HomeMy Public PortalAbout09.01.2020 Complete City Council Regular Meeting Packet Posted 08/27/2020 Page 1 of 1
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, September 1, 2020
7:00 P.M.
Meeting to be held telephonically/virtually
pursuant Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the August 18, 2020 Work Session Meeting
B. Minutes of the August 18, 2020 Regular Council Meeting
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Broadband Feasibility Study with Hometown Fiber
B. Resolution Approving Variance for Setback from Individual Sewage Treatment System at 1075 Oak
Circle
C. Appoint Justin Popp to the Planning Commission
VI. COMMENTS
A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda
B. Park Commission
C. Planning Commission
VII. PRESENTATIONS
A. Martha Van de Ven – Orono School Referendum Questions
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Ordinance Amending Regulations Pertaining to Accessory Structures; Amending Chapter 8 of the
City Code
1. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and Summary
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 2021 Preliminary Budget & Tax Levy
1. Resolution Approving Proposed Tax Levy for 2021
2. Resolution Approving Proposed General Fund Budget for 2021
3. Resolution Reducing Debt Service Tax Levies for 2021
4. Establish Public Discussion Date for Final 2021 Tax Levy and Budget
B. Kayla Brugger – 1345 Elsinore Circle – Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation
C. Ditter Properties – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
Preliminary Plat, Interim Use Permit
X. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
XI. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
XII. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
XIII. ADJOURN
Telephonic/Virtual Meeting
Call-in Instructions
Join via Microsoft Teams to view
presentations at this link:
https://medinamn.us/council/
For audio only: Dial 1-612-517-3122
Enter Conference ID: 751 668 367#
MEMORANDUM
TO: Medina City Council
FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator
DATE OF REPORT: August 27, 2020
DATE OF MEETING: September 1, 2020
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report
Telephonic/Virtual Meeting Call-in Instructions
Join via Microsoft Teams to view presentations at this link: https://medinamn.us/council/
For audio only: Dial 1-612-517-3122; Enter Conference ID: 751 668 367#
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Broadband Feasibility Study with Hometown Fiber – Approve Broadband
Feasibility Study with Hometown Fiber. Staff provided an update to the City Council at
the August 18th Work Session. The proposed feasibility study through Hometown Fiber
will investigate alternative broadband options for residents and businesses in Medina. The
study will be paid for through CARES Act funds. The study falls under the guidelines of
improving telework capabilities and distance learning. Staff recommends approval of the
$5,995 study.
See attached proposal.
B. Resolution Approving Variance for Setback from Individual Sewage Treatment System at
1075 Oak Circle – Council reviewed this item at the August 18th meeting and directed staff
to prepare the attached resolution for approval. Staff recommends approval.
See attached resolution.
C. Appoint Justin Popp to the Planning Commission – Council Member Todd Albers,
Planning Commission Chair Robin Reid, and Planning Director Dusty Finke are
recommending the appointment of Justin Popp to fill the open Planning Commission seat.
The current term expires on December 31, 2020.
See attached information.
VII. PRESENTATIONS
A. Martha Van de Ven – Orono School Referendum Questions – Martha Van de Ven will be
at the meeting to provide a brief presentation on the upcoming Orono School technology
referendum question.
See attached information.
2
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Ordinance Amending Regulations Pertaining to Accessory Structures; Amending Chapter 8
of the City Code – The City Council discussed this topic at their June 2nd meeting. The
Council raised concerns about the impacts of accessory structures on views and discussed
potential architectural requirements. The Council referred the ordinance back to the
Planning Commission for further discussion. The Planning Commission again discussed at
the July and August meetings and requested that staff update the requirements for shed size
and setbacks to be more of a “sliding scale” based on the size of the property.
See attached memo, ordinance, and resolution.
Recommended Motion #1: Motion to adopt the ordinance amending regulations
pertaining to accessory structures [with any changes requested by the City Council].
Recommended Motion #2: Motion to adopt resolution authorizing the publication of
ordinance by title and summary
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. 2021 Preliminary Budget & Tax Levy – Staff will provide a brief presentation on the
proposed tax levy and general fund budget at the regular council meeting. A budget open
house will take place at the 6 PM Work Session. The proposed 2021 General Fund budget
is included with the packet.
See attached resolutions.
Recommended Motion # 1: Adopt the resolution approving the 2021 preliminary tax levy.
Recommended Motion # 2: Adopt the resolution approving the 2021 preliminary general
fund budget.
Recommended Motion # 3: Adopt the resolution reducing debt service tax levies for 2021.
Recommended Motion # 4: Establish the 2021 final tax levy and budget discussion for
December 1, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
B. Kayla Brugger – 1345 Elsinore Circle – Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation –
Kayla Brugger has requested a conditional use permit (CUP) to provide fitness instruction
out of her home at 1345 Elsinore Circle. The subject property is located within the Medina
Morningside neighborhood at the southwest corner of Elsinore Circle and Bobolink Road.
The applicant proposes to provide the instruction in a tuck-under garage which will be
finished for the use. The subject property and all surrounding lots are zoned Urban
Residential (UR). “Home occupations in compliance with the requirements of section
826.98 subd. 2(c)” is an allowed conditional use in the UR district. The applicant has
3
indicated that no more than three clients would be expected on a given day, and no more
than 6-10 per week. The clients would park in the driveway off Elsinore Circle.
See attached report.
Potential Motion: Move to direct staff to draft a resolution granting conditional use
permit approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
C. Ditter Properties – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive – Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Interim Use Permit – Jim and Tom Ditter (Ditter Properties)
have submitted land use requests to allow subdivision of 4 parcels they own into 5 lots. The
four existing parcels are a total of approximately 25 acres, and each range in size from 3-8.5
acres, located east of Holy Name Drive and north of Holy Name Cemetery.
See attached report.
Potential Motion: Move to direct staff to draft documents granting conditional approval of
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and approval of the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and
Interim Use Permit subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
XII. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 005625E-005641E for $55,582.57
and order check numbers 050588-050654 for $250,973.27, payroll EFT 0510439-0510466 for
$52,814.33.
INFORMATION PACKET:
• Planning Department Update
• Police Department Update
• Public Works Department Update
• Claims List
Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 1
August 18, 2020
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES OF
AUGUST 18, 2020
The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in work session on August 18, 2020 at 6:00
p.m. at the Medina City Hall, 2052 County Road 24, Medina, MN.
I. Call to Order
Members present: Martin, Anderson, Albers, DesLauriers, Pederson
Members absent:
Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Assistant City Administrator
Jodi Gallup, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, Finance Director Erin Barnhart, Police
Sergeant Kevin Boecker, and Planning Director Dusty Finke
II. 2021 Preliminary Budget Discussion
Finance Director Erin Barnhart informed the City Council that the preliminary levy will
be set at the September 1st City Council meeting. The final levy for 2021 will be set at
the December 1st City Council meeting. The preliminary levy amount can only be
decreased after it is set by the City Council on September 1st. Staff was directed to move
forward with a flat tax rate of 22.492% for 2021.
Barnhart reviewed the 5%, 10%, and 15% revenue loss scenarios for 2022, 2023, and
2024 that were requested by the City Council. Council thanked Barnhart for the valuable
information. Staff was reminded by the City Council to remain prepared and mindful of
future expenditures. Staff was also asked to be aware of possible future major
expenditures that could be cut.
Barnhart also provided an update on the CARES Act funding. Medina has approximately
$40,000 to $50,000 in expenditures that will be reimbursed under the CARES Act. The
City Council was supportive of staff being proactive on making application for public
safety payroll expenditures and holding the amount in reserve. The Loretto Fire
Department received FEMA reimbursement for their Personal Protective Equipment cost
due to COVID-19. Council directed staff to pay our portion of the cost of the remaining
25% of the FEMA match with Medina’s CARES Act funds. Council agreed that the
reimbursement for FEMA funds is available to all four fire departments.
City Administrator Scott Johnson informed the City Council about a meeting that
Planning Director Dusty Finke and he attended with Hometown Fiber from Maple Grove.
Hometown Fiber would like to conduct a broadband feasibility study for Medina at a cost
of $5,995. Staff continues to hear from Residents about poor service from our existing
carriers. This has only increased due to the COVID-19 requirement to work and provide
school from home. The feasibility study would provide what options exist in Medina to
expand and increase broadband options to improve service in Medina. Staff is looking
into using CARES Act funds to pay for the feasibility study. If these funds are not
available, then staff is recommending the use of franchise fees to fund the study. Council
Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 2
August 18, 2020
directed staff to bring forward the feasibility study option to the September 1st City
Council meeting.
Barnhart reviewed the proposed changes from staff to the CIP. Projects and equipment
were spaced out further into the future. The projects and equipment are reviewed yearly
and can be accelerated if the economy improves and Medina has stable funding. Council
Members asked questions regarding equipment and project expenditures, fire
expenditures, and directed staff to include fire contract expiration information with the
CIP. Staff will bring the final CIP forward for approval at the December 1st City Council
meeting.
Adjourn
Anderson made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:49 p.m. Albers seconded the
motion.
Pederson Aye
Anderson Aye
DesLauriers Aye
Albers Aye
Martin Aye
_________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
1
DRAFT 1
2
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 2020 3
4
The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on August 18, 2020 at 5
7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6
7
Martin read aloud a statement explaining that all Council and Commission meetings will 8
continue to be held virtually due to the ongoing pandemic. She reviewed the instructions 9
on how members of the public can participate in the meeting. 10
11
I. ROLL CALL 12
13
Members present: Albers, Anderson, DesLauriers, Martin, and Pederson. 14
15
Members absent: None. 16
17
Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Assistant City Administrator Jodi 18
Gallup, City Attorney Ron Batty, Finance Director Erin Barnhart, City Engineer Jim 19
Stremel, City Planning Director Dusty Finke, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, and 20
Sergeant Kevin Boecker. 21
22
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:09 p.m.) 23
24
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:10 p.m.) 25
The agenda was approved as presented. 26
27
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:10 p.m.) 28
29
A. Approval of the August 4, 2020 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 30
Martin noted that prior to the meeting Johnson distributed proposed corrections to the 31
minutes that she submitted. 32
33
Moved by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to approve the August 4, 2020 regular City 34
Council meeting minutes as amended. 35
36
A roll call vote was performed: 37
38
Pederson aye 39
Anderson aye 40
DesLauriers aye 41
Albers aye 42
Martin aye 43
44
Motion passed unanimously. 45
46
V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:11 p.m.) 47
48
A. Resolution Accepting Donation of Masks 49
B. Resolution Accepting Public Utilities Within the Reserve of Medina 2nd 50
Addition 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
2
Moved by Pederson, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the consent agenda. 1
2
A roll call vote was performed: 3
4
Pederson aye 5
Anderson aye 6
DesLauriers aye 7
Albers aye 8
Martin aye 9
10
Motion passed unanimously. 11
12
VI. COMMENTS (7:13 p.m.) 13
14
A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 15
There were none. 16
17
B. Park Commission 18
Scherer reported that the Park Commission will meet the following day to discuss the 19
Ditter subdivision request, specific to park dedication. The Commission will also review 20
the three concepts for Hunter Lions Park and will also discuss field improvements with 21
Hamel Athletic Association. 22
23
C. Planning Commission 24
Planning Commissioner Grajczyk reported that the Planning Commission met the 25
previous week to consider the Ditter subdivision request and recommended approval of 26
the Comprehensive Plan amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Interim Use 27
Permit. He stated that the Commission also reviewed a Conditional Use Permit for a 28
Home Occupation Permit for in-home fitness and recommended approval. He noted that 29
the Commission also reviewed the ordinance related to setbacks for accessory 30
structures which included a sliding scale that would link the size of the allowed 31
accessory structure to the size of the property. He stated that the Commission 32
recommended approval of the ordinance as proposed by staff. 33
34
VII. OLD BUSINESS 35
36
A. Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Concept Plan (7:27 p.m.) 37
Johnson stated that at the July 21st meeting the Council reviewed this concept and 38
directed staff to work with the adjacent property owners in order to develop a plan that 39
meets the interests of all parties. He stated that staff held that meeting and thought that 40
all the parties agreed on the proposal being presented tonight. He stated that emails 41
were received from Anderson and Eric Miller, representing the Cavanaughs, that were 42
distributed to the Council. He stated that this is a visioning study that sets the 43
parameters for the corridor. 44
45
Martin stated that this does not commit the City or any parties to these improvements 46
and is simply an intent to guide future development of the corridor. 47
48
Stremel provided background information on the process thus far. He stated that a draft 49
of the final study was presented at the last meeting with a review of the concept plan. 50
He stated that comments were provided from adjacent landowners and the direction 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
3
from Council was for staff to setup a meeting with the adjacent landowners to further 1
discuss the corridor. He felt that the meeting went well and there were great discussions 2
for the corridor and adjacent development needs. He provided a comparison of the 3
previous concept and the revised concept. He stated that there is general support for 4
the roundabout in the newly proposed location. He highlighted the additional elements 5
that were added to the new concept following the meeting with those landowners. He 6
stated that the next step would be for the Council to adopt the study with the fully 7
signalized intersection at TH 55. 8
9
Martin appreciated the work that was put into the revised plan. 10
11
Albers asked how far south the roundabout shifted and whether the amount of right-of-12
way is equitable between the property owners. 13
14
Stremel replied that the roundabout was moved about 60 feet to the south, which was as 15
far south as staff was comfortable with. He stated that staff attempted to make the right-16
of-way split as equitable as they could. 17
18
Pederson asked for details on the Loram property and the wetland. 19
20
Stremel confirmed that Loram would need access from Tamarack because of the 21
wetland location. 22
23
Pederson asked if Loram was comfortable with the right-of-way being taken. 24
25
Stremel stated that he did not receive a response from Loram but noted that the median 26
cannot be reduced because of quiet zone requirements. He stated that they have not 27
yet received a development plan for that portion of the Loram property. 28
29
Finke stated that Loram’s interest was to minimize the right-of-way as much as possible. 30
He commented that the right-of-way split is 2 to1 between the City and Loram. 31
32
DesLauriers asked if Wayzata Schools was invited to the meeting with staff. 33
34
Finke stated that he was unsure if the School District was invited to this discussion as 35
the corridor study concentrated on the north side. He stated that the School District has 36
been a part of the broader process. 37
38
DesLauriers stated that the previous discussion was for a desire to move the roundabout 39
closer to the lot lines. He asked if the property owners were in agreement with the 40
alignment. 41
42
Stremel stated that it is not a straight alignment, noting that typically roundabouts have 43
some curve to them, and staff did the best they could to balance the right-of-way needed 44
on all properties. 45
46
DesLauriers commented that he is concerned with the intersection to the north coming 47
out of Lennar, noting that could be very troublesome with people coming from that 48
access, the roundabout, and from Meander. 49
50
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
4
Stremel replied that the idea would be that the roundabout would serve as the primary 1
commercial access and the Lennar access would have less commercial access. He 2
stated that the amount of traffic generated from the residential side would be less than 3
the commercial side and noted that the peak times for residential and commercial are 4
usually different. 5
6
DesLauriers stated that he would like to limit the volume to that intersection. 7
8
Stremel stated that based on input from adjacent landowners, it was important for them 9
to have a second access to the commercial properties. 10
11
Martin asked the concern of DesLauriers. 12
13
DesLauriers stated that he is concerned with the volume of traffic in the roundabout and 14
then with the Lennar and Meander intersections. 15
16
Martin stated that she is not bothered by the proposed alignment. She stated that other 17
cities have roundabouts and straight intersections that seem to work fine. She believed 18
that there was sufficient length available for those actions. 19
20
Anderson stated that he can see the point of DesLauriers and asked if there is a right-in 21
or left-out for Lennar. 22
23
Stremel stated that there is no right-out but there is a southbound left turn into the 24
development. 25
26
DesLauriers asked and received confirmation that vehicles coming from Lennar could go 27
left, right, or straight. 28
29
Finke stated that the volumes are slightly higher for Tamarack north of the roundabout 30
than Meander but not by much. 31
32
Stremel stated that the traffic flow between the intersections was not updated. He stated 33
that given that the roundabout would serve as the primary access to commercial, there 34
would be a reduction in the flow to the secondary commercial access and then further 35
north to Meander. He again mentioned that the peak times for the commercial and 36
residential properties would be different. 37
38
Finke stated that the intent would be to have a low speed for the corridor, at 30 mph, 39
further slowed by the roundabout. 40
41
Anderson referenced the projected cost for the south portion and asked if the intent 42
would be that Wayzata Schools and other developers would pay for those 43
improvements. 44
45
Stremel replied that much of the cost to the south is the railroad crossing. He stated that 46
cost would be split between the properties to the south side: Wayzata Schools, the City, 47
and Loram. 48
49
Finke commented that based on acreage, most of the property in that area is owned by 50
the School District. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
5
1
DesLauriers commented that Wayzata appears to own the majority of the land on the 2
south side and therefore it would seem that they should have been involved. 3
4
Finke stated that the School District has been involved in the process throughout, with 5
the exception of the last meeting to discuss the improvement to the north. 6
7
Martin confirmed that the School District was involved in the discussions but most likely 8
did not have any interest in the improvements to the north that were discussed at the last 9
meeting. 10
11
Pederson stated that it was his understanding that the railroad crossing improvements in 12
other areas included grant funds to implement quiet zones and the remaining funds were 13
paid by the City. 14
15
Stremel stated that the railroad improvements could be paired with the TH 55 16
intersection. He confirmed that it would be a City project. 17
18
Pederson noted that the last three quiet zone projects were City projects that involved 19
grant funds and he would then think this would follow the same process. 20
21
Martin agreed that she would not be willing to commit City funds if there were not grant 22
funds involved. She noted that if the improvement is desired without grant funds 23
because of development, that cost could involve participation from the developers. 24
25
Pederson stated that he believed that access should be provided to the Cavanaugh 26
property to ensure that area is viable and successful and therefore supports the 27
