HomeMy Public PortalAbout03.17.2020 Complete City Council Meeting Packet Posted 03/13/2020 Page 1 of 2
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 17, 2020
7:00 P.M.
Medina City Hall
2052 County Road 24
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the March 4, 2020 Regular Council Meeting
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Temporary Liquor License to Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Minnesota at 3000
Hamel Road on August 8, 2020
VI. COMMENTS
A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda
B. Park Commission
C. Planning Commission
VII. PRESENTATIONS
A. U.S. Representative Dean Phillips
B. Resolution Recognizing Police Chief Ed Belland for 28 Years of Dedicated Service to the City of
Medina in the Police Department as He Retires
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) – Weston Woods – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and PUD Concept Plan Review – East of Mohawk Drive, North of Hwy 55 and 1952 Chippewa
Road
B. Arrowhead Holdings, LLC (OSI) – Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, Amended
Conditional Use Permit, Easement Vacation – 4101 Arrowhead Drive
1. Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A
Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition
2. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to
Rezone Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition by
Title and Summary
3. Resolution Granting Preliminary Approval of the Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third
Addition Plat
4. Resolution Granting Approval of a Site Plan Review and Amended Conditional Use
Permit to Open Systems International, Inc. (OSI)
5. Resolution Vacating Drainage and Utility Easements within Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A,
Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park and Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park
2nd Addition
6. Development Agreement by and between the City of Medina and Arrowhead Holdings,
LLC for Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition
C. Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) – Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, Conditional
Use Permit – PIDS 04-118-23-21-0001 & 04-118-23-24-0001 (North of Hwy 55, West of Willow
Drive)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. Arrowhead Drive Railroad Improvement Project – Received Bids
X. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Meeting Rules of Conduct:
Fill out and turn in white
comment card
Give name and address
Indicate if representing a group
Limit remarks to 3-5 minutes
Posted 3/13/2020 Page 2 of 2
XI. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
XII. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
XIII. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Medina City Council
FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator
DATE OF REPORT: March 13, 2020
DATE OF MEETING: March 17, 2020
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Temporary Liquor License to Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Minnesota at
3000 Hamel Road on August 8, 2020 – All paperwork and fees are in order. Staff
recommends approval.
No attachments for this item.
VII. PRESENTATION
A. U.S. Representative Dean Phillips – Representative Phillips will be providing a verbal
update to the City Council.
No attachments for this item.
B. Resolution Recognizing Police Chief Ed Belland for 28 Years of Dedicated Service to the
City of Medina in the Police Department as He Retires – The resolution recognizes Chief
Belland for his loyal service and commitment to the City of Medina as he retires March 31,
2020. Thank you to Chief Belland for all that he has done for Medina!
See attached resolution.
Recommended Motion: Move to adopt resolution recognizing Police Chief Ed Belland for
28 years of dedicated service to the City of Medina in the police department as he retires
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) – Weston Woods – Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and PUD Concept Plan Review – East of Mohawk Drive, North of Hwy 55 and
1952 Chippewa Road – Mark Smith has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan Review for a proposed development
of two properties north of Highway 55 and east of Mohawk Drive. The concept plan
proposes: 76 twinhomes on the northern property (referred to as “Roy property”) and a
combination of uses on the southern property (referred to as “Cavanaugh property”): 41
single-family lots, 33 townhomes, and 7.4 acres park/open space. The City Council
reviewed back on November 6, 2019 and tabled the application and suggested that the
developer hold a neighborhood meeting on the project. The neighborhood meeting was
held on January 20. Please review the detailed report, which discusses the applicants
request, review criteria, staff analysis and planning commission’s review.
2
See attached report.
Potential Action: If, following review, the Council finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment is appropriate based upon Vision, Community Goals, and Principles of the
Comprehensive Plan, the following action could be taken:
Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution conditionally approving the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and authorizing submission to the Metropolitan Council, subject to
the conditions and comments noted in the staff report and discussed by Council.
The Council should also provide comments on the PUD Concept Plan if it appears that the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment may be approved.
If, on the other hand, the Council finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment does
not align with the Vision, Community Goals, and Principles of the Comprehensive Plan, the
following action could be taken:
Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment based upon the findings articulated by the Council.
B. Arrowhead Holdings, LLC (OSI) – Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, Amended
Conditional Use Permit, Easement Vacation – 4101 Arrowhead Drive – At the January 7,
2020 meeting, the City Council reviewed a request from Arrowhead Holdings, LLC (OSI)
of various land use applications to allow for a 75,000 square foot expansion of their existing
building at 4101 Arrowhead Drive and construction of additional parking. Following
review, the Council directed staff to prepare documents approving the requests.
Subsequently, representatives from OSI contacted staff and indicated that their surveyor had
included right-of-way on the proposed preliminary plat for the future realignment of
Arrowhead Drive and construction of future Chippewa Road. OSI did not desire to dedicate
this right-of-way and was unaware that their surveyor had included it. OSI had also inquired
about a number of the other conditions on which the Council had directed approval. Staff
and Mayor Martin met with OSI since that time to work through OSI’s comments. An
alternative was identified by which OSI would grant the right-of-way through an Easement
Agreement rather than upon the plat. This Easement Agreement would be recorded with the
plat, and would preserve the area of right-of-way if a street is constructed within the next 20
years. The Easement Agreement allows use of the land for parking prior to construction of
the roadway, but OSI would agree to remove any parking within the right-of-way and back
10 feet when a road is constructed. Staff believes this arrangement can accommodate OSI
while still preserving the City’s right-of-way use if the roadway is constructed in the next 20
years.
See attached report, ordinance, resolutions, and agreement.
3
Potential Action: Staff recommends the following actions:
1. Move to adopt the ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone Lot
1, Block 1 and Outlot A Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition
2. Move to adopt the resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance by title
and summary
3. Move to adopt the resolution granting preliminary approval of the Cavanaugh
Meadowwoods Park Third Addition plat
4. Move to adopt the resolution granting approval of a site plan review and
amended conditional use permit to Open Systems International, Inc. (OSI)
5. Move to adopt the resolution vacating drainage and utility easements within
Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park and Lot 1,
Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 2nd Addition
6. Move to approve the development agreement by and between the City of
Medina and Arrowhead Holdings, LLC for Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park
Third Addition, subject to changes determined appropriate by the City
Attorney at the time of Final Plat review.
C. Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) – Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review,
Conditional Use Permit – PIDS 04-118-23-21-0001 & 04-118-23-24-0001 (North of Hwy
55, West of Willow Drive) – Jan Har, LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) has requested approval of
various land use applications to allow for a business development on property located north
of Highway 55, approximately 1300 feet west of Willow Drive. The applicant proposes
construction of a 43,000 square-foot, three-story office building with a bar restaurant and a
13,100 square foot accessory building for shop, warehouse, and vehicle storage. The owner
of the property to the east has indicated that they are not prepared to provide right-of-way at
this time. The applicant has indicated that their preferred alternative is still to construct the
access to the east, but if right-of-way is not provided, they propose direct access to Highway
55. The applicant met with MnDOT, who has indicated that, if alternative access is not
provided, a full access with left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes added on Highway 55 would
be the required alternative. Except for the potential change of access, the proposal is the
same as reviewed by the City in 2019. The staff report discusses the potential change of
access but does not repeat the rest of the information about the requests. The report
presented to the City Council last year is attached for reference.
See attached report.
Potential Motion: Move to direct staff to prepare documents approving of the rezoning,
preliminary plat, site plan review, and conditional use permit subject to the conditions noted
in the staff report.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
Arrowhead Drive Railroad Improvement Project – Received Bids – On January 21, 2020 the City
Council adopted a resolution approving the Arrowhead Drive Railroad Improvement Project
4
plans/specifications and authorized advertisement for bids. Bids were received electronically and
opened at 10:00 AM on Friday, March 6, 2020. Five bids were received with the apparent low bid
submitted by Minger Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $426,969.10. The low bid did
come in above the engineer’s estimate of $354,364.00. The major items that accounted for the
increase in cost included mobilization, railroad protective liability insurance, utility coordination, and
storm sewer work. A summary of the project bid abstract is included. The project improvement
costs are covered by a $450,000 grant from the State of Minnesota.
See attached memo and results.
XII. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 005428E-005449E for $69,709.46
and order check numbers 049986-050058 for $168,300.08 and payroll EFT 050074-0510108 for
$56,477.03.
INFORMATION PACKET:
Planning Department Update
Police Department Update
Public Works Department Update
Claims List
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 1
March 4, 2020
DRAFT 1
2
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2020 3
4
The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on March 4, 2020 at 7:00 5
p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6
7
I. ROLL CALL 8
9
Members present: Albers, Anderson, DesLauriers, Martin, and Pederson. 10
11
Members absent: None. 12
13
Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, City Attorney Ron Batty, Finance 14
Director Erin Barnhart, City Engineer Jim Stremel, City Planning Director Dusty Finke, 15
Police Sergeant Jason Nelson, and Chief of Police Ed Belland. 16
17
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:00 p.m.) 18
19
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:00 p.m.) 20
Johnson requested to add an Item C, Contributions to Retirement Recognitions, under 21
New Business. 22
23
Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to the agenda as amended. Motion 24
passed unanimously. 25
26
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:01 p.m.) 27
28
A. Approval of the February 18, 2020 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 29
Martin noted the written comments submitted by herself and Anderson to be 30
incorporated into the minutes. 31
32
Moved by Anderson, seconded by Pederson, to approve the February 18, 2020 regular 33
City Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 34
35
V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:01 p.m.) 36
37
A. Approve Renewal of Consumption and Display Permit for American Legion 38
Post 394 at 75 Hamel Road 39
B. Appoint Officer Kevin Boecker to Police Sergeant 40
C. Resolution Accepting Donation from the Hamel Athletic Club 41
D. Approve Scoreboard Purchase with Kaufman Sign Company 42
E. Approve Fence Installation Services Agreement with D’Fence 43
F. Ordinance No. 653 Amending Fee Schedule for Clean-Up Day Fees 44
G. Resolution No. 2020-10 Authorizing Publication of Ordinance No. 653 45
Amending Fee Schedule by Title and Summary 46
Johnson noted a request to pull Items C, D, and E from the Consent Agenda. 47
48
Moved by Pederson, seconded by Anderson, to approve the consent agenda. Motion 49
passed unanimously. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 2
March 4, 2020
C. Resolution No. 2020-11 Accepting Donation from the Hamel Athletic Club 1
D. Approve Scoreboard Purchase with Kaufman Sign Company 2
E. Approve Fence Installation Services Agreement with D’Fence 3
DesLauriers stated that the proposal will raise the fence on quad four, which he 4
supports. He stated that the association would also like to bring four t-ball fields 5
between the old fence and new fence. He stated that will bring additional four and five-6
year olds near the parking lot and therefore was concerned with safety. He stated that 7
perhaps the Park Commission should review the CIP plan to consider adding additional 8
parking. He noted that his intent was simply to have this conversation. 9
10
Martin stated that she is not a baseball fan and therefore does not have that expertise. 11
She recognized that one of the little league fields would have great proximity to the 12
parking lot. She asked if the concern would be alleviated if one of the fields was 13
removed. 14
15
Finke stated that he was present at the Park Commission meeting and this was 16
discussed. He explained that the intent is to make modifications the next year to bring in 17
that fence, which provides the opportunity to move these four fields into that space. He 18
stated that might open up the opportunity for this area closest to the parking lot to be 19
used for other uses next year. 20
21
Albers asked why the association does not start with quad three this year. 22
23
Andy Servi, President of Hamel Little League, replied that work is needed on the infield 24
for quad three before the fence can be moved in and that work is scheduled for 2021. 25
26
Martin asked if there would be a danger with balls going over the fence and hitting little 27
leaguers from quad four. 28
29
Andy Servi replied that in the five years he has been involved with the association he 30
has never seen a homerun hit. He stated that this field would mainly be used for nine 31
and ten-year olds, who are not hitting the ball that far. 32
33
Mike Mohs, previous President of Hamel Little League, commented that he has seen 34
one homerun in his time and that was at Golden Valley. He explained that the fields for 35
the four and five-year olds are completely portable, therefore they can try it out and if 36
there are safety concerns, they can instantaneously move the field location. He stated 37
that they are simply attempting to maximize the space because of the high enrollment 38
numbers. 39
40
Pederson commented that if they can gain more parking at a future date, he believes 41
that would be a good idea. 42
43
Servi replied that would be great in the future and commented that it would be great to 44
have the support of the City on quad three in the future. 45
46
Martin commended the association for the great work it continues to do with the youth in 47
the community. 48
49
Pederson thanked the association for the donations it contributes to the City. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 3
March 4, 2020
Moved by Pederson, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the Resolution No. 2020-11 1
accepting donation from Hamel Athletic Association, approve scoreboard purchase with 2
Kaufman Sign Company, and approve fence installation services agreement with 3
D’Fence. Motion passed unanimously. 4
5
VI. COMMENTS (7:12 p.m.) 6
7
A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 8
There were none. 9
10
B. Park Commission 11
Finke reported that the Park Commission met the previous month to discuss the Hamel 12
Athletic Club requests and also discussed the Diamond Lake Regional Trail and its 13
master planning process. He explained that the goal is to select a route for that corridor 14
this summer, noting that public input will be gathered throughout the process. 15
16
C. Planning Commission 17
Finke reported that the Planning Commission will meet the following week to hold a 18
public hearing for the Adam’s Pest Control updated Site Plan and Preliminary Plat. He 19
explained that the change to the request is related to access. He explained that the 20
applicant was unable to obtain right-of-way from the adjacent property owner and 21
therefore the amended access would be solely from Highway 55, with left and right turn 22
lanes added. 23
24
VII. PRESENTATIONS 25
26
A. 2019 Fire Department Annual Reports (7:16 p.m.) 27
Martin expressed appreciation to the fire departments and their members that provide 28
service to the residents of Medina. She also thanked those that provided assistance to 29
the recent house fire in Medina and to the recent fire event in Becker. 30
31
Chief Ruchti, Hamel Fire, provided a brief summary of his report including the number of 32
calls responded to, including the number of calls within Medina and the number of 33
mutual aid assistance calls responded to. He reviewed the breakdown of hours for the 34
department including calls for service, training, and other staffing duties for a total of 35
slightly over 6,000 hours during the past year. He explained that the duty officer vehicle 36
allows the department to achieve a better response time. He reported that the 37
department was able to hire six new members this past year and now has six registered 38
EMT’s. He stated that they continue their efforts to minimize the effect of carcinogens 39
on its members. He stated that the department was able to complete its Blue Card 40
certification this past year and updated 20 additional policies. 41
42
DesLauriers asked the net number of members with the new hires and retirees. 43
44
Ruchti replied that they had two retirees this past year. 45
46
Chief Van Eyll, Long Lake Fire, stated that Medina has four great fire departments that 47
do a great job servicing the community. He provided details on the service his 48
department provided to the Becker fire on February 18th and 19th. He noted that those in 49
the department that provided assistance helped in Becker from midnight to 6:00 a.m. 50
and then went to their full-time jobs. He reported that his department received five new 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 4
March 4, 2020
recruits during the past year, which includes two daytime responders. He reported that 1
the department has one additional recruit that will be presented to the Long Lake City 2
Council at its next meeting and could be a daytime responder as well. He recognized 3
one retirement and other years of service recognitions that occurred during 2019. He 4
reported 16 calls at just under 200 hours for 2019 in Medina. 5
6
Anderson thanked the Long Lake department for its service. 7
8
Van Eyll reported that the pancake breakfast will be on April 26th and highlighted the 9
dates of the other upcoming events including the department’s 5k, fire prevention open 10
house, and toy and food drive. 11
12
Assistant Chief Tim Ryan, Loretto Fire, provided a brief summary of his report including 13
the total number of calls for service and the number of calls responded to within Medina. 14
He reported a total number of 442 staff hours to calls within Medina and reviewed the 15
remaining number of hours including calls to other member cities and other service 16
duties. He commented that 11 new members were added in the past year, six will be 17
reserves and five will be full officers. He stated that the officer leadership program 18
continues, highlighted new gear that was purchased with grant funds, and noted that 19
their pancake breakfast will take place on April 19th. 20
21
Assistant Chief Rick Altendorf, Loretto Fire, commented that one of the 11 hires in the 22
past year was actually a retired member that missed providing service. 23
24
VIII. NEW BUSINESS 25
26
A. Fire Study Grant and Professional Consulting Services Agreement with 27
Matrix Consulting Group (7:36 p.m.) 28
Johnson stated that on January 30th the City was notified that it was awarded a grant for 29
$25,000 to use towards a fire services study. He stated that the City went through the 30
RFP process and conducted interviews, and the interview panel of Mayor Martin, 31
Council Member Anderson and staff recommended Matrix Consulting Group with a cost 32
of $42,000. He stated that staff was able to find the remaining $17,000 from remaining 33
2019 fire funds and other reserves. 34
35
Martin clarified that the $42,000 is a not to exceed amount. 36
37
Johnson stated that Matrix was open to being paid partially in 2020 and the remainder in 38
2021. 39
40
Anderson commented that there were qualified groups of consultants, but it was clear 41
that Matrix was the best choice. 42
43
Martin agreed that Matrix seemed to bring the most qualified staff. 44
45
Pederson asked if there are other expenses or whether the $42,000 would be the total 46
amount. 47
48
Johnson confirmed that $42,000 would be a not to exceed amount. 49
50
Pederson asked when the timeline would start. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 5
March 4, 2020
1
Johnson stated that he would contact Matrix that night if approved. 2
3
Martin commented that Matrix is aware that the City would like to fast track this process. 4
5
Pederson asked for details on the fire districting discussions. 6
7
Martin noted that while the topics are related, they are separate. She provided 8
additional details on the fire districting discussions that will occur. 9
10
Van Eyll provided details on the proposed date and time for the fire districting meeting. 11
12
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Pederson, to accept the $25,000 State Fire 13
Marshal’s Grant and approve the agreement with Matrix Consulting Group to conduct a 14
fire services study for $42,000. Motion passed unanimously. 15
16
B. Ordinance No. 654 Amending Regulations Pertaining to Residential 17
Parking; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code (7:44 p.m.) 18
Finke stated that the primary change to the ordinance as proposed would reduce the 19
minimum size required for garages in townhomes from 440 to 400 square feet. He 20
stated that some smaller changes were also included in the staff report including 21
changes to how minimum parking requirements in residential districts are calculated to 22
become consistent. He stated that multifamily dwellings would also require attached or 23
tuck under garages. He explained that the proposal developed after staff reviewed a 24
request from a national townhome developer that did not have a floorplan that would 25
meet the 440 square foot requirement for garages. He stated that staff reviewed other 26
municipalities and found that 440 square feet is not common for townhomes in other 27
communities. He provided background information on how the requirement evolved as 28
one piece of a larger change to residential parking requirements. He explained that a 29
wider garage tends to equate to lesser living space and more garage frontage, or larger 30
building and a higher cost. He believed that the discussion in 2011 centered along the 31
desire to provide additional storage space in the garage rather than additional parking 32
space. He noted that the additional changes proposed to the ordinance would gather 33
the parking requirements and apply a standard per use. He noted that standardizing the 34
requirements could result in some existing structures becoming nonconforming. He 35
noted that an exception was built in for substandard lots and provided additional details. 36
He noted that the change requiring multifamily buildings to have tuck under or attached 37
garages would prevent the situation where there is an apartment building with a 38
separate line of garages. He stated that the topic was thoroughly discussed by the 39
Planning Commission with a vote of 4-3 in favor of the ordinance. He noted that the 40
main discussion was related to the change in square footage for townhome garages, 41
with four members supporting the change to 400 square feet while the remaining three 42
Commissioners supported leaving the minimum at 440 square feet. 43
44
Martin asked if there is a requirement for refuse containers to be stored inside a garage. 45
46
Finke replied that the requirement within those districts that could develop with 47
townhomes required refuse containers to be stored in the garage or fully screened. 48
49
Anderson asked if a townhome resident can park outside of the garage. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 6
March 4, 2020
Finke replied that there is not a City ordinance that requires vehicles to be parked inside, 1
but there are potentially HOA requirements that vehicles be parked inside the garage in 2
some developments. He explained that the City requires a capacity for two vehicles 3
within a garage. 4
5
Anderson asked how the Council feels about reducing the size of the garage. 6
7
Martin stated that initially she was shocked but then reviewed the building façade and 8
believes that the smaller garage door looks more attractive. She commented that the 9
reduced square footage still allows vehicle storage and space for a refuse container with 10
some additional room. 11
12
DesLauriers commented that initially be believed that to be a large reduction but then 13
after reviewing the even smaller sizes in the Enclave townhomes, noting that even those 14
smaller sizes seem to work. 15
16
Finke explained that the Enclave was constructed before the larger requirements were 17
enacted. 18
19
Albers stated that he is still struggling with the change. He noted that when he lived in a 20
townhome, the smaller garage size was tight. He agreed that the narrow garage 21
elevation is more appealing from a façade standpoint but noted that one foot around the 22
perimeter does make a difference. 23
24
Anderson asked if anyone has experience with electric cars and the space needed for 25
the charging unit. 26
27
Martin stated that the Tesla unit is installed on the wall and sticks out maybe four inches 28
with an extendable hose that connects to the vehicle. 29
30
Albers stated that he would assume that the tradeoff from a developer standpoint would 31
be that the smaller garage requirement would equate to additional living space. 32
33
Finke stated that it would depend upon the townhome development and provided 34
different examples. 35
36
Albers stated that he could support the ordinance change. 37
38
Anderson commented that even at 400 square feet, Medina would remain higher than 39
other metro communities. 40
41
Albers asked what the builders are doing in the communities that do not have minimum 42
requirements. 43
44
Finke commented that he did not look into that but commented that the Enclave was 45
built before the City had a minimum requirement and those garages were built at 370 to 46
380 square feet. He explained that the market would dictate having a functional garage. 47
48
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to adopt ordinance no. 654 amending 49
regulations pertaining to residential parking, amending Chapter 8 of the City Code. 50
Motion passed unanimously. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 7
March 4, 2020
1
1. Resolution No. 2020-12 Authorizing Publication of Ordinance No. 2
654 by Title and Summary 3
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to adopt resolution no. 2020-12 authorizing 4
publication of the ordinance by title and summary. Motion passed unanimously. 5
6
C. Contributions to Retirement Recognitions (8:09 p.m.) 7
DesLauriers stated that he asked staff to add this item to the agenda as he was 8
approached by a few staff members related to an upcoming retirement party. He 9
commented that it is very challenging to have a party for the budgeted amount with the 10
number of people expected to attend. He stated that he reviewed the City policy and at 11
a minimum would like to see a bullet added for over 20 years of service which would 12
allow up to $1,000 for the budget. 13
14
Anderson asked when the $500 policy was first adopted. 15
16
Johnson reported that was created in 2005. 17
18
Anderson agreed that increase should be made. 19
20
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Anderson, to amend the Employee Recognition 21
Policy to add a bullet which would state that a retirement for over 20 years of service or 22
more be allowed a budget up to $1,000. Motion passed unanimously. 23
24
IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (8:12 p.m.) 25
Johnson highlighted the excellent work done by Gallup and the other staff members 26
during the Presidential Primary election. He noted that the spring business tour is 27
typically held in late April with a business forum. He stated that there is not a major 28
project to highlight during a forum and suggested skipping that element. 29
30
Martin commented that while the forum is popular, it does not have to be an annual 31
event and would agree to skip that element this year. 32
33
Johnson asked if the Council is still interested in holding three business tours this spring. 34
35
Martin commented that if the tours will be repeats of businesses already visited, she 36
would tend to skip those. She stated that she would like to hear more about some of the 37
newer businesses in town and provided some suggestions. 38
39
Johnson stated that he will work with staff to setup the business tours and noted that the 40
tours could be postponed to May to allow better weather. 41
42
X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (8:15 p.m.) 43
Pederson reported that he and Martin met with two stakeholders the previous day 44
related to attempting to make Uptown Hamel more vibrant. He highlighted some of the 45
ideas that could bring more people into the area. 46
47
Martin stated that they also checked in with staff on the progress of the container 48
restaurant project. 49
50
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes 8
March 4, 2020
DesLauriers reported that he attended a few fire department meetings and participated 1
in the interview process for the new Sergeant position. 2
3
Martin noted that she also attended a few fire department meetings. She commented 4
that she also worked with staff to meet with OSI related to its development agreement. 5
She noted the draft agreement will most likely come forward to a future Council meeting 6
for review. 7
8
XI. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (8:19 p.m.) 9
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Anderson, to approve the bills, EFT 005417E-10
005427E for $45,305.01, order check numbers 049942-049985 for $219,776.45, and 11
payroll EFT 0510044-0510073 for $53,742.19. Motion passed unanimously. 12
13
XII. ADJOURN 14
Moved by Anderson, seconded by Albers, to adjourn the meeting at 8:19 p.m. Motion 15
passed unanimously. 16
17
18
__________________________________ 19
Kathleen Martin, Mayor 20
Attest: 21
22
23
____________________________________ 24
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 25
Resolution No. 2020-XX
March 17, 2020
Member _______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX
RECOGNIZING POLICE CHIEF ED BELLAND FOR TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF
DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF MEDINA IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
AS HE RETIRES
WHEREAS, Ed Belland is retiring as of March 31, 2020 after serving the City of
Medina as a highly valued Police Department employee since August 5, 1991; and
WHEREAS, Belland has served as a licensed peace officer at the City of Medina for
twenty-eight years; and
WHEREAS, Belland served six years as a Patrol Officer; and
WHEREAS, Belland has been the Public Safety Director/Police Chief for the last twenty-
two years; and
WHEREAS, Belland implemented a 24-hour/7 days a week department; and
WHEREAS, Belland created the Police Sergeant and Police Investigator positions; and
WHEREAS, Belland was involved in establishing the West Metro Drug Task Force and
chaired the task force; and
WHEREAS, Belland has served as the City of Medina Emergency Manager for the last
twenty-two years: and
WHEREAS, Belland was instrumental in the establishment of the Lake Area Emergency
Management Group for the City of Medina; and
WHEREAS, Belland showed strong leadership and vision throughout the planning and
construction of the Police Facility at 600 Clydesdale Trail in 2013; and
WHEREAS, Belland attended and graduated from the FBI Academy during the winter of
2013; and
WHEREAS, Belland received the Leadership Award from the League of Minnesota Cities
in 2015, he is the first law enforcement professional in the State to receive this award from the
League of Minnesota Cities; and
WHEREAS, Belland implemented a Nar-Can program to help stop opioid related
overdoses in the community; and
Agenda Item # 7B
Resolution No. 2020-XX
March 17, 2020 2
WHEREAS, Belland was instrumental in starting the officer gun camera program to help
with officer safety; and
WHEREAS, Belland brought selfless leadership, professionalism, a positive attitude and
work ethic to the job daily; and
WHEREAS, the City of Medina expresses sincere gratitude for Ed’s dedication and many
years of service to the Medina community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Medina
acknowledges, thanks and wishes Ed Belland the best of luck in his retirement.
Dated: March 17, 2020.
Kathy Martin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ______
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 1 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Johnson
DATE: March 12, 2020
MEETING: March 17, 2020 City Council
SUBJ: Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) – Weston Woods
E. of Mohawk Dr., N. of Hwy 55 and 1952 Chippewa Road –
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan
Review Deadline
Application Received: August 8, 2019
Review Deadline: Extended by applicant to allow jurisdictional review
Summary of Request
Mark Smith has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Concept Plan Review for a proposed development of two properties north of Highway 55
and east of Mohawk Drive.
The concept plan proposes:
• 76 twinhomes on the northern property (referred to as “Roy property”)
• Combination of uses on the southern property (referred to as “Cavanaugh property”):
o 41 single-family lots
o 33 townhomes
o 7.4 acres park/open space.
The City Council reviewed back on November 6, 2019 and tabled the application and suggested
that the developer to hold a neighborhood meeting on the project. The neighborhood meeting
was held on January 20.
Neighborhood Meeting/Open House
The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting on the evening of January 20. Approximately 50-
60 residents were present, mostly from the Bridgewater neighborhood. Most comments from
residents opposed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Staging on the Roy
property from 2025 to 2020 and questioned whether the public benefits being proposed by the
developer were sufficient to support the amendment. Residents also expressed concern over
additional traffic on Arrowhead Drive when Chippewa Road is constructed.
One resident who lives along Mohawk Drive expressed support for the development because it
would allow Chippewa Road to be constructed sooner.
There was little if any feedback on the proposed change of land use on the Cavanaugh property.
Staff received additional written and email comments around the time of the neighborhood
meeting, which are attached for reference.
Agenda Item # 8A
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 2 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
Site Location
An aerial of the site and surrounding property can be found at the top of the following page. The
aerial shows existing land uses and describes planned land uses as follows:
• The Roy property is 80 acres in area but is over ½ wetland, with approximately 28 net acres
after deducting wetland and required wetland buffer. Almost all of the upland property is tilled
farmland. There is an existing home and farm buildings in the southwest corner of the site.
• The Cavanaugh property is 55 acres in size, with approximately 28.5 net acres after deducting
wetlands and required wetland buffers. A large wetland is located along the east end of the
site and drainageways divide the site into three areas (south, northwest, and northeast). In
addition, there are approximately 13 acres of woods which bisect the site along the ridge.
These woods abut the large wetland in the southern portion of the site and bisect the northern
portion of the site. There are two 4-acre farmed areas along Mohawk Drive and approximately
6.5 acres of vacant grassland on the northeast of the site.
• Polaris and The Wealshire are located to the west of the site. OSI is southeast of the large
wetland, along with additional future Business property to the north of OSI. The Bridgewater
neighborhood is located across the large wetland to the east of the site. Homes on rural lots are
located north and northwest of the site. These lots are zoned Rural-Residential-Urban Reserve,
but included in the Future Development Area designation and may be considered for addition
to the municipal sewer and water system in future Comprehensive Plan processes.
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 3 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment can be generally described as:
• Change of land use of 17 net acres of the Cavanaugh property from Business to Low
Density Residential (2-3 units/net acre)
• Change of land use of 4.75 net acres of the Cavanaugh property from Business to
Medium Density Residential (5-7 units/net acre)
• Change of land use for approximately 7.4 net acres of the Cavanaugh property from
Business to public park and open space
• Change of Staging of the Roy property (approximately 28 acres) to allow development
after 2020 instead of after 2025
When considering requests to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the Vision and Community
Goals (Chapter 2) provide general guidance. When amendments to land use are requested,
the “Future Land Use Plan Principles” (pages 5-4 and 5-5 of the Land Use Plan) provide
guidance. Similarly, principles which inform the Staging Plan are described on page 5-18 of
the Land Use Plan. Chapters 2 and 5 of the Plan are attached for reference.
PUD Concept Plan
The purpose of a PUD Concept Plan is to provide feedback to the applicant prior to a formal
application. Generally, the Planning Commission and City Council do not take any formal
action and the feedback is purely advisory. In this case, the City will need to act on the
Comprehensive Plan which has been requested and is being reviewed concurrently. The PUD
would effectively be contingent upon the land use changes requested in the Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Purpose of a Planned Unit Development
According to Section 827.25, PUD provisions are established to provide comprehensive
procedures and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the development of
neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing
for a mixture of uses. The PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this
Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is
intended to encourage:
1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion
may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the conservation and
more efficient use of land in such developments.
2. Higher standards of site and building design.
3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality
natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the
prevention of soil erosion.
4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which result
in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of the City.
5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding open
space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses.
6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly
development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and service
facilities.
7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower development
costs and public investments.
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 4 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not
intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)
9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on
zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
Proposed Site Layout
On the Cavanaugh property, the applicant proposes 41 single-family lots between 9,000-12,000
square feet in size, 33 townhomes and 7.4 acre for public parks and open space. The concept plan
is not required to be fully designed, so adjustments may be necessary if the project proceeds to
full design. Staff has provided a general review to help inform the design if it moves ahead and
to compare the flexibility which the applicant is requesting from the expected development
standards of the underlying zoning districts.
As noted above, a PUD allows “deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to
setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards” to serve the
purposes described in the PUD ordinance. To analyze whether to approve a rezoning to PUD,
the City compares the request to the expectations of the underlying zoning designation.
Single-Family Lots
The R1 zoning district is generally utilized by the City to implement the LDR land use. The R2
zoning district is available: “as an alternative to the R1 district, not to substantially increase
density of development, but rather to allow the clustering of smaller lots to support:
(1) The protection and enhancement of natural areas through the preservation of wooded
areas, the provision of additional buffering for lakes, streams, and wetlands, or the
creation of ecological connections with other protected lands.
(2) The preservation of open spaces, provision of additional buffering from adjacent streets
and uses, or the creation of additional recreational opportunities.
The City Council, following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, shall
have full discretion to determine in what cases zoning property R2 rather than the standard R1
district meets these purposes. If the City Council determines an R2 zoning does not meet these
purposes, the property shall be zoned R1.”
The following summarizes the single family lots proposed on the Cavanaugh property compared
to the R1 and R2 district requirements. The proposed lots in the PUD generally fall in between
the R1 and R2 standards, which could be formalized through the flexibility of a PUD.
R1 R2 Proposed
Single Family
Minimum Lot Size 11,000 s.f. 8,000 s.f. 9,000 s.f.
Minimum Lot Width 90 feet 60 feet 70 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 90 feet 130 feet
Front Yard Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Front Yard Setback (garage) 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet
Side Yard Setback (combined) 25 feet (15 & 10) 15 feet (10 & 5) 20 feet (10 & 10)
Side Yard (corner) 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 25 feet 30 feet
Collector Setback 40 feet 40 feet 33 feet
Max. Hardcover 40% 50% Not specified
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 5 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
Townhomes
The R3 zoning district is utilized by the City to implement the MDR land use, which is the
proposed land use for the townhome portion of this project. The R3 district permits townhome
development up to 7 units/acre, provided design elements such as sound suppression between
units, oversized garages, and community amenities are provided. It appears that the townhome
area of the concept plan is approximately 7 units/acres. The following summarizes the
townhomes proposed on the Cavanaugh property compared to the R3 district requirements. It
appears that the applicant seeks flexibility to reduce the setback between townhome buildings as
part of the PUD request.
R3 Requirement Proposed
Townhomes
Minimum Net Area per Unit 6,222 s.f. 6,222 s.f.
Maximum Net Area per Unit 12,500 s.f. 6,222 s.f.
Minimum Setback from Perimeter 20 feet 45 feet
Front Yard Setback 25 feet 45 feet
Local Road Setback 40 feet 45 feet
Private Road Setback 25 feet 25 feet to curb
Minimum Distance Between Buildings 30 feet 15 feet
Max. Hardcover 50% Not indicated
Twinhome Lots
On the Roy property, the applicant proposes 76 twinhome units. The applicant’s concept shows
small lots under the twinhomes with Association owned open space between each pad. For the
sake of comparison to lot standards, staff has calculated the open space between the lots as part
of the adjacent lots. As noted above, the R2 zoning district can be used to implement the LDR
land use in certain circumstances. Staff believes that the Roy property may likely be a
reasonable use of the R2 district because of the narrow areas of upland amongst the wetland on
the site. The following table summarizes the twinhome layout compared to the R2 district. The
layout would seek flexibility to reduce the front setback to the private roadway as part of the
PUD request.
R2 Proposed
Twinhomes
Minimum Lot Size (Two-family) 5,000 s.f. per unit 5,000 s.f. including open
space between lots
Minimum Lot Width (two-family) 50 feet 50 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 90 feet 95 feet
Front Yard Setback 25 feet 25 feet to curb (equiv. to
13 foot to right-of-way)
Front Yard Setback (garage) 30 feet 25 feet to curb (equiv. to
13 foot to right-of-way)
Side Yard Setback (two-family) 10 feet 30 feet between buildings
Side Yard (corner) 25 feet 25 feet
Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 30 feet
Max. Hardcover 50% Not specified
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 6 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
Tree Preservation and Buffer Yards
The Cavanaugh site includes a wooded area approximately 13 acres in area. The northern 3
acres of the woods is designated as a moderate quality oak forest in the City’s land cover
classification system. Approximately 1-2 acres of the southern wooded area is designated as a
moderate quality maple-basswood forest. The remaining area is an altered deciduous woodland.
Few trees are located on the Roy property.
The applicant’s concept proposes to preserve approximately 7.4 acres of the woods of the
Cavanaugh property through dedication of the property to the City for park dedication. The
applicant proposes to preserve an additional ½ acre of wooded area in the eastern portion of the
site. The request would be subject to the City’s tree preservation ordinance, which would require
expansive replacement for all removal in excess of 15% of the significant trees on the site.
The City’s natural resource specialist provided observations on the woodlands during review two
years ago, which are attached for review. The southern portion of the wooded area, especially
located on the knoll which is proposed to be dedicated to the City, was well varied in terms of
tree age and species, and had comparatively low levels of buckthorn intrusion. This portion of
the woods appeared to be a long-term sustainable natural area of a comparatively good quality
within Medina. The dedication of the property to the City would provide the opportunity to
conserve the highest quality portion of the woodlands. The applicant argues that the
comprehensive plan amendment and PUD allow for the preservation of this wooded area in a
way which would likely not be achievable if the sites were developed at different times by
separate parties.
Wetlands and Floodplain
The large wetland to the east of the proposed development is a Preserve wetland which is
mapped as a Site of Biodiversity Significance. This type of wetland requires an average buffer
of 50 feet in width. Most of the other wetlands on the sites are Preserve wetlands, requiring an
average buffer of 35 feet. The wetland area in the center of the development on the Roy property
is a Manage 3 wetland, requiring a buffer with an average width of 20 feet. The City’s wetland
protection ordinance also requires homes to be set back an additional 15 feet from these required
buffers.
It appears that the applicant is identifying appropriate buffers on the concept plan, but this will
need to be verified if there is a future formal application.
FEMA maps identified a Zone A floodplain within the location of the large wetland. The
floodplain does not have a Base Flood Elevation established, so the applicant will need to
provide information on which to establish an elevation in order to verify that there will be no
impacts.
Transportation
The concept plan identifies a single access to the twinhome neighborhood off of Mohawk Drive,
across from the driveway of The Wealshire. The single family area is proposed to have access
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 7 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
on Mohawk Drive and new Chippewa Road, and the townhomes are proposed to be accessed off
of Mohawk Drive.
Staff would recommend that the southern cul-de-sac be eliminated. Pedestrian connections
should also be provided throughout the neighborhoods to the open space areas.
The City’s transportation plan calls for the construction of Chippewa Road from Mohawk Drive
to Arrowhead Drive This connection is important for several reasons:
• Improved access (including emergency vehicle access) to and from existing and future
development.
• Mohawk Drive has limited right-in/right-out access to the south of the site. As a result,
eastbound traffic would currently be required to travel west on Chippewa Road to Willow
Drive in order to turn left onto Highway 55. This would add approximately 1.3 miles to
each east-bound trip.
• Improved local connectivity; reduce need for local trips to utilize arterial (Highway 55)
• Provides parallel “frontage road” system along Highway 55 as described in the long-term
Highway 55 concept.
The applicant has proposed to construct the Chippewa Road extension from Mohawk Drive to
Arrowhead Drive in connection with development of the property. The applicant has also agreed
to provide for stormwater management and floodplain mitigation. The City would be
responsible for permitting and wetland mitigation for the project, although the applicant has
indicated that they would agree to contribute towards mitigation in an amount equal to the cost of
the watermain if the City Council would prefer.
The applicant has emphasized that the requested comprehensive plan amendment allows for a
common developer between the two sites and allows the opportunity for the roadway to be
constructed by the developer. If the sites on either side of Chippewa Road are developed at
different times or by different types of developers (residential vs. business), it will be much more
difficult to coordinate the funding and construction of the roadway with one or the other
development.
Sewer/Water
Existing sewer and water mains are located within Mohawk Drive, which the applicant proposes
to extend throughout the site.
The applicant has indicated that the subject site could be served through gravity sewer lines to
the existing system, but this would need to be confirmed.
Currently, the subject property and other sites in the area are served by a single water main along
Highway 55 (to Mohawk) without any looping. The City Engineer and Public Works emphasize
that having a second means to route water to this neighborhood and other properties in the area is
extremely important. The City’s water plan identifies a water main along new Chippewa Road
from Mohawk Drive east to Arrowhead Drive. This water main connection is not yet in place
and staff believes that it is important that provisions are made for construction of this connection
before additional property develops west of Arrowhead Drive. The applicant has indicated that
they would construct this watermain extension from Arrowhead Drive.
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 8 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review
The Concept Plan includes conceptual grading plans, but not in-depth stormwater plans. Any
development proposal would ultimately be subject to relevant stormwater standards. As noted
above, the applicant has agreed to provide stormwater management on the adjacent site for
Chippewa Road, which would likely be more difficult to implement if the roadway was not
constructed at the same time as the properties were developed.
Park Dedication
Ordinance Requirements
City’s subdivision regulations require up to 10% of the buildable property to be dedicated for
park purposes. The City may also choose to accept cash in-lieu of all or a portion of this land
dedication in an amount equal to 8% of the pre-developed market value, with a minimum of
$3500 and a maximum of $8000 per home.
In this case, there are approximately 75 upland acres, for a potential 7.5 acres of park land.
Estimating the park dedication fee based upon the recent sale price of the land suggests the fee
would likely be around $3500 per unit or $575,000. However, this value will be determined
more precisely during the preliminary plat review if the applicant proceeds with a formal
application.
Park dedication would be required for any development upon the two parcels, even without a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development. Part of the applicant’s
narrative states that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD allows them to better meet
the City’s goals and objectives. This would suggest that the park, trail, and open space amenities
provided with the development should exceed the park dedication requirements.
Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan
The City’s park plan identifies the need for a neighborhood park in the vicinity of the Mohawk
Drive/Chippewa Road intersection. The Park Commission has discussed potentially requiring
land either at this subject site or at the other planned residential property west on Chippewa
Road, depending on which project would move forward first.
The trail plan identifies an east-west connection between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive
which would need to be accommodated within this project. The Plan also shows a north-south
connection through the Roy property to the north.
Portions of the wooded area on the Cavanaugh property and portions of the wetlands to the east
of both sites are identified as priority areas and moderate quality natural areas in the City’s Open
Space Plan.
Proposed Parks, Trails and Open Space
The concept plan proposes the following:
1) Dedication of 7.4 acres of the wooded area in the southeast portion of the Cavanaugh site.
2) Construction of a trail through the preserved area
3) Construction of trail along Chippewa Road from Mohawk Drive to Chippewa Road
4) Trail connections throughout the neighborhood.
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 9 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
The proposed provision of land and trail connections exceed the standard park dedication
requirements for the subdivision. The applicant proposes such provisions as part of the
Comprehensive Plan and to achieve the objectives of the PUD.
Park Commission Review
The Park Commission provided comments on the concept at the October 16 meeting. Generally,
the Commission supported the preservation of wooded area as part of meeting the objectives for
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD, but believed park dedication should be provided
through additional fees. The Commission also supported construction of trail connections with
the improvements as shown on the Trail Plan.
The Park Commission did not recommend locating active park amenities in the middle of the
subject properties. They suggested that an alternative location may provide better opportunities
for active park amenities.
Review Criteria
The City has the highest level of discretion when considering requests to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. As noted at the beginning of this report, the Vision and Community Goals
(Chapter 2) and Land Use and Staging Principles (Chapter 5) should provide guidance. A super-
majority (at least 4/5) vote of the full Council is necessary to adopt an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the PUD Concept Plan is to provide purely advisory comments to the applicant
for their consideration whether and how to continue with a formal application. The City has a
great deal of discretion when reviewing a PUD because it is a rezoning, which is a legislative
action. A PUD should only be approved if it achieves the purposes of the PUD district, the
Comprehensive Plan, and other City policies. The Council should provide comments based upon
this information.
Applicant Description of Benefits
At the neighborhood meeting, several residents stated that they did not believe the public
benefits being described by the applicant justified the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Residents also suggested that the City would expect some portion of those benefits to be
provided along with any development in the future, even without a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.
The applicant provided a summary of the public benefits that he believes are possible because of
the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD. This document is attached for
reference. The description is as follows:
• Park Dedication – 7.39 acre of land + $349,000 trail construction
• Chippewa Road construction from Mohawk to Arrowhead - $2.5-$3.4 million + right-of-
way
• Watermain construction from Mohawk to Arrowhead - $468,000 (or equivalent
contribution towards wetland mitigation)
• Floodplain mitigation for Chippewa Road - $220,000 + land
• Stormwater management for Chippewa Road - $400,000 + land
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 10 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
In their earlier narrative, the applicant stated that the proposed amendments allow the
opportunity for the sites to be developed together by a single party, which is very unlikely under
the current Comprehensive Plan. Under the current Plan, it is very likely the parcels will be
developed at separate times and by different developers. The applicant states that their proposed
coordinated development would be more consistent with various goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and PUD ordinance than would be likely with separate developments.
The applicant states that the change of land use provides the opportunity to better achieve the
following goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan:
• Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at
all stages of their lives. The proposed project includes a mix of single-family, twinhomes
and townhomes which would be unlikely if only half of the land were residential.
• Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community.
The coordinated residential development provides the opportunity to preserve 7.4 acres of
the woodlands along the southeastern portion of the development, which may not be
achievable in a business development.
Jurisdictional Comments
Staff routed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to potentially affected jurisdictions
(watershed, state agencies, school districts, and neighboring cities) as required. The City
received comments from Hennepin County, Corcoran, and Loretto, which are attached for
reference. Loretto expressed general support for the amendment and none of the comments
opposed it. Corcoran noted the need to consider transportation impacts at the time of
development, be it five years in the future or today. Other comments were general in nature.
Staff Review
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, at its basic level, requests to:
• Develop the Roy property in 2020 (mostly 2021 at this point) rather than after 2025
• Develop the Cavanaugh property with a mix of single-family and townhomes instead of
Business
The Staging Plan is primarily intended to plan for adequate infrastructure and services for the
expected development. The applicant proposes to address infrastructure needs by constructing
improvements called for in the City’s Comprehensive Plan at their cost. Other matters include
regional transportation systems and school district. The proposed staging plan change is in
Rockford Schools, which has not raised concerns with pace of residential growth. The
demographics likely to purchase the twinhomes will likely result in fewer children per home than
other types of housing.
The Staging Plan also more generally provides growth management for non-infrastructure
objectives of the City.
One of the goals of the Comp Plan is: “to accommodate regionally forecasted residential growth,
desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals.” This goal seems
relevant when considering the proposed change of Land Use on the Cavanaugh property from
Business to Residential. The proposed change would reduce land for Business development in
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 11 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
the City by approximately 20 net acres (after dedication of the wooded area). It would increase
the planned residential growth in the City by 74 units, or approximately 7%.
The City Engineer has projected that the change in land use from Business to Residential would
not have substantially different impacts on the City’s transportation, sewer, water, or surface
water systems.
Public Safety Director Comments
The extension of Chippewa Road between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive provides a
frontage road for Highway 55. This is a priority in our traffic plan for several reasons. It
provides an alternate route for emergency response in that area. In the past we have shut down
traffic on Highway 55 for major accidents, rail incidents and chemical spills. The Chippewa
Road extension allows better access to the northern and western areas in our city for
emergencies. It would also be a great detour in situations where Highway 55 is closed to normal
traffic. The extension gives us a northern frontage road off Highway 55 from Clydesdale Market
Place, to Willow Drive, using Chippewa Road, Meander Road, and Clydesdale Drive. This
allows our residents the option to avoid the highspeed traffic on Highway 55.
With Polaris, OSI, Wealshire and Okalee being located in that area, developing the Chippewa
Road extension makes sense. It gives employees, contractors and guests access to those
facilities and the option to go both east and west at controlled intersections which improve safety
on Highway 55.
Public Safety supports the traffic plan contained in the Comprehensive Plan. For these reasons
Public Safety supports the comprehensive plan amendment for Mark of Excellence.
Public Works Director Comments
Streets – In 1988 Chippewa Road existed between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive. As far
back as 1990 the Medina Comprehensive Plan included its reconstruction as a goal of the
transportation plan. Future Chippewa Road, as it did in the past, will allow improved traffic
movement from east to west, without going onto Highway 55. It allows emergency vehicles
including fire, police, and snowplows to reach their destination in case of a Highway 55 closure.
This will also have a big impact on general services to our residents on that end of town because
the Comprehensive Plan includes a park and utility services in the area.
Utilities – The addition of a Chippewa trunk watermain is in the current water distribution plan
and is imperative that it be installed in the very near future. This link provides redundancy in our
current single trunk main system. We have had two recent watermain breaks between
Arrowhead Drive and Mohawk Drive on Highway 55. When this happens, we have no link
between the water tower/reservoir and the treatment plant and wells on the east side of town.
Medina has always relied upon development to upgrade or add infrastructure as needed. Medina
has also utilized comprehensive plan amendments to achieve goals that would otherwise cost the
city millions of dollars, just as it did in the case of Arrowhead Drive with the Bridgewater
Addition Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the past. For these reasons the Public Works
Department supports the comprehensive plan amendment for Mark of Excellence.
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 12 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
When considering the Amendments, it is important to compare the requested amendment to the
planned staging and future land use contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan and not compare
against no development occurring. The properties are planned for urban development, and the
question relates to use and timing. Also, the construction of Chippewa Road is an important
connection for the City’s transportation system based upon the planned land use changes in the
area.
Finance Director and City Administrator Comments
The extension of Chippewa Road going between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive provides
a frontage road for Highway 55 that would be substantially paid for by Mark of Excellence
Homes. City Engineer WSB has provided estimates of over $6 million dollars to complete
Chippewa Road as a public project. Mark of Excellence Homes is proposing to pay for a
substantial amount of project expenses except for approximately $600,000 in project expense.
The proposed extension would provide a needed public safety/transportation link on Chippewa
Road, extend the trunk watermain to provide the link between the water tower/reservoir and the
treatment plant and wells on the east side of Medina, and save the City of Medina taxpayers
millions of dollars in future costs for the completion of Chippewa Road.
Staff Analysis
Under the Comprehensive Plan today, the Cavanaugh property can be developed at any time
with Business uses. The Roy property could be developed at similar density as proposed in or
2025. The likely result of two different land uses at two different staging periods will be two
separate developments by multiple entities at different times.
Staff believes that it is unlikely that a single entity would develop the properties simultaneously
without some sort of Comprehensive Plan amendment. The coordinated development as allowed
by the Amendment does provide several advantages to the City:
• Construction of infrastructure, including Chippewa Road, the trail, and watermain
connection. Even if the City were to be able to secure significant financial contributions
from future developers or assessments for construction of Chippewa Road and the trail,
it is far from certain that the full construction cost would be secured. In addition, by
being responsible for construction, the applicant would also be responsible for
construction over-runs which may come about. The City would save significant time,
energy, and cost of preparing plans and specifications, bidding documents, and
administration of potential assessments/financial contributions.
• Floodplain mitigation is proposed to be completed by the developer on the sites, which
may likely be difficult to coordinate depending on the timing of two separate
developments and Chippewa Road in the future.
• All necessary right-of-way and land for public improvements, including streets, trails,
floodplain mitigation, utilities, and stormwater management can be secured immediately.
While staff would anticipate that it would likely be possible to secure such land through
various developments, it may be that the timing of such dedication does not align with
when the infrastructure is necessary
• Stormwater management for the lowest portion of Chippewa Road is proposed to be
accommodated within the adjacent developments. This would be very difficult to
coordinate and receive permits if the developments and the road projects were not
occurring simultaneously.
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 13 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
• The preservation of 7.4 acre of woodlands exceeds the amount which could be required
in park dedication from just the Cavanaugh parcel if it were developed on its own.
Dedication could also be required separately when the Roy property were developed,
which could be cash or land.
While the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are part of a single request and
development proposal, it may be helpful to parse the changes when making a decision.
When determining Business vs. Residential land use on the Cavanaugh property, factors include:
• Overall amount and balance between residential and business development in the City
• Suitability of the site for each type of development
• Potential benefits and determinants of a larger, coordinated development by a single
entity
Staff believes that, pertaining to the amendment of the Staging Plan to allow development on the
Roy property in 2020 rather than 2025, it is reasonable to conclude that the provision of
necessary infrastructure and other factors achieve the relevant objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Staff has provided comments throughout the report to be incorporated into any future formal
application. These comments are summarized below:
1) The Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall not become effective until reviewed and
authorized by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota Statues 462 and 473, the
final plat is approved, and a development agreement in a form and of substance
acceptable to the City has been executed.
2) Any future application shall be subject to all relevant City regulations and policies.
3) The applicant shall provide a wetland delineation and meet all requirements of the
wetland protection ordinance.
4) Access locations and circulation shall be improved as recommended by City staff.
5) The applicant shall dedicate the land and construct the trails as shown on the concept plan
for park dedication purposes.
6) The applicant shall construct the Chippewa Road, watermain, and trail connections
between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive in connection with the development.
7) The applicant shall provide stormwater management and floodplain mitigation on the
subject site as necessary for construction of Chippewa Road and the corresponding trail.
8) Architectural standards for all residential structures shall be submitted for City review
and approval. Minimum design standards shall be established to ensure high quality
design and construction contemplated by the purpose of the PUD district.
9) A substantial buffer shall be provided from adjacent rural property. The buffer shall
include an appropriate combination of distance, berming, vegetation and potentially
fencing.
10) Provisions shall be incorporated into the design to maintain the natural drainageways
through the site.
11) Townhome layout shall be adjusted to provide adequate outlot width for boulevards
adjacent to the private roadway.
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 14 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application at their October 8 meeting.
The draft minutes from the discussion are attached for reference. Two residents spoke at the
public hearing, one opposing the changes to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and
the other raising concerns about traffic on Arrowhead Drive. Written comments were also
entered into the record.
Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. The majority of the Commission did not believe the proposed
amendment better served the goals and objectives of the City than the existing plan. Two
Commissioners felt that the benefits which were proposed through the amendment by developing
residential on both sites at the same time met the goals and objectives and supported the
amendment. Staff recommends review of the minutes, because it is difficult to summarize the
discussion from the public and Commissioners.
Potential Action
If, following review, the Council finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
appropriate based upon Vision, Community Goals, and Principles of the Comprehensive Plan,
the following action could be taken:
Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution conditionally approving the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and authorizing submission to the Metropolitan Council, subject to
the conditions and comments noted in the staff report and discussed by Council.
The Council should also provide comments on the PUD Concept Plan if it appears that the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment may be approved.
If, on the other hand, the Council finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment does
not align with the Vision, Community Goals, and Principles of the Comprehensive Plan, the
following action could be taken:
Move to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment based upon the findings articulated by the Council.
Since a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requires a 4/5 vote of the full City Council, there is the
potential of a 3-2 vote in favor, which would be insufficient to ultimately adopt the amendment.
In this scenario, staff’s interpretation is that a simple majority can authorize submission to the
Metropolitan Council for review. If the Metropolitan Council authorizes adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment following review, it would then be presented to the Council for
adoption. At that point, the potential outcomes would be:
• Adoption of amendment by 5-0 or 4-1 vote of the full City Council
• Denial of amendment through resolution, if a majority of the Council votes against the
amendment.
• Failure of the amendment by a 3-2 vote in favor (less than required supermajority). In
such case, the Council would not adopt a resolution providing findings for denial.
Instead, the members voting against approval must state on the record the reasons they
oppose the request.
Mark Smith – Weston Woods Page 15 of 15 March 17, 2020
Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
Attachments
1. Document List
2. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2 – Vision and Community Goals
3. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5 – Land Use (w/ proposed changes to Maps 5-3 and 5-5)
4. Excerpt from 10/8/2019 Planning Commission minutes
5. Excerpt from 10/16/2019 Park Commission minutes
6. Excerpt from 11/6/2019 City Council meeting
7. Comments from affected jurisdictions (Corcoran, Loretto, Hennepin County)
8. Public Comments received following City Council review
9. Applicant Narrative
10. Applicant Description of Public Benefits
11. Concept Plan
<OVER> 3/12/2020
Project: LR‐19‐256 – Mark of Excellence Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan
The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are
only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall.
Documents Submitted by Applicant
Document Received
Date
Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Paper
Copy?
Notes
Application 8/8/2019 8/8/2019 3 Yes Yes
Application‐Updated 10/1/2019 10/1/2019 2 Yes Yes Rezoning removed
Deposit 8/8/2019 8/7/2019 1 Yes $5000
Timeline Extension‐CPA 10/1/2019 NA 1 Yes Yes Deadline waived until revoked
Narrative 8/8/2019 8/8/2019 5 Yes Yes
Narrative‐updated 9/18/2019 9/18/2019 5 Yes Yes
Narrative‐updated 9/25/2019 9/25/2019
Traffic Analysis 2/24/2019 42 Yes
Overall Concept 8/8/2019 7/22/2019 2 Yes Yes 1 black/white, 1 color
Concept Plans 8/8/2019 7/25/2019 9 Yes Yes
Overall Concept‐Updated 9/18/2019 9/18/2019 2 Yes Yes 1 black/white, 1 color
Concept Plans‐Updated 9/18/2019 9/18/2019 10 Yes Yes
Overall Concept‐Updated 10/2/2019 9/30/2019 1 Yes Black/white only
Concept Plans‐Updated 10/2/2019 9/30/2019 9 Yes Yes
Public Benefit Description 2/14/2020 2/14/2020 2 Yes Yes
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
City Engineer comments 8/29/2019 3 Yes
City Engineer comments 9/27/2019 4 Yes
Natural Resource Comments 10/21/2019 3 Yes
Notice 9/27/2019 7 13 pages w/ affidavit and list
<OVER> 3/12/2020
Preliminary Comments 8/30/2019 2 Yes 8 pages w/ attachments
Review Extension 9/30/2019 2 Yes 6 pages w/ attachments
Corcoran Comments 11/6/2019 1 Yes
Hennepin County Comments 10/2/2019 1 Yes
Loretto Comments 10/8/2019 2 Yes
Planning Commission Report 10/3/2019
Park Commission Report 10/10/2019 4
City Council Report 10/31/2019 12
City Council Report 3/12/2020 15 Yes
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
Mackey Email 10/1/2019 Y
Hofstede Email 10/2/2019 Y
Dennis Email 10/3/2019 Y
Norhe email 10/4/2019 Y
Thiessen email 10/7/2019 Y
Woodrum email 10/7/2019 Y
Wiskow email 11/6/2019 Y
Hanson email 11/5/2019 Y
Lamberty email 1/20/2020 Y
Hofstede email 1/20/2020 Y
Mackey email 1/20/2020 Y
Thiessen email 1/20/2020 Y
Painter email 1/20/2020 Y
Lubenow email 1/21/2020 Y
Atkinson letter 2/3/2020 Y
Planning Commission minutes 10/8/2019 Y
Park Commission minutes 10/16/2019 Y
Chapter 2 – Vision and Community Goals Page 2 - 1
Adopted October 2, 2018
Chapter 2: VISION & COMMUNITY GOALS
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
The Vision and Community Goals chapter is the heart of the Comprehensive Plan and provides
the foundation from which City officials make consistent and supporting land use decisions.
This chapter includes a set of general community goals that guided the creation of this Plan.
The concepts in this chapter are some of the few static elements of the Comprehensive Plan. If
land uses change or other infrastructure varies from the Plan, decisions will be founded in the
goals set forth below. The Vision and Goals were created with the involvement of the
Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (the “Steering Committee”), City officials, and
residents of Medina and are broadly supported.
