The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About02-08-2022 Planning Commission Packet POSTED AT CITY HALL: February 4, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022 7:00 P.M. Meeting to be held telephonically/electronically pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021 Call-in Information: 612-517-3122 (Conference ID: 159 788 213#) Electronic access (via Microsoft Teams): link available at https://medinamn.us/pc 1. Call to Order 2. Changes to Agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Public Hearing – Rehkamp Larson on behalf of Chad and MT Abraham – 3003 Hamel Rd – Conditional Use Permit for construction of accessory dwelling unit – PID 1611823210007 6. Approval of January 11, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes 7. Council Meeting Schedule 8. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 February 2, 2022 City Council Meeting TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: January 26, 2022 MEETING: February 2, 2022 City Council Land Use Application Review A) Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Drive – BPS Properties has requested Preliminary Plat approval for a 30-lot subdivision east of Arrowhead Drive south of Bridgewater. The City previously reviewed a concept plan for the project. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 11 and unanimously recommended approval. Staff intends to present to City Council on February 2. B) Meander Boardwalk and Park PUD Concept Plan – south of Meander Road, west of Cavanaugh Drive – Medina Ventures has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for a commercial development. The concept shows a day care facility (7,500 s.f.), a venue (concerts/weddings/educational), and approximately 12,000-15,000 s.f. commercial space. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 11, provided comments, and was generally supportive of the concept. Staff intends to present to Park Commission on January 19 and City Council on February 2. C) Loram/Scannell Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Loram and Scannell have submitted materials for the City to prepare an EAW for a warehouse/industrial development east of Arrowhead Drive, south of Highway 55, to the south of Loram’s existing facility. Staff intends to request authorization from City Council to route the EAW at the February 2 meeting. D) Cates Ranch/Willow Drive Warehouse Industrial – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment Worksheet – Oppidan has requested review of an EAW and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a warehouse/industrial development east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 11 and voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Staff intends to present to Park Commission on January 19. Staff is awaiting completion of the public comment period for the EAW before presenting to Council. E) Prairie Creek Final Plat – Stelter Enterprises has requested final plat approval for a 17-lot villa subdivision at 500 Hamel Road. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will present to the City Council when complete, potentially at the February 15 meeting. F) Deng Septic Variance – 2472 Parkview Drive – Jet Deng has requested a variance to reconstruct and expand an existing septic drainfield in its existing location. Preliminary review is underway. G) Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit CUP – 3003 Hamel Road – Chad and MT Abraham have requested a CUP for a guest home to be constructed along with their new home at 3003 Hamel Road. A public hearing is scheduled for the February 8 Planning Commission meeting H) Ditter Heating and Cooling Site Plan Review – 820 Tower Drive – Ditter Heating and Cooling has requested a Site Plan Review for an approximately 5,000 square foot addition to its building. The application is incomplete for review and will be scheduled for a hearing when complete. I) BAPS Site Plan Review – 1400 Hamel Road – Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), Minneapolis, has requested Site Plan Review for construction MEMORANDUM Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 February 2, 2022 City Council Meeting of a place of assembly. The Planning Commission reviewed at the September 14 meeting and recommended approval. The City Council reviewed on October 5, October 19, and November 3 meeting. The applicant updated plans to be consistent with the recently adopted interim ordinance pertaining to rooftop elements. The Council adopted a resolution for approval at the November 16 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they will likely not begin construction until spring. J) Life-Style Auto Condo – South of Hwy 55, west of Pioneer – SH Ventures has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for development of 12 buildings with approximately 258,000 square feet of space for privately owned garage condos. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and provided comments at the October 12 meeting. Most Commissioners generally did not believe the proposal was consistent with the objectives of FDA land use of the Comp Plan. The Council reviewed at the November 16 Council meeting and provided comments. The applicant has requested that the City Council remain open, as they are considering potential updates to their Concept Plan. K) Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Pioneer Trail Preserve – These projects have been preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting final plat application. L) Caribou Cabin-Pinto Retail, Baker Park Townhomes, Johnson ADU CUP, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. M) Weston Woods, Hamel Haven subdivision – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded. Other Projects A) Rooftop Elements Moratorium – Staff began researching regulations in other communities and reviewing existing rooftop elements within the City. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance at the January 11 meeting and the City Council discussed on January 18. Staff intends to present the ordinance for potential adoption at the February 15 meeting. B) Stormwater Utility REF analysis – staff completed the annual analysis of Residential Equivalent Factors (REFs) for stormwater utility charges for 2022. C) Open to Business annual update – I met with John Endris from Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD) for an update on the Open to Business program in Medina. The City partners with Hennepin County to offer free consulting for businesses and entrepreneurs in the community. Following is a summary of 2021 activities: “Open to Business did 9 hours of technical assistance for Medina for 3 businesses • 1 of the businesses was located in Medina and owned by a resident of Medina • 1 of the businesses was located in Medina was owned by resident of Plymouth • 1 of the businesses was in Maple Grove, but owned by a resident of Medina • 1 health and wellness business, 1 IT business, 1 food business. The technical assistance provided was primarily marketing coaching and education. The health and wellness business needed help updating their digital footprint/online presence. OTB introduced them to several free or inexpensive tools they can use to enhance their digital marketing. OTB also provided insight, training for those tools. The IT business was a new home based company that needed help establishing their digital footprint/online presence. This relationship just started and is expected to continue. Open to Business was contacted for funding assistance by a food business. OTB assisted the entrepreneur with assembling a loan package to secure emergency funding.” D) Annual Reporting – staff is completing various reports which are due for 2021 activities, including Municipal State Aid Certification of Mileage, Subsurface Sewage Treatment System, Wetland Conservation Act, Stormwater Utility Residential Equivalent Factor calculations. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety DATE: January 26, 2022 RE: Department Updates These past two weeks front office staff and I have been very busy with data requests stemming from a trespassing investigation at Hennepin County Public Works. We also continue to work on year end reporting requirements. I continue to monitor covid sickness within the police and fire departments. To date most departments have reported some personnel out with Covid but we are not to critical levels. We are hoping that we have weathered the storm again as it is being reported that the peak has hit and hopefully will subside soon. On January 22, 2022, our department held its annual in-service first responder training put on by North Memorial. This included a lecture from Dr. Lilja who is a Medical Director at North Memorial Medical Center. Dr. Lilja has over 50 years of medical experience and is extremely fun to listen to and learn from. This, as always, was good classroom training along with scenarios tailored to police response. Our Hennepin County Chiefs of Police group and Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association representatives met this past week with Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman. The group is trying to work together and look at police reforms and policies that the County Attorney’s Office has put in place that we feel are not working. The goal is to work on these issues together so there is input from both sides to come up with better refined policies and common ground on the current issues. This was a promising first step. Patrol: The following are updates of Patrol Officers between January 12, 2022, and January 21, 2022: Officers issued 17 citations and 20 warnings for various traffic offenses, responded to 3 property damage accidents, 1 injury accident, 8 medicals, 4 suspicious calls, 2 traffic complaints, 4 assists to other agencies, and 4 business/residential alarms. On 01/12/2022 Officers were dispatched to the skating rink at the Hamel Legion Park on a reported broken bone. A juvenile skater had apparently suffered an ankle injury while skating. Upon arrival by officers the juvenile’s parent was also on scene. Officers assisted getting the party off the ice to the responding ambulance. On 01/13/2022 Officers responded to a report of a possible injury accident at the intersection of County Road 24 and County Road 19. A witness had reported a car had been on County Road 24 and had gone through the stop sign at County Road 19 at full speed, went off the road and struck a tree. Upon arrival the driver reported minimal injuries and stated he was trying to get back home to Eagan after running some errands earlier in the day. The driver was found to be suffering from Alzheimer’s, was somewhat confused and had no idea where he was and had been driving around for several hours trying to get home. The driver was transported to the hospital by North Ambulance. On 01/14/2022 Officer took a threat report at Valvoline, 200 block of Clydesdale Trail. Management reported receiving a phone call from the father of someone that had a car serviced at the business. Afterwards it was reported that the vehicle began having mechanical issues and the father believed Valvoline was the cause. Officer advised the issue with the vehicle was a civil dispute. Father admitted he may have used poor choice of words while speaking with the Valvoline employee. Father was advised not to return to Valvoline per the request of management. On 01/18/2022 Officer responded to an injury accident in the area of Highway 55 and Rolling Hills Road. Upon arrival the officer learned it was a single vehicle accident. The driver reported he was eating McDonalds while driving and began choking on his food. The driver apparently blacked out and drove off the road into the ditch and struck a tree. A homeowner in the area was snow blowing his driveway and the vehicle nearly struck him when it ran off the road. The driver was evaluated by Paramedics but declined transport. Incident could have been much worse for everyone involved. On 01/17/2022 Officer responded to an intentional drug overdose in the 3400 block of Elm Creek Drive. A juvenile reported intentionally taking an excessive amount of prescription medication. North Ambulance arrived and evaluated the juvenile. Parents were home at the time of the incident and had been unaware of the issue with their child until police arrived at the residence. On 01/18/2022 Officer was called to a suspicious vehicle parked in the driveway of a residence in the 1800 block of Buckskin Drive. Upon arrival the officer made contact with a limousine and its driver who had arrived to pick up the reporting party. The reporting party had forgot he had called for the limousine. Investigations: I have spent the past month getting adjusted to the new schedule and the new workload, and what the job entails, which has been a lot of fun thus far. I look forward to seeing what the position brings over the next couple of years. I recently learned information that begins to implicate a suspect in a burglary on Willow Drive. The suspect was found to be in possession of items stolen from the house. I am now working on a warrant to determine who was in the that area at the time of the burglary. DNA was taken from the house and is being processed, and a known sample from the suspect was taken to compare against the sample from the house, if there was DNA left behind. The suspect is not cooperative currently. Investigating a theft from a construction site where the suspect entered the victim’s vehicle and stole his wallet. He then attempted to use the stolen credit cards at Target and Home Depot for $2000. Video surveillance has been obtained and we have at least one related case from Richfield with the same suspect. Took a report of a fraud from a resident who had $27,850 worth of fraudulent checks written out to an individual. The name on the checks is a real person in the State. Copies of the checks have been obtained and the investigation is ongoing to learn where they were cashed at to obtain video surveillance and other information. A follow-up to the burglaries at the Clydesdale Marketplace (Sprinkler room, X-Golf, and Dover Saddlery), a warrant has been drafted and will be executed to determine who was in the area at the time, as we have run out of other viable options with video surveillance or DNA. There are currently fourteen cases assigned to investigations. 