alignment as proposed. 28
29
Stremel commented that turn lanes were added along with the slow speed to ensure that 30
could be provided safely. 31
32
Eric Miller, representing the Cavanaughs, stated that they recognize that a certain 33
amount of the improvements are going to move forward with the townhome development 34
that will set an alignment for the roadway based on the visioning study. He stated that 35
they are still uncertain as to the financial obligations, stormwater management 36
allocations and right-of-way dedication that would be necessary. He stated that they are 37
concerned that there will be a question placed upon the Cavanaughs for right-of-way 38
dedications to be provided to support the development to the south. He stated that they 39
will want a clear picture of the entire project and related obligations. He stated that they 40
would like to move forward with full transparency and hopes that they will not be put in a 41
position where they do not have time to think through the requests in a thoughtful and 42
responsible manner. He stated that just because they are not objecting to this does not 43
mean they fully support requests that could be made in the future to support 44
development to the south. 45
46
Anderson commented that this is a visioning study that would not commit the City to 47
expenditure of funds. He referenced a portion of the study that states it is not 48
anticipated that a cost share of the Hamel Road or TH 55 would be possible, and that 49
the City would need to fund a portion of the watermain loop. He stated that on the one 50
hand the City wants to move ahead and adopt the visioning study, but within the study it 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
6
is clear that two primary funding sources, Hennepin County and MNDOT, would not be 1
available for the cost-shares of those intersections. He stated that if a motion is made, 2
he would want a statement made that makes it clear that at this time the City will not 3
bear any costs associated with this project. 4
5
Martin stated by adopting the visioning study the City is not committing any funds. She 6
stated that in the future there may be a decision for the City to contribute funds. She 7
recognized the language and at this time the City does not have funding partners but 8
that does not mean there may not be partners in the future. She confirmed the 9
consensus of the Council that adopting the visioning study would not commit the City to 10
expenditure of funds. 11
12
Moved by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to adopt the Tamarack Drive Corridor 13
Visioning Study with fully signalized intersection at TH 55 provided, however that in 14
adopting such visioning study the City Council does not commit to spending funds for 15
any of the road improvements envisioned by the study or taking any additional steps as 16
outlined in the study. 17
18
A roll call vote was performed: 19
20
Pederson aye 21
Anderson aye 22
DesLauriers nay 23
Albers aye 24
Martin aye 25
26
Motion passed. 27
28
DesLauriers stated that he supports the roundabout and signalized traffic signal but does 29
not support the secondary Lennar access. 30
31
VIII. NEW BUSINESS 32
33
A. John and Mary Bartzen – Variance for Setback for Individual Sewage 34
Treatment System (ISTS) to Wetland – 1075 Oak Circle – Public Hearing 35
(8:18 p.m.) 36
Finke stated that the 75-foot setback from wetlands is an additional regulation that the 37
City chose to adopt as State Code does not require a minimum setback from wetlands. 38
He stated that the Septic Ordinance and State Statute allows the City to consider a 39
variance. He commented that this is a fairly small lot for a rural lot and is similar in size 40
to the other adjacent lots. He stated that there is no other viable alternative for treatment 41
on this site and therefore the alternative would be to convert to holding tanks which 42
would be extremely expensive. He stated that the septic designers recommended 43
annual review to determine if operational changes are needed to extend functionality 44
and the life of the system. He stated that staff recommends approval based on the 45
criteria noted and the conditions suggested. He stated that the applicants have sold the 46
property since application, but the new property owner is on the call. 47
48
Martin stated that she appreciates that the City setbacks are more stringent than the 49
State in order to protect natural resources. She stated that she does support the 50
variance for this request and finds the City regulations to be reasonable and appropriate. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
7
1
Martin opened the public hearing. 2
3
No comments made. 4
5
Martin closed the public hearing. 6
7
Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to direct staff to draft a resolution 8
approving the variance subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. 9
10
A roll call vote was performed: 11
12
Pederson aye 13
Anderson aye 14
DesLauriers aye 15
Albers aye 16
Martin aye 17
18
Motion passed unanimously. 19
20
B. US Home Corp (Lennar) – Meadow View Townhomes – Rezoning and 21
Preliminary Plat – North of Hwy 55, South of Meander Road, West of CR 116 22
(8:27 p.m.) 23
Finke presented a request for a 125-unit townhome development on the subject 24
property. He stated that in order to carry forward a rezoning to R-3 and a preliminary 25
plat would be necessary. He stated that the portion of the site proposed to be developed 26
with townhomes is part of a larger site that is split in the Comprehensive Plan between 27
medium density residential in this location and commercial for the remainder of the 28
property south to TH 55. He stated that the proposed density falls within that identified 29
density range and the site is within the current staging period. He reviewed the adjacent 30
property uses and future land guidance. He displayed the proposed site layout and 31
provided details on the primary and secondary access points and noted that the streets 32
are proposed to be private. He stated that this proposal includes less units than the 33
original concept plan and noted that the garage size would meet the City’s requirement 34
for minimum garage size. He stated that staff recommends approval of the rezoning 35
contingent upon the development moving forward. 36
37
Martin asked if anyone has questions related to the rezoning. 38
39
DesLauriers stated that there do not appear to be any other options for rezoning. 40
41
Batty stated that zoning has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated 42
that with other cases there are multiple zoning districts that would fit within the guidance 43
of the Comprehensive Plan but in this case this is the only zoning district that would fit 44
within the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. 45
46
Finke stated that the range of density within this land use is fairly narrow and therefore it 47
would not make sense to have multiple zoning districts that would apply. He stated that 48
all of the units are proposed to be side by side townhome units. He stated that there are 49
27 buildings, most with four or five units. He stated that the applicant has proposed 50
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
8
private trails, open space, and additional sound suppression to gain the additional .75 1
density proposed. 2
3
Martin asked for details on the bonus density and how that is calculated. 4
5
Finke replied that one half unit per acre is provided for sound suppression and the 6
private trails and open space would equate to the .25 unit per acre. He commented that 7
staff is suggesting that the grading be adjusted in one of the open areas to be more 8
conducive to a recreational play area. 9
10
Martin asked if anyone had questions in respect to the layout, density, bonus density or 11
site plan. 12
13
Anderson referenced the density and stated that he is curious as to whether there was 14
any discussion with the development about the inclusion of affordable housing within this 15
project. 16
17
Finke stated that there were discussions early on in the process and the applicant 18
investigated that option but did not carry on with that element. 19
20
Anderson stated that he does not believe that 6.25 should be allowed if the developer is 21
not interested in pursuing affordable housing and should receive the base minimum in 22
terms of density. 23
24
Batty stated that the Council has some discretion with the recreational facilities but is 25
unsure that the Council would have the same discretion with the sound suppression as 26
that is laid out in the Ordinance. 27
28
Finke agreed with Batty’s comments that based on the information in the ordinance that 29
6.5 units per acre would be met. He stated that the .25 for open space and other 30
amenities would also seem appropriate but noted that the Council could discuss that 31
further. He noted that the developer would also be constructing a public trail adjacent 32
Tamarack Drive which is above the park dedication requirements. 33
34
Pederson stated that it seems that this meets the straight zoning aspects and he is fine 35
with the density. 36
37
Martin agreed that she believed that this met the requirements. 38
39
Albers commented that he is also okay with the proposal and increased density based 40
off the additional elements being provided. 41
42
DesLauriers stated that he spoke with Finke earlier today to gain additional information 43
on sound suppression. He stated that perhaps the City could discuss that element more 44
in the future as he is unsure of the public benefit provided through sound suppression. 45
He commented that he believes that sound suppression should instead perhaps be a 46
Code requirement and not something that generates an additional density bonus. 47
48
Finke stated that the proposed units are similar to the constructed units in the northeast 49
corner of the Enclave. He stated that the front facades facing the interior townhome 50
roads appear to meet the requirements of the zoning district, however the rear of the 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
9
units do not appear to include those accent materials. He stated that staff suggests that 1
the accents be added to the rear of the buildings facing the public roadways. He 2
provided details on transportation noting that the interior roads would be privately 3
maintained. He stated that the existing traffic volume on Meander plus this development 4
would not generate the needed traffic counts to trigger the signal at TH 55. He stated 5
that this development would trigger some development of the Tamarack Drive project 6
including dedication of the designated right-of-way for the Tamarack Drive project. He 7
stated that staff also recommends that the portion of Tamarack Drive adjacent the 8
residential development be constructed with the stormwater from that segment being 9
contained within the subject site. He stated that there would also be a requirement of 10
contribution towards the broader Tamarack Drive improvements in the future. 11
12
Martin referenced an email received tonight from a resident, noting that the target of the 13
comments are related to the right-of-way and conditions five, six and seven. 14
15
Martin commented that she believes that it is important to have the secondary access for 16
the development to ensure there are two ways in and out of the development and 17
confirmed that consensus of the Council. She agreed that the right-of-way for Tamarack 18
Drive should be dedicated at this time with the plat. 19
20
Batty stated that the comment from the property owner objected to taking right-of-way on 21
the southern portion of the property as that is not being developed. He stated that this 22
platting includes the subdivision and it has been the practice of the City to obtain right-of-23
way when it is being platted and therefore he highly recommended that the right-of-way 24
be dedicated on the east side down to TH 55. He stated that even though the Lennar 25
property is proposed to be developed, the entire property is being platted. 26
27
Martin asked staff if the financial contribution towards broader improvements in the 28
corridor would be done through an agreement or whether that contribution would be 29
required at this time. 30
31
Batty stated that he believes this would take the form of a petition and waiver and a 32
proportionate share would be allocated in the future. 33
34
Martin stated that the City would not look for this property owner to fund the 35
improvements entirely, but it would instead be an appropriate cost-share. 36
37
Batty confirmed that this property owner would not be responsible for the entire cost. He 38
stated that part of the Study was allocating specific traffic counts to each parcel based 39
on future development projections and the development costs would be similarly split. 40
41
DesLauriers referenced the fourth condition and stated that he agrees with the language 42
as the City will be asking for a contribution towards the broader improvements and 43
therefore does not believe that should be a discussion. He confirmed that condition 44
seven contains the appropriate language. 45
46
Martin stated that it is her understanding that if the right-of-way is available, the entire 47
segment of Tamarack Drive should be constructed from TH 55 to Meander and would 48
bear 100 percent of the construction costs, should the neighboring property owner 49
provide that right-of-way. She stated that if the neighboring property owner does not 50
contribute the land, Lennar would only build out the portion of the road possible. She 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
10
asked if Lennar would need to contribute to the additional cost of widening the road 1
when the additional right-of-way becomes available. 2
3
Finke stated that was the intent and confirmed that condition five provides language. 4
5
Martin stated that she would prefer that language be made clearer. 6
7
Finke confirmed that staff could review that language to ensure it is clear. He stated that 8
the park dedication for the subject site was previously dedicated as a portion of what is 9
now Fields of Medina. He explained that the full park dedication requirement was taken 10
for the entire property when the Fields of Medina was constructed and therefore 11
additional park dedication is not required for this development or the future development 12
to the south when that occurs. He noted that the construction of the trail along 13
Tamarack Drive and interior private trails will be provided as part of the density bonus. 14
He stated that the developer proposed to have the interior trails public as well, but the 15
Park Commission recommended that the interior trails be private and maintained by the 16
development. 17
18
Anderson commented that his only concern is that the plat does not include affordable 19
housing, recognizing that it is not necessarily a criteria to consider but will be a 20
consideration of whether he approves the request. 21
22
DesLauriers stated that he does not support the access onto Tamarack and believes the 23
second access should be placed on Meander. 24
25
Paul Tibone, Lennar, thanked the City for working with them to get to this point. He 26
thanked City staff for working with them on the Tamarack Drive elements. He stated that 27
they are excited about this opportunity and to make a contribution to the City and fulfill a 28
substantial market need in this area for townhomes. He stated that in April they 29
provided a Concept Plan and serious concerns were raised by the residents to the north 30
and members of the Council related to density. He stated that following that direction he 31
reduced the number of units by 13, which makes it more difficult to allocate affordable 32
units and spread the cost over the remaining unit. He stated that they have had 33
discussions with staff related to adding additional architectural measures to the rears of 34
the buildings as mentioned by staff and will continue to work with staff to meet that 35
requirement. He thanked Stremel for holding the additional meeting with the landowners 36
related to the Tamarack Drive improvements. He stated that Lennar supports the 37
alignment as adopted tonight but they would like more clear definition of the future 38
contribution that would be required for the broader improvements. He stated that they 39
would want to ensure that the cost-share is equitable to everyone in the corridor. He 40
stated that it appears that as written Lennar would be responsible for full construction of 41
Tamarack Drive from TH 55 through to their access point if the full right-of-way can be 42
dedicated from the other property owner. He stated that Lennar would not want to be 43
responsible for the cost of the full width of the road. He stated that Lennar included a 44
second access to Meander, but the City instead wanted that off Tamarack Drive. He 45
noted that they would be willing to change that second access if the City desires that. 46
He stated that they will continue to work with staff on the Final Plat and hope to begin 47
grading this fall. 48
49
Pederson asked if there would still be a need for Lennar to dedicate Tamarack Drive 50
right-of-way if the secondary access is provided from Meander rather than Tamarack. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
11
1
Martin stated that part of the reason the secondary access on Tamarack was provided 2
was to minimize the traffic impact immediately across from the Fields of Medina. 3
4
Pederson stated that he agrees and prefers the secondary access onto Tamarack. 5
6
Martin stated that access is needed for fire and public safety purposes. 7
8
Batty stated that he does not think that changing the access would make any difference 9
in the dedication of right-of-way. He noted that the dedication of right-of-way would still 10
be required as the property is being platted and it would not be linked to the access. 11
12
Finke stated that there are benefits to having the secondary access on Tamarack in 13
order to minimize the impact onto Meander. He stated that having the access on the 14
west provides the best circulation for school buses and delivery trucks. 15
16
Tibone asked for clarification on whether Lennar would be responsible for the cost of 17
construction of the northern portion of Tamarack Drive and whether there would be cost 18
sharing for any of the property to the west. 19
20
Martin confirmed that it would be the responsibility of Lennar. 21
22
Tibone asked if that would be proportionate. 23
24
Batty stated that his comments related to proportionate cost were related to the petition 25
and waiver for the broader corridor improvements. He explained that whoever comes in 26
first often bears a more significant portion of the construction of the road. 27
28
Martin stated that she would assume that if the first developer does not construct that 29
improvement, it would fall to the City and the City would not develop a roadway that only 30
benefits one property owner at this time. 31
32
Batty explained that someone has to go first in development and the City has 33
traditionally said that one of the costs of being first in is that developer bears a 34
disproportionate portion of that cost. He stated that the City is attempting to make that 35
fair, to the extent possible in only having Lennar construction the amount of roadway 36
necessary to support its development. 37
38
Finke stated that what is being required are the public improvements necessary to 39
support the development proposed at this time. He stated that it can be considered 40
unfair that the improvement could provide benefit to another property owner, but this 41
improvement would be necessary to support this development. 42
43
Moved by Martin, seconded by Albers, to direct staff to prepare documents granting 44
rezoning and preliminary plat approval for the Meadow View Townhomes, subject to the 45
conditions noted in the staff report with additional clarity added to condition five. 46
47
A roll call vote was performed: 48
49
Pederson aye 50
Anderson nay 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
12
DesLauriers nay 1
Albers aye 2
Martin aye 3
4
Motion passed. 5
6
Anderson stated that he believes that any development that does not include some 7
portion of affordable housing is not only a mistake but bad public policy. 8
9
Martin stated that she would agree that the City needs more affordable housing but does 10
not believe the City has the authority to deny the request based on that element. 11
12
DesLauriers stated that he has a huge safety concern with the secondary access for 13
Lennar onto Tamarack Drive. 14
15
IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (9:43 p.m.) 16
Johnson had nothing further to report. 17
18
X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (9:43 p.m.) 19
Anderson stated that he understands Matrix conducted a review of Fire Stations and 20
asked if there was a report provided. 21
22
Johnson stated that a draft report should be provided in a few weeks and noted that 23
once the draft report is ready, he will forward it to the Council. 24
25
XI. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (9:43 p.m.) 26
Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the bills, EFT 005608E-27
005624E for $50,646.06, order check numbers 050527-050587 for $232,733.83, and 28
payroll EFT 0510407-0510438 for $51,842.07. 29
30
A roll call vote was performed: 31
32
Pederson aye 33
Anderson aye 34
DesLauriers aye 35
Albers aye 36
Martin aye 37
38
Motion passed unanimously. 39
40
XII. ADJOURN 41
Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. 42
43
A roll call vote was performed: 44
45
Pederson aye 46
Anderson aye 47
DesLauriers aye 48
Albers aye 49
Martin aye 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
13
Motion passed unanimously. 1
2
3
__________________________________ 4
Kathy Martin, Mayor 5
Attest: 6
7
____________________________________ 8
Scott Johnson, City Administrator 9
Agenda Item # 5A
I
I
HOMETOWN FIBER
OWN YOUR INTERNET
Broadband Feasibility
Study
For
Medina
August 13, 2020
HOMETOWN FIBER, LLC
18457 Gladstone Blvd N I Maple Grove, MN 55311
763.299.5900 I knowmore@yourhometownfiber.com
yourhometownfiber.com
Table of Contents
Proposal for Broadband Feasibility Study 3
Deliverables 3
Grant Applications 4
Cost Estimate 5
Timeline 5
Conclusion 5
Hometown Fiber: New Company, Industry Veterans 6
References For Kyle Moorhead 6
yourhometownfiber.com Page 2 of 6
Proposal for Broadband Feasibility Study
Hometown Fiber’s Broadband Feasibility Study delivers a report providing community leaders with
details and data needed to make an informed decision necessary to meet the broadband service needs
for the community of Medina.