Land use designations are subject to strong social and economic pressures to change.
Accordingly, it is appropriate that such systems be periodically evaluated in light of changing
social and economic conditions. As development evolves, the Vision and Goals will provide the
guidance for accomplishing the vision for the future of the community even when changes are
necessary to the land use plan.
Detailed objectives and recommendations are contained within each of the subject chapters of
this plan.
Creating the Vision and Goals
The residents, the Steering Committee, City officials and staff participated in the planning
process for the Plan. A series of public participation meetings were conducted to introduce and
solicit information from the residents of Medina. The Steering Committee held work sessions
that focused on integrating the concerns and desires of the community together with
accommodating growth and regional impacts. An online forum provided additional
opportunity for residents to impact the Vision and Community Goals as they were formulated.
In addition to land use and growth planning, the City implemented open space, natural
resources, and infrastructure planning. The goals which guided this process are integrated into
this chapter.
Each element of this plan was developed with assistance from city officials and a diverse group
of community stakeholders producing a truly representative plan. The City made a conscious
decision to emphasize natural resources and open space conservation.
Chapter 2 – Vision and Community Goals Page 2 - 2
Adopted October 2, 2018
Community Vision
The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant
goals and strategies.
Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its
residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City,
while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well-designed neighborhoods, places of recreation
and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the City will be commensurate with available
transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity.
Community Goals
The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform objectives
and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to
promote the rural character of Medina.
• Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community.
• Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning,
engineering and development.
• Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted
residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other
Community Goals. Such development and growth shall be at a sustainable pace
proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and wastewater
infrastructure available to the City.
• Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular
timeframes.
• Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire
community.
• Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities,
connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents.
• Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents
at all stages of their lives.
• Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential
areas of the City.
• Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s police
department and coordinate with its contracted volunteer fire departments.
• Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient
staff and long-range planning and financial management.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 1
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 1
CChhaapptteerr 55:: LLAANNDD UUSSEE && GGRROOWWTTHH
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn
Medina has significant natural resources, high-quality neighborhoods and areas for commercial
and retail development. The City’s extensive wetlands and limited infrastructure availability,
together with past community planning, have contributed to its rural character. The metropolitan
area is a high growth area. Medina’s rural charm makes it an attractive alternative to the more
intensely populated areas found closer to Minneapolis and St. Paul.
This chapter discusses existing and future land use patterns in the City.
22001166 EExxiissttiinngg LLaanndd UUsseess
TABLE 5-1
EXISTING LAND USES (2016)
Land Use Acres Percent
Agricultural 3,208.3 18.7%
Golf Course 532.5 3.1%
Industrial and Utility 278.6 1.6%
Institutional 194.2 1.1%
Major Highway 83.1 0.5%
Mixed Use Residential 6.8 0.0%
Multifamily 17.5 0.1%
Office 38.9 0.2%
Open Water 1,174.5 6.9%
Park, Recreational, or Preserve 1,836.2 10.7%
Railway 77.0 0.4%
Retail and Other Commercial 186.6 1.1%
Rural Residential 4,447.1 26.0%
Single Family Attached 44.1 0.3%
Single Family Detached 916.1 5.4%
Undeveloped 119.0 0.7%
Wetlands 3,960.0 23.1%
Total 17,120.5 100%
Agricultural Use includes farms and other parcels greater than five acres in size used primarily
for agricultural, pasture and rural purposes. A large percentage of the City is designated as
agricultural.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 2
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 2
Residential Use is divided into four designations:
Rural Residential consists of larger tracts of land and homesteads, including hobby farms, on
parcels without City sewer and water service. The Rural Residential land use also
includes rural property which is currently vacant and is not planned for urban services.
Single Family Detached includes detached single-family residential properties which are
served with urban services.
Single Family Attached includes attached single-family residential properties such as twin
homes, duplexes, townhomes and rowhomes.
Multifamily includes residential properties such as apartment buildings and condominiums.
Mixed Use Residential Use identifies properties which include residential units upon the same
property as a commercial use. Most of these uses are buildings in the Uptown Hamel area which
include apartments above commercial or office space.
Industrial and Utility Use is primarily in the TH 55 corridor and includes light industrial,
warehouse, and manufacturing facilities. The use also includes utility uses throughout the
community such as electric substations, water treatment facilities and the like.
Office Use is primarily in the TH 55 corridor and includes a number of the City’s largest
employers.
Retail and Other Commercial Use is primarily in the TH 12 and Highway 55 corridors and in the
Uptown Hamel area.
Park, Recreational or Preserve Use includes parks and public recreational and protected open
space. Baker Park Reserve has a significant impact on planning due to its size and regional
attraction, as well as its effect on the City’s tax base and use.
Golf Course Use includes existing golf courses.
Institutional Use includes City, county, or state owned property, religious institutions, nursing
homes, cemeteries, and other similar uses.
Major Highway and Railway Uses identify land occupied by federal or state highways and
railroad improvements.
Undeveloped Use identifies areas that are currently vacant but have been subdivided in
anticipation of a new development. Much of this land may currently be on the market. Sites
which are actively in development are excluded from this use and designated as their approved
land use.
Wetlands, Lakes and Open Water Wetlands and lakes play an important role in the City because
together they affect 30.2% of the City land and significantly impact the City’s land use patterns.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 3
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 3
NNaattuurraall FFeeaattuurreess aanndd AArreeaass
The City contains many ecologically significant natural resource areas that provide value to all
residents by providing natural beauty and wildlife habitat, improving water quality and adding
to land values. These natural areas are described in further detail in the Open Space Report but
merit discussion from a land use and development perspective.
The City has an extensive network of wetlands and lakes that significantly impact the developable
areas in the City. Woodland areas are located throughout the community, including a number of
remnants of the Big Woods along with many other significant stands. The community has made
conscious choices to preserve and protect the natural areas and to improve their quality. Because
35.4% of the land area in Medina is comprised of lakes and wetlands and many of these areas are
under private ownership, it is critical for the City to educate residents about the importance of
maintaining healthy wetlands, woodlands and lakes.
These natural features comprise the City’s green infrastructure system: the City’s natural support
system that promotes healthy sustainability of the community. As the City grows, the natural
areas will be a critical element of every decision-making process. The City undertook an
extensive natural resource and open space planning effort that will be the foundation for land use
decisions. The Open Space Report indicates the ecologically significant areas that require
protection and the areas that will be maintained as a part of the City’s conservation network.
SSoollaarr AAcccceessss PPrrootteeccttiioonn
Medina is committed to encouraging and promoting solar energy as a clean, alternative form of
energy production and reducing carbon-based emissions through the following policies and
strategies:
• Protect access to solar resources by permitting solar equipment to be attached to structures
for self-generation, subject to appropriate limitations related to community character.
• Protect access to solar resources by permitting ground mounted solar equipment for self-
generation within rural, agricultural, and business uses, subject to appropriate limitations
related to scale, mitigation of impacts on neighboring properties, and community
character.
The Metropolitan Council has estimated the City’s solar potential as follows:
Gross Potential
(Mwh/yr)
Rooftop Potential
(Mwh/yr)
Gross Generation
Potential (Mwh/yr)2
Rooftop Generation
Potential (Mwh/yr)2
40,619,888 532,719 4,061,988 53,271
Map 5-1 displays the City’s Solar Suitability Analysis Map.
Protecting solar access means protecting solar collectors (or the location of future collectors) from
shading by adjacent structures or vegetation. Existing structures and buildings in the City
generally do not present significant shading problems for solar energy systems. Most single-
family attached and detached homes are one or two stories and most multi-family, commercial,
and industrial buildings are two stories or less.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 4
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 4
While these ordinance standards help protect solar access, it is not possible for every part of a
building or lot to obtain unobstructed solar access. Mature trees, topography, and the location
of structures can limit solar access. However, on most properties the rooftop of the principal
building would be free of shading by adjacent structures. Therefore, the majority of property
owners in the City could utilize solar energy systems, if they so desired, as a supplement or
alternative to conventional fuels.
HHiissttoorriicc PPrreesseerrvvaattiioonn
The City of Medina currently does not have any sites or structures listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. The City of Medina has a strong interest in preserving
representative portions of its history. The City previously worked with the West Hennepin
Pioneer Museum to restore the Wolsfeld Family cabin which was originally built in 1856. It is
thought to be one of the original homes in Medina. The City further commits to providing the
following general guidelines related to historical preservation:
• Partner with organizations that want to preserve historically significant areas, landmarks,
and buildings in Medina;
• Modify zoning regulations as necessary to help preserve areas that may be historically
significant.
FFuuttuurree GGeenneerraall LLaanndd UUssee PPoolliiccyy DDiirreeccttiioonn
As described in the Vision Statement, the City of Medina strives to promote and protect its open
spaces and natural environment. The City has historically been, and intends to continue to be,
primarily a rural community.
The City has planned for a limited amount of future development consistent with regional
forecast and consistent with Community Goals.
Future Land Use Plan Principles
The Future Land Use Plan guides the development of Medina through 2040, and will be used to
implement the City’s goals, strategies and policies. The Plan is guided by the Vision and
Community Goals as furthered by the following principles:
Development Patterns and Neighborhood Form
• Encourage open spaces, parks and trails in all neighborhood developments. Surveys
indicate that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual access to green
spaces.
• Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are well connected with
roads, trails or sidewalks.
• Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development patterns
consistent with existing rural residential development.
• Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible in
scale, architectural quality and style with existing neighborhoods.
• Stage residential growth to minimize the amount of adjacent developments which
occur within the same time period.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 5
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 5
• Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future
infrastructure availability.
• Concentrate higher density development near service oriented businesses to help
promote walkability.
• Consider planned development in surrounding communities when making land use
decisions in the City.
Road Patterns
• Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with use
forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes.
• Establish collector streets with good connections through the community’s growth
areas.
• Promote trails and sidewalk access near roads and thoroughfares to encourage multi-
modal transportation choices.
• Consider opportunities to improve north-south travel within the City.
Open Spaces and Natural Resources
• Preserve natural resources throughout the community and provide educational
opportunities to residents to help them understand the value of natural areas.
• Preserve open spaces and natural resources.
• Protect wooded areas and encourage improvement of existing resources and
reforestation. Evaluate existing woodland protections and supplement as necessary.
• Support the guidelines identified in the Open Space Report to preserve the City’s
natural systems.
Business Districts and Commercial Areas
• Focus service businesses and development near urban residential densities and along
primary transportation corridors.
• Provide connections between residents and commercial areas and promote businesses
within mixed-use areas.
• Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to reduce
traffic and commuting demands.
• Emphasize service and retail uses which serve the needs of the local community and
provide opportunities for the community to gather.
• Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides open
spaces and protects natural resources.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 6
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 6
TThhee GGuuiiddee PPllaann
Medina's Future Land Use Plan, Map 5-3, maintains Medina’s rural character and protects the
City's natural resources while accommodating limited growth and development which is
consistent with the City’s Vision, Community Goals and Land Use Principles.
Table 5-2 below demonstrates the expected 2040 land uses in the community.
TABLE 5-2
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
Future Land Use (2040) Gross
Acreage % Net
Acreage %
Rural Residential 8,402.2 49.1% 6,015.3 35.1%
Agriculture 222.7 1.3% 174.5 1.0%
Future Development Area 671.9 3.9% 547.9 3.2%
Low Density Residential 1172.5 6.8% 865.7 5.1%
Medium Density Residential 58.5 0.3% 46.2 0.3%
High Density Residential 29.6 0.2% 25.7 0.2%
Mixed Residential 137.1 0.8% 94.1 0.6%
Uptown Hamel 45.0 0.3% 41.2 0.2%
Commercial 254.2 1.5% 197.6 1.2%
Business 704.6 4.1% 471.9 2.8%
Rural Commercial 67.5 0.4% 47.6 0.3%
Institutional 270.2 1.6% 194.0 1.1%
Parks, Recreation, Open Space 2,771.5 16.2% 1,971.2 11.5%
Private Recreation 343.1 2.0% 297.5 1.7%
Closed Sanitary Landfill 192.2 1.1% 124.7 0.7%
Right-of-Way 673.1 3.9% 616.9 3.6%
Total Acres 16,015.9 11,732.0
Lakes and Open Water* 1,104.6 6.5% 1,104.6 6.5%
Wetlands and Floodplain 4,283.9 25.0%
Total City 17,120.5 17,120.5
* Lakes and Open Water amounts include areas adjacent to lakes which are not included in
Hennepin County parcel data and exclude un-meandered lakes.
The Growth and Development Map (Map 5-4) highlights areas within the City in which a change
of land use is contemplated by the Future Land Use plan. The map also highlights wetland areas
within Medina which significantly affect land planning, development, and infrastructure
decisions.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 7
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 7
Future Land Use Designations
Rural Residential (RR) identifies areas for low-intensity uses, such as rural residential, hobby
farms, agricultural, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and
passive recreation. Density within the RR land use shall be no more than one lot per 10 acres
and the area is not planned to be served by urban services during the timeframe covered by this
Plan.
Agricultural (AG) identifies areas which are planned for long-term agricultural uses. Density
within the land use can be no more than one lot per 40 acres which will not be served by urban
services. Property within this land use is eligible to be part of the Metropolitan Agricultural
Preserves Program.
Future Development Area (FDA) identifies areas which could potentially be planned for future
urban development in the City that will be provided municipal sewer and water services. This
area will remain rural unless and until designated for urban services in a future Comprehensive
Plan update. The purpose of the FDA designation is to communicate the future planning
intentions to the community. This designation is tentative and depends greatly on future
infrastructure improvements, including to regional highway capacity.
Low Density Residential (LDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 2.0 units
per acre and 3.0.units per acre which are served, or are intended to be served, by urban
services. The primary use in this area is single- and two-family residential development.
Medium Density Residential (MDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 5.0
and 7.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The
primary uses in this designation will be a mix of housing such as single-family residential, twin
homes, town homes, row homes, and small multiple family buildings.
High Density Residential (HDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 12.0 and
15.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary
uses will include town homes, apartment buildings and condominiums which should
incorporate some open space or an active park.
Mixed Residential (MR) identifies residential land uses that may be developed with a variety
of housing styles at an overall average density between 3.5 and 4.0 units per net acre, within
which a minimum of the units equivalent to 1.0 unit per acre are required to be developed at
higher densities above 8.0 units per acre. Uses within the MR land use are served, or are
intended to be served, by urban services. The land use provides flexibility for the type of
housing to be developed, including detached single family, twin homes, townhomes and
multiple family buildings. The MR land use will allow for different types of housing to be
developed in coordination with each other or independently, provided the objectives related to
overall density and minimum number of higher density housing units can be achieved within a
defined area.
Uptown Hamel (UH) the Uptown Hamel land use allows residential and commercial uses to be
mixed on adjacent sites and to be mixed within the same building or property. Residential
development in this designation may be between 4.0 and 15.0 units per acre. The Uptown
Hamel area is served by urban services.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 8
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 8
Commercial (C) provides areas for highway oriented businesses and retail establishments
including commercial, office and retail uses. These uses are concentrated along the arterial
corridors and are served or will be served by urban services.
Business (B) provides opportunities for corporate campus uses including office, warehouse,
and light industrial. This designation identifies larger tracts of land that are suitable for office
and business park developments and are served or will be served by urban services.
Rural Commercial (RC) identifies commercial land uses which are not served by urban services,
but rather by individual wells and septic systems. The scale of development in this land use shall
be limited to protect water resources.
Institutional (INST) identifies existing public, semi-public, and non-profit uses such as
governmental, cemeteries, religious, educational and utilities.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) identifies publicly owned or permanently conserved
land which is used for park, recreational, or open space purposes.
Private Recreation (PREC) identifies areas that are currently used for outdoor recreational uses
which are held under private ownership but are not publicly maintained. Limited numbers of
residential uses may be included or have previously been developed within this land use
designation, accounting for no more than 10% of the land area. Density within the residential
portion of the use shall be between 2.0 and 3.0 units per net acre where urban services are
available and one unit per 10 acres where services are not available. The City does not
anticipate additional residential development within the land use.
Closed Sanitary Landfill (SL) identifies an existing closed sanitary landfill. The Woodlake
Landfill is owned by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as part of Minnesota’s
Closed Landfill Program. The MPCA has jurisdiction over land use regulations of the landfill
and has made available a description of the types, locations, and potential movement of
hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants, or decomposition gases related to the
facility in its Closed Landfill Plan. The City hereby incorporates such information and the City
will provide such information as required by law.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 9
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 9
AAvveerraaggee NNeett RReessiiddeennttiiaall DDeennssiittyy
The Metropolitan Council has designated the portion of the City within the Metropolitan Urban
Service Area as Emerging Suburban Edge. Residential development within the Emerging
Suburban Edge designation is required to be planned for new development and redevelopment at
average net density of at least 3-5 units per acre.
The average net density for planned residential development in Medina is 3.17 units per acre as
described in Table 5-3.
TABLE 5-3
NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
Future Land Use Planned
Net Acreage
Minimum
Density
Minimum
Number of
Units
Low Density Residential 186.4 2.0 372.8
Medium Density Residential 24.5 5.0 122.5
High Density Residential 16.1 12.0 193.2
Mixed Residential 94.1 3.5 329.4
Total Planned Residential 321.1 1,017.9
Average Net Residential Density 3.17
The Metropolitan Council requires communities to assume development at the minimum density
of each land use when projecting net residential density. In reality, development will occur
within the allowed range, higher than the minimum. This will result in density being higher than
calculated above.
Redevelopment is anticipated within the Uptown Hamel area and is likely to include additional
residential units. The intent of the Uptown Hamel land use is to permit flexibility in the amount
of residential and commercial development and is therefore not projected in Table 5-3. However,
residential development within Uptown Hamel is required to exceed 4 units per net acre, which
would further comply with Metropolitan Council minimum net density requirements.
EEmmppllooyymmeenntt IInntteennssiittyy FFoorreeccaassttss
The Metropolitan Council requires that communities provide a measurement of forecasted
employment. Acceptable measures include floor area ratios, building footprint percentages or
impervious surface percentages. Medina anticipates that new development in the Commercial
and Business land uses will tend to result in 50-65% impervious surface coverage.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 10
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 10
LLaanndd UUssee PPoolliicciieess bbyy AArreeaa
The following section provides policies for land use designations and is categorized into
generalized subsections. The policies for each category as provided below directly support the
Community Goals and Land Use Principles.
These designations are generalized land uses and are not specific zoning districts. The City will
update the zoning ordinance and applicable codes to be consistent with the land use plan and
designations identified in this section.
The planning process revealed a strong interest in promoting high quality, sustainable
development in the City. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for large scale or master
plan types of development, regardless of whether they are residential, commercial or mixed-uses
will be available and will be supported through zoning.
RRuurraall DDeessiiggnnaattiioonnss
The rural designations include Agricultural, Rural Residential and Future Development Area.
A large percentage of the community falls into these categories. The purpose of these
designations is to provide low-intensity land uses, such as rural residential, farming, hobby
farms, horticulture, conservation of natural and ecologically significant natural resources and
passive recreation. This area will not be provided with water or sewer service during the
timeframe covered by this Plan.
A significant segment of this area consists of large, rural parcels with single-family homes. The
City recognizes that such low-density, development will continue to be a desired housing
alternative.
The City's goal is to maintain the rural character of this area. The Metropolitan Council System
Statement shows the majority of this area as Diversified Rural, and the City utilizes the Rural
Residential designation to be consistent with the System Statement.
The Metropolitan Council has identified a significant portion of Medina’s rural area in the
Long-term Sewer Service Area (LTSSA) for the Blue Lake wastewater facility. The Metropolitan
Council designates the LTSSA for the possibility of extension of urban services in the long-term,
beyond 25 years in the future. Medina is required to identify the LTSSA in its Comprehensive
Plan.
The Metropolitan Council’s LTSSA is identified in Map 5-5. The Metropolitan Council states
that the LTSSA is intended to provide opportunities to efficiently extend urban services to
accommodate long-term growth. The City believes that much of this area does not support
efficient extension of urban services and the City seeks opportunities to remove property from
the LTSSA. The following factors affect the efficiency of providing future urban services and
are displayed on Map 5-6:
• Wetlands, Topography, Regional Parks and Scientific Areas
Wetlands occupy a significant portion of the area identified by the Metropolitan Council
within the LTSSA, accounting for approximately 40% of the area. This fact, along with
topographical conditions, would make the provision of wastewater service inefficient. In
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 11
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 11
addition, Baker Park and the Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area occupy large
portions of Medina’s rural area, further separating any developable areas.
• Historical development patterns
Much of the LTSSA was developed with large-lot residential neighborhoods prior to the
Metropolitan Council’s LTSSA designation. These properties tend to include large homes
with comparatively high home values, making the likelihood of redevelopment with
urban services costly. The Metropolitan Council seeks density lower than 1 unit per 10
acres for efficient extension of wastewater service. As evidenced on Map 5-6, the vast
majority of the LTSSA within Medina has been previously developed in a pattern that is
denser than 1 unit per 10 buildable acres. As a result, much of the LTSSA does not
provide opportunity for efficient extension of wastewater service by the Metropolitan
Council’s policy.
• Distance between regional infrastructure and City infrastructure
The Metropolitan Council would need to extend wastewater service into the southern
area of Medina if development were to occur in the future. The City’s primary municipal
water system is in the northern portion of Medina. One of these services would need to
be extended a great distance in order to be provided in connection with the other, or the
City would need to establish a separate water system. Either alternative would be costly
and would not be efficient.
In discussions with Metropolitan Council staff, the City has identified approximately 730 acres
to be removed from the LTSSA in the southern portion of the City, because a similar acreage in
the northwest corner of the City was added to the Blue Lake wastewater facility service area.
The City will continue to seek opportunities to remove property from the LTSSA because of the
factors noted above.
The City’s Open Space Report proposes several different implementation techniques for
allowing open space development and planning to maintain rural character and
simultaneously preserve significant natural resources. This result may take the form of
innovative developments that clusters smaller lots on larger parcels with permanently
conserved open space. Such innovative arrangements can help preserve the City’s natural
resources, open space and rural character, while still maintaining an average overall density of
ten acres per unit. Medina’s wetlands, lakes, scattered woodlands and soil conditions prevent
smaller, unsewered lot development, but are ideal for low-density rural housing.
Medina's policy in the permanent rural area is to keep strict soil requirements for septic sites, but
allow flexibility for Open Space design developments and to ensure that the permanent rural area
will remain rural by eliminating the need for future extension of a sanitary sewer service to
replace failing systems.
Objectives:
1. Allow low-density development in the Rural Residential Area including innovative
arrangements of homes that preserve open space and natural resources.
2. Encourage conservation of open space, farms and ecologically significant natural
resources in the rural areas.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 12
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 12
3. Enforce stringent standards for the installation and maintenance of permanent, on-site
sewage disposal systems.
4. Allow public facilities and services, such as parks and trail systems, if compatible with
rural service area development.
5. Allow land uses, such as home-based businesses, hobby farms, horse stables, nurseries
and other smaller-scale rural activities, which will not conflict with adjoining residential
development.
6. Regulate noise, illumination, animals, and odors as needed to maintain public health and
safety.
7. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per forty acres for property in the Agricultural
land use.
8. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for new development in the Rural
Residential and Future Development Area land use.
9. Consider exceptions to maximum density standards for open space developments that
protect natural features and put land into permanent conservation. Within the
Metropolitan Council’s long term sewer service area (reference Map 5-5), these
exceptions will be allowed to result in development with a density in excess of one unit
per ten gross acres if consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s Flexible Residential
Development Guidelines.
10. Urban services will not be provided to the Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Future
Development Area land uses during this planning cycle.
11. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands and other significant
natural characteristics.
12. Require that lots contain adequate soil types and conditions as defined in the City's
on-site septic system requirements.
13. Protect property within the Future Development Area designation from subdivision and
development by requiring ghost plats for subdivisions so that future urban expansion is
not compromised.
14. Reduce impervious surfaces where possible by applying low impact design standards
and encourage innovative materials and plans that reduce runoff.
15. Encourage and incentivize landowners to participate in the protection and conservation
of significant natural resources.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 13
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 13
UUrrbbaann SSeerrvviiccee DDeessiiggnnaattiioonnss
The Urban Service Area includes the residential and commercial areas of the City that are
currently or will be served by municipal water and sewer services.
Residential Uses
Objectives:
1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant
natural characteristics of the property.
2. Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that
protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district. Such
modification shall generally not exceed -10% of the minimum density or +20% of the
maximum density requirement of the relevant land use.
3. Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary.
4. Regulate land within the Mixed Residential land use to provide opportunities for
residential development with a density in excess of 8 units/acre. Flexibility is
purposefully provided within the land use to support opportunities for a single project to
provide both low- and high- density housing or for multiple developers to partner on
independent projects within a Mixed Residential area.
5. Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low
impact development design standards.
6. Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public
facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth
strategies.
7. Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan.
8. Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the
provision of urban services that will hinder future division.
9. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes,
conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open
space and natural features.
10. Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with
adequate facilities and open space.
11. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety.
12. Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot
sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land
use, market demands, and development standards.
13. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible
with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 14
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 14
ecologically significant natural resources.
14. Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development
is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking,
green space, landscape buffering and height limitations.
15. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic
enhancement and safety.
16. Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to
reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required.
17. Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new
development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space.
18. In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD’s in
exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi-family
units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources.
19. Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development
characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood.
20. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods
and to maintain public health and safety.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 15
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 15
UUppttoowwnn HHaammeell
The Uptown Hamel land use allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses to create a
vibrant, walkable, and attractive place; a place to shop, work and live.
Objectives:
1. Allow a mix of residential and commercial uses to co-exist on adjacent parcels as well as
within the same structure or on the same parcel. Uptown Hamel is intended to provide
flexibility in terms of residential and commercial uses. As a result, it is difficult to project
future uses in the area, but it is estimated that approximately 40% of the land will be
utilized for residential purposes, 40% for commercial uses, and 20% for office uses.
2. Consider alternatives for meeting parking requirements including parking in the rear of
buildings, shared parking, on-street, underground, or ramp parking.
3. Use building standards that enhance and maintain the small town heritage and
traditional small-town look including brick facades, traditional street lighting, and
overhangs over the sidewalk, boardwalks, and the like. Establishment of design
guidelines to support this objective.
4. Involve residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders in the planning
of these areas.
5. Create master plans for mixed-use areas to ensure integration of uses and responsiveness
to adjacent land uses.
6. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible
with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of
ecologically significant natural resources.
7. Encourage underground or structured parking through flexibility to standards, including
increased residential density up to 20 units per acre.
8. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety.
9. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic
enhancement and safety.
10. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 16
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 16
Commercial Uses
The following objectives refer to commercial land uses which will provide a variety of retail
products and services mixed with smaller offices.
Objectives:
1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural
characteristics of the property.
2. Provide convenient and attractive shopping and services to meet the needs of City
residents.
3. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment
opportunities offering convenience goods and services, utilizing high quality design, and
having limited impact on public services.
4. Require commercial activities that serve the broader metropolitan market to have access
to a regional highway or frontage road.
5. Regulate the impact of commercial development along the border between commercially
and residentially guided areas to ensure that commercial property has a minimal impact
on residential areas.
6. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and
to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of
Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3)
standards.
7. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural
vistas and open spaces of the City.
8. Establish standards for the commercial area north of TH 55 at Tamarack Drive which
results in a high quality, walkable and appropriately scaled development which
complements nearby residential neighborhoods, emphasizes goods and services for local
residents over highway users and provides gathering opportunities for the community.
9. Require frontage roads that do not directly access arterial roadways and limit access to
arterial and collector roadways.
10. Limit the scale of commercial development where urban services are not available to
protect water resources and to integrate such uses with surrounding rural lands.
11. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are
compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public
streets and highways. PUD’s may be used to help accomplish this policy.
12. Emphasize pedestrian safety.
13. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic
enhancement and safety.
14. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 17
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 17
Business Uses
The following objectives refer to business land uses that are connected to or planned for urban
services. Businesses in this use generally include office complexes, business park development,
warehouse and light industrial opportunities.
Objectives:
1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural
characteristics of the property.
2. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment
opportunities utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services.
3. Consider permitting uses such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities where
suitable, subject to appropriate requirements related to density, ensuring compatibility
between uses, and preventing the use from being predominantly independent-living
residential in nature. These uses are expected to occupy a very small proportion of
Business land. Residential density is estimated to be between 5-20 units per net acre, but
flexibility will be considered based upon the mix of nursing home, assisted living,
memory care, independent living units, and other uses proposed within a development.
4. Regulate the impact of development along the border between business and residentially
guided areas to ensure that business uses have a minimal impact on residential areas.
5. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and
to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of
Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3)
standards.
6. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural
vistas and open spaces of the City.
7. Create or update standards that promote a more rural appearance, or create campus style
developments that protect ecologically significant areas and natural features.
8. Require frontage roads that do not directly access arterial roadways and limit access
points to collector and arterial roadways.
9. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are
compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public
streets and highways. PUD’s may be used to help accomplish this policy.
10. Emphasize pedestrian safety.
11. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic
enhancement and safety.
12. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 18
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 18
Staging Plan
The staging plan is tied to infrastructure plans, including water, wastewater and transportation,
to ensure that growth and development are commensurate with services necessary to support
new residents and businesses in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
The staging plan, Map 5-5, utilizes flexible staging boundaries to direct where and when
development should proceed within the City and is built on the following principles:
• Growth should encompass a balance of land uses to provide residential and business
areas for development throughout the planning period. The staging plan also is
intended to reduce concentration of development within a location during a particular
timeframe.
• The staging plan identifies staged increments of 5-year periods and provides some
flexibility between adjacent staging periods. Development shall be limited to a
maximum of two years prior to the existing staging period, and will be tied to an
incentive based points system. Such flexibility will not be permitted for new high-
density residential development to finalize prior to 2021 as deemed necessary by the
Metropolitan Council to ensure sufficient land is available at higher densities from 2021-
2030.
Table 5-5 describes the net acreage of the various land uses by Staging Period.
The following table describes the corresponding number of residential units which could be
developed upon property within each Staging Period. The numbers below do not include
several lots that have been approved for development, but are not yet constructed, which is
why the capacity noted below differs slightly from the forecasts noted in Chapter 3. Although
most of the property staged for development is available in earlier timeframes, the City
anticipates that actual growth will be more linear as described in the forecasts in Chapter 3.
TABLE 5-4
STAGING PLAN – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
Time Period Total Residential
Units
High Density
Residential Units
2018-2021 345 32
2021-2025 161 161
2025-2030 464 94
2030-2035 0
2035-2040 47
Total 1,017 287
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 19
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 19
TABLE 5-5
STAGING PLAN – NET ACRES
Future Land Use Existing
2017
Change
2018-2021
2021
Change
2021-2025 2025 Change
2025-2030 2030 Change
2030-2035 2035 Change
2035-2040 2040
Rural Residential 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3 0.0 6,015.3
Agriculture 174.5 0.0 174.5 0.0 174.5 0.0 174.5 0.0 174.5 0.0 174.5
Future Develop. Area 547.9 0.0 547.9 0.0 547.9 0.0 547.9 0.0 547.9 0.0 547.9
Future Staged Growth* 666.1 -467.7 198.4 -13.4 185.0 -161.5 23.5 0.0 23.5 -23.5 0.0
Low Density Resid. 679.3 95.5 774.8 0.0 774.8 67.4 842.2 0.0 842.2 23.5 865.7
Medium Density Res. 21.5 24.7 46.2 0.0 46.2 0.0 46.2 0.0 46.2 0.0 46.2
High Density Resid. 9.6 2.7 12.3 13.4 25.7 0.0 25.7 0.0 25.7 0.0 25.7
Mixed Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.1 94.1 0.0 94.1 0.0 94.1
Uptown Hamel 33.2 8.0 41.2 0.0 41.2 0.0 41.2 0.0 41.2 0.0 41.2
Commercial 135.9 61.7 197.6 0.0 197.6 0.0 197.6 0.0 197.6 0.0 197.6
Business 196.8 275.1 471.9 0.0 471.9 0.0 471.9 0.0 471.9 0.0 471.9
Rural Commercial 47.6 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6 0.0 47.6
Institutional 194.0 0.0 194.0 0.0 194.0 0.0 194.0 0.0 194.0 0.0 194.0
Parks, Rec, Open Space 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2 0.0 1,971.2
Private Recreation 297.5 0.0 297.5 0.0 297.5 0.0 297.5 0.0 297.5 0.0 297.5
Closed Sanitary
Landfill 124.7 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7
Right-of-Way 616.9 0.0 616.9 0.0 616.9 0.0 616.9 0.0 616.9 0.0 616.9
• Future Staged Growth represents the acreage which is included in a future Staging Period.
Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 20
Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 20
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
Medina
12
PINTO
DR
C OUNTY RO AD 24
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
T
R
L
WILLOW DR
COUNTY ROAD 101
COUNTY
ROAD
116
HAMEL RD
ARROW
HE
A
D
D
R
CO
UNTY
ROAD
19
PARKVIEW DR
55
High : 1277143
Low : 9 00001
Solar Potential under 900,000 watt-hours per year
County Boundaries
City and Township Boundaries
Wetlands and Open Water Features
Gross Solar Potential
Source: University of Minnesota U-Spatial Statewide Solar Raster.
ANOKA
DAKOTA
HENNEPIN
RAMSEY
SCOTT
WASHINGTON
CARVER
Extent of Main Map
0 1 2 30.5
Miles
12/22/2016
City of Medina, Hennepin County
Gross Solar Potential(Watt-hours per Year)
HIGHWAY 55
")55
")24
")19
")101
")116
")11
")24
")19
£¤12
H A M E L R D
M E D I N A R D
PIONEER TRL
TAMARACK DR
WILLOW DR
HACKAMORE RD
ARROWHEAD DR
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
T
R
L
CHIPPEWA RD
HUNTER DR
PARKVIEW DR
BROCKTON LN N
MEANDER RD
EVERGREEN RD
BROCKTON LN N
CHIPPEWA RD
WILLOW DR
WILLOW
DR
HUNTER DR
")55
Map 5-22016 Existing Land Uses
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: October 2, 2018
Sources: Metropolitan Council Generalized Land Use
Hennepin County GIS (December 2016)
Legend
Agricultural
Rural Residential
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Multifamily
Mixed Use Residential
Retail and Other Commercial
Office
Industrial and Utility
Institutitional
Park, Recreational, or Preserve
Golf Course
Major Highway
Railway
Open Water
Undeveloped
Wetland Locations
HIGHWAY 55
")55
")24
")19
")101
")116
")11
")24
")19
£¤12
H A M E L R D
M E D I N A R D
PIONEER TRL
TAMARACK DR
WILLOW DR
HACKAMORE RD
ARROWHEAD DR
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
T
R
L
CHIPPEWA RD
HUNTER DR
PARKVIEW DR
BROCKTON LN N
MEANDER RD
EVERGREEN RD
BROCKTON LN N
CHIPPEWA RD
WILLOW DR
WILLOW
DR
HUNTER DR
")55
Katrina
Independence
Mooney
School
Peter
Spurzem
Holy Name
Half Moon
Wolsfeld
Krieg
Winterhalter
Miller
Thies
Ardmore
Map 5-3Future Land Use Plan
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: October 2, 2018
Legend
Future Land Use
Rural Residential
Agricultural
Future Development Area
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Residential
Uptown Hamel
Commercial
Business
Rural Commercial
Institutional
Private Recreational
Park, Recreational, and Open Space
Closed Sanitary Landfill
HIGHWAY 55
")55
")24
")19
")101
")116
")11
")24
")19
£¤12
H A M E L R D
M E D I N A R D
PIONEER TRL
TAMARACK DR
WILLOW DR
HACKAMORE RD
ARROWHEAD DR
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
T
R
L
CHIPPEWA RD
HUNTER DR
PARKVIEW DR
BROCKTON LN N
MEANDER RD
EVERGREEN RD
BROCKTON LN N
CHIPPEWA RD
WILLOW DR
WILLOW
DR
HUNTER DR
")55
Katrina
Independence
Mooney
School
Peter
Spurzem
Holy Name
Half Moon
Wolsfeld
Krieg
Winterhalter
Miller
Thies
Ardmore
Map 5-4Development and Growth Plan
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: October 2, 2018
Legend
Future Land Use
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Residential
Uptown Hamel
Commercial
Business
Wetland Locations
Wetland Locations
HIGHWAY 55
")55
")24
")19
")101
")116
")11
")24
")19
£¤12
H A M E L R D
M E D I N A R D
PIONEER TRL
TAMARACK DR
WILLOW DR
HACKAMORE RD
ARROWHEAD DR
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
T
R
L
CHIPPEWA RD
HUNTER DR
PARKVIEW DR
BROCKTON LN N
MEANDER RD
EVERGREEN RD
BROCKTON LN N
CHIPPEWA RD
WILLOW DR
WILLOW
DR
HUNTER DR
")55
Katrina
Independence
Mooney
School
Peter
Spurzem
Holy Name
Half Moon
Wolsfeld
Krieg
Winterhalter
Miller
Thies
Ardmore
Map 5-5Staging and Growth
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: October 2, 2018
The Staging and Growth Plan allows potential
flexibility for urban services up to two years prior to
the indicated staging period. Such flexiblity will be
considered through a evaluation system based on
the extent to which a proposal exceeds general
City standards.
The Future Development Area identifies areas which
may potentially be planned for urban services in the
future beyond the term of this plan (post-2040).
The Long-term Sewer Service Area is a long-term
planning designation of the Metropolitan Council. It
identifies areas which may be considered for potential
sanitary sewer service in the future beyond the term
of this Plan.
Legend
Urban Services Phasing Plan
Developed
2018
2020
2021
2025
2035
FDA
LTSSA
HIGHWAY 55
")55
")24
")19
")101
")116
")11
")24
")19
£¤12
H A M E L R D
M E D I N A R D
PIONEER TRL
TAMARACK DR
WILLOW DR
HACKAMORE RD
ARROWHEAD DR
H
O
M
E
S
T
E
A
D
T
R
L
CHIPPEWA RD
HUNTER DR
PARKVIEW DR
BROCKTON LN N
MEANDER RD
EVERGREEN RD
BROCKTON LN N
CHIPPEWA RD
WILLOW DR
WILLOW
DR
HUNTER DR
")55
Katrina
Independence
Mooney
School
Peter
Spurzem
Holy Name
Half Moon
Wolsfeld
Krieg
Winterhalter
Miller
Thies
Ardmore
Map 5-6Metroplitan CouncilLong-term Sewer Service Area
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Map Date: October 2, 2018
The Future Development Area identifies areas which
may potentially be planned for urban services in the
future beyond the term of this plan (post-2040).
The Long-term Sewer Service Area is a long-term
planning designation of the Metropolitan Council. It
identifies areas which may be considered for potential
sanitary sewer service in the future beyond the term
of this Plan.
Legend
Net Acres of LTSSA Parcels
Under 10 net acres
Over 10 net acres
Proposed to be removed from LTSSA
Wetland Locations
Metropolitan Urban Service Area
Existing Urban Services (2017)
Added to MUSA 2018-2040
Future Development Area (post-2040)
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Mark Smith – Weston Woods – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan – East of Mohawk Drive and North of
Highway 55
Finke presented a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and Planned Unit Development Concept
Plan for property east of Mohawk Drive and north of Highway 55. He explained that the request would
be to change the land use of the southern property from a business designation to a residential
designation, noting that two different residential products would be proposed ranging from low to
medium density. He advised that five acres of property would be proposed to be deeded to the City for
conservation/park/open space. He stated that the second half of the request would be to amend the
staging of the northern property, which is designated for development after 2025, to 2019/2020. He
stated that the PUD Concept Plan would include 76 twinhomes on the northern property, and 41 single-
family and 33 townhomes on the southern property. He stated that the norther parcel is approximately 80
acres, but only 20 acres would be developable after exclusion of wetland and buffer. He stated that the
southern parcel is 55 acres in size with 28 acres buildable. He reviewed the surrounding land uses, noting
business to the west and southeast, low density residential to the east, and land identified as future
development to the north. He displayed the Concept Plan, identifying the different residential products
proposed throughout the sites. He noted that the applicant would propose to extend Chippewa Road from
Mohawk to Arrowhead Road as part of this development, noting that the applicant would propose to pay
for that extension. He noted that the park/open space would be proposed for the southeast portion of the
southern site. He stated that the City’s natural resource specialist visited the site a few years ago and
identified that area to be a higher quality wooded area. He reviewed the existing land uses for the
northern and southern portions of the site, comparing that to the proposed land uses through this request.
He also reviewed the current staging of the properties, comparing that to the proposed staging. He noted
that the City reviewed a similar Concept Plan a few years ago from the same applicant, while still in the
Comprehensive Plan process, and noted that minutes from previous discussions were provided in the
Commission packet for review. He suggested that the Commission focus on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment, as that decision would drive the request. He suggested that the Commission also provide
input on the PUD but concentrate on the question of use. He provided additional details on how the
staging plan of the City was developed, noting that it focused on the supported infrastructure, not only of
the City but also regionally. He explained that the staging in this area focused on the ability to extend
Chippewa Road, which the applicant is proposing with the request. He stated that a second watermain
would also be needed in this area, noting that the applicant is also proposing to construct that
improvement at their cost. He stated that staging is also intended to reduce concentration of development
in different areas and timeframes and to control growth. He stated that this property is included in the
MUSA but the change in land use would remove 23 to 28 acres of land guided for business development
and instead changing that to residential and adding additional homes to this area. He noted that three
public comments were included in the packet and three additional written comments were received after
the report but before the hearing and all will be included in the record for tonight’s meeting.
Amic asked for details on the comment “going west to go east”.
Finke explained that Mohawk drive access would be restricted as right-in/right-out and therefore
explained how vehicles would travel west in order to move east. He confirmed that there would not be
another way to go east to Highway 55 from these properties.
Bill Griffith, representing the applicant, explained that this is a concept that was brought forward to the
City two years ago when it was close to the end of the discussion related to the Comprehensive Plan and
therefore it was difficult to consider making changes. He noted that the developer decided to wait and
give the City time to complete that process. He explained that they believe that this is a good plan that
also provides public benefits and that is why they are bringing it back at this time. He stated that the
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Meeting Minutes
2
Comprehensive Plan amendment would consider the overall goals for the community and how that can be
addressed. He noted that this would provide a mix of housing and provides for the preservation of open
space. He asked if the City wants to provide for the joint development of that parcels or would rather rely
on a market driven response to the staging and use. He stated that they have combined the request for the
Comprehensive Plan amendment with the PUD Concept Plan, noting that the PUD over both the north
and south parcels allows the developer to balance the density between the parcels while providing
buffering and preservation of open space. He commented that the development is focused on the westerly
portion of both the north and south parcels, to create a 1,300-foot open space buffer to the nearest
neighboring parcels. He stated that 60 percent of the site would be preserved with the inclusion of
wetlands and wetland buffers. He noted that Mark Smith has purchased both the northern and southern
parcels and is now a landowner in the community. He reviewed the single-family homes and townhomes
proposed for the southern parcel and the twinhomes on the northern parcel, noting that this would provide
a range of housing types for residents and potential residents. He stated that the southerly wooded area
would create a nice buffer to the highway, but they will need to review that to ensure that the trees are
healthy. He stated that the park area would have 20 parking stalls for visitors. He stated that they
understand that this development could not move forward without providing public benefit. He noted that
they attempted to keep the density low, while still meeting the requirements for being within the MUSA.
He again summarized the public benefits that would be provided through the development. He noted that
the sites will ultimately develop but noted that the joint development of the parcels would provide public
benefit in return.
Reid stated that during the last review of this concept there was discussion on why the southern parcel
was not appropriate for business development and asked the developer to provide a brief statement for the
Commissioners that were not a part of the Commission at that time.
Griffiths explained that the main reason this parcel would not be appropriate for business development
would be the topography of the site and the natural features that should be preserved. He noted that a
small portion of the property close to the highway could develop as business but much of the site is
covered in wetlands and therefore would not be suitable for a campus development. He noted that Mr.
Smith has owned the properties for two years and has had very little interest in business development. He
noted that residential development provides additional flexibility to work within the topography and
wetland locations.
Reid stated that she would like assurance that there would be a variety of styles and colors in the material
and architectural design and as she would not want to see copycat homes throughout the development.
She asked how the staging of the development would be completed.
Mark Smith, applicant, replied that he would mass grade the site and noted that the single-family and
townhome market have strong demand right now. He stated that the twinhome development may be
staged for a later time.
Amic asked the cost benefit of the infrastructure improvements.
Griffiths stated that he does not have that exact information.
Finke stated that the City is completing a corridor study to provide updated costs. He noted that the costs
two years ago estimated about $800,000 to $1,000,000 for street construction with significant wetland
mitigation that would have an additional cost. He noted that the developer would not propose to fund the
mitigation costs, that would be a City responsibility. He noted that the corridor study will continue
irrespective of this request. He stated that the watermain has been identified in the City’s CIP with a cost
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Meeting Minutes
3
of $300,000. He noted that if the properties do not develop, the City would ultimately move forward on
that infrastructure improvement.
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m.
Chris Hillberg, 4459 Trillium Drive, stated that he is passionate about preserving the rural character of
Medina and finds this request in opposition of the work the City put into the Comprehensive Plan. He
stated that throughout that process there were many opportunities for different uses and staging for the
properties. He urged the Commission not to go against the wishes of the people that put so much time
and effort into developing the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that although the applicant is proposing to
build the road, he believes that would be more expensive than expected. He questioned why the City
would be responsible for permitting and wetland mitigation as that would be very expensive. He stated
that the applicant has stated that the increase in density would allow the applicant to provide a higher
investment in infrastructure. He stated that he interprets that as the developer will build the road if they
are allowed to build more homes.
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Nester stated that R-1 is typically used for low density residential and therefore the density of the northern
parcel does not meet that. She noted that the business designation was strategically chosen for the parcels
closest to Highway 55 in order to promote traffic moving west during peak commuting hours. She stated
that this plan would create additional residential traffic that would add to congestion. She stated that if
business parcels are converted to residential that does not meet the goal of promoting business
development. She stated that another community goal is to spread residential development, and this
would instead add to the concentration of this area. She stated that while she appreciates the benefit of
infrastructure needs, she did not believe that was worth selling out the vision or the time that was spent
creating the current Comprehensive Plan.
Galzki stated that after waiting for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, he does not believe it
would make sense to change this many elements of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there are so
many changes that are not in line with the intentions and vision for the area. He stated that it a great
development, but there are more negatives than positives. He stated that the residents in that area already
have hardships with traffic and the City attempted to plan to help mitigate those concerns. He stated that
he would have a hard time supporting the concept.
Nielsen stated that she would have a hard time seeing why there would need to be a uniformity between
the two properties. She commented that it would seem strange to have residential along the Highway 55
corridor. She noted that she does appreciate the preservation of the wetlands and trees.
Amic stated that this is an elegant design given the topography of the area. He stated that the tradeoff
would be you know what you get with this, but you would not know what you would get in five years.
He stated that while he could be talked into things, it does not seem to matter with the opinions of the
other Commissioners that spoke.
Piper stated that her biggest concern would be related to access of trying to go east. She commented that
it would be senseless to put that many homes into this spot and not provide the ability to travel all
directions.
Reid stated that she sees this differently. She explained that this would be a PUD and therefore flexibility
is provided in density, related to the R-1 comment. She stated that initially she was concerned with
having housing next to Highway 55 but with layout the homes will not be that close to the highway. She
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Meeting Minutes
4
stated that there is an opportunity that should be considered. She stated that she does not see a solution
for the problem at Arrowhead and asked if there are plans to deal with that, as Arrowhead will continue to
stall development in this area.
Finke stated that is why the corridor study is continuing to move forward, in attempt to find a solution for
Arrowhead and Chippewa to allow for development of the properties staged into the future.
Reid stated that she does not think the southern parcel is suitable for business development and therefore
would not be opposed to changing that property to residential.
Piper asked if the southern parcel could have access from Highway 55 for business. It was confirmed that
the parcel would only have access from Mohawk.
Reid stated that these parcels will develop eventually. She stated that the concept does a nice job of
making use of what is there while preserving the wetlands, wooded areas and open space. She noted that
one developer cannot support the road and therefore combining the development of the northern and
southern parcels would allow for the construction of the road. She stated that this is the first development
in a long time that provides a variety of housing products, which is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan.
She stated that she likes seeing a variety of price points for homeowners, which this provides.
Mark Smith provided the range for the pricing of the homes, noting that the twinhomes would begin
around $300,000 while the single-family and townhomes would begin around $500,000 to $600,000. He
noted that there is also a large creek that runs through the southern parcel that would restrict typical
business development.
Reid stated that as a taxpayer, the developer is offering to contribute quite a bit of infrastructure that the
City has identified need for. She stated that she sees a lot of advantages to this development, recognizing
that there are tradeoffs. She believed this to be a good use of the properties and the City would be unsure
of what would come in the future. She noted that the area around this is developed and therefore would
not have a problem with this developing. She commented again that it would not seem the southern
parcel would be appropriate for business development. She stated that although this would include
Comprehensive Plan amendments, there would be a lot received in return. She noted that the wetlands
and trees that are currently visible from Bridgewater will remain as a buffer.
Brett Palmer, 4673 Bluebell Trail, referenced the traffic study, which included three roundabout options
and reconfiguration of the OSI entrance.
Finke stated that the Chippewa and Arrowhead study will continue irrespective of this development,
noting that there will be an open house the following week. He noted that those elements are part of the
corridor study.
Nielsen asked if the Chippewa extension has been included in the last two Comprehensive Plan process.
She stated that if that is important why were the properties not staged differently with the hope that
someone would come in and complete that road.
Reid noted that previous developers walked away from the properties because of the cost for the road.
She stated that one developer will not fund the road and that is why it would make sense to combine the
development of the two parcels into one.
Finke commented that infrastructure is not the only element that goes into staging, noting that all the
elements weighed on the staging proposed.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/8/2019 Meeting Minutes
5
Amic stated that this would have four football fields of buffer between this and the next development and
he believed that this could be a good deal for the City. He stated that in five years this will develop
anyway, and the City might not like that plan more than this.
Galzki stated that while it is great that someone is offering to fund the infrastructure needs, the City can
fund that as well rather than developing for development sake. He stated that as good as the plan is and
the public improvements that would be provided, the City would be liable for the wetland mitigation,
there would be increased traffic congestion, and traffic improvements would be needed. He stated that
the road and watermain improvements are already included in the City’s CIP and he would prefer to use
the Comprehensive Plan to guide the vision for the City into the future. He stated that he has a hard time
believing that the public improvements would be worth the additional tradeoffs.
Motion by Nester, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Motion carries 4-2 (Amic and Reid opposed). (Absent: Williams)
Finke stated that there will be an open house for the Arrowhead and Chippewa corridor study the
following Tuesday from 5:00 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. He noted that this application will go before the Park
Commission at their next meeting and then to the City Council on November 6th.
Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/16/2019 Meeting Minutes
1
Mark of Excellence Homes – Weston Woods – East of Mohawk Drive and North of Hwy 55 –
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan – Park Dedication Review
Gallup provided an overview presentation of the applicant’s request for a comprehensive plan amendment
to change land use from business to residential and move up the staging from 2025 to 2020. The PUD
Concept Plan shows 76 twinhomes on the north property (Roy Property) and 41 single-family, 33
townhomes, and 5.5 acres of park/open space/land preservation on the south property (Cavanaugh
Property). Gallup stated that the park dedication ordinance allows 10% of buildable land, which would
total 7.5 acres, or 8% of cash-in-lieu, which would be approximately $600,000 to $800,000, or a
combination of land and cash. These amounts are the standard required park dedication amounts for any
development. The applicant has suggested protection of 5.5 acres of wooded area with a small active
park, construction of parking/trailhead, and a trail connection from the north lot to the south lot. If
preservation and amenities only meet standard park dedication ordinance requirement, it may not support
the applicant’s requested flexibility.
Gallup stated that if the applicant’s comprehensive plan amendment is approved, it will add
approximately 74 additional homes to the area that were originally slated to be business land in the
comprehensive plan. This development also proposes 76 twinhomes five years sooner than originally
planned. The Park Commission may want to take this into consideration when determining the amount,
size, and locations of future parks in the area. It was noted that this area of the city has other land to the
west of Mohawk and north of Chippewa that is zoned to add 65-80 homes in five years, and there could
be potential long-term (20+ years) future residential development to the north. Gallup stated that staff’s
recommendation would be to recommend construction of an east-west trail and construction of a north-
south trail. Staff requests Park Commission discussion and direction on an active park. Staff suggests
acquiring the preservation area as justification for the comprehensive plan amendment/PUD instead of
taking it as park dedication.
Morrison noted that the amount of park/open space land dedication being proposed is only 5.5 acres, but
the park dedication ordinance could allow up to 7.5 acres. Discussion took place noting that trails and
cash-in-lieu could be combined to reach the full park dedication requirements.
Bill Griffith, Attorney representing applicant Mark Smith, stated that they are not proposing less than the
minimum. He also noted that while this commission is only looking at park and trail dedication, the City
Council is considering other public infrastructure to meet the public benefits test as justification for the
comprehensive plan amendment/PUD. He stated that the non-park benefit is the extension of Chippewa
Road.
Griffith noted that the primary opportunity to the city is that the applicant would develop the north and
south parcels together. This would produce 3.0 units per acre for the overall land, which is the minimum
the Metropolitan Council will consider for development. He noted that this community has priority to
develop slowly and this density is important in achieving that goal.
Griffith discussed the applicant’s plan design showing an upland buffer area in the north east section of
this development to help screen this development from the Bridgewater neighborhood. He stated that the
proposed park would allow for the preservation of woodland, which would be plowed down if this parcel
stayed zoned as business. He pointed out the trailhead and 20 parking spaces the applicant proposes to
develop.
Weir stated that the trailhead as proposed is too intrusive located in the center of the wooded area. She
noted that forest trees need trees to protect them from blowing over. The other Park Commissioners
concurred with this statement.
Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 10/16/2019 Meeting Minutes
2
Weir questioned if the upland area is not developed, who would maintain it?
Mark Smith, applicant, stated that the upland area may be converted to a wetland. He stated the area
would be owned by the homeowner’s association.
Sharp stated that he liked the opportunity for a neighborhood park, but also liked the idea of preserving
the trees.
Jacob stated that he loved the concept of tree preservation, but then questioned what the city does to find
an active park. He stated that it is important to have trail connections. He suggested looking at the larger
area to have a concept plan on where a future park could be built.
Thies stated that she would like to see the wooded area containing the knoll preserved. She also stated
that an active park is needed to serve these residents.
Morrison stated that she would also like to see this knoll preserved, but not to build a parking lot into or
next to the woods. She noted that this whole area will need a park where the community can gather, not
just a woodland. She also noted the importance of trail connections.
Rumsey agreed that the woods should not be carved out for parking. He stated that it was important to
have trail connections to Chippewa Road.
Weir agreed with what everyone had said thus far. She noted that the city has wanted a slow growth
approach for at least the last three election cycles, but this plan feels like it is hurrying growth. With that
said, she noted that this is a tremendous opportunity to get the road and utilities built. She noted that
having a trail up Mohawk to Corcoran was important to the City of Corcoran. She questioned how
successful a business would be in this location because of access if land use designation stayed as
business. She noted that business uses are easier for the city because they need less city services but liked
that the residential development would not require as many trees to be torn down.
Lee stated that the city would want trails both east-west and north-south. He asked the applicant if
sidewalks were being proposed in the neighborhoods? Smith stated that there were no sidewalks in the
plans.
Smith stated that the north side twinhomes have a private street and the south side would have single
family homes on a public street.
Weir suggested taking three acres for future park land on the northwest boarder, so it can be combined
with an additional three acres when property to the north develops. She questioned if the applicant could
build twinhomes on the western edge of the currently preserved upland and still incorporate screening
from Bridgewater. This could make up for the lost density in acquiring the three acres of future active
park land.
Lee recapped everyone’s comments by noting that they would like to see the woods preserved in the
south, but not count it against their park dedication requirement, removal of the parking next to the
woods, create trail connections east-west and north-south, and consideration of Weir’s idea noted above.
Smith noted that the 17.6 acre Scherber property to the west of Wealshire is in the Rockford School
District. He suggested that if the Park Commission was looking for one large active park to serve this area
of town that the city might want to consider purchasing this whole lot to be used as an active park. The
Park Commission questioned the topography but was intrigued by the idea if the land was flat enough and
the price was right.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 11/6/2019 Meeting Minutes
1
Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) – Weston Woods – E. of Mohawk Dr., N. of Hwy
55 and 1952 Chippewa Road – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept
Plan (7:30 p.m.)
Martin noted that many of the Council members attended the Planning Commission meeting
and asked if any of the information differs from that information presented.
Finke reported that the presentation and input from the Planning Commission would largely
remain the same. He noted that additional input has been added from the Park Commission.
He confirmed that no changes were made to the development proposal. He presented a
request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment which would relate to the future land use of the
southern property, changing the future land use from business to a combination of residential
land uses. He noted that a portion of the site would also be designated as park/open space and
would be deeded to the City. He explained that the second Comprehensive Plan amendment
would relate to the staging of the northern property, changing that from 2025 to 2020. He stated
that would allow for the proposed development of 76 twinhomes on the northern property, and
41 single-family and 33 townhomes on the southern property. He displayed an aerial
photograph of the site and surrounding properties, identified adjacent property uses. He
provided the overall concept plan noting that the property proposed to be deeded to the City
would be left as a natural preservation area. He advised that a small active park is also
proposed in that location. He noted that there was discussion from the Park Commission as to
whether that would be the best location for an active park area. He identified the large wetland
to the east of the site, noting that there are additional wetlands throughout the site. He advised
that throughout the site there would be relatively minimal wetland impacts. He noted that the
applicant proposes to extend Chippewa Road from Mohawk Drive to Arrowhead Drive. He
noted that the applicant would pay for the construction cost while the City would be responsible
for permitting and wetland mitigation. He stated that between the two sites, the density would
be three units per acre and therefore would fall within the range of the Metropolitan Council. He
noted that additional details are provided on the PUD concept within the staff report. He
explained that would be contingent upon the Comprehensive Plan amendments and therefore
he will focus on those elements. He stated that the development proposed on the northern
property falls within the density range specified, noting that the change would move that
development from 2025 to 2020 with the requested change to staging. He explained that one
reason the staging was set at 2025 is because of the necessary infrastructure improvements
needed to support development in that area including the extension of the watermain and the
extension of Chippewa Road. He stated that the applicant is proposing to address the
infrastructure needs by providing those improvements with this development. He stated that the
City also identified a need for an active park in this area, which is also proposed with this
request. He noted that other elements of staging are growth management and reduction of
growth in concentrated areas. He referenced the Comprehensive Plan amendment requested
for the southern property. He explained that this request would not change the MUSA but
simply the uses within the MUSA, noting that this would convert about 25 acres of business
property to residential. He reviewed goals of the Comprehensive Plan noting that the applicant
makes the case that their proposed development has the ability to better meet those objectives.