1 TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE January 26, 2022 MEETING: February 2, 2022 SUBJECT Public Works Update STREETS • Public Works has been dealing with several small snowfalls over the past two weeks. They’ve been a bit less work compared to larger snowfalls but are still very time consuming. • Public Works took delivery of road salt this past week. We treated 200 tons so it will work better in the colder temperatures experienced in January and February. • Staff will recommend that Medina and Corcoran contribute to fund the western side of the Hackamore and 101 intersection project that Plymouth will construct in 2022. The project is a much needed upgrade for Hackamore Road. Details will follow soon. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • Public Works held a mock stormwater audit conducted by WSB to establish a baseline and view of how we measure up with the ever-changing stormwater permit requirements. Additionally, it captures details so we can move forward with the necessary modifications to our 2021-2025 SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) for the MPCA. • I am gathering quotes to replace the filter media at the treatment plant. We expect the results of the feasibility report will confirm media replacement is necessary to get the plant back to full capacity. My goal, if possible, is to accomplish this prior to irrigation season. PARKS/TRAILS • Public Works will soon be soliciting RFPs for lawn maintenance on city properties. Historically we’ve entered into a two-year agreement with the sub- contractor. • I have remained very busy gathering quotes for the 2022 Hunter Park renovation project. Quote items include court fencing, bituminous installation, coating and striping, and concrete work. • Staff and WSB met on site with the sellers for a phase I inspection of the potential parkland purchase. MEMORANDUM 2 • Staff published a commission opening in the February newsletter, on our website, and on Facebook to fill the open park commission seat. • Lisa, Derek, and I met with Christine (Facility Manager at the Hamel Community Center) to discuss work order procedures and a general update on the condition of the building contents and future needs. PERSONNEL • Public Works remains shorthanded. Included in the council packet is a request for authorization to begin the process of advertising for the open position. • Lisa is on track to move to Public Works full-time over the next couple of weeks. We’re looking forward to focusing on numerous projects that have been sidelined. Conditional Use Permit Page 1 of 6 February 8, 2022 Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit Planning Commission Meeting TO: Planning Commission FROM: Colette Baumgardner, Planning Intern; through Planning Director Finke DATE: February 2, 2022 MEETING: February 8, 2022 Planning Commission SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Dwelling Unit – 3003 Hamel Rd – Public Hearing Summary of Request Rehkamp Larson Architects has submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on behalf of the Abraham family to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit on their property at 3003 Hamel Rd. The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) will have two bedrooms, a living space, kitchen, and two car garage. The ADU will be built in conjunction with a new home on their property and will have compatible building materials and architectural style as the main house. MEMORANDUM Approximate Location of Home and ADU Conditional Use Permit Page 2 of 6 February 8, 2022 Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit Planning Commission Meeting The subject property is 16.97 acres in size and is zoned Rural Residential. An aerial view of the property can be found on the previous page. The majority of the southern border of the property is on School Lake or its shoreland. The property is bordered to the north by Hamel Rd (County Rd 115). The neighboring property to the east is vacant and to the west is a single-family home. The lot is subject to the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District because it is located adjacent to School Lake. The previous home and barn on the property were demolished in 2017, so the subject property is currently vacant. The proposed use would develop the property to have a single-family home and one accessory structure. Following is a comparison of the proposed ADU to the setback requirements of the RR district: RR Requirement Proposed Minimum Front Setback 50 feet 760 feet Minimum Side Setback 50 feet 206 feet (east) 244 feet (west) Minimum Rear Setback 50 feet 540 feet Minimum Setback from School Lake 150 feet 292 feet Maximum Hardcover (shoreland overlay district) 25% ~7% (with house/driveway) CUP Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units An ADU is an allowed conditional use within the Rural Residential zoning district, subject to the following review criteria (City Code Section 826.98, Subd. p). Staff has provided potential findings for each in italics. (i) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a property. No accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a property on which a lodging room or a second residential dwelling is located; The proposed ADU would be the only accessory dwelling on the property, and it would be an accessory to the single-family home. (ii) Accessory dwelling units within the SR (Suburban Residential), UR (Urban Residential), R1 (Single-Family Residential) or R2 (Two-Family Residential) zoning districts shall be attached to the principal single family structure; The property is zoned Rural Residential, so an ADU is permitted as an accessory structure. The ADU is connected to the principal building with a covered breezeway, so depending on construction of the breezeway, it will likely be considered “attached” to the principal building in this case. (iii) The lot shall contain an existing single-family dwelling unit; The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family dwelling and the ADU concurrently. Staff recommends a condition that the ADU becomes effective upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the home. Conditional Use Permit Page 3 of 6 February 8, 2022 Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit Planning Commission Meeting (iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the lesser of the following: 1) 750 square feet for a one-bedroom unit; 2) 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit; or 3) 40 percent of the habitable area of the principal single-family dwelling; The habitable area of the ADU is 908 square feet, and it is less than 40% the habitable area of the principal dwelling. (v) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of habitable space; The habitable area of the ADU is 908 square feet, which exceeds 300 square feet. (vi) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms; The ADU contains two bedrooms. (vii) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per bedroom for the accessory dwelling unit. Such parking spaces shall not interfere with accessing the required garage spaces for the principal single-family dwelling; The ADU has two dedicated garage spaces that do not interfere with the principal structure garage. (viii) No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory dwelling unit; The ADU shares a driveway with the principal dwelling. (ix) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the principal single-family dwelling; This is an on-going requirement, which staff recommends as a condition if approved. (x) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence; This is an on-going requirement, which staff recommends as a condition if approved. The property owner intends to live in the principal structure and friends and family members will occupy the ADU when visiting. (xi) If the accessory dwelling unit is located within a structure detached from the principal single-family dwelling, the architectural design and building materials shall be of the same or higher quality and shall complement the single-family dwelling. Additionally, the structure shall meet the setback requirements of the principal structure and shall count towards the maximum number and building size of accessory structures permitted on a property; The ADU will be built at the same time as the principal dwelling, and the two structures are designed to be architecturally compatible with each other. The ADU meets the requirements for setbacks, and would be the only accessory structure on the property. Conditional Use Permit Page 4 of 6 February 8, 2022 Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit Planning Commission Meeting (xii) Adequate utility services shall be available to serve the accessory dwelling unit. This shall include adequate capacity within individual sewage treatment systems for both the principal single family dwelling and the accessory dwelling, where applicable. The application contained a design report for a new primary and secondary sewage treatment system. The design has been reviewed by the City Building Official, and it is expected to be adequate. (xiii) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit above the first floor shall be located in a way to minimize visibility from the street and, to the extent possible, from neighboring property. Such stairway shall incorporate a deck a minimum of 27 square feet in area; No exterior stairway is proposed. (xiv) The City Council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the single-family residential character of the surrounding area. A copy of the resolution approving an accessory dwelling unit and describing the conditions, restrictions and limitations on the use shall be recorded against the property. The Planning Commission and City Council may wish to discuss any additional limitations which are deemed appropriate. General Conditional Use Permit Standards In addition to the specific standards for both the accessory structures and the accessory dwelling unit noted above, the Planning Commission and City Council are to consider the following general criteria when reviewing all CUPs (City Code Section 825.39): 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. Staff does not believe the ADU will be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property nor will the CUP impair property values. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. Staff does not believe the ADU will impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Staff recommends the provision of these facilities and compliance with City Engineer review comments as a condition, if approved. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. Staff believes adequate parking exists on the property. Conditional Use Permit Page 5 of 6 February 8, 2022 Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit Planning Commission Meeting 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. Staff does not believe an accessory dwelling structure would bring up these concerns, as they are more relevant for commercial uses. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The proposed uses are listed as allowed conditional uses. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. Staff believes accessory dwelling units are consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the RR zoning district. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies of the City. Staff does not believe the proposed use is in conflict with the policies of the City. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. Staff does not believe the CUP would cause traffic or congestion concerns. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Staff does not believe the use would cause these concerns. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The applicant intends to construct the new home later this year. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. The City Attorney has not requested additional documentation with regards to ownership at this time. Staff Recommendation When reviewing a conditional use permit request, the Planning Commission and City Council should review the specific and general criteria described above. If the criteria are met, the CUP should be approved. The City has minimal discretion when it comes to conditional use permits. The City may impose additional standards and requirements, as described in Section 825.41 of the City Code. These conditions may include, but are not limited, to the following: “1. Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions. 2. Limiting the height, size or location of buildings. 3. Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points. 4. Increasing the street width. 5. Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces. 6. Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs. Conditional Use Permit Page 6 of 6 February 8, 2022 Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit Planning Commission Meeting 7. Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or nearby property. 8. Designating sites for open space.” Staff has provided potential findings for the criteria throughout the report. Subject to the conditions below, it appears that the request generally meets the criteria. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions. 1) This conditional use permit shall be contingent upon construction of a new single-family home on the Property, and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2) The single-family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit may not be conveyed separately and shall at all times be under common ownership. 3) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence. 4) The applicant shall address the comments of the City Engineer and obtain necessary permits from the City, Hennepin County, Minnehaha Creek Watershed, and other relevant agencies. 5) Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction. 6) The application shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance, including provisions for recordation of easements, planting of appropriate vegetation and installation of required signs. 7) The property owner shall abide by all conditions of Medina City Code Section 826.98, Subd. 2(p). 8) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs associated with the review of the application for the Conditional Use Permit. Potential Motion If the Planning Commission finds that it is appropriate, the following motions would be in order: Move to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the findings and subject to the conditions described in the staff report. Attachments 1. Applicant narrative 2. Conditional Use Permit Application 3. Site Plan/Building Plans Guest House Conditional Use Permit 3003 Hamel Road, Medina, MN January 28, 2022 Along with the design and construction of a new house at 3003 Hamel Road, a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (Guest House) is being requested for this property. This Guest House will have two bedrooms/living spaces and will meet all the City of Medina’s requirements relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. The Guest House will be located directly adjacent to the Main House and has been designed with massing, proportions, and materials that will visually tie the buildings together. Thank you Abraham Guest House Conditional Use Permit Application 3003 Hammel Road, Medina, MN January 7, 2022 Accessory Dwelling unit requirement summary for 3003 Hammel Road, Medina MN (i)This will be the only accessory dwelling unit located on the property (ii) This dwelling unit is not in UR, R1, or R2 zoning districts so requirement to be attached does not apply. (iii) This will be built along with a principle single family dwelling unit. (iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1000 sf as it will be a 2 Bedroom unit. Refer to drawings showing the square footages that apply. (v) The accessory unit contains more than 300 SF of habitable space (908 SF of habitable space) as shown on the drawings. (vi) This accessory dwelling unit contains 2 bedrooms as shown on the drawings. (vii) The design has 2+ parking spaces so meets the 1 off street parking space per bedroom rule and will not interfere with accessing the required garage spaces for the principle single family dwelling. This is shown on the Site plan A01 and A02. (viii) This accessory dwelling unit will not have a 2nd driveway (ix) This accessory dwelling will be used as guest house so will not be sold or conveyed separately from the principle single family dwelling. (x) The property owner will occupy the principle single family dwelling unit. (xi) This accessory dwelling unit meets all setbacks required for the principle structure and also compliments the design of the principle dwelling by matching materials, Architectural proportions, and design elements. See 3D model views on A08 and exterior elevation drawings. (xii) Adequate utility services are being planned for and will be available to serve the accessory dwelling unit including septic system that will be designed to adequately meet the needs of both the principle single family dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit. (xiii) There is no exterior stairway to the accessory dwelling unit. Medina City Code 826. Zoning – District Provisions 826. Zoning – District Provisions Page 74 of 78 (vii) a grading plan shall be submitted and approved by the City in accordance with the recommendations of the University of Minnesota Extension Service and approved by the City Engineer. Said plan shall clearly demonstrate that storm water runoff from the hard surfaces on the property is directed away from the stable areas and manure containment facilities, and surrounding wetlands, streams or lakes (if any) and the site must maintain these drainage patterns to the satisfaction of the City; (viii) the site shall install runoff retention and vegetative infiltration systems, consistent with the recommendations of the University of Minnesota Extension Service and as approved by the City, down slope from the stables and manure containment area. The vegetation adjacent to any wetlands shall be subject to the city’s wetland protection ordinance; (ix) diligent effort shall be made to prevent the cribbing of trees in or near pastures, and efforts to maintain grass in the pastures by limiting use thereof as appropriate and by providing supplemental feed to prevent over grazing by instituting a pasture management program in accordance with the recommendation of the University of Minnesota Extension Service and as approved by the City; and (x) the city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. (p) Accessory Dwelling Units. (i) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a property. No accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a property on which a lodging room or a second residential dwelling is located; (ii) Accessory dwelling units within the SR (Suburban Residential), UR (Urban Residential), R1 (Single-Family Residential) or R2 (Two-Family Residential) zoning districts shall be attached to the principal single family structure; (iii) The lot shall contain an existing single-family dwelling unit; (iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the lesser of the following: 1) 750 square feet for a one-bedroom unit; 2) 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit; or 3) 40 percent of the habitable area of the principal single-family dwelling; (v) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of habitable space; (vi) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms; Medina City Code 826. Zoning – District Provisions 826. Zoning – District Provisions Page 75 of 78 (vii) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per bedroom for the accessory dwelling unit. Such parking spaces shall not interfere with accessing the required garage spaces for the principal single-family dwelling; (viii) No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory dwelling unit; (ix) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the principal single-family dwelling; (x) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence; (xi) If the accessory dwelling unit is located within a structure detached from the principal single-family dwelling, the architectural design and building materials shall be of the same or higher quality and shall complement the single-family dwelling. Additionally, the structure shall meet the setback requirements of the principal structure and shall count towards the maximum number and building size of accessory structures permitted on a property; (xii) Adequate utility services shall be available to serve the accessory dwelling unit. This shall include adequate capacity within individual sewage treatment systems for both the principal single family dwelling and the accessory dwelling, where applicable. (xiii) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit above the first floor shall be located in a way to minimize visibility from the street and, to the extent possible, from neighboring property. Such stairway shall incorporate a deck a minimum of 27 square feet in area; and (xiv) The city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the single-family residential character of the surrounding area. A copy of the resolution approving an accessory dwelling unit and describing the conditions, restrictions and limitations on the use shall be recorded against the property. Amendment History of this Section November 5, 1985 – Ord. 224 – Added Section 826.26 and Subd. 3 of Section 826.01, establishing the Rural Residential 1 Zoning District. THE ABRAHAM FARMHOUSE 3003 Hamel Road, Medina, MN GENERAL NOTE: FULL-SIZE SET: 24" x 36" SHEETS- SCALE AS NOTED @ EACH DWG. HALF-SIZE SET: 11" x 17" SHEETS- SCALE IS 1/2 OF NOTED @ EACH DWG. Owners: Chad and Mikki Abraham 2920 Fox Street Orono, MN 55356 Architect: Rehkamp Larson Architects Inc. 2732 West 43rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55410 t. 612.285.7275 Contacts: Jean Rehkamp Larson, AIA jean@rehkamplarson.com Ryan Bicek, AIA ryan@rehkamplarson.com CONTACTS Landscape Architect: Keenan Sveiven 15119 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 Contact: Kevin Keenan kevin@kslandarch.com t. 952.475.1229 c. 612.328.2560 DRAWING INDEX Interior Designer: Brooke Voss 530 N 3rd Street Studio 320 Minneapolis, MN 55401 t. 763.227.0008 Contacts: Brooke Voss brooke@brookevossdesign.com Structural Engineer: Bunkers & Associates, LLC Structural Engineers 6687 Forest Street Farmington, MN 55024 t. (651) 366.2853 Contact: Eric Bunkers, P.E. A00 A01 A02 A08 A10 A10.3 A11 A11.3 A13 A20 A21 A27 TITLE SHEET SITE DIAGRAM SITE DIAGRAM PRELIMINARY 3D VIEWS LOWER LEVEL REFERENCE PLAN LOWER LEVEL DETAILED PLAN MAIN LEVEL PLAN REFERENCE PLAN MAIN LEVEL DETAILED PLAN ROOF PLAN REFERENCE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS REFERENCE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS REFERENCE GUEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- DETAILED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR 2 BEDROOM GUEST HOUSE (ADU) Builder Streeter & Associates Deephaven Office 18312 Minnetonka Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 t: (952) 449-9448 Contacts: Nate Wissink nwissink@streeterhomes.com t: (952) 346-2488 c: (612) 250-0829 Contact Josh Swanson jswanson@streeterhomes.com c: (612) 799-7620 RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 A00 TITLE SHEET RB, JRL TH E A B R A H A M P R O P E R T Y 216'-11" 82'-8" PR O P O S E D MA I N L E V E L AT 1 0 5 2 PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE (ADU) PROPOSED HOUSE RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 SITE DIAGRAM JRL DN DN UP DN DN 2 DN 15 30 DN 2 216'-11" 82'-8" DN DN UP DN DN 2 DN 15 30 DN 2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL AT 1052 PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE (ADU) PROPOSED HOUSE RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 SITE DIAGRAM JRL 1 3D VIEWS 3D VIEWS RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 UP 32STORAGE 006 32 32 UP 32 36 32 BEDROOM 2 002 MECH ROOM 006 BATHROOM 004 4'-6" 5' - 8 " 3'-2" 10 ' - 8 " 18'-11" 32 CLOSET 003 18'-11" ELEVATOR 008 LOWER STAIR 007 TILE FLOOR DRAIN LAUNDRY 005 POLISHED RUBBER CONCRETE ELEVATOR HALL 009 LOWER STAIR HALL 001 STAIR UNEXCAVATED 006a 008a 003a 004a 004b 004c 005a 006a 006b 005a STONE THESE WALLS AT INTERIOR BE N C H W D BE N C H ASSUME GYP. BOARD WALLS MA T C H L I N E MATCH LINE MA T C H L I N E K 32 002a 275 SF 14 ' - 4 " HABITABLE SPACE FOR ADU ON THIS LEVEL= 275 SF 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 25 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " A B C D A2 4 A21 1 A31 2 A31 RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 LOWER FLOOR PLAN RB, JRL 1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/8" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES: 1. PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF SHEATHING OR FACE OF CONCRETE WALLS @ EXTERIOR WALLS. 2. INTERIOR PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD UNLESS NOTED @ CL OR OTHERWISE. 3. COORDINATE ALL MECHANICAL OPENINGS IN WALLS, FLOORS, CEILINGS, ROOFS OR OTHERWISE W/ ARCHITECT & OWNER. 4.CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ALL MAIN PLUMBING DRAINS/VENTS WITH TRUSS LAYOUT. 5. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MILLWORK SHOP DRAWINGS FOR OWNER/ ARCHITECT REVIEW PRIOR TO MILLWORK FABRICATION. 6. NO SPRAY TEXTURED OR KNOCK DOWN CEILINGS 7. ALL KITCHEN CABINETS TO GO FULL HEIGHT TO CEILING U.N.O. 8. COORDINATE LOCATION OF ALL EXTERIOR METER/EQUIPMENT (GAS, ELEC, ETC.) W/ OWNER AND ARCHITECT. 9. PROVIDE ACOUSTIC BATT INSULATION IN WALLS AROUND ALL BEDROOMS, BATHROOMS, LAUNDRY, ETC. AND IN FLOORS BETWEEN LEVELS. 10.TEMPERED GLASS TO BE PROVIDED IN ALL WINDOWS & DOORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE DN 11'-4" 4'-41 2" 3' - 7 " 3'-7" 6'-0" 3' - 6 " 14'-0" 15 ' - 2 " 21'-0" 8' - 7 " UPDN 71 . 5 " x 3 9 . 5 " x 3 0 . 5 " t a l l K FILES STONE STONE STONE 8'-47 8"8'-47 8" 8'-47 8" 8'-6"8'-6" 26'-0" GAS FP 31 2" 8'-55 8"8'-1" WOOD WOOD FLOOR WOOD WOOD STONE/TILE WOOD TILE WOOD WINDOW SEAT FLOOR DRAIN FLOOR DRAIN CURBLESS SHOWER 101a 105a 105b 106a 103a 107a 101a 109a 108a 108b COAT CLOSET BUILT IN SHELVES BENCH W/ HOOKS COAT CLOSET REF. 30" VFY SIZE DW TRASH/ REC. BALCONY 24 ' - 6 " 4'-6" 4'-0"4'-0" 4' - 0 " OSE BIB HOSE BIB HOSE BIB 4'-10" 8' - 2 " 6' - 6 " 10 ' - 3 " 2' - 0 " 16'-6" 15 ' - 0 " STONE BENCH- OPEN TO STAIR STEEL BAR STOCK AND WOOD COMBO RAILING- DESIGN TBD STONE WALLS STONE WALLS STONE WALLS 5' - 1 0 " 3'-61 2" 6' - 9 " 9'-4" BUILT-IN UNDER WINDOWS BUILT-IN UNDER WINDOWS CONCRETE ASSUME EPOXY IPE DECKING DRAWER MIC. 12 ' - 0 " MATCH LINE MA T C H L I N E 32 48 36 32 32 36 ENTRY 101 MIKKI'S OFFICE ELEVATOR 109 STAIR 102 LIVING ROOM 103 GUEST KITCHEN 102 GUEST BATH 105 GUEST BEDROOM 106 MUDROOM 107 GUEST GARAGE 108 STAIR HALL 104 PANTRY 111 36" REF. 168 SF FOR BEDROOM SPACE 465 SF FOR KITCHEN AND LIVING ROOM DN 2 ENTRY HALL 101 8'-47 8" 4'-10" 16'-2" 14 ' - 9 " HABITABLE SPACE FOR ADU ON THIS LEVEL= 168 SF + 465 SF= 633 SF 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 25 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " A2 4 A21 1 A31 2 A31 RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN RB, JRL 1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/8" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES: 1. PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF SHEATHING OR FACE OF CONCRETE WALLS @ EXTERIOR WALLS. 2. INTERIOR PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD UNLESS NOTED @ CL OR OTHERWISE. 3. COORDINATE ALL MECHANICAL OPENINGS IN WALLS, FLOORS, CEILINGS, ROOFS OR OTHERWISE W/ ARCHITECT & OWNER. 