HomeMy Public PortalAbout10.20.2021 Park Commission Meeting Packet Posted 10/15/2021 Page 1 of 1
AGENDA
MEDINA PARK COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2021 7:00 P.M.
Meeting to be held telephonically
pursuant Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021
1) Call to Order
2) Additions to Agenda
3) Approval of the Minutes from:
September 15, 2021 Regular Meeting
4) Public Comments (on items not on the agenda)
5) City Council Update
6) SH Ventures, Inc. – PID 05-118-23-22-0005 – Lifestlye Auto Condos – PUD
Concept Plan – Park Dedication Review
7) Lakeshore Park Concept Plan Review
8) Staff Report
a) General Items
9) Adjourn
Telephonic Meeting
Call-in Instructions
Dial 1-612-517-3122
Enter Conference ID: 141 102 809#
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Medina Park Commission
FROM: Jodi Gallup, Assistant City Administrator
DATE OF REPORT: October 15, 2021
DATE OF MEETING: October 20, 2021
SUBJECT: Park Commission Meeting Report
2. Additions to Agenda
If any Park Commissioner wishes to add an item to the agenda after the agenda has
already been posted, the agenda item must be proposed at this point in the meeting. The
Park Commission must agree to add the item by motion.
No attachments for this item.
5. City Council Update
This is a reoccurring agenda item to have the City Council Liaison to the Park
Commission give an update at each meeting on what is happening at the Council level.
City Council member Joseph Cavanaugh has been appointed as the Liaison to the Park
Commission for 2021.
No attachments for this item.
6. SH Ventures, Inc. – PID 05-118-23-22-0005 – Lifestlye Auto Condos – PUD Concept Plan –
Park Dedication Review
SH Ventures, Inc. has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for development of
individually owned auto-condos within twelve buildings with an aggregate footprint of
approximately 258,000 square feet. The subject site is designated as a Future
Development Area (FDA) and is located south of Highway 55, west of Pioneer Trail.
The attached staff report details the park and trail analysis on pages 6-8.
See attached report.
Recommended Action: Provide feedback to the applicant.
7. Lakeshore Park Concept Plan Review
Landscape Architect Candace Amberg with WSB updated the Lakeshore Park Concept
plan based on Park Commission’s feedback at the September meeting. Staff has written
the attached draft survey questions for the public engagement period.
Recommended Action: Discuss survey questions and public engagement process.
8. Staff Report
a. General Items. This agenda item is to give a verbal update on any other general park
items.
2
Staff representation at the October 20th Park Commission meeting will be Assistant City
Administrator Jodi Gallup, Planning Director Dusty Finke, Public Works Administrative
Assistant Lisa DeMars, and Public Works Director Steve Scherer.
Medina Park Commission Meeting Minutes - DRAFT
September 15, 2021
Page 1 of 4
The Park Commission of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on September 15, 2021 at
7:00 p.m., at Medina City Hall. Park Commission Chair John Jacob presided.
1) Call to Order
Commissioners Present: John Jacob, Nila Norman, Steve Lee, Troy Hutchinson,
Terry Sharp, Angela Bernhardt
Youth Member Present: Emily Jans
Commissioners Absent: Mary Morrison
Youth Member Absent: Katya Cavanaugh
Also Present: Public Works Director Steve Scherer, Administrative
Assistant Lisa DeMars, Planning and Zoning Director
Dusty Finke; George Stickney, BPS Properties, LLC
2) Additions to the Agenda: Retention Pond Discussion. John Jacob mentioned the recent
drowning tragedy in Edina and asked everyone to think about ponds in Medina,
specifically in Hamel Legion Park near the sliding hill. Terry Sharp noted Central Park
in Maple Grove uses fencing to block off storm water ponds. Dusty Finke noted that
stormwater ponds incorporate an access or aquatic bench (a shallow slope area which
provides equipment access, prevents people from slipping into the water, and facilitates
the growth of aquatic plants).
3) Approval of the Minutes from:
• August 18, 2021 Meeting
o A motion was made by Sharp and seconded by Lee to approve the minutes
from August 18, 2021 as presented. Motion passed unanimously.
4) Public Comments (on items not on the agenda): None.
5) City Council Update: None.
6) Marsh Pointe Preserve – Preliminary Plat – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Drive – Park
Dedication Review
Planning Director Dusty Finke provided an overview of the preliminary park / trail review
which included a presentation with slides. Finke explained BPS Properties LLC is requesting
approval for a 38-unit villa development located east of Arrowhead Drive and south of
Bridgewater and Medina Lake Preserve.