He reviewed the recommendations of the Commissions, noting that the Park Commission
supported the preservation of the wooded knoll through the PUD and suggested full park
dedication credit is collected. He said that the Park Commission stated that the location of the
proposed active park may not be the best location and recommended collecting park dedication
fees from the sites in the area as they develop in order to create a larger park in another
location. He noted that the Planning Commission held a public hearing the previous month and
ultimately the Commission voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the amendments. He stated that
additional comments received from the public have been provided to the Council. He stated
Medina City Council Excerpt from 11/6/2019 Meeting Minutes
2
that Loretto, Corcoran and Hennepin County have provided comments, general in nature. He
stated that the PUD concept plan is provided for the Council to provide comments, but the City
will need to act on the Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Bill Griffith, representing the applicant, stated that a lot of work has gone into the plan even
though the plan is similar to the past concept. He recognized that the City has a large amount
of discretion with considering these requested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. He
stated that this land is already within the MUSA and therefore the question would be whether
the changes are appropriate. He noted that the concept plan is provided to give the Council
sufficient information to consider the Comprehensive Plan amendment requests. He noted that
this plan presents an opportunity to preserve a lot of open space. He explained that the location
of the open space creates a natural buffer to the properties to the east. He stated that two
thirds of the northern parcel would be preserved as open space. He advised that the
development addresses some of the key goals of the Comprehensive Plan, noting a diverse
range of housing types available at different price points. He stated that the southern property
would preserve the knoll of trees. He stated that this development would also provide an
opportunity for infrastructure improvements. He explained that if the north and south properties
are not developed together, that infrastructure opportunity would be missed. He stated that the
vision for the community does not have to be turned upside down with these applications. He
noted that many of the policies support this application. He noted that the seven percent
increase in residential development does not mean that Medina will become a faster growing
City and could be offset in another area. He stated that they wanted to ensure that the density
proposed falls at the three units per acre line, which is the minimum required by the
Metropolitan Council for properties developed within the MUSA. He stated that the PUD
provides flexibility and they believe the concept fits within the guidance for PUD approval. He
stated that they believe that the basket of public benefits proposed would meet the threshold for
a PUD. He noted that a traffic study was prepared and provided to City staff. He highlighted
the findings that the extension of Chippewa would result in improved service to the area and the
development would not degrade service.
Mark Smith, applicant, stated that from an aerial point of view it would appear to make sense
that the southern parcel be commercial because of the adjacent development. He explained
that when you walk the site it becomes more apparent that residential would make more sense
because of the winding creek and the knoll of trees that would be lost with commercial
development. He stated that if the southern parcel is developed commercially only two acres of
parkland would be required whereas his proposal would preserve the five acres of trees. He
stated that this would be a great residential site and changing the zoning would help to preserve
a nice area for the city. He referenced the northern parcel and explained that things have
happened in that area in the past two years in terms of development to support that staging
change. He explained that there has been a lot of development in the area and the Chippewa
Road extension has still not moved forward. He noted that there are many employees of the
businesses in that area that would like to live close by. He noted that the Chippewa Road
extension would provide an improvement to the residents and businesses already in that area.
He noted that developing both properties at one time would allow 5.6 acres to be preserved as
parks rather than creating two smaller parks in separate areas. He stated that there is a
demand for this type of housing. He explained that people in Medina want to stay in Medina but
would like to transition to a different type of home. He stated that allowing both properties to be
developed by one developer would ensure that the necessary right-of-way is provided for
Chippewa Road. He believed that this is a great development and great opportunity for the City.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 11/6/2019 Meeting Minutes
3
Martin noted that the Council received the comments from the public hearing held by the
Planning Commission along with the written comments that have been received.
Catherine Atkinson, 2000 Pawnee Road, stated that she and her husband have lived in Medina
since 1989 and would like to see this plan move forward. She stated that they would like to stay
in the area and would be interested in these types of homes. She believed that all the people
along Mohawk Drive would appreciate the contribution from the developer towards the
Chippewa Road extension. She believed that this development would also help the City to
increase its tax base. She noted that she supports this plan.
Chris Hilberg, 4559 Trillium Drive N, encouraged the Council to focus on the costs for the
Chippewa Road extension and watermain extension. He hoped that the Council spends time
focusing on who would pay for that. He stated that the memorandum states that the applicant
would pay for the construction cost of the roadway, but the City would still be responsible for
permitting and wetland mitigation. He stated that if the applicant is willing to pay for the
construction of the roadway and wetland mitigation, that should be memorialized before the
Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan
amendment is the biggest bargaining chip and therefore there should be conditions attached.
He stated that he has seen firsthand how these things happen. He referenced a development
agreement from Bridgewater where the developer was going to pay for the road to extend into
Corcoran and that has not and will not happen. He asked the City to finalize the details of the
road and infrastructure improvements before considering the Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
Martin suggested that discussion focus on the Comprehensive Plan amendments.
DesLauriers stated that when this came forward almost two years ago the previous Mayor made
a statement regarding a D.R. Horton project Medina had denied and made the comment that
cities sometimes pass up good projects and later regret that they did. He stated that as they go
through this process two years later this is an opportunity that has public benefits. He stated
that when you walk the site it is a pretty site with a lot of trees. He stated that a commercial
development that would take away those trees would be a shame. He stated that the vision of
the Comprehensive Plan focused on slower growth. He recognized the potential cost for the
Chippewa Road and watermain extensions, noting that the developer is willing to share in those
costs. He stated that he believes that residential would be the best use of the site.
Pederson stated that he feels that the property to the south does not suit business use as well
as residential because of the right-in/right-out on Mohawk Drive. He believed that the
concessions that the developer is willing to make are good. He commented that the right-of-
way would be obtained irregardless, but it would make sense to mitigate as a whole with extra
excavation off the property. He stated that the Chippewa Road extension is needed as a public
safety improvement. He stated that there is a benefit to the developer with the current interest
rates and it would make sense to put empty nest housing on the property. He stated that he
would lean towards the applicant splitting the permitting and mitigation costs with the City. He
stated that he struggles with the reasoning of the Park Commission. He explained that he likes
the knoll park and believes that there needs to be an active park near Chippewa Road with a
trail. He stated that this would allow easy access for parking rather than making people feel like
they are going into a neighborhood to access a park. He referenced the staging and felt that the
staging was available two years ago. He stated that he did not agree with the staging change in
the Comprehensive Plan and therefore supports the change in staging. He commented that the
watermain is needed, noting previous incidents with the current watermain. He believed that the
Medina City Council Excerpt from 11/6/2019 Meeting Minutes
4
residents in Bridgewater would also prefer to have higher water in the case of a fire in that area.
He stated that he would want a commitment from the applicant as a 50/50 partner with the
mitigation and permitting. He commented that the need for more variety in housing exists for
the older community in Medina. He supported changing the future land use to residential and
changing the staging from 2025 to 2020. He believed that it makes sense to partner with the
applicant in return for the public benefits offered.
Albers stated that he was part of the Steering Committee for the Comprehensive Plan, noting
that a lot of time was spent on the staging and zoning of parcels. He stated that there was a lot
of input related to the pace of development and when development should occur. He stated
that residents were clear that the City should move forward with the bare minimum of
development. He stated that although this is only a seven percent increase in development, this
would give the message that the City is open to increasing development. He stated that the City
does not need this, and he struggles to support a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Pederson asked if another developer would be willing to contribute this type of public safety
improvement. He stated that is a pretty attractive element as that is a need of the City.
Albers commented that the road is not the change requested in the Comprehensive Plan, noting
that the City has the decision on when to make that improvement.
Pederson commented on the high cost for the road.
Albers recognized the cost for the road and the fact that the developer is willing to contribute
towards that cost but noted that the citizens have stated that they do not want to see
accelerated development.
Anderson stated that it was almost two years ago when this issue was first discussed. He noted
that it was a difficult decision at that time and remains a difficult decision. He stated that clearly
there is a lot to be said for pursuing the Comprehensive Plan amendments in terms of
infrastructure and public safety benefits. He noted that he has heard many comments that the
southern property never should have been designated as business and should be residential.
However, he stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a commitment of the City to its residents
and is a collection of comments from an enormous number of residents. He stated that
residents want equity in terms of where development occurs, as residents do not want to see
more development north of Highway 55. He stated that the discussion should be whether the
City is going to honor its word to the residents and stay true to its commitment.
Martin agreed that this is a tough decision. She recognized that a lot of time was spent
collecting input throughout the Comprehensive Plan process. She recognized the excellent
biproducts that would be provided by this development. She stated that it would be helpful to
have more input from Bridgewater residents. She asked if the City should mold what it can now
so that it knows what it will get, or whether it should wait five years with the risk that it does not
know what will come forward. She stated that it is hard not to remember all the work that went
into creating the Comprehensive Plan and therefore it would be difficult to move forward in light
of the discussions with residents. She appreciated the comments of Mr. Hilberg to ensure that
the financial contributions would be tied to the Comprehensive Plan amendments. She stated
that perhaps there be more interaction with the Bridgewater neighborhood and the applicant in
attempt to resolve some of the concerns. She noted that Mr. Smith is a property owner and that
land will eventually develop and therefore it would be helpful to have some communication with
Medina City Council Excerpt from 11/6/2019 Meeting Minutes
5
the Bridgewater neighborhood to gain additional support. She stated that if those residents
supported the plan, she would feel more comfortable.
Mr. Griffith stated that there is consensus in the room that Mr. Hilberg made a good point with
regard to tying down the commitments. He agreed that a decision could not be made without
knowing more specific information on that topic. He commented that the Comprehensive Plan
could move forward and could be made conditional upon greater detail of the financial
contributions, rezoning and PUD. He noted that it would also benefit his client to know the cost
that would be committed to the public improvements.
City Attorney David Anderson stated that if the Council supports this moving forward, a
resolution would come back approving the Comprehensive Plan amendment as proposed and
confirmed that conditions could be added related to the public improvements, land use and
rezoning.
Martin stated that if the Council agreed to start the process of amending the Comprehensive
Plan, that would move to the Metropolitan Council for approval and would then come back to the
City for adoption.
City Attorney Anderson confirmed that once approved by the Metropolitan Council, a super
majority vote of the Council would be required to formally adopt a Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Pederson commented that he is the closest resident to this project, as he would be within 100
feet of it. He stated that it is not easy to be in rural residential and make this project something
he is in favor of, but it is the right thing for most residents in Medina to not have to pay for these
public improvements. He believed that it is important for the Council to recognize that. He
stated that eventually the road will go through and the watermain is needed and this is a way to
reduce the cost to all the residents of Medina.
Anderson agreed that is a valid point. He offered as a counterpoint that it is in the interest of
most residents of Medina to keep the city as it is.
Pederson commented that in five years this will be developed anyway, and the public benefit
would be lost.
Anderson agreed that the issue of timing is an overarching issue.
Martin agreed that this would be a defensive development in securing the preservation of the
woods and other public benefits with a known product. She noted that the City was also lucky in
that it did not have to plan for much residential development and would be hesitant to change
that plan.
Anderson commented that he considers the Comprehensive Plan to be a promise made by the
City to hold development to the lowest level possible.
Albers suggested that the decision be tabled, as that would provide the applicant the opportunity
to speak with residents of Bridgewater.
Finke provided additional details on the timing of the window of review by the City.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 11/6/2019 Meeting Minutes
6
Johnson confirmed that it would also make sense for staff to work with the applicant to obtain
the details of the public improvement benefit commitments.
Moved by Albers, seconded by Anderson, to ask for a written commitment from the developer
relating to public improvement commitments including a 50/50 split of the permitting and
mitigation costs and the applicant holding a public forum/neighborhood meeting with residents
from Bridgewater and greater Medina. Motion passed unanimously.
CITY OF CORCORAN
8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340
763.420.2288 — Office 763.420.6056 — Fax
E-mail - general(a�ciecorcoran.mn.us / Web Site - www.ci.corcoran.mn.us
October 31, 2019
Dusty Finke
Planning Director
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
RE: Weston Woods in Medina
Mr. Finke,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the "Weston Woods" Comprehensive Plan
Amendment in Medina. It is our understanding that project includes a staging plan change to
allow development as early as next year and a land use change from Business to Low and
Medium Density Residential.
The City of Corcoran has reviewed the materials received by the City on October 1, 2019 and
offers the following comments:
1. As noted in our June 22, 2017 comments on your draft Comprehensive Plan, we hope
that the City will continue the trail planned on Mohawk all the way north to the municipal
boundary. This trail connection to the planned trail in Corcoran is even more important
with the planned change to residential land use.
2. The connection (shown as Chippewa Road) to Arrowhead Drive on the east, will
increase traffic to the north through a corridor that is currently inadequate to handle
increased traffic. North bound traffic will also enter the Hackamore/CR116 intersection.
Improvements to this intersection and Hackamore Road are currently under study and
this project will be considered in development of the design for shared improvements.
Please feel free to contact me with questions at bmartens ci.corcoran.mn.us and 763-400-7030.
Sincerely,
Brad Martens
City Administrator
Copy: Kendra Lindahl, City Planner
City File
1
Dusty Finke
From:Jason D Gottfried <Jason.Gottfried@hennepin.us>
Sent:Wednesday, October 02, 2019 2:01 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Cc:James C Kujawa; Robert H. Byers
Subject:RE: [External] City of Medina Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Weston Woods
Hello Dusty,
Thank you for the notification, this project is useful to be aware of. Generally speaking, I do not foresee any impacts to
the county roadway system as a result of this proposal. That being said, I am curious if the city would pursue a N‐S off‐
road trail along Arrowhead Dr as a part of this development. This is referenced in our Planned Bike System map
I suspect the city will be reaching out to MnDOT to discuss the impacts to access at TH 55/Mohawk Dr and the TH
55/Arrowhead Dr signal?
I will defer to Jim should our Environment & Energy team want to make any of their own comments.
Thank you for your coordination!
Jason
Jason Gottfried
Transportation Planner
Transportation Planning
Office: 612-596-0394
jason.gottfried@hennepin.us
Hennepin County Public Works
1600 Prairie Drive
Medina, MN 55340
From: Dusty Finke <dusty.finke@medinamn.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 6:40 PM
To: bschoen@mapleplain.com; mark@terra‐mark.com; Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>; Barbara
Thomson <bthomson@plymouthmn.gov>; communitydevelopment@maplegrovemn.gov; bmartens@ci.corcoran.mn.us;
Kendra Lindahl <klindahl@landform.net>; mpritchard@ci.corcoran.mn.us; Hoisington Koegler <brad@hkgi.com>;
Margaret Webb <mwebb@ci.greenfield.mn.us>; Mary K. Schneider <mschneider@ci.loretto.mn.us>; Jim Westrum
<james.westrum@wayzataschools.org>; Kristin Tollison <kristin.tollison@wayzataschools.org>; James C Kujawa
<James.Kujawa@hennepin.us>; judie@jass.biz; Jason D Gottfried <Jason.Gottfried@hennepin.us>
Subject: [External] City of Medina Comprehensive Plan Amendment ‐ Weston Woods
Colleagues:
City of
Loretto
279 Medina Street North, Suite 260 • P.O. Box 207 • Loretto, MN 55357
(763) 479-4305 • Fax (763) 479-2685
Email: mschneider@ci.loretto.mn.us
www.ci.loretto.mn.us
October 8, 2019
Dusty Finke, City Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
RE: Medina Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Weston Woods
Dear Mr. Finke,
On behalf of the City of Loretto, thank you for providing our community an opportunity to review the
proposed amendment to Medina’s Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use Plan) which calls for the re -
guidance of approximately 130 acres of land located north of Highway 55 between Arrowhead Drive and
Mohawk Drive.
The requested amendment is necessary to accommodate the development of 150-unit residential
subdivision upon the property (Weston Woods). The proposed subdivision is comprised of 41 single
family homes, 76 twinhomes and 33 rowhouse units.
The amendment specifically calls for the following changes to Medina’s Future Land Use Plan:
1. A change in the guided use of 17.0 net acres of land from “Business” to “Low Density Residential”
(2-4 units/net acre).
2. A change in the guided use of 4.8 net acres of land from “Business” to “Medium “Density
Residential” (5-7 units/net acre).
3. A change in the guided use of 5.5 net acres of land from “Business” to “Park, Recreational and
Open Space.”
In review of the proposed amendment, the City of Loretto is supportive of the proposed changes to
Medina’s Future Land Use Plan. The following comments are however, offered for consideration.
Land Use Compatibility. Some concern exists regarding land use compatibility.
In review of Medina’s Future Land Use Plan, it appears that the subject site will constitute the only
property in Medina with frontage along the Highway 55 corridor which is guided for urban (sewered)
residential use. The subject site is bordered on the south, east and west by properties which are guided
for higher intensity uses of a commercial and/or business nature.
In recognition of the site’s context, some concern exists that approval of urban residential uses along the
Highway 55 corridor may establish an undesirable precedent for future “isolated” residential subdivisions
along the corridor.
Mayor Kent Koch
Council Members Brenda Daniels, Melissa Markham, Eric Riley, Brian Sevigny
City Clerk Treasurer Mary K. Schneider
Preservation of Natural Features. It appears that the subject site is characterized by natural features,
primarily wetlands and woodlands. These physical features are not particularly conducive to the
development of commercial and/or business uses upon the property (as presently directe d by Medina’s
Future Land Use Plan).
The proposed residential guidance of the site does, however, provide an opportunity for development to
occur upon the property in a manner which preserves existing natural features (which otherwise might not
be possible if commercial uses were developed on the property). For this reason, the City of Loretto is
generally supportive of the proposed low and medium density residential uses upon the site.
Text Changes to Plan. It has not been indicated whether any text changes to the Plan will accompany
the proposed changes to the Future Land Use map.
To minimize the potential “undesirable precedent” issue highlighted above, the City may wish to consider
the inclusion of a policy statement in the Plan, similar in effect to the following:
Residential land uses which directly abut the Highway 55 corridor shall only be encouraged in
cases where existing physical limitations make the development of guided commercial and
business uses impractical and the development of residential uses will result in the preservation
of natural features.
Subdivision Concept. The City of Loretto appreciates being provided a copy of the Weston Woods
concept plan as it helps in the understanding of the proposed development project.
At this point however, the City of Loretto views its task to only provide feedback related to the
acceptability of low and medium density residential uses upon the subject site (in a general sense). Thus,
no comments related to the design of the subdivision are offered.
Once again, the City of Loretto is supportive of the proposed changes to the Medina’s Future Land Use
Plan and offers the preceding comments only for possible consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to convey our comments on the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
CITY OF LORETTO
Mary Schneider, City Clerk
cc: Loretto Mayor and City Council
Bob Kirmis, Loretto City Planner
Kent Torve, Loretto City Engineer
Jeff Leuer, Loretto Public Works Director
Catherine Atkinson
2000 Pawnee Road
Medina, MN 55340
Madame Mayor and City Council,
My husband and I have been long time residents of the City. Mark Smith and his company are
proposing a plan that we really support and hope will get approval soon. We have enjoyed our
many years here and had hoped to stay in the City even as our housing needs have changed.
We try to spend part of our winters in Texas. Leaving our current home here, each winter, to
go to Texas, concerns us and makes us a little nervous. Living in one of the proposed town
homes would alleviate those concerns.
In addition to being interested in the homes that Mr. Smith is proposing to build, it would be
nice to have an additional way to get onto Highway 55.
We know there are a number of people in Bridgewater that oppose this development. We
were here long before Bridgewater was approved and we weren't necessarily in favor of it but
it was progress and things actually seemed to get better out here.
Please consider my support as a long term resident!
Thank you
1
Dusty Finke
From:Lubenow, Brad M <brad.lubenow@usbank.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 21, 2020 8:07 AM
To:doug mackey; Kathleen Martin; John Anderson; Jeff Pederson; Todd Albers; Dino Deslauriers; Dusty
Finke
Subject:RE: Opposing Weston Woods
I agree that Arrowhead was never intended to handle the amount of traffic that we are starting to see. I’ve been a
homeowner in Bridgewater for 13 years now. I’ve seen the impact over the years as people use Arrowhead as a cut
through. Especially; after OSI moved in. The elevation changes, the curves, and overhanging trees make the road very
dangerous. Thankfully; the addition on the sidewalk has helped a lot. However; the dirt road is still a major problem.
I strongly appose this proposed subdivision having a road connecting into Arrowhead.
Brad Lubenow
4454 Bluebell Trail
Medina
From: doug mackey <mackeydoug@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 5:48 PM
To: Kathleen Martin <kathleen.martin@medinamn.gov>; john.anderson@medinamn.gov;
jeff.pederson@medinamn.gov; todd.albers@medinamn.gov; dino.deslauriers@medinamn.gov; Dusty Finke
<dusty.finke@medinamn.gov>
Cc: Michael Close <mikeclose@gmail.com>; Christa Close <christaclose@yahoo.com>; darryn@farmchem.com; Adam
Weiland <aweiland@wealthenhancement.com>; ericzehnder@zehnderhomes.com; Henry Toolan
<henrytoolan@ymail.com>; Hanzlik, Joe M <JOE_HANZLIKJR@homedepot.com>; Spencer Thomas
<spencer@klcfinancial.com>; Bethany Mackey <bnmackey@hotmail.com>; ericzehnder@zehnderhomes.com; Lubenow,
Brad M <brad.lubenow@usbank.com>; kssikka@yahoo.com; Tim Elam <time@scannellproperties.com>;
nolan.oneill@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposing Weston Woods
Hi everyone,
I am writing to voice my very strong opposition to the proposed development that you all will be disussing
tonight I won't be able to make the meeting. Like most of my neighbors, my wife and I both work and we have children
going three different directions tonight and we won't be able to make it. I would ask that you please consider this as
you evaluate the number of homeowners that show up and don't take our lack of attendance as support for or lack of
concern over the Weston Woods development. I can tell you anecdotally that everyone I have spoken with is VERY
concerned about this. Many feel like you already have your minds made up and tonights meeting is just for you to say
you did your due diligence and that you find no opposition. I really hope that isn't the case!
My biggest concerns are over the extra traffic on Arrowhead. This use to be a quiet little neighborhood that
was safe and secure. With every near by housing addition comes more crime, more door to door solicitors, and
less freedom for our kids and parents who moved here for the peace of mind.
Adding the connecting road to arrowhead would drastically change the landscape and the view for our
neighbors who moved here because they appreciate the wetland which we have come to enjoy. It would also
2
change and affect the traffic flow and increase our all ready lengthy commutes from our neighborhood to hwy
55. Between the long stop times at the lights, the dismal 30mph speed limit the the police love to enforce, and
the train that shuts down the lights, we simply can’t add another 140 homeowners that are making their way
east every morning to hwy 55 by way of cutting through to Arrowhead and onto 55. There is just no way that’s
a good idea.
Additionally, it appears from the map that Dusty sent me that much of the traffic from Polaris would also be
routed through this connecting road. Lastly, Arrowhead turns into a dirt road just north of our neighborhood. We
currently use that to walk our pets, jog, ride bikes, ride snowmobiles etc. The road is already over traveled and since it is
not paved, it is often a short cut for people around here coming from the Maple grove area or from the west off
47. There is no doubt this traffic will increase and the safety of this road and path will change for the worse. You can
find many complaints with the Medina police department from the two gentleman that live directly off this road as well
as several accidents from people taking this short cut.
I strongly oppose the proposal for these, and many other reasons. Please help us keep Medina a quiet,
peaceful and safe place and do not approve this project.
Doug and Bethany Mackey
4562 Bluebell Trail N
Medina MN 55340
U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered
by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the
intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing,
or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have
received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1
Dusty Finke
From:Cara Painter <carakaufman@ymail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 20, 2020 8:16 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Subject:Weston Wood Proposed Development
Hello,
First, I want to share my appreciation for the Town hall event scheduled today. I know that is extra time on many
people’s schedules, and am grateful. My family had prior commitments so unfortunately are unable to attend.
We live in the Bridgewater neighborhood and have concerns regarding the proposed development. Our main concern is
the extra traffic on Arrowhead Drive. This road was not built nor intended to have that level of traffic flow especially
considering the additional development of OSI. I believe this has both a safety and maintenance/cost risk. Secondarily,
we have concern with the rate of development. We chose to purchase a home in Medina versus Plymouth because of
this reason, and specifically chose this neighborhood because it was not surrounded on all sides by other homes.
I appreciate your consideration of our concerns and have shared my contact information below.
Thank you,
Cara & Ryan Painter
4436 Bluebell Trail S
563‐940‐9760
Sent from my iPhone
1
Dusty Finke
From:Darryn Thiessen <darryn.thiessen@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 20, 2020 9:48 PM
To:Kathleen Martin; John Anderson; Jeff Pederson; Todd Albers; Dino Deslauriers; Dusty Finke
Cc:Sarah Thiessen
Subject:Re: Opposing Weston Woods
Dear Medina City Council Members,
My wife Sarah and I would like to acknowledge our agreement to the sentiments addressed by Doug Mackey.
Unfortunately neither of us were able to attend tonight’s open house.
Further to Doug Mackey’s concerns I would like to suggest that if for whatever reason there is no way around
proceeding with the proposed development, a possible win for all parties would be to simply revise the development
plan NOT to connect to Arrowhead Road. Should the development proceed in a way that the access in and out comes
only by way of Mohawk Trail and that at NO time in the future a through road be allowed and/or planned for I could
certainly see a greater level of support come from the neighbors of Bridgewater. That would be a solution our family
could support. This enables the developer the opportunity they seek, all the while not disturbing the current traffic flow
for Arrowhead. There is no justifiable need to connect these two roads. I have heard the arguments attempting to assign
reasons for that case but respectfully disagree.
Please save our tax dollars by overturning any plans to connect the two roads. Please also heed the strong concerns
being addressed by the many residents of the Bridgewater community.
Thank you all for your service to represent the City of Medina. We trust you will make the best decision to keep our city
a great place to live.
Sincerely,
Darryn & Sarah Thiessen
Sent from my iPhone
Darryn Thiessen
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 20, 2020, at 5:47 PM, doug mackey <Mackeydoug@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am writing to voice my very strong opposition to the proposed development that you all will be
disussing tonight I won't be able to make the meeting. Like most of my neighbors, my wife and I both
work and we have children going three different directions tonight and we won't be able to make it. I
would ask that you please consider this as you evaluate the number of homeowners that show up
2
and don't take our lack of attendance as support for or lack of concern over the Weston
Woods development. I can tell you anecdotally that everyone I have spoken with is VERY
concerned about this. Many feel like you already have your minds made up and tonights meeting is just
for you to say you did your due diligence and that you find no opposition. I really hope that isn't the
case!
My biggest concerns are over the extra traffic on Arrowhead. This use to be a quiet little
neighborhood that was safe and secure. With every near by housing addition comes more
crime, more door to door solicitors, and less freedom for our kids and parents who moved here
for the peace of mind.
Adding the connecting road to arrowhead would drastically change the landscape and the view
for our neighbors who moved here because they appreciate the wetland which we have come to
enjoy. It would also change and affect the traffic flow and increase our all ready lengthy
commutes from our neighborhood to hwy 55. Between the long stop times at the lights, the
dismal 30mph speed limit the the police love to enforce, and the train that shuts down the
lights, we simply can’t add another 140 homeowners that are making their way east every
morning to hwy 55 by way of cutting through to Arrowhead and onto 55. There is just no way
that’s a good idea.
Additionally, it appears from the map that Dusty sent me that much of the traffic from Polaris
would also be routed through this connecting road. Lastly, Arrowhead turns into a dirt road just
north of our neighborhood. We currently use that to walk our pets, jog, ride bikes, ride snowmobiles
etc. The road is already over traveled and since it is not paved, it is often a short cut for people around
here coming from the Maple grove area or from the west off 47. There is no doubt this traffic will
increase and the safety of this road and path will change for the worse. You can find many complaints
with the Medina police department from the two gentleman that live directly off this road as well as
several accidents from people taking this short cut.
I strongly oppose the proposal for these, and many other reasons. Please help us keep Medina
a quiet, peaceful and safe place and do not approve this project.
Doug and Bethany Mackey
4562 Bluebell Trail N
Medina MN 55340
1
Dusty Finke
From:doug mackey <mackeydoug@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 20, 2020 5:48 PM
To:Kathleen Martin; John Anderson; Jeff Pederson; Todd Albers; Dino Deslauriers; Dusty Finke
Cc:Michael Close; Christa Close; darryn@farmchem.com; Adam Weiland;
ericzehnder@zehnderhomes.com; Henry Toolan; Hanzlik, Joe M; Spencer Thomas; Bethany Mackey;
ericzehnder@zehnderhomes.com; brad.lubenow@usbank.com; kssikka@yahoo.com; Tim Elam;
nolan.oneill@gmail.com
Subject:Opposing Weston Woods
Hi everyone,
I am writing to voice my very strong opposition to the proposed development that you all will be disussing
tonight I won't be able to make the meeting. Like most of my neighbors, my wife and I both work and we have children
going three different directions tonight and we won't be able to make it. I would ask that you please consider this as
you evaluate the number of homeowners that show up and don't take our lack of attendance as support for or lack of
concern over the Weston Woods development. I can tell you anecdotally that everyone I have spoken with is VERY
concerned about this. Many feel like you already have your minds made up and tonights meeting is just for you to say
you did your due diligence and that you find no opposition. I really hope that isn't the case!
My biggest concerns are over the extra traffic on Arrowhead. This use to be a quiet little neighborhood that
was safe and secure. With every near by housing addition comes more crime, more door to door solicitors, and
less freedom for our kids and parents who moved here for the peace of mind.
Adding the connecting road to arrowhead would drastically change the landscape and the view for our
neighbors who moved here because they appreciate the wetland which we have come to enjoy. It would also
change and affect the traffic flow and increase our all ready lengthy commutes from our neighborhood to hwy
55. Between the long stop times at the lights, the dismal 30mph speed limit the the police love to enforce, and
the train that shuts down the lights, we simply can’t add another 140 homeowners that are making their way
east every morning to hwy 55 by way of cutting through to Arrowhead and onto 55. There is just no way that’s
a good idea.
Additionally, it appears from the map that Dusty sent me that much of the traffic from Polaris would also be
routed through this connecting road. Lastly, Arrowhead turns into a dirt road just north of our neighborhood. We
currently use that to walk our pets, jog, ride bikes, ride snowmobiles etc. The road is already over traveled and since it is
not paved, it is often a short cut for people around here coming from the Maple grove area or from the west off
47. There is no doubt this traffic will increase and the safety of this road and path will change for the worse. You can
find many complaints with the Medina police department from the two gentleman that live directly off this road as well
as several accidents from people taking this short cut.
I strongly oppose the proposal for these, and many other reasons. Please help us keep Medina a quiet,
peaceful and safe place and do not approve this project.
Doug and Bethany Mackey
2
4562 Bluebell Trail N
Medina MN 55340
1
Dusty Finke
From:Kim Hofstede <kimberly.hofstede@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 20, 2020 1:54 PM
To:Kathleen Martin
Cc:Dino Deslauriers; Dusty Finke; Jeff Pederson; John Anderson; Todd Albers
Subject:Re: Weston Woods
One additional point to add. It is my understanding that one of the council members owns land in this vicinity and will
likely benefit if this development gets approved for development. I certainly hope that council member plans to recuse
themself from the official voting process when the time comes.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:52 AM Kathleen Martin <kathleen.martin@medinamn.gov> wrote:
Kim, thanks for the additional thoughts. You should know that Todd, John, Dino and I cannot substantively jump into
these email discussions with you and Jeff in light of Minnesota’s open meeting law requirements. Thus, please do not
take our lack of ion‐line contribution to be anything but being mindful of those legal limitations. We can speak with
you individually, however; as I noted in my message this morning, I can make time to call you this afternoon if that
works for you—just send me a phone number I should use.
Take care,
‐Kathy
On Jan 20, 2020, at 9:11 AM, Kim Hofstede <kimberly.hofstede@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeff,
I appreciate the detailed response back and I understand that the land behind me will eventually get
developed. My point is that it doesn't need to be developed now ‐ it can wait until 2025 or later as the
comp plan outlines. I'm aware of the Chippewa Rd/trail/water main extension. I also know that
Mattamy has a water tower site on their development and I'm assuming Mattamy contributed
fees when those homes were built to help build that water tower when needed. I don't think the City
and City Council should be using the excuse that it's a danger to residents and a fire hazard if this isn't
approved. Page 2 of the Comprehensive Water Plan (adopted Oct 2018) recommends that a new
water tower is built between 2020‐2030 which suggests that it can wait to get built in 2025 or a few
years later.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:31 AM Jeff Pederson <jeff.pederson@medinamn.gov> wrote:
Kim, thank you very much for your email! I truly understand that you do not want any more
development and follow the comp plan.
Not sure if you are aware that Chippewa road extension, the water main that would be installed under
the new roadway and the trail along road way, are also are part of comp plan.
The city of Medina at this point only has one water tower. The water main that services your home
and many other homes in Medina runs along highway 55 and under highway 55 is 40 plus years old.
That water main has severed its useful life and is becoming a safety issue for the future. The city
council has to concern ourselves with safety for all of its residents. Fire fighters need above ground
storage to get water pressure needed to fight fires.
I would not like my family or anyone else to be trapped in a home and not enough water pressure to
2
fight a house fire or business fire.
There are lots of cost associated with water main, a roadway and a trail along the roadway.
The city does not currently own the road right away, that would be needed to build the roadway and
trail.
The park commission also shows the trail and a park in this area as shown on the comp plan.
All of theses amenities comes with a price tag. So please understand the city council is weighing out all
of these concerns.
The developer is offering to cover most of these cost.
Also keeping in mind that northern portion of this property can be developed in four short years,
without a comp plan amendment.
This is not a easy decision for us to make either but, thought it might help for you understand all of
the facts.
Thanks, again for your email.
Council member Jeff Pederson
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 19, 2020, at 5:47 PM, Kim Hofstede <kimberly.hofstede@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mayor Martin and Medina City Council Members,
> We received the invitation for the open house tomorrow night. I live in Bridgewater and my house
backs up to the proposed development (4418 Bluebell Trail S). I understand as part of the approval
process that the City Council recommended that the developer have an open house with the
Bridgewater neighborhood, but to be perfectly honest, I don't understand the point. Bridgewater
residents are not interested in further development and we have continued to encourage the City
Council to abide by the comp plan (and associated development timing) that they spent so much time
working on. This feels like the City Council is having an open house so they can claim they received
Bridgewater input and support when they finally approve it. I have no interest in meeting with the
developer and hearing what he plans to develop ‐ all I want is no development. There should be no
need for this open house. The City Council can just vote no since the comp plan doesn't guide this
land for development yet. We elected you all into these positions so you could represent the
community and current residents ‐ not a developer. Please listen to your community and vote no on
this project.
>
> Thank you.
> Kim Hofstede
1
Dusty Finke
From:Mark Lamberty <mlamberty22@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 20, 2020 7:32 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Cc:Bill & Tamara Freeland; LouAnn Johnson; Doug Dunlay; Ken & Elizabeth Bechler
Subject:Chippewa Development and Road - Lamberty
Hi Dusty,
We were unable to attend the open house meeting on this matter tonight.
Our key thoughts on this matter are as follows;
1. The Comp Plan has been under development for approximately 4 years. Many home and land owners (including the 5
properties east of Arrowhead) were adversely affected by the delayed staging in the recently implemented Comp Plan.
It’s difficult to understand how the city can justify a change that moves up staging and significantly increases
development immediately after the plan was just agreed to and just now implemented.
2. The Chippewa road extension is not something we are in favor of. It will make it more difficult for us to access
Arrowhead and it will substantially increase traffic. Building this road through a wetland/swamp is going to be expensive
to build and maintain. I see no reason why any properties east of Arrowhead should be assessed now or any time in the
future for a road that is nothing but a detriment to us.
3. We have come to understand that rural property owner opinions weigh only a small amount, especially north of Hwy
55. It’s a foregone conclusion that Chippewa will likely happen and the city will likely change the recent comp plan to
accommodate the adjacent development. We ask the city to carefully prepare for the substantial increase in traffic and
implement a plan to moderate the speed on Arrowhead and Chippewa. There needs to be stop signs on North/South
Arrowhead and East/West Chippewa since the speed limits are rarely observed on Arrowhead and we see no reason
why they will be observed on Chippewa with the substantial amount of traffic flowing from Mohawk westward and
northward areas.
Please share our thoughts and concerns with the city council. Would you kindly respond and share the cities plan to
manage public safety with the increase in traffic.
Thank you,
Mark & Tracey Lamberty
4250 Arrowhead Drive
Please excuse any typos sent by my iPad
Larkin
Ho/fu"fl#Larkin Hoftran
Re:
8300 Norman Center Drive
Suite 1000
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55 437 -1060
GENE RAr.: 952-835-3800
FAx: 952-896-3333
wEB: www.larkinhoftnan.com
September 25,2019
Dusty Finke AICP
City Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Weston Woods of Medina; Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for
PIDs 03- I I 8-23 -42-000 1, 03 - 1 18-23-41 -000 l, and 03 - 1 1 8-23-43-0005
Dear Mr. Finke
We represent Mark of Excellence Homes ("MOE") regarding the proposed Weston Woods of
Medina project ("Project") located in the City of Medina ("City"). The Project includes
development on approximately 131 gross acres of land located north of Highway 55 and East of
Mohawk Drive with a mix of single-family development, twinhomes, and row townhomes. This
letter and the accompanying materials constitute a request for the following applications by MOE:
1) comprehensive plan ("Comp Plan") amendments, and 2) a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Concept Plan ("Concept Plan") for a project with an approximate overall density of 3.0 units per
acre.
Background and Proiect Description
The Project includes two properties ("Properties), consisting of the "Cavanaugh Parcel," totaling
approximately 54.91 acres, located east of Mohawk Drive and north of Highway 55; and the "Roy
Parcel" an approxim ately 7 5.42-acre parcel located east of Mohawk Drive and immediately north of
and adjacent to the Cavanaugh Parcel. MOE is seeking to develop the Properties with a mix of
single-family homes, twinhomes, and row townhomes with an average overall density of
approximately 3.0 units per acre. The Roy Parcel will include approximately 47.33 acres of
wetland and buffer area with no designated open space. The Cavanaugh Parcel will include
approximately 26.42 acres of wetland and buffers, and 5.47 acres of parks.
The net developable acreage is based on the Metropolitan Council's formula for calculation of net
residential density calculated by the gross acres less wetlands, buffers, public parks and open space,
arterial road rights-of-way, and floodplains. The resulting density of the proposed PUD Concept
Plan is as follows:
Gross Area weflands/SuIIer ParksiOpen Space Net Developable
Roy Parcel 75.42 acres 47.33 acres 0.00 acres 28.09 acres
Cavanaugh Parcel 54.91 acres 26.42 acres 5.4J acres 21.10 acres
Project Total 130.33 acres 73.75 acres 5.47 acres 49.19 acres
Dusty Finke AICP
Septernber 25,2019
Page2
rposed
Net Developable Dwelling Units Density
Roy Parcel 28.09 acres 76 proposed 2.7 unitslacre
Cavanaugh Parcel 22.57 acres 74 proposed 3.2 units/acre
Proiect Total 49.67 acres 150 Units 3.0 units/acre
The proposed 3.0 units per acre of density will be allocated among single-family residences,
twinhomes, and row townhomes as follows:
The Project will also include the improvement of Chippewa Road from Mohawk Drive on the west
to Arrowhead Drive on the east, as well as the completion of a water loop connected to the City's
municipal water system.
Land Use A nnlications
MOE is seeking the following land use applications
1. Comp Plan Amendments
MOE is seeking the following Comp Plan Amendments to accommodate the Project
a. Comp Plan Amendment: Roy Parcel (2025 to 2020 Staging)
The Roy Parcel is currently designated with the Low-Density Residential (LDR) future land use
designation with stagin gfor 2025 development. MOE is seeking a Comp Plan amendment to re-
guide the Roy Parcel from2025 staging to 2020 with flexibility granted through the PUD to allow
development as early as 2079.
b.Comp Plan Amendment: Cavanaugh Parcel (Business to Low-Density
Residential and Medium-Density Residential Future Land Use Designation)
The Cavanaugh Parcel is currently designated with a future land use designation of Business. MOE
is seeking a Comp Plan Amendment of the future land use designation of the Cavanaugh Parcel
from Business to a combination of LDR on portions of the property planned for single family
residential and Medium-Density Residential (MDR) designation to accommodate the proposed
townhome development.
Acres Number Densitv
Single-Family
Residences
16.96 acres 41 Units 2.4 unitslacre
Twinhomes 28.09 acres 76 Units 2.7 :ur:ritslacre
8.0 units/acreRow Townhomes 4.14 acres
3.0 units/acreProiect Total 49.19 acres 150 Units
2. Planned Unit Development Concept Plan
I{ou'sing Types
33 Units
Dusty Finke AICP
September 25,2079
Page 3
The predominant zoning district for the Properties is Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR),
with approximately 5.25 acres of the southernmost portion of the Cavanaugh Parcel zoned as
Commercial-Highway (CH). MOE is seeking a review and approval of the PUD Concept Plan,
with a request for rezoning to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to follow at a later
date. The PUD District will allow for the flexible application of the City's Zoning Code ("City
Code"), including the flexible distribution of densities over the entire Project area resulting in a
density on the Roy Parcel that is higher than otherwise allowed. The distribution of density is
required to make the project work within the market, and as a result of the increased densities MOE
is able to offer higher standards of site and building design, along with the preservation of high-
quality natural resources, including mature tree stands and substantial wetlands located on the
Properties. Additionally, the increased density allows MOE to provide a substantially higher
investment in infrastructure, which would not be possible without the flexibility allowed by the
PUD.
Following approval of the Comp Plan amendments above, approval of the PUD will be consistent
with the Comp Plan designation and staging of the Properties. The overall density will be 3.0 units
per acre over the entire Project, with higher density located near Highway 55. The Project is
consistent with the standards and purpose of the City's PUD Ordinance under Section 827.25 as
follows:
a.Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of
economic expansion may be met by greater variety io type, design, and
placement of structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land
in such developments.
The Project is designed to accommodate a mix of housing types and densities while preserving and
protecting wetlands, tree stands and open spaces. The Project includes a combined 73.75 acres of
wetland and buffer conservation areas, as well as 5.47 acres of wooded open space or parks. The
five-acre park/open space on the Cavanaugh Parcel includes over 300 hardwood trees, which have
been preserved as parkland with playground equipment and20 parking spaces to ensure community
accessibility. The park area will become a neighborhood asset providing open space and trail
facilities for use by the residents of the development and the general public. This protects and
preserves one of the City's natural resources and meets or exceeds the 10 percent park dedication
requirement under City Code Section 820.31.
b. Higher standards of site and building design
The PUD allows the Project to provide a variety of high-quality housing styles, including single
family lots, twinhomes and row townhomes in a high-quality design, integrated into the open space
and wetlands. The single family homes will be located adjacent to natural areas, including
wetlands, park and open space, and preserved woodlands. The townhomes have high-end features
and the exteriors will use an extensive amount of glass creating an abundance of natural light on
three sides. Deep garages will provide homeowners room to store trash and recycling bins indoors.
To improve exteriors, MOE has engaged a designer to create a variety of architectural features to
enhance the front of the building units. The addition of the row homes in the center of the south
parcel provides a housing option for newer families close to the park and open space. This amenity
makes the row homes highly valuable and marketable.
Dusty Finke AICP
September 25,2019
Page 4
c.The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics
such as high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural
topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion.
To the north on the Roy Parcel, more than two-thirds of the site will be preserved as wetlands and
woodlands providing natural buffer areas within the development. All of the proposed residences
on the Roy Parcel are clustered on the west of the property, which provides more than a 1,300 foot
buffer between the Bridgewater neighborhood to the east and the nearest home in the development.
To the south on the Cavanaugh Parcel, nearly sixty percent (60%) of the site is preserved in
wetlands, woodlands, park and open space. Specifically, the developer will dedicate a 5-acre
park/open space area preserving the existing wooded area including over 300 hardwood trees. This
preservation effort will become a defining feature of the development and will preserve an area of
significant trees.
d. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact
development practices which result in volume control and improvement to
water quality beyond the standard requirements of the City.
The Concept Plan shows a number of ponding areas designed to manage storm water and minimize
storm water impacts from the development. MOE will work with the City to incorporate low
impact development and best stormwater practices throughout the development. For instance, the
plan proposes construction of stormwater reservoirs to provide irrigation to landscaping on the Roy
parcel.
e. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably
linked to surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from
adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses.
The Project preserves and enhances wetland and woodland areas creating large buffers to
surrounding development and large portions of the Properties will be dedicated as parkland and
open space. MOE will work with the City to enhance buffering from adjacent roadways and lower
intensity uses. For instance, heavy landscaping and tree planting along Mohawk Road will provide
a buffer between homes and roadways.
f. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased
and orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and
design of development and service facilities.
The Project is the result of a creative use of land that allows the placement of a variety of home sites
on the Properties in a way that preserves wetlands, woodlands, and open space while still meeting
the required density contained within the City's land use regulatory documents. The Project ranges
in density with the higher density located nearest to Highway 55 and a range of density north of the
highway. The overall net density in the Project is 3.0 units per acre, which is consistent with both
City and Metropolitan Council guidance for new residential development.
g. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets
thereby lower development costs and public investments.
Dusty Finke AICP
September 25,2019
Page 5
MOE has designed the PUD to maximize the use of developable land while preserving natural
features such as wetlands, woodlands, and upland buffers to nearby development. On both of the
Properties, the footprint and density of housing maximized in a manner that reduces the impervious
surfaces and reduces the in the size and length of infrastructure serving the development. In
addition, MOE has proposed construction of new infrastructure at its own expense, including the
extension of Chippewa Road between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Road, as well as the water
loop which will serve surrounding neighborhoods and reduce the City's need for public investment
in infrastructure. However, any oversizing of public required by the City must be bome by the City
These improvements far exceed the typical infrastructure investment that is required under such a
development.
h.A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina
Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable
planning and zoning principles.)
MOE has requested a Comp Plan amendment to develop the Project as a comprehensive PUD with
a mix of development types. The requested Comp Plan amendments will allow for the concurrent
development of both the Roy and Cavanaugh parcels as a single residential PUD offering a variety
of housing types and densities, while preserving natural and opens spaces. Preserving the wetlands,
buffers, open space, and tree stands is consistent with the Comp Plan, and extending Chippewa
Road and the water loop will further the Comp Plan's infrastructure goals. The Project will
effectuate the objectives of the Comp Plan as proposed.
l.A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the
strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
The use of the PUD not only results in a more desirable and creative environment, but is absolutely
essential to approval of the plan as proposed and permits a mix of densities while preserving natural
and opens spaces. The Project provides several public benefits, including the preservation of
woodlands, wetlands, and open spaces and a reduction in density and impervious surface as
discussed above, along with the extension of Chippewa Road and the water loop.
Please contact me with any questions about the above narrative or the enclosed materials.
Sincerely,fua1'?m
William C. Griffith, for
Larkin Hoffinan
DirectDial: 952-896-3290
Direct Fax: 952-842-1729
Email: weriffith@larkinhoffinan.com
cc: Mark Smith
4841-5812-6245, v. 2
Mark and Kathleen Smith
2120 Otter Lake Drive
Lino Lakes, MN 55110
February 14, 2020
City of Medina
Attn: Scott Anderson and Dusty Finke
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Mark and Kathleen Smith — Weston Woods of Medina
Dear Scott and Dusty:
We appreciate the recent meetings with city staff to discuss and confirm the various
commitments associated with Weston Woods of Medina (the "Project"). The purpose of this
letter is to set forth our commitment to construct and dedicate public improvements in such a
way that the Project provides a significant public benefit. The proposed public benefit is well
beyond the minimum requirements of City Code, supporting not only the land use change we
have requested, but the approval of the PUD as well.
1. Park Dedication
a. The Developer will dedicate a park and open space area of 7.39 acres of land
which includes the wooded knoll on the southerly parcel.
b. The Developer will construct a paved trail segment through the park which is
accessible. The estimated cost for the trail is $110,000.
c. The Developer will provide an 8 -foot wide bituminous trail from the park
entrance to Mohawk Road, then along Mohawk Road up to Chippewa Road. The
cost of the trail is $71,000, not including the value of the right-of-way.
d. The Developer will provide an 8 -foot wide bituminous trail along the new
Chippewa Road, from Mohawk Road to Arrowhead Road. This cost of the trail is
estimated at $150,000. With staff input, the trail may be constructed over the
existing Chippewa Road right-of-way to allow for water control between the
north and south basins.
e. The Developer will provide an internal 8 -foot wide bituminous trail from the twin
homes on the northerly parcel to the new Chippewa Road. The estimated cost of
this improvement is $18,000.
2. Street Dedication and Construction
a. The Developer will dedicate an 80 -foot wide easement from Mohawk Road to
Arrowhead Road for the construction of Chippewa Road. The estimated value of
the right-of-way is $220,000. (Note: The Project will require reduced setbacks
for the lots on either side of Chippewa Road for the dedication of right-of-way.)
b. The Developer will construct and pay for the extension of Chippewa Road from
Mohawk Road to Arrowhead Road. We will agree that it will be constructed as a
rural street section, except in locations where it is beneficial to construct an urban
section for mitigation of floodplain impacts. This construction includes a box
culvert under the roadway to provide for stormwater flows north and south of the
roadway. The estimated cost of construction of the roadway is $2,500,000.
c. The Developer will construct the sweep connection between Chippewa Road and
Arrowhead Road, provided the City acquires the right-of-way from OSI. The
Developer will grade the right-of-way and complete that section of roadway.
3. The Developer will install a 12" watermain from Mohawk Road to Arrowhead Road.
The estimated cost of this project is $460,000.
4. At the City's election, the Developer will also contribute to wetland mitigation in
exchange for an equal reduction in connection fees for the twin home project proposed on
the northerly parcel.
5. The Developer will provide 3.5 to 4 acres of land needed for floodplain mitigation. The
estimated value of the acreage is $395,000. In addition, the Developer will excavate the
floodplain mitigation area to a depth and dimension provided by the City.
6. The Developer will oversize stormwater ponds within the Project to meet the stormwater
requirements for Chippewa Road. If the City and the Developer agree that the most
efficient way to manage and treat stonnwater for the Chippewa Road project would be to
capture and treat stormwater from Mohawk Road, then the Developer will construct and
pay the cost of the oversized ponds.
In conclusion, the above right-of-way and public improvements exceed approximately
$4,000,000 in public benefit. Approximately $1,100,000 of these improvements provide a direct
benefit to the development. In addition, the Project provides significant opportunities for life
cycle housing, road and safety improvements, watermain improvements and park and trails
dedication. We look forward to presenting this proposal to the City Council on March 4, 2020.
Sia =rely,
s,
s/ r
Mark Smith, President
Mark of Excellence Homes
2
BLUEBELL TRAIL NORTH
AR
R
O
W
H
E
A
D
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
7
PID: 0211823320012
4250 ARROWHEAD DRIVE
MEDINA, MN 55340
PID: 0211823320008
4200 ARROWHEAD DRIVE
MEDINA, MN 55340
HA
C
K
A
M
O
R
E
D
R
I
V
E
BL
U
E
B
E
L
L
T
R
A
I
L
S
O
U
T
H
BRIDGEWATER ROAD
2B R I D G E W A T E R A T L A K E M E D I N A
BL
U
E
B
E
L
L
T
R
A
I
L
S
O
U
T
H
4
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
17
16
15
14
13
12 11 10 9
8
6
5
4
3
2
1 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
5
6
7
8
91011
6
OUTLOT D
5 4
OUTLOT C 8
7
3
2
1
22
21
20
19
3
2
1
3
1
2
1
3
992.4992.4992.4
MO
H
A
W
K
D
R
I
V
E
CHIPPEWA ROAD
OUTLOT B
BLOCK 1
1
2
3
WE
T
L
A
N
D
DNR WETLAND
OHW = 978.3
DNR WETLAND
OHW = 980.6
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
LOT 1
N89°42'49"W 2676.18
N0
1
°
1
4
'
2
0
"
E
5
1
8
.
9
6
S2
2
°
0
9
'
3
9
"
W
8
6
.
3
2
L
=
17
3
.7
3
R=870.89
Δ=11°25'46"
S1
0
°
4
3
'
5
3
"
W
5
3
4
.
3
4
S89°23'02"E 493.55
S2
6
°
3
3
'
2
1
"
W
1
4
6
8
.
0
9
N88°39'29"W 332.51
S39
°
2
9
'
2
2
"
W
4
8
1
.
8
7
N69°
5
8
'
2
0
"
W
2
0
1
.
5
5
N69°
5
8
'
2
0
"
W
4
8
3
.
4
8
L=29.99
R=170.00
Δ=10°06'25"
30.02
S00°37'28"W
N20°01'40"E
5.00
N0
0
°
2
0
'
4
4
"
W
1
5
4
.
8
2
33.01
N88°39'29"W
S0
0
°
2
0
'
4
4
"
E
2
6
4
0
.
4
8
1297.08
5
11.5
5
11.
5
North
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
B
e
l
l
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
B
o
o
k
1
7
6
1
o
f
D
e
e
d
s
,
p
a
g
e
8
3
filed a
s
D
o
c
.
N
o
.
2
4
2
8
2
4
9
a
n
d
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
D
o
c
.
N
o
.
5
3
7
3
0
6
2
CHIPPEWA ROAD
AR
R
O
W
H
E
A
D
D
R
I
V
E
CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK
170
33
33
33
33 33
3333
3333
33
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
98
0
.
6
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3
660
S. LINE OF THE N. 1058 FT. OF THE
NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 3
EX. 6" DIP
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
1
2
3
4
10
9
8
7
6 5 4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
2
3
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 20
21 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
6364
6566
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
9
42
77
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT C
CHIPPEWA
ROAD
POLARIS ROAD
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
R
.
SH
O
R
T
W
A
Y
R
D
.
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3
+
0
0
4+
0
0
5+00
6+
0
0
7+
0
0
8
+
0
0
9
+
0
0
9
+
4
3
.
6
6
8
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14151617
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
13
4
BLUEBELL TRAIL NORTH
AR
R
O
W
H
E
A
D
E
S
T
A
T
E
S
7
PID: 0211823320012
4250 ARROWHEAD DRIVE
MEDINA, MN 55340
PID: 0211823320008
4200 ARROWHEAD DRIVE
MEDINA, MN 55340
HA
C
K
A
M
O
R
E
D
R
I
V
E
BL
U
E
B
E
L
L
T
R
A
I
L
S
O
U
T
H
BRIDGEWATER ROAD
2B R I D G E W A T E R A T L A K E M E D I N A
BL
U
E
B
E
L
L
T
R
A
I
L
S
O
U
T
H
4
1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
17
16
15
14
13
12 11 10 9 8
6
5
4
3
2
1 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
5
6
7
8
91011
6
OUTLOT D
5 4
OUTLOT C 8
7
3
2
1
22
21
20
19
3
2
1
3
1
2
1
3
992.4992.4992.4
MO
H
A
W
K
D
R
I
V
E
CHIPPEWA ROAD
OUTLOT B
BLOCK 1
1
2
3
WE
T
L
A
N
D
DNR WETLAND
OHW = 978.3
DNR WETLAND
OHW = 980.6
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
LOT 1
N89°42'49"W 2676.18
N0
1
°
1
4
'
2
0
"
E
5
1
8
.
9
6
S2
2
°
0
9
'
3
9
"
W
8
6
.
3
2
L
=
17
3.7
3
R=870.89
Δ=11°25'46"
S1
0
°
4
3
'
5
3
"
W
5
3
4
.
3
4
S89°23'02"E 493.55
S2
6
°
3
3
'
2
1
"
W
1
4
6
8
.
0
9
N88°39'29"W 332.51
S39
°
2
9
'
2
2
"
W
4
8
1
.
8
7
N69°
5
8
'
2
0
"
W
2
0
1
.
5
5
N69°
5
8
'
2
0
"
W
4
8
3
.
4
8
L=29.99
R=170.00
Δ=10°06'25"
30.02
S00°37'28"W
N20°01'40"E
5.00
N0
0
°
2
0
'
4
4
"
W
1
5
4
.
8
2
33.01
N88°39'29"W
S0
0
°
2
0
'
4
4
"
E
2
6
4
0
.
4
8
1297.08
5
11.5
5
11.
5
North
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
B
e
l
l
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
B
o
o
k
1
7
6
1
o
f
D
e
e
d
s
,
p
a
g
e
8
3
filed
a
s
D
o
c
.
N
o
.
2
4
2
8
2
4
9
a
n
d
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
D
o
c
.
N
o
.
5
3
7
3
0
6
2
CHIPPEWA ROAD
AR
R
O
W
H
E
A
D
D
R
I
V
E
CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK
170
33
33
33
33 33
3333
3333
33
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
98
0
.
6
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3
660
S. LINE OF THE N. 1058 FT. OF THE
NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 3
EX. 6" DIP
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
1
2
3
4
10
9
8
7
6 5 4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
2
3
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 20
21 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
6364
6566
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
9
42
77
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT C
CHIPPEWA
ROAD
POLARIS ROAD
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
R
.
SH
O
R
T
W
A
Y
R
D
.
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3
+
0
0
4
+
0
0
5+00
6+
0
0
7+
0
0
8
+
0
0
9
+
0
0
9
+
4
3
.
6
6
8
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14151617
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
13
4
{\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.}
NORTH
0 300 600
CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY
RCH
RCH
RCH
MARK SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110
TEL (612)490-0558
COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH
EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH
UTILITY PLAN NORTH
UTILITY PLAN SOUTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH
25 AUG 2019
18 SEPT 2019
30 SEPT 2019
C-1.0
C-2.0
C-2.1
C-3.0
C-3.1
C-4.0
C-4.1
C-5.0
C-5.1
/SHEET NO.
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
BY DATE
DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW
LA
N
D
F
O
R
M
c
CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
TITLESHEET
PROJECT
SHEET INDEX
ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY
PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW
CERTIFICATION
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
Web: landform.net
Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
DEVELOPER
MUNICIPALITY
WESTON WOODS
OF MEDINA
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
RH 09.18.2019
CONCEPT PLAN - PUD
09.30.2019
MEH17003
9
20
X
X
C1MEH003 - Cover Sht Area Plan.dwg
COVER SHEET/AREA PLAN
PUDC-1
1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EASEMENT AREA
LOT AREA
WETLAND AREA
WETLAND BUFFER
COMMON AREA
DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY
ZONINGAREA SUMMARY
TOTAL AREA:135.00 CURRENT ZONING
PROPOSED ZONING
RR-UR RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE
PUD
18.489
24.395
6.865
10.200
56.710
14.593
AC.
AC.
AC.
AC.
AC.
AC.
AC.
POND / RAIN GARDENS 3.748 AC.
SITE
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
NORTH
NO SCALE
AREA LOCATION MAP
AR
R
O
W
H
E
A
D
55
494
94
694
55
SITE
116
24
19
50
19
10
11
9
101
47
MO
H
A
W
K
R
D
.
DR
I
V
E
HORSESHOE TRAIL
WI
L
L
O
W
R
D
.
ROAD
HAMEL
PI
O
N
E
E
R
TRAIL
That part of the South Half of Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 01 degrees 13 minutes
50 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the east line of South half a distance of 833.09 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence South 22 degrees 09 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 86.32 feet;
thence Southerly 173. 73 feet along a tangential curve concave southeasterly, having a central angle of 11 degrees 25
minutes 46 seconds and a radius of 870. 89 feet; thence South 10 degrees 43 minutes 23 seconds West, tangent to
said curve, a distance of 534.34 feet; thence southerly 29. 99 feet along a tangential curve concave easterly, having a
central angle of 10 degrees 06 minutes 25 seconds and a radius of 170.1 feet; thence South 00 degrees 36 minutes 58
seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 30.00 feet to the south line of said South Half and said line there
terminating.