Citizen leaders, city staff, city administration and ultimately the Medina City Council will have an
extensive study documenting costs, advantages, and disadvantages of four options:
●Keep existing internet infrastructure
●Fund upgrades to an existing ISP-owned network
●Fund construction of your own broadband infrastructure without becoming an ISP
●Consider other/hybrid approaches including 5G, emerging satellite technologies, other wireless
options, fiber optic-backed copper systems, etc.
Deliverables
●Meet with city leadership to define priorities and goals for broadband in Medina
●Conduct a comprehensive field analysis and inventory of existing technology, including cable,
fiber, telephone, wireless, private fiber and the backbone that brings service into Medina
●Map broadband services and conditions that exist in Medina today
●Evaluate options for meeting Medina’s needs today and in the years to come
●Develop cost estimates for each of the four options listed above
●Provide Medina with the best possible data-driven broadband information to help guide
stakeholders to the best broadband option whether it is with Hometown Fiber or not.
yourhometownfiber.com Page 3 of 6
Grant Applications
Another benefit of our Broadband Feasibility Study is it puts Medina in a better position to fund some
of the project through grants. Communities have many broadband grant funding options today,
especially when cities, schools, health care organizations, police departments, etc. work together.
The high demand for these grants means they are quickly awarded. With our Feasibility Study Medina
will have technical and financial information needed to precisely answer grant application questions. In
the past, this precision increased the likelihood of getting funding.
Medina will have detailed answers for questions such as:
●Why is the money needed?
●How will the money be spent?
●What benefits will Medina achieve by securing the funding?
●What organizations will receive the money?
●What is the estimated cost?
yourhometownfiber.com Page 4 of 6
Cost Estimate
Hometown Fiber charges a flat fee of $17,474.00 $5,995.00 for Medina’s deliverables as noted herein.
We can begin the Feasibility Study upon receiving a 50% deposit. The remaining balance is invoiced
with Net 30 credit terms extended after Medina receives the Broadband Feasibility Study. Hometown
Fiber will honor this price for 60 calendar days.
Timeline
Broadband Feasibility Study can be complete within 90 calendar days from start date.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal for your consideration. Please contact us with
questions at any time. We will be in touch soon to determine next steps.
We look forward to serving the broadband needs in the community of Medina.
Regards,
Kyle Moorhead, president
Hometown Fiber
kyle@yourhometownfiber.com
O: 763-299-5900 | C: 612-819-9077
yourhometownfiber.com Page 5 of 6
Hometown Fiber: New Company, Industry Veterans
Our leaders have years of experience working in the broadband communications industry and spent
years researching internet problems facing rural and suburban communities. Over time we solved both
the economic and technical barriers that are in the way of communities receiving the reliable,
affordable, fast broadband service they need. We have two small-scale systems in operation. One since
2011 and the other since 2014. These two systems inspired the formation of Hometown Fiber.
References For Kyle Moorhead
Bradley C. DeWolf
President
Bolton-Menk
bradde@bolton-menk.com
763-433-2851
Dave Cziok
City Administrator
City of Litchfield
dave.cziok@ci.litchfield.mn.us
320-693-7201
Ari Lenz
Assistant City Administrator
City of Hopkins
alenz@hopkinsmn.com
952-939-1331
John Wiik
Senator
State of South Dakota
john.wiik@sdlegislature.gov
605-773-3821
Steve Jones
City Administrator
City of Clara City
cityadmin@hcinet.net
320-841-1793
George Baldwin
Manager, Electric Utility
City of Litchfield
george.baldwin@ci.litchfield.mn.us
320-296-1114
Alex Hepp
Chief Information Officer
City of Hopkins
ahepp@hopkinsmn.com
952-548-6305
Steve Sherman
Access Coordinator
City of New Ulm
Steven.sherman@ci.new-ulm.mn.us
507.359.8290
yourhometownfiber.com Page 6 of 6
Resolution No. 2020-##
DATE
Member ___________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION 2020-##
RESOLUTION GRANTING WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE TO
MARY AND JOHN BARTZEN AND CHASE AND MACKENZIE HICKS FOR
AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM AT 1075 OAK CIRCLE
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2020, Chase Whitney Hicks and MacKenzie Priscilla Hicks
(the “Owners”) purchased and are currently the fee owners of property located at 1075 Oak Circle
(the “Property”), which is legally described as:
Lot 5, Block 2, Medina Manor 1st Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2020, Mary P. Bartzen and John F. Bartzen Jr. (the “Applicants”),
the previous owners of the Property, requested a wetland setback variance for an individual sewage
treatment system (ISTS) pursuant to Medina City Code, section 720.21; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing and reviewed the requested variance
on August 18, 2020 and heard testimony from City staff and any interested parties; and
WHEREAS, following such review the City Council made the following findings:
1) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
ISTS ordinance, and is in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapters 7080, 7081,
and 7082.
2) The Applicants and Owners have established that there are practical difficulties in
meeting the strict letter of the ISTS ordinance.
3) The condition causing the demonstrated difficulty is unique to the Property and was
not caused by the actions of Applicants or Owners.
4) The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest or damaging to
the rights of other persons in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota
hereby approves a variance to reduce the required 75-foot wetland setback for an ISTS on the
Property to 20 feet, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1) The Owners shall obtain an operating permit from the City which shall require a certified
designer to monitor the ISTS on an annual basis.
2) The ISTS shall be inspected annually by a certified Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
septic designer. The Owners shall maintain a contract for monitoring and maintaining the
ISTS.
Agenda Item # 5B
Resolution No. 2020-## 2
DATE
3) The Owners shall take actions if recommended by the designer in the future, which may
include, but is not limited to: adjusting dosing, reducing effluent, conducting additional
pumping, or conducting additional maintenance operations.
4) A permit for installation of the ISTS shall be obtained within one calendar year of
approval of the variance and the location shall be consistent with the design submitted by
the Applicants and dated July 14, 2020.
5) The Applicants shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs
associated with the review of the application for the variance.
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 a 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.
Planning Commission Page 1 of 1 September 1, 2020
Appointment City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: August 27, 2020
MEETING: September 1, 2020 City Council
SUBJ: Planning Commission Appointment
Background
Following the resignation of Kerby Nester from the Planning Commission upon her move, there
is currently a vacancy on the Planning Commission with a term through the end of the year.
Staff advertised the vacancy in the newsletter and City Council meeting notification email. The
City received two applications. The applicants were Justin Popp and Tim Sedabres. The cover
letters of the applicants are available upon request.
Planning Commission Chair Robin Reid, City Council Member Todd Albers, and I reviewed the
applications and interviewed Justin Popp. The group had previously interviewed Tim Sedabres a
couple of months ago when there was a previous vacancy. The group also considered the other
applicants who had applied and were interviewed two months ago.
Following the interviews, the panel decided to recommend that the City Council appoint Justin
Popp to the Commission.
Justin and his family have lived at their home on County Road 24 for three years. He is involved
with strategic planning and system design at Cargill.
Potential Action
Motion to appoint Justin Popp to the Planning Commission, with a term extending through
December 31, 2020.
Agenda Item # 5C
Agenda Item # 7A
May 28, 2020
Dear Orono families and staff:
As we near the end of this remarkable year in Orono Schools, we want to express our
genuine thanks once again for your partnership —and valuable feedback —as we
implemented our Distance Learning Plan. We respect the tremendous changes and
challenges that the pandemic and stay-at-home orders presented to our students and
families. We appreciate the thoughtful responses we received through the Distance
Learning Survey and we are evaluating every comment as we move forward in our work. In
Orono Schools, we work diligently to gain your trust and are honored to earn it.
Technology: A cornerstone of effective teaching and learning
Unlike any other time in district history, we have had to rely on our core technology
infrastructure and educational tools to provide a consistent teaching and learning
environment away from our buildings and classrooms. In Orono Schools, technology is
funded through a voter -approved levy passed in 2011 and set to expire in 2021. It's
important to note that Minnesota does not provide school districts with categorical aid for
technology; districts must rely on technology levies for these essential dollars. Much like
technology in your own home or workplace, Orono Schools' technology platform, and
software and security applications, must be continually maintained or replaced as they
move toward obsolete status.
As you will recall, the technology referendum in November 2019 did not pass (1,399 voted
no and 1,114 voted yes). Following this defeat, several School Board members, district
administrators, staff and finance committee members re-evaluated the district's core
technology needs for the next 10 years. They focused on critical infrastructure and
essential teaching and learning tools. The School Board proposed a decrease in the levy
request.
"Necessary and expedient" to bring a technology levy to voters again in 2020
On March 9, 2020, the Orono School Board formally approved a resolution declaring that it
is "necessary and expedient for the school district to submit a capital project levy
authorization to the voters for their approval." This letter to district families is the first formal
announcement that the election will be held in conjunction with the state general election on
Tuesday, November 3, 2020. More information will be provided to the community in the
coming weeks.
What does a "yes" vote mean?
A voter -approved referendum would revoke the existing levy of 2.539% and replace it with
a new authorization of 4.516% for the next 10 years. For a median -value home in the
district, valued at $400,000, there would be an additional tax investment of $6.50 per month
(please see table, below). The proposed authorization would raise approximately
$1,988,720 for taxes payable in 2021, the first year it is to be levied. A "yes" vote ensures
that the technology funds Orono receives through the levy will continue for the next 10
years.
District Office Phone
685 Old Crystal Bay Road North 952-449-8300
Long Lake, MN 55356-8315 Fax
952-449-8399
Website
www.oronokl2.mn.us
An Equal Opportunity Employer
District Office
685 Old Crystal Bay Road North
Long Lake, MN 55356-8315
Phone
952-449-8300
Fax
952-449-8399
Website
www.oronok12.mn.us
An Equal Opportunity Employer
What will the funds be used for?
The funds will be used to replace and maintain the district’s core technology infrastructure
to improve teaching and learning. The district is evaluating its current network; student
information systems; cyber security protections; servers, routers and wiring; wireless
systems; website and more. These systems form the foundational platform on which the
district serves its students. The purposeful use of technology helps teachers engage
students, foster 21st Century skills, and secure Orono students’ leading edge academically
and in STEM-based knowledge and achievement.*
What does a “no” vote mean?
If the technology levy is not approved by voters, funding will have to come from the general
fund. Technology needs will compete with classroom needs, impacting the district’s ability
to deliver the teaching and learning programs students need to be prepared for the future.
Aging infrastructure cannot be ignored; the district will be required to make difficult
decisions to balance the budget.
A good value for the investment
A recent independent survey of Orono Schools’ residents indicated that 96% believe the
community receives a good value from its investment in local public schools. 84% also
believe that a student’s ability to use computers and other technology effectively and
efficiently is absolutely essential; these residents also support the acquisition of new
software to expand the use of technology in the curriculum.
More information to come
The School Board and district representatives look forward to sharing additional information
and answering questions in the coming months to further help you make an informed
decision in November.
Thank you for your continued support for Orono students, families, teachers and staff! We
hope you have a safe, enjoyable and well-deserved summer break.
Karen Orcutt, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Robert Tunheim
Orono School Board Chair
John Morstad
Director of Business Services
*Orono High School was recently named by U.S. News and World Report as one of the top STEM High
Schools in the United States, ranking #177 nationally.
ORONO schools
News from
Technology funding for the next 10 years on the ballot this November • Details at oronotech.com
14.0 %
21.4%
Systems & Software Infrastructure
Equipment
PER-PUPIL SPENDING LAGS NEIGHBORING DISTRICTS
Support Staff
Infrastructure is the technology
platform (WiFi, switches, fiber,
firewall) upon which our devices,
applications, and services
depend. Replacement of core
technology infrastructure is
at a critical juncture, required
to meet district demands
and avoid downtime.
The technology levy pays for
software and cloud-based
subscriptions that support
and accelerate student
learning at school or home,
provide security for campus
buildings, ensure student data
privacy, block inappropriate
content, and manage
business operations.
Orono’s technology team
members have unique
expertise in network and
systems management, support,
and staff development. They
keep systems running and
manage thousands of devices.
