland
impacts.
4) The applicant shall grant an additional 3 feet of right-of-way to the City as well as
easements over all public utility improvements.
5) The applicant shall meet the recommendations of the City Engineer dated 2/9/2016.
6) The applicant shall update the landscaping plan to identify landscaping for Phase II
consistent with City requirements but would not be required to be installed until
construction of Phase II takes place.
7) Upland buffers shall be established fully around all wetland areas, including required
vegetation, signage and easements.
8) No tree planting has been required for the area south of the wetland. This area shall be
landscaped consistent with City requirements upon future development. Landscaping
plans shall identify proposed ground cover in this location.
9) In lieu of constructing improvements to Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Road to support
the proposed development, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City
related to proportionate contributions to future improvement projects.
10) The applicant shall obtain necessary approvals and permits from the Elm Creek
Watershed, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of
Health, and other relevant agencies.
11) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the site plan and other relevant documents.
Attachments
1) Exceprt from 2/10/2015 and 9/8/2015 Planning Commission minutes
2) City Engineer Comments dated 2/9/2016
3) List of Documents submitted
4) Applicant Narrative
5) Plans received by the City 1/19/2016 and 3/3/2016
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 2/10/2015 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Wealshire of Bloomington, LLC – Rezoning from Rural Residential-Urban
Reserve to Business Park, Interim Use Permit for Continued Agricultural Use on a Portion of the
Site, and Site Plan Review for an 150 Unit Memory Care Facility at the NW Corner of Mohawk
Drive and Chippewa Road
Finke stated that there are a number of land use requests tonight related to a memory care facility at
the northwest corner of Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Road. He stated that the plan within the report
includes both phase one and phase two. He stated that although the applicant is requesting to move
forward with phase one this year, staff is proposing to allow the approval process to stand for both
phases, as long as the plans do not change and both phases occur within a specific time. He reviewed
the three requests, which are before the Commission including a rezoning, Site Plan Review and
Interim Use Permit for the southern portion of the site. He explained that the City did submit an
amendment request to the Metropolitan Council to change the land use of the parcel and advised that
approval has been granted but a formal approval from the City Council would still be needed. He
reviewed the existing land use designations and future guiding for the adjacent properties. He
displayed an aerial photograph of the site. He provided additional information regarding the rezoning
of the property, noting that business park would be a less intensive option. He stated that staff
believes that the rezoning is consistent with the recent changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He
moved on to the Site Plan review, noting that a memory care facility would be an acceptable use
within the zoning district. He briefly highlighted the aspects of the Site Plan including building
materials and modulation, landscaping, and possible public improvements associated with Chippewa
Road and Mohawk Drive. He referenced the Interim Use Permit (IUP) requested for the southern
portion of the parcel, which would allow agricultural activities to continue. He stated that staff does
not oppose the IUP for the agricultural use of the southern portion of the property. He stated that staff
does recommend approval of the three requests subject to the conditions included in the staff report.
Williams questioned if a time limit would be put on the IUP.
Finke stated that option was discussed but noted that staff did not see a reason to do so.
The applicant had nothing further to add.
Reid opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m.
Finke stated that he had one written correspondence that will be added into the record.
Reid closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m.
Finke provided additional information on the calculations used to determine the necessary amount of
parking.
Williams questioned if the Commission should place a length of time for the IUP to continue.
Reid stated that the property is next to other agricultural land and did not see a problem with that
activity continuing.
Finke stated that if the property were to be subdivided, agricultural activity would be allowed within
the zoning district for the remaining property.
The applicant referenced the parking calculations. He explained that the same calculations cannot be
used for a memory care facility as is used for a hospital. He explained that dementia patients are not
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 2/10/2015 Meeting Minutes
2
driving vehicles and therefore do not require parking stalls. He stated that he would like to see a
different ratio used other than one stall to two tenants. He provided comparison information for their
site in Bloomington, which has 175 tenants and 75 parking stalls. He believed a ratio of one to three
for parking stalls would be more appropriate.
Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the request from Wealshire of
Bloomington, LLC, to rezone property from Rural Residential-Urban Reserve to Business Park; Site
Plan review; and Interim Use Permit for continued agricultural use on a portion of the site for the
property located at the northwest corner of Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Drive subject to the
recommendations of staff. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and White)
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/8/2015 Meeting Minutes
1
Wealshire of Medina – PID 03-118-23-24-0003 – Rezoning, Site Plan Review and Interim Use
Permit
Finke stated that the Commission previously reviewed a recommended for approval a request from
Wealshire of Medina. He stated that the applicant has slightly revised the application and therefore
he wanted the Commission to have a chance to review the updated Site Plan, which pushed the
facility further away from neighboring properties. He noted that the wetlands would be further
impacted but advised that the applicant is proposing to complete the mitigation onsite. He displayed
the updated Site Plan and advised that the western most building shifted to the east and south.
Murrin asked why the applicant is requesting less parking in the new plan.
Finke stated that there is less underground parking and more surface parking. He stated that the
building hardcover had been reduced by 10,000 square feet and therefore offsets that additional
surface parking space.
Nolan noted that the applicant is still well under the maximum hardcover.
Murrin asked why the building location was changed.
Finke believed it to be for internal operations.
White asked for additional information on the wetland mitigation.
Finke stated that the Wetland Conservation Act lays out various ways for a property owner to
mitigate, including the purchase of wetland credits from a wetland bank. He stated that the rate of
mitigation is two to one and provided additional information regarding onsite mitigation. He stated
that with the agricultural activities on the site the wetland would be higher quality.
Nolan referenced the additional wetland and asked if there would be any impact on the tax base as
you would be creating additional wetland on what could be buildable land.
Albers stated that the land is one parcel.
Finke stated that the impact would not be very significant as the City does not have a shortage of land
for business development.
Corey Wiskow, who spoke in representation of Wealshire, stated that he has been working with Finke
for the past two weeks on this update to the plan. He stated that he is available for questions.
Murrin asked why the building location is being changed.
Wiskow stated that there was a general idea of what the building should look like and how it should
function within the setbacks, noting that as they moved further along in the process there were some
tweaks made. He stated that the behavioral unit was moved in order to make some changes to the
inside of the building in order to function better for the residents of the building including the addition
of a “wow” factor for the residents which is an ice cream parlor. He stated that they also tucked the
building further in to move away from the neighboring parcels. He stated that even though the
building size has changed the same number of residents would be housed in the building. He stated
that they chose the property because of the wetlands and the view that provides to the residents which
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 9/8/2015 Meeting Minutes
2
is why they are choosing to do the additional mitigation onsite to further improve that area for the
residents to enjoy.
Murrin asked why additional surface parking is being proposed compared to the underground
parking, which is going to be reduced.
Wiskow explained that those changes are made during the planning process in order to accommodate
additional aspects such as storage and kitchen size. He stated that the new plan looks a bit better.
Murrin confirmed that the changes were made in order to be more efficient and fit the plans better
onto the site.
Wiskow stated that there is additional cost for the onsite mitigation but stated that they would rather
go through that process so that the residents are able to enjoy the feature rather than paying for credits
for wetland in another area.
Murrin asked if the intention is to have the same amount of wetland that exists now.