Abstract property
AND
Parcel1:
The Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, except the West 468
feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter lying West of a line extending from the Southwest
corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter to a point on the North line of the Northeast quarter of the
Southeast quarter 660 feet West along said North line from the Northeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the
Southeast quarter, all in Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property.
Parcel 3:
Outlot B, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Abstract property
Parcel 4:
The North 468 feet of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township
118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 5:
The West 468 feet of the South 590 feet of the North 1058 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 6:
That part of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North,
Range 23, lying South of the North 1058 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
C1
M
E
H
0
0
3
-
C
o
v
e
r
S
h
t
A
r
e
a
P
l
a
n
.
d
w
g
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
HA
C
K
A
M
O
R
E
D
R
I
V
E
15
16
17
18
19
20
990.6
INV CMP 12
989.6
992.0
991.5993.2
993.1
INV CMP 15 TO STMH
988.6
FES 15 RCP
990.1
FES 15 RCP
990.8
991.9
991.9
992.0
989.4
988.1 INV CMP 24
984.3
988.9
INV CMP 24
984.3
991.3 990.0992.5
INV E RCP 15
988.2
991.9
INV CMP 15
988.2
994.2
CMP 12IN INV
987.8
CMP 12IN INV
988.1
992.4
992.6992.3
991.8
992.3992.1992.5FES 18IN RCP
984.2
FES 15IN RCP
990.1
MO
H
A
W
K
D
R
I
V
E
WE
T
L
A
N
D
DNR WETLAND
OHW = 978.3
490
491492
493
494
495
A-37
496
A-87
497
A-59
498
499
500
1 2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10 11 1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
222324
2526
27
28
2930
3132
33
343536
3738
39404142
43
4445464748
495051
52
53
5455
56
5758
59606162
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
7172
7374
7576
77
78
7980
8182
83
848586
87
88
8990
91 92
93
94
9596
9798
99
100
101
102
103104105106
107
108109 110111
112113114115116117118119
120121122
123124
125126127 128129
130
131132
133
134
135136
137 138
139
140 141
142
143144
145
146
147148149
150
151152153154155156157158159
160161162 163164165
166 167
168169
170171
172173174175176
177
178179
180181
182183184
185
186187188
189 190191192193194195 196197 198
199
200
201202
203
204
205
206207
208
209210211
212
213 214
215
216
217218219
220 221222223 224
225 226
227
228 229230 231232
233234235
236237238239240
241
242
243
244
245246247
248249
250251
252253254255256257258
259
260 261262
263
264
265
266267
268
269
270271
272
273274275
276
277
278279
280
281282283
284
285
286
287288
289
290
291
292
293
294295 296297 298
299
300
301302
303
304305
306
307308
309
310
311
312313
314
315
316317
318
319
320321322323
324325326
327328329330331332333
334335336
337338339340
341342
343
344345346347
348349350
351352353 354355356
357358
359 360361362
363364365
366367368369
370
371372373374
375
376377
378379
380381382383384
385
386
387388
389
390
L=173.73
R=870.89
Δ=11°25'46"
{\C256;1297.08}
5
11.5
5
11
.
5
Nort
h
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
B
e
l
l
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
B
o
o
k
1
7
6
1
o
f
D
e
e
d
s
,
p
a
g
e
8
3
filed
a
s
D
o
c
.
N
o
.
2
4
2
8
2
4
9
a
n
d
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
D
o
c
.
N
o
.
5
3
7
3
0
6
2
CHIPPEWA ROAD
33 33
3333
3333
33
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
980.6
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3
{\
C
2
5
6
;
6
6
0
}
DENOTES SLOPES 18%
AND GREATER
WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG
ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017
AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM
WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG
ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017
AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM
WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG
ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017
AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM
WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG
ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017
AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM
WETLAND DELINEATED BY KJOLHAUG
ENVIRONMENTAL AUG 15-23rd 2017
AND FIELD LOCATED BY LANDFORM
{\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.}
NORTH
0 100 200
CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY
RCH
RCH
RCH
MARK SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110
TEL (612)490-0558
COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH
EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH
UTILITY PLAN NORTH
UTILITY PLAN SOUTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH
25 AUG 2019
18 SEPT 2019
30 SEPT 2019
C-1.0
C-2.0
C-2.1
C-3.0
C-3.1
C-4.0
C-4.1
C-5.0
C-5.1
/SHEET NO.
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
BY DATE
DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW
LA
N
D
F
O
R
M
c
CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
TITLESHEET
PROJECT
SHEET INDEX
ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY
PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW
CERTIFICATION
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
Web: landform.net
Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
DEVELOPER
MUNICIPALITY
WESTON WOODS
OF MEDINA
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
RH 09.18.2019
CONCEPT PLAN - PUD
09.30.2019
MEH17003
9
20
X
X
C2MEH003 - Exist Cond.dwg
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PUDC-2.0
2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION SITE INFO NWI MAP
That part of the South Half of Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 01 degrees 13
minutes 50 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the east line of South half a distance of 833.09 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 22 degrees 09 minutes 09 seconds West a
distance of 86.32 feet; thence Southerly 173. 73 feet along a tangential curve concave southeasterly, having a
central angle of 11 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds and a radius of 870. 89 feet; thence South 10 degrees 43
minutes 23 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 534.34 feet; thence southerly 29. 99 feet along a
tangential curve concave easterly, having a central angle of 10 degrees 06 minutes 25 seconds and a radius of
170.1 feet; thence South 00 degrees 36 minutes 58 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 30.00 feet
to the south line of said South Half and said line there terminating.
Abstract property
AND
Parcel1:
The Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, except the West 468
feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter lying West of a line extending from the Southwest
corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter to a point on the North line of the Northeast quarter of the
Southeast quarter 660 feet West along said North line from the Northeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the
Southeast quarter, all in Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property.
TOTAL PROJECT SITE AREA: 135.0 AC.
PID # 0311823420001
PARCEL 1,4,5 & 6
MARK R SMITH & KATHLEEN R SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110
SITE AREA = 37.7 AC+/-
PID # 0311823410001
PARCEL 2
MARK R SMITH & KATHLEEN R SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110
SITE AREA = 9.5 AC+/-
PID # 0311823430005
PARCEL 3
MARK R SMITH & KATHLEEN R SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110
SITE AREA = 5.25 AC+/-
Parcel 3:
Outlot B, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Abstract property
Parcel 4:
The North 468 feet of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township
118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 5:
The West 468 feet of the South 590 feet of the North 1058 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 6:
That part of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North,
Range 23, lying South of the North 1058 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
C2
-
0
M
E
H
0
0
3
-
E
x
i
s
t
C
o
n
d
.
d
w
g
0+
0
0
991.4
992.3992.4
992.7992.8
991.3
INV E RCP 15
988.2
INV CMP 15
988.2
994.1
HH
CABX
EM
EM
CABX
CABX
988.5
CA
B
X
CAB
X
992.4992.4992.4
HH
CMP INV 36
981.5
CMP TOP
984.6
CMP TOP
984.7
CMP INV 36
981.9
CMP 12IN INV
987.8
CMP 12IN INV
988.1
991.0 991.7 989.9 987.9
44" DECIDUOUS44" DECIDUOUS
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>
I
DNR WETLAND
OHW = 980.6
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
BLOCK 1
LOT 1
490
7 8 9 10 11 1213
S2
6
°
3
3
'
2
1
"
W
1
4
6
8
.
0
9
N88°39'29"W 332.51
S39
°
2
9
'
2
2
"
W
4
8
1
.
8
7
N69°
5
8
'
2
0
"
W
2
0
1
.
5
5
N69°
5
8
'
2
0
"
W
4
8
3
.
4
8
N20°01'40"E
5.00
N0
0
°
2
0
'
4
4
"
W
1
5
4
.
8
2
33.01
N88°39'29"W
S0
0
°
2
0
'
4
4
"
E
2
6
4
0
.
4
8
1297.08
CHIPPEWA ROAD
CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK
17
0
33
33
33
33 33
33
WE
T
L
A
N
D
EX. SAN.MH
RIM:995.01
INL: 982.81 (W)
INV: 974.76 (N)(S)
INV:976.05
9
8
0
.
6
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 5
PARCEL 6
468.00
46
8
.
0
0
59
0
.
0
0
S. LINE OF THE N. 1058 FT. OF THE
NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 3
80 LF.
6" PVC
EX. SAN.MH
RIM:984.50
INV:973.28
EX. 6" DIP
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
0
"
P
V
C
EX
.
1
0
"
P
V
C
EX
.
1
0
"
P
V
C
EX
.
1
0
"
P
V
C
DENOTES SLOPES 18%
AND GREATER
WETLAND DELINEATED BY
KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL
AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD
LOCATED BY LANDFORM
WETLAND DELINEATED BY
KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL
AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD
LOCATED BY LANDFORM
WETLAND DELINEATED BY
KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL
AUG 15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD
LOCATED BY LANDFORM
{\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.}
NORTH
0 100 200
CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY
RCH
RCH
RCH
MARK SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110
TEL (612)490-0558
COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH
EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH
UTILITY PLAN NORTH
UTILITY PLAN SOUTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH
25 AUG 2019
18 SEPT 2019
30 SEPT 2019
C-1.0
C-2.0
C-2.1
C-3.0
C-3.1
C-4.0
C-4.1
C-5.0
C-5.1
/SHEET NO.
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
BY DATE
DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW
LA
N
D
F
O
R
M
c
CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
TITLESHEET
PROJECT
SHEET INDEX
ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY
PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW
CERTIFICATION
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
Web: landform.net
Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
DEVELOPER
MUNICIPALITY
WESTON WOODS
OF MEDINA
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
RH 09.18.2019
CONCEPT PLAN - PUD
09.30.2019
MEH17003
9
20
X
X
C2MEH003 - Exist Cond.dwg
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PUDC-2.1
3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SITE INFO
TOTAL PROJECT SITE AREA: 135.0 AC.
PID # 0311823420001
PARCEL 1,4,5 & 6
MARK R SMITH & KATHLEEN R SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110
SITE AREA = 37.7 AC+/-
PID # 0311823410001
PARCEL 2
MARK R SMITH & KATHLEEN R SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110
SITE AREA = 9.5 AC+/-
PID # 0311823430005
PARCEL 3
MARK R SMITH & KATHLEEN R SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110
SITE AREA = 5.25 AC+/-
NWI MAP
That part of the South Half of Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 01 degrees 13 minutes
50 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the east line of South half a distance of 833.09 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence South 22 degrees 09 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 86.32 feet;
thence Southerly 173. 73 feet along a tangential curve concave southeasterly, having a central angle of 11 degrees 25
minutes 46 seconds and a radius of 870. 89 feet; thence South 10 degrees 43 minutes 23 seconds West, tangent to
said curve, a distance of 534.34 feet; thence southerly 29. 99 feet along a tangential curve concave easterly, having a
central angle of 10 degrees 06 minutes 25 seconds and a radius of 170.1 feet; thence South 00 degrees 36 minutes 58
seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 30.00 feet to the south line of said South Half and said line there
terminating.
Abstract property
AND
Parcel1:
The Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, except the West 468
feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter lying West of a line extending from the Southwest
corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter to a point on the North line of the Northeast quarter of the
Southeast quarter 660 feet West along said North line from the Northeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the
Southeast quarter, all in Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property.
Parcel 3:
Outlot B, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Abstract property
Parcel 4:
The North 468 feet of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township
118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 5:
The West 468 feet of the South 590 feet of the North 1058 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 6:
That part of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North,
Range 23, lying South of the North 1058 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
C2
-
1
M
E
H
0
0
3
-
E
x
i
s
t
C
o
n
d
.
d
w
g
3
4
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 20
21 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
6364
6566
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
9
42
77
OUTLOT C
CHIPPEWA
ROAD
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
R
.
HA
C
K
A
M
O
R
E
D
R
I
V
E
15
16
17
18
19
20
MO
H
A
W
K
D
R
I
V
E
WE
T
L
A
N
D
DNR WETLAND
OHW = 978.3
N89°42'49"W 2676.18
N0
1
°
1
4
'
2
0
"
E
5
1
8
.
9
6
S2
2
°
0
9
'
3
9
"
W
8
6
.
3
2
L=173.73
R=870.89
Δ=11°25'46"
S1
0
°
4
3
'
5
3
"
W
5
3
4
.
3
4
S89°23'02"E 493.55
L=29.99
R=170.00
Δ=10°06'25"
30.02
S00°37'28"W
S0
0
°
2
0
'
4
4
"
E
2
6
4
0
.
4
8
1297.08
5
11.5
5
11
.
5
Nort
h
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
B
e
l
l
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
B
o
o
k
1
7
6
1
o
f
D
e
e
d
s
,
p
a
g
e
8
3
filed
a
s
D
o
c
.
N
o
.
2
4
2
8
2
4
9
a
n
d
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
D
o
c
.
N
o
.
5
3
7
3
0
6
2
CHIPPEWA ROAD
33 33
3333
3333
33
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
9
8
0
.
6
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3
660
EXISTING EASEMENT TO
BE VACATED
WETLAND DELINEATED BY
KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG
15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED
BY LANDFORM
33
6
6
60
33
66
33
33
33
33
WETLAND DELINEATED BY
KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG
15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED
BY LANDFORM
6364
65
6+00
7+00
8+00
30
'
B-
B
25
'
40.22'
30'MIN.
CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY
RCH
RCH
RCH
MARK SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110
TEL (612)490-0558
COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH
EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH
UTILITY PLAN NORTH
UTILITY PLAN SOUTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH
25 AUG 2019
18 SEPT 2019
30 SEPT 2019
C-1.0
C-2.0
C-2.1
C-3.0
C-3.1
C-4.0
C-4.1
C-5.0
C-5.1
/SHEET NO.
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
BY DATE
DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW
LA
N
D
F
O
R
M
c
CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
TITLESHEET
PROJECT
SHEET INDEX
ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY
PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW
CERTIFICATION
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
Web: landform.net
Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
DEVELOPER
MUNICIPALITY
WESTON WOODS
OF MEDINA
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
RH 09.18.2019
CONCEPT PLAN - PUD
09.30.2019
MEH17003
9
20
X
X
{\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.}
NORTH
0 100 200
ARE SHOWN THUS:
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
10 feet in width and adjoining right of way lines as
shown on the plat.
10
(Not to Scale)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZONING
TWINHOME SITE SUMMARY
SETBACK SUMMARY
UNIT SETBACKS:
FRONT (FROM BACK OF PRIVATE ROAD)
CORNER ( FROM BACK OF PRIVATE ROAD)
BETWEEN BUILDINGS
REAR (FROM BOUNDARY)
FROM MOHAWK DRIVE
FROM CHIPPEWA ROAD
25 FT.
25 FT.
30 FT.
30 FT.
50 FT.
50 FT.
CURRENT ZONING
PROPOSED ZONING
RR-UR RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE
PUD
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
PER TITLE COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A ISSUED BY STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY FILE NO; 559399 JULY 5,
2017
1. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THE COMMITMENT IS SITUATED IN HENNEPIN COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA
AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PART OF THE SOUTH HALF OF NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23,
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE
NORTH 01 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST ON AN ASSUMED BEARING ALONG THE EAST LINE OF
SOUTH HALF A DISTANCE OF 833.09 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE TO BE DESCRIBED;
THENCE SOUTH 22 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 86.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY
173. 73 FEET ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11
DEGREES 25 MINUTES 46 SECONDS AND A RADIUS OF 870. 89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10 DEGREES 43 MINUTES
23 SECONDS WEST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 534.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 29. 99 FEET
ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 25
SECONDS AND A RADIUS OF
170.1FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 58 SECONDS WEST, TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, A
DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF AND SAID LINE THERE TERMINATING.
ABSTRACT PROPERTY
TYPICAL TWINHOME LAYOUT EASEMENT DETAIL
C3MEH003 - Pre Plat.dwg
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PUDC-3.0
4
Gross Site Area:75.42 Ac.
( Less Chippewa, Mohawk, Hackamore R/W )
Existing Wetland & Buffer Area:47.33 Ac.
Net Developable Area:28.09 Ac.
Twin Home Residential:76 Units ( 38 Twinhome Bldgs)
( Lots and Local Roads, Private Roads @ 29' B-B )
Overall Net Density:2.70 u/a
( 76 units / 28.09 ac.)
C3
-
0
M
E
H
0
0
3
-
P
r
e
P
l
a
t
.
d
w
g
1
2
3
4
10
9
8
7
6 5 4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
2
3
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT C
CHIPPEWA
POLARIS ROAD
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
R
.
SH
O
R
T
W
A
Y
R
D
.
8
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14151617
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
13
4
994.1
EM
EM
992.4992.4992.4
DNR WETLAND
OHW = 980.6
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
LOT 1
S2
6
°
3
3
'
2
1
"
W
1
4
6
8
.
0
9
N88°39'29"W 332.51
S39
°
2
9
'
2
2
"
W
4
8
1
.
8
7
N69°
5
8
'
2
0
"
W
2
0
1
.
5
5
N69°
5
8
'
2
0
"
W
4
8
3
.
4
8
N20°01'40"E
5.00
N0
0
°
2
0
'
4
4
"
W
1
5
4
.
8
2
33.01
N88°39'29"W
S0
0
°
2
0
'
4
4
"
E
2
6
4
0
.
4
8
1297.08
CHIPPEWA ROAD
CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK
17
0
33
33
33
33 33
33
WE
T
L
A
N
D
9
8
0
.
6
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3
S. LINE OF THE N. 1058 FT. OF THE
NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 3
EX. 6" DIP
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
33
33
33
33
60
6
0
60
60
60
60
60
WETLAND DELINEATED BY
KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL AUG
15-23rd 2017 AND FIELD LOCATED
BY LANDFORM
4+00
5+00
6+00
6 5 4
7
POLARIS
SF-North Road
POINT ID
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
STATION
1+82.92
3+92.75
8+94.81
10+67.40
13+16.12
DELTA RADIUS TANGENT
55.00
413.58
127.21
84.65
50.00
N56° 00' 00"E
N87° 20' 47"E
S82° 02' 51"E
S87° 01' 44"E
S53° 48' 40"E
SF-North Road
POINT ID
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
STATION
0+18.45
2+37.92
8+06.33
10+22.02
11+52.05
DELTA
033°39'16"
031°20'47"
010°36'21"
004°58'53"
033°13'04"
RADIUS
280.00
283.00
478.00
522.00
283.00
TANGENT
84.68
79.41
44.37
22.71
84.41
164.47
154.83
88.48
45.38
164.07
N72° 49' 38"E
N71° 40' 24"E
S87° 21' 02"E
S84° 32' 18"E
S70° 25' 12"E
SF-South Road
POINT ID
L6
L7
L8
STATION
1+43.57
5+77.61
10+49.25
DELTA RADIUS TANGENT
51.22
204.24
166.23
S64° 00' 00"E
N37° 39' 51"E
N02° 39' 13"W
SF-South Road
POINT ID
C6
C7
C8
STATION
0+14.82
1+94.79
7+81.85
DELTA
026°20'44"
078°20'09"
040°19'04"
RADIUS
280.00
280.00
380.00
TANGENT
65.53
228.10
139.50
128.75
382.82
267.40
S77° 10' 22"E
N76° 49' 56"E
N17° 30' 19"E
CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY
RCH
RCH
RCH
MARK SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110
TEL (612)490-0558
COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH
EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH
UTILITY PLAN NORTH
UTILITY PLAN SOUTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH
25 AUG 2019
18 SEPT 2019
30 SEPT 2019
C-1.0
C-2.0
C-2.1
C-3.0
C-3.1
C-4.0
C-4.1
C-5.0
C-5.1
/SHEET NO.
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
BY DATE
DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW
LA
N
D
F
O
R
M
c
CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
TITLESHEET
PROJECT
SHEET INDEX
ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY
PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW
CERTIFICATION
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
Web: landform.net
Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
DEVELOPER
MUNICIPALITY
WESTON WOODS
OF MEDINA
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
RH 09.18.2019
CONCEPT PLAN - PUD
09.30.2019
MEH17003
9
20
X
X
{\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.}
NORTH
0 100 200
ARE SHOWN THUS:
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines and
being 10 feet in width and adjoining right of way
lines as shown on the plat.
10
(Not to Scale)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ZONING
SOUTH PARCEL SITE SUMMARY
SETBACK SUMMARY
UNIT SETBACKS:
FRONT
CORNER
REAR
SIDE
STRUCTURE FROM WETLAND BUFFER
FROM MOHAWK DRIVE
FROM CHIPPEWA ROAD
30 FT.
30 FT.
30 FT.
10 FT.
15 F.T.
35 FT.
35 FT.
CURRENT ZONING
PROPOSED ZONING
RR-UR RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN
RESERVE
PUD
TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT LAYOUT
EASEMENT DETAIL
C3MEH003 - Pre Plat.dwg
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PUDC-3.1
5
5
Gross Site Area:52.99 Ac.
(Less Chippewa, Mohawk R/W )
Existing Wetland & Buffer Area:26.42 Ac.
Park / Openspace: 5.47 Ac.
Net Residential Developable Area:21.10 Ac.
(Lots and Local Roads, Private Roads @ 29' B-B )
Residential Units:74 Units
Single Family Lots 70' x 130' +/-41 lots
Row Townhome Units 33 lots
Single Family Density:2.5 u/a
(41 units / 16.39 ac.)
Row Townhome Density:7.0 u/a
(33 units / 4.71 ac.)
Overall Net Density:3.5 u/a
(73 units / 22.33 ac.)
* All areas are approximate. Developable area estimated from County GIS Data as measured from local codes.
Wetlands were delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental and field located by Landform Professional Services.
That part of the South Half of Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the following described line:
Parcel1:
The Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, except the West 468
feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter lying West of a line extending from the Southwest
corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter to a point on the North line of the Northeast quarter of the
Southeast quarter 660 feet West along said North line from the Northeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the
Southeast quarter, all in Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property.
Parcel 3:
Outlot B, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Abstract property
Parcel 4:
The North 468 feet of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township
118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 5:
The West 468 feet of the South 590 feet of the North 1058 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 6:
That part of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North,
Range 23, lying South of the North 1058 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
OVERALL SITE SUMMARY - BOTH PARCELS
Net Residential Developable Area:49.19 Ac.
(Less Chippewa, Mohawk, Hackamore R/W )
Overall Net Residential Density:3.0 u/a
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
16+00
17+00
18+00 19+00
20+00
21+
0
0
22+
0
0
23+
0
0
24+00
25+00
25+78.46
4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00
10+00
11+0012
+
0
0
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
2
3
4
1
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 20
21 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
6364
6566
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
9
42
0+00 1+00 2+00
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3+
0
0
4
+
0
0
5+00
6+00
7+00
8+00
9+
0
0
10
+
0
0
11+00
12+00
13
+
0
0
14+
0
0
15
+
0
0
1
6
+
0
0
1
7
+
0
0
18
+
0
0
19+
0
0
20
+
0
0
2
1
+
0
0
2
2
+
0
0
2
3
+
0
0
2
4
+
0
0
25+
0
0
26+0027+0028+00
29+00
30
+
0
0
31
+
0
0
31
+
7
4
.
9
9
77
OUTLOT C
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
2+
5
1
.
1
5
CHIPPEWA
ROAD
POLARIS ROAD
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
R
.
MO
H
A
W
K
R
O
A
D
HA
C
K
A
M
O
R
E
D
R
I
V
E
15
16
17
18
19
20
CABX
INV CMP 12
989.6
HH
INV CMP 15 TO STMH
988.6
FES 15 RCP
990.1
FES 15 RCP
990.8
INV CMP 24
984.3
CABXINV CMP 24
984.3
INV E RCP 15
988.2
INV CMP 15
988.2
CMP 12IN INV
987.8
CMP 12IN INV
988.1
992.4
FES 18IN RCP
984.2
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
OE OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
MO
H
A
W
K
D
R
I
V
E
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>
>
I
I
I
I
EX. MH 4A
RIM:982.74
INV:979.88(N)
INV:979.88(E)
INV:979.78(S)
28' L 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 0.4%
STUB 4C
INV:979.88
EX. MH 3
RIM:990.71
INV:979.25(N)
INV:979.25(W)
INV:979.25(E)
INV:979.15(S)
28' L 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 0.4%
STUB 4C
INV:979.36
I
EX. MH 2
RIM:987.30
INV:978.20(N)
INV:978.20(E)
INV:978.10(S)
EX. MH 1
RIM:986.42
INV:977.20(N)
INV:977.20(E)
INV:977.10(S)
EX. SAN.MH
RIM:990.82
INV:976.05
29' L 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 0.4%
STUB 4C
INV:977.32
29' L 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 0.4%
STUB 4C
INV:978.31
>I
WE
T
L
A
N
D
DNR WETLAND
OHW = 978.3
North
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
B
e
l
l
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
B
o
o
k
1
7
6
1
o
f
D
e
e
d
s
,
p
a
g
e
8
3
filed
a
s
D
o
c
.
N
o
.
2
4
2
8
2
4
9
a
n
d
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
D
o
c
.
N
o
.
5
3
7
3
0
6
2
CHIPPEWA ROAD
33 33
3333
3333
33
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
9
8
0
.
6
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3
>>
>
I
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
4
0
%
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
9
0
%
8"
S
A
N
@
1
.
0
0
%
10" SAN@ 0.28%
10" SAN@ 0.28%
10" SAN@ 0.28%10" SAN@ 0.28%10" SAN@ 0.28%
10
"
S
A
N
@
0
.
2
8
%
10" SAN
@ 0.28%
10" SAN
@ 0.28%
10" SAN@ 0.28%
10
"
S
A
N
@
0
.
2
8
%
10
"
S
A
N
@
0
.
2
8
%
10" SAN@ 0.28%
10
"
S
A
N
@
0
.
2
8
%
10
"
S
A
N
@
0
.
2
8
%
10
"
S
A
N
@
0
.
2
8
%
10" SAN@ 0.28%
8" SAN@ 1.00%
10
"
S
A
N
@
0
.
2
8
%
{EX. SAN MH 1}RIM: 992.25BUILD: 16.1'INL (E): 976.15
{MH 1}RIM: 992.08BUILD: 15.1'
INL (N): 977.12
INV: 977.02
{MH 2}
RIM: 994.00
BUILD: 16.3'
INL (N): 977.80INV: 977.70
{MH 3}
RIM: 991.93
BUILD: 13.3'
INL (N): 978.72INV: 978.62
{MH 4}
RIM: 991.71BUILD: 12.8'
INL (E): 979.04INL (NW): 979.04
INV: 978.94
{MH 10}RIM: 993.38BUILD: 13.7'
INL (E): 979.80INV: 979.70
{MH 11}RIM: 993.36BUILD: 13.4'INL (SE): 980.10INV: 980.00
{MH 12}RIM: 991.82BUILD: 11.4'
INL (SE): 980.48INV: 980.38
{MH 14}RIM: 988.16BUILD: 6.4'INL (NE): 981.82INV: 981.72
{MH 15}
RIM: 989.47
BUILD: 7.3'
INL (N): 982.25INV: 982.15
{MH 16}RIM: 992.25BUILD: 9.8'INL (N): 982.57
INV: 982.47
{MH 17}RIM: 994.87
BUILD: 11.9'INL (NW): 983.05INV: 982.95
{MH 18}RIM: 994.35BUILD: 10.9'INL (NW): 983.52INV: 983.42
{MH 19}RIM: 994.97BUILD: 11.2'INL (NW): 983.91INV: 983.81
{MH 20}RIM: 996.56BUILD: 12.3'INL (NW): 984.33INV: 984.23
{MH 21}RIM: 995.68BUILD: 11.0'INL (N): 984.75INV: 984.65
{MH 5}RIM: 993.08BUILD: 12.7'INL (N): 980.47INV: 980.37
{MH 6}RIM: 993.90BUILD: 12.7'
INL (N): 981.31INV: 981.21
{MH 7}
RIM: 993.56BUILD: 10.7'INL (N): 982.95INV: 982.85
{MH 8}RIM: 994.96BUILD: 10.6'
INV: 984.39
{MH 9}RIM: 991.97BUILD: 12.8'INL (E): 979.29INV: 979.19
8" SAN@ 0.40%
8" SAN@ 0.40%
8" SAN@ 0.40%
8" SAN@ 0.40%
{MH 24}
RIM: 996.04BUILD: 20.4'INL (E): 975.71INV: 975.61
{MH 25}
RIM: 997.94BUILD: 21.9'INL (NE): 976.17INV: 976.07
{MH 26}
RIM: 998.33BUILD: 21.4'INL (E): 977.00INV: 976.90
{MH 27}
RIM: 995.21BUILD: 17.8'INL (E): 977.52INV: 977.42
{MH 28}
RIM: 995.88BUILD: 16.9'INL (S): 979.06
INL (E): 979.06
INV: 978.96
{MH 29}
RIM: 993.98BUILD: 14.4'
INL (E): 979.73INV: 979.63
{MH 30}
RIM: 990.20BUILD: 9.3'
INL (SE): 981.04INV: 980.94
{MH 31}
RIM: 992.48BUILD: 11.0'INL (SE): 981.57INV: 981.47
ST
M
STM
ST
M
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
STM
ST
M
ST
M
STM
8" WAT
8"
W
A
T
8"
W
A
T
8"
W
A
T
8" WAT
8"
W
A
T
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8"
W
A
T
8"
W
A
T
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8"
W
A
T
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT8" WAT8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT 8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT 8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8"
W
A
T
8"
W
A
T
8" WAT
8"
W
A
T
STM
{MH 22}RIM: 996.90INV: 985.58
STM
ST
M
ST
M
ST
M
ST
M
STM
{MH 13}RIM: 989.03
BUILD: 8.1'INL (E): 980.99INV: 980.89
10" SAN@ 0.28%
CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY
RCH
RCH
RCH
MARK SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110
TEL (612)490-0558
COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH
EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH
UTILITY PLAN NORTH
UTILITY PLAN SOUTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH
25 AUG 2019
18 SEPT 2019
30 SEPT 2019
C-1.0
C-2.0
C-2.1
C-3.0
C-3.1
C-4.0
C-4.1
C-5.0
C-5.1
/SHEET NO.
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
BY DATE
DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW
LA
N
D
F
O
R
M
c
CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
TITLESHEET
PROJECT
SHEET INDEX
ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY
PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW
CERTIFICATION
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
Web: landform.net
Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
DEVELOPER
MUNICIPALITY
WESTON WOODS
OF MEDINA
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
RH 09.18.2019
CONCEPT PLAN - PUD
09.30.2019
MEH17003
9
20
X
X
C4MEH003 - Utility.dwg
UTILITY PLAN
PUDC-4.0
6
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
{\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.}
NORTH
0 100 200
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00
13+00
14+00
22+
0
0
0+00
1+00
2+00
3+00
4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+
0
0
14
+
0
0
14
+
7
9
.
3
8
0+00
1+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
5+00
6+0
0
7+0
0
8+0
0
9+
0
0
10
+
0
0
11
+
0
0
12
+
0
0
0+0
0
1+
0
0
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
1
2
3
4
10
9
8
7
6 5 4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
2
3
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
18
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT C
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
CHIPPEWA
ROAD
POLARIS ROAD
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
R
.
SHO
R
T
W
A
Y
R
D
.
MO
H
A
W
K
R
O
A
D
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3
+
0
0
4+
0
0
5+00
6+
0
0
7+
0
0
8
+
0
0
9
+
0
0
9
+
4
3
.
6
6
8
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14151617
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
13
4
INV E RCP 15
988.2
INV CMP 15
988.2
HH
CABX
CABX
CABX
CA
B
X
CAB
X
HH
CMP INV 36
981.5
CMP TOP
984.6
CMP TOP
984.7
CMP INV 36
981.9
CMP 12IN INV
987.8
CMP 12IN INV
988.1
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
CHIPPEWA ROAD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>
I I
I
EX. SAN.MH
RIM:990.82
INV:976.05
DNR WETLAND
OHW = 980.6
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
BLOCK 1
LOT 1
1297.08
5
11.5
CHIPPEWA ROAD
CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK
17
0
33
33
33
33 33
3333
33
WE
T
L
A
N
D
EX. SAN.MH
RIM:995.01
INL: 982.81 (W)
INV: 974.76 (N)(S)
INV:976.05
9
8
0
.
6
80 LF.
6" PVC
EX. SAN.MH
RIM:984.50
INV:973.28
EX. 6" DIP
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
0
"
P
V
C
EX
.
1
0
"
P
V
C
EX
.
1
0
"
P
V
C
EX
.
1
0
"
P
V
C
WETLAND DELINEATED BY
KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL
AND FIELD LOCATED
10" SAN@ 0.28%{EX. SAN MH 1}RIM: 992.25BUILD: 16.1'INL (E): 976.15
{MH 1}
RIM: 992.08
BUILD: 15.1'INL (N): 977.12INV: 977.02
8" SAN@ 0.40%
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
4
0
%
8" SAN@ 0.40%
8" SAN@ 0.40%
8" SAN@ 0.40%
8" SAN@ 0.40%
8" SAN@ 0.40%
8" SAN@ 0.40%
8" SAN@ 0.40%
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
4
0
%
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
4
0
%
8" SAN@ 1.00%
{MH 23}
RIM: 994.90BUILD: 19.7'INL (N): 975.30INV: 975.20
{EX. SAN MH 2}RIM: 975.55BUILD: 2.7'
INL (E): 974.86
{MH 24}RIM: 996.04BUILD: 20.4'INL (E): 975.71INV: 975.61
{MH 25}RIM: 997.94
BUILD: 21.9'
INL (NE): 976.17INV: 976.07
{MH 26}
RIM: 998.33
BUILD: 21.4'
INL (E): 977.00INV: 976.90
{MH 27}RIM: 995.21BUILD: 17.8'INL (E): 977.52INV: 977.42
{MH 28}
RIM: 995.88BUILD: 16.9'INL (S): 979.06INL (E): 979.06
INV: 978.96
{MH 29}RIM: 993.98BUILD: 14.4'INL (E): 979.73INV: 979.63
{MH 30}RIM: 990.20BUILD: 9.3'INL (SE): 981.04INV: 980.94
{MH 31}RIM: 992.48BUILD: 11.0'
INL (SE): 981.57
INV: 981.47
{MH 32}
RIM: 993.99BUILD: 11.8'INV: 982.22
8" SAN@ 0.40%
{MH 33}
RIM: 991.86
BUILD: 11.7'
INL (S): 980.27INV: 980.17
{MH 34}RIM: 990.48
BUILD: 10.0'
INV: 980.45
{MH 47}RIM: 993.98BUILD: 10.8'INV: 983.15
8" WAT
8" WAT
8"
W
A
T
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT 8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8"
W
A
T
8"
W
A
T
8"
W
A
T
8"
W
A
T
8"
W
A
T
8" WAT
8" WAT
8"
W
A
T
8" WAT
8" WAT
8" WAT
8"
W
A
T
8" WAT
ST
M
STM
ST
M
STM
STM
ST
M
ST
M
STM
STM
ST
M
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
5
0
%
8" SAN@ 1.00%
8" SAN@ 0.50%
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
5
0
%
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
5
0
%
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
4
0
%
8" SAN@ 0.40%
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
4
0
%
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
4
0
%
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
4
0
%
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
4
0
%
8"
S
A
N
@
0
.
4
0
%
{MH 46}RIM: 992.49BUILD: 10.6'INV: 981.92
{MH 45}RIM: 993.96BUILD: 12.6'INL (NW): 981.45
INL (NE): 981.45
INV: 981.35
{MH 35}RIM: 986.15BUILD: 11.8'INL (NE): 974.44INV: 974.34
{MH 36}RIM: 988.00BUILD: 13.1'
INL (SE): 975.04
INV: 974.94
{MH 37}
RIM: 988.90
BUILD: 13.3'
INL (S): 975.75INV: 975.65
{MH 38}RIM: 990.00BUILD: 13.3'INL (S): 976.78INV: 976.68
{MH 39}RIM: 990.00BUILD: 12.7'INL (SE): 977.42INV: 977.32
{MH 40}RIM: 989.87
BUILD: 11.9'INL (E): 978.03INV: 977.93
{MH 41}RIM: 990.79BUILD: 12.3'INL (NE): 978.63INV: 978.53
{MH 42}
RIM: 992.31BUILD: 13.3'INL (N): 979.08INV: 978.98
{MH 43}
RIM: 992.01
BUILD: 12.2'
INL (N): 979.91
INV: 979.81
{MH 44}RIM: 991.88BUILD: 11.5'
INL (NE): 980.50INV: 980.40
CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY
RCH
RCH
RCH
MARK SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110
TEL (612)490-0558
COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH
EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH
UTILITY PLAN NORTH
UTILITY PLAN SOUTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH
25 AUG 2019
18 SEPT 2019
30 SEPT 2019
C-1.0
C-2.0
C-2.1
C-3.0
C-3.1
C-4.0
C-4.1
C-5.0
C-5.1
/SHEET NO.
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
BY DATE
DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW
LA
N
D
F
O
R
M
c
CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
TITLESHEET
PROJECT
SHEET INDEX
ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY
PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW
CERTIFICATION
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
Web: landform.net
Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
DEVELOPER
MUNICIPALITY
WESTON WOODS
OF MEDINA
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
RH 09.18.2019
CONCEPT PLAN - PUD
09.30.2019
MEH17003
9
20
X
X
{\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.}
NORTH
0 100 200
C4MEH003 - Utility.dwg
UTILITY PLAN
PUDC-4.1
7
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
H.P.89.11
L.P.
88.26
H.P.
93.43
L.P.
84.30
%
4.
6
%
5.
4
%5.4
%
3.
3
%2.6
87.3
1
L.P
.
L.P.
91.60
%
5.
3
%
4.
7
%
3.8
%
5.0
%8.8
%10
H.P.94.28
%5.4
%4.2
%3.6
%4.8
%6.0
%7.2
%6.8
%4.8
%3.2
%2.6
%2.8
%4.5
%5.3
%6.3
H.P
.
97.0
0
L.P.
92.45 H.P.
93.49 L.P.
89.45 H.P.
91.16
H
.
P
.
9
6
.
5
0
L.P
.
94.2
5
H
.
P
.
9
4
.
9
3
L
.
P
.
9
5
.
0
0
L.P.93.38
%9.6
%8.5
%6.0
%5.0
%2.5
%3.1
%5.6
%4.4
%
7.
8
%
7.
1
%4.1
%
4.2
%
5.0
%5.0
%6.0
%6.3
%5.2
%4.7
%6.7
D
R
O
P
2
C
%3.3
%3.5
%
4.7
%
4.2
%3.4
%3.5
%5.2
%7.9
DR
O
P
2C
DR
O
P
2C
%
4.5
%
6.3
%
6.9
%
7.3
%
7
.
5
%
6
.
3
CL CL93.39
%5.6
%4.4
%4.5
%4.5
%
5.3
%
5.5
%5.6
%5.9
%4.6
%5.1
GF
=
9
9
4
.
0
98
6
.
5
FB
L
O
98
9
.
0
G
F
=
9
9
2
.
1
98
6
.
0
F
B
W
O
9
8
5
.
5
GF
=
9
9
5
.
0
98
7
.
5
FB
W
O
98
7
.
0
GF
=
9
9
4
.
5
98
7
.
0
FB
W
O
98
6
.
5
GF
=
9
9
4
.
5
98
7
.
0
FB
W
O
98
6
.
5
GF
=
9
9
5
.
0
98
7
.
5
FB
W
O
98
7
.
0
GF
=
9
9
6
.
0
98
8
.
5
FB
W
O
98
8
.
0
G
F
=
9
9
7
.
0
9
8
9
.
5
F
B
W
O
9
8
9
.
0
GF=9
9
3
.
5
986.0
FBW
O
985.5
G
F
=
9
9
7
.
5
9
9
0
.
0
F
B
W
O
8
9
8
.
5
G
F
=
9
9
7
.
5
9
9
0
.
0
F
B
W
O
9
8
9
.
5
GF=9
9
3
.
5
986.0
FBW
O
985.5
GF
=
9
9
3
.
5
986
.
0
FB
W
O
985
.
5
G
F
=
9
9
3
.
5
9
8
6
.
0
F
B
W
O
9
8
5
.
5
GF=994.0
986.5
FBWO
986.0
GF
=
9
9
5
.
5
98
8
.
0
FB
W
O
98
7
.
5
G
F
=
9
9
4
.
5
9
8
7
.
0
F
B
9
9
4
.
3
L.P.
92.29
%
5.
6
GF=993.5
986.0
FBWO
985.5
%4.9
%7.6
%6.8
GF
=
9
9
4
.
5
98
7
.
0
FB
W
O
98
6
.
5
G
F
=
9
9
7
.
0
9
8
9
.
5
F
B
W
O
9
8
9
.
0
G
F
=
9
9
7
.
5
9
9
0
.
0
F
B
W
O
9
8
9
.
5
EO
F
H.P.94.04
G
F
=
9
9
7
.
5
9
9
0
.
0
F
B
W
O
9
8
9
.
5
GF=9
9
4
.
5
987.0
FBW
O
986.5GF=994.5
987.0
FBWO
986.5
GF
=
9
9
6
.
0
98
8
.
5
FB
W
O
98
5
.
8
GF
=
9
9
5
.
5
98
8
.
0
FB
W
O
98
5
.
3
GF
=
9
9
6
.
0
988
.
5
FB
W
O
988
.
0
G
F
=
9
9
7
.
0
9
8
9
.
5
F
B
W
O
9
8
9
.
0
GF
=
9
9
2
.
6
98
6
.
5
FB
W
O
98
6
.
0
G
F
=
9
9
7
.
5
9
9
0
.
0
F
B
W
O
9
8
9
.
5
GF
=
9
9
6
.
0
98
8
.
5
FB
W
O
98
8
.
0
G
F
=
9
9
6
.
0
9
8
8
.
5
F
B
W
O
9
8
8
.
0
G
F
=
9
9
5
.
0
9
8
7
.
5
F
B
W
O
9
8
7
.
0
GF
=
9
9
4
.
5
98
7
.
0
FB
99
4
.
3
GF
=
9
9
5
.
5
98
8
.
0
FB
99
5
.
3
GF
=
9
9
5
.
0
98
7
.
5
FB
99
4
.
8
GF=994.5
987.0
FBWO
986.5
G
F
=
9
9
7
.
0
9
8
9
.
5
F
B
W
O
9
8
9
.
0
FBLO
989.0888.0
FBLO
990.5
GF=997.0
889.5
FBWO
989.0
GF=997.5
890.0
FBLO
992.5
GF=997.5
890.0
FBLO
992.5
GF=997.5
890.0
FBLO
992.5
993.0
88.62H.P.
996
992 990 990
990 988
984988
986
984
984
982
982982
986 988
9
9
0
982
984
986
9
9
2
9
9
4
9
9
6
9
9
8
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
984
990
994
998
986990 988988 990988
984
H.P
.
94.9
0
L.
P
.
85
.
5
E
O
F
980 982 984984
984984 982
988
988
986
984
982
986
988
988 986 988
992
992990
992 992990
990
986
985
986
986988
990
992
982
984984
988
990
988
982 984
988
988
986
984
990
992
9
8
4
9
9
0
99
4
99
0
9
8
6
9
8
2
994
99
4
996
9
9
6
9
5
4
9
5
8
9
6
2
9
6
6
9
7
0
9
7
4
9
7
8
9
9
6
990
994
986
994
992988984
994
996
994
99
8
99
6
99
4
99
2
99
4
994
994
99
6
99
4
99
6
99
4
9
9
6
9
9
0
986
992
992
99
2
99
0
984
987 987 986
990994
992
988
992 9
9
2
988
98
4
984988
99
0
98
6
98
6
98
0
97
0
96
0
9
8
8
9
8
6
9
8
6
9
8
4
9
8
6
984
986
9
8
2
9
8
6
970
980
984
986
9
8
8
986
982984 983
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
16+00
17+00
18+00 19+00
20+0
0
21+
0
0
22+
0
0
23+
0
0
24+00
25+00
25+78.46
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
3
4
1 2 3 4 5
6 7
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 20
21 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
6364
6566
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
9
42
0+00 1+00 2+00
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3+
0
0
4
+
0
0
5+00
6+00
7+00
8+00
9+
0
0
10
+
0
0
11+00
12+00
13
+
0
0
14+
0
0
15
+
0
0
1
6
+
0
0
1
7
+
0
0
18
+
0
0
19+
0
0
20
+
0
0
2
1
+
0
0
2
2
+
0
0
2
3
+
0
0
2
4
+
0
0
25+
0
0
26+0027+0028+00
29+00
30
+
0
0
31
+
0
0
31
+
7
4
.
9
9
77
OUTLOT C
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
2+
5
1
.
1
5
CHIPPEWA
ROAD
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
R
.
EO
F
985.0 +/-
EOF
{STORM POND
}HWL = 985 +/-
NWL = 983 +/-
HA
C
K
A
M
O
R
E
D
R
I
V
E
15
16
17
18
19
20
CABX
INV CMP 12
989.6
HH
INV CMP 15 TO STMH
988.6
FES 15 RCP
990.1
FES 15 RCP
990.8
INV CMP 24
984.3
CABXINV CMP 24
984.3
INV E RCP 15
988.2
INV CMP 15
988.2
CMP 12IN INV
987.8
CMP 12IN INV
988.1
991.0 991.7 989.9 987.9
984.4984.0
22" CONIFEROUS20" CONIFEROUS
38" DECIDUOUS
44" DECIDUOUS44" DECIDUOUS
987.9
987.6
987.3
987.5
14" CONIFEROUS18" CONIFEROUS
989.0
988.3 988.1 987.6 985.2
19" CONIFEROUS21" CONIFEROUS
988.2
987.7
987.1987.3
987.8
987.9
992.4W
986.6
987.3
FES 18IN RCP
984.2
FES 15IN RCP
990.1
UE
UE
UE
OE OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
MO
H
A
W
K
D
R
I
V
E
EX. MH 4A
RIM:982.74
INV:979.88(N)
INV:979.88(E)
INV:979.78(S)
28' L 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 0.4%
STUB 4C
INV:979.88
EX. MH 3
RIM:990.71
INV:979.25(N)
INV:979.25(W)
INV:979.25(E)
INV:979.15(S)
28' L 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 0.4%
STUB 4C
INV:979.36
EX. MH 2
RIM:987.30
INV:978.20(N)
INV:978.20(E)
INV:978.10(S)
EX. MH 1
RIM:986.42
INV:977.20(N)
INV:977.20(E)
INV:977.10(S)
EX. SAN.MH
RIM:990.82
INV:976.05
29' L 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 0.4%
STUB 4C
INV:977.32
29' L 8" PVC
SDR 26 @ 0.4%
STUB 4C
INV:978.31
WE
T
L
A
N
D
DNR WETLAND
OHW = 978.3
490
491492
493
494
495
A-37
496
A-87
497
A-59
498
499
500
1 2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10 11 1213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
222324
2526
27
28
2930
3132
33
343536
3738
39404142
43
4445464748
495051
52
53
5455
56
5758
59606162
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
7172
7374
7576
77
78
7980
8182
83
848586
87
88
8990
91 92
93
94
9596
9798
99
100
101
102
103104105106
107
108109 110111
112113114115116117118119
120121122
123124
125126127 128129
130
131132
133
134
135136
137 138
139
140 141
142
143144
145
146
147148149
150
151152153154155156157158159
160161162 163164165
166 167
168169
170171
172173174175176
177
178179
180181
182183184
185
186187188
189 190191192193194195 196197 198
199
200
201202
203
204
205
206207
208
209210211
212
213 214
215
216
217218219
220 221222223 224
225 226
227
228 229230 231232
233234235
236237238239240
241
242
243
244
245246247
248249
250251
252253254255256257258
259
260 261262
263
264
265
266267
268
269
270271
272
273274275
276
277
278279
280
281282283
284
285
286
287288
289
290
291
292
293
294295 296297 298
299
300
301302
303
304305
306
307308
309
310
311
312313
314
315
316317
318
319
320321322323
324325326
327328329330331332333
334335336
337338339340
341342
343
344345346347
348349350
351352353 354355356
357358
359 360361362
363364365
366367368369
370
371372373374
375
376377
378379
380381382383384
385
386
387388
389
390
N89°42'49"W 2676.18
N0
1
°
1
4
'
2
0
"
E
5
1
8
.
9
6
S2
2
°
0
9
'
3
9
"
W
8
6
.
3
2
L=173.73
R=870.89
Δ=11°25'46"
S1
0
°
4
3
'
5
3
"
W
5
3
4
.
3
4
S89°23'02"E 493.55
L=29.99
R=170.00
Δ=10°06'25"
30.02
S00°37'28"W
S0
0
°
2
0
'
4
4
"
E
2
6
4
0
.
4
8
1297.08
5
11.5
5
11
.
5
Nort
h
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
B
e
l
l
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
B
o
o
k
1
7
6
1
o
f
D
e
e
d
s
,
p
a
g
e
8
3
filed
a
s
D
o
c
.
N
o
.
2
4
2
8
2
4
9
a
n
d
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
D
o
c
.
N
o
.
5
3
7
3
0
6
2
CHIPPEWA ROAD
33 33
3333
3333
33
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
WE
T
L
A
N
D
9
8
0
.
6
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 3
660
>>
WETLAND DELINEATED BY
KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL
AND FIELD LOCATED
CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY
RCH
RCH
RCH
MARK SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110
TEL (612)490-0558
COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH
EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH
UTILITY PLAN NORTH
UTILITY PLAN SOUTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH
25 AUG 2019
18 SEPT 2019
30 SEPT 2019
C-1.0
C-2.0
C-2.1
C-3.0
C-3.1
C-4.0
C-4.1
C-5.0
C-5.1
/SHEET NO.
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
BY DATE
DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW
LA
N
D
F
O
R
M
c
CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
TITLESHEET
PROJECT
SHEET INDEX
ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY
PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW
CERTIFICATION
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
Web: landform.net
Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
DEVELOPER
MUNICIPALITY
WESTON WOODS
OF MEDINA
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
RH 09.18.2019
CONCEPT PLAN - PUD
09.30.2019
MEH17003
9
20
X
X
{\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.}
NORTH
0 100 200
C5MEH003 - Pre Grading.dwg
PRELIMINARY GRADING
PUDC-5.0
8
Contact utility service providers for field location of services 72 hours prior to beginning grading.
Refer to the Geotechnical Report prepared by XX, Dated XX/XX/XX, For additional information on backfill material and groundwater
conditions.
Remove topsoil from grading areas and stockpile sufficient quantity for reuse. Materials may be mined from landscape areas for use
on site and replaced with excess organic material with prior Owner approval.
Remove surface and ground water from excavations. Provide initial lifts of stable foundation material if exposed soils are wet and
unstable.
Rough grade Building Pad to 12 Inches below Finished Floor Elevation (FFE).
Refer to Structural Specifications for Earthwork requirements for Building Pads.
An Independent Testing Firm shall verify the removal of organic and unsuitable soils, soil correction, and compaction and provide
periodic reports to the Owner.
Place and compact fill using lift thicknesses matched to soil type and compaction equipment to obtain specified compaction
throughout the lift.
Compact cohesive soils in paved areas to 95% of maximum dry density, Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) except the top 3 feet which
shall be compacted to 100%. Compact to 98% density where fill depth exceeds 10 feet. The soils shall be within 3% of optimum
moisture content. In granular soils all portions of the embankment shall be compacted to not less than 95% of Modified Proctor
Density (ASTM D1557).
Coordinate with Architectural for building stoop locations. Slopes shown on adjacent walks and pavements should continue over
stoops.
Avoid soil compaction of infiltration practices. Any equipment used in Infiltration Areas should be small scaled and tracked. Install
protective fencing as shown <before work begins/after basin is constructed/other timing?>.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Install perimeter sediment controls prior to beginning work and maintain for duration of construction. Remove controls after areas
contributing runoff are permanently stabilized and dispose of off site.
Limit soil disturbance to the grading limits shown. Schedule operations to minimize length of exposure of disturbed areas.
Management practices shown are the minimum requirement. Install and maintain additional controls as work proceeds to prevent
erosion and control sediment carried by wind or water.
Refer to SWPPP Notes on Sheet C3.X for additional requirements.
Excavate ponds early in the construction sequence. Remove sediment from ponds periodically and after areas contributing runoff
are permanently stabilized.
Contractor shall prevent sediment laden water from entering the infiltration system until the site is completely stabilized.
All exposed soil areas must be stabilized within 72 hours of completion of work in each area. (If within 1 mile of Impaired Water use
the following note instead) all exposed soils areas shall be stabilized immediately to limit soil erosion in that portion of the site where
construction has temporarily or permanently ceased.
Seed, Sod, Mulch and Fertilizer shall meet the following Specifications, as modified.
Item Specification Number Estimated Quantities
Sod MNDOT 3878 X S.F.
Seed MNDOT 3876
MN TYPE 22-111 @ 30.5 LB/AC - Temporary Erosion Control X LBS.
MN TYPE 25-151 @ 120 LB/AC - Permanent Turf X LBS.
NDDOT CLASS IV @ 130 LB/AC - Temporary Erosion Control
Mulch MNDOT 3882 Disc Anchored) X TON
Fertilizer MNDOT 3881
General placement MNDOT 2575
See Landscape Sheets for permanent turf and landscape establishment.
Scrape adjacent streets clean daily and sweep clean weekly.
12.
1.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
GRADING NOTES
GENERAL NOTES EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES
For construction staking and surveying services contact Landform at 612.252.9070.1.
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00
13+00
23+
0
0
24+00
25+00
25+78.46
0+00
1+00
2+00
3+00
4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00
10+00
11+00
12+00
13+
0
0
14
+
0
0
14
+
7
9
.
3
8
0+00
1+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
5+00
6+0
0
7+0
0
8+0
0
9+
0
0
10
+
0
0
11
+
0
0
12
+
0
0
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
1
2
3
4
10
9
8
7
6 5 4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
2
3
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
OUTLOT C
0+
0
0
CHIPPEWA
POLARIS ROAD
CO
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
R
.
SH
O
R
T
W
A
Y
R
D
.
0+
0
0
1+
0
0
2+
0
0
3
+
0
0
4+
0
0
5+00
6+
0
0
7+
0
0
8
+
0
0
9
+
0
0
9
+
4
3
.
6
6
8
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14151617
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
13
4
PID: 0211823320012
4250 ARROWHEAD DRIVE
MEDINA, MN 55340
PID: 0211823320008
4200 ARROWHEAD DRIVE
MEDINA, MN 55340
991.4
992.3992.4
992.7992.8
991.3
INV E RCP 15
988.2
INV CMP 15
988.2
HH
CABX
CABX
CABX
988.5
CA
B
X
CAB
X
HH
CMP INV 36
981.5
CMP TOP
984.6
CMP TOP
984.7
CMP INV 36
981.9
CMP 12IN INV
987.8
CMP 12IN INV
988.1
991.0 991.7 989.9 987.9
44" DECIDUOUS44" DECIDUOUS
1006.3
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OE
OUTLOT B
DNR WETLAND
OHW = 980.6
OUTLOT A
OUTLOT B
490
491492
7 8 9 10 11 1213 7576
77
212
213 214
S89°23'02"E 493.55
S2
6
°
3
3
'
2
1
"
W
1
4
6
8
.
0
9
N88°39'29"W 332.51
S39
°
2
9
'
2
2
"
W
4
8
1
.
8
7
N69°
5
8
'
2
0
"
W
4
8
3
.
4
8
L=29.99
R=170.00
Δ=10°06'25"
30.02
S00°37'28"W
N0
0
°
2
0
'
4
4
"
W
1
5
4
.
8
2
33.01
N88°39'29"W
S0
0
°
2
0
'
4
4
"
E
2
6
4
0
.
4
8
1297.08
CHIPPEWA ROAD
AR
R
O
W
H
E
A
D
D
R
I
V
E
CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK33
33
33
33 33
33
WE
T
L
A
N
D
EX. SAN.MH
RIM:995.01
INL: 982.81 (W)
INV: 974.76 (N)(S)
INV:976.05
9
8
0
.
6
660
80 LF.
6" PVC
EX. SAN.MH
RIM:984.50
INV:973.28
EX. 6" DIP
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
2
"
D
I
P
EX
.
1
0
"
P
V
C
EX
.
1
0
"
P
V
C
EX
.
1
0
"
P
V
C
EX
.
1
0
"
P
V
C
WETLAND DELINEATED BY
KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL
AND FIELD LOCATED
%
5
.
0
L.P.
92.45 H.P.
93.49 L.P.
89.45 H.P.
91.16
CL CL93.39
92.29
G
F
=
9
9
5
.
0
98
7
.
5FB
W
O
98
7
.
0
GF=
9
9
5
.
0
987.5
FBW
O
987.0
%
9.0
GF=
9
9
5
.
5
988
.
0
FBW
O
987
.
5
GF
=
9
9
4
.
0
98
6
.
5
FB
L
O
98
9
.
0
%8.7
%
4.7
GF=996.0
988.5
FBWO
988.0
G
F
=
9
9
6
.
0
98
8
.
5
F
B
W
O
98
8
.
0
GF
=
9
9
6
.
5
98
9
.
0
FB
W
O
98
8
.
5
GF=
9
9
6
.
5
989
.
0
FBW
O
988
.
5
GF=999
.
5
992.0FBWO991.5
GF=993.0
885.5
FB
992.8
G
F
=
9
9
6
.
0
98
8
.
5
F
B
W
O
9
8
8
.
0
GF
=
9
9
5
.
5
98
8
.
0
FB
W
O
98
7
.
5
%0
GF
=
9
9
4
.
5
98
7
.
0
FB
W
O
98
6
.
5
%
7.
4
GF=994.0
886.5
FBLO
989.0
%
6.
2
GF=995.5
888.0
FBLO
990.5
%
5.
6
%
5.
5
GF
=
9
9
7
.
0
88
9
.
5
FB
L
O
99
2
.
0
%
6.
8
%
4.
7
%
8.
0
GF=997.0
889.5
FBWO
989.0
%6.3
GF
=
9
9
5
.
5
98
8
.
0
FB
W
O
98
7
.
5
%8
%
7.
6
%7.4
GF
=
9
9
6
.
0
88
8
.
5
FB
W
O
98
8
.
0
%6.1
GF
=
9
9
6
.
0
98
8
.
5
FB
W
O
98
8
.
0
GF
=
9
9
6
.
0
88
8
.
5
FB
W
O
98
8
.
0
%7.2
GF=997.5
890.0
FBLO
992.5
GF=997.5
890.0
FBLO
992.5
GF=997.5
890.0
FBLO
992.5
GF=999.0
991.5
FBWO
991.0
%
4
.
7
GF=998.0
990.5
FBWO
990.0
%
7.
7
GF=99
9
.
5
992.0
FBWO
991.5
%
4
.
7
GF=10
0
0
.
5
993.0
FBWO
992.5
%
5
.
5
GF=100
0
.
5
993.0
FBWO
992.5
%
4
.
0
GF=995.0
987.5
FBLO
990.0
%
4.
0
H.P.
98.70
L.P.
92.29
H.P.
95.71
L.P.
90.07
EO
F
%
7.
3
GF=995.0
987.5
FBLO
990.0
L.P
.
90.
0
6
L.P.
88.97
H.P
.
93.6
9
%
5.
5
GF=998.0
990.5
FBLO
993.0
GF=1000
.