Instructional Coaches lead
staff training in effective use
of technology.
Levy dollars pay for student,
teacher, and staff devices
required for teaching, learning,
and district operations.
Devices are replaced,
maintained, and repaired
to ensure uninterrupted
service, stay current with
software releases, and avoid
obsolescence.
ORONO’S TECHNOLOGY NEEDS YOUR LEVY DOLLARS AT WORK
Hopkins
Eden Prairie
Bloomington
Edina
Wayzata
Minnetonka
Westonka
Orono
DISTRICT
of annualtechnology budget
21.7%of annualtechnology budget
39.8%of annualtechnology budget
of annualtechnology budget
TOTAL LEVY
ANNUAL
PER PUPIL
$10,553,614
$6,926,600
$7,593,248
$6,109,846
$7,486,812
$6,361,265
$1,432,175
$1,039,860
$1,416
$727
$672
$668
$539
$526
$519
$325
Technology levy website
provides budget, 10-year
plan, and tax impact
ON THE BALLOT THIS NOVEMBER
Orono Schools is grateful for the
community support and technology
levy dollars approved by voters in
2011. Because this levy is set to
expire in 2021, the School Board
has approved a question for the
November ballot, asking voters to
replace the current technology levy
with a new levy for the next 10 years.
The tax impact on a $500,000 home
is an additional $8.08 per month.
The district must rely on voters
to fund this critical need because
Minnesota does not provide districts
with categorical aid for technology.
The budget, 10-year plan, and
tax impact calculator are on the
referendum website today:
www.oronotech.com
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 5 September 1, 2020
Accessory structure regulations City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: August 27, 2020
MEETING: September 1, 2020 City Council
SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment – Residential accessory structure regulations
Background
The Planning Commission reviewed regulations pertaining to accessory structures and sheds
back in May.
Current regulations exempt sheds 120 square feet or smaller from the general setback
requirements of each district, instead requiring a reduced setback of 5 feet from rear and side lot
lines. The amendment recommended by the Planning Commission in May would have changed
this exception to apply to sheds 200 square feet and less.
The City Council discussed at their June 2 meeting. The Council raised concerns about the
impacts of accessory structures on views and discussed potential architectural requirements. The
Council referred the ordinance back to the Planning Commission for further discussion.
The Planning Commission again discussed at the July and August meetings and requested that
staff update the requirements for shed size and setbacks to be more of a “sliding scale” based on
the size of the property.
Summary of Existing Regulations
Regulations for accessory buildings are described within Section 825.21 of the City Code and
summarized below.
Number and Size of Accessory Structures
Current City regulations allow varying sizes of accessory buildings on residential lots based
upon the size of the lot based upon the following table:
Lot Size Bldg. Size* No. Permitted
10,000 sq. ft. or less 1,000 sq. ft. one
10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. one
20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. one
more than one and up to three acres 2,000 sq. ft. one
more than three and up to five acres 4,000 sq. ft. two
more than 5 acres 5,000 sq. ft. two
Agenda Item # 8A
Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 5 September 1, 2020
Accessory structure regulations City Council Meeting
• In addition, all lots are permitted an additional shed up to 120 square feet (12’x10’).
• Lots over 5 acres in size are permitted additional or larger accessory structures if a
conditional use permit is obtained.
• Accessory structures are limited to 30 feet in height (measured from mid-point of roof to
average grade around the structure)
Staff is not aware of complaints related to number or size of accessory structures on properties.
It is important to note that detached garages, although not overly common in Medina, would be
considered accessory structures. If the Planning Commission and City Council were to discuss
any reduction in allowed size, this fact should be considered.
Architectural Requirements
The code includes general architectural language as follows: “All accessory buildings in
residential and agricultural districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with other
buildings on the property. Accessory buildings should be designed to reflect the rural design and
character of the city. The visual impact of the accessory building upon neighboring properties shall
be minimized by the building’s design and siting and by providing screening or additional
landscaping, which shall be approved by the zoning administrator.”
Staff believes specific architectural requirements are appropriate as part of review of larger
accessory structures, but does not recommend more specific architectural language for smaller
accessory structures. Requiring materials to match the home on the site would increase the cost of
the accessory structure. It should also be noted that most of the single family zoning districts do not
include specific architectural standards for homes.
Setback for Smaller Accessory Structures
Accessory structures are currently required to meet the same setbacks as the home on the lot,
with the exception of sheds under 120 square feet, which are only required to be set back 5 feet
from side and rear lot lines.
The discussion related to accessory structures originally arose because a property owner in
Foxberry Farms recently inquired about building a 14’x12’ (168 square feet) shed. To meet the
full setbacks of the Suburban Residential district, the shed would need to be located 15 feet from
side lot lines and 40 feet from the rear lot line. This would place the shed in the middle of the
back yard on this owner’s lot, as would be the case in most residential lots served by sewer and
water.
Many smaller lots do not have sufficient room in the rear yard to construct any size accessory
structure which would be able to meet structure setback requirements. This means that sewered
lots are mostly limited to sheds under 120 square feet.
The Building Code exempts sheds 200 square feet and less from needing a building permit. This
exception was previously 120 square feet, and staff believes is probably part of the reason the
shed exceptions were for 120 square feet and under.
Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 5 September 1, 2020
Accessory structure regulations City Council Meeting
Staff believed it was appropriate to review the requirements for small accessory structures
following the discussions with the property owner and the fact that sheds 200 square feet and
under are exempt from building code.
Staff reviewed the regulations of a number of
nearby and similar communities for context. Most
communities, except Minnetrista, allow reductions
of side and rear setbacks for accessory structures.
Most communities require setbacks of 5-10 feet,
regardless of size.
Covenant Restrictions
During the City Council’s previous discussion, it
was noted that many neighborhood HOA
covenants either prohibit or place additional
standards on accessory buildings. It was noted that
these restrictions are likely to expire after 30 years.
To continue restrictions such as architectural requirements or limitations on accessory structures
beyond 30 years, an HOA would generally need to take active steps, which may be unlikely.
Proposed Amendments
Increase Size for “additional shed”
The ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission back in May would have increased
the size of the 120 square foot “additional shed” which is allowed on any lot above and beyond
those described in the table. This language is in Subd. 5 of the ordinance. The amendment
would have increased this additional shed from 120 square feet to 200 square feet. The City
Council raised concerns with the total footage of accessory structures allowed on smaller lots.
The Planning Commission was interested in allowing larger “additional sheds” on larger lots, so
recommended a “sliding scale” which would allow the “additional sheds” to be larger on larger
lots:
Lot Size Maximum Footprint Size
10,000 sq. ft. or less 120 sq. ft.
10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft.
20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft.
more than one and up to three acres 200 sq. ft.
more than three and up to five acres 400 sq. ft.
more than 5 acres 400 sq. ft.
Accessory
Structure Setback
(rear and side)
Full Principal
Setback Req.
Medina (existing)5 ft 120 s.f.
Victoria 5 ft 100 s.f.
Maple Grove 5 ft None
Brooklyn Park 5 ft None
Plymouth 6 ft None
Eagan 5 or 10 ft None
Corcoran (sewered lots)10 ft None
Corcoran (rural lots)20 ft None
Orono (1 acre)10 ft 1000 s.f.
Orono (rural)20 ft 1000 s.f.
Minnetrista Same as Principal All
Ordinance Amendment Page 4 of 5 September 1, 2020
Accessory structure regulations City Council Meeting
Size of Accessory Structures Allowed Reduced Setbacks
The Planning Commission also recommended a “sliding scale” of reduced setbacks for smaller
sheds based upon both lot size and the size of the shed. The following table describes the
setbacks:
Lot Size Accessory Structure Size Minimum Rear and Side
Setback
10,000 sq. ft. or less 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet
> 120 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks
10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet
> 120 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks
20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet
> 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 10 feet
> 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks
more than one and up to three acres 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet
> 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 20 feet
> 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks
more than three and up to five acres 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet
> 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 20 feet
> 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks
more than 5 acres 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet
> 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 20 feet
> 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks
Add height limitation for sheds at reduced setback
The Planning Commission had recommended that any accessory structure which is allowed a
reduced setback should be limited to 12 feet in height. This language is included within the
attached ordinance.
Limitation of one accessory structure with reduced setback
Current regulations would allow any accessory structures 120 square feet or less to be located
within 5 feet of the rear and side property line. Staff has suggested language that limits this
reduced setback to a single small structure.
Ordinance Amendment Page 5 of 5 September 1, 2020
Accessory structure regulations City Council Meeting
Potential Action
After the Council completes review, it could consider the following actions:
1. Move to adopt the ordinance amending regulations pertaining to accessory structures
[with any changes requested by the City Council].
2. Move to adopt the resolution authorizing publication by title and summary
Attachments
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Resolution authorizing publication by title and summary
3. Excerpt from draft 8/12/2020 Planning Commission minutes
4. Excerpt from 6/2/2020 City Council minutes
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 825.19 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by
deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows:
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Section 825.19. Accessory Buildings.
Subd. 1. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any residential lot prior to
the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory.
Subd. 2. No accessory building shall exceed 30 feet in height, with the exception of buildings
where agricultural use or farming is at the discretion of the City the primary use of the
property. Building projections or features, such as chimneys, cupolas, and similar
decorations that do not exceed 35 feet in height are permitted in residential districts.
Accessory building height shall be measured as set forth in section 825.07, subdivision 12 of
the city code.
Subd. 3. (a) In residential districts, accessory buildings shall not be attached to, or erected,
altered, or moved within 10 feet of the principal building. Accessory buildings in residential
districts shall be governed by the following regulations:
Lot Size Maximum
Bldg. Size*
No. Permitted
10,000 sq. ft. or less 1,000 sq. ft. one
10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. one
20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. one
more than one and up to three acres 2,000 sq. ft. one
more than three and up to five acres 4,000 sq. ft. two
more than 5 acres 5,000 sq. ft. two
* Building size shall be calculated by determining the aggregate footprint of the buildings.
(b) In addition to the accessory building(s) permitted in Subd. 3(a), one additional accessory
structure such as a shed or similar type of building shall is permitted as follows:
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
Lot Size Maximum Footprint Size
10,000 sq. ft. or less 120 sq. ft.
10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft.
20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft.
more than one and up to three acres 200 sq. ft.
more than three and up to five acres 400 sq. ft.
more than 5 acres 400 sq. ft.
Subd. 4. On residential properties more than five acres in area, the city council may grant a
conditional use permit to allow accessory buildings which exceed an aggregate of 5,000
square feet in size or two in number. Conditional use permits shall be reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of sections 825.39, et seq. of the city code and shall be
subject to the additional accessory building standards set forth in section 826.98, subdivision
2 (o) of the city code.
Subd. 5. One additional accessory building that has a footprint of 120 square feet or less, such
as a shed, chicken coop, or similar type of building, is permitted. The footprint of this type
of accessory building shall not count towards the maximum accessory building size
allowance for the property as required above. In residential and agricultural districts, a
detached accessory building of less than 120 square feet may be located within five feet of
the rear or side lot line, with the exception of animal structures and chicken coops, which
shall abide by the specific setback requirements in respective district. All detached
accessory buildings 120 square feet or larger must meet the setbacks required for principal
buildings in the district.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
(a) Accessory structures shall meet the setbacks required for principal structures in the district in
which it is located, except one smaller accessory structure on a property may be located
closer to the rear and side lot lines as follows:
Lot Size Accessory Structure Size Minimum Rear and Side
Setback
10,000 sq. ft. or less 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet
> 120 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks
10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet
> 120 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks
20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet
> 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 10 feet
> 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks
more than one and up to three
acres
120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet
> 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 20 feet
> 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks
more than three and up to five
acres
120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet
> 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 20 feet
> 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks
more than 5 acres 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet
> 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 20 feet
> 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks
(b) Any accessory structure greater than 12 feet in height shall meet the setback required for
principal structures in the district in which it is located.
(c) Any animal structure and chicken coop shall abide by the specific setback requirement in
the district in which it is located.
Subd. 6 In commercial and industrial districts, all accessory buildings shall meet the same
front, side, and rear yard setback requirements as the principal building.
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
Subd. 7. The exterior materials and design features of accessory buildings in commercial or
industrial districts must be compatible with the materials and features of the principal
building.
Subd. 8. All accessory buildings in residential and agricultural districts shall be designed to be
architecturally compatible with other buildings on the property. Accessory buildings should
be designed to reflect the rural design and character of the city. The visual impact of the
accessory building upon neighboring properties shall be minimized by the building’s design
and siting and by providing screening or additional landscaping, which shall be approved by
the zoning administrator.
Subd. 9. The following residential improvements shall be excluded from the maximum
allowed building sizes noted under Subd. 3 of this section:
(a) unenclosed playhouses;
(b) gazebos up to 120 sq. ft. in size and a maximum 12 feet in overall height;
(c) outdoor swimming pools;
(d) detached decks up to 120 sq. ft. in size;
(e) patios;
(f) tennis courts; and
(g) loafing sheds used exclusively for horses and which are up to 300 square feet in size
and meet setbacks for structures used to house, exercise or accommodate animals
for the zoning district in which they are located.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this th day of , 2020.
______________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the _____day of __________, 2020.
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 pertaining to accessory structures; amending Chapter 8 of the City Code 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 four pages in length and includes charts; 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 pertaining to
accessory structures. The ordinance provides for a reduction of setbacks for accessory structures
in certain circumstances based on the size of the structure and the size of the lot. The ordinance
also allows for larger accessory structures on larger parcels.
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.
Dated: .
______________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Resolution No. 2020-## 2
DATE
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.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 8/12/2020 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Setback and
Other Requirements for Residential Accessory Structures
Finke summarized the discussion that the Planning Commission previously had in May and July. He
displayed a table showing the size of accessory buildings currently allowed by lot size. He stated that
any lot is permitted an additional shed up to 120 square feet. He stated that staff had tried to create a
sliding scale with a table that would allow the additional sheds to be larger on larger lots. Finke
displayed another table showing varying setbacks for different size sheds on varying lot sizes.
Piper asked if the 12 feet in height would allow sufficient roof pitch.
Finke stated that the height is measured to the mid-point of the roof, not the peak. This should allow
for more than 4/12 pitch for a 200 square foot shed with 8’ side walls. If an owner wanted a taller
side wall or more pitch, they could always meet the full setback.
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Eric Voltin (630 Shawnee Woods Road) stated that he supported the amendment. He noted that they
had a larger lot and just built a pool. They had existing accessory buildings and were limited to a 120
square foot shed to store things for their pool. They were excited to be able to build a larger shed in
addition to their existing buildings. He said that the extra size made sense for larger lots and the
setbacks seemed fair.
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Nielsen stated that she believed this was these tables were exactly what the Commission was
describing during their discussion in July. She thanked staff for their efforts to create the tables.
Grajcyk said the proposed changes seem fair for property owners and should serve well in the future.
Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Galzki to recommend approval of the ordinance amending chapter
8 of the city code related to setback and other requirements for accessory structures.
A roll call vote was performed:
Nielsen aye
Galzki aye
Piper aye
Grajcyk aye
Couri aye
Reid aye
Motion carries unanimously.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 6/2/2020 Meeting Minutes
1
Ordinance Amending Regulations Pertaining to Accessory Structures; Amending
Chapter 8 of the City Code (7:36 p.m.)
Finke stated that the proposed amendment would increase the allowed size of sheds that are
allowed as exemptions to the full structure setback. He stated that currently the size is 120
square feet in Medina and the amendment would increase that size to 200 square feet. He
stated that the Planning Commission discussed adding a height limitation for the structures
allowed exempt from the full setback and recommended a height limitation. He referenced the
current requirement that requires a rural residential property to request a CUP for accessory
structures over 5,000 square feet. He noted that process adds cost and length to the project,
and typically little or no feedback is provided during the process. He noted that the Planning
Commission recommended leaving that requirement in place. He stated that the Planning
Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance amendment as proposed.