Wiskow stated that they will actually be increasing the size of the wetland because mitigation is done
at a rate of two to one.
Albers questioned how far out the applicant is looking for future additions.
Wiskow stated that it would depend upon the rate of occupancy. He stated that in Bloomington they
began with additional phases after the first year.
Finke provided additional information on the timing for the wetland mitigation.
Nolan stated that this was approved by the Commission in February and the decision would be
whether additional conditions or comments are needed.
Reid stated that she loves that the mitigation will occur onsite.
Motion by Reid, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the updated Site Plan for Wealshire
of Medina based on the previously approved conditions. Motion approved unanimously.
Building a legacy – your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763‐541‐4800
Fax: 763‐541‐1700
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:\02712‐310\Admin\Docs\2016‐01‐19 Submittal\_2016‐02‐09 Wealshire Site Plan Review.docx
February 9, 2016
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: City Project: Wealshire Development – Updated Site Plan Review
WSB Project No. 02712-310
Dear Dusty:
We have reviewed the updated site plan submittal dated January 19, 2016 for the Wealshire of
Medina development. The plans propose to construct improvements to serve a 150 resident dementia
and Alzheimer’s care facility located on the west side of Mohawk Drive north of Chippewa Road.
Documents provided for review include civil site and grading plans dated January 19, 2016,
stormwater management plan dated January 18, 2016, and response to City review comments dated
January 19, 2016.
The plans 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 & Utilities
1. Drainage and utility easements over all public sanitary sewer and watermain should be
provided to the City. The easement on the east side of the property does not encompass the
sanitary sewer. The easement on the north side of the property for the watermain needs to be
wider, at least 10’ wide to the south from the center of the watermain.
2. Provide verification that approval has been granted from the owner of the “Northwestern Bell
Utility Easement” or that it will be vacated in order to construct the project as proposed.
3. Show pavement replacement for all utility work within public ROW including the proposed
watermain on Chippewa Road. Show the areas (hatches) of pavement removal and new
pavement on the appropriate plans.
4. In our previous comment letter, WSB suggested that the applicant extend water and sewer
services stubs to serve future development on the east side of Mohawk Drive. Based on the
applicant’s response, the City may want to review the applicability to this project and the
extent that the applicant will be required to pay for this work.
5. Note the type of pipe proposed for storm sewer.
Wealshire Development – Updated Site Plan Review
February 9, 2016
Page 2
K:\02712-310\Admin\Docs\2016-01-19 Submittal\_2016-02-09 Wealshire Site Plan Review.docx
6. The City’s maximum hydrant spacing is 350-feet. The plans should be revised to meet this
requirement within the Wealshire property. The hydrants along Mohawk can be placed as
shown with any additional locations needed at high points.
7. Where watermain crossings of any sewer occur (including storm sewer), add note to maintain
18-inches of separation and the installation of 4-inches of insulation at each location.
8. Note location of wet well and valve vault on utility plans.
9. Sanitary castings within ditch area shall have sealed castings, Neenah R- 1755-G1 or
approved equal.
10. Provide engineered plans for all retaining walls that exceed 4-feet in height once the
contractor and manufacturer has been selected.
11. The property owner should dedicate Chippewa Road and Mohawk Drive right-of-way
sufficient to satisfy City requirements.
12. It appears the 33-foot half right-of-way the applicant is dedicating for Mohawk Drive is
adequate to maintain the existing rural section without a southbound right-turn lane into the
site or a northbound bypass lane.
13. At this time based on the information provided it does not appear a southbound right-turn
lane or a northbound bypass lane will be needed with Phase I of this development. However,
we recommend the need for turn/bypass lanes be monitored as this site fully develops. To
accommodate the turn lane and bypass, typically 80 feet of easement or right-of-way (40 feet
each side of centerline) is required; this assumes that no path or sidewalks are included
outside of the roadway surface. We recommend that the City work with the applicant to
obtain the necessary right-of-way necessary for these improvements and develop a petition
and waiver agreement to construct these improvements should conditions warrant in the
future.
Storm Sewer & Stormwater Management
1. Review by ECWMC is required
2. A copy of the NPDES Construction General Permit should be provided once it is
submitted.
3. Confirm whether the proposed filtration shelf on the west side of the pond is required to
meet the City’s filtration requirements. The close proximity to the pond and wetland will
likely result in the filter shelf remaining wet and not functioning in the long term.
4. The 100-year HWL should be contained within the west pond. The EOF is listed as
989.75 and the HWL is 989.87.
Wealshire Development – Updated Site Plan Review
February 9, 2016
Page 3
K:\02712-310\Admin\Docs\2016-01-19 Submittal\_2016-02-09 Wealshire Site Plan Review.docx
Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Jim Stremel. P.E.
Project: LR‐15‐150 – Wealshire Site Plan Review (& Rezoning, Interim Use Permit) The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 1/9/2015 1/9/2015 3 Application.pdf Y Fee 1/9/2015 1/9/2015 1 Fee.pdf Y $3000; Still have $2000 from CPA Mailing Labels 1/23/2015 1/22/2015 4 Mailing Labels Y Narrative 1/9/2015 1/9/2015 3 Narrative.pdf Y Plan Set 1/9/2015 1/9/2015 17 Plans.pdf Y 14 Civil; 3 Architectural Stormwater Calculations 1/9/2015 1/8/2015 69 Stormwater.pdf Y Geotechnical Report 1/9/2015 11/10/201450 Geotechnical.pdf Y Updated Plan Set 1/30/2015 1/29/2015 19 Plans Y Civil updated; 1/9 arch plans added Response Memo 1/29/2015 1/29/2015 5 Response Memo N Updated Site Plan 8/11/2015 8/8/2015 1 N Site Plan Only Updated Plat Set 11/18/201510/30/201517 Y Civil Only Stormwater Calcs‐updated 11/24/201511/20/201584 Y Updated Plans 1/19/2016 1/15/2016 99 Y 78 arch and 21 eng Stormwater Calcs‐updated 1/19/2016 1/18/2016 91 Y Updated Site Plan 3/3/2016 3/3/2016 1 N Site Plan Only Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Legal Comments 1/15/2015 1 Legal‐01‐15‐2015 Police Comments 1/16/2015 1 Police‐01‐15‐2015 Fire Marshal Comments 1/13/2015 1 MW‐01‐13‐2015 Fire Marshal Comments 12/4/2015 1 Engineer and Stormwater Comments 1/19/2015 4 Engineer‐01‐19‐2015 Engineer and Stormwater Comments 2/4/2015 4 Engineer‐02‐04‐2015 Engineer and Stormwater Comments 12/4/2015 3 Engineer‐12‐4‐2015
Engineer and Stormwater Comments 2/9/2016 3 Engineer‐2‐9‐2016 Elm Creek Waershed 12/9/2015 2 Elm Creek‐12‐9‐2015 Staff Comments‐Incomplete 1/21/2015 2 Incomplete‐Comments‐01‐21‐2015 Review Extension 1/26/2015 1 Extension Letter Planning Commission Report 2/4/2015 17 17 pages w/ attach (no plans) City Council Report 5/19/2015 8 37 pages w/ attachments Planning Commission Report 9/2/2015 3 28 pages w/ attachments City Council Report 9/10/2015 3 25 pages w/attachments Public Comments Document Date # of pages Electronic Excerpt from Planning Commission minutes 2/10/2015 2 Except from Planning Commission minutes 9/8/2015
January 9, 2015 (Initial Letter of October 15, 2014 has been revised)
TO: Medina Planning & Zoning Department
SUBJ: Amend future land use from low density residential to General Business
Property Identification Number: 03-118-23-24-0003
ECIEOVED
JAN - 9 2015
I am the President/CEO and founder of the Wealshire, LLC. Under my supervision, we specialize in the
construction and management of assisted living and dementia/Alzheimer's care facilities for seniors.