5
993.0FBWO992.5
%
6
.
3
%
5
.
0
GF=1
0
0
0
.
5
993.0FBWO992.5
EO
F
88.62H.P.
GF
=
9
9
6
.
0
98
8
.
5
FB
W
O
98
8
.
0
%5.0
GF=
9
9
6
.
0
988
.
5
FBW
O
988
.
0
%
6.7
%
7.6
GF=
9
9
6
.
0
988
.
5
FBW
O
988
.
0
EOF
G
F
=
9
9
6
.
0
8
8
8
.
5
F
B
W
O
9
8
8
.
0
GF
=
9
9
6
.
0
88
8
.
5
FB
W
O
98
8
.
0
G
F
=
9
9
6
.
0
9
8
8
.
5
F
B
W
O
9
8
8
.
0
GF=996.0
888.5FBWO988.0
H.P.
91.22
H.P.92.44
L.P.90.32
H.
P
.
91.
0
7
L.P.
90.17
G
F
=
9
9
3
.
2
G
F
=
9
9
3
.
2
GF
=
9
9
4
.
2
GF = 992.3
G
F
=
9
9
1
.
7
GF
=
9
9
1
.
7
GF
=
9
9
1
.
7
GF
=
9
9
2
.
0
89.30
EO
F
989.6
990.3
990.9
990.8
989.6
989.6
989.6
989.6
990.6
%
2.
0
%
2.
0
%
2.
0
%
2.
0
%2.0
%2.0
992
992 990 990
990 988
984988
986
9
9
4
9
9
6
9
9
8
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
990
994
998
986990 988988 990988
984
986
988
988 986 988
992
992990
992 992990
990
L.
P
.
89
.
5
990
988
986
990
990
990
990
990
990
99
2
990
994
9
8
6
9
8
8
98
6
984
986
994996
1004
100
2
1006
100
4
10
0
0
99
8
990
986
98
8
984985986
9
9
4
9
9
0
988
992 984
988
990
986
984
982984
992988984982978
990
992
988
9
8
6
986
985
986
990
986988
9
9
2
9
9
4
98
4 98
6
984 986986
982
9
9
2
990992994
990
992
992
978
982
985
988
988
986
98
6
98
6
98
2
97
8
990
990
984 9
8
6
986 985
990
984
986 986
984
986
984
986
9
8
6
98
6
9
8
8
990
986
98
4
98
4
98
2
98
0
994
998
98
8
98
8
98
6
9
9
2
998
99
2
98
8
998
1000
988992994
996
994
996
984982978
990
9
9
0
990
992
990
990
983
980 982 983
990
984
990990
99
2
CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTAL
REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
REVISED HD AREA TO MED. DENSITY
RCH
RCH
RCH
MARK SMITH
2120 OTTER LAKE DRIVE
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55110
TEL (612)490-0558
COVER SHEET - AREA PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH
EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH
PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH
UTILITY PLAN NORTH
UTILITY PLAN SOUTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING NORTH
PRELIMINARY GRADING SOUTH
25 AUG 2019
18 SEPT 2019
30 SEPT 2019
C-1.0
C-2.0
C-2.1
C-3.0
C-3.1
C-4.0
C-4.1
C-5.0
C-5.1
/SHEET NO.
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
BY DATE
DATE ISSUE / REVISION REVIEW
LA
N
D
F
O
R
M
c
CONTACT ENGINEER FOR ANY PRIOR HISTORY
IF THE SIGNATURE, SEAL OR FOUR LINES DIRECTLY ABOVE ARE NOT
VISIBLE, THIS SHEET HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BEYOND INTENDED
READABILITY AND IS NO LONGER A VALID DOCUMENT. PLEASE CONTACT
THE ENGINEER TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.
TITLESHEET
PROJECT
SHEET INDEX
ISSUE / REVISION HISTORY
PROJECT MANAGER REVIEW
CERTIFICATION
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
Web: landform.net
Landform ®and Site to Finish ®are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
DEVELOPER
MUNICIPALITY
WESTON WOODS
OF MEDINA
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
RH 09.18.2019
CONCEPT PLAN - PUD
09.30.2019
MEH17003
9
20
X
X
{\Favg-b|c0;\W0.9;Know what's \H1.5x;Below\H0.6667x;.}
NORTH
0 100 200
C5MEH003 - Pre Grading.dwg
PRELIMINARY GRADING
PUDC-5.1
9
Contact utility service providers for field location of services 72 hours prior to beginning grading.
Refer to the Geotechnical Report prepared by XX, Dated XX/XX/XX, For additional information on backfill material and groundwater
conditions.
Remove topsoil from grading areas and stockpile sufficient quantity for reuse. Materials may be mined from landscape areas for use
on site and replaced with excess organic material with prior Owner approval.
Remove surface and ground water from excavations. Provide initial lifts of stable foundation material if exposed soils are wet and
unstable.
Rough grade Building Pad to 12 Inches below Finished Floor Elevation (FFE).
Refer to Structural Specifications for Earthwork requirements for Building Pads.
An Independent Testing Firm shall verify the removal of organic and unsuitable soils, soil correction, and compaction and provide
periodic reports to the Owner.
Place and compact fill using lift thicknesses matched to soil type and compaction equipment to obtain specified compaction
throughout the lift.
Compact cohesive soils in paved areas to 95% of maximum dry density, Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) except the top 3 feet which
shall be compacted to 100%. Compact to 98% density where fill depth exceeds 10 feet. The soils shall be within 3% of optimum
moisture content. In granular soils all portions of the embankment shall be compacted to not less than 95% of Modified Proctor
Density (ASTM D1557).
Coordinate with Architectural for building stoop locations. Slopes shown on adjacent walks and pavements should continue over
stoops.
Avoid soil compaction of infiltration practices. Any equipment used in Infiltration Areas should be small scaled and tracked. Install
protective fencing as shown <before work begins/after basin is constructed/other timing?>.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Install perimeter sediment controls prior to beginning work and maintain for duration of construction. Remove controls after areas
contributing runoff are permanently stabilized and dispose of off site.
Limit soil disturbance to the grading limits shown. Schedule operations to minimize length of exposure of disturbed areas.
Management practices shown are the minimum requirement. Install and maintain additional controls as work proceeds to prevent
erosion and control sediment carried by wind or water.
Refer to SWPPP Notes on Sheet C3.X for additional requirements.
Excavate ponds early in the construction sequence. Remove sediment from ponds periodically and after areas contributing runoff
are permanently stabilized.
Contractor shall prevent sediment laden water from entering the infiltration system until the site is completely stabilized.
All exposed soil areas must be stabilized within 72 hours of completion of work in each area. (If within 1 mile of Impaired Water use
the following note instead) all exposed soils areas shall be stabilized immediately to limit soil erosion in that portion of the site where
construction has temporarily or permanently ceased.
Seed, Sod, Mulch and Fertilizer shall meet the following Specifications, as modified.
Item Specification Number Estimated Quantities
Sod MNDOT 3878 X S.F.
Seed MNDOT 3876
MN TYPE 22-111 @ 30.5 LB/AC - Temporary Erosion Control X LBS.
MN TYPE 25-151 @ 120 LB/AC - Permanent Turf X LBS.
NDDOT CLASS IV @ 130 LB/AC - Temporary Erosion Control
Mulch MNDOT 3882 Disc Anchored) X TON
Fertilizer MNDOT 3881
General placement MNDOT 2575
See Landscape Sheets for permanent turf and landscape establishment.
Scrape adjacent streets clean daily and sweep clean weekly.
12.
1.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
GRADING NOTES
GENERAL NOTES EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES
For construction staking and surveying services contact Landform at 612.252.9070.1.
0+0
0
1+0
0
0+001+002+002+51.15
CH
I
P
P
E
W
A
R
O
A
D
PO
L
A
R
I
S
RO
A
D
CONNECTION DR.
S
H
O
R
T
W
A
Y
R
D
.
MOHAWK ROADMOHAWK ROAD
SITE DATA
SITE DATA - ROY PARCEL 80.09 Ac.
Site Area:75.42 Ac.
( Less Chippewa, Mohawk, Hackamore R/W )
Existing Wetland & Buffer Area:47.33 Ac.
Net Developable Area:28.09 Ac.
( 75.42 - 47.33 )
Twin Home Residential:76 Units
( Lots and Local Roads, Private Roads @ 29' B-B )
Setbacks:
25' front from curb
30' from county road
30' min. between building
15' structure setback from wetland buffer
Overall Net Density: 2.7 u/a
( 76 units / 28.09 ac.)
SITE DATA - CAVANAUGH PARCEL 54.91 Ac.
Gross Site Area:52.99 Ac.
(Less Chippewa, Mohawk R/W )
Existing Wetland & Buffer Area:26.42 Ac.
Park / Openspace: 5.47 Ac.
(10% Required Park Dedication = 5.47 ac.(28.09 + [52.99 - 26.42] = 54.66 x 0.10 )
Net Residential Developable Area:21.10 Ac.
(Lots and Local Roads, Private Roads @ 29' B-B )
Overall Residential Units:74 Units
Single Family Lots 70' x 130' +/-41 lots
Row Townhome Units 33 lots
Setbacks:
30' front / rear
35' from county road
10' side
15' structure setback from wetland buffer
Single Family Density: 2.5 u/a
(41 units / 16.39 ac.)
Row Townhome Density: 7.0 u/a
(33 units / 4.71 ac.)
Overall Net Density: 3.5 u/a
(74 units / 21.10 ac.)
SITE DATA - BOTH PARCELS
Net Residential developable Area:49.19 Ac.
(Less Chippewa,Monarch,Hackamore R/W )
Overall Net Residential Density: 3.0 u/a
(150 units / 49.19 ac.)
* All areas are approximate. Developable area estimated from County GIS Data as
measured from local codes.
Wetlands were delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental and field located by Landform Professional Services.
Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.R R
in collaboration with:
MARK SMITH ROY & CAVANAUGH SITES ∂ Medina, MN
Concept Planning∂ 09.30.2019
CONCEPT PLAN G
NORTH
0 150 300
Concept G combined sites.dwg
Arrowhead Holdings, LLC (OSI) Page 1 of 2 March 17, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP, Vacation City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: March 12, 2020
MEETING: March 12, 2020 City Council
SUBJ: Arrowhead Holdings, LLC (OSI) - 4101 Arrowhead Drive
Rezoning, Prelim Plat, Site Plan Review, Amended Conditional Use Permit,
Easement Vacation
Background
At the January 7, 2020 meeting, the City Council reviewed a request from Arrowhead Holdings,
LLC (OSI) of various land use applications to allow for a 75,000 square foot expansion of their
existing building at 4101 Arrowhead Drive and construction of additional parking.
The request includes the following land use applications:
1) Rezoning of the Outlot – The outlot is zoned Business (B) and Business Park (BP) based on a
previous preliminary approval for development of a portion of the site. The proposed
rezoning would update the zoning based upon the location of the new property line.
2) Preliminary Plat to re-plat property - The applicant proposes to re-plat the property to shift
approximately 12 acres from the Outlot to the OSI site. No improvements are proposed on
the northern outlot at this time.
3) Site Plan review for construction of expansion and new parking.
4) Amended Conditional Use Permit for structure over 50,000 square feet.
5) Easement Vacation – the applicant requests the vacation of all easements on the existing
platted lots, proposes to replace them with new easements on the new plat.
Following review, the Council directed staff to prepare documents approving the requests.
Subsequently, representatives from OSI contacted staff and indicated that their surveyor had
included right-of-way on the proposed preliminary plat for the future realignment of Arrowhead
Drive and construction of future Chippewa Road. OSI did not desire to dedicate this right-of-
way and was unaware that their surveyor had included it.
OSI had also inquired about a number of the other conditions on which the Council had directed
approval.
Staff and Mayor Martin met with OSI since that time to work through OSI’s comments. An
alternative was identified by which the OSI would grant the right-of-way through an Easement
Agreement rather than upon the plat. This Easement Agreement would be recorded with the
plat, and would preserve the area of right-of-way if a street is constructed within the next 20
years. The Easement Agreement allows use of the land for parking prior to construction of the
roadway, but OSI would agree to remove any parking within the right-of-way and back 10 feet
when a road is constructed.
Agenda Item # 8B
Arrowhead Holdings, LLC (OSI) Page 2 of 2 March 17, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP, Vacation City Council Meeting
Staff believes this arrangement can accommodate OSI while still preserving the City’s right-of-
way use if the roadway is constructed in the next 20 years.
OSI requested that City staff prepare the development agreement which is required as a condition
of approval. Generally, this is not completed until Final Plat approval, but based upon the
discussions which have occurred over the past few months, staff believed it was appropriate to
draft the document. The development agreement is attached for approval, but there may need to
be changes made upon Final Plat application.
Potential Action
Staff recommends the following actions:
1. Move to adopt the ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone Lot 1, Block 1
and Outlot A Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition
2. Move to adopt the resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance by title and
summary
3. Move to adopt the resolution granting preliminary approval of the Cavanaugh
Meadowwoods Park Third Addition plat
4. Move to adopt the resolution granting approval of a site plan review and amended
conditional use permit to Open Systems International, Inc. (OSI)
5. Move to adopt the resolution vacating drainage and utility easements within Lot 1, Block
1 and Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park and Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs
Meadowwoods Park 2nd Addition
6. Move to approve the development agreement by and between the City of Medina and
Arrowhead Holdings, LLC for Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, subject
to changes determined appropriate by the City Attorney at the time of Final Plat review.
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE
LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT A CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK
THIRD ADDITION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Arrowhead Holdings, LLC and the City of Minneapolis own and have
requested to plat PIDs 03-118-23-44-0008 and 03-118-23-41-0005 and have requested that the
City amend its zoning map such that the resultant Lot 1 is zoned Commercial-Highway (CH) and
resultant Outlot is zoned Business Park (BP).
Section 2. The property to be rezoned to CH is legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (“Lot 1”).
Section 3. The property to be rezoned to BP is legally described as:
Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (“Outlot A”).
Section 4. The official zoning map of the City of Medina is hereby amended to change
the zoning classification of all of Lot 1 to Commercial-Highway (CH).
Section 5. The official zoning map of the City of Medina is hereby amended to change
the zoning classification of all of Outlot A to Business Park (BP).
Section 6. The amendment to the zoning map is displayed on the map attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
Section 7. A copy of this Ordinance and the updated map shall be kept on file at the
Medina City Hall.
Section 8. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication and the
recording of the Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition plat.
Section 9. The City of Medina Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to make the
appropriate changes to the official zoning map of the City of Medina to reflect the change in
zoning classifications as set forth above upon recording of the Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park
Third Addition plat.
Agenda Item # 8B1
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
Adopted by the Medina City Council this _____ day of __________, 2020.
CITY OF MEDINA
By:
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
By:
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on this _______ day of _________________, 2020.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
EXHIBIT A
Map Displaying Rezoning
Location of the Outlot to be zoned to Business Park (BP)
Location of Lot 1, Block 1, to be zoned to Commercial-Highway (CH)
Resolution No. 2020-##
DATE
Member ________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-##
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. ### BY TITLE AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an
ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezoning Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A, Cavanaughs
Meadowwoods Park Third Addition; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues § 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publications by title and
summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance is three pages in length and contains a map; and
WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform
the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina
that the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ### to be published in the
official newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety:
Public Notice
The city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ##, an ordinance amending the
official zoning map to rezoning Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park
Third Addition. The rezoning applies to approximately 50 acres north of Highway 55 and west of
Arrowhead Drive which is being replatted. The ordinance rezones property to align with the new
property lines such that all of Lot 1, Block 1 (4101 Arrowhead Drive) is zoned Commercial-
Highway (CH) and all of Outlot A is zoned Business Park (BP).
The full text of the ordinance is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular
business hours.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city
clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post
a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city.
Agenda Item # 8B2
Resolution No. 2020-## 2
DATE
Dated: .
______________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ________
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2020-##
DATE
Member __________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-##
RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE
CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK THIRD ADDITION PLAT
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Arrowhead Holdings, LLC (the “Applicant”) and the City of Minneapolis
(“Minneapolis”) own property located west of Arrowhead Drive and north of State Highway 55
(the “Property”), which is legally described as:
Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and
Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Second Addition, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, with the consent of Minneapolis has made an application for
preliminary approval to plat the Property into one lot and one outlot as Cavanaughs Meadowwoods
Park Third Addition; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 2018-75, which
granted preliminary approval of a previous version of the Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third
Addition plat. Such preliminary approval has subsequently expired and is null and void; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December
10, 2019, reviewed the information provided by the Applicant and City staff, heard testimony from
interested parties, and recommended approval of the preliminary plat; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the proposed preliminary plat and the Planning
Commission recommendation and heard additional testimony on January 7, 2020; and
WHEREAS, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions noted below, the City Council
makes the following findings of fact in regard to the preliminary plat based on the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance:
a. The proposed preliminary plat is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and is not
premature for consideration.
b. The subdivision is appropriate for the physical conditions on the site including the
topography, storm water, natural resources, and soils.
c. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development and meets
minimum lot size standards.
d. The proposed subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage.
Agenda Item # 8B3
Resolution No. 2020-## 2
DATE
e. The proposed subdivision is not likely to be injurious to public health.
f. The proposed subdivision and its improvements will not conflict with public or private
streets, easements, or right-of-ways.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota
hereby grants preliminary plat approval for Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, as
depicted on the preliminary plat bearing revision date of December 17, 2019 subject to the
following terms and conditions:
1. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include
the conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy.
2. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated December 18, 2019
except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
3. The Applicant shall enter into a petition and waiver agreement with the City to contribute
towards improvements to Arrowhead Drive in the vicinity of the Property in lieu of
constructing such improvements.
4. The Applicant shall update plans to relocate the driveway to intersect at Meander Road and
execute an easement and maintenance agreement acceptable to the City Attorney to provide
for shared access for Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition and
Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Second Addition.
5. The Applicant shall pay $62,471 park dedication fee. Park dedication for Outlot A shall be
deferred until such time as Outlot A is platted and developed, when the fee shall be
calculated based upon then-current land values.
6. The plat shall dedicate additional right-of-way as recommended by the City Engineer. The
Applicant may grant the right-of-way for the future realignment of Arrowhead Drive at
future Chippewa Road in the northeast portion of the Property through a separate easement
agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the City Attorney rather than the
dedication as shown on the preliminary plat.
7. The Applicant shall provide right-of-way necessary for construction of the left turn lanes at
the location of the driveway and Meander Road.
8. The plat shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement for construction of stormwater
improvements for the additional turn-lanes to be constructed on Arrowhead Drive.
9. Any agreement related to this approval shall require the consent of Minneapolis, as the
owner of Property.
10. The plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easement over the public portion of the
watermain, stormwater improvements, wetlands and 10 feet wide along the perimeter of the
lot and outlot.
11. The dead-end watermains and hydrants located on these dead-end watermains shall be
privately maintained.
Resolution No. 2020-## 3
DATE
12. The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site
improvements in order to ensure completion.
13. The final plat applicant shall be filed within 180 days of the date of the resolution granting
preliminary approval or the approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for
time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council.
14. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents.
Dated:
By: ______________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
By: ___________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
__________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2020-##
DATE
Member __________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-##
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND AMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPEN SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. (OSI)
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City of Minneapolis (“Minneapolis”) owns and Arrowhead Holdings,
LLC (the “Applicant”) is the ground lessee of property at 4101 Arrowhead Drive (the
“Property”), which is proposed to be platted and legally described as:
Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant intends to expand the existing building by approximately
75,000 square feet and construct additional parking and other ancillary improvements upon the
Property; and
WHEREAS, City regulations require approval of a Site Plan Review for such expansion
and require a conditional use permit for construction of structures in excess of 50,000 square feet;
and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2010 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-21 and on
May 4, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution 2010-28 granting site plan and conditional use
permit approval for construction of the existing improvements upon the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of a Site Plan Review and Conditional
Use Permit pursuant to City regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December
10, 2019, reviewed the information provided by the Applicant and City staff, heard testimony from
interested parties, and recommended approval of the site plan review and conditional use permit;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the proposed site plan and conditional use permit,
considered the Planning Commission recommendation, and heard additional testimony on January
7, 2020; and
WHEREAS, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions noted below, the City Council has
determined that the proposed construction is consistent with relevant City requirements and finds
that the use meets the requirements for conditional use permits as described in Sections 825.39
and 838.5.08 of the City Code.
Agenda Item # 8B4
Resolution No. 2020-## 2
DATE
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota
hereby grants approval of the proposed Site Plan Review and amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. Approval of this Site Plan Review shall be contingent upon final plat approval and
approval of a rezoning of the subject property to the Commercial-Highway zoning
district.
2. Approval of this Site Plan Review shall be contingent upon the vacation of easements in
the location of the building addition.
3. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall
include the conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance
or policy.
4. The Applicant shall enter into a petition and waiver agreement with the City to contribute
toward improvements to Arrowhead Drive in the vicinity of the Property in lieu of
constructing such improvements.
5. Any agreement related to this approval shall require the consent of Minneapolis, as the
owner of Property.
6. The Applicant shall install construct new improvements as shown on the plans dated
December 18, 2019, except as may be modified herein and existing improvements which
are not proposed to be modified shall remain as previously approved. The design of all
improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing
construction.
7. The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including installation of vegetative buffers, recordation of easements, and installation of
signage. Plans shall be updated to meet minimum buffer width requirements.
8. The Applicant shall update plans to relocate the driveway to intersect at Meander Road.
9. The Applicant shall submit specifications confirming that proposed concrete panels are
color impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a
high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
10. The Applicant shall update lighting plans to comply with the City’s lighting ordinance,
limiting light trespass to 0.5 FC at the north and south property line and 0.0 FC at the east
property line.
11. Plans shall be updated to improve pedestrian connections within the site and to
Arrowhead Drive.
12. The Applicant shall identify transformer, generator, HVAC, and trash/recycling storage
locations and provide screening measures for review and approval.
13. Outdoor storage shall be limited to seventeen service vehicles which shall be no more
than either 24 feet in length or 12,000 lbs. of gross vehicle weight. Additional vehicles
and larger vehicles may be stored in the loading dock area. No other outdoor storage
shall be permitted.
14. All comments from the Elm Creek Watershed District shall be addressed.
15. All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed.
16. All comments from the Fire Chief shall be addressed.
Resolution No. 2020-## 3
DATE
17. The Applicant shall obtain necessary permits from the City, Elm Creek Watershed,
Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and any other
relevant agency prior to commencing construction activity on the Property.
18. The site plan review approval shall be effective for one year and thereafter shall be
considered null and void.
19. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the conditional use permit, site plan review, and related documents.
BE IT HEREBY FURTHER RESOLVED, that the amended conditional use permit
granted herein shall supersede that grated in Resolution Nos. 2010-21 and 2010-28, the relevant
terms and conditions having been incorporated.
Dated:
By: ______________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
By: ___________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
__________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2020-##
DATE
Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-##
RESOLUTION VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
WITHIN LOT 1, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT A, CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK
AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the city of Minneapolis and Arrowhead Holdings, LLC (collectively the
“Owners”) own property at 4101 Arrowhead Drive and immediately to the north which is legally
described as:
Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
(collectively the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, drainage and utility easements were dedicated to the public within certain
portions of the Property on the plats of Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park and Cavanaughs
Meadowwoods Park 2nd Addition; and
WHEREAS, the Owners have requested approval to replat the Property as Cavanaughs
Meadowwoods Park 3rd Addition; and
WHEREAS, Arrowhead Holdings, LLC proposes to relocate certain utilities which are
currently located within the Property’s existing drainage and utility easements; and
WHEREAS the Owners have petitioned the City to vacate those platted drainage and utility
easements within the Property and have proposed to dedicate new easements within the
Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 3rd Addition plat; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.851, the City scheduled a public hearing to
consider the proposed vacation; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was posted, published in the official newspaper
and mailed to the owners of affected properties, all in accordance with law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed vacation on January 7,
2020, at which hearing all interested parties were heard; and
Agenda Item # 8B5
Resolution No. 2020-## 2
DATE
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council determined that the drainage
and utility easements proposed within the Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 3rd Addition plat would
better serve the public interest than those originally dedicated; and
WHEREAS, upon such finding, the City Council determined that the vacation of the
previously dedicated drainage and utility easements is in the public interest, subject to required
easements being dedicated to the public within the Cavanauaghs Meadowwoods Park 3rd Addition
plat.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina,
Minnesota as follows:
1. Subject to the Owners dedicating all easements required by the city within the
Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 3rd Addition plat, the drainage and utility
easements described in Exhibit A are vacated.
2. The city administrator or his designee is authorized and directed to prepare and
present to the Hennepin County Auditor a notice that the City has completed these
vacation proceedings and record with the Hennepin County Recorder the vacation of
the easements described in Exhibit A only in coordination with and immediately
prior to the recording of the Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 3rd Addition plat.
Dated:
______________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ____ upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2020-## 3
DATE
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Vacated Drainage and Utility Easements
All drainage and utility easements dedicated to the public on the plats of Cavanaughs
Meadowwoods Park and Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 2nd Addition that are within the
following described property:
Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota;
Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
DRAFT 3/10/2020
631462v6ME230-713
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MEDINA
AND
ARROWHEAD HOLDINGS, LLC
FOR
CAVANAUGHS MEADOWWOODS PARK THIRD ADDITION
This document drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
Agenda Item # 8B6
DRAFT 3/10/2020
1
631462v6ME230-713
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. Right to Proceed ................................................................................................................2
2. Plans; Improvements .............................................................................................................. 3
3. Erosion Control ...................................................................................................................... 4
4. Site Grading; Haul Routes ..................................................................................................... 4
5. Construction of On-Site Improvements ................................................................................. 5
6. Arrowhead Drive Improvements ........................................................................................... 6
7. Right-of-Way for Chippewa Road Extension ....................................................................... 6
8. Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements ............................................................................. 6
9. Private Stormwater Improvements ........................................................................................ 7
10. Landscaping Plan; Tree Preservation .................................................................................... 7
11. Driveway; Easement .............................................................................................................. 7
12. Wetlands; Upland Buffer Easement ...................................................................................... 8
13. Letter of Credit ....................................................................................................................... 8
14. Developer’s Default ............................................................................................................... 9
15. Insurance ................................................................................................................................ 9
16. City Utility Connection Fees; Metropolitan Council SAC Fee ............................................. 9
17. Responsibility for Costs; Escrow for Construction Inspection ........................................... 10
18. Park Dedication .................................................................................................................... 10
19. No Building Permits Approved ........................................................................................... 10
20. Clean up and Dust Control ................................................................................................... 10
21. Compliance with Laws ........................................................................................................ 10
22. Agreement Runs with the Land ........................................................................................... 11
23. Indemnification .................................................................................................................... 11
24. Assignment ........................................................................................................................... 11
25. Notices .................................................................................................................................. 11
26. Severability........................................................................................................................... 11
27. Non-waiver ........................................................................................................................... 12
28. Counterparts ......................................................................................................................... 12
SIGNATURES ........................................................................................................................... 13-14
EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
EXHIBIT B LIST OF PLAN DOCUMENTS
EXHIBIT C SITE IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE
EXHIBIT D FORM OF PETITION AND WAIVER AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT E FORM OF RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
EXHIBIT F FORM OF RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT
EXHIBIT G FORM OF STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT H FORM OF DECLARATION OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT
EXHIBIT I FORM OF UPLAND BUFFER EASEMENT AGREEMENT
2
631462v6ME230-713
This Development Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of
____________, 2020, by and between the city of Medina, a municipal corporation under the laws of
Minnesota (the “City”), and Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the
“Developer”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Developer is the fee owner of certain land [and ground lessee of certain other
land] located near the intersection of T.H. 55 and Arrowhead Drive (collectively, the “Property”),
which land is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the Property is presently occupied by Open Systems International,
Inc., a business that desires to expand its building footprint on the Property to include additional
improvements; and
WHEREAS, to facilitate said improvements, the City has approved a rezoning, plat, site plan,
and conditional use permit amendment for the Property (collectively, the “City Approvals”), which
is to be platted as Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition; and
WHEREAS, the City Approvals are contingent upon the Developer entering into a
development agreement satisfactory to the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the mutual covenants and obligations contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1. Right to Proceed. This Agreement is intended to regulate the development of the
Property and the construction therein of certain public and private improvements. The Developer
may not construct public or private improvements or any buildings on the Property until all the
following conditions precedent have been satisfied:
a) the final plat of Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition has been
filed with Hennepin County;
b) this Agreement has been executed by the Developer and the City;
c) the required Letter of Credit (as hereinafter defined) has been received by the
City from or on behalf of the Developer;
d) final engineering and construction plans have been submitted by the Developer
and approved by the city engineer;
e) the Developer has paid the City for all legal, engineering and administrative
expenses incurred by the City regarding the City Approvals, including the
drafting and negotiation of this Agreement;
f) the Developer has deposited with the City the additional construction
observation escrow required by this Agreement;
g) the Developer has executed a petition and waiver agreement for future
improvements to Arrowhead Drive in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D;
h) the Developer has executed the right-of-way easement in the form attached
hereto as Exhibit E;
3
631462v6ME230-713
i) the Developer has executed the right-of-way easement agreement and
restrictive covenant in the form attached hereto as Exhibit F;
j) the Developer has executed the stormwater maintenance agreement in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit G;
k) the Developer has executed the declaration of driveway easement in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit H;
l) the Developer has executed the upland buffer easement agreement in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit I;
m) a formal consent instrument, as attached hereto and required in Section 22, has
been approved and executed by the city of Minneapolis;
n) the Developer has received all required permits from the Elm Creek Watershed
Management Commission, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota
Department of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and any other
permitting entity having jurisdiction;
o) the Developer or the Developer’s engineer has initiated and attended a
preconstruction meeting with the City engineer and staff; and
p) the City has issued a notice that all conditions precedent have been satisfied
and that the Developer may proceed.
The Developer may request written approval from the City to allow the commencement of
construction of certain specially identified improvements prior to time such work is otherwise allowed
to begin under this Section 1, and the decision regarding whether to grant such approval shall be left
entirely to the discretion of the City.
2. Plans; Improvements. a) The Developer agrees to develop the Property in accordance
with the final plat of Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition and the City Approvals, as
detailed in City ordinance No. _________, City resolution No. _________, City resolution No.
_________, and City resolution No. _________, which ordinance and resolutions are hereby
incorporated into this Agreement, and to construct all improvements on the Property in accordance
with the approved engineering and construction plans (collectively, the “Plans”). The documents
which constitute the Plans are those on file with and approved by the City and are listed on Exhibit B
attached hereto. The Plans may not be modified by the Developer without the prior written approval
of the City.
b) In developing the Property in accordance with the Plans, the Developer shall make or
install at its sole expense the following public and private improvements (collectively, the “On-Site
Improvements”):
1. site grading;
2. water distribution system;
3. stormwater facilities, except for those described in Section 6(b) of this
Agreement; and
4. landscaping.
c) The Developer presently operates an approximately 100,400 square foot building on
the Property. By way of this Agreement, the Developer intends to facilitate the construction of an
4
631462v6ME230-713
approximately 75,000 square foot expansion to the existing building, the majority of which will
contain office space, except that approximately 6,700 square feet will be training space and 1,300
square feet will be laboratories.
d) All work performed by or on behalf of the Developer related to construction of the
On-Site Improvements or the building on the Property shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m.
through 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on Saturday.
3. Erosion Control. a) All construction on the Property shall be conducted in a manner
designed to control erosion and in compliance with all City ordinances and other requirements,
including the City’s permit with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding municipal
separate storm sewer system program. Before any portion of the Property is rough graded, an erosion
control plan shall be implemented by the Developer as approved by the City. The City may impose
reasonable, additional erosion control requirements after the City’s initial approval, if the City deems
necessary due to a change in conditions. All areas disturbed by the excavation shall be reseeded
promptly after the completion of the work in that area unless the construction of buildings or other
improvements is anticipated immediately thereafter. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion
control plan, seed shall be placed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All
seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The
parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion.
b) If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or
supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems
reasonably appropriate to control erosion based on the urgency of the situation. The City will make
a good faith effort to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, including by telephone
or email in the case of emergencies, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer’s
obligations or the City’s rights hereunder.
c) The Developer agrees to reimburse all expenses incurred by the City in connection
with such actions. No grading or construction of the On-Site Improvements will be allowed and no
building permits will be issued for the Property unless the Developer is in full compliance with the
erosion control requirements. The erosion control measures specified in the Plans or otherwise
required on the Property shall be binding on the Developer and its successors and assigns.
4. Site Grading; Haul Routes. a) In order to construct the On-Site Improvements and
otherwise prepare the Property for development, it will be necessary for the Developer to grade
portions of the Property. All site grading must be done in compliance with the Plans. The City may
withhold issuance of a building permit for the Property until the approved certified grading plan is on
file with the City and all erosion control measures are in place as determined by the City. Within 45
days after completion of the grading, the Developer shall provide the City with an “as constructed”
grading plan and a certification by a registered land surveyor or engineer.
b) The Developer agrees that any fill material which must be brought to or removed from
the Property during construction of the On-Site Improvements, while grading the site, or during
construction of any buildings, will use the haul route established by the City. For purposes of this
provision, the City designates Arrowhead Drive to T.H. 55 as the haul route.
5
631462v6ME230-713
5. Construction of On-Site Improvements. a) All On-Site Improvements shall be
installed in accordance with the Plans, the City Approvals, the City’s engineering standards (as
hereinafter defined) for utility construction and the requirements of the letter from the city engineer
dated _______________, 20__. The Developer shall submit plans and specifications for utility
construction prepared by a registered professional engineer. The Developer shall obtain any
necessary permits from the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission, the Metropolitan
Council, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and all other
agencies having jurisdiction over the Property before proceeding with construction. The City shall
inspect all work at the Developer’s expense. The Developer and its contractors and subcontractors,
shall follow all instructions received from the City’s inspectors. Prior to beginning construction, the
Developer or the Developer’s engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting with all parties
concerned, including the City staff and engineers, to review the program for the construction work.
b) Within 30 days after the completion of the On-Site Improvements, the Developer shall
supply the City with a complete set of reproducible “as constructed” plans and three complete sets of
paper “as constructed” plans, each prepared in accordance with City standards and in AutoCADD
format based on Hennepin County coordinates. Sanitary sewer, water and stormwater “as
constructed” plans shall also be submitted to the City in GIS format compatible with Arc Map 10.5
in the coordinates and with the attributes directed by the city engineer. Iron monuments must be
installed on the Property in accordance with state law. The Developer’s surveyor shall submit a
written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed. All On-Site
Improvements required by this Agreement shall be completed by no later than ______________,
20__.
c) The Developer agrees to require its contractor to provide to the City a warranty bond
for the On-Site Improvements described in this Agreement which are to be accepted by the City as
public improvements (the “Public Improvements”), as more specifically described in Section 8(a),
with each bond to cover defects in labor and materials for the applicable Public Improvements for a
period of two years from the date of their acceptance by the City or from their completion if they are
not to be dedicated to the City. The bonds shall be in an amount equal to 100 percent of the estimated
cost of the Public Improvements, as specified in Exhibit C attached hereto. During such period, the
Developer agrees to repair or replace any Public Improvement, or portion or element thereof, which
shows signs of failure, normal wear and tear excepted. A decision regarding whether a Public
Improvement shows signs of failure shall be made by the City in the reasonable exercise of its
judgment following consultation with the Developer. If the defective Public Improvement is not
repaired or replaced by means of the warranty bond or if the Developer otherwise fails to repair or
replace a defective Public Improvement during the warranty period after prior written notice to the
Developer and opportunity to cure, the City may repair or replace the defective portion and seek
reimbursement from the Developer for such repairs or replacements. The Developer agrees to
reimburse the City fully for the reasonable cost of all Public Improvement repairs or replacement if
the cost thereof exceeds the remaining amount of the Letter of Credit. Such reimbursement must be
made within 45 days of the date upon which the City notifies the Developer of the cost due under this
section. If the Developer fails to make required payments to the City, the Developer hereby consents
to the City levying special assessments for any unreimbursed amount associated with such costs
against the Property. The Developer, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, acknowledges
6
631462v6ME230-713
the benefit to the Property of the repair or replacement of the Public Improvements and hereby
consents to such assessment and waives the right to a hearing or notice of hearing or any appeal
thereon under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
6. Arrowhead Drive Improvements. a) Access to the improved Property from
Arrowhead Drive and increased traffic volumes to and from the Property resulting from the On-Site
Improvements will contribute to the need for improvements to Arrowhead Drive adjacent to the
Property and south to T.H. 55, which may include, without limitation, northbound and southbound
turn lanes from Arrowhead Drive into the Property and turn lanes from southbound Arrowhead Drive
onto T.H. 55, all to provide safe and efficient turning to and from the Property and through passage
along Arrowhead Drive (collectively, the “Arrowhead Project”). Instead of the City requiring the
Developer to construct the Arrowhead Project immediately and bear the cost of said project
prematurely, the parties have determined that it is preferable for the Arrowhead Project to be
constructed by the City in the future and potentially in conjunction with a broader public project, and
for the Developer to contribute to said project only at that time. Accordingly, the Developer agrees
to enter into a Petition and Waiver Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D to ensure that
the City has a valid and collectible assessment for the Arrowhead Project.
b) The parties acknowledge and agree that as part of the Arrowhead Project, the City
intends to construct and maintain certain stormwater improvements, including a stormwater filtration
basin (the “Public Filtration Basin”), to the north of the Developer’s new driveway and the Developer
has dedicated via the plat of Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition the drainage and utility
easement necessary to accommodate said Public Filtration Basin. Upon the future determination by
the City that it intends to commence design and construction of the Arrowhead Project, and if at that
time the Developer is fee owner of the undeveloped property legally described as Outlot A,
Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Second Addition, then the City shall provide to the Developer
written notice of its intent to commence said formal design and construction. The Developer shall
have 30 days following such notice from the City to (1) determine whether it desires for the Public
Filtration Basin to have the design capacity to treat additional stormwater runoff necessary to
accommodate future development of Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Second Addition;
and (2), if so, provide the City with written notice of such determination. Following timely notice of
such determination from the Developer, the City shall, as part of the Arrowhead Project, design and
construct an expanded Public Filtration Basin to accommodate said future development. The parties
understand and acknowledge that the easement dedicated by the Developer for drainage and utility
on the plat of Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition to accommodate the Public Filtration
Basin is not sized for the enlarged Public Filtration Basin contemplated in the foregoing provisions,
and so if the Developer elects to exercise its option memorialized in this Section 6(b), then the
Developer shall grant to the City a separate drainage and utility easement in order to effectively
increase the size of said easement area, which shall meet all requirements of the City.
c) To accommodate the widening of Arrowhead Drive adjacent to Outlot A, Cavanaughs
Meadowwoods Park Second Addition, of which will be required to construct the Arrowhead Project,
the Developer also agrees to execute a right-of-way easement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit
E.
7
631462v6ME230-713
7. Right-of-Way for Chippewa Road Extension. On November 6, 2019, the City
reviewed and formally approved a visioning study which outlines prospective plans for the easterly
extension of Chippewa Road to Arrowhead Drive and the realignment of Arrowhead Drive, partially
adjacent to the northern boundary of the Property. Said project will eventually be necessary due to
anticipated growth and development in the area, including the Developer’s building expansion
contemplated herein. Additional public right-of-way within Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods
Park Third Addition is necessary to accommodate the project but at the Developer’s request, rather
than requiring the Developer to dedicate said right-of-way as part of the plat, the City has agreed to
instead record a right-of-way easement agreement and restrictive covenant that will provide the City
with the right to cause the right-of-way easement to take effect at that point in the future when the
Chippewa Road extension is to be constructed. For this purpose, the Developer agrees to execute a
right-of-way easement agreement and restrictive covenant in the general form attached hereto as
Exhibit F.
8. Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements. a) The Developer intends to connect the
new facility to sewer and water services through private connections. The Developer agrees to extend
and stub the public water main from its current location north to Outlot A, Cavanaughs
Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, and such extension is the only Public Improvement being
installed by the Developer pursuant to this Agreement. Said extension shall be dedicated to the public,
accepted by the City, and maintained thereafter by the City. All other sanitary sewer and water
improvements to be made by the Developer pursuant to the Plans shall remain private and will be
maintained by the Developer or its successors and assigns unless expressly required by the City to be
dedicated to the public.
b) The Developer or its successors or assigns shall be responsible for maintaining all hydrants
on the Property in working order. The hydrants are located within public drainage and utility
easements and the City retains the option of inspecting the hydrants at any time and directing the
maintenance thereof. If the hydrants are not maintained in accordance with City requirements, the
City has the right but not the obligation to maintain them and to assess the cost thereof to the Property.
The Developer on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, acknowledges the benefit to the
Property of the proper maintenance of the hydrants and hereby consents to such assessment and
waives the right to a hearing or notice of hearing or any appeal thereof under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429.
9. Private Stormwater Improvements. The Developer agrees to construct the on-site
stormwater improvements in accordance with the Plans and in compliance with all City requirements
regarding such improvements. All stormwater facilities serving the Property, except for those to be
constructed and maintained by the City as part of the Arrowhead Project, will remain private and will
be maintained by the Developer at its sole expense. The City does not intend to accept any of the
private stormwater facilities as public and does not intend to maintain them. In order to meet the
requirements of the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission, the Developer agrees to enter
into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City in the form attached hereto as Exhibit G.
The purpose of the Stormwater Maintenance Agreement is to ensure that the Developer maintains the
stormwater facilities and to give the City the right but not the obligation to do so if the Developer fails
in its obligations. The Stormwater Maintenance Agreement will be recorded against the Property and
will run with the land, and shall further be formally consented to by the city of Minneapolis. The
8
631462v6ME230-713
Developer acknowledges that i) the on-site storm water improvements have not and will not be
accepted by the City; ii) the City does not plan to maintain or pay for maintenance, repair or
replacement of the storm sewer improvements and that the Developer will have responsibility for
such work; iii) the City has the right but not the obligation to perform necessary work upon the failure
or refusal by the Developer to do so; and iv) if the City performs any work on the storm water
improvements, the City intends to specially assess the cost of such work against the Property.
10. Landscaping Plan; Tree Preservation. The Developer agrees to install landscaping in
accordance with the Plans. All landscaping shall include hardy, non-invasive, and drought tolerant
species appropriate for Minnesota. All landscaping materials shall be maintained and replaced if they
die within two years of planting. Any automatic water irrigation system utilized on the Property shall
be equipped with rain sensors or soil moisture sensors and is subject to the City’s irrigation ordinance
and water conservation ordinance which prohibits the use of treated municipal water in connection
with a landscape irrigation system. Notwithstanding the requirement that water for landscaping not
be taken from the public water supply, water may be utilized from the public water system for a
limited period of time until the landscaping material has been established.
11. Driveway; Access Easement. The Developer agrees to reconfigure its current
driveway by moving it south from its present location at its sole expense and in accordance with the
Plans, in order to align the driveway with Meander Road. Because a portion of the reconfigured
driveway will be located on Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Second Addition, the
Developer agrees to execute and record a Declaration of Driveway Easement in the general form
attached hereto as Exhibit H.
12. Wetlands; Upland Buffer Easement. The Developer agrees to execute an Upland
Buffer Easement Agreement in the general form attached hereto as Exhibit I. The purpose of the
Upland Buffer Easement is to ensure that all buffer areas surrounding the wetlands on the Property
are planted with appropriate materials intended to enhance water quality in the wetlands and are
maintained in that condition thereafter. The materials to be planted within the buffer area are specified
in the landscaping plan. The Upland Buffer Agreement will be recorded against the Property and will
run with the land, and shall further be formally consented to by the city of Minneapolis.
13. Letter of Credit. a) In order to ensure completion of the On-Site Improvements
required under this Agreement and satisfaction of all fees due to the City, including without limitation
any deferred or unpaid park dedication, sewer or water fees, the Developer agrees to deliver to the
City prior to beginning any construction on the Property a letter of credit (the “Letter of Credit”) in
the amount of $______________, which represents 150 percent of the estimated cost of the On-Site
Improvements. This amount represents the maximum risk exposure for the City, based on the
anticipated sequence of construction and the estimated cost of each element of the On-Site
Improvements, rather than the entire cost of all required On-Site Improvements. The Letter of Credit
shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of any building permits for the Property and shall renew
automatically thereafter until released by the City as set forth in b) below. The itemized costs of the
On-Site Improvements are estimated on Exhibit C attached hereto. The Letter of Credit shall be
issued by a bank reasonably determined by the City to be solvent and creditworthy and shall be in a
form acceptable to the City. The Letter of Credit shall allow the City to draw upon the instrument, in
whole or part, in order to complete construction of any or all of the On-Site Improvements, and to pay
9
631462v6ME230-713
any fees or costs due to the City by the Developer.
b) The City agrees to release or reduce the Letter of Credit promptly upon substantial
completion of the On-Site Improvements on the Property, or any significant portion thereof, and
satisfaction of all of the Developer’s financial obligations to the City. The first opportunity to reduce
the Letter of Credit shall occur after satisfactory completion of the base course of the new parking lot.
After satisfactory completion of all elements of the On-Site Improvements except the landscaping,
the City shall reduce the Letter of Credit to the aggregate amount of any unpaid, deferred or contingent
fees payable by the Developer to the City. The Letter of Credit shall be released following expiration
of the two-year warranty period for the landscaping and after satisfaction of all other provisions of
this Section 13.
c) Prior to releasing any portion of the Letter of Credit or accepting another letter of
credit in replacement, the City shall first be satisfied regarding the quality and completeness of the
construction or work, that the Developer has taken such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no
liens will attach to the Property. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Letter of Credit
shall not be reduced to less than $50,000, until such time as the City releases the entire Letter of
Credit.
d) If at any time the City determines that the bank issuing the Letter of Credit no longer
satisfies the City’s requirements regarding solvency and creditworthiness, the City shall notify the
Developer and the Developer shall provide to the City within 30 days a substitute Letter of Credit
from another bank meeting the City’s requirements. If the Developer fails to provide the City with a
substitute Letter of Credit from an issuing bank satisfactory to the City within 30 days or such shorter
period as may be necessary to ensure there remains a valid letter of credit available to the City, the
City may draw under the existing Letter of Credit.
14. Developer’s Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to construction or
repair of any of the On-Site Improvements, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the
Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City. This Agreement
is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek an order from any court
for permission to enter the Property for such purposes. If the City does any such work, the City may,
in addition to its other remedies, levy special assessments against the Property to recover the costs
thereof. For this purpose, the Developer, for itself and its successors and assigns, expressly waives
any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments, including but not limited
to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the land so assessed.
The Developer, for itself and its successors and assigns, also waives any appeal rights otherwise
available pursuant to Minnesota Statues, section 429.081.
15. Insurance. The Developer agrees to take out and maintain or require its general
contractor to cause to be taken out and maintained until six months after the City has accepted the
Public Improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury,
including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer’s work or the
work of its contractors or subcontractors. Liability limits shall not be less than $500,000 when the
claim is one for death by wrongful act or omission or for any other claim and $1,500,000 for any
number of claims arising out of a single occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional insured
10
631462v6ME230-713
on the policy. The certificate of insurance shall provide that the City must be given the same advance
written notice of the cancellation of the insurance as is afforded to the policy holder.
16. City Utility Connection Fees; Metropolitan Council SAC Fee. a) In accordance with
City policy and to distribute uniformly the costs of public utility infrastructure improvements, the City
will charge the Developer trunk connection fees for the availability of sanitary sewer and water to the
Property. The total connection fees shall be computed as of the date of issuance of the building permit
and shall be payable in three equal annual installments beginning on said date and thereafter on the
first and second anniversary dates of this initial payment. Developer may pre-pay any or all of these
annual installments at any time without penalty. For 2020, the City’s fees are $7,575 per unit for water
and $860 per unit for sanitary sewer.
b) The Developer will also be responsible for payment of the SAC fee set by the
Metropolitan Council. The 2020 SAC fee is $2,485 per unit.
c) For purposes of calculation of the fees due under this paragraph, the number of units
shall be determined by the City at the time of application for the building permit and at the rates there
in effect.
17. Responsibility for Costs; Escrow for Construction Inspection. a) The Developer
agrees to pay to the City an administrative fee in the amount necessary to reimburse the City for its
reasonable costs and expenses in reviewing the City Approvals, including the drafting and negotiation
of this Agreement. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City in full for such reasonable costs within
30 days after notice in writing by the City. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for the
reasonable cost incurred in the enforcement of any provision of this Agreement, including reasonable
engineering and attorneys’ fees.
b) The Developer shall also pay a fee for City construction observation and
administration relating to construction of the On-Site Improvements. Construction observation shall
include inspection of all the public and private improvements. In order to reimburse the City for the
administrative fee and the reasonable cost of inspection of the On-Site Improvements, the Developer
shall deposit an additional $__________ into an escrow account with the City, which shall receive
and hold such funds solely under the terms of this Agreement. If any funds held under this escrow
exceed the amount necessary to reimburse the City for its costs under this subparagraph, such funds
shall be promptly returned to Developer without interest. If it appears that the actual costs incurred
will exceed the estimate, Developer and City shall review the costs required to complete the project
and the Developer shall promptly deposit additional sums with the City.
18. Park Dedication. a) In satisfaction of its park dedication requirement under state law
and City ordinance, the Developer shall pay to the City an amount of $62,471.00, which shall
constitute the Developer’s complete park dedication obligation for the new portion of the Property
being developed, except that any future re-subdivision of the Property may require additional park
dedication at that time. $20,823.67 of the Developer’s total park dedication obligation shall be paid
to the City prior to the City signing the final plat, an additional $20,823.67 shall be paid to the City
within one year of the final plat being recorded, and the final $20,823.66 shall be paid to the City
within two years of the final plat being recorded. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer may
11
631462v6ME230-713
pay its park dedication obligations early and without penalty. The City will continue to defer park
dedication for the undeveloped Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, and park
dedication requirements for the land contained within said outlot shall be determined and calculated
at the time of any future subdivision thereof.
19. No Building Permits Approved. The City Approvals do not include approval of a
building permit for any structures on the Property. The Developer must submit and the City must
approve building plans prior to the issuance of any building permit for the Property. The Developer
or the party applying for the building permit shall be responsible for payment of the customary fees
associated with the building permit.
20. Clean up and Dust Control. The Developer shall daily clean dirt and debris from
streets adjoining the Property resulting from construction work by the Developer, its contractors,
agents or assigns. Prior to any construction on the Property, the Developer shall identify to the City
in writing a responsible party for erosion control, street cleaning, and street sweeping. The Developer
shall provide dust control to the satisfaction of the City’s engineer throughout construction on the
Property.
21. Compliance With Laws. The Developer agrees to comply with all laws, ordinances,
regulations and directives of the state of Minnesota and the City applicable to the Property. This
Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of Minnesota. Breach of the terms of this
Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits for the Property.
22. Agreement Runs with the Land. This Agreement shall run with the Property and shall
be recorded against the title thereto and shall bind the parties hereto and their successors and assigns.
It is the intent of the parties hereto that this Agreement be in a form which is recordable among the
land records of Hennepin County, Minnesota and the Developer and the City agree to make any
changes in this Agreement which may be necessary to effect the recording and filing of this
Agreement against the title of the Property, including, without limitation, the approval and execution
of a consent instrument by the city of Minneapolis, as attached hereto.
23. Indemnification. The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the City and its
officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by it and third parties for damages
sustained or costs incurred resulting from the City Approvals. The Developer hereby agrees to
indemnify and hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless for all costs, damages,
or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys’ fees,
except matters involving acts of gross negligence by the City.
24. Assignment. The Developer may not assign this Agreement without the prior written
permission of the City.
25. Notices. Any notice or correspondence to be given under this Agreement shall be
deemed to be given if delivered personally or sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, return
receipt requested:
a) as to Developer: Arrowhead Holdings, LLC
12
631462v6ME230-713
4101 Arrowhead Drive
Medina, MN 55340
Attn: Ron Ingram, Vice President
Ken Hall, Director of Contracts and Legal
b) as to City: City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
ATTN: City Administrator
with a copy to: Ronald H. Batty
Kennedy & Graven
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
or at such other address as either party may from time to time notify the other in writing in accordance
with this section. The Developer shall promptly notify the City in writing if it changes its name or
address.
26. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid,
illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall pertain only to such
section and shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this Agreement.
27. Non-waiver. Each right, power or remedy conferred upon the City by this Agreement
is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or
hereafter arising, or available to the City at law or in equity, or under any other agreement. Each and
every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time
to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver
of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. If either party waives
in writing any default or nonperformance by the other party, such waiver shall be deemed to apply
only to such event and shall not waive any other prior or subsequent default.
28. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall be an original and shall constitute one and the same Agreement.
********************
13
631462v6ME230-713
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on
the day and year first above written.
CITY OF MEDINA
By__________________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
By__________________________________
Scott T. Johnson,
City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _____________,
2020, by Kathleen Martin and Scott T. Johnson, the mayor and city administrator, respectively, of the
city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation.
____________________________________
Notary Public
14
631462v6ME230-713
ARROWHEAD HOLDINGS, LLC.
By__________________________________
Its: Chief Manager/President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020,
by __________________, the Chief Manager/President of Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
____________________________________
Notary Public
15
631462v6ME230-713
CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The undersigned, as owner under that certain limited warranty deed, dated June 1, 2010 and
filed June 21, 2010 as Document No. A9526322 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, and lessor under that certain Lease Agreement, dated June 1, 2010 and
evidenced by that certain Short Form of Lease, dated June 1, 2010 and filed June 2, 2010 as
Document No. A9526323 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as
amended by Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated November 9, 2017 and filed November 17,
2017 as Document No. A10501487 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, hereby consents to the foregoing agreement.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________
Approved as to form:
___________________________________
Assistant City Attorney
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020,
by _________________, the ________________ of the city of Minneapolis, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation.
____________________________________
Notary Public
A-1
631462v6ME230-713
EXHIBIT A TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The land to which this Development Agreement applies is legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1; and
Outlot A,
all in Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
B-1
631462v6ME230-713
EXHIBIT B TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
List of Plan Documents
[to be inserted]
C-1
631462v6ME230-713
EXHIBIT C TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Site Improvement Cost Estimate
[to be included]
631462v6ME230-713 D-1
EXHIBIT D TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FORM OF PETITION AND WAIVER AGREEMENT
PETITION AND WAIVER AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made this ____ day of ______________, 2020, by and between the
city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), and Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company (the “Developer”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Developer is the ground lessee of certain land (the “Property”), which land
is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Property is located generally in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
T.H. 55 and Arrowhead Drive; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved a rezoning, plat, site plan, and conditional use permit
amendment (collectively, the “City Approvals”) to allow the development of the Property for
commercial purposes; and
WHEREAS, traffic levels expected on Arrowhead Drive following the recently approved
development pose concerns regarding safety, access, and congestion on Arrowhead Drive into the
Property and in the vicinity of the Property in the near future; and
WHEREAS, the City may find it necessary in the future to construct improvements to portions
of Arrowhead Drive adjacent to the Property and south to T.H. 55, which may include, without
limitation, northbound and southbound turn lanes from Arrowhead Drive into the Property and turn
lanes from southbound Arrowhead Drive onto T.H. 55, all to provide safe and efficient turning to and
from the Property and through passage along Arrowhead Drive (collectively, the “Arrowhead
Project”); and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the parties to avoid requiring the Developer to bear the
expense of constructing the Arrowhead Project prematurely while offering the City sufficient
assurances that the Developer will pay for a portion of the cost of the Arrowhead Project when needed
in the future; and
WHEREAS, by separate development agreement (the “Development Agreement”), the City
and the Developer have agreed that the City may construct the Arrowhead Project on its own as either
a standalone project or as part of a more comprehensive public project; and
631462v6ME230-713 D-2
WHEREAS, the City is willing to construct the Arrowhead Project without notices or
hearings, provided the assurances and covenants hereinafter stated are made by the Developer to
ensure that the City will have a valid and collectable special assessment as it relates to the Property to
finance a portion of the cost of the Arrowhead Project; and
WHEREAS, were it not for the assurances and covenants hereinafter provided, the City would
not construct the Arrowhead Project without such notices and hearings and would be doing so solely
at the behest, and for the benefit, of the Developer; and
WHEREAS, the parties have entered into this Agreement pursuant to and in satisfaction of
the terms of the City Approvals previously granted by the City and of the Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE COVENANTS AND OBLIGATIONS
CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Developer represents and warrants that, together with the attached consent of the city of
Minneapolis, it has full legal power and authority to encumber the Property as herein
provided, that in doing so it is not in violation of the terms or conditions of any instrument or
agreement of any nature to which it is bound or which relates in any manner to the Property
and that there are no other liens or encumbrances against the Property except those of record.
2. The Developer hereby petitions the City for construction of the Arrowhead Project, either as
a standalone project or as part of a more comprehensive public improvement project, at such
time as the City, in its sole discretion, deems necessary. The Arrowhead Project may include,
without limitation, additional turn lanes on those portions of Arrowhead Drive adjacent to the
Property and south to T.H. 55, all as more specifically determined by the City in its sole
discretion at the time of construction. Such determination and subsequent initiation and
construction of the project may be made by the City at any time after issuance of a building
permit for the Developer’s improvements to be constructed upon Lot 1, Block 1 of the
Property, as contemplated by the City Approvals, and until 10 years following the date of
issuance of the certificate of occupancy for said building. This Agreement does not preclude
the Developer from independently petitioning the City for construction of the Arrowhead
Project or any other project at any time the Developer believes traffic demand in the vicinity
makes any public improvements necessary or desirable.
3. Irrespective of whether the Arrowhead Project is constructed as a standalone project or as part
of a larger public improvement project, the Developer consents to the City levying a special
assessment for 40.57125 percent of the costs thereof against the Property in accordance with
Minn. Stat., Section 429.061. However, the principal amount of the special assessment shall
not exceed $324,570, indexed for increases in construction costs from the date of this
Agreement, according to the ENR Construction Cost Index for Minneapolis, Minnesota, to
the month and year of the start of construction of the Arrowhead Project. The ENR
Construction Cost Index for __________ of 2020 is _________. The figure above is 40.57125
percent of $800,000, the total estimated cost of the Arrowhead Project based on the
preliminary plans, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The parties understand and agree that said
plans might be modified if and when the Arrowhead Project is ultimately deemed necessary
631462v6ME230-713 D-3
and that the preliminary plans included on Exhibit B were created merely for the purpose of
estimating the cost of construction based on the presently contemplated elements of the
project.
4. Upon the future determination by the City that it intends to commence design and construction
of the Arrowhead Project, and if at that time the Developer is fee owner of the undeveloped
property legally described as Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Second Addition,
then the City shall provide to the Developer the written notice required pursuant to Section
6(b) of the Development Agreement and, thereafter, the parties shall proceed under the
provisions contained in said Section 6(b).
5. The Developer waives notice of hearing and hearing pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 429.031,
on the Arrowhead Project and notice of hearing and hearing on the special assessment levied
to finance the Arrowhead Project pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 429.061 and specifically
requests that the Arrowhead Project be constructed and the special assessment be levied
against the Property without notice of hearing or hearing.
6. The Developer waives the right to appeal the levy of special assessment in accordance with
this Agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 429.081 and further specifically agrees with
respect to such special assessment against the Property that:
a. All requirements of Minn. Stat., Chapter 429 with which the City does not comply are
hereby waived by the Developer; and
b. The increase in fair market value of the Property resulting from construction of the
Arrowhead Project will be at least equal to the amount of the special assessment levied
against the Property and that such increase in fair market value is a special benefit to
the Property.