Pederson asked if the façade is required to match the home.
Finke replied that the ordinance includes general language about complimenting the principle
structure on the property for any accessory structure, noting that is fairly subjective language.
He stated that structures over 5,000 square feet have more explicit architectural details. He
stated that the ordinance amendment as proposed would not change the requirements in terms
of architecture for any sheds or outbuildings.
DesLauriers stated that he supports the four measures as identified by staff including the height
limitation.
Albers confirmed his consensus of the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Martin stated that she is a little concerned with the size of the sheds, noting that on some of the
smaller lots it could be obtrusive to have a structure of that size in that proximity to the property
line. She stated that she also recognizes that many of the neighborhoods have HOA’s which
have their own covenants that would protect against those measures. She stated that her
concern would be that the City is permitting these types of structures close to neighboring
property lines. She recognized that there were no public comments at the public hearing held
by the Planning Commission. She noted that she would be willing to support the
recommendation of the Commission if the other Council members support the action as well.
Albers stated that Martin makes a persuasive argument to not approving the amendment. He
asked if the language related to the structure being compatible to the principle structure should
be strengthened.
Martin provided some grammatical suggestions that could be added to strengthen the language
but noted that those elements could make it cost prohibitive to have these structures. She
stated that she is in the rural area of Medina and would still not want to see a prefabricated shed
on her neighbor’s property.
DesLauriers stated that he would rather have the items stored in a shed rather than outdoors.
He noted that some garage sizes are smaller, and residents need additional storage space.
Martin stated that a shed of this size could store a snowmobile or boat and believes that
residents should pay for offsite storage of those items if needed. She read aloud language from
the staff report related to small residential lots and asked if she interpreted the language correct
Medina City Council Excerpt from 6/2/2020 Meeting Minutes
2
to allow an outbuilding of up to 1,000 square feet in addition to the small shed being discussed
tonight.
Finke confirmed that language to be true but noted that it would be unlikely that the smallest lots
in Medina could accommodate an accessory structure of any size because of the required
setbacks, which was the reason the exempt allowance came about. He explained that the
exemption allows the smaller lots to have a small shed. He stated that the Council could still
make the change from 120 square feet to 200 square feet for exempt sheds, without changing
the size of the shed allowed as additional to the accessory structure language.
Martin stated that she would support this item going back to the Planning Commission for
additional discussion.
Pederson stated that the points brought forward by Martin are valid, noting that he would not
want to see the sheds destroying the views of others.
Albers and DesLauriers agreed that this should go back to the Planning Commission.
Moved by Anderson, seconded by Martin, to direct the Planning Commission to again review
the proposed ordinance amending regulations pertaining to accessory structures as discussed
by the Council.
Further discussion: Martin suggested that the City Attorney provide a memorandum to the
Planning Commission related to the expiration of HOA covenants after 30 years.
A roll call vote was performed:
Pederson aye
Anderson aye
DesLauriers aye
Albers aye
Martin aye
Motion passed unanimously.
Resolution No. 2020-
September 1, 2020
Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED TAX LEVY FOR 2021
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has adopted legislation, which requires all
municipalities to pass a resolution adopting a preliminary budget and certifying the total proposed
tax levy amount to the County Auditor prior to September 30, 2020; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Medina, Minnesota, to comply with this law and
submit a proposed property tax levy including general operating and debt levies; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Medina,
County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be proposed for 2021 upon the
taxable property in the City of Medina, for the following purposes: To raise $3,717,800 as adequate
revenue for the general fund operating budget, $495,845 as adequate revenue for debt service,
$312,500 for capital equipment and $112,000 for municipal park fund.
General Fund $3,717,800
Capital Equipment $ 312,500
Municipal Park Fund $ 112,000
Debt Service:
2011B Taxable G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 61,000
2012A G.O. CIP Bonds $ 241,437
2013A G.O. Refunding Bonds $ 134,757
2015A G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 58,651
Total Levy: $4,638,145
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk, Jodi Gallup, is hereby instructed to transmit
a certified copy of this resolution to the county auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Date: September 1, 2020.
____________________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Agenda Item # 9A
Resolution No. 2020- 2
September 1, 2020
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-
September 1, 2020
Member _______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR 2021
BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Medina, County of Hennepin, Minnesota,
that the following sums of money be proposed for the 2021 General Fund budget:
Revenues Expenditures
General Fund $5,113,667 $5,113,667
Date: September 1, 2020.
____________________________________
Kathleen 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.
Resolution No. 2020-
September 1, 2020
Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-
RESOLUTION REDUCING DEBT SERVICE TAX LEVIES FOR 2021
WHEREAS, Hennepin County maintains a bond register with the City’s scheduled bonded
debt levies for taxes payable in 2021, and requests a City resolution canceling the debt levy if the
City does not levy the scheduled amounts; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that specific debt levies may be partially reduced due
to the accumulation and projection of other revenue sources, including previously collected tax
levies, previously collected and future projected special assessments, and utility fund contributions;
and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Medina,
County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following reductions of debt service levies be made for
taxes payable in 2021:
Scheduled Proposed Reduction
Levy Levy To Levy
Debt Service:
2011B Taxable G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 87,210 $ 61,000 $ 26,210
2012A G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds $ 301,796 $ 241,437 $ 60,359
2013A G.O. Refunding Bonds $ 168,446 $ 134,757 $ 33,689
2015A G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 58,651 $ 58,651 $ -
2016A G.O. Refunding Bonds $ 94,583 $ - $ 94,583
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk Jodi Gallup, is hereby instructed to transmit a
certified copy of this resolution to the county auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Date: September 1, 2020.
____________________________________
Kathleen 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:
Resolution No. 2020- 2
September 1, 2020
and the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
1345 Elsinore Circle Page 1 of 6 September 1, 2020
Home Occupation CUP City Council
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: August 27, 2020
MEETING: September 1, 2020 City Council
SUBJ: Kayla Brugger – 1345 Elsinore Circle –
Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation (fitness instruction)
Review Deadline
Application received: July 2, 2020
120-day review deadline: October 30, 2020
Summary of Request
Kayla Brugger has requested a conditional use permit (CUP) to provide fitness instruction out of
her home at 1345 Elsinore Circle. The subject property is located within the Medina
Morningside neighborhood at the southwest corner of Elsinore Circle and Bobolink Road. The
applicant proposes to provide the instruction in a tuck-under garage which will be finished for
the use. An aerial of the subject site and surrounding property can be found below.
Agenda Item # 9B
1345 Elsinore Circle Page 2 of 6 September 1, 2020
Home Occupation CUP City Council
The subject property and all surrounding lots are zoned Urban Residential (UR). “Home
occupations in compliance with the requirements of section 826.98 subd. 2(c)” is an allowed
conditional use in the UR district.
The applicant has indicated that no more than three clients would be expected on a given day,
and no more than 6-10 per week. The clients would park in the driveway off Elsinore Circle.
CUP Standards for Home Occupations
The following standards are required for Home Occupations as described in Section 826.98. The
applicant has indicated how they believe each requirement will be met within their narrative.
Staff has described compliance with each standard below in italics:
(i) not more than one person not residing in the dwelling may be employed on-site in the home
occupation, regardless of the number of hours worked by the individual;
The applicant has indicated that only Kayla, the property owner will be working on-site.
(ii) no over-the-counter retail sales;
The applicant has indicated that there will be no retail sales.
(iii) only such signs as are permitted under section 815.09 of this ordinance;
At this time, no signs are proposed. Any future sign will need to meet the requirements of the
sign ordinance.
(iv) no outside storage;
No items related to the business will be stored outside.
(v) the home occupation must be conducted solely within the principal structure;
Training is proposed within the tuck-under garage, which is within the principal structure. Staff
recommends a condition that prohibits training from extending outside.
(vi) limited customer, client, patient or student visits to the site in connection with the home
occupation;
Staff believes this the most important question for this request. The applicant proposes 6-10
clients per week, no more than 3 per day. The City Council should discuss and determine if
this is consistent with “limited client visits.” Staff believes it is reasonable to determine
that this is ‘limited’ and if the Planning Commission and Council agree, would recommend
that these limitations be included as a condition of approval.
(vii) there must be adequate off-street parking for the anticipated number of persons on the site at
any one time and the parking area must be screened from view from adjacent properties or
rights-of-way;
There is sufficient parking on the existing driveway to accommodate more than the maximum
number of clients per day. Staff does not believe it would be possible to full screen the
parking area from all property and the street right-of-way. The City Council can discuss
whether it is appropriate to require additional landscaping or screening along the south of
the driveway.
1345 Elsinore Circle Page 3 of 6 September 1, 2020
Home Occupation CUP City Council
(viii) limited deliveries associated with the home occupation in commercial vehicles over one
ton;
The applicant has indicated that they expect very few deliveries.
(ix) no equipment or devices not customarily used in residential dwellings may be used in
connection with the home occupation;
The applicant has indicated that the equipment proposed for the use would be the same as one
would expect for a private home gym, which are described in the narrative.
(x) entrance to the space used for the home occupation must be within the dwelling;
The entrance to the space would be through the garage and through a portion of the dwelling.
(xi) no interior or exterior alterations may be made to the dwelling to accommodate the home
occupation except as may be customarily found in a dwelling;
The applicant has indicated that the space which will be used is similar to what one would
expect for a private home gym.
(xii) any vehicle displaying the name of the home occupation must be parked in an enclosed
garage or in an area screened from view from adjacent properties or rights-of-way;
Staff recommends this as a condition.
(xiii) the home occupation may not produce any light, glare, noise or vibration perceptible
beyond the boundaries of the property which is not customarily associated with residential
use;
The applicant has indicated that the use will not produce light, glare, or vibration. Any noise
would be similar to expected for any home gym. Staff recommends a condition requiring
that the use be limited to the inside space and that the garage door to the tuck-under
garage remain closed during business use.
(xiv) hours of business activity may be limited by the city council to protect the public health,
safety and welfare;
The applicant has indicated that they are open to discussing business hours, but suggested 6 a.m.
to 8 p.m.
(xv) the home occupation must be operated in compliance with all other applicable federal, state
and local statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations; and
General condition to be included with the CUP.
(xvi) the city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or
limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the residential character of the
neighborhood.
The Planning Commission and Council can discuss whether any additional conditions are
appropriate.
1345 Elsinore Circle Page 4 of 6 September 1, 2020
Home Occupation CUP City Council
General Conditional Use Permit Standards
In addition to the requirements specific to home occupations, Section 825.39 of the City Code
includes more general standards for reviewing any conditional use permit.
1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the immediate vicinity.
Staff does not believe the use will be injurious to nearby property nor impair property values.
2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
There is no vacant property in the vicinity, and staff does not believe this use will impede the
normal and orderly development.
3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are
being provided.
Staff does not believe the amount of client contact proposed will impact infrastructure.
4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and
loading space to serve the proposed use.
The existing driveway provides sufficient parking for the maximum number of clients.
5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor,
fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to
control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring
properties will result.
Staff does not believe the use will cause these issues if contained entirely within the building.
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.
Home occupations are allowed as a conditional use subject to the limitations noted.
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.
Home occupations are allowed as a conditional use subject to the limitations noted.
8. The use is not in conflict with the policies of the City.
Staff does not believe the proposed use is in conflict with the policies of the City.
9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Staff does not believe the CUP would cause traffic or congestion concerns.
10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or
general unsightliness.
Staff does not believe the use would cause these concerns.
1345 Elsinore Circle Page 5 of 6 September 1, 2020
Home Occupation CUP City Council
11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
The applicant proposes to begin soon after approval.
12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer.
The owners are listed within County records.
Planning Commission Recommendation
When reviewing a conditional use permit request, the City Council should review the specific
and general criteria described above. If the criteria are met, the CUP should be approved.
As described in Section 825.41 of the City Code: “In permitting a new conditional use or the
alteration of an existing conditional use, the City Council may impose, in addition to those
standards and requirements expressly specified in this Ordinance, additional conditions which
the City Council considers necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding area or the
community as a whole. These conditions may include, but are not limited, to the following:
1. Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions.
2. Limiting the height, size or location of buildings.
3. Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points.
4. Increasing the street width.
5. Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces.
6. Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs.
7. Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or
nearby property.
8. Designating sites for open space.”
As noted, the two primary questions appear to be:
1) Is a maximum of 3 clients per day, 10 clients per week consistent with the requirement
for “limited client visits?”
2) Should additional screening be required along the south of the driveway?
Staff does not believe fully screening the parking on a typical UR lot is ever going to be possible.
This condition is likely more directed towards rural lots. Nonetheless, the City can require
additional screening if it determines that is appropriate to do so. The Planning Commission did
not recommend adding a condition for additional landscaping
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 12. No one spoke at the hearing.
Commissioners were generally supportive of the CUP as presented. Some Commissioners
expressed interest to allow additional flexibility, while others did not recommend relaxing the
conditions further.
Following review, the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Client visits to the site shall be limited to 10 per week, with no more than three per day.
The Applicant shall keep records to verify compliance with this condition.
2. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.
3. Client parking shall be on the driveway and not occur on-street.
4. The home occupation shall be conducted entirely within the building.
1345 Elsinore Circle Page 6 of 6 September 1, 2020
Home Occupation CUP City Council
5. The garage door shall remain closed during use related to the home occupation.
6. All clients shall enter the studio through the home.
7. The conditional use permit shall expire and thereafter be null and void if the use ceases
for a calendar year.
8. Any signs shall be subject to the requirements of the sign ordinance. Any vehicle
displaying the business name shall be parked within a structure or shall otherwise not be
visible for neighboring properties.
9. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs
associated with the review of the application for the conditional use permit
Potential Action
If the City Council finds that the general and specific criteria have been satisfied, the following
action could be made:
Move to direct staff to draft a resolution granting conditional use permit approval subject to the
conditions noted in the staff report.
Attachments
1. List of Documents
2. Excerpt from draft 8/12/2020 Planning Commission minutes
3. Applicant Narrative
8/27/2020
Project: LR-20-272 – Brugger CUP
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 7/2/2020 7/2/2020 3 Yes Yes
Deposit 7/2/2020 7/1/2020 1 Yes Yes $1000
Narrative and Layout 7/2/2020 5 Yes Yes
Narrative and Site-updated 7/27/2020 4 Yes Yes Inside layout not updated
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
Building comments 7/7/2020 1 Y
Police comments 7/6/2020 1 Y
Notice 7/31/2020 5 Y 9 pages w/ affidavit, map, labels
Preliminary Comments 7/23/2020 2 Y
Planning Commission Report 8/5/2020 6 Y 12 pages w/ attachments
City Council Report 8/27/2020 6 Y 14 pages w/ attachments
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
Planning Commission minutes 8/12/2020 Y
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 8/12/2020 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Kayla Brugger – 1345 Elsinore Circle – Conditional Use Permit for Home
Occupation (in-home fitness instruction)
Finke presented the staff report. He stated that the property was zoned Urban Residential and the district
allows Home Occupations with limited customer visits as a conditional use. He stated that the applicant
proposes no more than 3 clients on any given day and 6-10 clients per week. Finke noted that the main
question was whether the Planning Commission found that this number of clients met the requirement for
“limited customer visits.” Finke also noted that the ordinance requires parking areas for the home
occupation to be screened from adjacent properties and streets. He stated that staff does not believe it
would be possible for any suburban or urban lot to fully screen a parking area, but that the City could
require additional screening if the Planning Commission and City Council thought it was necessary.
Finke stated that the ordinance described general criteria for all CUPs and specific requirements for Home
Occupations. He stated that staff recommended approval of the CUP with the conditions described in the
report.
Kayla Brugger (1345 Elsinore Circle) thanked everyone for their time reviewing the request. She said
that she believes it is an important service to offer for the community and she was excited to move ahead.
She indicated that the conditions seemed workable.