We built and opened the Wellstead of Rogers in 1999, which is a beautiful 162 resident dementia and
Alzheimer's care facility that also included 66 deluxe 1 and 2 bedroom apartments for senior general
assisted living and a spectacular 300 person banquet/conference center in Rogers, Minnesota. At 162
dementia beds, the Wellstead of Rogers was recognized as the largest senior dementia care facility in
the country. Of greater importance, In 2004/05 the Wellstead of Rogers earned the prestigious award
for being the best dementia/Alzheimer's care facility in the State of Minnesota, and within a year was
named the best senior dementia care facility in the United States. The Wellstead of Rogers is a
beautiful senior care campus which won numerous annual awards for stone and brick construction in
Minnesota. The exterior of the Wellstead of Rogers looks like a fine manicured country club, with
hundreds of trees, resident walking paths, a large gazebo and two water ponds with fountains. The
Wellstead of Rogers employed more than 300 well paid nursing, dietary and administrative type
employees. Against my wishes, the Wellstead of Rogers was sold in February of 2008 to a large senior
healthcare developer from Newton, MA.
Upon the sale of the Wellstead of Rogers, I immediately initiated research to purchase land to build
another spectacular senior dementia/Alzheimer's care facility in the Twin Cities, and in 2010 we broke
ground on the Wealshire of Bloomington, a beautiful 137 resident dementia/Alzheimer's senior care
facility in Bloomington, MN. The Wealshire of Bloomington was built in two phases, and the first phase
opened in August of 2011, which consisted of 56 senior dementia/Alzheimer's beds. Because of our
excellent reputation, this first phase of construction reached full resident occupancy in less than seven
(7) months. The second phase of construction, 81 resident beds, opened in September of 2013 and we
expect to reach full resident occupancy (137 resident beds) within the next ninety (90) days.
The Wealshire of Bloomington is rapidly becoming the "Gold Standard" for senior dementia/Alzheimer's
care in the State of Minnesota. The Wealshire more than replicates the beauty and attractiveness of the
Wellstead of Rogers. As you may have heard, the City of Bloomington is a very strict and demanding
community to build within, but they are extremely fair and reasonable. The Mayor of Bloomington, and
the other Principals of the City of Bloomington have indicated that our construction exceeded their
greatest expectations. We recommend and encourage you to contact both the City of Bloomington and
the City of Rogers to ascertain and confirm our high standards of construction excellence, in addition to
our desire to make our senior health care facilities look like prestigious golf country clubs. Our
neighbors in Bloomington are extremely pleased and very satisfied with our quality of construction and
the beauty we have brought to the neighborhood by building the Wealshire of Bloomington. The
Wealshire of Bloomington will employ more than 250 well paid employees at full capacity.
As President, CEO and founder of both the Wellstead of Rogers and the Wealshire of Bloomington, I
have more than 46 years of successful employment in the medical field. I initially worked for Baxter
Healthcare for 6 years in sales and sales management. Then I was President and CEO of Northern
Medical/Orthomet for approximately 22 years, and we designed, manufactured and sold orthopedic
implant products (total knees & total hips) throughout the USA, Europe, Asia and South America. Upon
the death of my father from Alzheimer's in November of 1996, I have spent the last 18 years dedicating
my life to improving the "Quality of Life" of individuals suffering some form of dementia.
My father and I were very close and he was possibly my best friend. Unfortunately, when my father was
78, he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and he suffered from this devastating progressive disease for
approximately seven years. Unfortunately my father was never given the opportunity to live with pride
and dignity during his battles with Alzheimer's, which created extreme guilt on my part when my father
finally passed away. While in the casket, I took my father's hand and promised him I would do
something so others with this devastating disease could live with pride and dignity. I spent the next 2
years researching approximately 35 Alzheimer's care facilities throughout the USA, and then I put
together a business plan to build the Wellstead of Rogers. When we opened the Wellstead of Rogers on
August 15, 1999, my mother was our first resident, and she resided at the Wellstead until her death on
August 22, 2001. I am sure my commitment and dedication to improving the life of individuals with
dementia/Alzheimer's is pleasing to my parents, and the passion I share is evident in the quality of care
we provide our demented residents at the care facilities we build.
It has been said that each community has an obligation to provide quality senior care to the residents
that reside within their community. To this extent, we desire to build the Wealshire of Medina, which
would be a 150 resident dementia/Alzheimer's care facility, constructed in two phases. This facility
would be relatively similar to the facilities we have built in both Rogers and Bloomington. Our objective
is to commence construction in May of 2015, with a projected facility opening date of June 1, 2016. At
the request of the Principals of the City of Medina, we would possibly consider constructing a
reasonable number of general assisted living apartments for seniors, but this construction is not
included in our current developmental plans. We would include 150-200 beautiful trees on this
proposed site, with resident walking paths, water ponds with fountains, and underground parking for
our projected 250-300 employees.
Our initial objective for our proposed dementia and Alzheimer's facility development in Medina
consisted of our desire to purchase 11.0 acres (north section) of the combined 22.0 acreage on Mohawk
Drive. Unfortunately, this acreage was zoned low density residential, but the Planning Commission and
the Council approved the rezoning of this entire 22.0 site to General Business, which we are extremely
thankful and appreciative of. However, concerns were indicated by members of both groups to what
development might occur on the south end of this 22.0 site, which could possibly be unfavorable as a
result of this 11.0 acreage site also being rezoned as General Business.
We had assumed our purchase of the northern 11.0 acreage site would be more land than what we
would require to construct our proposed 150 resident dementia and Alzheimer's care facility. However,
due to the significant set -back developmental requirements, the associated wet land parcels on this
acreage, in addition to the required fire lane around the property, we were informed by the architect
that we could not construct our proposed development on this 11.0 acreage site.
Rather than attempting to request certain "variances" from the City of Medina, we thought it would be
best for us to also consider purchasing the southern 11.0 acreage, even though this would require a
substantial additional financial investment. We also wanted to minimize any concerns by the Planning
Commission and the Council to the future potential "unfavorable" development of this southern 11.0
acreage, which made this additional substantial financial investment to be justified and worthwhile.
At this time, and probably for at least the next 5-7 years, we do not have any sincere interest in
developing this southern 11.0 acreage unless the City of Medina approaches us to develop general
assisted living senior apartments on this site. Therefore, we would appreciate your assistance In
approving an "interim use permit" to enable this south 11.0 acreage to be utilized for agricultural
purposes as a means to assist in paying the annual property taxes on this southern 11.0 acreage.