4.CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ALL MAIN PLUMBING DRAINS/VENTS WITH TRUSS LAYOUT. 5. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MILLWORK SHOP DRAWINGS FOR OWNER/ ARCHITECT REVIEW PRIOR TO MILLWORK FABRICATION. 6. NO SPRAY TEXTURED OR KNOCK DOWN CEILINGS 7. ALL KITCHEN CABINETS TO GO FULL HEIGHT TO CEILING U.N.O. 8. COORDINATE LOCATION OF ALL EXTERIOR METER/EQUIPMENT (GAS, ELEC, ETC.) W/ OWNER AND ARCHITECT. 9. PROVIDE ACOUSTIC BATT INSULATION IN WALLS AROUND ALL BEDROOMS, BATHROOMS, LAUNDRY, ETC. AND IN FLOORS BETWEEN LEVELS. 10.TEMPERED GLASS TO BE PROVIDED IN ALL WINDOWS & DOORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE 51 X 105 51 X 60 28 X 35 28 X 3528 X 3528 X 3528 X 35 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 64 X 24 64 X 67 36 X 63 36 X 55 69 X 24 69 X 67 36 X 55 70 X 67 70 X 24 36 X 39 58 X 63 8/0 X 7/10 015a 003a 003b 003c 004a 004b 004c 004d 005a 005b 119h 119i 119j 119e 119f 119g 119k 107a 108e 108f 108g 108h 108i 108j 108n108m108k 106a 105a 105b 105c 105d 105e 104c 104d 104b104a 002d 212d 212e 214a 213a 205f 205a 205b 205c 205d 205e 205g 205h 205i 205j 206a 206b 206c 103F 51 X 6050 X 60 50 X 60 50 X 60 50 X 105 50 X 105 50 X 105 51 X 105 ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING-RED METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING-RED CEDAR SHINGLES PHANTOM SCREENS SCREENS SCREENS SCREENS SCREENS VERTICAL T&G BARN WOOD- RED EGRESS HORIZONTAL RECLAIMED SHIPLAP BARN WOOD- RED 8' - 1 0 " 5" 4' - 7 1 2" 7' - 0 " 9 12 7' - 9 " 7' - 1 0 1 2" 19 ' - 8 " 29 ' - 9 " 18 ' - 9 " 8 12 STONE 18 ' - 9 " T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR EL. T.O. LOWER FLR. SLAB EL: T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 8 3 4" 8' - 6 1 2" 10 ' - 1 1 8" T.O. FOUNDATION EL. T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR EL. T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 6 3 4" 8' - 1 1 8" 32 X 37 32 X 37 32 X 39 69 X 24 69 X 67 36 X 57 36 X 57 36 X 57 36 X 57 36 X 57 36 X 57 67 X 24 67 X 67 3/0 X 8/0 3/0 X 8/0 123b 123c 120c 119a 119b 119c 119d 108a 108c 108d 108b 209b 209c 209d 212a 212b 212c 108R 108S ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL PHANTOM SCREENS STEEL BAR STOCK HORIZONTAL RAILING DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS CEDAR SHINGLES CEDAR SHINGLES METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING WB FIREPLACE PHANTOM SCREENS SCREENSSCREENS SCREENS VERTICAL T&G BARN WOOD- GRAY VERTICAL T&G RECLAIMED BARN WOOD- GRAY 6' - 6 " 7' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 8' - 0 1 2" 7' - 2 1 2" AT BAR WINDOW WALL BEYOND ASSUME (4) 24X48 WINDOW PANELS THAT ARE BIFOLD. SO 2 EACH SIDE. 10 ' - 1 1 1 2" 20 ' - 5 " T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR EL. T.O. LOWER FLR. SLAB EL: T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 8 3 4" 8' - 6 1 2" 10 ' - 1 1 8" T.O. FOUNDATION EL. T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR EL. T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 6 3 4" 8' - 1 1 8" RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS RB, JRL 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" 36 X 45 28 X 35 28 X 35 28 X 35 28 X 35 28 X 35 36 X 51 36 X 51 28 X 33 28 X 33 36 X 45 32 X 37 32 X 37 60 X 67 60 X 67 51 X 63 108c 103d 103e 102a 102b 123a 117a 118a 120a 120b 207a 208a 203a 203b 203c 203d 203e 203f 203g 203h 203i 203j 210a 210b 209a ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING-RED CEDAR SHINGLES VERTICAL T&G RECLAIMED BARN WOOD- WEATHERED RED VERTICAL T&G RECLAIMED BARN WOOD- GRAY HORIZONATL SHIPLAP BARN WOOD- GRAY VERTICAL T&G BARN WOOD- GRAY HORIZONTAL RECLAIMED SHIPLAP BARN WOOD- RED CUSTOM WD. DOOR RECLAIMED BARNWOOD TRIM, FASCIA, SOFFITS, RAFTER TAILS 7' - 2 1 2" 7' - 2 1 2" 8' - 0 " 11 ' - 3 5 8" 21 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 1 1 1 2" 11 ' - 4 " 8 12 8 12 T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR EL. T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 8 3 4" 8' - 6 1 2" 10 ' - 1 1 8" T.O. FOUNDATION EL. T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR EL. T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 6 3 4" 8' - 1 1 8" 32 X 47 32 X 47 64 X 67 64 X 24 36 X 5154 X 92 36 X 51 36 X 43 8/2 X 8/2 003d 003e 005c 005d 005e 005f 005g 108p 104e 104f 104g 104h 103a 103b 103c 113a 114a 114b 114c 206D ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL DECORATIVE TIMBER BEAMS COPPER CHIMNEY CAPS COPPER HALF ROUND GUTTERS STEEL BARSTOCK RAILINGS 8' - 0 " DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING-RED CEDAR SHINGLES CEDAR SHINGLES DECORATIVE TIMBER BEAMS VERTICAL T&G BARN WOOD- GRAY HORIZONATL SHIPLAP RECLAIMED BARN WOOD- GRAY VERTICAL T&G RECLAIMED BARN WOOD- GRAY CUSTOM WOOD GARAGE DOORS- CLAD IN WEATHERED RED HORIZONTAL SHIPLAP RECLAIMED BARN WOOD- GRAY 19 ' - 1 0 " T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR EL. T.O. LOWER FLR. SLAB EL: T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 8 3 4" 8' - 6 1 2" 10 ' - 1 1 8" T.O. FOUNDATION EL. T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR EL. T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 6 3 4" 8' - 1 1 8" 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 27 X 33 27 X 33 27 X 33 27 X 33 60 X 67 001a 002a 002b 002c 103a 103c107a104a 104b 101a60 X 67 DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING (GRAY) CUSTOM WOOD GARAGE DOORS- CLAD IN WEATHERED GRAY VERTICAL RECLAIMED SHIPLAP BARN WOOD- RED 18 ' - 9 " 11 ' - 1 1 1 2" STONE 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 27 X 33 27 X 33 27 X 33 27 X 33002e002f004a004b 103d 103e 102a 105a 108a 108b DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING 60 X 67 10X EGRESS VERTICAL RECLAIMED SHIPLAP BARN WOOD- RED 18 ' - 9 " 11 ' - 1 1 1 2" STONE T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR EL. T.O. LOWER FLR. SLAB EL: T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 8 3 4" 8' - 6 1 2" 10 ' - 1 1 8" T.O. FOUNDATION EL. T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR EL. T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 6 3 4" 8' - 1 1 8" RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS RB, JRL 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" 3 GUEST HOUSE- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" 4 GUEST HOUSE- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" THE ABRAHAM FARMHOUSE 3003 Hamel Road, Medina, MN GENERAL NOTE: FULL-SIZE SET: 24" x 36" SHEETS- SCALE AS NOTED @ EACH DWG. HALF-SIZE SET: 11" x 17" SHEETS- SCALE IS 1/2 OF NOTED @ EACH DWG. Owners: Chad and Mikki Abraham 2920 Fox Street Orono, MN 55356 Architect: Rehkamp Larson Architects Inc. 2732 West 43rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55410 t. 612.285.7275 Contacts: Jean Rehkamp Larson, AIA jean@rehkamplarson.com Ryan Bicek, AIA ryan@rehkamplarson.com CONTACTS Landscape Architect: Keenan Sveiven 15119 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 Contact: Kevin Keenan kevin@kslandarch.com t. 952.475.1229 c. 612.328.2560 DRAWING INDEX Interior Designer: Brooke Voss 530 N 3rd Street Studio 320 Minneapolis, MN 55401 t. 763.227.0008 Contacts: Brooke Voss brooke@brookevossdesign.com Structural Engineer: Bunkers & Associates, LLC Structural Engineers 6687 Forest Street Farmington, MN 55024 t. (651) 366.2853 Contact: Eric Bunkers, P.E. A00 A01 A02 A08 A10 A10.3 A11 A11.3 A13 A20 A21 A27 TITLE SHEET SITE DIAGRAM SITE DIAGRAM PRELIMINARY 3D VIEWS LOWER LEVEL REFERENCE PLAN LOWER LEVEL DETAILED PLAN MAIN LEVEL PLAN REFERENCE PLAN MAIN LEVEL DETAILED PLAN ROOF PLAN REFERENCE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS REFERENCE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS REFERENCE GUEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- DETAILED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR 2 BEDROOM GUEST HOUSE (ADU) Builder Streeter & Associates Deephaven Office 18312 Minnetonka Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 t: (952) 449-9448 Contacts: Nate Wissink nwissink@streeterhomes.com t: (952) 346-2488 c: (612) 250-0829 Contact Josh Swanson jswanson@streeterhomes.com c: (612) 799-7620 RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 A00 TITLE SHEET RB, JRL TH E A B R A H A M P R O P E R T Y 216'-11" 82'-8" PR O P O S E D MA I N L E V E L AT 1 0 5 2 PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE (ADU) PROPOSED HOUSE RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 SITE DIAGRAM JRL DN DN UP DN DN 2 DN 15 30 DN 2 216'-11" 82'-8" DN DN UP DN DN 2 DN 15 30 DN 2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL AT 1052 PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE (ADU) PROPOSED HOUSE RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 SITE DIAGRAM JRL 1 3D VIEWS 3D VIEWS RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 UP 32STORAGE 006 32 32 UP 32 36 32 BEDROOM 2 002 MECH ROOM 006 BATHROOM 004 4'-6" 5' - 8 " 3'-2" 10 ' - 8 " 18'-11" 32 CLOSET 003 18'-11" ELEVATOR 008 LOWER STAIR 007 TILE FLOOR DRAIN LAUNDRY 005 POLISHED RUBBER CONCRETE ELEVATOR HALL 009 LOWER STAIR HALL 001 STAIR UNEXCAVATED 006a 008a 003a 004a 004b 004c 005a 006a 006b 005a STONE THESE WALLS AT INTERIOR BE N C H W D BE N C H ASSUME GYP. BOARD WALLS MA T C H L I N E MATCH LINE MA T C H L I N E K 32 002a 275 SF 14 ' - 4 " HABITABLE SPACE FOR ADU ON THIS LEVEL= 275 SF 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 25 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " A B C D A2 4 A21 1 A31 2 A31 RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 LOWER FLOOR PLAN RB, JRL 1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/8" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES: 1. PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF SHEATHING OR FACE OF CONCRETE WALLS @ EXTERIOR WALLS. 2. INTERIOR PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD UNLESS NOTED @ CL OR OTHERWISE. 3. COORDINATE ALL MECHANICAL OPENINGS IN WALLS, FLOORS, CEILINGS, ROOFS OR OTHERWISE W/ ARCHITECT & OWNER. 4.CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ALL MAIN PLUMBING DRAINS/VENTS WITH TRUSS LAYOUT. 5. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MILLWORK SHOP DRAWINGS FOR OWNER/ ARCHITECT REVIEW PRIOR TO MILLWORK FABRICATION. 6. NO SPRAY TEXTURED OR KNOCK DOWN CEILINGS 7. ALL KITCHEN CABINETS TO GO FULL HEIGHT TO CEILING U.N.O. 8. COORDINATE LOCATION OF ALL EXTERIOR METER/EQUIPMENT (GAS, ELEC, ETC.) W/ OWNER AND ARCHITECT. 9. PROVIDE ACOUSTIC BATT INSULATION IN WALLS AROUND ALL BEDROOMS, BATHROOMS, LAUNDRY, ETC. AND IN FLOORS BETWEEN LEVELS. 10.TEMPERED GLASS TO BE PROVIDED IN ALL WINDOWS & DOORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE DN 11'-4" 4'-41 2" 3' - 7 " 3'-7" 6'-0" 3' - 6 " 14'-0" 15 ' - 2 " 21'-0" 8' - 7 " UPDN 71 . 5 " x 3 9 . 5 " x 3 0 . 5 " t a l l K FILES STONE STONE STONE 8'-47 8"8'-47 8" 8'-47 8" 8'-6"8'-6" 26'-0" GAS FP 31 2" 8'-55 8"8'-1" WOOD WOOD FLOOR WOOD WOOD STONE/TILE WOOD TILE WOOD WINDOW SEAT FLOOR DRAIN FLOOR DRAIN CURBLESS SHOWER 101a 105a 105b 106a 103a 107a 101a 109a 108a 108b COAT CLOSET BUILT IN SHELVES BENCH W/ HOOKS COAT CLOSET REF. 30" VFY SIZE DW TRASH/ REC. BALCONY 24 ' - 6 " 4'-6" 4'-0"4'-0" 4' - 0 " OSE BIB HOSE BIB HOSE BIB 4'-10" 8' - 2 " 6' - 6 " 10 ' - 3 " 2' - 0 " 16'-6" 15 ' - 0 " STONE BENCH- OPEN TO STAIR STEEL BAR STOCK AND WOOD COMBO RAILING- DESIGN TBD STONE WALLS STONE WALLS STONE WALLS 5' - 1 0 " 3'-61 2" 6' - 9 " 9'-4" BUILT-IN UNDER WINDOWS BUILT-IN UNDER WINDOWS CONCRETE ASSUME EPOXY IPE DECKING DRAWER MIC. 12 ' - 0 " MATCH LINE MA T C H L I N E 32 48 36 32 32 36 ENTRY 101 MIKKI'S OFFICE ELEVATOR 109 STAIR 102 LIVING ROOM 103 GUEST KITCHEN 102 GUEST BATH 105 GUEST BEDROOM 106 MUDROOM 107 GUEST GARAGE 108 STAIR HALL 104 PANTRY 111 36" REF. 168 SF FOR BEDROOM SPACE 465 SF FOR KITCHEN AND LIVING ROOM DN 2 ENTRY HALL 101 8'-47 8" 4'-10" 16'-2" 14 ' - 9 " HABITABLE SPACE FOR ADU ON THIS LEVEL= 168 SF + 465 SF= 633 SF 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 25 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 0 " A2 4 A21 1 A31 2 A31 RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN RB, JRL 1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/8" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES: 1. PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF SHEATHING OR FACE OF CONCRETE WALLS @ EXTERIOR WALLS. 2. INTERIOR PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD UNLESS NOTED @ CL OR OTHERWISE. 3. COORDINATE ALL MECHANICAL OPENINGS IN WALLS, FLOORS, CEILINGS, ROOFS OR OTHERWISE W/ ARCHITECT & OWNER. 4.CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ALL MAIN PLUMBING DRAINS/VENTS WITH TRUSS LAYOUT. 5. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MILLWORK SHOP DRAWINGS FOR OWNER/ ARCHITECT REVIEW PRIOR TO MILLWORK FABRICATION. 6. NO SPRAY TEXTURED OR KNOCK DOWN CEILINGS 7. ALL KITCHEN CABINETS TO GO FULL HEIGHT TO CEILING U.N.O. 8. COORDINATE LOCATION OF ALL EXTERIOR METER/EQUIPMENT (GAS, ELEC, ETC.) W/ OWNER AND ARCHITECT. 9. PROVIDE ACOUSTIC BATT INSULATION IN WALLS AROUND ALL BEDROOMS, BATHROOMS, LAUNDRY, ETC. AND IN FLOORS BETWEEN LEVELS. 