7. The special assessment levied against the Property shall be payable over such period as the
City may determine, but not less than 10 years, and shall bear interest at a rate determined by
the City, but not more than 2 percent above the City’s cost of financing. The City’s cost of
financing shall mean the average coupon rate if the City sells debt to finance the Arrowhead
Project If no debt is sold for the Arrowhead Project, the rate shall be set using the same
formula based on special assessment bonds of Minnesota municipalities which have the same
credit rating as that of the City and are issued and sold at approximately the same time as the
adoption of the resolution levying the special assessment. The first installment of principal
and interest shall be included in the first tax rolls completed after adoption of the resolution
levying the special assessment.
8. The covenants, waivers and agreements contained in this Agreement shall bind the Developer
and its successors and assigns and shall run with the Property. It is the intent of the parties
hereto that this Agreement be in a form which is recordable among the land records of
Hennepin County, Minnesota and the Developer and the City agree to make any changes in
this Agreement which may be necessary to effect the recording and filing of this Agreement
against the title of the Property.
631462v6ME230-713 D-4
9. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed given if delivered
personally or sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified and return receipt requested:
a) as to Developer: Arrowhead Holdings, LLC
4101 Arrowhead Drive
Medina, MN 55340
Attn: Ron Ingram, Vice President
Ken Hall, Director of Contracts and Legal
b) as to City: City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
ATTN: City Administrator
with a copy to: Ronald H. Batty
Kennedy & Graven
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
or at such other address as either party may from time to time notify the other in writing in
accordance with this paragraph.
10. This Agreement shall terminate a) 10 years from the date of issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the improvements constructed upon the Property if the City has not made a
written determination that the Arrowhead Project is necessary or b) upon the final payment of
all special assessment levied against the Property for the Arrowhead Project if such special
assessment is levied, whichever occurs later. The City agrees to execute and deliver such
documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish its rights hereunder upon receipt
of such final payment.
11. Upon execution and recording of this Agreement, the Developer shall be fully released from
its obligations contained in that certain previous Petition and Waiver Agreement, dated May
6, 2010 and recorded on May 7, 2010 as Document Number A9510305, and later amended
on November 22, 2019, which amendment was recorded on December 13, 2019 as Document
Number A10735339.
12. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver by the City of its right to make
local improvements in accordance with Minn. Stat. Ch. 429 and assess the costs thereof
against benefiting properties, including potentially the Property, subject to its adherence to all
statutory requirements. Likewise, nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed a
waiver by the Developer of any of the statutory rights afforded to it for a special assessment
levied against the Property that otherwise exceeds the amount specified in paragraph 3 of this
Agreement.
631462v6ME230-713 D-5
**************************
631462v6ME230-713 D-6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Petition and Waiver Agreement have caused
these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
ARROWHEAD HOLDINGS, LLC.
By__________________________________
Its: Chief Manager/President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020,
by __________________, the Chief Manager/President of Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
____________________________________
Notary Public
631462v6ME230-713 D-7
CITY OF MEDINA
By__________________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
By__________________________________
Scott T. Johnson,
City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _____________,
2020, by Kathleen Martin and Scott T. Johnson, the mayor and city administrator, respectively, of the
city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation.
____________________________________
Notary Public
This instrument drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
631462v6ME230-713 D-8
CONSENT TO PETITION AND WAIVER AGREEMENT
The undersigned, as owner under that certain limited warranty deed, dated June 1, 2010 and
filed June 21, 2010 as Document No. A9526322 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, and lessor under that certain Lease Agreement, dated June 1, 2010 and
evidenced by that certain Short Form of Lease, dated June 1, 2010 and filed June 2, 2010 as
Document No. A9526323 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as
amended by Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated November 9, 2017 and filed November 17,
2017 as Document No. A10501487 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, hereby consents to the foregoing agreement.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________
Approved as to form:
___________________________________
Assistant City Attorney
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020,
by _________________, the ________________ of the city of Minneapolis, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation.
____________________________________
Notary Public
631462v6ME230-713 D-A-1
EXHIBIT A TO
PETITION AND WAIVER AGREEMENT
Legal Description
The legal description of the Property is as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
631462v6ME230-713 D-B-1
EXHIBIT B TO
PETITION AND WAIVER AGREEMENT
Preliminary Plans
[to be inserted]
631462v6ME230-713 E-1
EXHIBIT E TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FORM OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
THIS INSTRUMENT is made by Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company, Grantor, in favor of the city of Medina, a municipal corporation under the laws of
Minnesota, Grantee.
Recitals
A. Grantor is the fee owner of certain real property located in the city of Medina (the “Property”),
which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto.
B. Grantor desires to grant to the Grantee a right-of-way easement, according to the terms and
conditions contained herein.
Terms of Easement
1. Grant of Easement. For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged
by Grantor, Grantor grants and conveys to the Grantee a permanent, non-exclusive right-of-way
easement over, under, across and through the portion of the Property described on Exhibit B
attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto.
2. Scope of Easement. The permanent, non-exclusive right-of-way easement granted herein
includes the right of the Grantee, its contractors, agents, and employees to enter the premises at all
reasonable times for the purpose of locating, constructing, reconstructing, operating, maintaining,
inspecting, altering and repairing within the described easement area a public roadway, storm
sewer, sanitary sewer and water facilities, ground surface drainage ways and sidewalk and trail, or
other public facilities or improvements of any type that are not inconsistent with use as a public
right-of-way.
The easement granted herein also includes the right to cut, trim, or remove from the
easement area trees, shrubs, or other vegetation as in the Grantee’s judgment unreasonably
interfere with the easement or facilities of the Grantee, its successors or assigns.
3. Warranty of Title. The Grantor warrants it is the fee owner of the Property and has the
right, title and capacity to convey to the Grantee the easement herein.
4. Environmental Matters. The Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses,
damages, demands, obligations, including penalties and reasonable attorney's fees, or losses
resulting from any claims, actions, suits or proceedings based upon a release or threat of release of
any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants which may have existed on, or which relate
to, the easement area or Property prior to the date of this instrument.
631462v6ME230-713 E-2
5. Binding Effect. The terms and conditions of this instrument shall run with the land and be
binding on the Grantor, her heirs and assigns.
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: NONE
Dated this _____ day of ______________, 2020.
ARROWHEAD HOLDINGS, LLC.
By__________________________________
Its: Chief Manager/President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020,
by __________________, the Chief Manager/President of Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
____________________________________
Notary Public
This instrument drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
631462v6ME230-713 E-B-1
EXHIBIT A TO
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
Legal Description of the Property
Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
631462v6ME230-713 E-B-1
EXHIBIT B TO
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
Legal Description of the Easement Area
[to be inserted]
631462v6ME230-713 E-C-1
EXHIBIT C TO
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
Depiction of the Easement Area
[to be inserted]
631462v6ME230-713 F-1
EXHIBIT F TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FORM OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
This Right-of-Way Easement Agreement and Restrictive Covenant (this “Agreement”) is
made this ____ day of ______________, 2020 (the “Agreement Date”), by Arrowhead Holdings
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Grantor”), and the city of Medina, a Minnesota
municipal corporation (“Grantee”).
Recitals
A. Grantor is the fee owner of the property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally
described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”).
B. Through a separate development agreement and pursuant to Grantee’s authority to require as
part of a subdivision of land the dedication or preservation of buildable land for public streets, Grantor
has agreed to conditionally grant an easement for public right-of-way to Grantee and immediately
effectuate a restrictive covenant to accommodate the future easterly extension of Chippewa Road to
Arrowhead Drive (the “Project”), pursuant to the Project visioning study that was formally approved
by the city council of the city of Medina, Minnesota on November 6, 2019.
C. The terms and conditions of said conditional easement and restrictive covenant are outlined
in this Agreement.
Terms of Easements
1. Grant of Easement. For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged
by Grantor, and in the event that by December 31, 2040: (i) Grantee, in its sole and absolute
discretion, determines by council resolution that construction of the Project, or some variation of the
Project, is scheduled to commence; and (ii) Grantee, following 10 days’ mailed notice to Grantor,
executes and records a right-of-way easement document in the general form attached hereto as
Exhibit B (collectively, the “Contingencies”), then Grantor, its successors or assigns grants and
conveys to Grantee a permanent easement over, under, upon and across that part of the Property
legally described on Exhibit C attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit D attached hereto (the
“Easement Area”) for right-of-way purposes (the “Easement”). Recording of the right-of-way
easement document in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B shall be prima facie evidence that the
Contingencies are duly satisfied and of the effectuation of the Easement. Although the Easement
will immediately take effect upon satisfaction of the Contingencies, Grantor, its successors or
assigns shall execute and record a separate right-of-way easement instrument consistent with the
Easement terms contained herein if subsequently requested by Grantee to do so, within 14 days of
631462v6ME230-713 F-2
any such request. The failure of Grantor, its successors or assigns to execute or record such
instrument shall not in any way alter the Easement or otherwise affect its validity.
2. Scope of Easement. The Easement conditionally granted herein includes the right of the
Grantee, its contractors, agents, and respective employees to enter the Easement Area at all
reasonable times for the purpose of removing any existing improvements therein, and locating,
constructing, reconstructing, operating, maintaining, inspecting, altering and repairing within the
described Easement Area a public roadway, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water facilities and
sidewalk, or all other public facilities or improvements of any type that are not inconsistent with a
public right-of-way use.
The Easement granted herein also include the right to survey, grade and excavate, and cut, trim, or
remove from the Easement Area trees, shrubs, or other vegetation that, in Grantee’s reasonable
judgment, unreasonably interfere with the Easements or facilities of the Grantee, its successors or
assigns.
3. Restrictive Covenant; Exception; Enforcement. a) As of the Agreement Date, no
physical improvements of any kind shall be constructed or installed on or within the Easement
Area, including, but not limited to, principal structures, accessory structures, or any other building
or physical improvement, unless expressly authorized by this Agreement or otherwise by Grantee
in writing. Additionally but subject to the provisions in Section 3(b) below, and irrespective of
whether the Contingencies have been satisfied, any physical improvement constructed or installed
on the Property shall, in addition to all other applicable state and local requirements, be subject to
setbacks as if the conditional right-of-way granted herein has been effectuated.
b) Notwithstanding the restrictive covenant contained in Section 3(a) of this
Agreement, a paved parking lot may be constructed within the Easement Area prior to the
Contingencies being satisfied but shall otherwise be subject to all state and local laws and
regulations and all requirements contained in this Section 3(b). If at the time the Contingencies
are satisfied, a parking lot or any portion thereof exists on the Property and is located either within
the Easement Area or within 10 feet of the Easement Area (the “Encroachment”), Grantor shall
remove said Encroachment, at its sole cost and expense, within 45 days of written notice from
Grantee to do so. If Grantor fails to remove the Encroachment within 45 days of Grantee’s written
notice, then Grantee, its agents, employees, and contractors shall have the right to enter onto the
Property for the purpose of removing the Encroachment. The right of entry permitted by this
Agreement shall extend only to such portion of the Property as is necessary to remove the
Encroachment, only to such extent as may be reasonably required, and only to such time periods
as may reasonably be necessary. If Grantee removes the Encroachment pursuant to this Section
3(b), the total cost of removal shall be invoiced to Grantor for full reimbursement. If the costs
incurred by Grantee are not paid in full by Grantor within 30 days of said invoice, Grantee may
assess the Property for any unpaid amounts. To the extent that it relates to said removal costs,
Grantor expressly waives any right to notice of a hearing and waives the right to have any hearing
required by Minnesota Statutes, chapter 429 on the special assessment to be levied pursuant to this
Section 3(b). Grantor also expressly waives any and all rights to appeal or otherwise contest or
challenge the levying of the special assessment against the Property for said removal costs
631462v6ME230-713 F-3
including, but not limited to, the right to challenge whether the increase in fair market value
resulting from the work done is at least equal to the amount that is being assessed against the
Property and that such increase in fair market value is a special benefit to the Property. Grantor
further agrees that any requirements of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 429 with respect to the
adoption or levying of the special assessment for said removal costs are waived to the extent those
requirements are not met.
c) Grantee has the right to enforce the terms of the restrictive covenant provided herein
through any means it deems necessary, in law or in equity, including but not limited to, declaratory
or injunctive relief, and shall further be entitled to recover all of its costs associated with such
enforcement, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, from Grantor, its successors or assigns.
4. Termination. Unless prior termination is otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing, in
the event that the Contingencies are not satisfied on or before December 31, 2040, this Agreement
shall automatically terminate and none of the permanent easement rights contemplated herein shall
vest with Grantee. Following an automatic termination of this Agreement after December 31,
2040, Grantee shall, within 30 days of a written request from Grantor, execute and record a
document releasing the Property from all terms and conditions of this Agreement.
5. Environmental Matters. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses,
damages, demands, obligations, including penalties and reasonable attorneys’ fees, or losses
resulting from any claims, actions, suits or proceedings based upon a release of any hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants which existed on, or which relate to, the Easement Area or
Property prior to the date of this Agreement.
6. Binding Effect. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall run with the land and
be binding on Grantor and Grantee and their successors and assigns. Nothing contained herein
shall be interpreted to prevent Grantee from acquiring any additional property interests through
any way that is otherwise authorized under law.
********************
631462v6ME230-713 F-4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Right-of-Way Easement Agreement and
Restrictive Covenant have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
ARROWHEAD HOLDINGS, LLC.
By__________________________________
Its: Chief Manager/President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020,
by __________________, the Chief Manager/President of Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
____________________________________
Notary Public
631462v6ME230-713 F-5
CITY OF MEDINA
By__________________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
By__________________________________
Scott T. Johnson,
City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _____________,
2020, by Kathleen Martin and Scott T. Johnson, the mayor and city administrator, respectively, of the
city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation.
____________________________________
Notary Public
This instrument drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
631462v6ME230-713 F-A-1
EXHIBIT A TO
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
Legal Description of the Property
The land to which this Agreement applies is legally described as follows:
Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
631462v6ME230-713 F-B-1
EXHIBIT B TO
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
Form of Right-of-Way Easement Document
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
Pursuant to that certain Right-of-Way Easement Agreement and Restrictive Covenant, dated
________________, 2020 and recorded against the real property described in Exhibit A attached
hereto (the “Property”) in the Office of the County Recorder for Hennepin County, Minnesota on
_____________, 2020 as Document No. ____________ (the “Agreement”), the city of Medina (the
“City”) has formally determined that the right-of-way easement conditionally granted in the
Agreement is necessary pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. By executing and recording this
instrument, the City represents that the Contingencies, as that term is defined in the Agreement, have
been fully satisfied and therefore the Easement memorialized in the Agreement shall immediately
take effect. Recording of this document shall be prima facie evidence: (1) that the Contingencies
are duly satisfied; and (2) of the effectuation of a permanent right-of-way easement (the
“Easement”) over, under, upon and across that part of the Property legally described on Exhibit
B attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto (the “Easement Area”), which
includes the right of the City, its contractors, agents, and respective employees to enter the
Easement Area at all reasonable times for the purpose of removing any existing improvements
therein, and locating, constructing, reconstructing, operating, maintaining, inspecting, altering and
repairing within the Easement Area a public roadway, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water
facilities and sidewalk, or all other public facilities or improvements of any type that are not
inconsistent with a public right-of-way use. The Easement also includes the right to survey, grade
and excavate, and cut, trim, or remove from the Easement Area trees, shrubs, or other vegetation
that, in the City’s reasonable judgment, unreasonably interfere with the Easement or facilities of
the City, its successors or assigns. Pursuant to the Agreement, the fee owner of the Property shall
execute and record a separate right-of-way easement instrument consistent with the Easement
terms contained herein if requested by the City to do so, in the City’s sole discretion, but the failure
to do so shall not in any way alter the Easement or otherwise affect its validity.
Dated: _________________, 20___.
CITY OF MEDINA
By__________________________________
Mayor
By__________________________________
City Administrator
631462v6ME230-713 F-B-2
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _____________,
20___, by __________________and __________________, the mayor and city administrator,
respectively, of the city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal
corporation.
____________________________________
Notary Public
This instrument drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
631462v6ME230-713 F-B-A-1
EXHIBIT A TO
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
Legal Description of the Property
Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
631462v6ME230-713 F-B-B-1
EXHIBIT B TO
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
Legal Description of the Easement Area
[to be inserted]
631462v6ME230-713 F-B-C-1
EXHIBIT C TO
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
Depiction of the Easement Area
[to be inserted]
631462v6ME230-713 F-C-1
EXHIBIT C TO
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
Legal Description of the Easement Area
[to be inserted]
631462v6ME230-713 F-D-1
EXHIBIT D TO
RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
Depiction of the Easement Area
[to be inserted]
G-1
631462v6ME230-713
EXHIBIT G TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FORM OF
STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the ____ day of ____________ 2020,
by and between Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Developer”),
and the city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Developer is the fee owner of certain land [and ground lessee of certain
other land] located near the intersection of T.H. 55 and Arrowhead Drive (collectively, the
“Property”), which land is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto; and; and
WHEREAS, the Property has been platted and drainage and utility easements have been
dedicated to the City over portions of the Property (the “Easement Areas”) as depicted on Exhibit B
attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has previously constructed or intends to construct within the
Easement Areas certain stormwater improvements (the “Stormwater Improvements”) for the benefit
of the Property; and
WHEREAS, through separate development agreements, the Developer has agreed to
construct and maintain the Stormwater Improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Stormwater Improvements do not include the stormwater filtration basin
that the City intends to construct on the Property as part of the Arrowhead Project, as that term is
defined in Section 6 of that certain Development Agreement entered into by the parties and dated
_____________, 2020, as the City has expressly agreed to construct and maintain said filtration basin;
and
WHEREAS, the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission requires permanent
provisions for handling of storm runoff, including terms and conditions for operation and maintenance
of all Stormwater Improvements, and requires such provisions to be set forth in an agreement to be
recorded against the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Developer intend to comply with certain conditions, including
entering into a maintenance agreement regarding the Stormwater Improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual covenants of the parties set forth herein
and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties agree as follows:
G-2
631462v6ME230-713
1. Maintenance of the Stormwater Improvements. The Developer and its successor or
assigns as fee owner of the Property shall be responsible for maintaining the Stormwater
Improvements and for observing all drainage laws governing the operation and maintenance of the
Stormwater Improvements. The Developer shall adhere to the schedule for the periodic inspection of
the Stormwater Improvements attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Developer shall make all such
scheduled inspections, keep record of all inspections and maintenance activities, and submit such
records annually to the City. The cost of all inspections and maintenance, including skimming and
cleaning of the Stormwater Improvements, shall be the obligation of the Developer and its successors
or assigns as the fee owner of the Property.
2. City’s Maintenance Rights. The City may maintain the Stormwater Improvements,
as provided in this paragraph, if the City reasonably believes that the Developer or its successors or
assigns has failed to maintain the Stormwater Improvements in accordance with applicable drainage
laws and other requirements and such failure continues for 30 days after the City gives the Developer
written notice of such failure or, if such tasks cannot be completed within 30 days, after such time
period as may be reasonably required to complete the required tasks provided that Developer is
making a good faith effort to complete said task. The City's notice shall specifically state which
maintenance tasks are to be performed. If Developer does not complete the maintenance tasks within
the required time period after such notice is given by the City, the City shall have the right to enter
upon the Easement Area to perform such maintenance tasks. In such case, the City shall send an
invoice of its reasonable maintenance costs to the Developer or its successors or assigns, which shall
include all reasonable staff time, engineering and legal and other reasonable costs and expenses
incurred by the City. If the Developer or its assigns fails to reimburse the City for its costs and
expenses in maintaining the Stormwater Improvements within 30 days of receipt of an invoice for
such costs, the City shall have the right to assess the full cost thereof against the Property. The
Developer, on behalf of itself and its successor and assigns, acknowledges that the maintenance work
performed by the City regarding the Stormwater Improvements benefits the Property in an amount
which exceeds the assessment and hereby waives any right to hearing or notice and the right to appeal
the assessments otherwise provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, in the event of an emergency, as determined by the city engineer, the 30-day notice
requirement to the Developer for failure to perform maintenance tasks shall be and hereby is waived
in its entirety by the Developer, and the Developer shall reimburse the City and be subject to
assessment for any expense so incurred by the City in the same manner as if written notice as
described above has been given.
3. Hold Harmless. The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
City and its agents and employees against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, and expenses
(including reasonable attorneys’ fees) arising out of or resulting from the Developer's, or the
Developer's agents’ or employees’ negligent or intentional acts, or any violation of any safety law,
regulation or code in the performance of this Agreement, without regard to any inspection or review
made or not made by the City, its agents or employees or failure by the City, its agents or employees
to take any other prudent precautions. In the event the City, upon the failure of the Developer to
comply with any conditions of this Agreement, performs said conditions pursuant to its authority in
this Agreement, the Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its employees, agents and
representatives for its own negligent acts in the performance of the Developer's required work under
this Agreement, but this indemnification shall not extend to intentional or grossly negligent acts of
G-3
631462v6ME230-713
the City, its employees, agents and representatives.
4. Costs of Enforcement. The Developer agrees on behalf of itself and its successors and
assigns to reimburse the City for all costs prudently incurred by the City in the enforcement of this
Agreement, or any portion thereof, including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
5. Notice. All notices required under this Agreement shall either be personally delivered,
be sent by nationally recognized overnight courier or be sent by U.S. certified or registered mail,
postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:
a) as to Developer: Arrowhead Holdings, LLC
4101 Arrowhead Drive
Medina, MN 55340
Attn: Ron Ingram, Vice President
Ken Hall, Director of Contracts and Legal
b) as to City: City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
ATTN: City Administrator
with a copy to: Ronald H. Batty
Kennedy & Graven
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
or at such other address as either party may from time to time notify the other in writing in accordance
with this paragraph.
6. Successors. All duties and obligations of Developer under this Agreement shall also
be duties and obligations of Developer's successors and assigns. The terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall run with the Property.
7. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be binding and effective as of the date first
written above.
8. Release of Previous Agreement. Upon the full execution and recording of this
Agreement, that certain Stormwater Maintenance Agreement, dated ___________, 2010 and
recorded on _____________, 2010 as Document No. _______________ with the office of the
Hennepin County Recorder, shall terminate and the Developer, its successors and assigns shall be
fully released from all obligations thereunder. The purpose of this Agreement is to amend and restate
that previous agreement.
********************
G-4
631462v6ME230-713
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Stormwater Maintenance Agreement have
caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
ARROWHEAD HOLDINGS, LLC.
By__________________________________
Its: Chief Manager/President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020,
by __________________, the Chief Manager/President of Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
____________________________________
Notary Public
G-5
631462v6ME230-713
CITY OF MEDINA
By__________________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
By__________________________________
Scott T. Johnson,
City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _____________,
2020, by Kathleen Martin and Scott T. Johnson, the mayor and city administrator, respectively, of the
city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation.
____________________________________
Notary Public
This instrument drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
G-6
631462v6ME230-713
CONSENT TO STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The undersigned, as owner under that certain limited warranty deed, dated June 1, 2010 and
filed June 21, 2010 as Document No. A9526322 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, and lessor under that certain Lease Agreement, dated June 1, 2010 and
evidenced by that certain Short Form of Lease, dated June 1, 2010 and filed June 2, 2010 as
Document No. A9526323 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as
amended by Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated November 9, 2017 and filed November 17,
2017 as Document No. A10501487 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, hereby consents to the foregoing agreement.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________
Approved as to form:
___________________________________
Assistant City Attorney
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020,
by _________________, the ________________ of the city of Minneapolis, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation.
____________________________________
Notary Public
G-A-1
631462v6ME230-713
EXHIBIT A TO
STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Legal Description of the Property
The land to which this Agreement applies is legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
G-B-1
631462v6ME230-713
EXHIBIT B TO
STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Depiction of Easement Areas
[to be included]
631462v6ME230-713 G-C-1
EXHIBIT C TO
STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Inspection and Maintenance Schedule
[to be inserted]
631462v6ME230-713 H-1
EXHIBIT H TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FORM OF
DECLARATION OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT
THIS DECLARTION OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT is made as of the ___ day of _______,
2020, by Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Declarant”).
Recitals
A. Declarant is fee owner of that certain real property legally described in the attached Exhibit A
(the “Burdened Property”), and the city of Minneapolis is fee owner of that certain real property
legally described in the attached Exhibit B (the “Benefitted Property”).
B. Declarant recently subdivided the Benefitted Property, with the consent of the city of
Minneapolis, and intends to construct a new driveway serving the Benefitted Property that will be
partially located on the Burdened Property.
C. Declarant wishes to establish a perpetual driveway easement over and across the Burdened
Property to provide access to the Benefitted Property from the public right-of-way, according to the
terms and conditions contained herein.
Terms of Easement
1. Grant of Easement. Declarant hereby declares that the Burdened Property shall be held, sold,
and conveyed subject to the following easement (the “Easement”), which shall inure to the benefit of
the owners of the Benefitted Property: a permanent, non-exclusive easement for ingress, egress and
access over, under, across and through the portion of the Burdened Property which is legally described
on Exhibit C attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit D attached hereto (the “Easement Area”).
2. Scope of Easement. The Easement granted herein includes the right of the owner of the
Benefitted Property, its guests and invitees, to enter and travel across the Easement Area at all times
for the purpose of gaining pedestrian and vehicular access to the Benefitted Property. No provision
of this instrument and no easement granted herein shall be construed or deemed a dedication of any
rights to the general public or for any public use whatsoever, it being the intention of the parties that
this instrument shall be strictly limited to the purposes herein expressed.
3. Warranty of Title. Declarant warrants that it is the owner of the Burdened Property and has
the right, title and capacity to create the Easement herein.
4. Maintenance. The Easement Area shall be maintained by the owner of the Benefitted
Property, or its successors or assigns, including all snow and ice removal and any other repairs
necessary to provide adequate access to the Benefitted Property, at its sole cost and expense, and the
scope of the Easement contained herein shall be interpreted to allow for said maintenance.
631462v6ME230-713 H-2
5. Easement to Run with Land; No Merger. The Easement created herein shall run with the land
and be binding on all parties having any right, title, or interest in the Burdened Property and the
Benefitted Property, as defined herein, their heirs, successors, and assigns. Declarant intends that the
Easement created herein shall not merge into Declarant’s title to any of the property defined herein
and that any future conveyance of any or all portions of said property by the Declarant shall be subject
to this Declaration of Driveway Easement.
6. Amendment; Modification; Termination. This Declaration may not be amended, modified, or
terminated without the prior written consent of the owner of the Benefitted Property and the city of
Medina, Minnesota.
ARROWHEAD HOLDINGS, LLC.
By__________________________________
Its: Chief Manager/President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020,
by __________________, the Chief Manager/President of Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
____________________________________
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixth Street
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
Minneapolis, MN 55402
631462v6ME230-713 H-A-1
EXHIBIT A TO
DECLARATION OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT
Legal Description of the Burdened Property
Outlot A, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
631462v6ME230-713 H-B-1
EXHIBIT B TO
DECLARATION OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT
Legal Description of the Benefitted Property
Lot 1, Block 1, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
631462v6ME230-713 H-C-1
EXHIBIT C TO
DECLARATION OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT
Legal Description of the Easement Area
[to be inserted]
631462v6ME230-713 H-D-1
EXHIBIT D TO
DECLARATION OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT
Depiction of the Easement Area
[to be inserted]
631462v6ME230-713 I-1
EXHIBIT I TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FORM OF
UPLAND BUFFER EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS UPLAND BUFFER EASEMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made this
____ day of __________, 2020 by and between the city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal
corporation (the “City”), and Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the
“Grantor”).
RECITALS
A. The Developer is the fee owner of certain land [and ground lessee of certain other land]
located near the intersection of T.H. 55 and Arrowhead Drive (collectively, the “Property”),
which land is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto; and
B. Grantor and the City have entered into a separate development agreement (the “Development
Agreement”) regarding the development of the Property.
C. The City has granted approval of a rezoning, plat, site plan, and conditional use permit
amendment concerning the Property (the “City Approvals”), under the terms of which the
Grantor is required to establish upland buffers adjacent to wetlands on portions of the Property
consistent with City regulations, the location of which is legally described in Exhibit B,
attached hereto (the “Easement Area”).
D. In accordance with the Development Agreement, the City Approvals and the City’s wetland
preservation ordinance, the City has requested that Grantor grant to the City a conservation
easement (the “Upland Buffer Easement”) over the Easement Area. The Easement Area is
depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto.
E. Grantor is willing to grant the Upland Buffer Easement in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement.
PROVISIONS
In consideration of the mutual promises of the parties contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Grantor hereby grants and conveys to the City and its successors and assigns, an Upland
Buffer Easement in, under, on, over and across the Easement Area, and the City hereby
accepts such grant. The duration of this easement is perpetual, subject to Minnesota law
governing granting of easements to governmental bodies, and shall bind and inure to the
benefit of the parties, their successors and assigns.
2. The following terms and conditions shall apply to the Easement Area:
631462v6ME230-713 I-2
a. The Easement Area shall be preserved predominantly in its natural condition, except
to the extent set forth below. No use shall be made of the Easement Area except uses,
if any, which would not change or alter the condition of the Easement Area or its
drainage, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, or fish and wildlife
habitat and characteristics.
b. No structures, hardcover or other improvements shall be constructed, erected, or
placed upon, above or beneath the Easement Area, with the exception of a boardwalk
or dock not to exceed four feet in width to allow reasonable access to the wetland.
c. No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be destroyed, cut or removed from the
Easement Area except as is necessary to remove storm damage, diseased or non-native
vegetation or as authorized by the prior written consent of the City consistent with the
wetland preservation ordinance. A path no more than four feet in width may be
mowed to allow reasonable access to the wetland.
d. No earth, peat, gravel or soil, sand or any other natural material or substance shall be
moved or removed from the Easement Area and there shall be no dredging or
excavation of any nature whatsoever or any change of the topography of the Easement
Area without the prior written consent of the City.
e. No soil, sand, gravel or other substance or material as landfill shall be placed, dumped
or stored upon the Easement Area, and no waste, trash, yard waste, manure or other
materials shall be placed, dumped or stored upon the Easement Area without the prior
written consent of the City.
3. Grantor represents that Grantor owns the Easement Area in fee simple, subject only to the
encumbrances of record.
4. The Grantor conveys to the City and its successors and assigns, the following rights:
a. The City may enter upon the Easement Area for the purposes of inspection and
enforcement of the covenants contained herein and to cause to be removed from the
Easement Area without any liability any structures, uses, materials, substances, or
unnatural matter inconsistent with the covenants contained herein and the natural state
of the Easement Area. The City shall provide notice and an order for corrective action
consistent with City regulations. If the Grantor does not take the required corrective
action, the City may enter the Property in order to perform the action. In such case,
the City shall send an invoice of its reasonable maintenance costs to the Grantor,
which shall include all reasonable staff time, engineering and legal and other
reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City. If the Grantor fails to reimburse
the City for its costs and expenses within 45 days of receipt of an invoice for such
costs, the City shall have the right to assess the full cost thereof against the Property.
The Grantor, on behalf of itself and its successor and assigns, acknowledges that the
corrective work performed by the City benefits the Property in an amount which
exceeds the assessment and hereby waives any right to hearing or notice and the right
631462v6ME230-713 I-3
to appeal the assessments otherwise provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
b. The City may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction against the
Grantor to enforce the terms of this Agreement; to require restoration of the Easement
Area to its prior or more natural condition; to enjoin such non-compliance by
temporary or permanent injunction and to recover any damages arising from such non-
compliance. If a court determines that the Grantor has failed to comply with this
Agreement, Grantor or Grantor’s successors or assigns shall reimburse the City for
any reasonable costs of enforcement, including costs of restoration, court costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees, in addition to any other payments ordered by the court.
5. Grantor hereby grants and conveys to the City a perpetual flowage easement and right and
privilege to trespass with water over and upon any or all of the Easement Area.
6. Grantor retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to
ownership, operation and maintenance of the Property and the Easement Area.
7. Grantor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officials, employees and
agents, against any and all loss, costs, damage and expense, including reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs that the City incurs because of the breach of any of the above covenants and/or
resulting from or due to Grantor’s intentional misrepresentation of any material fact contained
therein. The Grantor and the City agree that each shall be responsible for their own acts and
the results of such acts and shall not be responsible for the act of the other party and the results
of such acts.
8. This Agreement may be amended only by mutual written agreement of the parties.
9. Nothing herein shall give the general public a right of access to the Property.
10. Grantor’s rights and obligations under this Agreement terminate upon transfer or termination
of its interest in the Property, provided that any liability for acts or omissions occurring prior
to the transfer or termination shall survive that transfer or termination. Nothing in this
Paragraph 10 is deemed to alter or amend the remaining terms of the Agreement in the event
of a transfer of interest.
11. Any notice required in this Agreement shall be delivered personally or sent by U.S. certified
mail, return receipt requested:
a) as to Developer: Arrowhead Holdings, LLC
4101 Arrowhead Drive
Medina, MN 55340
Attn: Ron Ingram, Vice President
Ken Hall, Director of Contracts and Legal
631462v6ME230-713 I-4
b) as to City: City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
ATTN: City Administrator
with a copy to: Ronald H. Batty
Kennedy & Graven
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
or at such other address as either party may from time to time notify the other in writing in
accordance with this paragraph.
12. Release of Previous Agreement. Upon the full execution and recording of this Agreement,
that certain Conservation Easement Agreement, dated ___________, 2010 and recorded on
_____________, 2010 as Document No. _______________ with the office of the Hennepin
County Recorder, shall terminate and the Developer, its successors and assigns shall be fully
released from all obligations thereunder. The purpose of this Agreement is to amend and
restate that previous Conservation Easement Agreement.
************************
631462v6ME230-713 I-5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Upland Buffer Easement Agreement have
caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
ARROWHEAD HOLDINGS, LLC.
By__________________________________
Its: Chief Manager/President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020,
by __________________, the Chief Manager/President of Arrowhead Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
____________________________________
Notary Public
631462v6ME230-713 I-6
CITY OF MEDINA
By__________________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
By__________________________________
Scott T. Johnson,
City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _____________,
2020, by Kathleen Martin and Scott T. Johnson, the mayor and city administrator, respectively, of the
city of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation.
____________________________________
Notary Public
This instrument drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
631462v6ME230-713 I-7
CONSENT TO UPLAND BUFFER EASEMENT AGREEMENT
The undersigned, as owner under that certain limited warranty deed, dated June 1, 2010 and
filed June 21, 2010 as Document No. A9526322 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, and lessor under that certain Lease Agreement, dated June 1, 2010 and
evidenced by that certain Short Form of Lease, dated June 1, 2010 and filed June 2, 2010 as
Document No. A9526323 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as
amended by Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated November 9, 2017 and filed November 17,
2017 as Document No. A10501487 in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, hereby consents to the foregoing agreement.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
By: _________________________________
Its: _________________________________
Approved as to form:
___________________________________
Assistant City Attorney
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020,
by _________________, the ________________ of the city of Minneapolis, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation.
____________________________________
Notary Public
631462v6ME230-713 I-A-1
EXHIBIT A TO
UPLAND BUFFER EASEMENT AGREEMENT
Legal Description of the Property
Lot 1, Block 1; and
Outlot A,
all in Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
631462v6ME230-713 I-B-1
EXHIBIT B TO
UPLAND BUFFER EASEMENT AGREEMENT
Legal Description of the Easement Area
[to be included]
631462v6ME230-713 I-C-1
EXHIBIT C TO
UPLAND BUFFER EASEMENT AGREEMENT
Depiction of the Easement Area
[to be included]
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 1 of 6 March 17, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP (updated) City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: March 12, 2020
MEETING: March 17, 2020 City Council
SUBJ: Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) - Rezoning,
Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit - PIDs
04-118- 23-21-0001 & 04-118-23-24-0001 (N of Hwy 55, W of Willow Drive)
Background
Jan Har, LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) has requested approval of various land use applications to
allow for a business development on property located north of Highway 55, approximately 1300
feet west of Willow Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 43,000 square-foot, three-
story office building with a bar restaurant and a 13,100 square foot accessory building for shop,
warehouse, and vehicle storage.
In order to effectuate the development of the land, the request includes the following land use
applications, and staff recommends that they be considered in this order:
1) Rezoning from Rural Business Holding (RBH) to Business (B) - The subject site, and
property to the east and south, is guided for business development in the Comprehensive
Plan. The subject site is currently zoned Rural Business Holding (RBH). The applicant
proposes to rezone both proposed lots to the Business (B) zoning district.
2) Preliminary Plat to plat property into two lots - The applicant proposes to plat the property
into two lots. The southern lot is proposed to be approximately 26.5 acres in size and to
be developed in this application. The northern lot is proposed to be approximately 19.5
acres in size for future development. No improvements are proposed on the northern lot
at this time.
3) Site Plan review for construction of new buildings
4) Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Recreation, Outdoor Dining/Drinking area, and vehicle
repair
The City Council reviewed the request at the December 3, 2019 meeting and directed staff to
prepare documents approving the request. At that time, the applicant proposed to provide access
to the site by constructing a new street over vacant property to the east, assuming right-of-way
would be granted over the property.
The owner of the property to the east has indicated that they are not prepared to provide right-of-
way at this time. The applicant has indicated that their preferred alternative is still to construct
the access to the east, but if right-of-way is not provided, they propose direct access to Highway
55. The applicant met with MnDOT, who has indicated that, if alternative access is not
provided, a full access with left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes added on Highway 55 would be
the required alternative.
Agenda Item # 8C
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 2 of 6 March 17, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP (updated) City Council Meeting
Except for the potential change of access, the proposal is the same as reviewed by the City late
last year. This report discusses the potential change of access but does not repeat the rest of the
information about the requests. The report presented to the City Council last year is attached for
reference.
Transportation, Streets and Right-of-way
As noted above, the applicant’s preferred plan is to construct a road to connect to Willow Drive
as a primary access. The City would then accept this street as a public roadway. The applicant
proposes a temporary access into the site from Highway 55 for three years following completion
of the building.
There is property owned by another party between the Adam’s Pest Control site and Willow
Drive. City staff and the applicant have been in discussions with the owners to secure public
right-of-way which would allow the applicant to construct the street. At this point, the owner of
the property to the east has indicated that they are not prepared to provide the right-of-way at this
time. The owner of the property to the east entered into an agreement with the City in 1993, in
which they agreed to construct a private road from Willow Drive to abut the Adam’s Pest
Control Property when construction occurred on the property to the east. Ultimately, this private
street could allow access to the Adam’s Pest Control property when constructed.
The applicant has requested approval of direct access to Highway 55 as a “back-up plan” if right-
of-way is not provided. The applicant (and City staff) consulted with MnDOT on the access.
MnDOT has indicated that, if no alternative access exists, they would recommend and require
that a left-turn lane and right-turn lane be added on Highway 55 to serve the property.
A limited access, such as a right-in/right-out only, does not appear to be a good alternative in this
case because there are not good opportunities for drivers to turn around neither east or west of
this property. Without medians, it is difficult to make the u-turns and to prevent the left turns
either in or out. As a result, and contrary to what may have been expected, MnDOT concluded
the full access with turn-lanes was the least concerning alternative. The City Engineer concurred
with this conclusion, and their summary is attached.
When the roadway to Willow Drive is provided in the future, MnDOT will be able to limit the
access at that time. There would be costs for MnDOT to implement those changes such as
alterations to the driveway or potential construction of a median.
Staff recommends the following conditions related to access, depending on which access
scenario is to occur:
• Access through new road to Willow Drive:
o Owner shall construct public street meeting relevant specifications to Willow
Drive, including necessary stormwater management.
o Owner shall provide documentation acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure
closure of the temporary right-in access from Highway 55 within three years after
completion of the building.
• Access onto Highway 55: The Owner shall construct left-turn lane and right-turn lane
and other necessary improvements as recommended and required by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 3 of 6 March 17, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP (updated) City Council Meeting
Preliminary Plat Review
The following criteria are described in the subdivision ordinance: “In the case of all subdivisions,
the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the
following findings are made:
(a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city,
or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28.
(b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are
such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does
not meet minimum lot size standards.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or
private streets, easements or right-of-way.
Rezoning/Site Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit Review
The criteria for reviewing proposed rezonings, site plan reviews and conditional use permits
were discussed in the staff report upon initial review, which is attached for reference.
The City has a higher level of discussion when determining how to zone the property. As
discussed during the initial review back in November, the Business (B) and Business Park (BP)
are both intended to implement the objectives of the Business land use. The Planning
Commission and Council should also determine whether the B or BP zoning district is most
appropriate for Lot 2 based upon the objectives described in the Comprehensive Plan and the
purposes described for each district. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of Lot 1 to the
B district and also believes it is reasonable to zone Lot 2 as B as well.
The City has a relatively low level of discretion when reviewing the Conditional Use Permits and
Site Plan Review. If a proposed conditional use permit meets the specific and general standards
described in the attached report, it should be approved. The City Council may impose additional
conditions “it considers necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding area or the
community as a whole.” Staff and the Planning Commission had recommended some of those
conditions upon initial review, which are described below.
The purpose of a Site Plan Review is to review compliance with relevant land use regulations. If
the proposed construction meets the requirements, it should be approved. The City can apply
conditions as necessary to ensure compliance with City requirements.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the updated application at their March 10
meeting. The Commission had previously reviewed in November 2019 as well. An excerpt
from the draft meeting minutes of the March 10 meeting is attached for reference. A Corcoran
resident spoke at the Public Hearing and suggested that the City require paving Willow Drive to
the Corcoran border, which is where the speaker’s driveway is located. The resident also was
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 4 of 6 March 17, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP (updated) City Council Meeting
concerned with outdoor music. The resident stated that they believed the access to Highway 55
was actually better for the development. The City received email correspondence from a Medina
resident expressing concern with the access to Highway 55, which is attached.
The Commission discussed the potential access onto Highway 55. Commissioners stated that an
alternative access rather than Highway 55 would be strongly preferred. However, based upon
the feedback from MnDOT and the City Engineer, if right-of-way is not provided for
construction of the access to Willow Drive, the Commission recommended approval of the
requests subject to the conditions below.
Preliminary Plat
The City has a relatively low amount of discretion while reviewing a plat request. If the plat
meets relevant ordinance standards and does not meet the criteria above, it should be approved.
Subject to the following conditions, staff does not believe these findings are met. The Planning
Commission recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the
conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy.
2. The Applicant shall construct necessary improvements to provide access as follows.
a. If access is provided via a new road to Willow Drive:
i. Owner shall construct public street meeting relevant specifications to Willow Drive,
including necessary stormwater management.
ii. Owner shall provide documentation acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure closure
of the temporary right-in access from Highway 55 within three years after completion
of the building.
b. If access is provided directly via Highway 55:
i. The Owner shall construct left-turn lane and right-turn lane and other necessary
improvements as recommended and required by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation
ii. The Owner shall grant an access easement over the southern lot to allow access for
the northern lot to Highway 55.
3. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated 2/27/2020 and
12/3/2019 except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
4. The Applicant shall preserve four acres of the wooded area for park and open space
dedication. If the Owner or a future Owner extinguishes the covenant to preserve the area in
the future, a full cash-in-lieu fee of 8% of the future market value of Lots 1 and 2 shall be
payable.
5. The plat shall dedicate right-of-way for the future cul-de-sac.
6. The plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lots, over all
water mains and hydrants, over stormwater improvements, and over all wetland areas.
7. The watermain and hydrants within the lots shall be privately maintained.
8. The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site
improvements in order to ensure completion.
9. The final plat applicant shall be filed within 180 days of the date of the resolution granting
preliminary approval or the approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for
time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 5 of 6 March 17, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP (updated) City Council Meeting
10. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the
cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents.
Site Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit
1. The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of US Fish and Wildlife Services with
regard to construction near the bald eagle nest.
2. Approval of this Site Plan Review shall be contingent upon approval of a rezoning of the
subject property to the Business zoning district.
3. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated 2/27/2020 and
12/3/2019 except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
4. The Applicant shall construct necessary improvements to provide access as follows.
(a) If access is provided via new road to Willow Drive:
1. Owner shall construct public street meeting relevant specifications to Willow
Drive, including necessary stormwater management.
2. Owner shall provide documentation acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure
closure of the temporary right-in access from Highway 55 within three years after
completion of the building.
(b) If access is provided directly via Highway 55: The Owner shall construct left-turn
lane and right-turn lane and other necessary improvements as recommended and
required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation
5. The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including installation of vegetative buffers, recordation of easements, and installation of
signage.
6. The Applicant shall update landscaping plans to provide landscaping to south and west of
the vehicle service bay and vehicle storage doors.
7. The Applicant shall update the parking lot plan to divide the parking into cells with
landscaping at least 12 feet in width.
8. The Applicant shall update plans so that the access/circulation for the accessory building
meets setback requirements from Highway 55.
9. The Applicant shall submit specifications confirming that proposed concrete panels are
color impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a
high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
10. The Applicant shall update lighting plants to comply with the City’s lighting ordinance,
limiting light trespass to 0.2 FC at the property line.
11. The Applicant shall identify HVAC locations and provide screening measures for review
and approval.
12. All comments from the Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed District shall be addressed.
13. All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed.
14. The outdoor dining and drinking area shall be delineated with fencing.
15. Adequate provision shall be made for proper inside storage of all new and used
petroleum, chemical, liquid, and other product related to the vehicle repair.
16. All vehicle repair shall occur within the structure.
17. Vehicles parked outside awaiting service or pick-up shall be located in an area which is
fully screened from neighboring properties and from the right-of-way. No inoperable
vehicle may be parked outside.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 6 of 6 March 17, 2020
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP (updated) City Council Meeting
18. No automobile storage, display or sales shall occur upon the site unless a separate
conditional use permit is obtained for such use, except that retired vehicles used in
connection with the approved use(s) on the site may be sold.
19. The site plan review approval shall be effective for two years and thereafter shall be
considered null and void. The restaurant portion of the project may be constructed as a
separate project, provided the permit is obtained within four years of approval.
20. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, site plan review, and related documents.
Potential Action
As noted above, the request is the same as reviewed by the City Council in December except the
potential change of access to access directly to Highway 55 if right-of-way is not provided over
property to the east.
The City Council can discuss whether the potential access to Highway 55 changes its findings
based on the relevant criteria or whether additional conditions should be considered.
Following such review, the City Council could consider the following action:
Move to direct staff to prepare documents approving of the rezoning, preliminary
plat, site plan review, and conditional use permit subject to the conditions noted in the
staff report.
Attachments
1. December 3, 2019 City Council report
2. List of Documents
3. Excerpt from 3/10/2020 Planning Commission
4. Excerpt from 12/3/2019 City Council
5. Comp Plan Information – Business Land Use
6. Engineering comments dated 11/5/2019
7. Traffic Engineer comments dated 3/2/2020
8. Public Comments received (Reader, Kozlak, Chudek, Kozlak)
9. Applicant narrative describing potential Highway 55 access
10. Preliminary Plat and Plans (Civil dated 12/3/2019 and 3/2/2020)
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 1 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: November 26, 2019
MEETING: December 3, 2019 City Council
SUBJ: Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) - Rezoning, Preliminary Plat,
Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit - PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 &
04-118-23-24-0001 (north of Highway 55, 1300 feet west of Willow Drive)
Background
Jan Har, LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) has requested approval of various land use applications to
allow for a business development on property located north of Highway 55, approximately 1300
feet west of Willow Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 43,000 square-foot, three-
story office building with a bar restaurant and a 13,100 square foot accessory building for shop,
warehouse, and vehicle storage.
The subject site is approximately 43 acres, but the western half is part of a large wetland basin
(Pioneer Creek). The northern five acres of the site is wooded, and the remainder is farmed. The
site slopes from east to west. A bald eagle eyrie is located within a large tree near Highway 55
on the edge of the wetland. Site and building construction would be subject to US Fish and
Wildlife Services regulations and recommendations.
Property to the east of the site is also guided for business, but much is currently farmland.
Graphic Packaging is located to the southeast. Rural homes in the City of Corcoran are located
to the north. The large wetland to the west is between 850-1350 feet in width, with rural
residential uses to the west. An aerial of the site and surrounding properties can be found at the
top of the following page.
The request includes the following land use applications, and staff recommends that they be
considered in this order:
1) Rezoning from Rural Business Holding (RBH) to Business (B) - The subject site, and
property to the east and south, is guided for business development in the Comprehensive
Plan. The subject site is currently zoned Rural Business Holding (RBH). The applicant
proposes to rezone both proposed lots to the Business (B) zoning district.
2) Preliminary Plat to plat property into two lots - The applicant proposes to plat the property
into two lots. The southern lot is proposed to be approximately 26.5 acres in size and to
be developed in this application. The northern lot is proposed to be approximately 19.5
acres in size for future development. No improvements are proposed on the northern lot
at this time.
3) Site Plan review for construction of new buildings
4) Conditional Use Permit for Indoor Recreation, Outdoor Dining/Drinking area, and vehicle
repair
Agenda Item # 7D
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 2 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Rezoning Request
As previously noted, the subject site has been designated as “Business” in the City’s 2020-2040
Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is zoned Rural Business Holding (RBH). The RBH
zoning district is intended to apply to property planned for business development prior to
development with City sewer and water. Rezoning is expected at the time sewer and water are
extended to the property.
The City has established the Business (B) and Business Park (BP) zoning districts to implement
the objectives of the Business land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has requested
that the entire site be zoned to Business.
The B and BP districts allow similar uses, but as described in their purpose statements, generally
the B district is intended to be applied to property more proximate to arterial roadways: “The
purpose of the Business (B) district is to provide for a zoning district for a mix of office, high
quality light industrial, and larger-scale retail and service uses with proximity to arterial
roadways. Development shall include high quality and attractive building materials and
architectural design as well as extensive landscaping in order to limit impacts on surrounding
land uses, and shall be integrated and coordinated in a way to most efficiently utilize site
improvements and to protect the natural environment.”
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 3 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
The BP zoning district is intended to be applied to property more proximate to residential lands:
“The purpose of the Business Park (BP) district is to provide an attractive, high quality business
park primarily for office, high quality manufacturing and assembly, and non-retail uses in
developments which provide a harmonious transition to residential development and
neighborhoods by: 1) conducting all business activities and essentially all storage inside
buildings, 2) consisting of low profile, high quality and attractive buildings which blend in with
the environment, 3) providing open space, quality landscaping and berming which achieve a
park-like setting; 4) including berming and buffering of parking, loading docks and other similar
functions; and 5) protecting and enhancing the natural environment.”
The most significant difference between the BP and B zoning districts is that the B district allows
a height of 45 feet, and the BP district allows 35 feet. The setback requirements are slightly
more for BP and very limited outside storage is permitted in B while no outside storage is
permitted in BP.
The subject site is adjacent to Highway 55, which would generally align with the purpose
statement of the B zoning district. Residential property is located north of the site in the City of
Corcoran, which may suggest that the BP district could be applied to the proposed northern lot.
However, the proposed northern lot is approximately 865 feet north of Highway 55, which is still
proximate to the highway.
The definition and objectives of the Business land use should provide guidance when
determining appropriate zoning regulations for property within the use. This information is
attached for reference.
According to Section 825.35 of the City Code: “amendments [to the zoning map] shall
not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals
and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City.”
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of the entire subject site to the B zoning district.
Staff believes the proposed zoning of the southern lot to the B zoning district is consistent with
the purposes of the district. While the northern lot is adjacent to residential property in Corcoran
to the north, it is still proximate to Highway 55. As such, staff believes the B district is
appropriate.
Preliminary Plat
The applicant proposes to plat the subject property into two lots. The subject site has two
property identification numbers, but staff did not find record of previous subdivision. The B and
BP district have different minimum lot standards, but it appears that both proposed lots far
exceed the minimum standards of either district. The following table compares the proposed
lots to the standards of the B and BP districts.
B Requirement BP
Requirement
Lot 1
(south lot)
Lot 2
(north lot)
Minimum Lot Area 3 acres 3 acres 26.58 acre 19.59 acre
Minimum Lot Width 175 feet 200 feet 1440 feet 935 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 175 feet 200 feet 660 feet 1440 feet
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 4 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Transportation, Streets and Right-of-way
The applicant proposes to construct a road to connect to Willow Drive as a primary access. The
applicant proposes a temporary access into the site from Highway 55 for three years following
completion of the building. The plans show a right-in/right-out onto Highway 55, but the
applicant is updating plans to show access via the road to Willow.
There is property owned by another party between the subject site and Willow Drive. City staff
is working with the owners to secure public right-of-way which would allow the applicant to
construct the street. The City would then accept this street as a public roadway. Without the
street connection to Willow Drive, it is likely that staff would be requiring a traffic analysis and
potentially major improvements on Highway 55 if the applicant were proposing as primary
access. Staff recommends a condition that the plat and site plan review are contingent upon
construction of the street to connect to Willow Drive.
Staff recommends a condition that the owner provide documentation acceptable to the City
Attorney to ensure closure of the access onto Highway 55 within three years after completion of
the building. Staff also recommends a condition that the plat be updated to dedicate right-of-way
for the proposed cul-de-sac from Willow Drive.
Provided the access to Willow Drive is constructed, the City Engineer did not raise concerns
related to the City’s transportation system. The City Engineer did not oppose the temporary right
from Highway 55. However, the City Engineer did raise concern with access directly onto
Highway 55 if the access to Willow Drive is not provided.
Sewer/Water/Easements
The applicant proposes to loop a watermain from the west side of Graphic Packaging to the site
and then back to Willow Drive along the proposed roadway. Staff recommends that all
watermain and hydrants improvements within the subject site be private.
The applicant proposes to expand sanitary sewer along the street to a future City sewer lift
station which is proposed along Willow Drive. Private sewer lines would extend from the cul-
de-sac to serve the buildings.
Staff recommends a condition that easements be provided around the perimeter of the lot, over
all wetland areas, over all stormwater facilities, and over public and private watermains and
hydrants. Because staff recommends that the watermain within the site be private, staff
recommends that a wider drainage and utility easement be provided along the eastern property
line between the watermains to allow for a potential connection between them at some point in
the future.
Park Dedication – Ordinance Requirements
City’s subdivision regulations require up to one of the following amounts to be dedicated for
parks, trails, and open space purposes:
• 2.4 acres of land to be dedicated – 10% of the buildable property
• $65,200 (estimated) in-lieu of land dedication – 8% of the pre-developed market value
• Combination of land and cash
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 5 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan
No park or trail improvements are identified in the City’s Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan, a
map of which is attached for reference.
The City’s natural resource inventory and Open Space Plan identify the wooded area in the
northern portion of the site as a “good” quality maple-basswood forest. This quality of woodland
is uncommon in the metropolitan area and has been identified as a priority for conservation. At
this point, no development is proposed on the northern lot so no disturbance of the woodland is
proposed. However, Park Dedication during review of the plat provides opportunity for
preservation.
Proposed Parks, Trails and Open Space
The applicant proposes preservation of the approximately 20 acre wetland area and installation
of three bike repair stations in City parks as park dedication. Wetland areas have certain
protections through the wetland conservation act and City ordinances. It appears that the bike
repair stations retail for approximately $750-$1500+installation costs.
The applicant has also discussed the possibility of trails to access the natural amenities of the
site, specifically the eagles’ eyrie and the woods to the north. The Park Commission can discuss
whether such trails, although internal to the site, could provide a broader public use, perhaps in
connection with a trailhead.
Park, Trail, Open Space Discussion
Staff recommends discussion related to preservation of the wooded area in the northern portion
of the site. The City’s natural resource inventory identifies this as a comparatively high-quality
natural resource in the City and a priority for protection.
Existing City regulations and practical realities of the site provide some protections. The City’s
tree preservation ordinance would require replacement if more than 10% of the trees were
proposed to be removed. The wetland to the west and north provide buffer requirements, and
when combined with property line setbacks from the residential property to the north, encompass
a fair amount of the area. These factors, combined with the topography of this portion of the
property, would suggest construction in their area may be challenging.
With all of that being said, there would be no prohibition against disturbance within most of the
wooded area. In past examples, the City and property owner have agreed on partial credit for
preservation when the City hasn’t required the actual full dedication of land into City ownership.
Based upon the challenges with construction in this case, it appears that this may be an
opportunity.
Park Commission Recommendation
The Park Commission reviewed at their November 20 meeting. The Commission discussed the
wooded area of the lot and generally supported preservation to the extent possible. The
Commission did not believe it was necessary for the land to be taken publicly, but supported
some amount of credit for private conservation. The Council should discuss whether to require
dedication of some portion of the area as park dedication, or if it would prefer that staff discuss
with the applicant some credit for private preservation.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 6 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Plat Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
The following criteria are described in the subdivision ordinance: “In the case of all subdivisions,
the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the
following findings are made:
(a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city,
or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28.
(b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are
such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does
not meet minimum lot size standards.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or
private streets, easements or right-of-way.
The City’s has a relatively low amount of discretion while reviewing a plat request. If the plat
meets relevant ordinance standards and does not meet the criteria above, it should be approved.
Subject to the following conditions, staff does not believe these findings are met. Therefore, the
Planning Commission recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the
conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy.
2. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon construction of a roadway to provide
access to the site from Willow Drive.
3. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated _______, except as
may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
4. The Applicant shall pay cash-in-lieu of land dedication in the amount of ___________. A
covenant shall be recorded related to the preservation of the ____ acre wooded area. If the
Owner or a future Owner extinguishes the covenant in the future, the remaining park
dedication fee of ________ shall become payable.
5. The plat shall dedicate right-of-way for the proposed cul-de-sac.
6. The plat shall dedicate a wider drainage and utility easement along the eastern property line
for potential water main connection.
7. The plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lots, over all
water mains and hydrants, over stormwater improvements, and over all wetland areas.
8. The watermain and hydrants within the lots shall be privately maintained.
9. The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site
improvements in order to ensure completion.
10. The final plat applicant shall be filed within 180 days of the date of the resolution granting
preliminary approval or the approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for
time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council.
11. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the
cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 7 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Proposed Site Plan
The proposed uses of the principal building include office and bar/restaurant, which are
permitted in B zoning district. The applicant also proposes entertainment in the bar/restaurant
and outdoor seating. Indoor recreational uses and outdoor dining/drinking areas are allowed with
conditional use permit. The proposed uses of the accessory structure include warehouse and
vehicle storage, which are allowed uses and vehicle repair, which is a conditional use.
Following is a summary comparing the proposed construction to the dimensional standards of
the B district. This review is contingent upon rezoning to the B zoning district and would need
to be reevaluated if the City does not approve of the requested rezoning.
B District
Requirement
Principal
Building
Accessory
Building
Minimum Front Yard Setback 40 feet 330 feet (cul-de-
sac)
510 feet (cul-de-
sac)
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 820 feet (west) 1300 feet (west)
Minimum Interior Yard
Setback
25 feet
(15 feet if integrated)
300 feet (north)
330 feet (east)
550 feet (north)
40 feet (east)
Setback from Highway 55 50 feet 127 feet 62 feet
Setback from Residential 100 feet
(75 feet w/ screening)
800 feet
(southwest)
N/A
Setback for Structures >35’ + foot per foot +7 feet N/A
Minimum Parking Setbacks
Front Yard 25 feet 30 feet (south)
19 feet (south)
Rear and Side Yard 15 feet 120 feet (north)
900 feet (west)
50 feet (east)
Residential (east) 100 feet
(60 feet w/ screening)
800 feet
(southwest)
1300 feet
(southwest)
Maximum Hardcover 70% 17.3% (total) 17.3% (total)
Building Height 45 feet 37.6’ (42’ to top
of arch. element)
22’ (27’ to top of
arch. Element)
It appears that that access drive and circulation for the accessory building does not meet
minimum setback requirements from Highway 55. It appears that this area is wider than it would
need to be, so staff recommends a condition that the plans be adjusted to abide by setback
requirements. With the exception of this portion of the access lane, it appears the proposed site
plan meets dimensional standards of the district.