We truly encourage all interested parties to review our Wealshire of Bloomington website
(wealshireofbloomington.com) and the Wellstead of Rogers website (wellsteadofrogers.com), and we
would also welcome the opportunity to provide anyone a tour of our prestigious Bloomington senior
care facility. We would appreciate your assistance and cooperation to make our proposed senior
development in Medina a reality. Please notify me if you have questions, or if I can be of greater
assistance. I promise and assure you we will construct a beautiful and prestigious senior care campus in
Medina.
Sincerely and God bless,
Thomas A. Wiskow
President/CEO
t -a-4441
10601 Lyndale Ave S. Bloomington, MN 55420
www.wealshireofbloomington.com
Tel - 952,345,1900 Fax - 952.345.1906
3701 12th Street North, Suite 206
St. Cloud, MN 56303
Phone 320-253-9495
Fax 320-253-8737
Toll Free 1-800-270-9495
3701 12th Street North, Suite 206
St. Cloud, MN 56303
Phone 320-253-9495
Fax 320-253-8737
1-800-270-9495
3701 12th Street North, Suite 206
St. Cloud, MN 56303
Phone 320-253-9495
Fax 320-253-8737
1-800-270-9495
3701 12th Street North, Suite 206
St. Cloud, MN 56303
Phone 320-253-9495
Fax 320-253-8737
1-800-270-9495
3701 12th Street North, Suite 206
St. Cloud, MN 56303
Phone 320-253-9495
Fax 320-253-8737
1-800-270-9495
3701 12th Street North, Suite 206
St. Cloud, MN 56303
Phone 320-253-9495
Fax 320-253-8737
1-800-270-9495
x
x
x
3701 12th Street North, Suite 206
St. Cloud, MN 56303
Phone 320-253-9495
Fax 320-253-8737
1-800-270-9495
2006 IBC REFERENCEINSTITUTIONALOCCUPANCY GROUP:(IBC CHPTR. 3 ANDTABLE 508.3.3 ANDFOOTNOTES)I-1CONSTRUCTION TYPE -FIRE RATING(IBC CHPTR. 6)TYPE V-AMAXIMUM NUMBEROF STORIES:(IBC PAR. 503 ANDTABLE 503)3 STORIES50 FEETMAX. NUMBER OFSTORIES W/AUTOMATICSPRINKLER SYSTEM(IBC PAR. 504.2)N/A - NOT USEDALLOWABLE AREA:BASIC ALLOWABLEAREA:(IBC TABLE 503)10,500 S.F.BUILDING PERIMETERON PUBLIC WAY > 20'(IBC PAR. 506.2)83810 LIN. FT.BUILDING PERIMETEROF ENTIRE BUILDING(IBC PAR. 506.2)83821 LIN. FT.MINIMUM WIDTH OFPUBLIC WAY OR OPENSPACE(IBC PAR. 506.2)20 FEETAUTOMATIC SPRINKLERSYSTEM INCREASE:(IBC PAR. 506.3)YES(300%) = X 32 OR 3 STORYINCREASE(IBC PAR. 506.4)N/A - NOT USEDALLOWABLE AREA PER FLOOR47,250 S.F.ACTUAL PROPOSED COMPLIES WITH IBCTOTAL ALLOWABLE AREA:YESLOWER LEVEL:ACTUAL PROPOSED FIRST LEVEL:21,173 S.F.TOTAL AREA:BUSINESSBTYPE V-A3 STORIES50 FEETN/A - NOT USED18,000 S.F.83810 LIN. FT.83821 LIN. FT.20 FEETYES(300%) = X 3N/A - NOT USED81,000 S.F.YES18,085 S.F.6,350 S.F.24,435 S.F.ASSEMBLYA-3TYPE V-A2 STORIES50 FEETN/A - NOT USED11,500 S.F.83810 LIN. FT.83821 LIN. FT.20 FEETYES(300%) = X 3N/A - NOT USED51,750 S.F.YES7,193 S.F.7,193 S.F.PARKINGS-2TYPE II-A4 STORIES55 FEETN/A - NOT USED26,000 S.F.83810 LIN. FT.83821 LIN. FT.20 FEETYES(300%) = X 3N/A - NOT USED117,000 S.F.YES11,926 S.F.11,926 S.F.NORTH-WESTINSTITUTIONALI-1TYPE V-A3 STORIES50 FEETN/A - NOT USED10,500 S.F.83810 LIN. FT.83821 LIN. FT.20 FEETYES(300%) = X 3N/A - NOT USED47,250 S.F.YESSOUTH27,788 S.F.27,788 S.F.INSTITUTIONALI-1TYPE V-A3 STORIES50 FEETN/A - NOT USED10,500 S.F.83810 LIN. FT.83821 LIN. FT.20 FEETYES(300%) = X 3N/A - NOT USED47,250 S.F.YES21,137 S.F.NORTH-EAST21,173 S.F.21,137 S.F.TOTAL BUILDING AREA:113,652 S.F.TOTAL LOWER LEVEL AREA:30,011 S.F.TOTAL FIRST LEVEL AREA:83,641 S.F.DRAWINGS AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA STATEBUILDING CODE AS ADOPTED JULY 10, 2007, INCLUDING INTERNATIONALBUILDING CODE, YEAR 2006 EDITION AS ADOPTED, QUALIFIED ANDAMENDEDAN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM COMPLYING W/ NFPA 13 SHALL BE INSTALLEDTHROUGHOUT ENTIRE BLDG. (IBC SECTION 903)TYPE II-A CONSTRUCTION: FIRE RESISTANCE RATINGS FOR FOLLOWING BUILDINGELEMENTS: (IBC TABLE 601)STRUCTURAL FRAME:1 HOURFLOOR SYSTEM:1 HOURBEARING WALLS:1 HOURROOF SYSTEM:1 HOURNONBEARING WALLS:0 HOURSEXTERIOR WALLS:1 HOURCODE ANALYSISEXTERIOR:1 HOURINTERIOR:2006 IBCFIRE RATED WALL LEGEND1 HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE RATED CONSTRUCTIONFIRE PARTITIONS - CORRIDOR WALLS(IBC PARAGRAPH 708.3 & TABLE 1017.1)(20 MINUTE OPENING PROTECTION REQUIRED)(TABLES 715.4 &1017.1) (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)PARTITIONS - SEPARATING SLEEPING UNITS(IBC PARAGRAPH 708 & TABLE 715.4)1 HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE RATED CONSTRUCTIONFIRE BARRIERS - STAIR & SHAFT ENCLOSURE WALLS, (IBC PARAGRAPH 707.1 & 1020.1)(60 MINUTE OPENING PROTECTION REQUIRED)(IBC TABLE 715.4)INCIDENTAL USE AREAS - RECYCLING, STORAGE, CLEAN LINEN, TRASH1 HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE RATED CONSTRUCTION(20 MINUTE OPENING PROTECTION REQUIRED)ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSISPER IBC SECTION 1107.5.1- GROUP I-1 OCCUPANCIES SHALLPROVIDE ACCESSIBLE AND TYPE B UNITS.PER IBC SECTION 1107.5.1.1- GROUP I-1 OCCUPANCIES SHALLPROVIDE AT LEAST 4% SLEEPING UNITS TO BE ACCESSIBLE. 84 TOTAL UNITS x 4% = 4 ACCESSIBLE UNITS REQUIRED. 