Finke further explained the subject site is currently four homes served by a private gravel
road east of Arrowhead which is proposed to be redeveloped into more homesites. Finke
Medina Park Commission Meeting Minutes - DRAFT
September 15, 2021
Page 2 of 4
noted the subject site is guided for Low Density Residential development with a density of 2-
3 units/net acre and showed an aerial of the site which included the large wetland located
south and east of the subject property.
Finke explained the ordinance requirements for Park Dedication as well as the need for
several improvements in the vicinity of this project as identified by the City’s
Parks/Trail/Open Space Plan, including:
1. Land access in the northeastern portion of the site is for Medina Lake Preserve
parking.
2. A paved trail connection is identified from Arrowhead Drive to Medina Lake
Preserve; with a trail head at the Medina Lake Preserve to provide a connection from
the nearby Bridgewater and Fields of Medina neighborhoods, and to large employers
south along the Arrowhead Drive trail. A floating bridge connection might also be
considered across the large wetland for a more direct link to the park at Fields of
Medina.
3. The City Council recently supported a potential route for the Diamond Lake Regional
Trail Master Plan which would potentially connect Arrowhead Drive to the
southeastern portion of the site with a potential boardwalk to the southeast to
ultimately connect with the Park at Fields of Medina.
Finke noted the original plans submitted by the applicant did not include provisions for the
trail nor the access or parking for Medina Lake Preserve, even though staff discussed these
requirements at length with the developer prior to application. Finke indicated Staff will
strongly recommend that the City require provisions for the improvements with the
development.
Finke showed an exhibit which provided some potential locations for trail corridors and
detailed Staff’s preliminary feedback provided to the applicant related to parks and trails as
follows:
• As indicated continuously through pre-application discussions, the City’s trail
plan identifies a trail connection from Arrowhead Drive to Medina Lake
Preserve. Staff will recommend a trail connection be required as portion of park
dedication requirements. Two possibilities may be along the wetland edge on the
south of Block 1 or along the north of the project (including north of Block 2).
Potential options shown in green on the attached. The Park Commission will
review and make a recommendation for location to the City Council. The
applicant may want to consider incorporating a location into the design rather than
waiting for Park Commission to recommend location. In such case, staff
recommends a location which prevents unnecessary driveway crossings and that
provides a quality user experience (views, separation from streets, etc.)
• As indicated continuously during pre-application discussions, staff will
recommend land dedication necessary for a parking area and trailhead south of
Medina Lake Preserve within this site. As discussed during pre-application
discussions, it may be possible to incorporate an area for nose-in parking as part
Medina Park Commission Meeting Minutes - DRAFT
September 15, 2021
Page 3 of 4
of the street improvements within the site, which may be a viable alternative to
additional dedication of land. If parking and a trailhead is not provided in
connection with the proposed improvements, staff will recommend that
the City require land dedication for such purpose.
• As indicated in pre-application discussions, the City has approved a potential
route for the Diamond Lake Regional Trail Master Plan which connects to
Arrowhead Drive and then would include a boardwalk across the wetland to the
south. Staff will recommend that trail easements for this future trail connection
be required as part of park dedication. Staff has consulted with Three Rivers Park
on potential locations, and generally, the objectives would include: a) minimizing
length of boardwalk across wetland; b) minimizing driveway crossings; c)
maximizing trail user experience; d) flexibility for route connections to south
(potentially multiple easement locations). Potential options are displayed in pink
on the attached site plan. One opportunity may be from Medina Lake Preserve
behind Lots 15-17, Block 3. These lots appear deeper and trees could be
preserved to provide a buffer. Potential locations are identified in attached. The
applicant is welcome to suggest alternative locations, but they must address the
objectives noted above.
Finke explained the preliminary plat will be presented to the Park Commission at a future
meeting after updated plans are submitted and reviewed. However, because the park and trail
locations have the potential to affect the site layout, it was determined appropriate for the
Park Commission to provide their preliminary feedback as well. Specifically, Finke
requested feedback on the following:
1. Whether on-street nose-in parking (6 stalls) along with trail connections into Medina
Lake Preserve is sufficient rather than requiring additional land for an off-street parking
lot.
2. Feedback on preferred location/route for the City trail between Arrowhead Drive and
Medina Lake Preserve.
3. Feedback on potential easement location for Diamond Lake Regional Trail.
The Park Commission asked questions about the location of the proposed trail head to the
southwest corner of Medina Lake Preserve to connect the trail and about lot size and number of
lots.
Steve Scherer pointed out the City will seek maintenance entry because the pontoon bridge is off
limits to equipment and machinery.
George Stickney approached the podium and introduced himself as one of the partners with BPS
Properties, LLC. He provided history on other projects which he has successfully completed
over the years. He commented that properties are left better than before he bought and
developed them. He committed to develop a really nice property here in Medina.