10.TEMPERED GLASS TO BE PROVIDED IN ALL WINDOWS & DOORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE 51 X 105 51 X 60 28 X 35 28 X 3528 X 3528 X 3528 X 35 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 64 X 24 64 X 67 36 X 63 36 X 55 69 X 24 69 X 67 36 X 55 70 X 67 70 X 24 36 X 39 58 X 63 8/0 X 7/10 015a 003a 003b 003c 004a 004b 004c 004d 005a 005b 119h 119i 119j 119e 119f 119g 119k 107a 108e 108f 108g 108h 108i 108j 108n108m108k 106a 105a 105b 105c 105d 105e 104c 104d 104b104a 002d 212d 212e 214a 213a 205f 205a 205b 205c 205d 205e 205g 205h 205i 205j 206a 206b 206c 103F 51 X 6050 X 60 50 X 60 50 X 60 50 X 105 50 X 105 50 X 105 51 X 105 ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING-RED METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING-RED CEDAR SHINGLES PHANTOM SCREENS SCREENS SCREENS SCREENS SCREENS VERTICAL T&G BARN WOOD- RED EGRESS HORIZONTAL RECLAIMED SHIPLAP BARN WOOD- RED 8' - 1 0 " 5" 4' - 7 1 2" 7' - 0 " 9 12 7' - 9 " 7' - 1 0 1 2" 19 ' - 8 " 29 ' - 9 " 18 ' - 9 " 8 12 STONE 18 ' - 9 " T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR EL. T.O. LOWER FLR. SLAB EL: T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 8 3 4" 8' - 6 1 2" 10 ' - 1 1 8" T.O. FOUNDATION EL. T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR EL. T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 6 3 4" 8' - 1 1 8" 32 X 37 32 X 37 32 X 39 69 X 24 69 X 67 36 X 57 36 X 57 36 X 57 36 X 57 36 X 57 36 X 57 67 X 24 67 X 67 3/0 X 8/0 3/0 X 8/0 123b 123c 120c 119a 119b 119c 119d 108a 108c 108d 108b 209b 209c 209d 212a 212b 212c 108R 108S ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL PHANTOM SCREENS STEEL BAR STOCK HORIZONTAL RAILING DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS CEDAR SHINGLES CEDAR SHINGLES METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING WB FIREPLACE PHANTOM SCREENS SCREENSSCREENS SCREENS VERTICAL T&G BARN WOOD- GRAY VERTICAL T&G RECLAIMED BARN WOOD- GRAY 6' - 6 " 7' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 8' - 0 1 2" 7' - 2 1 2" AT BAR WINDOW WALL BEYOND ASSUME (4) 24X48 WINDOW PANELS THAT ARE BIFOLD. SO 2 EACH SIDE. 10 ' - 1 1 1 2" 20 ' - 5 " T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR EL. T.O. LOWER FLR. SLAB EL: T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 8 3 4" 8' - 6 1 2" 10 ' - 1 1 8" T.O. FOUNDATION EL. T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR EL. T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 6 3 4" 8' - 1 1 8" RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS RB, JRL 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" 36 X 45 28 X 35 28 X 35 28 X 35 28 X 35 28 X 35 36 X 51 36 X 51 28 X 33 28 X 33 36 X 45 32 X 37 32 X 37 60 X 67 60 X 67 51 X 63 108c 103d 103e 102a 102b 123a 117a 118a 120a 120b 207a 208a 203a 203b 203c 203d 203e 203f 203g 203h 203i 203j 210a 210b 209a ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING-RED CEDAR SHINGLES VERTICAL T&G RECLAIMED BARN WOOD- WEATHERED RED VERTICAL T&G RECLAIMED BARN WOOD- GRAY HORIZONATL SHIPLAP BARN WOOD- GRAY VERTICAL T&G BARN WOOD- GRAY HORIZONTAL RECLAIMED SHIPLAP BARN WOOD- RED CUSTOM WD. DOOR RECLAIMED BARNWOOD TRIM, FASCIA, SOFFITS, RAFTER TAILS 7' - 2 1 2" 7' - 2 1 2" 8' - 0 " 11 ' - 3 5 8" 21 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 1 1 1 2" 11 ' - 4 " 8 12 8 12 T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR EL. T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 8 3 4" 8' - 6 1 2" 10 ' - 1 1 8" T.O. FOUNDATION EL. T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR EL. T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 6 3 4" 8' - 1 1 8" 32 X 47 32 X 47 64 X 67 64 X 24 36 X 5154 X 92 36 X 51 36 X 43 8/2 X 8/2 003d 003e 005c 005d 005e 005f 005g 108p 104e 104f 104g 104h 103a 103b 103c 113a 114a 114b 114c 206D ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL ARCADIA STEEL DECORATIVE TIMBER BEAMS COPPER CHIMNEY CAPS COPPER HALF ROUND GUTTERS STEEL BARSTOCK RAILINGS 8' - 0 " DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING-RED CEDAR SHINGLES CEDAR SHINGLES DECORATIVE TIMBER BEAMS VERTICAL T&G BARN WOOD- GRAY HORIZONATL SHIPLAP RECLAIMED BARN WOOD- GRAY VERTICAL T&G RECLAIMED BARN WOOD- GRAY CUSTOM WOOD GARAGE DOORS- CLAD IN WEATHERED RED HORIZONTAL SHIPLAP RECLAIMED BARN WOOD- GRAY 19 ' - 1 0 " T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR EL. T.O. LOWER FLR. SLAB EL: T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 8 3 4" 8' - 6 1 2" 10 ' - 1 1 8" T.O. FOUNDATION EL. T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR EL. T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 6 3 4" 8' - 1 1 8" 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 27 X 33 27 X 33 27 X 33 27 X 33 60 X 67 001a 002a 002b 002c 103a 103c107a104a 104b 101a60 X 67 DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING (GRAY) CUSTOM WOOD GARAGE DOORS- CLAD IN WEATHERED GRAY VERTICAL RECLAIMED SHIPLAP BARN WOOD- RED 18 ' - 9 " 11 ' - 1 1 1 2" STONE 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 27 X 33 27 X 33 27 X 33 27 X 33002e002f004a004b 103d 103e 102a 105a 108a 108b DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS DECORATIVE CUPOLA WITH VENTS METAL STANDING SEAM ROOFING 60 X 67 10X EGRESS VERTICAL RECLAIMED SHIPLAP BARN WOOD- RED 18 ' - 9 " 11 ' - 1 1 1 2" STONE T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR EL. T.O. LOWER FLR. SLAB EL: T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 8 3 4" 8' - 6 1 2" 10 ' - 1 1 8" T.O. FOUNDATION EL. T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR EL. T.O.PL. TYPICAL EL. 1' - 6 3 4" 8' - 1 1 8" RE H K A M P L A R S O N A R C H I T E C T S I N C . 27 3 2 W e s t 4 3 r d S t r e e t , M p l s , M N 5 5 4 1 0 Te l . 6 1 2 - 2 8 5 - 7 2 7 5 DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: PROJECT PHASE: PROJECT NUMBER: Ab r a h a m F a r m h o u s e 30 0 3 H a m e l R o a d Med i n a , M N JANUARY 7, 2022 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SET 21-004 CO N D I T I O N A L U S E P E R M I T _ J A N U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS RB, JRL 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" 3 GUEST HOUSE- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" 4 GUEST HOUSE- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday January 11, 2022 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Nielsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Neilsen read a statement explaining that the meeting is being held in a virtual format due to 8 the ongoing pandemic. She provided instructions for public participation. 9 10 Present: Planning Commissioners Ron Grajczyk, John Jacob, Beth Nielsen, Cindy Piper, 11 Justin Popp, Braden Rhem and Timothy Sedabres. 12 13 Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke, City Planner Deb Dion, and Planning 14 Intern Colette Baumgardner. 15 16 2. Changes to Agenda 17 18 Nielsen noted that typically the elections would occur at the beginning of the meeting but 19 have been placed at the end in order to prioritize the public hearing items. She requested to 20 move the Public Comments item to be considered as Item 10. 21 22 Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Rhem, to move agenda Item 4, Public Comments on Items 23 Not on the Agenda, to be considered as Item 10. 24 25 A roll call vote was performed: 26 27 Grajczyk aye 28 Jacob aye 29 Piper aye 30 Popp aye 31 Rhem aye 32 Sedabres aye 33 Nielsen aye 34 35 Motion carried. 36 37 3. Introduction of Planning Commissioners 38 39 Jacob introduced himself to the Commission. The other members of the Commission also 40 introduced themselves and welcomed Jacob to the Commission. 41 42 4. Update from City Council Proceedings 43 44 Reid reported that the Council met recently to discuss rooftop elements and to review the 45 EAW related to the proposed Cates Industrial Park project. She stated that the Council met 46 on January 4th in closed session to discuss possible land acquisition. 47 48 Nielsen noted that Reid was again appointed as the Council Liaison to the Commission for 49 2022. 50 51 2 Reid commented that she enjoys working with the Planning Commission and therefore 52 requested reappointment. 53 54 5. Planning Department Report 55 56 Finke provided an update. 57 58 6. Public Hearing – Meander Park and Boardwalk Development – Medina 59 Ventures, LLC – PUD Concept Plan for Commercial Development and 60 Three-Lot Residential Subdivision (PID 0211823330003) 61 62 Finke presented a request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for a commercial 63 and residential development and provided details on the subject site and adjacent land uses. 64 He stated that the applicant is considered an event center, restaurant, retail, and daycare 65 center for the commercial portion of the site. He noted that three residential units would be 66 proposed for the north side of Meander Road. He explained that the property south of 67 Meander is zoned and designated for commercial use while the property to the north is zoned 68 low density residential. He stated that although a PUD is requested to allow flexibility from 69 the underlying zoning districts, the underlying zoning regulations are used for comparison 70 purposes. He stated that the proposed development would by and large meet the standards of 71 the commercial highway district with the exception of the drive aisle setback. He stated that 72 in reference to the residential portion of the project, the applicant would like to use an 73 attached housing product in order to meet the density of the zoning district and because of the 74 location of the wetlands. He stated that recommendations were included from staff related to 75 the commercial and residential development proposals. He summarized the additional staff 76 comments related to transportation and trail connectivity. He welcomed input from the 77 Commission. 78 79 Piper asked if the large building schematic framed with a tree inside would be the event 80 center. 81 82 Finke commented that he believes that would be what is labeled as the conservatory which 83 would be attached to the event venue. 84 85 Jacob asked for more explanation on the internal transportation plan. 86 87 Finke stated that there would be a proposed access on Meander, noting that the main spine 88 into the site would have parking spaces adjacent. He noted that staff has suggested redesign 89 of the parking lot to identify that as the main connection. He welcomed input from the 90 Commission on whether there should be a public street connecting Meander and Tamarack or 91 whether the access should be provided through a private drive with cross easements for 92 access. 93 94 Jacob asked if the red dotted line would be a frontage road. 95 96 Finke replied that is the utility plan showing conceptual sewer and water mains. 97 98 Jacob commented that he likes the concept and if there is going to be a high volume of traffic, 99 there should be thought for a safe mode for people to access their vehicles and maneuver in 100 and out of the area. 101 102 Rhem referenced the commercial portion of the development and asked the flexibility that the 103 PUD would provide in this concept. 104 3 105 Finke commented that the primary flexibility would be related to building design and 106 materials. He noted that the other flexibility would be related to the boardwalk spaces which 107 go amongst all the uses. He explained that the concept would be to have outdoor spaces as an 108 important part of the uses on the site and provided additional details on how that would relate 109 to the commercial district. 110 111 Christopher Peterson, Medina Ventures LLC, commented that he also lives within 500 feet of 112 the subject site. He stated that he is very excited about the project and chose to enter into the 113 endeavor because he has been a Medina resident since 2015 and has worked in the city for 114 decades. He stated that during that time he has seen a lot of growth and a demand for 115 restaurants and recreation. He stated that his idea for this development would combine 116 multiple things onto a property that has a large amount of wetland and only a smaller portion 117 of developable property. He stated that they attempted to provide an aesthetically pleasing 118 development that provides amenities and services that are needed along with the ability to 119 enjoy the natural area of the wetland. He explained that the boardwalk would be a key 120 component of the development for that purpose. He noted that the three story building would 121 most likely not be three stories. He stated that the intent is for people to feel like they are 122 immersed into a wetland area while they are able to visit a restaurant, attend an event, or just 123 gather. He stated that his intent is to receive any input from the Commission and residents 124 that may be present in order to ensure that this development would benefit the community for 125 years to come. 126 127 Nielsen asked the applicant for thoughts on the staff comments for the traffic flow. 128 129 Peterson stated that they are trying to balance the needed parking without creating a giant 130 parking lot with too much parking. He stated that the entrance on the south side was placed 131 based on the comments from the City Engineer that there should be a distance of at least 400 132 feet from Fields of Medina West. He stated that having a road on the east side of the daycare 133 would require that building to be moved to the west, but they would be open to that. He 134 stated that they have went through multiple renditions of the design and can consider a looped 135 system. He stated that there is a dead property to the east and was unsure that there would be 136 any sort of access to the east. He agreed that it would make sense from the standpoint of 137 safety but also acknowledged that it would require cooperation from another party. 138 139 Popp asked if there has been thought to ecofriendly design. 140 141 Peterson commented that he has been in the solar industry and understands the need for green 142 roofs and sustainability. He stated that they do have a LEED certified engineer working on 143 the project and have also discussed eco friendliness with the architect. He stated that there is 144 potential but some of those decisions would be budget dependent. He commented that they 145 will incorporate the right type of sustainable design that is practical for the site as well. 146 147 Popp asked if there is a minimum parking stall number in mind. 148 149 Peterson commented that the range at this time would be 215 to 240, depending on the ratio 150 determined for the event center and the type of retail. He believed that they could achieve the 151 parking needs with 235 stalls or less. He commented that the target demographic often 152 utilizes other modes of transportation and therefore there is often less demand on parking. He 153 cautioned against building too much parking as times are changing with more use of things 154 like Uber. He stated that he would hate to build too much parking. 