4 TOTAL ACCESSIBLE UNITS PROVIDED.ALL NON-ACCESSIBLE UNITS SHALL BE TYPE B UNITS.FIRST LEVEL ACCESSIBLE UNITS 4TOTAL ACCESSIBLE UNITS 4SMOKE BARRIERCOMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL < 75'(IBC TABLE 1014.3)EXIT TRAVEL DISTANCE < 250'(IBC TABLE 1016.1)EXIT DOOR1 HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE RATED CONSTRUCTIONFIRE BARRIERS - OCCUPANCY SEPARATIONS(IBC PARAGRAPH 707.1 & 1020.1)(60 MINUTE OPENING PROTECTION REQUIRED)(IBC TABLE 715.4)FEFIRE EXTINGUISHERI-1A-3I-1BEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITEXITI-1ACCESSIBLEUNITACCESSIBLEUNITACCESSIBLEUNITACCESSIBLEUNITEXIT70'-0"MAINENTRYOCCUPANCYSEPERATIONOCCUPANCYSEPERATIONOCCUPANCYSEPERATIONOCCUPANCYSEPERATIONOCCUPANCYSEPERATIONSIDEWALK TOSERVICE ROADSIDEWALK TOSERVICE ROADSIDEWALK TOSERVICE ROADSIDEWALK TOSERVICE ROADOCCUPANCYSEPERATIONSIDEWALK TOSERVICE ROADSECUREDCOURTYARD8'-0" HT FENCEEXITEXITEXITSECUREDCOURTYARDSECUREDCOURTYARDSECUREDCOURTYARDACCESS TOLOWER LEVELPARKINGBELOWPONDPONDI-127'-11"41'-1"24'-5"25'-3"24'-7"45'-0"8'-0" HT FENCE8'-0" HT FENCE8'-0" HT FENCE8'-0" HT FENCE8'-0" HT FENCE8'-0" HT FENCE8'-0" HT FENCE8'-0" HTFENCE8'-0" HT FENCESIDEWALKSIDEWALK
SIDEWALKSIDEWALK1 HOURSHAFTSIDEWALKSIDEWALK SIDEWALKSIDEWALK
SIDEWALK
SIDEWALKSIDEWALKSIDEWALK1 HOURSHAFT1 HOURSHAFT1 HOUR SHAFT
1 HOURSHAFT1 HOURSHAFT6 STAFF28 RESIDENTS6 STAFF28 RESIDENTS4 STAFF14 RESIDENTS4 STAFF14 RESIDENTS21 OCCUPANTSFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFEFE78 OCCUPANTSEXIT36 OCCUPANTS23OCC39 OCCUPANTS39 OCCUPANTS25'-5"26'-3"24'-5"44'-0"180'-0"A1.2CODE PLAN - FIRST LEVELSCALE 1" = 20'-0"1FIRST LEVEL CODE PLANNArchitecture Planning Interiors
01-15-16 BID SET
St. Paul, Minnesota 55105
RIVERA ARCHITECTS INC
775 Fairmount Avenue
P:651-222-3245 email:riverarchitects@qwestoffice.net
WEALSHIRE OF MEDINA - PHASE I
01-15-16 PERMIT SET
First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"T.O. Wainscot103' - 0" Gable Roof110' - 10 3/4" Typical Bay Roof109' - 2"Lower Level86' - 9" Gable Roof Extension115' - 8"First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"T.O. Wainscot103' - 0" Typical Roof Entry Gable Roof112' - 10 3/4" Porch Gable Roof111' - 5 1/2" PorchGable RoofExtension115' - 1 1/4"STUCCO - COLOR 1 - TYP.ELEVATION KEYED NOTESFIELD BRICK - COLOR 1 - TYP.ACCENT BRICK - COLOR 2 - ROWLOCKACCENT BRICK - COLOR 2 - SOLDIERCOURSEALUMINUM CLAD FASCIA - TYP.GUTTER - TYP.DOWNSPOUT CONNECT DIRECT TORAINWATER DRAIN - TYP.FIBERGLASS WINDOWS - TYP.COMPOSITE TRIM AND PANELS - TYP.COMPOSITE WINDOW SURROUND - TYP.ALUMINUM DOOR - TYP.HOLLOW METAL DOOR - TYP.GARAGE DOORRIDGE VENT - TYP.SKYLIGHTGUARD RAIL - TYP.PRECAST SILL - TYP.STONE VENEERASPHALT SHINGLES - TYP.ALUMINUM WINDOWS - TYP.WOOD TRUSSCONTROL JOINTMECH. PENETRATIONSSTUCCO ACCENT BAND - COLOR 2PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING OVERCOMPOSITE TRIMTHRU WALL BRASS RAIN WATER LEADER W/SCREENEXPANSION JOINTROOF VENTPRECAST CAP, BRACKETS, SILL1 1/2" STYROFOAM WITH 3/4" STUCCOACCENT COLOR, VERIFY WITH ARCHITECTFirst Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"ELEVATION KEY NOTES1.NOT ALL KEYED NOTES ARE ON ALL PLANS2.All MECHANICAL ROOF PENETRATIONS SHALLMATCH ROOFING COLOR3.IN ADDITION TO STUCCO CONTROL JOINTSSHOWN ON ELEVATION PROVIDE CORNER BEAD ATALL OUTSIDE CORNERS AND INSIDE CORNEREXPANSION AT ALL INSIDE CORNERS4.ALL EXPOSED CMU OR CONC. BELOW STUCCOSHALL RECEIVE PAINTED FINISH.5.BRICK LEDGE SHALL BE 8" BELOW FIRST FLOORELEVATION AT SLAB ON GRADE AREAS.6.BRICK LEDGE SHALL BE MINIMUM 4" BELOW FINISHGRADE, TYPICAL7.BRICK LEDGE SHALL STEP MINIMUIM 2'-0"VERTICALLY & 4'-0" HORIZONTALLY AT LOWERLEVEL ACCESS. COORDINATE W/CIVIL &STRUCTURALEXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULEFIELD BRICK:MANUFACTURER:TYPE:SIZE:ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE (PRECAST):MANUFACTURER:FINISH:COLOR:AMERICAN ARTSTONE COMPANYTBDTBDSTONE:MANUFACTURER:PATTERN/SIZE:COLOR:STUCCO SYSTEM:MANUFACTURER:FINISH:COLOR:VETTER STONEMINNESOTA QUARRY CREEKNATURAL STRATASYNERGYTBDTBDACCENT BRICK:MANUFACTURER:TYPE:SIZE:GLEN-GERYSUMMERSETUTILITYCLOUD CERAMICSGREYSTONE VELOURUTILITYBUECHEL STONE CORP.MILL CREEKTAILORED BLENDMANUFACTURER:PATTERN/SIZE:COLOR:ORASPHALT SHINGLES:MANUFACTURER:TYPE:COLOR:PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING:MANUFACTURER:TYPE:COLOR:SOFFIT & FASCIA:MANUFACTURER:TYPE:COLOR:ALUMINUM WINDOWS:MANUFACTURER:FINISH:COLOR:GAFTIMBERLINEHEATHER BLENDUNA-CLADSTEEL; SEE SPEC.SIERRA TANROLLEXALUMINUM; SEE SPEC.SANDCASTLESEE SPEC.ANONDIZEDMEDIUM BRONZEFIBERGLASS WINDOWS:MANUFACTURER:FINISH:COLOR:PELLASEE SPECWHITEArchitecture Planning Interiors
01-15-16 BID SET
St. Paul, Minnesota 55105
RIVERA ARCHITECTS INC
775 Fairmount Avenue
P:651-222-3245 email:riverarchitects@qwestoffice.net
WEALSHIRE OF MEDINA - PHASE I
01-15-16 PERMIT SET
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A5.1