Building Materials and Design
The B zoning district requires the following architectural standards. The Planning Commission
and Council can discuss whether the proposed building is consistent with the standards or
recommend conditions if necessary.
The applicant may not construct the restaurant portion of the building with the initial
construction, but has requested the ability to construct within a reasonable timeframe. Staff
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 8 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
supports allowing four years for construction to begin. Staff requested architectural plans
showing the building with and without the restaurant to confirm that the building could meet
architectural requirements in either case. Both elevations are included in the attached plans.
Materials
The B district requires: “All exterior building materials shall be durable and meet the following
standards:
(a) A minimum of 20 percent of the building exterior shall be brick, natural stone, stucco
(not Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product), copper, or glass.
(b) A maximum of 80 percent may be decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative
block, and/or decorative pre-cast concrete panels. Decorative concrete shall be color
impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a
high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
(c) A maximum of 20 percent may be wood, metal (excluding copper), fiber cement lap
siding or Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, if used as accent
materials which are integrated into the overall building design.”
The principal building is proposed to include
the exterior materials to the right:
The accessory structure is proposed to include the
exterior materials to the right:
Staff recommends a condition that the concrete
panels are “color impregnated in earth tones (rather
than painted) and shall be patterned to create a high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine
appearance.”
Modulation
The business districts require: “Buildings shall be designed to avoid long, monotonous
building walls. Modulation may include varying building height, building setback, or
building materials/design. Generally, a particular building elevation shall include a
minimum of one element of modulation per 100 feet of horizontal length, or portion
thereof. Alternative architectural or site elements and designs may also be approved by
the city which achieve the purpose of reducing the visual impact of long building walls.”
The southern portion of the proposed principal building elevations contain many aspects of
modulation, including horizontal (varying building setback), vertical (varying building heights),
different materials, and elements such as awnings. The northern portion of the building does not
include as much modulation, but does provide vertical stone elements more than once per 100
feet.
The accessory building is a large rectangle with the same building height. The structure is
proposed to include vertical stone architectural elements in excess of once per 100 feet which
complement the principal structure.
Materials Proposed Required
Glass, stone, brick, stucco 48% Minimum 20%
Precast concrete 31% Maximum 80%
Metal 20% Maximum 20%
Materials Proposed Required
Glass, stone 23% Minimum 20%
Precast concrete 66% Maximum 80%
Metal 10% Maximum 20%
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 9 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Fenestration and Transparency
The business districts require: “Building elevations which face a public street shall include
generous window coverage. Alternative architectural elements may be approved by the City
when windows are not practical.”
The southern façade of the principal structure includes approximately 18% window coverage and
various other architectural elements. The southern façade of the accessory structure includes
approximately 4% window coverage and a stone architectural feature. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission and Council discuss whether the fenestration and architectural design of
the accessory building is consistent with this requirement.
Multi-sided Architecture
The business districts require: “Any rear or side building elevation which faces a
public street or a residential zoning district shall include design and architectural
elements of a quality generally associated with a front façade. The elevation(s) shall be
compatible with the front building elevation.”
Staff believes the principal structure generally provides multi-sided architecture.
Stormwater
The applicant proposes a series of filtration basins for stormwater management. The City
Engineer has reviewed and provided comments to address. Most significantly, additional
volume control will be required. Staff recommends as a condition of approval.
The project will also be subject to Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed review and approval.
Wetlands and Floodplains
The western half of the property is within a large wetland basin which is connected with the
headwaters of Pioneer Creek. A smaller basin is located in the woods to the north and a
drainageway in the east-central area of the property near the proposed lot line. No wetland
impacts are proposed. The applicant has proposed to subdivide the property such that Lot 2
could receive access without wetland impacts, but some impacts may be requested to cross the
drainageway when Lot 2 is developed.
The wetland protection ordinance requires upland
buffers with average width as described to the right:
The plan identifies the required buffers and the
applicant proposes very little disturbance within the buffers, only to accommodate the discharge
from a filtration basin to the northwest.
FEMA floodplain maps identify a large “Zone A” floodplain within the large wetland basin to
the west. Neither FEMA nor the Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed have identified a base flood
elevation for this basin, but the structures are proposed more than 10 feet above the elevation of
the floodplain location. No impacts are proposed within the mapped floodplain.
Wetland Required
buffer
Large basin to west 35 feet
Northern wetland (wooded) 35 feet
Eastern wetland 25 feet
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 10 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Transportation/Access/Loading
Transportation and access are discussed above within the review of the preliminary plat. Staff
recommends that sidewalk connections be provided from the cul-de-sac to the principal structure
and that pedestrian circulation be reviewed within the parking lot. This would allow connection
with pedestrian improvements within neighboring developments to the east.
The business zoning districts include the following requirements related to loading docks:
• Limitation on loading dock area located outside of courtyards - Loading docks,
excepting those located within a courtyard as defined by this Section, shall not occupy
greater than 10 percent of the building perimeter. If it deems it practically necessary, the
city may allow additional loading dock area outside of courtyards, but not in an amount
to exceed 20 percent of the building perimeter.
The principal building is not proposed to include a loading dock. Garage doors and docks
occupy 12.3% of the perimeter of the accessory structure. The applicant has submitted a
narrative describing why the additional doors are necessary. About ½ of the garage doors allow
for inside vehicle storage, rather than loading. Staff believes it is reasonable to determine that
the doors in excess of 10% are practically necessary, especially since the principal structure has
no docks.
• Loading docks shall not be located in required yard setbacks and should be located in a
way which minimizes visibility from residential zoning districts and public streets.
The proposed docks meet setback requirements and no residential property is in the area. The
vehicle storage and shop doors are located on the western side of the accessory building. The
building is a few feet below grade, which would reduce visibility, but may be visible east-bound
on Highway 55. The applicant proposes landscaping on the bottom of the wall, near the
building, but staff recommends a condition to incorporate or shift some planting to the top of the
retaining wall to improve screening.
• The loading dock setback adjacent to or across a street from a residential zoning district
shall be increased to 100 feet.
The proposed docks are 1300 feet from residential property.
• Any loading dock within 300 feet of a residential zoning district shall be separated from
the residential district by a building or a wing wall. The city may approve of other
alternatives for noise abatement and screening.
The proposed docks are 1300 feet from residential property.
• Loading docks shall be screened from adjacent property and streets to the fullest extent
possible using the following techniques, or others as approved by the city.
o Building design/configuration
o Wing walls
o Below grade docks. This technique shall be supplemented with landscaping.
o Landscaping
o Berming
o Decorative Fencing.
The applicant proposes landscaping on the bottom of the wall, near the building, but staff
recommends a condition to incorporate or shift some planting to the top of the retaining wall to
improve screening.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 11 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Parking
The applicant proposes 298 parking spaces. According to the City’s parking ordinance, the
office, restaurant, and warehouse/shop would require a minimum of 260 parking stalls.
The applicant anticipates live music within the bar/restaurant. It is likely that this would increase
the parking demand of the bar/restaurant because some of the space would likely be opened up
for standing room. However, the applicant anticipates that the entertainment use would occur in
the off-peak office hours, which would provide the opportunity to share the parking. The
parking ordinance allows for Joint Use Parking when “parking demands occur at different times,
if approved by the City.” The ordinance also allows the City to reduce the required number of
parking spaces based on “factors having an impact on parking demand and capacity.” Staff
believes the proposed joint parking between the office and entertainment use is appropriate.
Lighting
The City’s lighting ordinance requires light trespass to be no more than 0.2 FC at property lines.
The applicant has submitted a lighting and photometric plan and there are some areas that appear
to be 0.3 FC at the property line. The plans will need to provide updated fixtures or shielding to
meet the maximum allowance.
Staff recommends a condition requiring updated photometrics showing compliance with the 0.2
FC limitation and stating that all lighting fixtures must be fully shielded and downcast.
Tree Preservation
578 significant trees were identified on the site, mostly within the wooded are to the north, along
the boundaries of the site and adjacent to the wetlands. Additional trees were not located on the
island west of the large wetland. The applicant proposes to remove two trees for the street
construction (0.3%) and eight trees (<10% of trees on Lot 1) for construction of the building.
The tree preservation ordinance would permit 10% of the trees on the site to be removed in
connection with “initial site development” (streets, utilities) and an additional 10% of the trees
from each lot to be removed for other construction.
Landscaping
The business district includes the following landscape requirements:
• Building Setting - At least 12 feet of landscaped area shall be provided adjacent to all
buildings except for walks, plaza space and approved loading docks.
Landscaping greater than 12 feet in width is proposed adjacent to the buildings.
Office 1 stall per 250 s.f. 36,000 square feet 144 stalls
Warehouse/Shop 1 stall per employee
or 1 stall per 2000 s.f.
15,827 square feet
6 max shift
8 stalls
Restaurant 1 stall per 3 seats 250 indoor seats
75 outdoor seats
83 stalls
25 stalls
Total 260 stalls
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 12 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
• Minimum Planting
Requirement Required Proposed
Overstory trees 1 per 50’ site perimeter 103 trees 107 trees
Ornamental trees 1 per 100’ site perimeter 52 trees 54 trees
Shrubs 1 per 30’ site perimeter 183 shrubs >1000 shrubs
It appears that the landscaping plan exceed the minimum planting requirements of the district.
As noted above, staff is recommending additional screening for the garage doors on the
accessory structure. The City can require additional plantings for screening where necessary.
• Parking lot landscaping – minimum of 8% of parking lot area
The interior of the parking lot and loading dock area includes almost 20% landscaping area,
primarily because of the filtration basin and berm between the two buildings.
• Landscaping islands every 20 spaces, wider separations for cells of 120 spaces
Plans provide landscaping islands. However, a larger separation at least 12 feet in width is
required in the portion of the parking lot east of the principal structure. Staff recommends a
condition requiring this change.
Utilities, Mechanical Equipment, and Trash and Recycling Facilities
The business districts require: All utilities shall be placed underground. To the extent possible,
all utility equipment, meters and transformers shall be placed either inside of the building or
within an outside mechanical court formed by walls. If not located within the building,
these items shall be fully screened from view from adjacent property and streets through
the use of opaque landscaping or walls constructed of materials which are compatible
with the building.
The landscaping plan shows landscape screening around transformers and generators.
The plans do not identify HVAC location. Staff recommends a condition that HVAC locations
be identified and screening measures provided.
All trash and material to be recycled are required to be stored within the principal building,
within an accessory structure, or within an enclosed outdoor area adjacent to the principal
structure. The applicant has identified locations adjacent to each building.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 13 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Conditional Use Permit
Indoor recreational uses, outdoor dining/drinking areas, and vehicle repair are all conditional
uses within the B zoning district. Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) are subject to specific
requirements for each use which are above the general zoning requirements, and also subject to a
general set of criteria for all CUPs.
Following are the specific standards for each use with a summary of how staff believes each are
met:
Indoor Recreational Uses
(a) Entrances for public access, as well as other outdoor areas where patrons may congregate,
shall be no less than 200 feet from residential districts.
The building and all outside areas are located more than 770 feet from residential property.
(b) Provisions for noise reduction shall be identified based on the type of use proposed.
Staff recommends a condition requiring provisions for noise reduction for the live music.
Outdoor dining/drinking
(a) The outdoor space shall be at least 200 feet from any residential zoning district.
The outdoor seating area is located more than 770 feet from residential property.
(b) The area shall be directly adjacent to the principal structure, and be clearly delineated by
fencing or decorative landscaping.
The plans appear to identify fencing, but staff recommends this as an ongoing condition for the
CUP.
(c) The area shall not interfere with fire safety access to the building.
No concerns were raised by the Fire Marshal.
(d) Outdoor speakers and lighting shall be designed to limit impacts on adjacent property or
right-of-way.
Lighting is required to be downcast and no outdoor speakers are proposed.
(e) Pervious surfacing is encouraged, and if utilized, these areas shall not be considered
as an impervious surface.
The applicant does not propose pervious surfacing.
Automobile Repair
(a) The structure containing the use shall be no less than 200 feet from residential districts.
The building is over 1300 feet from residential property.
(b) Vehicles parked outside awaiting service or pick-up shall be located in an area which is fully
screened from neighboring properties and from the right-of-way.
The building provides indoor vehicle storage, but staff recommends this as an ongoing condition
for the CUP.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 14 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
(c) No inoperative vehicles shall be stored on the premises, unless in the process of being
repaired and are stored within a building.
Staff recommends this as an ongoing condition for the CUP.
(d) All repair functions shall occur within an enclosed building.
Staff recommends this as an ongoing condition for the CUP.
(e) No sales, storage, or display of automobiles shall be permitted unless a conditional use
permit is granted for such a use.
Staff recommends this as an ongoing condition for the CUP. The applicant has noted that they
occasional sell their own trucks when the retire them from service. Staff has recommended that
these be exempted from the prohibition.
(f) Equipment specifications shall be submitted. Vibration and noise reduction measures may be
required by the city.
The equipment is anticipated to be standard repair equipment. Staff does not recommend
additional noise reduction.
(g) Additional screening may be required to limit sight and noise impacts of service bays.
Staff has recommended additional screening for the service bay door.
(h) Adequate provision shall be made for proper inside storage of all new and used
petroleum, chemical, liquid, and other products.
Staff recommends this as a condition prior to building permit.
(i) Towing operations shall be permitted as an accessory use, but only if allowed as part of the
conditional use permit and if clearly subordinate to the principal use. The city may apply
necessary conditions and limitation on this use.
No towing is proposed.
General CUP Standards
Pursuant to Section 825.39 of the zoning document, when considering CUPs, the City shall
consider:
Subd. 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.
Subject to the conditions recommended, staff does not believe these will be a concern.
Subd. 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 CUP will impede development.
Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities
have been or are being provided.
These matters are discussed above, and subject to the conditions recommended, staff believes they
will be addressed.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 15 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street
parking and loading space to serve the proposed use.
These matters are discussed above, and staff believes have been provided.
Subd. 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.
Subject to the conditions recommended, staff does not believe these will be a concern.
Subd. 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 uses are all permitted in the zoning district.
Subd. 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.
The uses are all permitted in the zoning district.
Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City.
Staff does not believe the proposed CUP would conflict with the policies of the City.
Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Subject to construction of the access to Willow Drive, staff does not believe this will be a concern.
Subd. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare
or general unsightliness.
Subject to the conditions recommended, staff does not believe these will be a concern.
Subd. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
The applicant anticipates construction during 2020. As noted above, the restaurant may not be
constructed with the initial project.
Subd. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning
Officer.
The applicant is listed as the owner of the property.
Planning Commission Recommendation
As discussed above, staff recommends that the rezoning request be discussed first. The
improvements on Lot 1 are designed according to the B zoning district. The criteria for
reviewing a rezoning were described above. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of Lot 1
to the B district. The Planning Commission and Council should also determine whether the B or
BP zoning district is most appropriate for Lot 2. Staff believes it is reasonable for both sites to
be zoned B.
Staff also recommends approval of the preliminary plat. The criteria for the plat and
recommended conditions were described earlier in the report.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 16 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
The City has a relatively low level of discretion when reviewing the Conditional Use Permits and
Site Plan Review. It a proposed conditional use permit meets the specific and general standards
described earlier in the report, it should be approved. The City Council may impose additional
conditions “it considers necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding area or the
community as a whole.” The Planning Commission has recommended some of those conditions
below.
The purpose of a Site Plan Review is to review compliance with relevant land use regulations. If
the proposed construction meets the requirements, it should be approved. The City can apply
conditions as necessary to ensure compliance with City requirements.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application at their November 12
meeting. An excerpt from the draft meeting minutes is attached for reference. Three people
spoke at the hearing and were not opposed to the project, but requested that the City consider
concerns related to stormwater management, light, noise, and potential costs for other taxpayers
for infrastructure improvements.
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed. The Commission supported
the Business zoning district for both lots and were supportive of the project. Following review,
the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use
Permit subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of US Fish and Wildlife Services with
regard to construction near the bald eagle nest.
2. Approval of this Site Plan Review shall be contingent upon approval of a rezoning of the
subject property to the Business zoning district.
3. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated _____________,
except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
4. The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including installation of vegetative buffers, recordation of easements, and installation of
signage.
5. The Applicant shall update landscaping plans to provide landscaping to south and west of
the vehicle service bay and vehicle storage doors.
6. The Applicant shall update the parking lot plan to divide the parking into cells with
landscaping at least 12 feet in width.
7. The Applicant shall update plans so that the access/circulation for the accessory building
meets setback requirements from Highway 55.
8. The Applicant shall submit specifications confirming that proposed concrete panels are
color impregnated in earth tones (rather than painted) and shall be patterned to create a
high quality terrazzo, brick, stucco, or travertine appearance.
9. The Applicant shall update lighting plants to comply with the City’s lighting ordinance,
limiting light trespass to 0.2 FC at the property line.
10. The Applicant shall identify HVAC locations and provide screening measures for re view
and approval.
11. All comments from the Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed District shall be addressed.
12. All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed.
13. The outdoor dining and drinking area shall be delineated with fencing.
Jan Har LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) Page 17 of 17 December 3, 2019
Rezoning, Pre Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP City Council Meeting
14. Adequate provision shall be made for proper inside storage of all new and used
petroleum, chemical, liquid, and other product related to the vehicle repair.
15. All vehicle repair shall occur within the structure.
16. Vehicles parked outside awaiting service or pick-up shall be located in an area which is
fully screened from neighboring properties and from the right-of-way. No inoperable
vehicle may be parked outside.
17. No automobile storage, display or sales shall occur upon the site unless a separate
conditional use permit is obtained for such use, except that retired vehicles used in
connection with the approved use(s) on the site may be sold.
18. The site plan review approval shall be effective for one year and thereafter shall be
considered null and void. The restaurant portion of the project may be constructed as a
separate project, provided the permit is obtained within four years of approval.
19. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, site plan review, and related documents.
Potential Action
If the Council finds that the criteria described in the report have been satisfied, the following
action would be appropriate:
Move to direct staff to prepare documents approving the rezoning, preliminary plat,
site plan review, and conditional use permit subject to the conditions noted in the staff
report.
Attachments
1. List of Documents
2. Excerpt from 11/12/2019 Planning Commission
3. Excerpt from 11/20/2019 Park Commission
4. Comp Plan Information – Business Land Use
5. Engineering comments dated 11/5/2019
6. Public Comments received (Reader, Kozlak)
7. Applicant narrative
8. Applicant description for additional garage doors
9. Preliminary Plat and Plans (Civil dated 10/28/2019; Arch dated 9/11/2019)
3/12/2020
Project: LR‐19‐255 – Adam’s Pest Control Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit
The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in
part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall.
Documents Submitted by Applicant
Document Received Document
Date
Pages Electronic Paper
Copy?
Notes
Application 7/23/2019 7/23/2019 3 Yes Yes
Deposit 7/23/2019 7/15/2019 1 Yes Yes $11,000
Rezoning Extension 11/4/2019 11/4/2019 1 Yes Yes
Narrative 7/23/2019 N/A 3 Yes Yes
Road proposal 8/23/2019 N/A 2 Yes
Plans 7/23/2019 7/22/2019 18 Yes Yes
Plans‐Updated 9/11/2019 9/11/2019 24 Yes Yes
Plans‐Civil‐Updated 10/28/2019 10/28/2019 14 Yes Yes Civil only
Plans‐Civil‐Updated 11/7/2018 11/7/2019 4 Yes C3, C4, C5, C5.1 only
Turning Exhibit 9/11/2019 9/11/2019 2 Yes Yes
Site Plan‐Updated 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 1 Yes Fig 2 only
Hwy 55 turn lane plan 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 1 Yes
Narrative‐Access 2/27/2020 2/27/2020 1 Yes
Narrative re: garage doors 9/11/2019 8/19/2019 1 Yes Yes
Stormwater Management 9/11/2019 9/6/2019 71 Yes Yes
Stormwater – Updated 10/28/2019 10/28/2019 81 Yes
Stormwater – Updated 11/7/2019 11/7/2019 46 Yes Yes
Review Extension 12/24/2019 12/24/2019 1 Yes Yes February 7, 2020
Review Extension 1/26/2020 1/26/2020 1 Yes Yes April 7, 2020
<OVER>
3/12/2020
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
City Engineer comments 8/7/2019 1 Y
City Engineer comments 8/23/2019 4 Y
City Engineer comments 9/27/2019 5 Y
City Engineer comments 11/5/2019 5 Y
City Engineer‐access comments 3/2/2020 1 Y
Pioneer‐Sarah Watershed Review 9/26/2019 6 Y
Pioneer‐Sarah Review 11/14/2019 6
Pioneer‐Sarah Review 11/21/2019 8 Y Conditional Approval
MnDOT comments 8/9/2019 7 Y
Notice 11/1/2019 12 Y 15 pages w/ affidavit and labels
Notice 2/28/2020 6 Y 9 pages 2/ affidavit and labels/map
Preliminary Comments 8/9/2019 3 Y
Review Extension 10/23/2019 2 Y
Fire and Plat Comments 11/21/2019 2 Y
Park Dedication Market Value 11/21/2019 1 Y
Natural Resource Comments 11/20/2019 1 Y
Planning Commission Report 11/7/2019 16 Y 45 pages w/ attachments
City Council Report 11/26/2019 17 Y 60 pages w/ attachments
Planning Commission Report 3/5/2020 6 Y
City Council Report 3/12/2020 6 Y
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
Jim Reader Email 11/12/2019 Y
Dave Kozlak Email 11/12/2019 Y
Dave Kozlak Email 3/10/2020 Y
Jeff Chudek Email 3/2/2020 Y
Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/2019 Y
Planning Commission Minutes 3/10/2020 Y
Park Commission Minutes 11/20/2019 Y
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 3/10/2020 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Adam’s Pest Control (Jar-Har, LLP) – PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and
04-118-23-24-0001 – Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan
Review (Updated)
Finke reported that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request in October of 2019
and noted that most aspects remain unchanged. He stated that the primary change would be related to
access for the property. He explained that the original plan was to connect a new street through
property east of the subject site to Willow Drive with a temporary right-in to the site from Highway
55. He stated that since that time staff and the developer have been working with the property owner
to the east but have been unable to secure the necessary right-of-way and therefore are reviewing
alternative options in the case that cannot be obtained. He stated that MnDOT has been consulted and
to have access on Highway 55, full right and left turn lanes would be needed at that intersection to
provide access to the property. He reviewed the different land use applications included in this
proposal for what is intended to be an office building, warehouse, and potential restaurant.
Nielsen asked why the agreement with the property owner to the east was not enforceable, requiring
the construction of the private road.
Finke explained that would be triggered with development of that site. He stated that MnDOT has
stated that the Highway 55 full access would be allowed but alternative access options would be
preferred when available.
Reid asked for information on the risk of an intersection at this point and whether a study would be
helpful.
Finke replied that there are inherent risks for any intersections. He explained that this is not the ideal
location, which is why alternatives are being explored but noted that a study would not be required.
Todd Leyse, applicant, stated that the plans remain the same. He stated that they would still run
sewer and water connections through the private road easement. He explained that they are
requesting highway access in order to move forward as they have not been able to make progress with
the property owner to the east. He explained that if they are able to reach an agreement with the
property owner to the east within the next four weeks, they would choose that option but need to
move forward in order to proceed with construction. He confirmed that if he has to pay for the left
and right turn lanes, he expects that access to be permanent but recognized that he would be at the
mercy of MnDOT.
Nielsen referenced the comments from the engineer which provides a variety of options and asked if
the applicant has an opinion on those options.
Finke stated that those options were a part of the discussion with MnDOT.
Leyse replied that they worked with MnDOT and the civil engineer in order to ensure that the turn
lanes and other elements would meet their specifications. He noted that a separate permit would need
to be filed with MnDOT and therefore the intersection plans would be subject to the review of
MnDOT and any changes it may suggest.
Reid mentioned the possibility that a large volume of vehicles could be leaving the restaurant element
at one time.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 3/10/2020 Meeting Minutes
2
Leyse noted that there could be times when vehicles could queue leaving the site, but each vehicle
would need to look for a safe opportunity to exit onto Highway 55.
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Don Jeszewski stated that he believes the access from Highway 55 would be a better access. He
stated that if an access is provided onto Willow Drive, that will cause additional traffic onto the
unpaved roadway from the Adam’s Pest Control business. He asked how the north parcel would
receive access if the road to Willow Drive is not constructed.
Leyse provided a response as to how that access would be provided to the northern parcel.
Jeszewski asked why the applicant would want the property subdivided at this time instead of when
the proper access is available. He stated that it would seem that the City should require that the rest
of Willow Drive be paved to the Corcoran line when the private road is constructed.
Galzki commented that it would seem to make sense to pave the additional 300 feet when the road is
eventually constructed but noted that would depend upon the traffic report.
Finke provided additional clarification that the road would be paved to the access road but not to the
Corcoran city line.
Reid asked if public safety has reviewed this plan and asked for input from Belland.
Belland replied that this access would not be as safe as an access at Willow but noted that the City has
had similar types of access for busier locations, using the example of the Medina Ballroom. He
agreed that the best option would be for access to be provided from Willow but stated that a left- and
right-hand turn lane would make the Highway 55 access safer than it would be if vehicles were
stopping in traffic to turn.
Nielsen referenced the suggestion for an eastbound bypass lane and asked for additional clarification,
using an example of an intersection on Highway 12.
Finke explained that would be an option rather than a turn lane, which would be less desirable. He
explained that the example Nielsen provided is a capacity element rather than a safety improvement.
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Galzki commented that he continues to support this proposed development. He stated that adding a
right and left turn lane would suffice from a safety standpoint to allow the Highway 55 alternative if
access cannot be gained to Willow Drive.
The other Commissioners agreed that while Highway 55 access would not be preferred, the
alternative proposed would be agreeable.
Motion by Galzki, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend approval of the rezoning, preliminary plat,
site plan review and conditional use permit subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Motion
carries unanimously. (Absent: Piper)
Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/3/2019 Meeting Minutes
1
Jan Har, LLP (Adam’s Pest Control) – Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review,
Conditional Use Permit – PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001 – North of
Hwy 55, West of Willow Dr. (7:52 p.m.)
Finke presented requests from the application for rezoning, Preliminary Plat, site plan review
and Conditional Use Permit. He noted that the requests should be considered in that order as
the later actions would be dependent upon the earlier actions being approved. He identified the
southern portion of the site proposed for development, along with a northern portion that would
remain vacant for future development opportunity. He reviewed the adjacent land uses. He
stated that of the 43 acres of the subject site, half of the southern parcel is encumbered by
wetland as well as a wooded area and there is also an eagle’s nest on the property, therefore
construction within 660 feet must follow regulations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He
displayed renderings of the proposed buildings including the office and restaurant as well as the
warehouse/shop building. He stated that the proposed office building would be along the
wetland edge while the shop building would be located on the other edge, with parking between
the two.
Finke explained that a rezoning of this site was always anticipated as it is currently zoned rural
business holding. He stated that the question would be which district the property should be
zoned to, noting that the property is guided for business within the Comprehensive Plan. He
explained the differences between business and business park, noting that the Planning
Commission recommended rezoning both the northern and southern lots to business. He
provided details on the applicant’s plan to provide access from Willow Drive. He noted that
acquisition of right-of-way would be needed for that and there have been discussions to obtain
that necessary right-of-way. He explained that if that easement cannot be gained there would
need to be different discussions related to access. He stated that the applicant is requesting a
three-year temporary right-in access from Highway 55. He stated that the Park Commission did
not request active parks or trails. He noted that the wooded area on the site was identified as a
high-quality resource by the City and while the Park Commission did not require dedication of
that area, it did suggest that perhaps there could be some type of credit given against park
dedication, or other fees, for the preservation of that area. He stated that there are ongoing
discussions with the property owner related to that element. He asked the Council if there is a
desire to acquire a portion of the wooded area in lieu of a portion of the park dedication. He
stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to
the conditions noted in the staff report.
Finke moved to the site plan review application. He stated that there are no wetland impacts
proposed with the development, although there may be some impact to access the northern lot
in the future. He referenced the parking requirements, noting that the applicant is proposing live
music as an option for the restaurant use. He noted that the parking for the restaurant would be
shared with the office use, as the peak times for those uses would not conflict. He provided
details on the architectural details, noting that there would be more modifications proposed for
the office building with less proposed for the warehouse use as that building would be more
screened from Highway 55. He stated that the final request would be the Conditional Use
Permit that would apply to certain uses such as live music and vehicle repair. He stated that
specific details for each use were included in the staff report. He referenced the added
condition related to access, as the plan would be dependent upon the ability to connect to
Willow Drive. He noted that the applicant has stated that the restaurant may not be constructed
immediately and therefore staff has suggested a condition that would allow that construction to
be delayed up to four years.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/3/2019 Meeting Minutes
2
Pederson asked if the access to Highway 55 would begin immediately or when the restaurant is
constructed.
Finke stated that once the first building is complete the three years would begin, whether or not
the restaurant is constructed at that time. He clarified that the temporary access would be only
a right-in access.
Martin stated that the rezoning request seems to be straightforward. She asked if the Council
would prefer the northern parcel to be business park rather than business. She noted that she
does not have a concern with the proposed zoning.
Pederson asked how access would be provided to the wooded area, or whether that would
simply be preserved.
Finke stated that if the wooded area is taken as public property there would need to be access
provided and that could be done through easement.
Martin confirmed the consensus of the Council to permit the rezoning to business for both the
northern and southern parcel. She asked for input on the issue of park dedication and
preservation of the wooded area. She noted that the wooded area is five acres in size while the
park dedication would equate to 2.4 acres.
Anderson commented that he would prefer that the City not publicly take the wooded area, as
long as an agreement can be reached with the property owner to preserve a portion of the
wooded area.
Finke stated that part of the consideration is that there are parks and trails plans with identified
costs. He explained that there should be a balance of prioritization of natural resources with
identified parks and trails needs that would be funded through park dedication. He noted that
the City does have a forestry fund and some of those funds could be used for preservation, if
desired.
Albers asked for clarification on the size of the wooded area.
Finke replied that the developable part of the site is about 24 acres while the wooded area is
about five acres. He stated that a portion of the wooded area may be preserved simply
because of development challenges.
DesLauriers stated that it would seem that the reason for the temporary access would be for the
restaurant, but if that is not constructed within the three-year period, there would not seem to be
a need for that right-in access.
Anderson asked how the time period of three years was chosen.
Finke explained that the three-year period was negotiated between the applicant and MnDOT.
Todd Leysee, Adam’s Pest Control, stated that they chose three years thinking that would be
acceptable to MnDOT. He explained that they believe the right-in option would be important in
making the restaurant element viable. He explained that they do not want to own/operate a
restaurant and therefore they will be marketing that use for sale. He stated that if they do not
Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/3/2019 Meeting Minutes
3
have an operator for a restaurant after one year, they may not go forward with that element and
may instead use that area for a training room.
Martin asked for input on the preservation of the trees.
Mr. Leysee stated that they would hope to have honeybees on the site, similar to their current
location. He noted that it would also be unique to harvest syrup from the maple trees. He
stated that it would be nice to have the wooded area preserved but they intend to sell the
northern parcel for development in order to help finance the access road to Willow. He stated
that he could attempt to handcuff the potential buyer to preserve a portion of the wooded area
but would not want to tie up the entire five acres as that could be needed for development
because of the topography. He believed that they could work out a deal with the City to
preserve a portion of the wooded area. He provided background information on Adam’s Pest
Control in Medina, noting that they have been in Medina for many years. He stated that they
have continued to grow for the past 49 years and would like to continue to grow in Medina.
DesLauriers referenced the private road agreement within the narrative and asked for additional
input.
Mr. Leysee stated that the private road agreement sort of contemplated development to the
north and south. He stated that in his opinion the agreement does not force the other properties
to pay for anything on the construction of the road, even though those properties would benefit.
He stated that they are still awaiting reply from the other property owner on a new agreement.
Pederson commented that it would seem that the other property owner would benefit from the
construction of the road.
Batty commented that the agreement was written in 1993, specifically related to Twinco, noting
that this property was not part of the contemplation at that time. He stated that the expectation
was that the other lots would develop soon, and that development would prompt private parties
in that development to pay for the road. He stated that 26 years later those events have not
occurred. He agreed that the other property owner stands to benefit from this deal, as that
would relieve the obligation for that property owner to build the road.
Anderson referenced the northern parcel that will be sold in the future, and voiced concern over
the preservation of the wooded area. He asked if rural business holding (RBH) would provide
more protection for the northern parcel compared to rezoning that parcel as business. He
asked the width of the access road to Willow.
Finke stated that the road width was proposed at 28 feet, which would allow shoulders for biking
as there are not trails in this area. He stated that the setback requirements would be the same
between RBH and business.
DesLauriers asked what would happen if the road to Willow is not constructed.
Finke explained that ultimately all the approvals would be contingent upon each other and the
Final Plat would be contingent upon the development agreement. He confirmed that part of the
conditions would be securing the easement for the construction of the road.
Martin provided proposed language for the additional conditions.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/3/2019 Meeting Minutes
4
Albers asked if the applicant would consider removing the parking along Highway 55 in front of
the restaurant as that is closest to the eagle’s nest.
DesLauriers commented that even with those stalls removed the site would still meet the
parking requirement.
Mr. Leysee stated that he likes the eagle’s nest and has witnessed people stopping on Highway
55 to take photos. He stated that he did not see how a parking lot would be more disruptive
than the traffic on Highway 55. He stated that he does want that quantity of parking stalls and
would not want to decrease the number of stalls.
Martin noted that she would assume that the construction noise would be more disruptive than
parking.
Mr. Leysee stated that they will comply with the regulations from Fish and Wildlife as required
and did not think it would be necessary for the City to have the overlapping condition.
Martin noted that it is common practice for the City to require the applicant to comply with the
other regulatory bodies.
Pederson stated that he serves on the Highway 55 Coalition, which is opposed to adding
access onto Highway 55. He asked when the three-year period for the temporary access would
expire.
Mr. Leysee confirmed that the three-year period would begin when the certificate of occupancy
is issued for the first building and is not related to the timing for the restaurant.
Albers commented that he is unsure that he could support the Highway 55 access as he
believes safety is more important than business.
Pederson commented that the business is investing a large amount of money on its site and it
would be hard to disagree with what they are asking for.
Mr. Leysee stated that if they do not build the access road, if the other property owners do not
build the access road, and the City does not build the access road, MnDOT would grant the
business an access from Highway 55. He stated that this would be a compromise.
David Kozlak, 4545 Wichita Trail, stated that he did not believe Mr. Leysee could speak for
MnDOT on that matter. He agreed that the business would need access, but he could not
guarantee what that access would be. He stated that the lighting by the eagle’s nest would
most likely deter the eagles from being there.
Martin summarized the items there seemed to be consensus on regarding the different
approvals and conditions.
Finke stated that he could include options for preservation of the wooded area in lieu of part of
the cash for park donation.
Pederson noted that preservation of trees could possibly occur if the northern site develops
under a PUD.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 12/3/2019 Meeting Minutes
5
Martin agreed that could be a possibility but would be hard to predict as it would be dependent
on the type of development proposed for that site. She asked for input on the idea from Albers
to limit the parking and lighting near the eagle’s nest.
Pederson asked if the parking lot could have less lighting in that area.
Finke stated that Medina does not have minimum lighting requirements.
DesLauriers commented that the lighting seems less disturbing than the construction activity
that will occur prior to that.
Albers stated that his point is that if there is an opportunity to disturb the eagles less that should
be observed.
Martin stated that perhaps staff could be directed to follow up with Fish and Wildlife to gain
additional input on whether less lighting or other limitations would provide benefit. She stated
that she would be hesitant to move the parking not knowing if doing so would protect the eagles.
Anderson stated that this cannot be the first time there will be construction near an eagles’ nest
and therefore Fish and Wildlife will most likely have input that would be helpful.
Pederson asked if the applicant would be comfortable with less lighting in that area.
Mr. Leysee confirmed that they would follow the guidelines and requirements from Fish and
Wildlife.
Martin stated that she likes the idea of protecting the eagles’ nest but was unsure of the
appropriate measures to take. She reviewed the proposed changes to the conditions as she
determined through the discussion tonight.
Pederson stated that he would think the lift station would be dependent upon the access road
and asked if the City could be a part of the discussions with the neighboring property owner
related to the acquisition of the easement needed for the roadway.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to direct staff to prepare documents approving the
rezoning, preliminary plat, site plan review, and conditional use permit subject to the conditions
noted in the staff report and the additional conditions discussed tonight including amending
condition one, amending condition three, and adding conditions 20, 21, 22, and 23 as detailed
by Martin during the meeting. Motion passed unanimously.
EExxcceerrppttss ffrroomm 22002200--22004400 CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee PPllaann
FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee PPllaann PPrriinncciipplleess
TThhee FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee PPllaann gguuiiddeess tthhee ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff MMeeddiinnaa tthhrroouugghh 22004400,, aanndd wwiillll bbee uusseedd ttoo
iimmpplleemmeenntt tthhee CCiittyy’’ss ggooaallss,, ssttrraatteeggiieess aanndd ppoolliicciieess.. TThhee PPllaann iiss gguuiiddeedd bbyy tthhee VViissiioonn aanndd
CCoommmmuunniittyy GGooaallss aass ffuurrtthheerreedd bbyy tthhee ffoolllloowwiinngg pprriinncciipplleess::
DDeevveellooppmmeenntt PPaatttteerrnnss aanndd NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd FFoorrmm
EEnnccoouurraaggee ooppeenn ssppaacceess,, ppaarrkkss aanndd ttrraaiillss iinn aallll nneeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd ddeevveellooppmmeennttss.. SSuurrvveeyyss
iinnddiiccaattee tthhaatt aa hhiigghh qquuaalliittyy ooff lliiffee iiss ffoouunndd wwhheenn rreessiiddeennttss hhaavvee vviissuuaall aacccceessss ttoo ggrreeeenn
ssppaacceess..
CCrreeaattee nneeiigghhbboorrhhooooddss wwiitthh aa vvaarriieettyy ooff hhoouussiinngg ttyyppeess tthhaatt aarree wweellll ccoonnnneecctteedd wwiitthh rrooaaddss,,
ttrraaiillss oorr ssiiddeewwaallkkss..
MMaaiinnttaaiinn tthhee iinntteeggrriittyy ooff rruurraall nneeiigghhbboorrhhooooddss aanndd pprroommoottee ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ppaatttteerrnnss
ccoonnssiisstteenntt wwiitthh eexxiissttiinngg rruurraall rreessiiddeennttiiaall ddeevveellooppmmeenntt..
RReeccooggnniizzee nneeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd cchhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss aanndd pprroommoottee nneeww ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ccoommppaattiibbllee iinn
ssccaallee,, aarrcchhiitteeccttuurraall qquuaalliittyy aanndd ssttyyllee wwiitthh eexxiissttiinngg nneeiigghhbboorrhhooooddss..
SSttaaggee rreessiiddeennttiiaall ggrroowwtthh ttoo mmiinniimmiizzee tthhee aammoouunntt ooff aaddjjaacceenntt ddeevveellooppmmeennttss wwhhiicchh ooccccuurr
wwiitthhiinn tthhee ssaammee ttiimmee ppeerriioodd..
GGuuiiddee ddeennssiittyy ttoo aarreeaass wwiitthh pprrooxxiimmiittyy ttoo eexxiissttiinngg iinnffrraassttrruuccttuurree aanndd ffuuttuurree iinnffrraassttrruuccttuurree
aavvaaiillaabbiilliittyy..
CCoonncceennttrraattee hhiigghheerr ddeennssiittyy ddeevveellooppmmeenntt nneeaarr sseerrvviiccee oorriieenntteedd bbuussiinneesssseess ttoo hheellpp
pprroommoottee wwaallkkaabbiilliittyy..
CCoonnssiiddeerr ppllaannnneedd ddeevveellooppmmeenntt iinn ssuurrrroouunnddiinngg ccoommmmuunniittiieess wwhheenn mmaakkiinngg llaanndd uussee
ddeecciissiioonnss iinn tthhee CCiittyy..
RRooaadd PPaatttteerrnnss
RReeccooggnniizzee rreeggiioonnaall hhiigghhwwaayy ccaappaacciittyy aanndd ppllaannnneedd iimmpprroovveemmeennttss,, aalloonngg wwiitthh uussee
ffoorreeccaassttss,, aass mmaajjoorr ffaaccttoorrss iinn ppllaannnniinngg ffoorr ggrroowwtthh aanndd llaanndd uussee cchhaannggeess..
EEssttaabblliisshh ccoolllleeccttoorr ssttrreeeettss wwiitthh ggoooodd ccoonnnneeccttiioonnss tthhrroouugghh tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy’’ss ggrroowwtthh aarreeaass..
PPrroommoottee ttrraaiillss aanndd ssiiddeewwaallkk aacccceessss nneeaarr rrooaaddss aanndd tthhoorroouugghhffaarreess ttoo eennccoouurraaggee mmuullttii--
mmooddaall ttrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn cchhooiicceess..
CCoonnssiiddeerr ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess ttoo iimmpprroovvee nnoorrtthh--ssoouutthh ttrraavveell wwiitthhiinn tthhee CCiittyy..
OOppeenn SSppaacceess aanndd NNaattuurraall RReessoouurrcceess
PPrreesseerrvvee nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess tthhrroouugghhoouutt tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy aanndd pprroovviiddee eedduuccaattiioonnaall
ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess ttoo rreessiiddeennttss ttoo hheellpp tthheemm uunnddeerrssttaanndd tthhee vvaalluuee ooff nnaattuurraall aarreeaass..
PPrreesseerrvvee ooppeenn ssppaacceess aanndd nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess..
PPrrootteecctt wwooooddeedd aarreeaass aanndd eennccoouurraaggee iimmpprroovveemmeenntt ooff eexxiissttiinngg rreessoouurrcceess aanndd
rreeffoorreessttaattiioonn.. EEvvaalluuaattee eexxiissttiinngg wwooooddllaanndd pprrootteeccttiioonnss aanndd ssuupppplleemmeenntt aass nneecceessssaarryy..
SSuuppppoorrtt tthhee gguuiiddeelliinneess iiddeennttiiffiieedd iinn tthhee OOppeenn SSppaaccee RReeppoorrtt ttoo pprreesseerrvvee tthhee CCiittyy’’ss nnaattuurraall
ssyysstteemmss..
BBuussiinneessss DDiissttrriiccttss aanndd CCoommmmeerrcciiaall AArreeaass
FFooccuuss sseerrvviiccee bbuussiinneesssseess aanndd ddeevveellooppmmeenntt nneeaarr uurrbbaann rreessiiddeennttiiaall ddeennssiittiieess aanndd aalloonngg
pprriimmaarryy ttrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn ccoorrrriiddoorrss..
PPrroovviiddee ccoonnnneeccttiioonnss bbeettwweeeenn rreessiiddeennttss aanndd ccoommmmeerrcciiaall aarreeaass aanndd pprroommoottee bbuussiinneesssseess
wwiitthhiinn mmiixxeedd--uussee aarreeaass..
WWoorrkk ttoo ccrreeaattee jjoobb ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess iinn tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy ffoorr MMeeddiinnaa rreessiiddeennttss ttoo rreedduuccee
ttrraaffffiicc aanndd ccoommmmuuttiinngg ddeemmaannddss..
EEmmpphhaassiizzee sseerrvviiccee aanndd rreettaaiill uusseess wwhhiicchh sseerrvvee tthhee nneeeeddss ooff tthhee llooccaall ccoommmmuunniittyy aanndd
pprroovviiddee ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy ttoo ggaatthheerr..
SSuuppppoorrtt bbuussiinneessss ddeevveellooppmmeenntt wwiitthh aa ccoorrppoorraattee ccaammppuuss ssttyyllee wwhhiicchh pprroovviiddeess ooppeenn
ssppaacceess aanndd pprrootteeccttss nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess..
Future Land Use Designations
Business (B) provides opportunities for corporate campus uses including office, warehouse,
and light industrial. This designation identifies larger tracts of land that are suitable for office
and business park developments and are served or will be served by urban services.
Land Use Policies by Area
Business Uses
The following objectives refer to business land uses that are connected to or planned for urban
services. Businesses in this use generally include office complexes, business park development,
warehouse and light industrial opportunities.
Objectives:
1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural
characteristics of the property.
2. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment
opportunities utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services.
3. Consider permitting uses such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities where
suitable, subject to appropriate requirements related to density, ensuring compatibility
between uses, and preventing the use from being predominantly independent-living
residential in nature. These uses are expected to occupy a very small proportion of
Business land. Residential density is estimated to be between 5-20 units per net acre, but
flexibility will be considered based upon the mix of nursing home, assisted living,
memory care, independent living units, and other uses proposed within a development.
4. Regulate the impact of development along the border between business and residentially
guided areas to ensure that business uses have a minimal impact on residential areas.
5. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and
to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of
Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3)
standards.
6. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor and the rural
vistas and open spaces of the City.
7. Create or update standards that promote a more rural appearance, or create campus style
developments that protect ecologically significant areas and natural features.
8. Require frontage roads that do not directly access arterial roadways and limit access
points to collector and arterial roadways.
9. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are
compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public
streets and highways. PUD’s may be used to help accomplish this policy.
10. Emphasize pedestrian safety.
11. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic
enhancement and safety.
12. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety.
K:\014536-000\Admin\Docs\2019-10-29 Plan Submittal\_2019-11-05 Adams Pest Control Preliminary Plat - WSB Comments.docx
7
0
1
X
E
N
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
|
S
U
I
T
E
3
0
0
|
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
,
M
N
|
5
5
4
1
6
|
7
6
3
.
5
4
1
.
4
8
0
0
|
W
S
B
E
N
G
.
C
O
M
November 5, 2019
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Adam’s Pest Control Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Submittal – Engineering Review
City Project No. LR-19-255
WSB Project No. 14536-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
We have reviewed The Adam’s Pest Control application and plans dated October 29, 2019. The
applicant proposes to construct a three-story office building with a bar/restaurant. In addition, a
separate warehouse/storage/maintenance building is also proposed for the site.
The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general
engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with
regards to engineering and stormwater management matters.
Site & Paving Plans
1. Provide an exhibit showing the turning movements of trucks (fire and delivery) within the
site including the delivery entrances along with a detail of the truck dimensions. Include
an analysis of fire truck turning movements and access, the City’s Fire Marshall will need
to review this plan. Complete, exhibit provided. The City’s Fire Marshall will provide
comment separately from this memo.
2. With final construction plans please provide the following:
o In general, plans shall meet the requirements set forth in the City’s Utility and
Stormwater Design Manuals. Include the City’s standard details where
applicable.
o Show typical pavement sections (standard, heavy duty, etc.) based on
geotechnical analysis and recommendations.
o Add symbols and notations for proposed sign locations.
Traffic & Access
3. The proposed site plan and project narrative indicates that the site access to TH 55
would be a right-in/right-out, until such time as the future access to Willow Drive is
constructed, at which time the access would be closed within three years. This comment
was for information no plan revisions are required.
4. The current plan shows only the addition of a westbound right turn lane and does not
show how the access would be restricted to right-in/right-out. The plan should be revised
to include this additional information. The plan was revised to include a striped median at
Adam’s Pest Control Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Submittal – WSB Comments
November 5, 2019
Page 2
K:\014536-000\Admin\Docs\2019-10-29 Plan Submittal\_2019-11-05 Adams Pest Control Preliminary Plat - WSB Comments.docx
the entrance. This design will not provide the necessary restrictions for left turning
vehicles into or out of the site. The site access should be redesigned to include
restrictions by using raised concrete medians, signing and additional pavement markings.
In leu of providing a more restrictive right-in/right-out access, the access could be closed
with the addition of the access to Willow Drive.
5. Based on the proposed site plan the anticipated traffic generation would be 2375 daily
trips, 108 AM peak hour trips and 223 PM peak hour trips, assuming a multi-family
building on the northerly lot. This comment was for information no plan revisions are
required.
6. With a significant increase in traffic, the primary concern is with the safety of the traffic
entering and exiting the right-in/right-out at TH 55 from the proposed site. Provide a
traffic analysis and calculations reviewing the traffic generation, potential for vehicles to
make an eastbound left into the site from TH 55, left turn out of the site to eastbound TH
55, and a review of the safety impacts and recommended improvements to the site
access at TH 55. Should the right-in / right-out access be maintained, and redesigned,
additional documentation should be provided for the right-out onto TH 55. This would not
be necessary should the access be closed.
Grading & Storm Sewer Plan
7. Provide a geotechnical analysis and show soil boring locations on grading plans. Not
Resolved.
8. With final construction plans please provide the following:
o Provide top and bottom elevations of all retaining walls and details/ typical
sections. Walls greater than 4’ in height will require plans signed by a structural
engineer. Consider safety railings for retaining walls 3’ or taller. Complete, notes
and typical section added. Applicant stated they will provide a retaining wall
construction plan and engineered drawings prior to construction.
o Provide a storm sewer table. Complete, Exhibit provided.
o Add more directional arrows with percent grades along curb lines, parking lot
areas, walkway profile/cross slope grades, etc. Add additional grade notes to
slopes such as “3:1” or “4:1” where appropriate.
Utility Plan
9. The City of Medina is currently working on a feasibility study and a preliminary design of
a sewer system along Willow Drive that includes a possible lift station. The lift station is
intended to provide service to the Adam’s site (among other surrounding areas). The
sanitary sewer information shown on the plan will need to be revised once the feasibility
is complete. As shown, there is excessive depth (up to 30’) for the sanitary sewer
between manholes #6-8 but these issues will likely be resolved with the City’s feasibility.
The applicant shall coordinate construction activities with the future road or proposed lift
station and associated sanitary sewer.
10. Show proposed utility stubs to any of the adjacent lots with the extension of watermain
and sanitary sewer to Willow Road. Not complete.
11. With final construction plans please provide the following:
Adam’s Pest Control Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Submittal – WSB Comments
November 5, 2019
Page 3
K:\014536-000\Admin\Docs\2019-10-29 Plan Submittal\_2019-11-05 Adams Pest Control Preliminary Plat - WSB Comments.docx
o Show material type for the sanitary sewer noting SDR 35 pipe up to an 18’ depth;
SDR-26 for between 18-26’; and DR-18 for depths exceeding 26’. Note this
information for each pipe run.
o Define what utilities are public and private.
Easements may be required by the City to encompass all or a portion of
the sanitary sewer and watermain into the site.
Define future maintenance responsibilities of the utilities.
Access to some of the structures may be limited as they are in areas with
3:1 slopes or adjacent to the future roadway and do not have a defined
access. An acceptable access will be required to reach and maintain the
structures.
o Provide plan and profile views of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain
identifying potential conflicts. If pipes will be directionally drilled, note as such.
o Label all pipe sizes, material types, and grades for watermain pipnig. The City’s
preference is to use PVC C900 for watermain and PVC (SDR based on depth)
for sewer. See the City’s Utility Design Manual.
o Provide dimension labels showing separation between watermain and both
sanitary sewer and storm sewer piping.
o Watermain and services should have a minimum horizontal separation of 10’ and
vertical separation of 24” (or 18” with insulation) from both sanitary and storm
sewer piping and should be noted as such on the plans.
o Provide sizes and material types of all existing utilities that are being connected
to as part of the project. Call out the locations of existing hydrants.
o Show a separate fire and domestic water service stub into the building with the
appropriate shut off valves, PIV valves, curb stops, etc.
o Describe the types of connections to existing utilities and show proposed valve
locations.
o The water and sanitary sewer should be a lighter line-type on the grading plan.
12. The layout provided will require review by the City’s Fire Marshall to verify hydrant
spacing for fire protection coverage as well as approval of fire apparatus access/turn
around.
13. Apply and provide copies to the City of any required permits including DLI (final design),
watershed (final design), and NPDES (construction).
14. Show soil boring locations on utility plan. Not complete.
15. Casing pipe will be required where utilities cross the retaining walls. Note on the plan
and provide specific details for each crossing proposed. Not complete.
16. Provide a looping watermain connection along the easterly property line connecting the
proposed southerly and northerly watermain lines or provide an analysis showing that
adequate fire flow can be provided to the remaining lots in the loop (future multi-family on
the Adam’s site, three lots to the east) if the watermain within the Adam’s site were to be
shut-off. Not complete.
17. Added watermain easement will need to allow for hydrants and hydrant construction.
Adam’s Pest Control Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Submittal – WSB Comments
November 5, 2019
Page 4
K:\014536-000\Admin\Docs\2019-10-29 Plan Submittal\_2019-11-05 Adams Pest Control Preliminary Plat - WSB Comments.docx
Stormwater Management
18. The development will need to meet the appropriate requirements for Pioneer-Sarah
Creek Watershed Management Commission. Please provide permitting documents to the
City when approved.
19. Provide soil borings for infiltration areas to determine if feasible due to soil type and
groundwater levels. Typically, infiltration is not recommended for C type soils which are
prevalent in the City of Medina. The bottom of infiltration basins must have 3 feet of
separation from current groundwater levels. In most cases, infiltration has not been found
to be feasible in the City, but rather filtration. Filtration basins have been added with
draintile on the bottom. 50% credit is allowed for filtration. Basins will need to be resized
to meet the volume control requirement.
20. Provide pretreatment for all infiltration areas. If infiltration is not found to be feasible,
pretreatment will still be required for filtration areas. Call out where pretreatment
structures are located on the plans.
21. No impervious area is currently directed to Basin #2. No credit for provided volume can
be used for this BMP. Additionally, provided volume can only be credited for the other 3
BMPs for the amount of impervious area contributing to the basin. 3. The City will not
allow credit for oversizing basins if there isn’t enough impervious routed to the basin.
22. The rate control summary table should provide comparison of existing and proposed
discharge rates for all three rainfall events.
23. Highway 55 ditch discharge location is not shown on the drainage figures. Both existing
and proposed drainage figures should match all labels for subcatchments and nodes in
the HydroCAD model.
24. EOF locations and elevations must be specifically labeled on the plans for all BMPs. Not
complete.
25. Label the size and type of existing and proposed storm sewer piping, label the invert
information on all catch basins/manholes. Not complete.
26. Calculations must be submitted indicating the culvert under the proposed entrance road
is sized adequately to convey the offsite tributary area. Not complete.
27. Curve numbers for existing agriculture land must use the peak growth formula listed in
the City’s Design Manual. Not complete.
28. Confirm minimum and maximum velocities for storm sewer are met for the 10-year
rainfall event. Minimum pipe velocity is 3 fps and maximum is 10 fps. Not complete.
29. Discharge velocities into stormwater BMPs must not exceed 6 fps. Not complete.
30. Provide HydroCAD model or stage-storage/discharge tables to confirm BMPs drain within
48 hours. Applicable for either infiltration or filtration. To be reviewed once basins are
sized appropriately to meet volume control requirement.
31. With final construction plans please provide the following:
Adam’s Pest Control Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Submittal – WSB Comments
November 5, 2019
Page 5
K:\014536-000\Admin\Docs\2019-10-29 Plan Submittal\_2019-11-05 Adams Pest Control Preliminary Plat - WSB Comments.docx
o Access routes (8’ wide minimum) will be required to reach the proposed control
structures. Show the locations on the plans.
o Separate SWPPP sheets showing erosion and sediment control BMP’s for the
site.
o Operation and maintenance plan for stormwater BMPs.
Erosion Control
32. Provide a copy of the NPDES General Construction Permit prior to any site disturbance.
33. Double silt fence must be implemented adjacent to the existing wetlands. Not complete.
34. Label construction entrance on the plans.
35. Provide a description of construction sequencing for the stormwater filtration areas to limit
impacts and ensure the basins are functioning post construction. Not complete.
36. Update any reference to infiltration basins in the SWPPP. Revise to be consistent with
proposed onsite BMPs.
Wetland Impacts
37. Confirm if any wetland impacts are anticipated. If so, a wetland permit application would
need to be submitted. Wetland buffers are adequate for the Complete.
The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted
plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or
modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards.
We would be happy to discuss this review in more detail. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if
you have any questions or if you would like to set up a time to meet.
Sincerely,
WSB
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
1
Dusty Finke
From:Jim Stremel <JStremel@wsbeng.com>
Sent:Monday, March 02, 2020 12:00 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Cc:Chuck Rickart
Subject:Medina Adams Site - TH 55 Access Response
Hello Dusty,
We’ve come up with a list of improvement options for the Adams access off of TH 55 to have something to respond to at
the upcoming CC/planning com meetnigs. This runs the full gamut of “safest” to “least safe”. “Safest” is a relative term
as all intersections have inherent safety risks. Every intersection is unique and so point to specific “data” that would
help the decision making process for this instance is really not readily available without a more lengthy traffic
study/review. With all that in mind, here is a list based on our experience in similar situations (in a format that can be
added to our last review letter).
With no access to Willow Drive, in the short term, the access to TH 55 should be designed to provide the safest
condition for traffic entering and exiting the site. The options that should be considered from safest to least safe
are discussed below.
a) Widen TH 55 for an eastbound left turn lane and westbound right turn lane and, provide a left and right
turn lane out from the site.
b) Widen TH 55 for an eastbound bypass lane and westbound right turn lane and, provide a left and right
turn lane out from the site.
c) Construct a raised concrete median on TH 55 restricting left turn access in and out of the site. Widen TH
55 for a westbound right turn lane. Provide a right turn lane out from the site. (u‐turns and enforcement
are a concern with this option)
d) Leave as full access no “control” as it is today. Provide “no left turn during Peak Hours, 7am to 9am,
4pm to 6pm” signing on TH 55. (u‐turns during these hours and enforcement are concerns with this
option).
e) Right‐in/right‐out with raised median/signage at the Adams driveway. (u‐turns and enforcement are
concerns with this option).
Let us know you thoughts and whether you want to discuss in more detail.
Jim Stremel, PE
Sr. Project Manager
763.287.8532 (o) | 612.419.1549 (m)
WSB | wsbeng.com
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely
for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, please delete this email
from your system. Any use of this email by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited.
WSB does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a result
of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy.
1
Dusty Finke
From:Scott Johnson
Sent:Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:51 AM
To:Dusty Finke; Ed Belland
Subject:FW: New submission from Contact Us
FYI
From: Jim Reader <jim_reader@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 5:24 AM
To: Website Inquiries <city@medinamn.gov>
Subject: New submission from Contact Us
Name
Jim Reader
Email
jim_reader@comcast.net
Phone
(763) 350-3000
Comments
Re: mtg tonight building going up on 55.
I live close enough to receive the mtg notice. I can not come to the meeting. I'm in Corcoran, not Medina.
1) I do not want to hear any complaints from future Medina residents about hunting next to their property. Hunting is legal in
Corcoran. Most of the hunting on my 5 acres is "no noise", bow hunting. But shot gun hunting is legal.