155 156 4 Sedabres referenced the residential component and asked for details on the proposed product 157 and density. 158 159 Peterson commented that he believed that four units could be fit on the northern property. He 160 commented that there is a lot of west facing wetland with relatively little upland compared to 161 the wetland. He stated that the density in the adjacent neighborhood is similar, the homes are 162 just larger. He stated that he would like to have three or four high scale townhomes that look 163 out on the wetland. He stated that he would prefer to keep the homes close together in order 164 to preserve more greenspace and be more visually aesthetic. He noted that he could also 165 adjust the road to not be as long and winding. 166 167 Nielsen asked if the applicant has any concern with the recommendations of staff. 168 169 Peterson commented that he does not have issues with the staff comments. He noted that one 170 of his main concerns is that this development is different and asked how the future 171 development of Tamarack Drive would be beneficial to this property. He noted that this 172 property would be boutique design focused on preservation of natural features and wetlands. 173 He was unsure the benefit that would be provided to this development by the Tamarack Drive 174 project in return for the financial contribution that would be required from the property. He 175 referenced the boardwalk and stated that his goal is to make the boardwalk a part of the 176 wetland. He asked for clarification on the latitude that they would have to get the boardwalk 177 as close to, or through the wetland. 178 179 Finke commented that the Tamarack Drive study calculated the projected traffic to be created 180 in this area. He recognized that looked more broadly and assumed that Tamarack Drive 181 would be a primary point of access for the subject site. He commented that it is fair to 182 recognize how the traffic generation and distribution would work, but also noted that there 183 would be benefit to having a traffic signal at Tamarack and 55. He stated that related to the 184 wetland buffer requirements and the boardwalk, he believed the PUD could provide the 185 flexibility in terms of the buffer. He stated that if supported by the Commission and Council, 186 perhaps the applicant would engage an ecological consultant that could provide more details 187 on the functions and value of the buffer that would fall beneath the boardwalk. 188 189 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. 190 191 No comments. 192 193 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. 194 195 Grajczyk commented that this is a unique area and appreciated the input of the developer on 196 his intent for the property. He commented on the vision the City has and noted that this 197 proposal would provide amenities that the community desires. He commented that he would 198 want to ensure there is accessibility for everyone in a safe fashion. He stated that he liked the 199 timber beam framed structures with a more modern look. He stated that a good mix of 200 materials would coincide with the material requirements of the City. He asked if this would 201 also be a good area for a bus stop for public transportation, as that could benefit the residents 202 in the neighborhoods. 203 204 Jacob had no further comments. 205 206 Piper commented that she is impressed with what she sees. 207 208 5 Popp commented that the concept plan is well done, fits with the vision and cultural values of 209 the community, and would provide amenities for the neighboring residents. He stated that he 210 also appreciated the connection to the park at Fields of Medina and potential connection to 211 the Diamond Lake Regional Trail (DLRT). He stated that he could support lesser parking as 212 long as the requirements are met. He commented that it is a beautiful concept and he is 213 supporting. 214 215 Rhem applauded the applicant and architect for a great design that fits well with the 216 Comprehensive Plan. 217 218 Sedabres stated that this is a great proposal. He noted that the thought of the event center and 219 conservatory is great and fits well with the natural setting. He stated that there are a lot of 220 separate buildings in the commercial portion. He stated that he would be open to lesser 221 parking and would be supportive of the request for a second entry. He stated that this is a big 222 development with a lot of induvial units. 223 224 Nielsen applauded the design and looked forward to visiting the development in the future. 225 She stated that she would like to see more of a designated road for access. She noted that she 226 would also support connection to the DLRT. She stated that boardwalks are a great feature 227 would like to see that integrated into the wetland. 228 229 Peterson appreciated the review and input from the Commission. 230 231 Finke stated that the intent would be to present to the Park Commission on January 19th and 232 to the City Council on February 1st. 233 234 7. Public Hearing – Marsh Pointe Preserve – BPS Properties LLC – 4250-4292 Arrowhead 235 Drive – Preliminary Plat and PUD General Plan of Development for 30-Lot Subdivision 236 237 Finke presented a Preliminary Plat and General Plan of Development for a 30-lot subdivision 238 on approximately 12 net acres. He noted that the Commission, Park Commission and City 239 Council previously provided input on the concept plan. He stated that the density would be 240 proposed at 2.5 units per acre which falls within the range for low density residential. He 241 reviewed the surrounding land uses. He displayed an illustrative design which shows an 242 access from Arrowhead Drive to the west and terminating in a cul-de-sac. He noted that most 243 of the sites would be single loaded from the street. He explained that there is not enough 244 space to front lots on both sides of the road through most of the development because of the 245 width from the northern property line to the required wetland buffer on the south. He stated 246 that there are some wetland impacts to widening the roadway to provide access to the eastern 247 portion of the site, therefore the application would be subject to approval of the Wetland 248 Conservation Act (WCA) replacement plan. He stated that this proposed development would 249 be low density residential which has a density range of 25 to 36 units for the site, noting that 250 the applicant proposes 30 lots for the site. He reviewed requirements of the R-1 and R-2 251 districts, which would allow low density residential, and noted that the applicant proposes a 252 PUD. He stated that the proposal is similar to the R-2 zoning district standards and stated 253 that the applicant has provided a narrative explaining why he believes a PUD would be 254 supported by the proposed development. He noted that the applicant proposes single level 255 homes throughout the development and is open to that being a requirement of the PUD, with 256 more narrow lots. He stated that the proposed cul-de-sac is longer than the 750 feet limit in 257 Code. He explained that because of the location of the wetlands and park location there is no 258 alternative to provide access throughout the site. He provided details on the proposed 259 architectural design and related to transportation, highlighting the recommendations from 260 staff related to transportation that have been incorporated into the plan since the concept 261 6 review. He reviewed the tree preservation and landscaping details for the application, 262 providing additional details on the waiver request from the applicant. 263 264 Jacob commented that it appears a fair number of trees are being removed adjacent to 265 Arrowhead Drive. He asked if there would be any sort of natural buffer that would be 266 maintained. 267 268 Finke commented that there is new planting proposed along the western edge, but because of 269 the grading in that area, essentially all vegetation would be removed. 270 271 Jacob asked if there would be a natural buffer provided along the roadway. 272 273 Finke replied that the houses themselves are some distance from Arrowhead Drive and there 274 is landscaping proposed, along with the stormwater pond. 275 276 Popp referenced the ten-foot retaining wall and acknowledged that a fence would be required. 277 He asked the threshold for height when a fence would not be required atop the retaining wall. 278 279 Finke replied that he believed four feet would be the threshold to not have a fence. 280 281 George Stickney, applicant, commented that he believes this is the ideal project for this piece 282 of land and the neighbors to the north and south. He stated that each of the 30 lots are 283 carefully placed, with 29 lots having marsh views and all of the lots having private vistas. He 284 stated that there are lot widths of 68 feet, 70 feet and above. He stated that the average lot 285 size of 12,106 square feet exceeds the minimum of the R-1 district. He stated that there will 286 be right-of-way for the future along with the planted vegetation. He commented that this will 287 be a premier villa development. He noted that Charles Cudd will be the builder and is excited 288 to create some fun and creative floorplan options. He stated that there will be differential in 289 product for the different lot sizes. He stated that he will landscape the future outlot and right-290 of-way and if those areas are needed in the future, he can transplant those plantings/trees to a 291 different area of the site. He commented that he will have a beautiful entrance monument and 292 landscaped road. He stated that after the Council review of the concept plan, he added an 293 additional tree within each lot boundary which results in about 5.7 trees per lot. He stated 294 that he removed the park shown in the concept plan and made the three lots on block two 295 larger. He commented that building 25 two-story homes on the property would have a much 296 larger impact on the existing residential properties. He stated that upon walking the property 297 in a leaf off condition, he noticed poor quality vegetation and buckthorn. He explained that 298 he has met with all property owners on Bluebell that have abutting properties to the 299 development and has proposed a restoration and screening project for each of those properties 300 specific to the needs of each site. 301 302 Nielsen asked if the applicant has any issues with the conditions recommended by staff. 303 304 Rick Osberg, project engineer, commented that he noticed an item or two in the presentation 305 that were different from the staff report. He provided an example of 20 percent removal for 306 trees mentioned in the presentation, whereas the staff report stated 25 percent allowed 307 removal. 308 309 Finke replied that would only impact the required replacement and would not impact the 310 analysis. He noted that he would look into that but may not be able to provide that answer 311 tonight. 312 313 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. 314 7 315 Brian Lorentz, 4484 Bluebell Trail South, commented that he appreciates that the developer 316 has made himself available and has been meeting with the property owners. He stated that 317 his concern is that the development will block the wetlands from the residents of 318 Bridgewater. He wished that the homes were not so close together and this dense as it creates 319 a wall that blocks their views. 320 321 Nielsen commented that two-story homes could be built under R-1 zoning and asked if that 322 would be preferred. 323 324 Lorentz stated that he would have to see a sketch to know if it were better. He commented 325 that he feels that the home adjacent to his property is close to his backyard. He stated that if 326 the project moves forward as proposed, the screening will be important as mentioned by the 327 applicant. He stated that Stickney has provided each of the resident a draft agreement, which 328 he would like to see updated and signed along with the City approvals. He asked if that 329 agreement should be included in the City process so that it becomes part of the approval from 330 the City. 331 332 Nielsen asked if there would be a way to make those agreements part of the record with the 333 City. 334 335 Finke stated that he would suggest some detail be added to the development agreement, as 336 that could then be incorporated as an obligation and covered by a financial guarantee similar 337 to onsite improvements. 338 339 Stickney stated that he is honored to work with the neighbors to the north in order to ensure 340 they are happy with the project. He stated that he is going to provide those residents with a 341 contract and agreement. He noted that he is doing this as a favor and did not believe it 342 needed to be tied to the development approvals. He stated that these are agreements that will 343 be customized to the conditions of each adjacent property. 344 345 Nielsen stated that the landowners are wanting something that becomes memorialized with 346 the City but noted that could be worked out at a later time. 347 348 Finke acknowledged the comments received prior to the meeting that were provided to the 349 Commission and recognized the residents that sent in comments via email that will be 350 included in the record. 351 352 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. 353 354 Sedabres commented that he believes this is a good balance for the site and appreciates the 355 thoughtfulness and engagement of the developer. 356 357 Rhem agreed with Sedabres. 358 359 Popp also agreed with the comments of Sedabres. He commented that there is a balance of 360 making things work on the site and working with adjacent residents. He stated that the 361 alternative would be traditional R-1 development which did not seem preferable for any of 362 the parties. 363 364 Piper commented that this is an excellent proposal and thanked Stickney for his concern. 