ASPHALT SHINGLES:MANUFACTURER:TYPE:COLOR:PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING:MANUFACTURER:TYPE:COLOR:SOFFIT & FASCIA:MANUFACTURER:TYPE:COLOR:ALUMINUM WINDOWS:MANUFACTURER:FINISH:COLOR:GAFTIMBERLINEHEATHER BLENDUNA-CLADSTEEL; SEE SPEC.SIERRA TANROLLEXALUMINUM; SEE SPEC.SANDCASTLESEE SPEC.ANONDIZEDMEDIUM BRONZEFIBERGLASS WINDOWS:MANUFACTURER:FINISH:COLOR:PELLASEE SPECWHITEEXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULEFIELD BRICK:MANUFACTURER:TYPE:SIZE:ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE (PRECAST):MANUFACTURER:FINISH:COLOR:AMERICAN ARTSTONE COMPANYTBDTBDSTONE:MANUFACTURER:PATTERN/SIZE:COLOR:STUCCO SYSTEM:MANUFACTURER:FINISH:COLOR:VETTER STONEMINNESOTA QUARRY CREEKNATURAL STRATASYNERGYTBDTBDACCENT BRICK:MANUFACTURER:TYPE:SIZE:GLEN-GERYSUMMERSETUTILITYCLOUD CERAMICSGREYSTONE VELOURUTILITYBUECHEL STONE CORP.MILL CREEKTAILORED BLENDMANUFACTURER:PATTERN/SIZE:COLOR:ORSTUCCO - COLOR 1 - TYP.ELEVATION KEYED NOTESFIELD BRICK - COLOR 1 - TYP.ACCENT BRICK - COLOR 2 - ROWLOCKACCENT BRICK - COLOR 2 - SOLDIERCOURSEALUMINUM CLAD FASCIA - TYP.GUTTER - TYP.DOWNSPOUT CONNECT DIRECT TORAINWATER DRAIN - TYP.FIBERGLASS WINDOWS - TYP.COMPOSITE TRIM AND PANELS - TYP.COMPOSITE WINDOW SURROUND - TYP.First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"T.O. Wainscot103' - 0" Gable Roof110' - 10 3/4" Typical Bay Roof109' - 2"First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2" Entry Gable Roof112' - 0"T.O. Wainscot103' - 0" Porch Gable Roof112' - 0" Typical Bay Roof109' - 2" Porch Gable RoofExtension115' - 1 1/4"100' - 0"First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2" Gable Roof Extension115' - 11/2"T.O. Wainscot103' - 0"100' - 0"First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"T.O. Wainscot103' - 0"First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"T.O. Wainscot103' - 0" Gable Roof110' - 10 3/4" Typical Bay Roof109' - 2"Lower Level86' - 9" Gable Roof Extension115' - 8"First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"T.O. Wainscot103' - 0" Typical Roof Entry Gable Roof112' - 10 3/4" Porch Gable Roof111' - 5 1/2" PorchGable RoofExtension115' - 1 1/4"ELEVATION KEY NOTES1.NOT ALL KEYED NOTES ARE ON ALL PLANS2.All MECHANICAL ROOF PENETRATIONS SHALLMATCH ROOFING COLOR3.IN ADDITION TO STUCCO CONTROL JOINTSSHOWN ON ELEVATION PROVIDE CORNER BEAD ATALL OUTSIDE CORNERS AND INSIDE CORNEREXPANSION AT ALL INSIDE CORNERS4.ALL EXPOSED CMU OR CONC. BELOW STUCCOSHALL RECEIVE PAINTED FINISH.5.BRICK LEDGE SHALL BE 8" BELOW FIRST FLOORELEVATION AT SLAB ON GRADE AREAS.6.BRICK LEDGE SHALL BE MINIMUM 4" BELOW FINISHGRADE, TYPICAL7.BRICK LEDGE SHALL STEP MINIMUIM 2'-0"VERTICALLY & 4'-0" HORIZONTALLY AT LOWERLEVEL ACCESS. COORDINATE W/CIVIL &STRUCTURALALUMINUM DOOR - TYP.HOLLOW METAL DOOR - TYP.GARAGE DOORRIDGE VENT - TYP.SKYLIGHTGUARD RAIL - TYP.PRECAST SILL - TYP.STONE VENEERASPHALT SHINGLES - TYP.ALUMINUM WINDOWS - TYP.WOOD TRUSSCONTROL JOINTMECH. PENETRATIONSSTUCCO ACCENT BAND - COLOR 2PREFINISHED METAL FLASHING OVERCOMPOSITE TRIMTHRU WALL BRASS RAIN WATER LEADER W/SCREENEXPANSION JOINTROOF VENTPRECAST CAP, BRACKETS, SILL1 1/2" STYROFOAM WITH 3/4" STUCCOACCENT COLOR, VERIFY WITH ARCHITECTFirst Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"13102196First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"100' - 0"First Level100' - 0" Typical Roof110' - 11/2"T.O. Wainscot103' - 0"Architecture Planning Interiors
01-15-16 BID SET
St. Paul, Minnesota 55105
RIVERA ARCHITECTS INC
775 Fairmount Avenue
P:651-222-3245 email:riverarchitects@qwestoffice.net
WEALSHIRE OF MEDINA - PHASE I
01-15-16 PERMIT SET
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A5.2
HAMEL
HIGHWAY 55
M E D IN A
PIO
N
EE
R
TAMARACKCOUNTY ROAD 24
WILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19HACKAMORE
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
NAVAJO HUNTERPRAIRIETOMAHAWKPARKVIEWTOWNLINEMOHAWKCOUNTY ROAD 101BROCKTONCHIPPEWA
COUNTY ROAD 116HOLY NAMELEAWOODMEANDER
BAKER PARKTAMRACKWAYZATA ARROWHEADCLYDESDALE
LAKE SHORE
DEERHILL
SPUR
KELLER
C
A
R
R
I
A
G
E
BLACKFOOTMAPLE
S P R U C E
EVERGREEN
CHEYENNE
TOWER
ELM CREEKMORNINGSIDE
B O B O L I N K PINTOLILACSHOREWOODBLUEBELLMEADOWOODS
COUNTY ROAD 11
WALNUTFERN APACHEME
DI
NA
L
A
K
E
PINE SIOUXCHESTNUT
OAKVIEWHARMONY
LORETTO BERGAMOTTRILLIUMCOTTONWOODSYCAMORE
N O R T H R ID G E
SHAWNEE WOODS
BOYERCHEROKEE BUCKSKINKATRINKA
LORENZFOXBERRYLAKEVIEW
H O L L Y B U S H
CHERRY HILL
C O X
M E L O D Y LI
NDENCRESTVIEW
CAPRIOLECATES RANCH
ELSEN
TRAPPERS
MALLARD
MORGAN CALAMUSHILLVIEW
PHILLIPSPRAIRIE CREEKVIXEN
SUMMIT
LYTHRUMPAWNEE
SETTLERS
COVEYA L B E RT
CABALINE
LOST HORSE
WICHITA
RED FOXFOXTAIL
TOWN LINEB R ID A L P A T H
WI
LLOWBROOKSU N R I S E
HIGHCRESTMEAD
O
W
CREEKVIEW
DUSTYHICKORYMEDINACHIPPEWAWILLOW
APACHEWILLOWFOXBERRYBROCKTONHUNTERDEERHILL
MEANDERARROWHEA
DCOUNTY ROAD 24COUNTY ROAD 19PINTOLINDENPlanned Future Development Guide Plan
DRAFT 3/4/2016
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: March 4, 2016
Legend
Future Land Use
Future Land Use
Low Density Res (2-3 units/acre)
Medium Density Res (4-6 units/acre)
High Density Res (12-15 units/acre)
Mixed Residential (3.5-4 units/acre)
Commercial
General Business
Wetland Locations
Wetland Locations
HAMEL
HIGHWAY 55
M E D IN A
PIO
N
EE
R
TAMARACKCOUNTY ROAD 24
WILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19HACKAMORE
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
NAVAJO HUNTERPRAIRIETOMAHAWKPARKVIEWTOWNLINEMOHAWKCOUNTY ROAD 101BROCKTONCHIPPEWA
COUNTY ROAD 116HOLY NAMELEAWOODMEANDER
BAKER PARKTAMRACKWAYZATA ARROWHEADCLYDESDALE
LAKE SHORE
DEERHILL
SPUR
KELLER
C
A
R
R
I
A
G
E
BLACKFOOTMAPLE
S P R U C E
EVERGREEN
CHEYENNE
TOWER
ELM CREEKMORNINGSIDE
B O B O L I N K PINTOLILACSHOREWOODBLUEBELLMEADOWOODS
COUNTY ROAD 11
WALNUTFERN APACHEME
DI
NA
L
A
K
E
PINE SIOUXCHESTNUT
OAKVIEWHARMONY
LORETTO BERGAMOTTRILLIUMCOTTONWOODSYCAMORE
N O R T H R ID G E