2) There is large eagles nest , possibly on the interested parcel, .almost on 55. It's enjoyed by myself, neighbors, -- anyone who
drives 55. That's thousands per day! We look for the eagles starting in Jan and especially during the spring hatching season.
They are so neat!!
I'm going to suggest that the MN DNR install a video cam to film the nest and then transmit it on the net, Being next to 55 it will
be convenient to maintain.
Regards, JIm Reader resident of 50 + yrs.
Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members,
I am writing in response to the Jar Har LLP‐“Adams” proposal to develop land located north of
Highway 55 and west of Willow Drive.
I have read through the memorandum packet and feel I understand the proposal for rezoning and
planning requirements. There are many requests and it is not extremely clear which ones will be voted
upon at the November 12th meeting.
I have the following specific concerns and questions:
1. Driving safety (CUP standard Subd. 1 and 9)‐ Since the access to Highway 55 is now proposed to
be a right in/right out, does the ‘CUP’ for the access address these issues:
Eastbound vehicles must make a right hand turn and go west. Has an Adam’s Pest Control
driving plan has been established and reviewed? Where will they turn around to go east?
Will they use the first roads they see, like Wichita Trail, a dead end residential street, or
Rolling Hills Road to turn around and go east? This could cause morning rush hour safety
conflicts between a fleet of trucks and school children waiting for the bus on a quiet
residential street that is not designed for heavy vehicles. Will restaurant patrons be directed
through signage to a safe location to turn or will they also turn into the first driveway they
see to make a U turn to the east?
If restaurant or staff who disregard the barriers and make a left turn or if ‘X’ amount of
traffic accidents or DUI’s occur will the right in/right out be revoked ?
I propose that a yearly review of traffic safety and accidents take place up to the full
termination of the access to 55 once the new frontage road to Willow is established so
traffic can safely access 55 in both direction at the signal light.
2. Lighting (CUP standard Subd. 5)‐ ‐According to staff recommendations the lighting is to be
reduced to the acceptable range, I would like to request shielding be used on the Hwy 55 side to
block unnecessary light from rural residential and the lake. Have lighting hours been
established? Neighboring industrial lighting shuts off or is reduced after hours. Since a
restaurant is proposed what will be the hours of operation? Will the lights go off or be
diminished after close?
3. Noise (CUP standard Subd. 9) Has an outdoor decibel level been established for outdoor dining
and music? Or if windows or doors are opened (common restaurant design feature).
4. Hunting (CUP standard Subd. 1). Will the Adam’s building (or subsequent restaurants which
may take over the property) remove the ability for Peter Lake residents to hunt on the lake?
This would injure the enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity and possibly even
diminish unique property amenities.
Opinion:
Overall I support the development of the land with Adam’s Pest Control and welcome a local
and well run business, with excellent ties to the community, to the area. I am somewhat apprehensive
about the restaurant, as it is an often a contested business with local municipalities regarding
ordinances, noise, crime, etc. But coming from a family that has been in the business for almost 100
years I also know when done right it too can be a value to the community.
As with any development I am primarily concerned with Safety, light, noise, and change in my
rights as a property owner. In our development on Wichita Trail, our children’s wellbeing is of utmost
focus. Late night noise and light along with increase in traffic of non‐residents has us worried.
Additionally the effects to the natural area and environment around Peter Lake warrants study.
All of the Residents on Wichita Trail have well water and any run off or spillage of stored chemicals,
which sole purpose is to kill animals, could be detrimental to people, pets or the ecosystem. There is a
high likelihood the eagles will leave the area, and the possibility of additional runoff at its most minimal
will change the ecosystem.
In regards to the initial request for residential rezoning, I am highly opposed. I reviewed all
versions of the 2040 plan submitted to Met Council and agreed with the current zoning identifications.
I believe that the solicitation for public input not cast correctly. I understand the requirements
to inform the surrounding residents, but due to geographical features and sightlines I believe more
individuals should have been informed. This is based on visual and auditory effects of the proposed
development, due to water and site lines over swamps and lakes. Additionally the Agenda was never
posted until a few hours prior to the planning commission meeting, thus no public could be informed
unless a specific call, letter or email was directly sent. I have sought out information since, pulling over
and reading the development sign located on site. Small font at 55 mph is not likely to be understood.
Residents such as should all be informed:
THOMAS C GUBBINS
3212 PIONEER TR
HAMEL MN 55340
CHASE K HANSON
4602 WICHITA TR
HAMEL MN 55340
DAVID F KOONMEN
3312 PIONEER TR
HAMEL MN 55340
JEAN S SHILINSKI
STANLEY J SHILINSKI
3400 PIONEER TR
HAMEL MN 55340
DAVID A ANDERSON
ELISSA A HENRICKS
4592 WICHITA TR
HAMEL MN 55340
BRYAN K NORMAN
NILA J NORMAN
4625 WICHITA TR
HAMEL MN 55340
JAYMES GROSSMAN
3082 STATE HWY NO 55
HAMEL MN 55340
JAMES R READER
6200 ROLLING HILLS RD
HAMEL MN 55340
DONALD J SPECKEL
6210 ROLLING HILLS RD
HAMEL MN 55340
J J KIRLEY & T A BOYTIM
P.O. BOX 187
HAMEL MN 55340
ANDREW J & DEBRA L MALECHA
6221 WILLOW DR
HAMEL MN 55340
DONALD & LESLIE JESZEWSKI
6215 WILLOW DR
HAMEL MN 55340
With that said, I would like to thank the planning director, Dusty Finke, for open and honest
communication during this process. And the council for hearing my concerns
Sincerely,
Dave Kozlak
4545 Wichita Trail
Medina, MN
1
Dusty Finke
From:Jeff & Becky Chudek <jefferychudek@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 02, 2020 3:47 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Subject:Adams pest control meeting
Dusty,
Thank you for working to make the city a better place to live! I can’t imagine the various viewpoints you have to try and
find common ground for.
As a resident within 1000 feet of Adam’s pest control’s proposed building site, I welcome it as much as I can, turning
natural land to constructed land. Progress happens, I can’t buy the land to keep it the same, so best wishes to those that
build! We hope they take great care of the wetlands so close to them.
Please consider two items for us:
On Hwy 55, around 1000 feet west from the proposed site is Rolling Hills Rd that we live on. Turning onto or off of Hwy
55 at morning or evening is borderline miserable, headed towards dangerous. Adding another turn on to Hwy 55 when
there is another option that was laid out years ago with easements seems less than wise. I hope the city is doing all it
can to avoid additional turns on to Hwy 55.
When assigning zoning, I hope you can avoid zoning the property behind Adams Pest Control as apartments. There are
some really nice houses next door, and I hope you can find some other way to zone it that would leave less options for
the trouble that seems to come with apartment buildings and still keep the wetland in our backyard quiet.
Thank you for your time,
Jeff Chudek
763‐458‐8104
6322 Rolling Hills Rd
MinnesotaWaterscapes.com
Check out what we’re doing at
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.Facebook.com%2Fmnponds&data=02%7C01%7Cdusty.fi
nke%40medinamn.gov%7C1cf9bc562a6a4a70e63d08d7bef3305b%7Cee47714f9d2e494291b7fafe59ba4e1f%7C0%7C0%
7C637187824016373389&sdata=qxWuyvZAAEiFfEqcqrVq7f0LOzkTILNK5Asuz0qBzAw%3D&reserved=0
Sent from my phone
MinnesotaWaterscapes.com
Check out what we’re doing at
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.Facebook.com%2Fmnponds&data=02%7C01%7Cdusty.fi
nke%40medinamn.gov%7C1cf9bc562a6a4a70e63d08d7bef3305b%7Cee47714f9d2e494291b7fafe59ba4e1f%7C0%7C0%
7C637187824016373389&sdata=qxWuyvZAAEiFfEqcqrVq7f0LOzkTILNK5Asuz0qBzAw%3D&reserved=0
Sent from my phone
1
Dusty Finke
From:Holly Backes <hmbackes@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 10, 2020 2:27 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Subject:resident response to Adams proposal
Attachments:hwy 55 passing lane.jpeg; hwy 55 sun up.jpeg; hwy 55 traffic stop.jpeg
Dusty,
Thank you again for the information, it is comforting to know that you have been in the loop when working with MN
DOT.
On the record and for distribution:
As a resident of the development on Wichita Trail, I am opposed to increased traffic, along with uncontrolled
intersections being added between Wichita and Willow roads along Hwy 55. The corridor is dangerous enough as
is. The particular location of the Adams development is located along a passing lane, is in a “Sun up” limited visibility
area of the morning, and has considerable high demand during rush hour. These issues will only cause an increased
danger when including traffic during these peak periods.
As a resident I have witnessed a Helicopter Medical Evacuation level crash, involving a rear end being pushed
into oncoming traffic at the turn off to Wichita trail. “Sun up” slowdowns, rear ends, near misses etc. are often regular
occurrences during the spring and fall when the sun rise aligns with hwy 55. Consistent 5‐10 minute entry times onto
Hwy 55 to cross speeding traffic. I do see that the construction of turn lanes may limit this danger, but the intermittent
speeds and turns with low visibility warrant considerable traffic studies. Please DO NOT rush this process, or allow
building haste to circumnavigate the MN DOT process.
After attending the initial planning and council meetings my concern is as follows:
A business, along with its risk and cost for purchase and development, will out way the safety risks and cost of lives of
not only Medina residents but all individuals using Hwy 55.
I request the following to be reviewed prior to a final city council discussion:
Medina Police speeding and accident data.
Review of Delano busing studies and the effects of increased wait times on bus schedules, safety, and added
district costs.
Estimated schedules times and quantities of Adams vehicles.
I propose the following considerations to the City Council
Exploration of Emanate Domain for easement onto Willow, pending traffic and study and safety findings from
MN Dot on Hwy 55
A request MN Dot review the corridor as a whole between County road 19 and Willow for traffic control (timing
of lights). A specific sub study between Rolling hills road and Willow for turn lanes, removal of passing lane, and
any necessary speed, foliage, and signage considerations for all private drives and public roads.
included are supporting pictures to be shown at the meeting that I took while collecting maple sap. The sun up position
(looking east from my property), a traffic stop at the exact location turn lanes would be located(taken today), the no
passing marker just before Wichita(taken today looking east)
In closing I would like to say that I believe the city councils review came to safe conclusion with a time limited(3 yr.)
right in and a Willow access. If the 3 years was needed for the restaurant business case, and it no longer exists then it
2
should be dropped to a Willow access only. The value of the land has likely increased with the new business zoning, and
the councils for thought into the future use with a connecting street is just. Adams knew the business risk when
purchasing a low access parcel with a good view, now they are asking for the city to bend to make it work. Have they
considered alternative properties that would not put the public at risk, such as the property directly across 55 in the
previously established business park? Same view, no risk.
I would like to thank the Mayor and City Council members for their consideration of this information.
Dave Kozlak
1
Dusty Finke
From:Todd Leyse <tleyse@adamspestcontrol.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 27, 2020 9:41 AM
To:Dusty Finke
Cc:Erik Hedman
Subject:Full Permanent Highway Access
Dusty
When we applied to develop the parcel west of Willow Dr last year, our intent was to build a private road
through an easement from Willow Dr to our property. The easement is on property owned by St. Louis Park
Investments.
To date, we've given the city three extensions to approve this project and ultimately set a deadline of February
28, 2020 to work something out with SLPI without complete success.
Therefore we are requesting full, permanent access from Highway 55, as well as construction access from
Highway 55. We will still get utilities (water, sewer) through the easement to Willow Dr.
We met with MnDOT on February 20th and provided them a concept plan that they provided feedback on.
The concept plan we are submitting incorporates MnDOT's feedback but needs a bit more survey work beyond
our property but is pretty close to what we will submit to MnDOT. Their approval process may take a couple of
months.
Meanwhile, we are still open to building the private road if the city can work it out with SLPI in a timeframe
that is acceptable to us. Therefore we recommend the planning commission and the city council approve our
plan with either:
A. Private Road access to Willow Drive and Hwy 55 Right Turn Only Access for 3 Years post occupancy as
previously submitted, OR
B. Full permanent access to Hwy 55
at the developer's discretion. Meaning we are proceeding with Plan B approvals but we reserve the right to
change back to plan A if the city can work things out with SLPI in a time frame acceptable to us.
Todd
‐‐
Todd Leyse | President | tleyse@adamspestcontrol.com
Adam's Pest Control, Inc. 922 Hwy 55 Suite 100 | Medina MN 55340
www.adamspestcontrol.com | 763.478.9810 ext. 804 | 800.227.2214 | Fax 763.478.6715
Follow us on Facebook!
1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e . N . #1 0 0 P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1
P 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 9 0 | a e -m n .c o m
A n d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C | P r o j #15236
15236
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SURVEY
C1.0
------
PLOTTED:COMM. NO.
DRAWING NO.
----XXXXX
ADAM'S PEST
CONTROL
1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e n u e N . #1 0 0
P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 | a e -m n .c o m
P 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 9 0
A n d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C
DRAWING TITLE
CHECKED BY:DRAWN:DESIGNED:
XXXXXXXXX
DATE
REVISION LOG
DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONSNO.DATE
HIGHWAY 55
MEDINA, MN
JAN-HAR, LLP
PROJECT PHASE
FIG. B
HIGHWAY 55
ENTRANCE/EXIT
OVERALL CONCEPT
PLAN
LEGEND
PROPOSED ASPHALT
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
N
0 150'300'
1 HIGHWAY 55 ENTRANCE/EXIT CONCEPT - OVERALL PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1" = 150'
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
L
D
G
.
FF
E
=
9
8
8
.
0
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
L
D
G
.
FF
E
=
9
9
4
.
0
10
0
0
99
5
98
0
98
5
98
9
98
5
98
0
98
0
98
0
97
5
97
5
975
9
7
5
98
5
97
0
98
0
985
980
97
5
100
2
1000
9
9
0
98
0
98
0
97
5
98
0
9
8
5
10
0
5
10
0
5
99
0
98
5
985
985
98
5
100
5
1
0
0
5
98
9
99
0
990
99
0
976
97
3
986
987
98
7
988
990
9
8
7
98
8
98
5
98
5
98
3
.
5
9
8
7
9
9
3
983
9
8
3
9
8
7
9
8
6
9
8
7
988
97
5
99
0
995
988
985
990
995
997983
99
0
99
5
99
6
99
0
99
1
989
991
99
2
9
9
2
992
993
992
991
993
99
3
992
99
3
987
98
7
987
98
9
98
8
RD
R
D
RD
R
D
1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e . N . #1 0 0 P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1
P 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 9 0 | a e -m n .c o m
A n d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C | P r o j #15236
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
15236
LEGEND
PROPERTY LIMITS
EXISTING WATERMAIN
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
PROPOSED WATER SERVICE (SEE SHEET C4.0)
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER (SEE SHEET C4.0)
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED STORM STRUCTURES
PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT AND WALK
RIPRAP
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
EXISTING CURB
PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
PROPERTY CORNERS
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATON
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION (GUTTER GRADE IF SHOWN ON CURB LINE)
4-FT HIGH
RETAINING WALL
FILTRATION
BASIN #3
SURFACE = 976.0
FILTRATIOIN
BASIN #4
SURFACE = 973.0
FILTRATION
BASIN #1
SURFACE = 983.5
3.5:1 SLOPE
(MAX.)
3:1 SLOPE
(MAX.)
T/BERM
EL. = 991.5
RIPRAP SPILLWAY
(TYP.)
STM FES
INV. = 973.00
STM FES
EL. = 972.56
STM CONTROL
STRUCTURE
RIM = 979.3
6-FT HIGH
RETAINING WALL
(MAX.)
SITE GRADING,
DRAINAGE & EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
C3.0
RS RSJN
SCALE:1 SITE GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
1" = 60'
N
0 60'120'
5-FT HIGH
RETAINING WALL
(MAX.)
GRASS-LINED SPILLWAY
EL. = 980.80
STM CONTROL
STRUCTURE
RIM = 976.3
STM FES
EL. = 970.0
STM CONTROL
STRUCTURE
RIM = 986.8
STM FES
INV = 976.00
CB'S
SILT FENCE
PROPOSED CONTOUR
EXISTING CONTOUR
SPILLWAY
EL. = 975.3T/BERM
EL. = 976.3
ROCK CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE LOCATION
REMOVE EXISTING
ENTRANCE & CULVERT
3:1 SLOPE
(MAX.)
988
MONUMENT SIGN
PAVEMENT, BIT. CURB
AND END CURB
FUTURE ROADWAY
(NOT INCLUDED)
4-FT. HIGH WALL (MAX.)
CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT FUTURE ROAD SUBGRADE ONLY, IN AREA IDENTIFIED, FOR A
FUTURE ROADWAY. SUBGRADE ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 12" LOWER THAN FINISHED GRADES
SHOWN. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL SEEDING/MULCHING/TOPSOIL ON THE SHAPED
SUBGRADE FOR TEMPORARY TURF ESTABLISHMENT
PROVIDE RIPRAP AT STORM SEWER OUTLETS, PER DETAIL.
SUMPED BOTTOM STORM MANHOLE, TO COLLECT AND HOLD SEDIMENT FOR PRE- TREATMENT
PURPOSES. MAINTAIN/CLEAN REGULARLY. REFER TO UTILITY PLAN FOR DETAIL.
PROVIDE SEEDED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ON AREAS GRADED STEEPER THAN 4:1.
PROVIDE ENKAMAT, OR APPROVAL SIMILAR EROSION CONTROL MAT WITHIN AREAS OF
CONCENTRATED FLOW.
PROVIDE STAKED BIOROLL DITCH CHECKS IN GRADED SWALES, PER DETAIL.
KEY NOTES:
1
CONSTRUCT SUBGRADE ONLY, FOR FUTURE ROADWAY
1
1
NEW 18" CULVERT
STM FES
EL. = 973.70
STM FES
EL. = 978.00
FES
INV. = 983.50
DRAINAGE ARROW
2
3
MULCH-COVERD PATH & LEVEL PAD FOR FUTURE BEE -
KEEPING FACILITY (BY OTHERS)
2 3
3
2
2
3
100-YR HIGH WATER LEVELHWL
ROOF DRAIN PIPERD
BERM
BE
R
M
HWL = 980.53
HWL = 975.42
HWL=985.81
2
LIGHTING POLE LOCATION
GRASS-LINED
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
EL. = 987.5
9-FT HIGH WALL (MAX.)
ALONG CURB LINE
GRASS-LINED
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
EL. = 990.5
4
6
6
6
6
4
5
5
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ROUTE (E.O.F.)
4
5
6
1.NO WETLAND IMPACTS ARE ANTICIPATED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
2.PROJECT IS ADJACENT TO A FEMA ZONE A FLOOD PLAN, LOCATED WITHIN THE
WESTERN PORTION OF LOT 1.
3.PRE-TREATMENT OF IMPERVIOUS RUNOFF AREAS, IS ACHIEVED BY UPSTREAM
SUMPED MANHOLE STRUCTURES, PER DETAIL AND KEY NOTE #3.
4.RETAINING WALLS WHICH ARE GREATER THAN 4-FT. HEIGHT, ARE TO BE DESIGNED BY
A CERTIFIED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, AND MAY REQUIRE HANDRAILS OR SAFETY
FENCING.
GENERAL NOTES:
STM FES
INV = 985.0
4
4:1
3.5:1 SLOPE
(MAX.)
4
4
4:1 SLOPE
(MAX.)
3
3
3
SOIL BORING (REFER TO GEOTECH. REPORT DATED 11/15/19)
DETENTION AREA #2
(GRASS SWALE)
100 YR H.W.L. = 990.22
FES
INV. = 984.75
T/BERM
EL. = 981.8
DELINEATED WETLAND
WETLAND BUFFER WITH MONUMENTATION
APPROX. LOCATION OF
FUTURE ROADWAY
(BY OTHERS)
DELINEATED
WETLAND
WETLAND
BUFFER
DELINEATED
WETLAND
WETLAND
BUFFER
WETLAND
BUFFER
WI
L
L
O
W
D
R
I
V
E
1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e . N . #1 0 0 P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1
P 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 9 0 | a e -m n .c o m
A n d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C | P r o j #15236
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
15236
LEGEND
PROPERTY LIMITS
EXISTING WATERMAIN
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
PROPOSED WATER SERVICE
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED STORM STRUCTURES
PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT AND WALK
RIPRAP (SEE SHEET C6.0)
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
EXISTING CURB
PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
PROPERTY CORNERS
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATON
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
(SEE SHEET C5.0)
(SEE SHEET C5.0)
SAN. MH 1
SAN. MH 2
SAN. MH 3
SAN. MH 4
(LIFT STATION
BY OTHERS)
SAN. MH 5SAN. MH 6
SAN. MH 7
FILTRATION BASIN #4
SURFACE EL. = 973.00
FILTRATION BASIN #3
SURFACE EL. = 976.00
FILTRATION BASIN #1
SURFACE EL. = 983.50
SAN.
MH 10
SAN. MH 11
ST
M
ST
M
S
A
N
.
"
K
"
SAN. MH 8
CBMH 5
CONNECT WITH
EXISTING SAN. MH
@ INV = 982.00
STMH 9A
8" WATER MAIN
8" WATER MAIN
CONNECT WITH
EXISTING WATER MAIN
4-FT HIGH
RETAINING WALL
6-FT HIGH
RETAINING WALL
STM CONTROL
STRUCTURE 19
RIM = 976.30
STM FES 19A
INV = 971.26
STM FES 18A
INV = 972.50
CONTROL
STRUCTURE 18
RIM = 979.30
GRASS-LINED SPILLWAY
EL. = 980.80
STM FES 10A
INV = 973.00
SITE UTILITY PLAN
C4.0
RS RSJN
SCALE:1 SITE UTILITY PLAN
1" = 100'
N
0 100'200'
SAN.
MH 9
SAN. "E"SAN. "F"SAN. "G"
SAN
.
"
H
"
SAN
.
"
I
"
RIPRAP FLUME
SA
N
.
"
J
"
CBMH 8
CBMH 9
CBMH 7
CBMH 12
STM FES 16A
INV = 976.00
SA
N
.
"
D
"
(
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
S
)
SA
N
.
"
A
"
(
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
S
)
SA
N
.
"
B
"
(
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
S
)
SA
N
.
"
C
"
(
B
Y
O
T
H
E
R
S
)
STM
ST
M
ST
M
8"
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
8
"
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
CBMH 3
CB 1
ST
M
S
T
M
STM
ST
M
GRASS-LINED
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
EL. = 990.50
5-FT HIGH
RETAINING WALL
STM
ST
M
STM
A
PIPE DESIGNATION
SANITARY SEWER TABLE
DESCRIPTION
340' -XX" @ XX%
COMMENT
GRAVITY BY OTHERS
1
MANHOLE NO.
SANITARY SEWER STRUCTURES
1002.00
COMMENT
BY OTHERS
RIM ELEV.
983.40 (+)
INV. ELEV.
2 983.00 XXX.XX
3
BY OTHERS
BY OTHERS
4 LIFT STATION, BY OTHERS
5
6
FUTURE ROAD, TBD
7
8
9 ------------
10
11
XX = INFORMATION IS YET TO BE DETERMINED (BY OTHERS).
"TEMP" RIM EL. MAY BE ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO FUTURE ROAD DESIGN.
XX = INFORMATION IS YET TO BE DETERMINED (BY OTHERS).
FUTURE ROAD, TBD
FUTURE ROAD, TBD
FUTURE ROAD, TBD
983.20
977.0 (TEMP)
966.30
967.70
969.10
970.30
976.50986.10
977.50986.35
981.00991.40
978.5 (TEMP)
987.5 (TEMP)
999.0 (TEMP)
994.0 (TEMP)
965.00 (w)
XXX.XX
B 340' -XX" F.M.FORCEMAIN BY OTHERS
C 330' -XX" F.M.FORCEMAIN BY OTHERS
D 330' -XX" F.M.FORCEMAIN BY OTHERS
E ------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
F
318' - 8" @ 0.4%
G
344' - 8" @ 0.4%
H
345' - 8" @ 0.4%
I
300' - 8" @ 0.4%
J
390' - 8" @ 1.6%
K
250' - 8" @ 0.4%
------------310' - 6" @ 1.1%
GRASS-LINED EMERGENCY
SPILLWAY, EL. = 987.5
STM CONTROL
STRUCTURE 4
RIM = 986.50
STM FES 3A
INV = 983.50
CB 15A
CBMH 16
CBMH 14
CB 15
CB 11
CB 6
PROPOSED WATER HYDRANT
9-FT HIGH WALL (MAX.)
ALONG CURB LINE
4-FT. HIGH WALL
(MAX.)
NEW 18" CULVERT
CB 1
STRUCTURE NO.
STORM SEWER TABLE
DOWN STREAM PIPE DESCRIPTIONRIM ELEV.INV. ELEV.
CBMH 2 (2' SUMP)
CBMH 3 (W/SAFL)
OCS 4
CBMH 5
CB 6
CBMH 7
CBMH 8 (2' SUMP)
STMH 9 (W/SAFL)
STMH 10
CB 11
CBMH 12 (2' SUMP)
CB 13A
CBMH 14
CB 15
CBMH 15A
CBMH 16 (W/SAFL)
OCS 17
STMH 17A
OCS 18 (DROP)
OCS 19
CB 13
CBMH 2
CB 13A
STMH 9A
CB 13
88' - 12" HDPE @ 0.50%990.00 986.50
102' - 12" HDPE @ 0.50%991.75 986.06
40' - 15" HDPE @ 0.50%991.70 985.24 (N)
145' - 12" HDPE @ 1.00%986.50 982.00
113' - 18" HDPE @ 0.40%985.50 980.55
42' - 12" HDPE @ 1.00%986.85 983.40
95' - 15" HDPE @ 2.00%986.50 983.00
114' - 21" HDPE @ 1.00%986.20 980.10
125' - 18" HDPE @ 3.17%985.00 978.96
118' - 21" HDPE @ 1.29%979.50 975.00
60' - 24" HDPE @ 0.80%977.50 973.48
42' - 15" HDPE @ 1.00%986.85 983.40
207' - 15" HDPE @ 1.80%986.50 983.00
8' - 12" HDPE @ 1.25%987.90 983.90
113' - 12" HDPE @ 1.50%987.80 983.80
70' - 15" HDPE @ 1.10%986.20 982.10
60' - 15" HDPE @ 0.83%982.50 979.50
94' - 18" HDPE @ 0.80%983.75 979.00
87' - 15" HDPE @ 3.00%991.30 985.00±
88' - 18" HDPE @ 0.50%979.30 975.50±
30' - 18" HDPE @ 0.80%976.30 971.50
ASSUME COMMON INVERTS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
984.54 (W)
45' - 30" HDPE @ 0.40%985.20
979.27 (SW)
978.25 (NW)
30' - 15" HDPE @ 1.00%982.00 979.00 (E)
976.30 (W)
STM FES 19B
INV = 973.70
18' - 18" RCP
STM FES 4A
INV = 984.75
27' - 8" RCP
STM FES 18A
INV = 978.00
19"-18" RCP
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
L
D
G
.
FF
E
=
9
8
8
.
0
0
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
L
D
G
.
FF
E
=
9
9
4
.
0
0
STMH 10
977.00 (NE)
981.05 (SE)
RD
R
D
RD
ROOF DRAIN PIPERD
R
D
LIGHTING POLE LOCATION
RIP RAP SPILLWAY, EL. = 975.3
PETER LAKE -
1000'S SHORELAND
OVERLAY LINE
GENERAL NOTES:
1.SANITARY SEWER MATERIAL SHALL BE PVC-SDR
35, UNLESS DETERMINED OTHERWISE BY CITY
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.
2.WATERMAIN PIPE MATERIAL SHALL BE PVC-C900,
UNLESS OTHERWISE DETERMINED BY CITY
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.
SERVICE STUBS
FOR LOT 2
HYD. #3
6" FIRE MAIN
HYD. #1
SLOPE 8" PERFORATED
DRAINTILE @ 0.2%
SLOPE 8" PERFORATED
DRAINTILE @ 0.2%
SLOPE 8" PERFORATED
DRAINTILE @ 0.2%
8" FES
INV=985.00
EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
PROPOSED DRAINTILE W/ CLEANOUT
P.I.V. #1
F.D.C.
6" FIRE MAINHYD. #2
6" W
M
F.D
.
C
.
P.I.V. #2
6"
W
M
HYDRANT #4
10
0
0
99
0
99
5
98
0
98
5
985
98
0
98
0
98
0
975
97
4
97
5
97
5
975
9
7
5
98
5
97
0
980
985
980
97
5
100
2
1000
9
9
0
98
0
98
0
97
5 98
0
9
8
5
10
0
5
10
0
5
98
5
985
985
98
5
100
5
10
0
5
995
98
9
99
0
990
99
0
976
97
3
986
987
98
7
988
990
9
8
7
98
5
98
5
98
3
.
5
9
8
7
9
9
3
983
9
8
3
9
8
7
9
8
6
9
8
7
988
99
0
10
0
3
10
0
4
98
8
99
0
98
8
99
0
98
9
99
1
997
99
5
100
0
99
6
99
2
992
9
9
2
991
99
3
983
9
8
4
9
9
2
9
8
9
99
2
987
988
988
98
8
98
7
9
8
7
987
986
984
988
993
993
992
99
2
993
997
988
975
976
9
9
1
99
1
99
5
989
99
3
99
5
991
992
991
98
1
982
983
98
4
98
5
98
6
98
7
988
989
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
972
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
L
D
G
.
FF
E
=
1
0
0
2
.
7
5
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
L
D
G
.
FF
E
=
9
8
9
.
2
5
6Prairie Cascade Willow
2" CAL. B&B
3 Prairie Cascade Willow
2" CAL. B&B
10 Black Hills Spruce
6` HT. B&B
3Balsam Fir
6` HT. B&B
9Amur Chokecherry
2" CAL. B&B
3 Balsam Fir
6` HT. B&B
1 Common Hackberry
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
2 Green Mountain Sugar Maple
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
2 Red Oak
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
2 Green Mountain Sugar Maple
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
1 Red Oak
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
4 Green Mountain Sugar Maple
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
7Common Hackberry
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
12Midnight Schubert Chokecherry
2" CAL. B&B
1Midnight Schubert Chokecherry
2" CAL. B&B
2Green Mountain Sugar Maple
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
3`Autumn Brilliance` Serviceberry
2" CAL. B&B
10Red Rocket Maple
2" CAL. B&B
4`Autumn Brilliance` Serviceberry
2" CAL. B&B
7Red Rocket Maple
2" CAL. B&B
4Candicans White Fir
6` HT. B&B
4`Autumn Brilliance` Serviceberry
2" CAL. B&B
2Accolade Elm
3" CAL. B&B
8Accolade Elm
3" CAL. B&B
1 Black Hills Spruce
6` HT. B&B
1Amur Chokecherry
2" CAL. B&B
11 Heritage River Birch - multi-trunk form
2" CAL. B&B
2 Heritage River Birch - multi-trunk form
2" CAL. B&B
5 Green Mountain Sugar Maple
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
3 Common Hackberry
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
3 Red Oak
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
1 Accolade Elm
3" CAL. B&B
2 Red Oak
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
1 Common Hackberry
2 - 1/2" CAL. B&B
1Black Hills Spruce
6` HT. B&B
5Black Hills Spruce
6` HT. B&B
6Balsam Fir
6` HT. B&B
1 Accolade Elm
3" CAL. B&B
1Red Rocket Maple
2" CAL. B&B
5Balsam Fir
6` HT. B&B
2Apple
5` HT. CONT.
2Apple
5` HT. CONT.
TREES QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT.SIZE
15 GREEN MOUNTAIN SUGAR MAPLE B&B 2 - 1/2" CAL.
ACER SACCHARUM `GREEN MOUNTAIN` TM
13 HERITAGE RIVER BIRCH - MULTI-TRUNK FORM B&B 2" CAL.
BETULA NIGRA `HERITAGE`
12 COMMON HACKBERRY B&B 2 - 1/2" CAL.
CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS
8 RED OAK B&B 2 - 1/2" CAL.
QUERCUS RUBRA
9 PRAIRIE CASCADE WILLOW B&B 2" CAL.
SALIX X `PRAIRIE CASCADE`
12 ACCOLADE ELM B&B 3" CAL.
ULMUS X `ACCOLADE`
CONIFEROUS TREES QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT.SIZE
17 BALSAM FIR B&B 6` HT.
ABIES BALSAMEA
4 CANDICANS WHITE FIR B&B 6` HT.
ABIES CONCOLOR `CANDICANS`
17 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE B&B 6` HT.
PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA
ORNAMENTAL TREES QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT.SIZE
18 RED ROCKET MAPLE B&B 2" CAL.
ACER RUBRUM `RED ROCKET`
11 `AUTUMN BRILLIANCE` SERVICEBERRY B&B 2" CAL.
AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA `AUTUMN BRILLIANCE`
4 APPLE CONT.5` HT.
MALUS DOMESTICA `HONEYCRISP`
10 AMUR CHOKECHERRY B&B 2" CAL.
PRUNUS MAACKII
11 MIDNIGHT SCHUBERT CHOKECHERRY B&B 2" CAL.
PRUNUS VIRGINIANA `MIDNIGHT`
CITY OF MEDINA, MN, LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
BUSINESS PARK (BP) AND BUSINESS (B) DISTRICTS
OVERSTORY DECIDUOUS SHADE & CONIFEROUS TREES
A minimum of one (1) tree per fifty (50) feet, or fraction thereof, of lot perimeter
shall be required.
Lot Perimeter:5,134 ft
Trees Required:103
Trees Provided:107
ORNAMENTAL TREES
A minimum of one (1) tree per one-hundred (100) feet, or fraction thereof, of lot
perimeter shall be required.
Lot Perimeter:5,134 ft
Trees Required:52
Trees Provided:54
UNDERSTORY SHRUBS
A minimum of one (1) shrub per thirty (30) feet, or fraction thereof, of lot
perimeter shall be required.
Lot Perimeter:5,134 ft
Shrubs Required:172
Total Shrubs Provided:1,166 Total 5 Gal Size:283
NOTE:
Shrub & perennial locations are not labeled at this time. Schedule is provided
to demonstrate meeting city requirements
SHRUBS QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE
64 ANNABELLE SMOOTH HYDRANGEA CONT.5 GAL.
HYDRANGEA ARBORESCENS `ANNABELLE`
178 CREEPING JUNIPER CONT.5 GAL.
JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS `YOUNGSTOWN`
41 BLUE WONDER DWARF ALBERTA SPRUCE CONT.5 GAL.
PICEA GLAUCA `BLUE WONDER`
424 GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC CONT.2 GAL.
RHUS AROMATICA `GRO-LOW`
PERENNIALS QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE
223 SUMMER BEAUTY GLOBE LILY POT 8" POT
ALLIUM TANGUTICUM `SUMMER BEAUTY`
64 FEATHER REED GRASS CONT.1 GAL.
CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA `KARL FOERSTER`
75 PURPLE CONEFLOWER POT 8" POT
ECHINACEA PURPUREA
305 MAY NIGHT SALVIA CONT.1 GAL.
SALVIA X SYLVESTRIS `MAY NIGHT`
115 AUTUMN JOY SEDUM CONT.1 GAL.
SEDUM X `AUTUMN JOY`
SHRUBS - NATIVE AREAS QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE
15 AMERICAN HAZELNUT CONT.2 GAL.
CORYLUS AMERICANA
15 NINEBARK CONT.1 GAL.
PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS
12 AMERICAN PLUM CONT.2 GAL.
PRUNUS AMERICANA
65 SAND CHERRY CONT.1 GAL.
PRUNUS PUMILA
68 LABRADOR TEA CONT.1 GAL.
RHODODENDRON GROENLANDICUM
27 SMOOTH SUMAC CONT.2 GAL.
RHUS GLABRA
15 PRAIRIE WILLOW CONT.2 GAL.
SALIX HUMILIS
88 ARCTIC BLUE LEAF WILLOW CONT.1 GAL.
SALIX PURPUREA `CANYON BLUE`
26 FLAME WILLOW CONT.2 GAL.
SALIX X `FLAME`
64 MEADOWSWEET CONT.1 GAL.
SPIRAEA ALBA
64 LOWBUSH BLUEBERRY POT 8" POT
VACCINIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM
SCALE:1 LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN
1" = 40'
1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e . N . #1 0 0 P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1
P 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 9 0 | a e -m n .c o m
A n d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C | P r o j #15236
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
15236
N
0 40'80'
LANDSCAPE PLANTING
PLAN
L1.0
DS DSDS
LEGEND
PROPERTY LIMITS
NOTES
1.ALL SHRUB & PERENNIAL PLANTINGS IN LANDSCAPE BEDS SHALL
RECEIVE IRRIGATION (SEE L2.0 FOR IRRIGATION NOTES)
2.ALL SHRUB PLANTINGS IN NATIVE SEED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE
TEMPORARY IRRIGATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT PURPOSES ONLY
(SEE L2.0 FOR IRRIGATION NOTES)
3.REFER TO PLAN SHEET L2.0 FOR SODDING, SEEDING, FERTILIZER
AND TOPSOIL NOTES
NEW SOD W/ IRRIGATION
PRAIRIE RESTORATION "MIXED
HEIGHT/MESIC" SEED MIX, OR
APPROVED EQUAL
1 3" DEEP, SHREDDED HARDWOOD
MULCH W/ FABRIC
SPADE EDGE LANDSCAPE BORDER2
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
PRAIRIE RESTORATION "SHORELINE"
SEED MIX, OR APPROVED EQUAL
PLANT SCHEDULE
CODE REQUIREMENTS
MONUMENT SIGN
SEE SITE PLAN
BIO-FILTRATION
BASIN: SEE CIVIL
BIO-FILTRATION
BASIN: SEE CIVIL
BIO-FILTRATION
BASIN: SEE CIVIL
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
(1
4
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
)
(1
5
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
)
(1
5
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
)
(1
7
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
)
(1
2
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
)
(8
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
ST
A
L
L
S
)
(21 PARKING STALLS)
(10 PARKING STALLS)
(
8
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
)
(
1
H
.
C
.
S
T
A
L
L
)
(
2
S
T
A
L
L
S
)
(
1
2
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
)
(4
H
.
C
.
S
T
A
L
L
S
)
PLOTTED:COMM. NO.
DRAWING NO.
----XXXXX
ADAM'S PEST
CONTROL
1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e n u e N . #1 0 0
P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 | a e -m n .c o m
P 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 9 0
A n d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C
DRAWING TITLE
CHECKED BY:DRAWN:DESIGNED:
XXXXXXXXX
DATE
REVISION LOG
DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONSNO.DATE
HIGHWAY 55
MEDINA, MN
JAN-HAR, LLP
PROJECT PHASE
2 INSET A
SCALE: 1" = 20'
FIG. A
HIGHWAY 55
ENTRANCE/EXIT
CONCEPT PLAN
LEGEND
PROPOSED ASPHALT
EXISTING ASPHALT
N
0 100'200'
SEE INSET A FOR ENTRANCE DETAILS
1 HIGHWAY 55 ENTRANCE/EXIT CONCEPT - PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1" = 100'
N
0 20'40'
R
5
0
'
R50
'
12
'
13
'
12
'
9'
13
'
12
'
12
'
9'
BYPASS LANE
LEFT TURN
ENTRANCE LANE
BYPASS LANE
SHOULDER
RIGHT TURN
ENTRANCE LANE
BYPASS LANE
BYPASS LANE
SHOULDER
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXTENTS
SHOULDER 9'
300'195'
(15:1 TAPER)780'
300'195'
(15:1 TAPER)780'
HIGHWAY 55 13
'
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXTENTS
EXISTING SURVEY EXTENTS
EXISTING SURVEY EXTENTS
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson
FROM: Jim Stremel, City Engineer
DATE: March 12, 2020
MEETING: March 17, 2020
SUBJECT: Arrowhead Drive Railroad Improvement Project – Receive Bids
Background:
On January 21, 2020 the City Council adopted a resolution approving the Arrowhead Drive Railroad
Improvement Project plans/specifications and authorized advertisement for bids. Bids were received
electronically and opened at 10:00 AM on Friday, March 6, 2020.
Five bids were received with the apparent low bid submitted by Minger Construction Company, Inc.
in the amount of $426,969.10. The low bid did come in above the engineer’s estimate of
$354,364.00. The major items that accounted for the increase in cost included mobilization, railroad
protective liability insurance, utility coordination, and storm sewer work. A summary of the project
bid abstract is enclosed.
Project Cost & Funding Review:
The LRIP grant awarded to the City was in the amount of $450,000. The grant can cover the actual
cost of construction for the implementation of the quiet zone and railroad crossing improvements
with respect to the multi-use trail up to this amount, but overhead costs are not eligible such as
engineering or legal cannot be reimbursed by this funding mechanism.
An update to the major cost groupings based on the low bid amount along with the proposed method
of payment has been provided in the table below.
Description Amount Funding Source
Surface Improvements $ 325,897.35 LRIP
Storm Sewer $ 79,451.00 LRIP
Trail Improvements $ 21,620.75 LRIP
Contingency (5%) $ 21,348.46 LRIP Eligible CO
Railroad Crossing Panels $ 18,000.00 LRIP
Subtotal $ 466,317.56 Total LRIP Eligible
Overhead (Eng/Legal) (Approx. 22%) $ 98,000.00 City Funds*
Grand Total $ 564,317.56 LRIP/City Funds
Although the bids came in higher than estimated, the total bid cost plus railroad crossing panels is
within the $450,000 allotted to the City by the LRIP grant funding. After adding in a 5%
contingency to cover unforeseen costs (change orders), the total amount has the potential to be above
Agenda Item # 9A
2
the allotted LRIP amount. The City has a balance of $92,000 of allocated funds for quiet zones.
Anything in addition to $92,000 will be expended from the road fund or engineering funds.
Next Steps:
City engineering staff are working with Hennepin County and MnDOT on approvals for the co-op
agreement. Once these agreements are approved by all parties, the project can be awarded.
City Council Action Requested:
No formal action is requested at this time.
PROJECT:
Arrowhead Drive Railroad Crossing Improvements
S.A.P. 250-593-001
OWNER:
City of Medina, MN
WSB PROJECT NO.:
013211-000
BIDS OPENED: Friday, March 6, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. Local Time
Contractor Bid Bond (5%)
Add. Nos. 1, 2, & 3
Rec'd.Grand Total Bid
1 Minger Construction Co., Inc. X X $426,969.10
2 New Look Contracting, Inc. X X $444,318.00
3 Meyer Contracting, Inc. X X $444,752.50
4 Urban Companies X X $477,369.00
5 GL Contracting, Inc. X X $509,437.90
Engineer's Estimate $354,364.00
Denotes corrected figure
James L. Stremel, PE, Sr. Project Manager
BID TABULATION SUMMARY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on March 6, 2020.
K:\013211-000\Admin\Construction Admin\Bidding & Contracts\013211-000 CST Bid Tab Summary-030620
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 March 17, 2020
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: March 12, 2020
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – March 17, 2020 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Mark of Excellence Comp Plan Amendment, PUD Concept Plan – east of Mohawk Drive,
north of Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested a Comp
Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for development of 76 twinhomes, 41 single-
family, and 32 townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing at the October 8 meeting. A number of residents
provided written comment and one spoke in opposition of the amendment. Following the
hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. The Council reviewed and tabled the request at the November 6 meeting
to allow for a neighborhood meeting, which was held on January 20. Staff intends to
present to the Council at the March 17 meeting.
B) Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Jan-Har, LLP (dba Adam’s
Pest Control) has requested various approvals for development of a 35,000 s.f. office
building, restaurant, and 13,000 s.f. warehouse/repair shop north of Highway 55, west of
Willow Drive (PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001). The Planning
Commission held a public hearing at the November 12 meeting and recommended approval.
The City Council reviewed on December 3 and directed staff to prepare documents for
approval. Staff has been working with the adjacent property owner to secure right-of-way
for the frontage road to Willow Drive. We have been unable to reach agreement on the
right-of-way to the east, so the applicant intends to amend the site plan and plat to access the
site directly from Highway 55. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
updated site plan on March 10 and recommended approval. Staff intends to present to City
Council on March 17.
C) OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate
company for OSI) has requested approval of a site plan review and preliminary plat to construct an
expansion to the existing building and parking lot at 4101 Arrowhead Drive. The plat proposes to
increase the size of the main lot and decrease the size of the outlot to the north. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing at the December 10 meeting and recommended approval. The
City Council reviewed at the January 7 meeting and directed staff to prepare documents.
Staff intends to present to City Council on March 17.
D) Meadow View Townhomes– north of Highway 55, west of CR116 – Lennar has requested
review of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept plan for development of 138
townhomes south of Fields of Medina. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will
schedule a public hearing when complete, potentially at the April 14 meeting.
E) Charlie’s Restaurant– 172 Hamel Road – Steve and Richard Andres have requested
approval of a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for Charlie’s Restaurant. The
proposed restaurant would be predominantly take-out food and constructed with shipping
containers. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will schedule a public hearing when
complete, potentially at the April 14 meeting.
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 March 17, 2020
City Council Meeting
F) Stetler Barn CUP – 1832 Medina Road – Chris and Jim Stetler have requested a
Conditional Use Permit for construction of a 12,300 square foot barn and riding arena. Staff
is conducting preliminary review and will schedule a public hearing when complete,
potentially at the April 14 meeting.
G) Roehl Preliminary Plat – 1735 Medina Road – The Estate of Robert Roehl has requested a
preliminary plat to subdivide 28 acres into two lots. The application is currently incomplete
and will be scheduled for a hearing when necessary information is submitted.
H) Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 2575 and 2590 Cates Ranch Drive – Robert
Atkinson has requested a change of the future land use from Future Development Area to Business,
a staging plan amendment to 2020, and a rezoning to Business Park. The application is incomplete
for review, and the City has requested additional materials.
I) 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.
J) Hamel Haven subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working
with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded.
Other Projects
A) Polaris Administrative Site Plan Review– Polaris has requested review of an administrative site plan
review for a small entry/lobby addition on their building at 2100 Highway 55. The application is
under review.
B) Tamarack Drive study – Staff met with MnDOT to discuss the intersection at Highway 55 and
future Tamarack. Staff is aiming for a public engagement activity in April.
C) Hackamore Road Preliminary Design – a kick-off meeting was held on March 12 with staff from
Corcoran and Medina.
D) Diamond Lake Regional Trail – Staff will be meeting with Three Rivers Park and Corcoran on
March 13 to discuss alternative routes and feedback from the Park Commissions.
TO: City Council
FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety,
Through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: March 13, 2020
RE: Police Department Updates
COVID-19
We continue to build on our plan for COVID-19 and monitor the status of the pandemic in
Minnesota and across the Country. Both the east and west coast states are seeing the virus spread
across cities as of today. Currently, Minnesota has just a few cases. It is inevitable that our numbers
will increase in time. It has been reported that the virus has started to subside in China where it
began. Hopefully that will happen here sooner than later. At the Hennepin Chief’s meeting this
week they had the University of Minnesota Epidemiologist address the COVID-19 issue. She
reported the risk is still very low. The COVID-19 virus is easily killed on surfaces with Clorox
wipes. She stressed that we need to follow the same precautions you would for a flu outbreak,
WASH YOUR HANDS, COVER YOUR COUGH, IF YOU ARE SICK STAY HOME and
clean your frequently touched equipment and workspaces with Clorox wipes.
Fire Study / Matrix Consultants
Sergeant Nelson is setting up an interview with our four Fire Chiefs and Matrix consultants for the
first week in April. The consultants will have a kickoff meeting around the same time with City
officials. Administrator Johnson been in contact through his Friday Council Update to set up times
with each of you.
Spring Weight Restrictions in Place
As of March 6th, the spring weight restrictions have been posted. Our officers will again this year be
out looking for trucks in violation. If you see any large trucks driving on posted city roads, please
call us. We want to protect our roads.
Patrol:
Training: On February 25, Officer Kevin Boecker conducted our annual use of force refresher
training for the department.
On March 11, we held a department meeting where we went over policies and also completed our
annual hearing screening tests.
MEMORANDUM
Patrol Activities - For the dates of February 25 to March 12, 2020 our officers issued 93 citations
and 178 warnings for various traffic infractions. There was a total of 3 traffic accidents, 10
medicals, 5 alarms, and 3 DWI’s.
On 02-26 Officer Gregory, Investigator McKinley and I responded to a suicidal party call. Upon
arrival, it was found that a male was attempting suicide in the garage of his residence by having the
car running. The male had barricaded the residence and unplugged the garage door so that
responding personal could not enter. Officer Gregory was able to convince the male to allow
officers inside. The male was placed on a mental health and welfare hold.
On 03-03 Officer McGill responded to Adams Pest Control to take a criminal damage to property
report. It was learned that in the early morning hours someone had cut the catalytic converter off
one of their vehicles. This is a common thing that trends back and forth due to scrap prices. Case
was forwarded to investigations.
On 03-05 Officer Scharf stopped a possible residential burglary suspect vehicle that Minnetrista
Police was looking for. Officer Hall responded to assist. It was learned that two subjects had
entered a residence that is up for sale in Minnetrista and removed several items. Both suspects were
arrested and turned over to the Minnetrista Police Department.
On 03-05 Officer Gregory took a theft report from Target Lost Prevention. They indicated that a
theft of over $1200 in merchandise was stolen the previous day and that suspects had been arrested
after an additional theft in Fridley at Target. Case was forwarded to investigations.
On 03-07 Officer Gregory and Reserve Officer Chorley responded to a medical/overdose in a
driveway at a residence. Officer Gregory was able to utilize Narcan that we carry on our persons
and in our squad bags on the subject who had unintentionally overdosed on heroin. After giving the
second dose of Narcan the subject came out of respiratory distress and was alert and conscious. The
male was transported to the hospital for evaluation. The is not the first time that officers have saved
this particular individual life using Narcan.
Investigations:
Investigating a burglary at a residence that is currently under construction. The victim reported that
numerous tools were stolen over the weekend. The victim is working on providing a list of tools that
were taken. Investigation is on-going.
Investigating a theft of a catalytic converter from a vehicle parked at a business. I am reviewing
video surveillance in an attempt to identify the suspect.
Investigating a felony theft from a business. The suspect is known in the metro area. I will be
reviewing the video surveillance and then attempting to locate the suspect.
Received a report from Hennepin County Child Protection. The report alleges possible physical
abuse. The investigation is on-going.
There are currently (8) cases assigned to investigations.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: March 12, 2020
MEETING: March 17, 2020
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
STREETS
• Staff met Corcoran today, March 12th, for a kickoff of the Hackamore Road project. This
process is the beginning of design phase of the street. After we get a handle on the scope
and cost of the project, we will then begin the process of a JPA with Corcoran.
• Public Works has posted seasonal weight restrictions on most of the city streets. For the
convenience of everyone involved, there is a map on the city website.
• Public Works is preparing for crack sealing and upcoming spring duties.
• Public Works has tried out three different backhoes from Case, Cat, and John Deere. We
have had good luck with our current Case backhoe. They are the low quote and best
value, so we plan to order from Case this week.
.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
• Public Works has had some water complaints in the Enclave area. Staff believes it is
likely water softeners that are causing the issues. The water coming into the house seems
to be crystal clear. There can be many factors that contribute to an issue and if they are
isolated to a few houses it is typically a household problem.
• Staff continues to work on inflow and infiltration throughout the city. We will be
metering new areas to try to find any remaining issues in our system. Staff worked with
Burshville Construction to repair a broken sewer cleanout in a rain garden on HWY 55
caused by an underground driller. This was a large leak into the system.
PARKS/TRAILS
• The sliding hills and skating rinks are now finished for the season. This season was great,
with exceptional ice and snow throughout.
• Public Works has met with a consultant for fertilization and we do plan to fertilize in-
house this season in order to cut down on the costs in the parks.
PERSONNEL
• Staff conducted interviews for the full time Public Works Maintenance position. We have
three strong candidates and we plan to narrow our search to one. We will bring a
recommendation to the next council meeting.
ORDER CHECKS MARCH 4, 2020 – MARCH 17, 2020
049986 ANCONA TITLE & ESCROW ....................................................... $33.67
049987 BISCHEL, GARY ....................................................................... $101.38
049988 GHEEK, ISHA ............................................................................ $300.00
049989 GODDARD SCHOOL................................................................. $250.00
049990 MOEN, LINDA ........................................................................... $250.00
049991 SHETH, KUNJ DIKSHA ............................................................. $250.00
049992 WENINGER, JULIE/MARK ........................................................ $350.00
049993 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ........................................ $23.00
049994 NEILSON, MARK/TAMMY ........................................................... $61.73
049995 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC .................................. $8,094.47
049996 SS 567 UNIVERSITY LLC ......................................................... $250.00
049997 WILSON, JENNY ....................................................................... $250.00
049998 CENTERPOINT ENERGY ...................................................... $3,202.23
049999 DUA, ATUL & RUCHI................................................................. $500.00
050000 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LLC .............................................. $60.31
050001 KAUFMAN SIGN COMPANY .................................................. $7,082.50
050002 MAHFOUZ, RAUDA ................................................................ $1,200.00
050003 BOHN, JUDITH ANN ................................................................. $113.75
050004 DEJUTE PAUL M ....................................................................... $217.75
050005 DOWSETT, BONNIE J ............................................................... $113.75
050006 DYSTE, CYNTHIA ANN ............................................................. $133.25
050007 FRY, BEVERLY ......................................................................... $133.25
050008 GARBERICK, MARGARET ........................................................ $214.50
050009 GREGOR, PATRICIA................................................................. $217.75
050010 LEE, STEVEN B ........................................................................ $100.75
050011 NIELSEN, BETH ........................................................................ $234.00
050012 REID, ROBIN ............................................................................. $110.50
050013 RESSLER, SHARON M ............................................................. $217.75
050014 RICHMOND, TERRY R. ............................................................. $133.25
050015 SCHMIDT, KATHLEEN .............................................................. $110.50
050016 THIES, ANN ................................................................................. $26.00
050017 VAN BUREN, RONALD ............................................................. $143.00
050018 WEIR, ELIZABETH .................................................................... $133.25
050019 ADAMS PEST CONTROL INC .................................................... $89.84
050020 ASPEN MILLS INC .................................................................... $331.33
050021 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE .................................................. $2,018.48
050022 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MN ................................... $34,058.06
050023 BURSCHVILLE CONSTRUCTION INC ................................... $6,900.00
050024 CARGILL INC. ...................................................................... $24,672.17
050025 CENTRAL HYDRAULICS INC ................................................... $482.78
050026 CJ AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES LLC ............................................ $505.44
050027 CORE & MAIN LP ................................................................... $3,508.87
050028 DPC INDUSTRIES INC ........................................................... $1,351.09
050029 ECM PUBLISHERS INC .............................................................. $94.99
050030 ESRI, INC. ................................................................................. $808.00
050031 FASTENAL COMPANY ............................................................. $131.78
050032 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC .............................................. $282.94
050033 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INC ............................................. $132.30
050034 HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES I ................................ $848.00
050035 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER ....................................................... $18.99
050036 HAMEL LIONS CLUB ................................................................ $775.00
050037 HENN COUNTY CORRECTIONS .................................................. $7.50
050038 HENN COUNTY ELECTIONS ...................................................... $61.95
050039 HENN COUNTY INFO TECH ..................................................... $178.09
050040 HENN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS ............................................. $255.00
050041 HENN CTY RECORDER REGISTRAR ...................................... $145.50
050042 HUNZYS LLC ............................................................................ $180.20
050043 LANO EQUIPMENT INC ....................................................... $18,110.00
050044 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES ............................... $558.00
050045 LEXISNEXIS ................................................................................ $80.50
050046 MAPLE PLAIN, CITY OF ........................................................... $627.71
050047 MET COUNCIL (SAC) ............................................................. $9,840.60
050048 MET COUNCIL (WASTEWATER SVC) ................................ $30,736.53
050049 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ........................................................ $74.44
050050 OFFICE DEPOT ........................................................................ $124.59
050051 ORONO, CITY OF ..................................................................... $965.10
050052 PREMIUM WATERS INC ............................................................. $31.00
050053 RAILROAD MANAGEMENT CO.LLC ......................................... $258.95
050054 STREICHERS INC ..................................................................... $407.81
050055 TALLEN & BAERTSCHI .......................................................... $2,454.83
050056 TIME SAVER OFFSITE SEC SVCS IN ...................................... $148.00
050057 VIEAU, CEC ........................................................................... $1,203.00
050058 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE ................................................ $228.43
Total Checks $168,300.08
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS MARCH 4, 2020 – MARCH 17, 2020
005428E ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICE .................................................. $4,960.39
005429E FURTHER ................................................................................. $690.24
005430E MINNESOTA, STATE OF ....................................................... $1,507.00
005431E VERIZON WIRELESS ............................................................. $1,333.43
005432E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,759.76
005433E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $22.00
005434E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $17,456.51
005435E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $1,850.00
005436E PR PERA .............................................................................. $17,555.76
005437E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $3,891.60
005438E AFLAC ....................................................................................... $375.36
005439E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. .............................................. $6,322.83
005440E CULLIGAN-METRO ..................................................................... $33.70
005441E FRONTIER .................................................................................. $57.06
005442E FURTHER ................................................................................... $68.50
005443E HOSTINGMINNESOTA.COM ...................................................... $15.99
005444E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $522.24
005445E PAYMENT SERVICE NETWORK INC .................................... $1,068.59
005446E PITNEY BOWES POSTAGE BY PHONE ............................... $1,000.00
005447E VERIZON WIRELESS ............................................................. $1,371.86
005448E XCEL ENERGY ...................................................................... $7,611.62
005449E CENTURYLINK.......................................................................... $235.02
Total Electronic Checks $69,709.46
PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS MARCH 4, 2020
0510074 BOEDDEKER, KAYLEN ............................................................ $532.62
0510075 JOHNSON, PATRICK M. ........................................................... $633.53
0510076 VOGEL, NICHOLE .................................................................. $1,300.39
0510077 ALBERS, TODD M. .................................................................... $230.87
0510078 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ................................................... $1,662.94
0510079 ANDERSON, JOHN G. .............................................................. $230.87
0510080 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,594.82
0510081 BELLAND, EDGAR J. ............................................................. $2,815.60
0510082 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,647.31
0510083 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $2,407.71
0510084 DESLAURIES, DEAN ................................................................ $230.87
0510085 DINGMANN, IVAN W ................................................................. $179.07
0510086 DION, DEBRA A. .................................................................... $1,880.14
0510087 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $1,721.91
0510088 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,594.13
0510089 GALLUP, JODI M. ................................................................... $2,006.02
0510090 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $2,137.58
0510091 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................ $2,023.74
0510092 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $2,183.05
0510093 HANSON, JUSTIN .................................................................. $1,977.52
0510094 JACOBSON, NICOLE ................................................................ $949.86
0510095 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. .......................................................... $2,401.32
0510096 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,286.94
0510097 JONES, KATRINA M............................................................... $1,481.48
0510098 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,427.39
0510099 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $2,076.67
0510100 MARTIN, KATHLEEN M ............................................................ $327.07
0510101 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $1,665.07
0510102 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,014.46
0510103 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,335.23
0510104 PEDERSON, JEFF .................................................................... $230.87
0510105 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $2,074.45
0510106 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $2,352.86
0510107 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,421.88
0510108 SCHNEIDER, BENJAMIN .......................................................... $440.79
Total Payroll Direct Deposit $56,477.03