Medina Park Commission Meeting Minutes - DRAFT
September 15, 2021
Page 4 of 4
Stickney stated because of the wetland buffer the best option is in entry in the southwest corner.
Stickney said it is the intention of BPS Properties, LLC to divide the parcel into 11 to 17 lots and
noted even the smaller lot size would be gorgeous properties.
Steve Lee restated the necessity of an easement for purpose of city maintenance.
Stickney committed to a walking easement but will need to reimagine the design to
accommodate maintenance vehicles; the issue is a matter of back-yard privacy.
Lee stated the applicant must find a way for Public Works to access the preserve.
The Park Commission asked additional questions and reaffirmed their priority will be parking
adjacent to the park, the trail location to Arrowhead to avoid crossing over any driveways, and to
assure Public Works has vehicle access to the Preserve and Bridgewater.
The Park Commission thanked Stickney for attending the meeting and stated they look forward
to more answers with the formal preliminary plat at a future meeting.
7) Lakeshore Park Preliminary Concept Plan Review
Round table discussion took place with group consensus migrating toward Concept 1, minus
the Pollinator Woodland Garden.
The following comments were noted:
• In lieu of a Pollinator / Woodland Garden; is a covered pavilion and multi-purpose
turf area for games like shuffleboard or horseshoes.
• The Half Basketball Court seems small; could the space accommodate an “L” or
oblong or triangular shaped court?
• Too much pavement trail on the north side.
The following next steps were suggested:
1. Think about a scouting mission to explore Central Park in Maple Grove.
2. Provide feedback to Candace at WSB to update Concept 1.
3. Solicit public comment (i.e. social pinpoint).
4. Determine a timeline – Norman, Gallup, and Scherer will chat.
8) Staff Report
General Items – Scherer provided an update on Public Works and Finke provided an
update on Planning.
9) Adjourn
A motion was made by Hutchinson, seconded by Lee, and passed unanimously, to
adjourn the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
SH Ventures – Lifestyle Auto Condos Page 1 of 8 October 20, 2021
PUD Concept Plan Park Commission Meeting
TO: Park Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: October 15, 2021
MEETING: October 20, 2021 Park Commission
SUBJECT: SH Ventures, Inc. – PID 05-118-23-22-0005
Lifestyle Auto Condos – PUD Concept Plan
Summary of Request
SH Ventures, Inc. has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for development of individually
owned auto-condos within twelve buildings with an aggregate footprint of approximately
258,000 square feet. The subject site is south of Highway 55, west of Pioneer Trail. An aerial of
the site and surrounding property can be found below.
MEMORANDUM
SH Ventures – Lifestyle Auto Condos Page 2 of 8 October 20, 2021
PUD Concept Plan Park Commission Meeting
The subject site is currently farmed. There are lower lying areas along the west and east property
boundaries which may be wetland areas. Existing Rural Residential homes are located to the
east and southeast. Property to the west is currently farmed and designated as Future
Development Area. The City of Corcoran is north of Highway 55, with the property to the
northwest being zoned industrial.
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning
The subject site is designated as Future Development Area (FDA) in the Comprehensive Plan
and zoned Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR). The applicant is proposing a rezoning to
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for the development.
Staff has prepared a summary of relevant definitions, goals, principles, and objectives from the
Comprehensive Plan and the RR-UR and Rural Business Holding (RBH) zoning districts, which
is attached.
Staff has included some of the most pertinent information here as well.
The FDA land use is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
Future Development Area (FDA) identifies areas which could potentially be planned for future urban development in the City that will be provided municipal sewer and water services. This area will remain rural unless and until designated for urban services in a future Comprehensive Plan update. The purpose of the FDA designation is to communicate the future planning intentions to the community. This designation is tentative and depends greatly on future infrastructure improvements, including to regional highway capacity.
The following objectives of the Rural Residential/FDA land uses appear most relevant: 13. Protect property within the Future Development Area designation from subdivision and development by requiring ghost plats for subdivisions so that future urban expansion is not compromised. 8. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for new development in the Rural Residential and Future Development Area land use. 5. Allow land uses, such as home-based businesses, hobby farms, horse stables, nurseries and other smaller-scale rural activities, which will not conflict with adjoining residential development. 6. Regulate noise, illumination, animals, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. 14. Reduce impervious surfaces where possible by applying low impact design standards and encourage innovative materials and plans that reduce runoff.
The City currently zones property within the FDA land use as RR-UR. The Planning
Commission and City Council could discuss whether the objectives of the Comp Plan support
allowing limited business uses in the FDA land use prior to the time the area can be developed
with urban services.