SHAWNEE WOODS
BOYERCHEROKEE BUCKSKINKATRINKA
LORENZFOXBERRYLAKEVIEW
H O L L Y B U S H
CHERRY HILL
C O X
M E L O D Y LI
NDENCRESTVIEW
CAPRIOLECATES RANCH
ELSEN
TRAPPERS
MALLARD
MORGAN CALAMUSHILLVIEW
PHILLIPSPRAIRIE CREEKVIXEN
SUMMIT
LYTHRUMPAWNEE
SETTLERS
COVEYA L B E RT
CABALINE
LOST HORSE
WICHITA
RED FOXFOXTAIL
TOWN LINEB R ID A L P A T H
WI
LLOWBROOKSU N R I S E
HIGHCRESTMEAD
O
W
CREEKVIEW
DUSTYHICKORYMEDINACHIPPEWAWILLOW
APACHEWILLOWFOXBERRYBROCKTONHUNTERDEERHILL
MEANDERARROWHEA
DCOUNTY ROAD 24COUNTY ROAD 19PINTOLINDENFuture Land Use Concept
DRAFT 3/4/2016
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: March 4, 2016
Legend
Planned Land Use (Conceptual)
<all other values>
Rural Residential
Low Density Residential (2-3 u/a)
Medium Density Residential (4-5 u/a)
Mixed Residential (3.5-4 u/a)
High Density Residential (12-15 u/a)
Uptown Hamel
Commercial
General Business
Rural Business
Private Recreation
Institutional
Public/Semi-Public
Closed Landfill
Update on Comprehensive Plan Page 1 of 3 March 8, 2016
Process Planning Commission Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: March 4, 2016
MEETING: March 8, 2016 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Update on Comprehensive Plan Process
Background
The City continues to work diligently on updating its Comprehensive Plan. This process began
in the fall of 2015. The City has held two community events and the Steering Committee has
held a series of meeting. The Planning Commission also provided feedback on the DRAFT
Vision and Community Goals portion of the Plan at the December 2015 concurrent meeting with
the City Council and the January 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
At the December 2015 worksession, staff also presented “Comprehensive Plan 101.” This
presentation discussed the reason the City is updating its Comprehensive Plan and the legal
requirements that the City is under. It is always important to recall this context as discussions of
the Comprehensive Plan occur.
All communities in the 7-county Metro Area are required to update our Comprehensive Plans
every decade. The City is required to submit by the end of 2018. The Comp Plan establishes
Medina’s Vision and identifies City goals and objectives. The Plan guides development and City
investments. It is also the foundation for analyzing ordinances, policies, and practices related to
land use.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan is required to be in conformance with the regional system plans
produced by the Metropolitan Council, as well as the requirements of other state agencies.
While these system plans include various requirements, the most relevant requirements related to
land use in Medina include:
The City is required to plan for development of a minimum of 951 additional households
by 2040, beyond the existing lots in the City
A minimum of 253 of these households are required to be higher density units
(> 8 units/acre). This requirement is intended to support development of residential units
at lower purchase/rental costs.
The average density of new residential development served by the municipal sanitary
sewer system is required to be above 3 units/acre. This can be averaged across the City,
allowing some areas to be developed at lower densities, so long as other areas are higher
density to bring up the average.
Vision and Community Goals
The Steering Committee made various changes to the Vision and Community Goals after
receiving feedback. The DRAFT is attached for reference. There has been a lot of discussion
about the verbiage of the Vision and Goals. While this is important, the language could be
Update on Comprehensive Plan Page 2 of 3 March 8, 2016
Process Planning Commission Meeting
written in hundreds of ways based on style. At this time, the most important consideration is
whether there are any goals which Planning Commissioners believe should be removed or
whether there are goals which Planning Commissioners believe should be added.
Land Use Concept
The Steering Committee has also had a number of discussions about potential land
use/development patterns which could accommodate the requirements of the Metropolitan
Council but also address the City’s Vision and Community Goals.
The concept identifies substantially less development than was planned for in the 2010-2030
Comprehensive Plan. This is in response to the Metropolitan Council’s reduced forecasts for
growth in the City as well as the Steering Committee’s goal of expanding development only to
the extent necessary to meet these forecasts.
The Land Use Concept is presented on the attached two maps.
The first map highlights only the properties which are planned for a change in land use
from their existing condition. This mainly includes agricultural or vacant properties, but
also some rural residential properties which would be planned to be redeveloped at
suburban/urban densities. By highlighting just the properties which would be eligible for
development, staff intends to call attention to the areas where development could occur.
The second map shows planned land uses throughout the City.
The following table summarizes that acreage in the City planned for development within the
conceptual land use map.