365 366 8 Jacob commented that he likes the presentation and concurs with the comments made thus 367 far. 368 369 Grajczyk also agreed with the comments made thus far. 370 371 Nielsen stated that she also supports the comments made by the Commission. She stated that 372 this is a wonderful design for this piece of land. She understood the concerns of the 373 neighbors to the north and hoped that Stickney could work with those homeowners to assuage 374 their concerns. 375 376 Motion by Rhem, seconded by Piper, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and 377 PUD General Plan of Development subject to the conditions recommended by staff. 378 379 A roll call vote was performed: 380 381 Grajczyk aye 382 Jacob aye 383 Piper aye 384 Popp aye 385 Rhem aye 386 Sedabres aye 387 Nielsen aye 388 389 Motion carried. 390 391 Finke stated that the intent would be to present this to the Park Commission at its January 19th 392 meeting and to the City Council on February 1st. 393 394 Nielsen briefly recessed the meeting at 9:03 p.m. 395 396 Nielsen reconvened the meeting at 9:08 p.m. 397 398 8. Public Hearing – Cates Industrial Park – Jeff and Chris Cates – Comprehensive Plan 399 Amendment to Change Future Land Use from Future Development Area to Business 400 and Staging to 2020 (PIDs 0411823110002, 0411823140004, and 0311823220004) 401 402 Finke presented a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Cates Industrial Park. 403 He identified the subject parcel and highlighted the surrounding property uses and future land 404 uses. He stated that the site is guided for Future Development Area (FDA) which signifies 405 that the property may be considered for urban development in future planning processes. He 406 explained that for the current planning period of through 2030, the property is not anticipated 407 for urban development. He stated that the applicant is proposing a business use within the 408 current staging period. He explained that the proposal would be for approximately 665,000 409 square feet of warehouse and light industrial uses with office. He stated that the concept plan 410 does not provide specific details for the development but is provided for context for this 411 Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted that if the amendment is approved, additional 412 content would be provided during future applications for plat, site plan review, etc. He stated 413 that information on the Comprehensive Plan was included in the Commission packet. He 414 explained that the goals within the plan provide guidance as the City considers amendments 415 to the plan. He reviewed the goals most relevant to the question posed this evening. He 416 stated that staff provided a review of the available business property within Medina and are 417 open for development at this time. He noted that the supply of property for business 418 development has reduced since the City adopted its Comprehensive Plan. He noted that some 419 9 of the larger sites do not have development interest from the property owners. He also 420 reviewed the historical planning for this property going back to 2000. He provided details on 421 an agreement from 2000 with the previous landowner, noting that the City Attorney is 422 reviewing that with the City Council and the Commission should concentrate on the broader 423 land use question. He reviewed the details of the concept plan provided with the application. 424 He noted that another important consideration is related to infrastructure providing details on 425 transportation. 426 427 Piper asked if the warehouses would be served by large 18-wheeler trucks. 428 429 Finke commented that the majority of the traffic would be employees but there would also be 430 a fair amount of freight traffic. 431 432 Piper asked if Cates Ranch Drive would have to be able to handle that kind of vehicle weight. 433 434 Finke confirmed that the new internal street would be constructed to City standards in 435 connection with the development. 436 437 Piper asked if Willow Drive, in its current design, is capable of handling that traffic. 438 439 Finke replied that there would be improvements for Willow Drive as noted in the staff report 440 and summarized those improvements. He stated that many of those improvements would be 441 required absent the Comprehensive Plan amendment request as there is other business 442 property in the vicinity that could be developed. 443 444 Piper asked if this would necessitate a traffic light at Highway 55. 445 446 Finke replied that there already is a traffic light at that intersection. 447 448 Jacob asked if there is currently a turn lane from Highway 55 to Willow. 449 450 Finke replied that there are turn lanes from Highway 55 onto Willow and from Willow onto 451 Highway 55. He stated that as mentioned there would be capacity issues for the turn lane 452 from Willow onto eastbound Highway 55. He stated that while the fix would seem to be to 453 add an additional turn lane, there is only one lane for traffic on Highway 55. 454 455 Peter Coyle, land use lawyer representing the Cates family, commented that this is the first 456 step in the policy discussion to put this land into the business development status for 457 development. He noted that the Council has previously slated this land for the development 458 several times in the past 20 years and was only guided for FDA in the last rendition of the 459 Comprehensive Plan at the objection of the landowner. He stated that staff identified many 460 policy questions that will need to be worked out in time. He stated that the goal is to take 461 advantage of a site that is very well located, in an emerging business area, served by existing 462 utilities and is development ready in that sense. He stated that there are limited business 463 opportunities within Medina because of the development that has occurred, and the available 464 land designated. He stated that the traffic study completed as a part of the EAW identified 465 the improvements that would be necessary. He stated that the goal would be to develop the 466 site in phases from south to north in a four-to-six-year development horizon that would allow 467 them to adapt the traffic improvements. He noted that they would work with staff to ensure 468 those improvements are done correctly and properly. He stated that the property to the west 469 is commercial in nature while the property to the south is zoned for commercial. He stated 470 that Highway 55 is an important corridor and for all of those reasons they believe this is a 471 good location for new commercial activity to occur. He stated that the purpose tonight is to 472 10 seek support for the policy change that would allow them to continue to submit appropriate 473 applications. 474 475 Popp asked the type of businesses that would be envisioned for the development. 476 477 Coyle commented that the site plan is conceptual as they do not yet have commercial tenants 478 in hand that they could identify tonight. He stated that an industrial park/business park 479 concept has been provided that identifies different options. He stated that they would be 480 looking for clean industry, low impact businesses that would provide jobs. 481 482 Popp thanked the applicant for providing information on the types of jobs that could be 483 provided. He noted that he would also be interested in the number of jobs that could be 484 created but recognized that would be difficult at this stage in the process. 485 486 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 9:38 p.m. 487 488 No comments. 489 490 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 9:39 p.m. 491 492 Popp commented that he is unsure he is on board with the layout and how the land would be 493 used. He stated that perhaps he would be more supportive of a business campus type or 494 business park style of development. He stated that could lead to more greenspace and office 495 uses versus an industrial park that would have high traffic and truck traffic and less jobs. He 496 stated that the development also may not be as attractive for the surrounding properties, 497 especially if the site did not stay occupied. He stated that if the City wants to look at 498 economic development, he would support holding off on this to attract a campus setting type 499 business. He commented that growth management is an important part of the Comprehensive 500 Plan and stated that he does not see a reason to change the zoning from FDA at this time. He 501 asked if the business goals of the community could still be met if this change were made and 502 whether this change would have a domino effect on other FDA properties. 503 504 Rhem stated that he visited the site today and believed that a business use would make sense 505 in this setting. He stated that the concerns that he has relate to transportation and the 506 potential impact that could have on the improvements that would be needed for surrounding 507 roads. He stated that he thinks business zoning makes sense given the business use of the 508 adjacent properties. 509 510 Sedabres commented that he recognizes that the property is slated for future development but 511 stated that he would be supportive of the change in zoning. He stated that this use makes 512 sense, and he would be supportive. 513 514 Grajczyk stated that in the past few years the Commission has mostly considered residential 515 development. He stated that the City is always looking to bring in more businesses as that 516 brings more people, revenue, and potential. He stated that other towns and cities have had a 517 lot of success with business parks that have brought in a range of businesses that make the 518 community more diverse. He stated that one of his concerns is related to traffic and wanted 519 to ensure that the City could keep up with the best practices. 520 521 Jacob echoed similar comments related to transportation and the infrastructure. He stated that 522 he would support moving forward and exploring this further. 523 524 11 Piper commented that she is concerned with infrastructure, transportation, and traffic. She 525 also believed that there has been a focus on residential planning and believed this would be 526 good for the Hamel corridor. 527 528 Nielsen stated that she struggles with this request and is hesitant to change an FDA 529 designation. She stated that there was a lot of time and input put into the Comprehensive 530 Plan process and therefore she is hesitant to change that without knowing how that area is 531 desired to develop. She understood the need for business development and acknowledged 532 that there is business development in that area. 533 534 Motion by Grajczyk, seconded by Rhem, to recommend approval of the Comprehensive 535 Plan Amendment with the conditions. 536 537 A roll call vote was performed: 538 539 Grajczyk aye 540 Jacob aye 541 Piper nay 542 Popp nay 543 Rhem aye 544 Sedabres aye 545 Nielsen nay 546 547 Motion carried. 548 549 Finke stated that a presentation to the Council has not yet been scheduled and encouraged 550 residents to check back with City staff or on the City website for a date. He stated that staff 551 intends to present to the Park Commission at its next meeting. 552 553 9. Public Haring – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to 554 Maximum Building Height of Rooftop Elements and Mechanical Equipment, and 555 Screening Requirements for Rooftop Mechanical Equipment 556 557 Baumgardner provided background information on the previous discussions related to rooftop 558 elements. She noted that the discussions have been separated into the categories of 559 architectural features and rooftop equipment. She reviewed the initial recommendation from 560 staff and the additional items that the Commission and Council directed staff to continue to 561 research. She provided additional information on the concepts relating to a Conditional Use 562 Permit, religious use exceptions, limiting area of architectural features, limiting feature height 563 above roof, standards based on zoning district, and height of mechanical equipment. She 564 asked the Commission for assistance in clarifying the purpose of the regulation and whether 565 the recommendation meets the purpose of the regulation. She asked if a Conditional Use 566 Permit for architectural features would help to serve the purpose. She stated that if the 567 Commission believes that the recommendation meets the goals and purpose of the regulation, 568 a motion could be made to recommend adoption of the ordinance. 569 570 Nielsen opened the public hearing at 10:08 p.m. 571 572 No comments. 573 574 Nielsen closed the public hearing at 10:08 p.m. 575 576 12 Piper commented that this ordinance is beautifully done and is pleased to see how specific the 577 language is on each use. She believed that this would answer many questions. 578 579 Sedabres referenced the previous proposal with the spires and asked if this ordinance would 580 allow for the spires that had been requested. 581 582 Finke replied that as drafted, the height of those spires as proposed would not be permitted by 583 these limitations. He stated that there was some discussion of the Council and staff in 584 reviewing the different architectural features throughout Medina and whether they would be 585 allowed under the proposed regulations. He noted that many of the features would just barely 586 be allowed. He stated that there was discussion on whether these regulations would have 587 unintended impact on design. 588 589 Sedabres asked if the ordinance as drafted includes reference to the CUP process. 590 591 Finke stated that as drafted there is not reference to a CUP to allow additional height. He 592 stated that if a CUP is going to be used to allow additional height, there would need to be 593 specific conditions. 594 595 Sedabres stated that he maintains his view in that he has concern with nonconforming 596 religious buildings that have features that would continue to be allowed as they would be 597 grandfathered in. He stated that he would like to see a tool that would ensure new religious 598 institutions are not treated differently than those that already exist. 