Grajcyk asked if the activity would extend outside, such as running through the neighborhood. He stated
that this may be of more concern to the neighbors.
Finke replied that the ordinance specifically required all activity of the home occupation to occur within
the home and that it could not extend outdoors.
Piper stated that she would support flexibility to allow for classes with up to three people. She asked how
many clients the space could accommodate.
Brugger stated that she was only planning on doing individual sessions during Covid restrictions. The
space may accommodate four or five people, but she was more comfortable with three.
Nielsen stated that it appears that the recommended conditions would allow for classes. Three clients
would be permitted in a day, and there was no prohibition against them coming at the same time.
Piper asked if the applicant was ok with the conditions
Brugger responded that she was ok with them.
Reid opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m.
There were no comments
Reid closed the Public Hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Galzki stated that this is an important service and seems like a good thing to allow, especially with
existing Covid restrictions. He stated that he would be open to providing the opportunity to open the
garage door on nice days, but that he did not want to push the issue if the applicant was not concerned.
Nielsen stated that she was comfortable with the proposal, but wouldn’t want to go above three people at
a time.
Reid stated that she was in support with the limitations suggested.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 8/12/2020 Meeting Minutes
2
Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to
the nine conditions noted in the staff report.
A roll call vote was performed:
Nielsen aye
Galzki aye
Piper aye
Grajcyk aye
Couri aye
Reid aye
Motion carries unanimously.
Conditional Use Permit:
Use portion of 1345 Elsinore Cir, Medina MN 55356 as location for small business
Business Name: Kayla’s Fitness & Pilates
Description of Business: Fitness and Pilates instruction services done either virtually, at client’s home, or
at 1345 Elsinore Cir, Medina MN 55356.
Conditions required by 825 Subd. 49. 1 Home Occupation (Conditional)
(a)The only employee of the business will be the owner of the business, Kayla Brugger, who is also
the owner of the dwelling, this is within this condition of use regulation which allows one other
employee.
(b)There will be no over the counter retail sales, thus falls within this condition of use regulation.
(c)We do not have any plans for signage for the business, but if we do we will ensure to get
approval and ensure it falls under 815.09 code.
(d)We will not be storing any business items outside thus falling within this condition of use
regulation.
(e)The home occupation will be conducted in an interior dedicated space within the principal
structure thus falling within this condition of use regulation. See attached for layout of the space
within the property/dwelling.
(f)We plan on having limited client visits to the home space as a large chunk of the business is
expected to be virtual and client home based services. Though we do expect some visits by
clients to the dwelling, we don’t expect to have more than three clients coming to the dwelling
on any given day and certainly this would not be every day. We would estimate no more than 6-
10 per week at the dwelling. This would be very limited additional car traffic and disruption to
our amazing neighborhood. We feel this falls within this condition of use regulation.
(g)I have attached a map of our property indicating the vast off street parking options of the
property. While we do not believe there to be any more than 2-3 clients coming at any given
time, we could accommodate 8+cars on our property before using street parking. We plan to
have designated parking spots on the main driveway by the southeast entrance door. This
driveway is large enough to hold 8+ vehicles so we feel this falls within this conditional use
regulation.
(h)We plan on having very limited deliveries related to the home occupation. There may be
occasional new purchases of fitness equipment, but that would be few and far between. We feel
this falls within this conditional use regulation
(i)The equipment used for the home occupation would be standard home gym or fitness
equipment you would find in many home gym setups and equipment we have already had, just
now being put into use for business purposes. See a list of expected equipment being used. We
feel this falls within this conditional use regulation.
(j)The entrance to the space being used is through our main garage entry on the southeast end of
the property and is on the same level as the business use room but is not a direct entry from the
outside to the space. We feel this falls within this conditional use regulation.
(k)We are doing no interior or exterior changes to the dwelling which you would not normally find
in a home as we are simply using an existing space to be a home gym and now using it for
business use. We feel this falls within this conditional use regulation.
(l)We do not plan to have any vehicles with signage of the home occupation parked anywhere
other than in our own garage space. We feel this falls within this conditional use regulation.
(m)The space being used as the home gym will not be producing any abnormal lighting, glares,
sounds, noise, or vibrations beyond the customary everyday use of the space that is not for
business use. We feel this falls within this conditional use regulation.
(n)We are open to any discussions on limited times that the counsel feels is to protect the public
health, safety and welfare. We do not plan on any times that would be disruptive to the
neighborhood. We plan on hours at earliest 6am to latest 8pm, possibly 7 days a week but most
business will be done during the work week. No late night hours.
(o)We will not be violating any other federal, state and local statues, ordinances, codes and
regulations.
(p)We are happy to comply with any other conditions, restrictions, or limitations the counsel
deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the residential character of the neighborhood.
Equipment planned on being used for the home occupation is below. As you can see, none of the
equipment being used would cause any noise or vibrations perceivable beyond the dwelling.
1)Dumbbell free weights and kettle bells with rubber mats to eliminate any dropping sound issues
2)Exercise elastic bands.
3)Jump ropes
4)Medicine ball
5)Pilates reformer (already owned and used-no noise, uses spring and pulleys and body weight)
6)Pilates chair (already owned and used-no noise, uses spring and pulleys and body weight)
7)Pilates Barrel-no noise or vibrations
8)TX strap-body weight training system-no noise or vibrations
9)Stability Ball
10)Wind Bike-stationary type workout spin bike. No noise or vibrations
11)Yoga mats
�=1
Ditter Properties Page 1 of 9 September 1, 2020
Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: August 27, 2020
MEETING: September 1, 2020
SUBJ: Ditter Properties – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive –
Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Pre Plat, Interim Use Permit
Review Deadline
Application Received: July 28, 2020 and August 3, 2020
60-day Review Deadline: September 26, 2020
120-day Review Deadline (preliminary plat): December 1, 2020
Summary of Request
Jim and Tom Ditter (Ditter Properties) have submitted land use requests to allow subdivision of
4 parcels they own into 5 lots. The four existing parcels are a total of approximately 25 acres, and each
range in size from 3-8.5 acres, located east of Holy Name Drive and north of Holy Name Cemetery.
The applicant has requested approval of the following requests. Staff recommends they be
considered in the following order, since each is contingent upon the previous.
1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This amendment would change the future land use of
proposed Lots 1 and 4 from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential and reduce the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to match reduced size of the sewered lots.
2) Rezoning of Lots 1 and 4 from Rural Residential to Suburban Residential
3) Preliminary Plat for the subdivision
4) Interim use permit to allow two homes on Lot 1 through life estate (no construction on
Lot 4 until 2nd home is demolished).
Three existing homes along with a number of outbuildings exist on the four parcels today and the
parcels share a driveway off Holy Name Drive. Much of the remaining property is wooded.
Holy Name Cemetery is located to the south, the Churchill Farms neighborhood in Plymouth is
immediately to the east, and Holy Name Lake is located to the west of Holy Name Drive. An
aerial of the site can be found at the top of the following page.
Although all of the lots are zoned rural residential (RR), two of the existing four lots are
connected to municipal sanitary sewer, having been connected when sewer was extended to
Lakeview Drive to bail-out failing septic systems along Holy Name Lake around 2000. These
lots are approximately 4.3 and 3.2 acres in size and are guided and zoned Rural Residential.
Essentially, the applicants propose to rezone two sewered lots to Suburban Residential and
shrink the lots. This additional land would allow an additional rural lot to be created.
The applicants submitted a concept plan review for comments over a year ago. The Planning
Commission and Council did not raise concerns with the request. Minutes from the Council’s
discussion at that time are attached for reference.
Agenda Item # 9C
Ditter Properties Page 2 of 9 September 1, 2020
Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP City Council Meeting
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The subject properties are all guided Rural Residential in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, but the
two parcels connected to sewer are shown within the metropolitan urban service area. The City
has no watermains in the area and the properties are all served by individual wells.
Although the two properties were connected to the sanitary sewer, the land use and zoning of the
parcels remained rural residential. After the sewer was extended, parcels along Lakeview Drive
and one parcel east of Holy Name Drive were rezoned to Suburban Residential and ultimately
guided as Low Density Residential (LDR). On the other hand, the larger rural properties east of
Holy Name Lake that were connected at the same time (including two of the subject parcels)
remained zoned and guided rural residential. Staff believes the reason the larger properties were
not rezoned was because they exceeded 60,000 square feet. Because the minimum lot size of the
SR district is 30,000 square feet, it would have potentially allowed the lots to be further
subdivided. However, the sewer was not intended to encourage more sewered development in
the area.
Ditter Properties Page 3 of 9 September 1, 2020
Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP City Council Meeting
The applicants do not propose to add additional sewered lots to the system. The request is to
rezone the two sewered lots to Suburban Residential (SR) and to reduce their size and use
reduced land to create an additional rural lot. The resulting two sewered lots would each be less
than twice the minimum lot size of the SR district (30,000 square feet).
The Land Use Principles, Policies, and Objectives of the relevant land uses from the Plan should
provide guidance as the Planning Commission and City Council consider requests to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff has attached excerpts from the land use chapter of the 2020-2040
Comp Plan update for reference. The City has the highest level of discretion when considering
the Comprehensive Plan and proposed amendments.
The definition of RR states that the area is not intended to be served by urban services, while the
LDR land use is intended to be served. On its face, it would appear logical that the properties
which are connected to the sewer be designated LDR, to be similar to the other parcels which
were connected along Lakeview Drive. On the other hand, staff believes it could also be
reasonably argued that the sewer was extended as a “bail-out” rather than to change the land use
so that the RR guiding better serves objectives of the plan, despite the peculiar situation of
having rural property connected to sewer. Staff believes the primary reason these lots were
guided Rural Residential is because they are large compared to other sewered lots.
It should be noted that there is one additional similarly situated property to the northwest which
is just over 6 acres in size and connected to the sewer system. This property owner may have
similar arguments to reduce the size of the lot served by sewer and have enough land to meet the
RR standard on a second lot.
Staff believes it is reasonable to argue that an LDR designation is appropriate for the areas
served by City sewer and is consistent with the objectives of the Comp Plan. This is especially
true when the change of land use is proposed in connection with a plat which reduces the size of
the lots so that they are more similar to other LDR lots. Staff would not recommend the change
of land use if the lots were not being reduced in size.
Rezoning
As previously noted, the applicants propose to zone the two lots which are served by municipal
sewer to the Suburban Residential (SR) zoning district. The circumstances surrounding this
proposed zoning are essentially the same as discussed above related to the Comprehensive Plan.
The City has a high level of discretion when reviewing requests for zoning amendments. Section
825.35 of the City Code provides criteria for rezoning requests: “The City Council may adopt
amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map. Such amendments shall not be issued
indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of
the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City.”
In this case, if the two sewered lots are guided as LDR, it would be appropriate to rezone the
property out of the RR zoning district. A number of zoning districts are applied to LDR property
within the City, included SR, UR (Urban Residential), R1 (Single-Family Residential), and R2
Ditter Properties Page 4 of 9 September 1, 2020
Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP City Council Meeting
(Single- and Two-Family Residential). The SR zoning district has the largest lot size
requirement and is consistent with the property to the northwest along Lakeview Drive.
If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved, staff recommends approval of the rezoning
of proposed Lots 1 and 4 to the Suburban Residential zoning district. Similar to the discussion
surrounding the Comp Plan Amendment, staff would not recommend the rezoning for lots which
exceed 60,000 square feet, because it would inadvertently create an opportunity for further
subdivision.
Preliminary Plat
The applicant proposes a total of 5 lots, two of which are proposed to be zoned SR and served by
City sewer, and three lots which would be zoned RR. The lots are proposed to be served by a
private road in the location of the existing shared driveway. The following table summarizes the
proposed SR lots compared to the requirements of the district.
SR
Requirement
Lot 1 Lot 4
Minimum Lot Size 30,000 s.f. 57,376 s.f. 55,310 s.f.
Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 139 feet 125 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 125 feet 408 feet 275 feet
Front Yard Setback 35 feet 1 foot (existing home
from ROW)
35 feet
Side Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Rear Yard Setback 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet
Max. Hardcover 60% 15%
The following table summarizes the proposed RR lots compared to the requirements of the
district.
RR Requirement
Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 5
Minimum Lot Size 5 acres contiguous
suitable soils
7.07 acre 5.65 acre 5.03 acre
Gross Area None 9.38 acre 6.7 acre 5.03 acre
Minimum Lot Width 300 feet 300 feet 300 feet 300 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet 1180 feet 900 feet 630 feet
Front Yard Setback 50 feet 360 feet
Side Yard Setback 50 feet 70 feet
Rear Yard Setback 50 feet 600 feet
Max. Hardcover 40%
It appears that the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size standards of the SR and RR zoning
district as applicable.
The existing home on Lot 1 does not meet the minimum front setback from Holy Name Drive
right-of-way (existing 1-foot setback) or the side setback from the north (existing 10 foot
Ditter Properties Page 5 of 9 September 1, 2020
Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP City Council Meeting
setback), but the subdivision does not affect this situation because these are existing exterior
property lines.
Two existing outbuildings on site are located where a proposed property line bisects the
structures and another outbuilding is located too close to proposed property lines. These
structures will ultimately need to be relocated or demolished. Two of the existing homes are
located on what is proposed to be platted as Lot 1. The applicants’ mother lives in the eastern
house and the applicants request to allow both homes to remain on Lot 1 while their mother lives
in the home. The property is subject to a life estate. After the life estate is no longer in effect, the
applicants propose to demolish the home. Until that is completed, Lot 4 would not be buildable.
The applicants have requested that the City allow them to delay demolition of the second home
and outbuilding through an Interim Use Permit, which is described later in this report.
The private road is proposed to be constructed in Outlot B, along the south of the property. The
road will be in the location of the existing driveway - but will be widened.
Tree Preservation/Landscaping
An extensive grove of trees covers much of the subject property. The applicants’ families have
planted most of these trees in recent decades. Aerial photos show these plantings over time.
It appears that the installation of improvements is likely to require the removal of a number of
these existing trees. The tree preservation ordinance would permit the removal of 10% of the
trees upon initial site development (installation of street, storm water, etc.) and an additional
15% of trees for the construction on each lot. The tree preservation ordinance allows credit for
planted trees, which will significantly reduce or potentially eliminate the need for replacement.
Staff recommends that no replacement be required since the trees removed were planted by the
owners.
Rural residential subdivisions do not include specific buffer yard or landscaping requirements.
Even if such requirements did exist, the site include far more trees than would be required.
Wetlands/Floodplain/Shoreland
A large wetland is partially located along the northeastern portion of the site, and a separate
small wetland is located within the woods in the same area. Staff recommends a condition that
upland buffers be applied as required by the City’s, including easements, vegetation, and
signage.
The subject property extends west of Holy Name Drive. The applicant proposes to plat this
portion of the property into a separate outlot. Most of this outlot is located within the floodplain
adjacent to Holy Name Lake and is subject to relevant regulations.
Lots 1 and 4, and much of lots 3 and 5 are located within 1000 feet of Holy Name Lake and
subject to the Shoreland Overlay District regulations. These lots will be limited to 25%
hardcover. The required front setback exceeds required setbacks from Holy Name Lake, and the
lot width and size requirements of the SR district exceed the requirements of the shoreland
overlay district.
Ditter Properties Page 6 of 9 September 1, 2020
Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP City Council Meeting
Transportation
The applicants propose to construct a private road in the location of the existing shared driveway
to serve the subdivision, shown as Outlot B on the plat. The private road would extend
approximately 350 feet and terminate in a hammerhead. Lots 2 and 3 would then share a
driveway to the north of the hammerhead.
The City Engineer has not raised concerns regarding the impact of the subdivision on the broader
transportation network.
Sewer/Water/Easements
As noted above, Lots 1 and 4 are proposed to be connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system,
but would be served with individual wells. Lots 2, 3, and 5 are proposed to be served by septic
and wells. The applicants have submitted soils and percolation information for potential primary
and secondary septic location for each proposed rural lot.