Residential Land Uses
Net Acres Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
High Density
Units/Acre
Minumum
Units
High Density
Units
Low Density Residential 171.2 2.0 3.0 0.0 342 0
Medium Density Residential 24.5 4.0 6.0 0.0 98 0
High Density Residential 13.2 12.0 15.0 12.0 158 158
Mixed Residential 94.8 3.5 4.0 1.0 332 95
303.7 931 253
Non‐Residential Land Uses
Net Acres
Commercial 34.0 Overall Density: 3.1
General Business 306.0
Industrial Business 0.0
Metropolitan Council forecasted growth: 951 households
Metropolitan Council required higher density units: 253 units
Metropolitan Council required minimum overall density: 3 units/acre
Update on Comprehensive Plan Page 3 of 3 March 8, 2016
Process Planning Commission Meeting
The City Engineer will be conducting a preliminary analysis of the planned development area in
order to determine big-picture implications and cost concerns. Staff will also be widely
distributing the land use maps in order to receive public feedback.
Staff also looks forward to feedback from the Planning Commission on the Land Use Concept
that the Steering Committee discussed.
Commission Feedback Requested
The Planning Commission does not need to take any formal action on the Vision and
Community Goals or the Future Land Use Concept. However, Commissioners are encouraged to
provide feedback after reviewing the material.
Attachments
1. DRAFT Vision and Community Goals
2. DRAFT Future Development Guide Plan
3. Land Use Concept
184050
Vision Statement
Medina is one community. The City will strive to maintain its unique heritage by promoting and
protecting its rural character and its natural environment. Medina will foster well-designed
neighborhoods and promote public and private destinations for the community to gather. The
City will develop in a deliberate fashion which is commensurate with the resources and
infrastructure available to sustain a high quality of life for residents.
Community Goals
Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the
rural character of Medina.
Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community.
Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning,
engineering and development.
Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted residential
growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals.
Develop at a sustainable pace proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water
supply and wastewater infrastructure available to the City.
Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular timeframes.
Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community.
Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect
neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents.
Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all
stages of their lives.
Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential areas of
the City.
184050
Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s police department and
coordination with its contracted volunteer fire departments.
Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient staff and
long-range planning and financial management.
HAMEL
HIGHWAY 55
M E D IN A
PIO
N
EE
R
TAMARACKCOUNTY ROAD 24
WILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19HACKAMORE
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
NAVAJO HUNTERPRAIRIETOMAHAWKPARKVIEWTOWNLINEMOHAWKCOUNTY ROAD 101BROCKTONCHIPPEWA
COUNTY ROAD 116HOLY NAMELEAWOODMEANDER
BAKER PARKTAMRACKWAYZATA ARROWHEADCLYDESDALE
LAKE SHORE
DEERHILL
SPUR
KELLER
C
A
R
R
I
A
G
E
BLACKFOOTMAPLE
S P R U C E
EVERGREEN
CHEYENNE
TOWER
ELM CREEKMORNINGSIDE
B O B O L I N K PINTOLILACSHOREWOODBLUEBELLMEADOWOODS
COUNTY ROAD 11
WALNUTFERN APACHEME
DI
NA
L
A
K
E
PINE SIOUXCHESTNUT
OAKVIEWHARMONY
LORETTO BERGAMOTTRILLIUMCOTTONWOODSYCAMORE
N O R T H R ID G E
SHAWNEE WOODS
BOYERCHEROKEE BUCKSKINKATRINKA
LORENZFOXBERRYLAKEVIEW
H O L L Y B U S H
CHERRY HILL
C O X
M E L O D Y LI
NDENCRESTVIEW
CAPRIOLECATES RANCH
ELSEN
TRAPPERS
MALLARD
MORGAN CALAMUSHILLVIEW
PHILLIPSPRAIRIE CREEKVIXEN
SUMMIT
LYTHRUMPAWNEE
SETTLERS
COVEYA L B E RT
CABALINE
LOST HORSE
WICHITA
RED FOXFOXTAIL
TOWN LINEB R ID A L P A T H
WI
LLOWBROOKSU N R I S E
HIGHCRESTMEAD
O
W
CREEKVIEW
DUSTYHICKORYMEDINACHIPPEWAWILLOW
APACHEWILLOWFOXBERRYBROCKTONHUNTERDEERHILL
MEANDERARROWHEA
DCOUNTY ROAD 24COUNTY ROAD 19PINTOLINDENPlanned Future Development Guide Plan
DRAFT 3/4/2016
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: March 4, 2016
Legend
Future Land Use
Future Land Use
Low Density Res (2-3 units/acre)
Medium Density Res (4-6 units/acre)
High Density Res (12-15 units/acre)
Mixed Residential (3.5-4 units/acre)
Commercial
General Business
Wetland Locations
Wetland Locations
HAMEL
HIGHWAY 55
M E D IN A
PIO
N
EE
R
TAMARACKCOUNTY ROAD 24
WILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19HACKAMORE
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
NAVAJO HUNTERPRAIRIETOMAHAWKPARKVIEWTOWNLINEMOHAWKCOUNTY ROAD 101BROCKTONCHIPPEWA
COUNTY ROAD 116HOLY NAMELEAWOODMEANDER
BAKER PARKTAMRACKWAYZATA ARROWHEADCLYDESDALE
LAKE SHORE
DEERHILL
SPUR
KELLER
C
A
R
R
I
A
G
E
BLACKFOOTMAPLE
S P R U C E
EVERGREEN
CHEYENNE
TOWER
ELM CREEKMORNINGSIDE
B O B O L I N K PINTOLILACSHOREWOODBLUEBELLMEADOWOODS
COUNTY ROAD 11
WALNUTFERN APACHEME
DI
NA
L
A
K
E
PINE SIOUXCHESTNUT
OAKVIEWHARMONY
LORETTO BERGAMOTTRILLIUMCOTTONWOODSYCAMORE
N O R T H R ID G E
SHAWNEE WOODS
BOYERCHEROKEE BUCKSKINKATRINKA
LORENZFOXBERRYLAKEVIEW
H O L L Y B U S H
CHERRY HILL
C O X
M E L O D Y LI
NDENCRESTVIEW
CAPRIOLECATES RANCH
ELSEN
TRAPPERS
MALLARD
MORGAN CALAMUSHILLVIEW
PHILLIPSPRAIRIE CREEKVIXEN
SUMMIT
LYTHRUMPAWNEE
SETTLERS
COVEYA L B E RT
CABALINE
LOST HORSE
WICHITA
RED FOXFOXTAIL
TOWN LINEB R ID A L P A T H
WI
LLOWBROOKSU N R I S E
HIGHCRESTMEAD
O
W
CREEKVIEW
DUSTYHICKORYMEDINACHIPPEWAWILLOW
APACHEWILLOWFOXBERRYBROCKTONHUNTERDEERHILL
MEANDERARROWHEA
DCOUNTY ROAD 24COUNTY ROAD 19PINTOLINDENFuture Land Use Concept
DRAFT 3/4/2016
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: March 4, 2016
Legend
Planned Land Use (Conceptual)
<all other values>
Rural Residential
Low Density Residential (2-3 u/a)
Medium Density Residential (4-5 u/a)
Mixed Residential (3.5-4 u/a)
High Density Residential (12-15 u/a)
Uptown Hamel
Commercial
General Business
Rural Business
Private Recreation
Institutional
Public/Semi-Public
Closed Landfill