SH Ventures – Lifestyle Auto Condos Page 3 of 8 October 20, 2021
PUD Concept Plan Park Commission Meeting
It is reasonable to find that allowing business development in the FDA in contrary to several of
the objectives. Staff is especially concerned with the possibility that development upon FDA
property will cause unforeseen issues with future development. Improvements may
inadvertently interfere with logical street and utility layouts in the future. Opportunities may be
lost to secure rights-of-way, easements, parkland and trail corridors, and similar requirements
which may be necessary to support nearby developments depending on the ultimate uses. Staff
also is hesitant to encourage new non-residential accesses onto Highway 55. These reasons are
why staff originally recommended the RR-UR zoning district for FDA property.
However, it may be reasonable for the City to allow limited business development within the
FDA land use, especially on property adjacent to Highway 55. Extension of urban services may
be decades in the future, and this would provide an opportunity for a more intensive use in the
interim.
PUD Concept Plan
The purpose of a PUD Concept Plan is to provide feedback to the applicant prior to a formal
application. Generally, the Planning Commission and City Council do not take any formal
action and the feedback is purely advisory.
Purpose of a Planned Unit Development
According to Section 827.25, PUD provisions are established to provide comprehensive
procedures and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the development of
neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing
for a mixture of uses. The PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this
Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is
intended to encourage:
1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic
expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the
conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
2. Higher standards of site and building design.
3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality
natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the
prevention of soil erosion.
4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which
result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of
the City.
5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding
open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses.
6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly
development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and
service facilities.
7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower
development costs and public investments.
8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is
not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)
9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on
zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
SH Ventures – Lifestyle Auto Condos Page 4 of 8 October 20, 2021
PUD Concept Plan Park Commission Meeting
Usually, PUD requests have similar use/density as the existing zoning designation and use the
existing zoning as an “underlying” or “base” zoning. The City then determines whether the
development made possible through the PUD better meets City goals and objectives than a
development which meets the strict letter of the underlying district. The alternative is that the
developer proceeds with what is allowed with the standard zoning.
This request is a little bit different. The existing RR-UR zoning district would permit just a few
rural homes and would not permit non-residential uses such as auto-condos. Some type of
rezoning would be necessary to allow for any use beyond agriculture and a few rural homesites.
The City has a great deal of discretion when considering the PUD.
Proposed Site Layout
The following table summarizes the proposed development compared to the requirements of the
Rural Business Holding (RBH) zoning district. As noted above, in other PUDs, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council compare the requirements of the
underlying district.
However, staff does not believe comparing the proposed PUD to the specific dimensional
standards of the RR-UR district is sufficient in this case. Staff believes a comparison to a district
which allows business uses would be helpful. The RBH zoning district is intended to apply to
property which is planned for Business development (generally within the 20-year Comp Plan
timeframe), but which has not yet been developed with utilities.
Proposed RR-UR
Requirement
RBH Requirement
Minimum Lot Size 30 acres 20 acres/home 20 acres
Minimum Lot Width 1023 feet 300 feet 200 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 1229 feet 200 feet 200 feet
Front Setback 76 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Side/Rear Setback 64 feet (east)
76 feet (west)
50 feet 30 feet
Residential Setback 64 feet (east)
76 feet (west)
N/A
75’ from comm.
100 feet
75’ w/ 70% screen
Parking Setbacks
Front Yard 40 feet 35 feet
Side/Rear 28 feet (east)
20 feet (west)
20 feet
Residential 28 feet (east)
20 feet (west)
75 feet
50’ w/ 70% screen
Building Height 24 feet 40 feet 30 feet
Hardcover 20%-30% 60%
50% of suitable soils
SH Ventures – Lifestyle Auto Condos Page 5 of 8 October 20, 2021
PUD Concept Plan Park Commission Meeting
Limitation on Sanitary Sewer Usage
The RBH zoning district includes a limitation of sanitary sewage usage to a rate of 100 gallons
per day, per net acre, which would be approximately 3000 gallons/day for the subject site, or
approximately 11 SAC units. Generally, the City uses Met Council calculations for SAC units,
but adjusted the amount for this use based on data provided by the AutoMotorPlex. The City’s
calculation is 1 unit per 17,500 square feet + .08 SAC unit per condo. Using this calculation, the
RBH district requirement would limit this site to approximately 190,000 square feet of auto
condo building floor area (including mezzanine).
The applicant is proposing approximately buildings with a footprint of 258,000 square feet, plus
mezzanines, likely another 50% or so of the buildings with approximately 200 condos. This
would equate to approximately 37 SAC units proposed.
Transportation/Parking
The applicant proposes access to Highway 55, across from the Eley Auto. MnDOT has indicated
that left and right turn lanes would be required if this use is developed. The proposed access is
less than a ¼ mile west of Pioneer Trail, which is less than the ½ mile spacing recommended for
secondary intersections on principal arterial roadways in rural settings.