Staff recommends a condition requiring typical drainage and utility easements over all utilities,
wetland locations, stormwater improvements, drainageways and around the perimeter of the lots.
Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review
The proposed improvements will be subject to the City’s stormwater management ordinance.
The applicant proposes a filtration basin in the eastern portion of the site to meet these
requirements. The applicant proposes to grade the site to direct stormwater from the new
hardcover on lots 3, 4, and 5 to these improvements. Much of the new private road and all of the
new driveways will drain to this basin as well.
Park Dedication
The subdivision is subject to park dedication according to the subdivision ordinance. The City’s
subdivision regulations allow the City to require park dedication as follows:
1) Land – Up to 10% of the buildable property to be dedicated for park purposes – estimated
to be approximately 2.4 acres in this case.
2) Cash-in-lieu – 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. This would likely be $8,000 in
this case (for the new lot).
3) Combination of the above.
The City’s decision on required park dedication is guided by its Comprehensive Park, Trail, and
open space plan as well as the Master Plan. Map 6-1 from the Park, Trail, and Open Space Plan
is attached for reference. These documents do not identify any need for park land in this area of
the City.
The documents also do not identify future trails specifically on the subject properties. The plans
do identify a north-south trail between Medina Road and County Road 24 to the east of Holy
Name Lake.
The Plan does not identify the precise location of off-street trail corridors. The subject property
may provide an alternative north-south location. A large wetland on the property to the north
Ditter Properties Page 7 of 9 September 1, 2020
Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP City Council Meeting
would prevent connecting to Medina Road. As such, it appears this alternative may not be
preferred to the connection west of Holy Name Lake.
The Park Commission reviewed at their August 19 meeting. The Commission did not
recommend requiring land dedication, but instead recommended park dedication cash-in-lieu.
Interim Use Permit
There are currently homes located on three of the existing lots. The two homes nearest to Holy
Name Drive are close together. The proposed plat would result in these two homes both being
located on Lot 1. The applicants’ mother lives in the second home off of Holy Name Drive, and
the property is subject to a life estate.
The applicants have requested an interim use permit to allow the two homes on Lot 1 while the
life estate is in effect. The applicants propose to not construct a home on Lot 4 until the life
estate is no longer in effect, and the second home on Lot 1 is demolished.
The applicants have also requested that the three outbuildings which are either located on
property lines or do not meet setbacks be allowed to remain while the life estate is in effect.
Section 825.73 of the City Code establishes criteria for the City to permit Interim Uses to “allow
the establishment or continuation of interim uses under specific and regulated conditions.
Interim uses may be allowed by permit if the following conditions are met:
(a) the use conforms to the zoning regulations;
(b) the date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty;
(c) permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary
for the public to take the property in the future; and
(d) the user agrees to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for
permission of the use.”
Staff believes the City has a higher level of discretion in determining whether this Interim Use
should be allowed. The City could require that only one home be located on each lot. This
would require the applicant to consider one of the following options: 1) the subdivision would
need to be delayed; or 2) the lots would need to be realigned so that each house is on a separate
lot. Staff believes it is possible to plat the property in a way such that each house would be on a
separate lot, but doing so would result in smaller and less usable lots.
Staff believes the Interim Use Permit (IUP) is appropriate in this case and recommends approval.
Lot 1 is just under the required size for two lots in the SR district and both homes are connected
to the municipal sewer system. The event which will terminate the use can be identified and
continuation of the two homes will not impose additional costs on the public.
Review Criteria
The review criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning were described on
pages 3-4 of the report. Staff recommends approval of the requests to re-guide Lots 1 and 4 to
the LDR land use and rezone to the SR zoning district if the lots are reduced in size so that they
could not be subdivided further in the future.
Ditter Properties Page 8 of 9 September 1, 2020
Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP City Council Meeting
The preliminary plat would be contingent upon approval of the Comp Plan Amendment and
Rezoning, because Lots 1 and 4 could not be reduced in size without the rezoning.
Section 820.21, Subd. 10 establishes the following criteria for the review of subdivisions: “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 finding 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.”
Subject to the conditions recommended below, staff does not believe the subdivision would meet
these criteria for denial. The criteria for an Interim Use Permit are described above, and staff
believes the IUP would be appropriate in this case.
Jurisdictional Review
Staff routed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to neighboring cities and relevant
agencies. The review timeframe expires on October 12, 2020. The City of Plymouth and
Hennepin County have responded and stated that have no comments. Staff believes that these
agencies would be the most likely to provide comments. The cities of Loretto, Maple Grove and
Greenfield have also indicated that they have no comments.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the requests at the August 12 meeting. No
one spoke at the hearing. Commissioners noted that while the series of requests necessary to
implement the subdivision was complicated, they generally support the subdivision. The
Commission found that the requests met the relevant criteria and recommended approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Interim Use Permit, subject
to the following terms and conditions:
1) The Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall not become effective until reviewed and
authorized by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota Statues 462 and 473 and the
final plat is approved.
2) Approval of the plat shall be contingent upon the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and rezoning of proposed Lots 1 and 4 to the Suburban Residential zoning
district. If such rezoning is approved, it shall become effective upon the recording of the
plat.
3) Approval of the interim use permit shall be contingent upon recording of the plat.
Ditter Properties Page 9 of 9 September 1, 2020
Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP City Council Meeting
4) 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.
5) The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit for 150% of the estimated cost of improvements
and demolition of the home and outbuildings to ensure completion of the work.
6) No building shall occur on Lot 4 until the Interim Use Permit has terminated and the second
home on Lot 1 and the three outbuildings regulated by the IUP have been demolished. The
Applicant shall enter into an agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the City
Attorney to ensure compliance with these requirements.
7) The Applicant shall provide the private road easement/agreement and shared driveway
easement/agreement for review and approval by the City attorney prior to final plat.
8) The Applicant shall execute a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement to describe the
responsibility of the property owners to maintain the stormwater improvements.
9) The Applicant shall submit soil and percolation information to identify a potential primary
and secondary septic site on each rural lot.
10) The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance, including
provision of easements, planting of vegetation and installation of signage.
11) The Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of $8,000 at the time the plat is executed by
the City.
12) The Applicant shall address the comments of the City Engineer. Final construction plans
shall be submitted along with final plat application and be subject to review and approval.
13) The Applicant shall provide title documentation at the time of final plat application and
abide by the recommendation of the City Attorney, with regard to title matters and recording
instructions.
14) The request shall be subject to review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and
any other relevant agency.
15) 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.
16) 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.
Potential Action
Following its review, if the City Council finds the requests consistent with relevant objectives
and criteria, the following motion could be made:
Move to direct staff to draft documents granting conditional approval of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment, and approval of the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Interim Use Permit
subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
Attachments
1. Document List
2. Comprehensive Plan Information
3. Excerpt from draft 8/12/2020 Planning Commission minutes
4. Excerpt from draft 8/19/2020 Park Commission minutes
5. Excerpt from 6/18/2019 City Council minutes
6. Narrative
7. Preliminary Plat/Plans
8/27/2020
Project: LR-20-271 – Ditter CPA, Rezone, Pre-Plat, Interim 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 7/1/2020 7/1/2020 3 Yes Yes
Application-Updated 7/27/2020 7/1/2020 3 Yes Yes
Deposit 7/1/2020 7/1/2020 1 Yes Yes $5000
Plans and PrePlat 7/10/2020 7/9/2020 4 Yes Yes
Plans and PrePlat 8/3/2020 7/31/2020 5 Yes Yes
Narrative 5/11/2020 5/11/2020 1 Yes Yes
Narrative 8/5/2020 8/5/2020 2 Yes Yes
Life Estate 7/27/2020 3/30/2000 1 Yes Yes
Septic Information 5/15/2020 10/31/2019 46 Yes Yes
Stormwater Calcs 7/10/2020 7/9/2020 48 Yes Yes
Volume Control Calcs 8/3/2020 7/31/2020 1 Yes Yes
<OVER>
8/27/2020
Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies
Document Document
Date
# of
pages
Electronic Notes
City Engineer comments 7/24/2020 3 Y 4 pages w/ plan notes
City Engineer comments
Fire/Building comments 7/22/2020 1 Y
Legal comments 7/21/2020 2 Y
Notice 7/31/2020 4 Y 17 pages w/ affidavit, list and map
Jurisdictional Notice 8/12/2020 2 Y 5 pages w/ attachments
Preliminary Comments 7/23/2020 3 Y 10 pages w/ attachment
Planning Commission Report 8/7/2020 9 Y 26 pages w/ attachments
City Council Report 8/27/2020 9 Y 26 pages w/ attachments
Public Comments
Document Date Electronic Notes
Planning Commission minutes 8/12/2020 Y
Park Commission minutes 8/19/2020 Y
LLaanndd UUssee PPrriinncciipplleess,, DDeessccrriippttiioonnss,, PPoolliicciieess aanndd OObbjjeeccttiivveess
22002200--22004400 CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee PPllaann
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.
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
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.
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.
Land Use Policies by Area
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.
Rural Designations
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
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.
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 (see 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.
Urban Service Designations
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
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.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 8/12/2020 Meeting Minutes
1
Public Hearing - Tom and Jim Ditter – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive - Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Interim Use permit to subdivide four existing lots into
five
Finke presented the application. He noted that the request includes a comprehensive plan
amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat, and interim use permit. He noted that two of the four lots
were hooked up to the sewer system which was installed in the late 1990’s to bail out failing septic
systems along Holy Name Lake. Finke stated that other properties which connected were rezoned to
Suburban Residential when connected, but larger lots were not. He stated that staff believes lots over
60,000 square feet in size were not rezoned because it may have potentially set up a situation where
the lots would be further subdivided, which was not the intent. He showed a site plan showing the
existing and proposed comp plan guiding and zoning. Finke noted the proposed lots appear to meet
the requirements of each district. Finke noted that the proposed lot lines would result in two homes
being located on Lot 1 and would result in some of the existing outbuildings being located on new lot
lines. He stated that the 2nd home east of Holy Name was subject to a life estate and the applicants
were requesting that the demolition of this house and the outbuildings be delayed while their mother
continued to live in the 2nd home. Until that time, no construction would occur on Lot 4. Finke stated
that staff recommended approval subject to the conditions noted in the report.
Reid asked if Commissioners had any questions.
No questions were asked.
Tom Ditter (2032 Holy Name Drive) stated that they did not have anything to add but were available
for questions. He said that it seemed like people did not have concerns with the preliminary plat.
Reid opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m.
There were no comments
Reid closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Galzki noted that while the application was complicated, the request was straightforward. He stated
that he was in support.
Piper stated that it appeared a lot of thought went into how the plat was laid out and she supported it.
Motion by Grajczyk, seconded by Piper to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan
amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat, and interim use permit subject to the conditions noted in the
staff report.
A roll call vote was performed:
Nielsen aye
Galzki aye
Piper aye
Grajcyk aye
Couri aye
Reid aye
Motion carries unanimously.
Medina Park Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 8/19/2020 Meeting Minutes
1
Ditter Properties 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
Preliminary Plat, Interim Use Permit – Park Dedication Review
Finke provided a brief staff report for the Ditter Properties’ land use requests to allow
subdivision of four parcels into five lots at 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive. He noted the
park and trail plan does not identify any need for future park land or trails in this area. He
stated that the Park Commission had reviewed this request in April 2018 and there was a
consensus to recommend cash-in-lieu of land dedication.
Jim Ditter, the applicant, confirmed that the Park Commission had previously
recommended cash in-lieu of land dedication.
Tom Ditter, the applicant, confirmed that nothing in the plan had changed since the last
review.
Jacob stated that his point of view remains the same as the last time the Park Commission
reviewed this request, which is to recommend cash-in-lieu of land dedication.
Hutchinson questioned how the cash-in lieu of land dedication value was calculated.
Finke explained that per the Park Dedication ordinance the cash-in-lieu amount is equal
to 8% of the pre-developed market value with a minimum of $3,500 and a maximum of
$8,000 per new lot. Since one new lot is being created and that new lot will sell for over
$100,000, the park dedication amount would max out at $8,000.
A motion was made by Jacob and seconded by Sharp to recommend park dedication
cash-in-lieu of land dedication.
A roll call vote was taken:
Park Commissioner Ann Thies - aye
Park Commissioner Terry Sharp - aye
Park Commissioner Steve Lee - aye
Park Commissioner John Jacob – aye
Park Commissioner Troy Hutchinson – aye
Motion passed unanimously.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 6/18/2019 Meeting Minutes
1
Ditter Properties – 2032 to 2052 Holy Name Drive – Concept Plan Review (7:40
p.m.)
Finke stated that this proposal was reviewed one year ago as a concept noting that this concept
reduces the previous request to subdivide four lots into five lots, rather than the previous
request for six lots. He noted that two of the four existing lots are proposed to be smaller lots
and proposed to be rezoned to suburban residential and reguided as low density residential
under the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that those two properties are connected to the City
sewer system and the applicant would propose to shrink those lots to better match the proposed
rezoning standards, noting that the excess land would be used to create the additional fifth lot.
He provided additional information on the Comprehensive Plan amendment that would be
necessary and whether it would be appropriate to reguide and rezone the two properties
connected to municipal sewer. He reported that the Planning Commission held a public hearing
the previous week where one resident spoke in favor of the requests and raised concern about
drainage between the properties which could be addressed through the subdivision. He noted
that the Planning Commission was supportive of the reguiding of the two properties to low
density residential and the creation of the additional lot. He provided background information on
the sewer bailout which occurred in the early 2000’s for the properties along Holy Name Lake.
He stated that the other properties that were connected to City sewer were rezoned to suburban
residential, with the exception of four properties. He explained that perhaps the thought behind
excluding those four properties is that they exceeded 60,000 square feet and the intent was to
prevent those lots from being subdivided into additional suburban residential lots. He explained
that this request would not create additional sewered lots but would shrink the two lots
connected to City sewer and create an additional rural residential lot.
Albers asked if there would be septic concerns for the new lots.
Finke explained that two septic sites would be required, similar to any other rural residential lot.
He noted that practically speaking, the two properties connected to sewer could have probably
installed new septic systems, but the cost would have been similar to simply connect to the
sewer that was made available.
Martin stated that both of the proposed suburban lots would be under 60,000 square feet and
therefore could not be subdivided further. She noted that the family has already paid for the two
sewer connections and should be able to utilize those connections. She stated that this is a
beautiful property and the ability to keep the two lots in front and create three beautiful
residential lots would fit with the intent of the City to preserve rural residential areas when
possible. She stated that she is comfortable with the requests.
Pederson stated that he also agrees with this request. He noted that this is adjacent to the
cemetery and this would create a great atmosphere in that area.
Aug-5-2020
Ditter Preliminary Plan Lot Proposal
Ditter Properties and Jim & Tom are submitting a preliminary plan proposing to
subdivide our existing property of 4 lots that we own into 5 lots. The 4 lots total
approximately 25 acres located east of Holy Name Drive and North of Holy Name
Cemetery. At present there are 3 homes located on 3 of the lots- 2052 Holy Name Drive
(Jim & Pam Ditter), 2042 Holy Name Drive (John & Anyce Ditter), and 2032 Holy Name
Drive (Tom & Mimi Ditter). The 4th lot is a vacant 8 acre lot in about the center of the 4
existing lots. The 1st and 2nd homes (2052 & 2042) are now connected to the existing
city sewer system. We are asking the city to consider rezoning these 2 parcels with city
sewer to Suburban Residential, which are now zoned Rural Residential. This would
allow us to reduce the size of the first 2 parcels and allow us to divide the rest of the
existing property into 3 Rural Residential lots. Most of the land is wooded, which we
hand planted a variety of trees over the course of the last 30 years. The back 3 lots are
zoned Rural Residential and they would all be on their own septic systems and separate
wells.