599 600 Jacob asked if there is a provision to offer screening for mechanical equipment on rooftops. 601 He commented that there is a variety of different rooftop mechanical equipment and noted 602 that he would prefer that equipment to be screened to protect the rural character of Medina. 603 604 Baumgardner confirmed that the requirement for screening mechanical equipment continues 605 to be part of the ordinance. 606 607 Popp stated that he can support the consensus of the Council from the December 21st meeting 608 related to mechanical equipment. He stated that there are a wide range of applications that 609 could be impacted and therefore the purpose of the regulation is important. He stated that he 610 would like to push for the option of a CUP to provide additional flexibility. He stated that he 611 did not see the benefit of regulating the percent of the rooftop for architectural features. 612 613 Rhem commented that he would also want to see some form of flexibility and would be 614 interested in reviewing how that could be provided. 615 616 Finke commented that in terms of flexibility, a CUP could potentially provide that, but the 617 flip side would be that the City should be mindful of being careful what it may get. He stated 618 that by making additional height for architectural elements a conditional permitted use, it 619 would essentially become an allowed use, subject to the specific conditions. He asked what 620 standards would be used to limit that flexibility. He noted that dislike of a design could not 621 be used to deny a CUP request. He stated that the City has gone through this process to limit 622 the height of architectural elements and including a CUP option would essentially void that 623 limitation. 624 625 Grajczyk commented that he believes the intention is to avoid a situation where something is 626 constructed that may be in a neighborhood or zoned area that may not fit and causes 627 disturbance to residents. He stated that he likes the staff recommendation as that provides the 628 best opportunity to provide the vision for the community. 629 13 630 Nielsen recognized that there is concern for the temple and that some Commissioners would 631 like to allow the ability for spires. She asked if the numbers could be changed to better 632 support that request, suggesting adding five feet to each of the regulations. 633 634 Finke commented that the Commission could choose to make its own recommendation. He 635 stated that he would caution against calling out a specific request. He recognized that it is 636 also helpful to use real examples when considering the regulations. He stated that there is a 637 moratorium in place allowing the City to go through this process as a result of the BAPS 638 application. He stated that there was a lot of discussion at that time that there were no 639 regulations for rooftop elements in place. He stated that it was unanimous that there ought to 640 be some regulation to prevent overly sized elements, and the question then is to the level of 641 restriction. He stated that staff’s initial thought to tying the regulation to the allowed height 642 in the district was that a building could be that height, so an element could also be that height. 643 He noted that allowing ten feet above the highest point was tied to the examples that exist in 644 the community. He noted that the highest BAPS spire was 30 feet above the 20-foot roof 645 height, therefore it would need to be ten feet shorter in order to match the ordinance as 646 drafted. 647 648 Baumgardner confirmed that the Commission could change the numbers if desired. 649 650 Nielsen stated that she is comfortable with the regulation as drafted. 651 652 Motion by Piper, seconded by Grajczyk, to recommend approval of the ordinance as 653 presented by staff. 654 655 A roll call vote was performed: 656 657 Grajczyk aye 658 Jacob aye 659 Piper aye 660 Popp aye 661 Rhem aye 662 Sedabres nay 663 Nielsen aye 664 665 Motion carried. 666 667 10. Election of 2022 Planning Commission Officers 668 669 a. Chair 670 671 Piper nominated Nielsen for the position of Chair. 672 673 There were no other nominations. 674 675 A roll call vote was performed: 676 677 Grajczyk aye 678 Jacob aye 679 Piper aye 680 Popp aye 681 Rhem aye 682 14 Sedabres aye 683 Nielsen aye 684 685 Motion carried. 686 687 b. Vice Chair 688 689 Nielsen nominated Piper for the position of Vice Chair. 690 691 Piper asked if any other members would be interested in the position. 692 693 Rhem nominated himself for the position of Vice Chair. 694 695 A roll call vote was performed: 696 697 Grajczyk Rhem 698 Jacob Rhem 699 Piper Rhem 700 Popp Rhem 701 Rhem Rhem 702 Sedabres Rhem 703 Nielsen Rhem 704 705 Motion carried. 706 707 11. Approval of the December 14, 2021 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 708 709 Motion by Piper, seconded by Jacob, to approve the December 14, 2021, Planning 710 Commission minutes with the noted changes. 711 712 A roll call vote was performed: 713 714 Grajczyk aye 715 Jacob aye 716 Piper aye 717 Popp aye 718 Rhem aye 719 Sedabres aye 720 Nielsen aye 721 722 Motion carried. 723 724 12. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 725 726 Bob Belzer, Wild Meadows resident, commented that he also submitted his comments via 727 email to the Commission. He stated that at the last meeting he provided comments and it was 728 noted that Nielsen would look into the issue. 729 730 Nielsen stated that the matter was referred to staff and it was noted that staff would respond 731 as necessary. 732 733 Belzer commented that in the PUD, he has discovered that in Wild Meadows there were two 734 amendments accepted that were not reported as required. He commented that those 735 15 amendments are major amendments and in order for those to be approved, they would have 736 had to go through the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that Minnesota 737 Land Trust has holder rights as does the City of Medina. He stated that if the Minnesota 738 Land Trust approves an amendment to the covenants and the City were not aware of that, he 739 would consider that a major issue. 740 741 Nielsen asked what Belzer is hoping the Commission could do. 742 743 Belzer commented on the problems that exist within the landscape of Wild Meadows, which 744 has rapidly degraded. He commented that in order to get that resolved, the holder would need 745 to take action against the HOA Board which is not doing its job. 746 747 Grajczyk commented that he does not believe there is anything the Commission can do in this 748 instance. He suggested that Belzer get a lawyer to take action against his HOA. 749 750 Belzer commented that he has two lawyers and has involved the Attorney General. He 751 commented that the City of Medina has holder rights and could remove the HOA Board 752 members. 753 754 Nielsen stated that even if the City has that power, it does not mean it needs to execute that 755 power. 756 757 Belzer commented that one year ago the HOA held an election, and Johnson asked the HOA 758 Board to provide a letter to the association and the President of the HOA Board did not 759 provide that letter. 760 761 Nielsen commented that the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the Council 762 and there is no action that could be taken. 763 764 Belzer asked the Commission to launch an investigation. 765 766 Nielsen commented that the Commission does not have that authority. 767 768 13. Council Meeting Schedule 769 770 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Grajczyk 771 volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 772 773 14. Adjourn 774 775 Motion by Rhem, seconded by Piper, to adjourn the meeting at 10:57 p.m. 776 777 A roll call vote was performed: 778 779 Grajczyk aye 780 Jacob aye 781 Piper aye 782 Popp aye 783 Rhem aye 784 Sedabres aye 785 Nielsen aye 786 787 Motion carried. 788 1 Dusty Finke From:Robert Belzer <bob@rundigital.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:46 PM To:Dusty Finke; Beth Nielsen Cc:calcloud@gmail.com; mike@minnesotapersonalinjury.com; Tucker Isaacson; Oliver Larson; Petersen, Thom (MDA); Tester, Peter (MPCA); Place, Whitney (MDA); 'Judy.Randall@state.mn.us'; ericabob@gmail.com; Robert Belzer; 'ken.powell@state.mn.us'; katrina.kessler@state.mn.us; 'Kevin.Anderson@hennepin.us' Subject:Speaking Public Comment Section Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2022 Dusty, Below are my comments to speak for tonight per Commissioner Neilson’s Request: January 11th Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission meets the second Tuesday of each month; everyone is welcome to join. Due to COVID protocol, meetings will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams until further notice:  Virtual Meeting Link: Click here to join the meeting  For telephone audio only: Dial 1‐612‐517‐3122; Enter Conference ID: 469 261 792# Commissioner Beth Neilson can read and address each of the questions publicly and or I will ask these questions and I will listen or read it and listen to her response. Robert Belzer Wild Meadows Homeowners Association following up from the December Planning Commission Meeting were you able to research and what did you discover the following: Respectfully, where can we source City of Medina City Council and City Planning Commissioning Medina Notes 2001-2008 We would like to know Medina City Code Violations 830. Zoning – PUD 1 & PUD 2 (i) Amendments - (i) Major Amendments - Major amendments to an approved PUD Development Plan may be approved by the City Council after review by the Planning Commission. The notification and public hearing procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the original PUD. A major amendment is any amendment which: How the city of Medina deals with infractions after the fact since Wild Meadows HOA has on record two unrecorded to amended Major Amendments You can see the copies of the dated Major Amendment Changes to Wild Meadows Covenants Section 1.1 1. Accepted 9-01-09 Jim Eckberg Ecologist 2 2. Accepted 2-16-12 Executive Director Kris Larson MN Land Trust Additional Questions for City of Medina Planning Commissioner to Address: 1. Where do we Citizens find the draft copy changes to data request form August 17, 2021, from October 6, 2015? 2. How do we Citizens gain access to city of Medina Email Communications between City Medina Officials and MN Land Trust? 3. Does the City of Medina have a tracking of Easement Agreements and Conditions of Each of them? 4. Where can we see the reporting of each of the ponds not located inside of Wild Meadows? If City of Medina had Accountability in the January 4, 2022, meeting we need to find accountability here in Wild Meadows Homeowners Association and the Amended Amendments. with the above information Amendment Prepared by: Jim Eckberg – Ecologist Minnesota Native Landscapes, Inc. Date Submitted: 7/30/09 Submitted to: Minnesota Land Trust Date Accepted: 9/01/09 AMENDMENT TO THE LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN: ESTABLISHMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF LOWLAND FOREST/ HARDWOOD SWAMPS AND FOREST EXPANSION-SAVANNA A guiding principle of ecological restoration is adaptive management. Restoration objectives adapt to new insight gained from managing and monitoring these dynamic plant communities. In the original restoration plan for Wild Meadows Development in Medina, MN there are several small areas that are to be managed as mesic or wet prairie. After extensive observation of these areas and consideration of restoration management logistics, it is the opinion of Minnesota Native Landscapes that the ecological targets of these habitats be modified to Expansion Forest-Savanna (for mesic prairie) and hardwood swamp/lowland forest (for wet prairie). In these areas (see maps) this report describes 1) the current ecological status as it relates to the current ecological targets, 2) the proposed new ecological targets for each location, 3) the proposed methodology for establishment and long-term management of the new ecological targets, and 4) a strategy for minimizing potential negative effects on storm water management in wetl July 30, 2009 Kris Larson Director of Conservation Minnesota Land Trust 394 So. Lake Avenue, Suite 404A Duluth, MN 55802 Dear Kris, Please find the attached amendment to the original restoration plan. The amendment proposes new ecological targets for three wet prairie and five mesic prairie areas. I provide the information requested by the MLT on June 2, 2009 for formal amendment of the original restoration plan. For the areas with new targets I describe 1) the current ecological status, 2) the proposed new ecological targets, 3) the proposed methods for establishment and long-term management of the new ecological targets, and 4) a strategy for minimizing potential negative effects on storm water management in wetlands. 3 It is the opinion of Minnesota Native Landscapes that the proposed new targets will be ecologically appropriate and provide an attainable ecological goal. Initial establishment of the new plant communities will begin in fall 2009 and be completed by June 1, 2010. I have reviewed the suggestions made by Paul Bockenstedt of Bonestroo. I appreciate his assessment and I have included the recommendation that box elders be managed so that they do not degrade the structure or function of forest expansion-savanna areas (page 10). Please review and respond to our proposal on or before September 1, 2009. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Jim Eckberg Ecologist Minnesota Native Landscapes 4 Thank you, Wild Meadows HOA Lot Owner Member Bob Belzer “City of Medina Planning Commissioner Nielsen reported that the Commission met the previous week 2 and received input from a Wild Meadows resident expressing concern over ponds degradation. She stated that the Commission did not have the appropriate information and therefore was unable to provide input. This was stated in the City Council Meeting notes posted on city of medina’s website. “ 5