Staff generally recommends against creating new accesses to Highway 55 if at all possible.
Access needs to be provided for property, but staff believes the City has the opportunity to
reduce the impact of accesses through land planning. Zoning property which only has access
onto Highway 55 for less intensive uses is one strategy to reduce the impact of accesses onto
Highway 55.
If the City were to consider allowing more intensive uses within the FDA area along Highway
55, staff believes it may be beneficial to prioritize properties with the most practical access
options first. For example, properties along County Road 19 would have less impactful options
for access and could begin a system of frontage/backage roads for other properties. County Road
19 is constructed to handle trucks and more traffic volume then roadways such as Pioneer Trail
and Townline Road but provides safer options for access than Highway 55.
If the City were to rezone the property and permit more intensive development, staff believes it
is imperative that careful consideration be given to the layout so that improvements do not have
detrimental impact on infrastructure planning. Staff would recommend against any development
which does not provide flexibility in terms of right-of-way for future roadways. The applicant
has proposed providing right-of-way along the north of the property for a potential future
frontage road. Staff questions if this is the best option. A backage road along the southern
property line might provide more opportunity to serve lots fronting Highway 55 and also the
properties to the south in the future. It would also align better with the ultimate intersections at
County Road 19 and Pioneer Trail. Right-of-way along both the north and south of the property
would provide the most flexibility and would best overcome the risks of allowing premature
development which may impact future City infrastructure planning.
SH Ventures – Lifestyle Auto Condos Page 6 of 8 October 20, 2021
PUD Concept Plan Park Commission Meeting
Events
Staff recommends specific information and limitations on events if a formal application is to
proceed. Traffic and sewage usage would peak for car shows and other events well beyond the
day-to-day expected usage. With the limited infrastructure in the area, it will be important that
events are regulated.
Sewer/Water
No sewer or water infrastructure is located within a mile of the property and is not planned with
in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant proposes private shared septic and well systems. No information is provided on
the systems.
The City’s experience with the AutoMotorPlex has indicated that private auto condos do use a
comparatively low amount of water per square foot. Staff believes it would be possible to design
an appropriate private septic and well system for the site. Staff believes it would be important to
implement a series of protective sediment traps to reduce the likelihood of sediment for car
washing to impact the septic field.
No water service would be available for fire protection. The structures would need to be
sprinkled and supplied by a reservoir to provide adequate sprinkler flow. The fire department
could not supplement the fire suppression system through hydrants and would need to rely on
tankers.
The RBH district requires connection to the municipal sewer and water system when service is
available. The applicant should provide an implementation plan for connection to sewer and
water and determine how financial guarantees will be established for the cost of transition and
payment of relevant fees.
Park/Trails/Multi-Modal
While the City’s park and trail plans do not identify improvements in the area of the subject site,
staff believes this is because the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate intensive development
in the area within the planning horizon. Similar to the discussion related to transportation, staff
SH Ventures – Lifestyle Auto Condos Page 7 of 8 October 20, 2021
PUD Concept Plan Park Commission Meeting
believes it is important that the City not miss opportunities or paint itself into a corner by
allowing a development which does not provide provisions for future park and trail
improvements.
When the adjacent properties are planned for development on urban services, there will be a need
for park and trail improvements. Staff believes the reservation of land for parks and trails in the
future serves the purposes of the PUD ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
Trails
If the development were to proceed, staff would recommend trail easements effectively around
the perimeter of the site. The objective would be to provide the potential for future connections
to all adjoining properties and rights-of-way. Staff believes this type of flexibility is important
for properties that develop early in the FDA land use since the City does not know what
surrounding land uses will be when property develops in the future.
Parks
The City’s general goal is to have a park no more than ½ mile of planned residential
developments. As noted previously, the City has not yet planned future uses within the FDA, so
applying the ½ mile goal if difficult. Like other infrastructure, staff recommends approaching
parkland needs conservatively.
The FDA area north of Loretto is approximately 1.2 miles x 0.5 mile. There is also additional
FDA to the west of Loretto. This area suggests it would likely require a minimum of 2 parks in
the area to meet the ½ mile goal. The map below shows this area.
Legend
Subject Site
½ mile park radius
SH Ventures – Lifestyle Auto Condos Page 8 of 8 October 20, 2021
PUD Concept Plan Park Commission Meeting
The subject site is near the edge of the FDA and is proposing a non-residential use. These
factors suggest it may make sense to push the search area for a future park further west.