We would also like to ask the city to consider giving us a tree waiver for these lots. All
the trees that will be affected are trees that we personally planted back in the late 80’s
and early 90’s. We purchased the land in 1980 and immediately started planting trees
on the property. Originally we farmed the land and planted corn and beans. We
basically then turned our farm land into a tree farm. The original woods (the area with
the mature oaks, and maples) are on the far north lot where Tom & Mimi live, and that
area will not be affected by any of these changes in the new lots.
The preliminary plan shows the first house (Jim & Pam Ditter) and the 2nd house (John
& Anyce Ditter) on the first lot. The reason for this is that I – Jim Ditter, own both
property’s and our mother has Life Estate. We will not remove her home off of the
property till she is unable to stay living there on her own. At that time, when she is not
living there any longer, we would remove the home so there would only be one home on
the lot ( lot 1). The rest of the out buildings on lot 4 would also be removed at this time.
We also would not sell lot 4 until our Mother is not living there anymore and all the
buildings are removed.
We are doing our best to come up with a plan that will work well for us and the City of
Medina. We, Jim and Tom Ditter, have lived here our entire lives and plan to stay in
Medina long into the future. We also want to keep the 1st home (2052) which is the
original Ditter Homestead built in the 1880’s. We would like to preserve this home as
long as possible.
Thank you.
Sincerely
Jim & Tom Ditter
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 September 1, 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: August 27, 2020
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – September 1, 2020 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Bartzen Septic Variance – 1075 Oak Circle – John and Mary Bartzen have requested a
variance from the required 75-foot setback from wetlands to replace an existing
noncompliant septic system. It appears the proposed site is the only location which can
accommodate a system. A public hearing was held at the August 18 City Council meeting,
after which the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval. Staff intends to
present on September 1.
B) Ditter Subdivision – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive – Tom and Jim Ditter have requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Interim Use Permit to
replat their existing four lots into five lots. A public hearing was held at the August 12
Planning Commission meeting. No one spoke at the hearing and the Commission
unanimously recommended approval. Staff intends to present at the September 1 meeting.
C) Brugger Home Occupation CUP – 1345 Elsinore Circle – Kayla Brugger has requested a
CUP to offer fitness instruction out of her home, in addition to sessions offered in client
homes or virtually. A public hearing was held at the August 12 Planning Commission
meeting. No one spoke at the hearing and the Commission unanimously recommended
approval. Staff intends to present at the September 1 meeting.
D) Schwarz Accessory Dwelling Unit – 1425 County Road 24 – Chaid and Jessica Schwarz
have requested a conditional use permit to convert an existing home to an accessory
dwelling unit to allow construction of a new home on their property. The CUP would also
permit three accessory structures on the site. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and
will schedule a public hearing when complete, potentially at the October 13 Planning
Commission meeting.
E) Meadow View Townhomes– north of Highway 55, west of CR116 – Lennar has applied for
a preliminary plat to develop 125 townhomes on approximately 20 net acres. Staff has
conducted a preliminary review and requested additional information. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing at the July 14 meeting and recommended approval,
conditioned upon the plan incorporating the final Tamarack Drive study information. The
Council reviewed on August 18 and directed staff to prepare documents of approval. Staff
intends to present these documents to the Council on September 15.
F) Roehl Preliminary Plat – 1735 Medina Road – The Estate of Robert Roehl has requested a
preliminary plat to subdivide 28 acres into two lots. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing on May 12 and recommended approval. The City Council granted
preliminary plat approval on June 16. Staff will await an application for final plat.
G) 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.
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 September 1, 2020
City Council Meeting
H) OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate
company for OSI) has requested final plat approval for Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 3rd Addn.
The City Council granted final plat approval on June 16. The applicant has begun site work and
applied for a building permit. Staff is working with the applicant on the conditions of
approval to allow issuance of the permit.
I) 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 Council adopted a
resolution granting conditional approval and authorizing submission to the Met Council.
The Met Council has authorized the City to put the amendment into effect. Staff will await
a preliminary plat application.
J) 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 and March 10 meetings and
recommended approval. The City Council adopted approval documents on March 17.
K) 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.
L) Hamel Haven subdivision – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with
the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded.
Other Projects
A) Long Lake Subwatershed Assessment – staff met with a representative from the DNR related to
potential ravine stabilization project within Wolsfeld Woods SNA. Work within a SNA has a
number of stringent requirements, even when the project is intended to improve stormwater.
Minnehaha Creek is updating its assumptions to meet these requirements to see if a project may be
viable.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety,
Through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: August 28, 2020
RE: Department Updates
Center Point Energy Grant Awarded
Sergeant Boecker completed a matching grant for Center Point Energy and we were awarded $1600
towards the replacement of two AEDs that were expired. The AEDs have been purchased and put
into service in our squad cars.
Officer Boeddeker Update
Kaylen has completed her third week and has already seen many things: unruly persons, intoxicated
driver found lying on the roadway by their vehicle, and a death of an elderly female. These are just
some examples of what police officers see on a weekly, if not daily basis. Kaylen is doing a great
job so far and is fitting in with the team.
Civil Unrest Preparation
The Lakes Area Emergency Management group is planning for civil unrest with the trials of the
Minneapolis Officers starting in March 2021. We are working on solutions to work together in case
things spill out to the outer suburbs. I am in the process of securing equipment to protect the officers
should we be called to assist our partner agencies and vice versa.
Patrol:
Patrol Updates 08/12/2020 through 08/25/2020
Patrol Activities – Between the dates of August 12, 2020 through August 25, 2020 our officers
issued 40 citations and 122 warnings for various traffic violations. There was 1 property damage
accident reported, 4 medicals, 5 welfare checks/mental health calls, 3 business alarms, 3 residential
alarms, 5 suspicious calls, and 12 assists to other agencies.
On 08/12/2020 our CSO was dispatched to a reported injured hawk in the yard of a residence in the
2600 block of Hamel Road. The homeowner pointed out the location of the hawk and as the officer
approached the hawk flew away. It appeared the hawk had been eating a fresh kill on the ground.
MEMORANDUM
On 08/14/2020 officers on patrol in the Loretto area came upon a tree that had fallen and taken out
some power lines. Loretto Fire Department was requested to assist with blocking some roadways
until Xcel Energy could respond to make the scene safe.
On 08/15/2020 officer was dispatched to a theft report in the 3300 block of Butternut Drive. The
homeowner reported someone stealing a package from his front step after getting a video notification
on his phone. A camera on his front step did show someone walking up to his front door early in the
morning and removing a package from the front door area. The case has been forwarded to
investigations.
08/15/2020 officer working traffic detail for the AutoMotorPlex car show. During that three-hour
period two vehicles were clocked at 100 mph on Highway 55. Officers also received two complaints
of cars racing both ways along Highway 55.
On 08/20/2020 officer was dispatched to a welfare check in the 2400 block of Willow Drive. A
passerby observed a female stumble out of a vehicle and was laying on the ground. Upon arrival the
officer determined that the female was highly intoxicated, and she was placed under arrest for DWI.
A blood search warrant was issued to obtain a blood sample from the female. Charges are pending
the results.
On 08/20/2020 officer stopped a vehicle for an equipment violation along Highway 55. The officer
observed a Wisconsin license plate lying in the vehicle. When the officer ran the plate, he found the
plate had been reported stolen. The driver of the vehicle was cited and released at the scene.
On 08/24/2020 another theft report was taken along Tamarack Drive where another political sign
was reported missing. There have been several political signs removed in this area over the past few
weeks.
Investigations:
Received a report from Hennepin County Child Protection involving possible sexual and physical
abuse at a residence in Medina. I met with Child Protection at the residence and interviewed all the
parties involved. The investigation is ongoing.
While investigating a different incident, I received information on a possible sexual assault involving
two siblings. A Corner House interview has been scheduled for the victim. Both the alleged suspect
and victim are under the age of 15. The investigation is ongoing.
Received the results from a search warrant that I submitted to a bank in Maryland that involved a
wire transfer from a business in Loretto. The results showed that the suspect possibly stole someone
else’s identity to create the bank account. The investigation is ongoing.
There are currently (9) cases assigned to investigations.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: August 27, 2020
MEETING: September 1, 2020
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
STREETS
• Public Works is in the process of putting in place shoulders along several streets,
including Chippewa and Shire Drive.
• Public Works has completed a second round of mowing throughout the City’s ROWs.
• Several streets require fresh striping. I am working with our contractor to complete this
second phase.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
• Public Works and Badger State are performing the final inspections of warranty issues
with the Water Tower Rehab Project. A few items to be addressed remain on the list, and
it is our goal to have all issues resolved before the warranty expires.
• On the evening of August 14th, during a rainstorm, Public Works dealt with a watermain
break. It seems the timing is never great for something like this. Repairs to the main are
complete but the street will still need to be patched.
PARKS/TRAILS
• Last week we spent a considerable amount of time weeding the steep banks and shoreline
at Lakeshore Park.
• Public Works will begin paving preparation soon on the North shoulder of Medina Road.
My goal is to complete the section from Brockton Lane North to Hunter Drive this fall.
Notices were mailed to residents whose properties are affected by this section of work.
• I will be scheduling trail replacement for a portion of the Hamel Legion Park along the
western border.
• Public Works added additional sand to the volleyball court at The Fields of Medina. A
tennis net was also replaced.
PERSONNEL
• Our part-time summer employee has headed back college, his last day was Friday,
August 28th. The parks remain busier than ever and require continuous attention. We
remain short-staffed. The loss of help will be very challenging as we head into fall.
ORDER CHECKS AUGUST 18, 2020 – SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
050588 CENTERPOINT ENERGY ......................................................... $248.97
050589 DELANO SPORTSMANS CLUB .................................................. $50.00
050590 EXECUTIVE TITLE OF MN LLC .................................................. $13.87
050591 GODDARD SCHOOL................................................................. $250.00
050592 JOHNSON, LAUREL/STEPHEN ................................................ $250.00
050593 JP SALEA GROUP .................................................................... $250.00
050594 MET COUNCIL (SAC) ........................................................... $41,822.55
050595 METRO WEST INSPECTION ............................................... $26,005.89
050596 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. ............................................... $2,202.30
050597 DALTON, MICHAEL/JENNIFER .................................................... $2.83
050598 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP LLC ............................................ $125.59
050599 JOHNSON, JACK ...................................................................... $113.47
050600 RYAN COMPANIES ............................................................... $1,000.00
050601 WELSH, MARY/CHRISTOPH ...................................................... $42.36
050602 ZHANG, SPENCER/SHEEN ........................................................ $15.87
050603 BERNHARDT, MARY ................................................................ $110.50
050604 CARLSON, KATHRYN ............................................................... $110.50
050605 CRAWFORD, LINDA ................................................................. $136.50
050606 DAHLOF, ANGELA .................................................................... $110.50
050607 DEJUTE PAUL M ....................................................................... $217.75
050608 DYSTE, CYNTHIA ANN ............................................................. $139.75
050609 FRY, BEVERLY ......................................................................... $130.00
050610 GARBERICK, MARGARET ........................................................ $214.50
050611 GRAVIER, GARY ....................................................................... $130.00
050612 KOEHLER, ELIZABETH ............................................................ $214.50
050613 LEE, STEVEN B ........................................................................ $110.50
050614 MAHAMED, FARHIA.................................................................. $110.50
050615 NIELSEN, BETH ........................................................................ $240.50
050616 OLSON, BETTY GRAY .............................................................. $208.00
050617 RESSLER, SHARON M ............................................................. $130.00
050618 RICHMOND, TERRY R. ............................................................. $130.00
050619 SCHMIDT, KATHLEEN .............................................................. $110.50
050620 SCHUTTE, MARIE ..................................................................... $113.75
050621 TWIEHAUS, LAURIE ................................................................. $104.00
050622 ADAMS PEST CONTROL INC .................................................... $89.84
050623 ASPEN MILLS INC ................................................................. $1,116.05
050624 AXON ENTERPRISE INC ............................................................ $70.50
050625 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE ..................................................... $192.09
050626 CONTEMPORARY IMAGES ................................................... $2,413.84
050627 DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY ..................................... $17,266.00
050628 DIAMOND MOWERS INC..................................................... $36,187.94
050629 ECM PUBLISHERS INC ............................................................ $400.54
050630 EHLERS & ASSOC INC .......................................................... $5,265.00
050631 GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVI .................................... $178.95
050632 HASSAN SAND & GRAVEL ....................................................... $428.25
050633 HOLIDAY (CARWASHES) ......................................................... $110.50
050634 JIMMYS JOHNNYS INC ............................................................ $825.00
050635 KD & COMPANY RECYCLING INC ........................................... $128.58
050636 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED .................................. $15,054.45
050637 KRAEMER MINING AND MATERIALS ................................... $5,870.39
050638 LANO EQUIPMENT INC .............................................................. $59.12
050639 MEDTOX LABS ........................................................................... $50.33
050640 METRO ALARM CONTRACTORS INC ..................................... $360.00
050641 OFFICE DEPOT ........................................................................ $420.66
050642 PREMIUM WATERS INC ............................................................. $21.09
050643 RANDYS SANITATION INC .................................................... $4,423.40
050644 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC .................................. $8,096.14
050645 SAFETY SIGNS LLC ................................................................... $58.50
050646 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY ................................................ $22.22
050647 STREICHERS INC ....................................................................... $95.96
050648 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL ............................................................ $1,331.91
050649 TEGRETE (CARLSON BLDG) ................................................ $1,416.00
050650 TIME SAVER OFFSITE SEC SVCS IN ...................................... $148.00
050651 US SOLAR BUSINESS - 1 ...................................................... $5,579.97
050652 US SOLAR BUSINESS - 3 ...................................................... $7,199.65
050653 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER .............................................. $1,594.20
050654 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.................................................... $59,332.25
Total Checks $250,973.27
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS AUGUST 18, 2020 – SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
005625E PR PERA .............................................................................. $16,392.25
005626E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $17,148.20
005627E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $1,790.00
005628E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $3,752.82
005629E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $18.00
005630E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,597.82
005631E FP MAILING SOL POSTAGE BY PHON ................................. $1,000.00
005632E CITY OF PLYMOUTH ............................................................. $1,024.88
005633E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN ...................................... $2,172.20
005634E VALVOLINE FLEET SERVICES ................................................ $157.39
005635E MINNESOTA, STATE OF ....................................................... $2,187.00
005636E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. .............................................. $1,224.00
005637E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,502.90
005638E ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICE .................................................. $5,268.52
005639E FURTHER ................................................................................... $61.50
005640E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ......................................... $20.00
005641E VERIZON WIRELESS ................................................................ $265.09
Total Electronic Checks $55,582.57
PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AUGUST 19, 2020
0510439 BOEDDEKER, KAYLEN C ...................................................... $1,447.65
0510440 JOHNSON, PATRICK M. ........................................................... $834.07
0510441 VOGEL, NICHOLE ..................................................................... $854.22
0510442 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ................................................... $1,521.00
0510443 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,514.01
0510444 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,620.01
0510445 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $2,049.74
0510446 DEMARS, LISA ....................................................................... $1,128.15
0510447 DION, DEBRA A. .................................................................... $1,765.69
0510448 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $2,133.97
0510449 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,650.70
0510450 GALLUP, JODI M. ................................................................... $2,119.19
0510451 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $2,213.67
0510452 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................ $2,086.77
0510453 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $2,111.46
0510454 HANSON, JUSTIN .................................................................. $1,957.90
0510455 JACOBSON, NICOLE ............................................................. $1,074.52
0510456 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. .......................................................... $2,340.93
0510457 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,286.95
0510458 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,427.40
0510459 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $1,857.77
0510460 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $1,505.35
0510461 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,157.65
0510462 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,531.60
0510463 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $2,145.90
0510464 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $1,951.05
0510465 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,372.91
0510466 DINGMANN, NATHAN ............................................................ $1,154.10
Total Payroll Direct Deposit $52,814.33