However, without knowing future planned uses or potentially updated park goals, it may be
advisable to consider whether parkland in the southwest corner of the property serves the
objectives of the PUD. Alternatively, park dedication fee could be collected in-lieu of additional
land dedication.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that, if the developer proceeds with a formal development request, that the
following provisions be included for parks and trails:
1) Trail easements in all locations which may necessitate connection between adjoining sites
and rights-of-ways. Staff would also recommend considering if there are options for
some of these trails to be constructed for the benefit of owners of the auto condo in the
interim and then transferred to be part of the City system when other development occurs.
2) Cash-in-lieu
One option may be to require dedication of land in the southwest corner of the site for future
park purposes as well. This property could be combined with future dedication from adjoining
sites to create a larger park. However, staff ultimately concluded that the large tracts to the west
may provide a more central location within the FDA for a future park. Staff does acknowledge
that securing land would likely provide the most flexibility. If the Park Commission believes
securing land is appropriate, staff would recommend the southwestern area of the property.
Attachments
1. Applicant narrative and supporting documentation
2. Concept Plan
3. Conceptual architectural design
Concept Stage PUD Application for a 31.5 Acre Parcel
Located on State Hwy. 55 in Medina for an
Upscale Life -Style Auto Condo Development
Proposed Concept PUD Application Summary:
Our proposed development by SH Ventures, Inc. is for a very upscale Life -Style
Auto Condo development bordering Hwy 55 in western Medina on an approximately
31.5 acre site. We are proposing to create approximately 240 units on the current
farmland.
There has been a strong demand for similar projects and our proposed development
aims to raise the bar and deliver a beautiful auto condo designed by award winning
ESG Architecture & Design. Our project as designed can be an option to the "up
north cabin" and a quick get -away as a "he-shed/she-shed" or perhaps to look at your
favorite automobile and send a couple emails from a superior setting to the kitchen
table that gets used to frequently as Covid has gotten many of us desiring to work
from home. The market is burgeoning and our proposed development may add north
of $50,000,000.00 to the local tax base, while not requiring municipal services of
water & sewer.
We have designed open space and a large setback from abutting properties to the
east, west and south. We are in discussions with MnDot about an access directly off
Hwy 55 and the trip generations are very low during the weekdays with trips
generally happening on Saturdays at other developments that we desire to
compliment. Trip generations are much lower with our proposed development than
the commercial use the city changed recently.
We propose to cluster the units in the northern 2/3 of the site. The property comes
with two outlots that provide site access and utility access from the eastern and
southern directions. We propose to widen Hwy 55 with City and MnDot approval
and have attached Exhibit -7 with road widening details. We further propose to only
use the existing site access from our eastern side as a secondary emergency vehicle
access.
This Narrative and accompanying Plans & Exhibits will further detail items as
requested by Zoning Administrator and City Ordinance.
Required Concept PUD Information per City Code Section 827.33:
(a) General Information: Names and addresses of existing landowner and
applicant found on City Application Form. Professional Consultants for our
proposed development include:
Architect: ESG Architecture & Design
500 S. Washington Ave. #1080
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Civil Engineer: Anderson Engineering of MN, LLC
13605 1St Ave. N #100
Plymouth, MN 55441
Traffic Engineer: Swing Traffic Solutions
4290 Norwood Land North
Plymouth, MN 55442
Attorney/Legal: Messerli & Kramer
1400 Fifth Street Towers
100 South Fifth St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Title Company: Custom Homes Builders Title LLC
10850O1d County Rd 15 #100
Plymouth, MN 55441
Applicant and landowner confirm that valid purchase agreement exists, an
existing title commitment exists and title commitment is being updated from
Custom Homes Builders Title LLC of Plymouth, MN.
(b) Present Status: Address of vacant land is XXX Highway 55 with property
Identification Information and legal addresses located in attached Exhibit 1-
PID & Limited Legal Description of Property. The existing Zoning of
residential was recently changed from previous Commercial Zoning without
the existing landowners knowledge. The existing Zoning Map is attached per
Exhibit 2-Existing/Current Zoning Map. An existing survey by Sathre-
Bergquist, Inc. depicting this parcel is found in attached Exhibit 3 -Existing
Survey. A new survey is being obtained depicting both subject vacant
property and land within 1,000 feet of subject property per City requirements.
(c) Written Statement: Refer to above Proposed Concept Stage PUD
Application Summary.
(d) Site Conditions: Site conditions detailed in attached Exhibit 3 -Existing
Survey by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. depicts a relatively flat site currently being
farmed as a corn field, with a small amount of wooded area on the far eastern
border. Our new survey on order will depict drainage patterns and significant
rock outcroppings if any, soil conditions, etc.
(e) Schematic Drawings of Proposed Development: Refer to attached Exhibit
4 -Schematic Concept Plans by ESG Architects depicting Upscale Life -Style
Auto Condo Plans & Renderings and Draft Site Plan.
(f) Statement of Number of Units & SF of Developed Land: At this early
Concept stage we are proposing up to approximately 12 separate buildings
with 20 units each for up to 240 total units. No area will be devoted to
residential use however unit owners will be able to customize their interiors
which may include bathrooms and mini -kitchens. All of the single -use space
will be devoted to auto condos with paving and parking area to be more further
defined by % in next PUD Application stage. A very large amount of open
space around the east and west sides and an even larger of open area will be
left vacant with this plan. An outdoor pavilion with picnic tables and play
area for youngsters is planned.
(g) PUD Staging: A Staging Plan will be forthcoming with next PUD
Application. Generally a project of this magnitude would be phased for three
construction seasons it is believed.
(11) Open Space Provisions: All individual owners in this development will be
required to be a member of an Auto condo owners association -similar to a
homeowners association with rules and regulations and a regular maintenance
fee to ensure all open spaces and roads are maintained on a regular basis.
(i) Restrictive Covenants: Restrictive covenants will be filed with title limiting
and regulating ownership regarding site use and maintenance, etc. as the City
desires and applicant believe an upscale development like this warrants.
Overnight living will be specifically prohibited in the forthcoming unit
owners association documents, similar to a homeowners association which
has rules and regulations specifying acceptable and non -acceptable uses.
(j) Schematic Utilities Plan: We have requested to provide the schematic
utilities plan during the next PUD Application stage. Our proposed
development will not be needed to hook up to municipal sewer and we desire
to provide subsurface sanitary sewage systems and well water at this site. Our
projects use will require very low water usage with some unit owners opting
to customize their units with bathrooms and/or mini -kitchenettes requiring
water and sanitary sewage needs. Additionally if our future planning
determines a unit should be dedicated to auto -watching we understand the
grey water storage/disposal needs to be addressed per City and State
regulations.
(k) Mailing Labels: Mailing Labels of property owners withing 1,000 feet of
the subject property have been obtained and found in attached Exhibit 6 -
Mailing Labels.
(1) & (m) Additional Information: Applicant will forward any additional
information as requested by Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission
and/or City Council as requested.
ATTACHED EXHIBITS:
1. PID's & Limited Legal Description of Property;
2. Existing/Current Zoning Map;
3. Existing Survey;
4. Schematic Concept Plans by ESG Architects;
5. Schematic Draft Site Plan by ESG Architects;
6. Mailing Labels for Properties within 1,000 ft. of Proposed Development;
7. Detail for Proposed Road Widening of Hwy 55.
File: Medina PUD concept Application
SEPT 2021 PID: 0511823220005
Medina, MN
Scale:1" = 100'-0"
AUTO CONDO
09.09.2021
SITE PLANMEDINA MN
EMERGENCY EXIT -TBD
HIGHWAY 55
HIGHWAY 55
EXPANSION SPACE
25
0
'
-
0
"
POND
PICNIC/ PLAYGROUND AREA
ENTRY/EXIT
ENTRY GATE
OUTDOOR
PAVILION
BLDG //01
BLDG //02
BLDG //03
BLDG //04
BLDG //05
BLDG //06
BLDG //07
BLDG //08
BLDG //09
BLDG //10
BLDG //11 BLDG //12
18' -
0
"
GUEST PARKING
68' - 0"
10' - 0"
280' - 0"
80' - 0"
80' - 0"
40' - 0"40' - 0"
29' - 0"
10' - 0"
29' - 0"
240' - 0"
6
8'
-
0
"
34' - 0"
30' - 0"
30
0
'
-
0
"
280' - 0"
1" = 100'-0"MP1.1
1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
SEPT 2021 PID: 0511823220005
Medina, MN
SEPT 2021 PID: 0511823220005
Medina, MN
SEPT 2021 PID: 0511823220005
Medina, MN
SEPT 2021 PID: 0511823220005
Medina, MN
SEPT 2021 PID: 0511823220005
Medina, MN
SEPT 2021 PID: 0511823220005
Medina, MN
TO: Medina Park Commission
FROM: Jodi Gallup, Assistant City Administrator
DATE: October 5, 2021
RE: Lakeshore Park Concept Plan – Public Feedback Process
Landscape Architect Candace Amberg with WSB updated the Lakeshore Park Concept
Plan to incorporate the Park Commission’s feedback. The next step in the process would
be to engage the neighborhood and residents of Medina on their likes, dislikes, and
suggested changes to the concept plan. Staff is seeking the Park Commission’s feedback
on the draft survey questions listed below.
Survey Introduction
The Medina Park Commission is seeking public input on a conceptual park design for
Lakeshore Park. The goal of this project is to revitalize Lakeshore Park to create a
welcoming gathering place for all members of the community.
Please provide your feedback on each of the proposed park features:
1) Covered Pavilion - The concept plan shows the addition of a covered pavilion
seating area that will overlook the lake on the north end of the park.
o How many tables would you like to see in the new pavilion?
1-2 picnic tables
3-5 picnic tables
Do not want a pavilion at this location
o Please provide general comments, likes, dislikes, or suggestions regarding
this park feature: _______________________________.
2) Open Play Area - The concept plan shows the removal of two old cedar trees on
north end of the park to create a safe level grassy open play area. The removal of
the trees will also allow more sunlight to create healthier grass.
o In the open grassy area on the north end, which would you prefer:
Leave the grass area open to allow people to bring their own lawn
games (beanbag toss, bocce ball, frisbee, etc.)
Install horseshoe pits
Install other lawn activities. Please describe ____________.
Do not remove the cedar trees
o The concept plan shows an option to repurpose the removed cedar trees by
creating a bench or natural play structure with them such as a balance
beam. Would this be of interest to you?
Yes
No
MEMORANDUM
o Please provide general comments, likes, dislikes, or suggestions regarding
this park feature: _______________________________.
3) Paved Trails – The concept plan shows new paved trails leading to the various
park features to allow for a more accessible park.
o Please provide general comments, likes, dislikes, or suggestions regarding
this park feature: _______________________________.
4) Basketball Half Court – Because of the small size of the park, the concept plan
shows the addition of an undersized half basketball court to create a gathering
place for older children.
o Please provide general comments, likes, dislikes, or suggestions regarding
this park feature: _______________________________.
5) Expanded Playground – The concept plan shows keeping the existing play
structure, which provides play features for children under 5 years old, along with
the addition of new play features for children ages 5-12.
o Should the swing set be removed to incorporate additional play features
for children ages 5-12?
o If swing set stays in the park, which would you prefer? (show photos in
concept)
two traditional swings
two toddler swings
one me and you swing
o Please provide general comments, likes, dislikes, or suggestions regarding
this park feature: _______________________________.
6) Seating next to Playground – The concept plan shows added seating next to the
playground.
o Should the seating be:
Benches
Picnic tables
Both benches and picnic tables
o Please provide general comments, likes, dislikes, or suggestions regarding
this park feature: _______________________________.
7) Kayak Rack – The concept plan shows the potential to add a kayak rack next to
the existing portable restrooms/garbage enclosure.
o Should the kayak rack be free and available on a first come basis or based
on a lottery rental system?
Free on a first come basis
Lottery rental system
o Would you have interest in renting a seasonal storage spot on the kayak
rack?
Yes
No
o If so, what pricing structure would you be willing to pay?
$150 per season (April through October)
$250 per season (April through October)
$150 per half season
• Spring/Early Summer Season (April through July 15)
• Late Summer/Fall Season (July 16 through October 31)
o Please provide general comments, likes, dislikes, or suggestions regarding
this park feature: _______________________________.
8) Additional Park Features – Keeping in mind the small size of this park, what
additional park features would you like to see incorporated into the concept plan
and why? _______________________________.
9) Additional Comments – Please provide any additional comments you may have
regarding this concept plan. _______________________________.
K:
\
0
1
8
7
6
0
-
0
0
0
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
L
A
K
E
S
H
O
R
E
P
A
R
K
F
I
N
A
L
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
Lakeshore Park Concept
Medina, Minnesota
October 14, 2021 | WSB Project number: 018760-000 Scale in Feet
100’0’50’25’
PICNIC SHELTER
WITH OVERLOOK
DECK
KAYAK RACK
STORAGE
HALF
BASKETBALL
COURT
ADDED PICNIC
TABLE AREA
EXPANDED
PLAYGROUND
PORTABLE
RESTROOM
OPEN LAWN SPACE /
LAWN GAME AREA
EXISTING
BOAT
RAMP
OPTION 1
• Remove cedar trees
and re-use wood within
park as nature play
feature or seating.
• Use area as open lawn
space or lawn game
area (bocce ball, horse
shoes).
OPTION 1
• Swing set that targets
all ages.
• Would take up more
room and smaller play
equipment area.
• 30’ x 45’ half basket
ball court to fit existing
open space.
• Basketball hoop
oriented away from
downhill side to avoid
losing ball down the
ramp.
• Additional picnic
tables to accomodate
older kids or parents
monitoring the
playground.
• Kayak rack for kayak /
canoe storage (at own
risk).
• Picnic shelter to fit 2-
3 picnic tables.
• Overlook deck with
view to Lake Indepen
dence - Select
trimming of existing
trees for view window.
OPTION 2
• Leave cedar trees.
OPTION 2
• Swing for young kids
(You and Me Swing).
• Would leave more room
for play equipment for
all ages.