HomeMy Public PortalAbout03.01.2022 City Council Meeting Packet Posted 2/25/2022 Page 1 of 1
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 1, 2022
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 February 15, 2022 Regular Council Meeting
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Authorize Interfund Loan for Advance of Certain Road Construction Costs for Arrowhead Drive
B. Adopt Ordinance Establishing a Planned Unit Development District for Marsh Pointe Preserve
C. Adopt Resolution Authorizing Publication of Marsh Pointe Preserve Ordinance by Title and Summary
D. Adopt Resolution Granting Preliminary Plat and PUD General Plan Approval for Marsh Pointe
Preserve
E. Approve Marsh Pointe Preserve Wetland Replacement Plan
F. Approve Temporary Liquor License to Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Minnesota
G. Approve Rooftop Elements Ordinance Amendment
H. Authorize Publication of Rooftop Elements Ordinance by Title and Summary
I. Approve Weed Control Services Agreement with Jenco Property Maintenance
J. Appoint Will Gunter to the Park Commission
K. Approve Uptown Hamel Economic Development RFP
VI. COMMENTS
A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda
B. Park Commission
C. Planning Commission
VII. PRESENTATIONS
A. Hennepin County Commissioner Kevin Anderson
B. Fire Department Annual Reports
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Medina Ventures – Medina Park and Boardwalk – PUD Concept Plan - 1472 Highway 55
B. Jeffery and Chris Cates – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Proposed
Commercial/Industrial Development – PIDs 04-118-23-11-0002, 04-118-23-14-0004
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. Deng – Variance from setback from ISTS to wetland – 2472 Parkview Drive (PID
1611823330002) – Public Hearing
B. Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit CUP
1. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and Summary
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: +1 612-517-3122
Enter Conference ID: 183 540 644#
MEMORANDUM
TO: Medina Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator
DATE OF REPORT: February 24, 2022
DATE OF MEETING: March 1, 2022
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: 183 540 644#
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Authorize Interfund Loan for Advance of Certain Road Construction Costs for
Arrowhead Drive – Finance Director Erin Barnhart has put together the attached
resolution to pay for related project costs. The resolution gives Medina the option to
bond in the future or use other funding options. Staff recommends approval.
See attached resolution.
B. Adopt Ordinance Establishing a Planned Unit Development District for Marsh Pointe
Preserve – Staff drafted the attached ordinance consistent with the direction from the
February 2, 2022, City Council Meeting. Staff recommends approval.
See attached ordinance.
C. Adopt Resolution Authorizing Publication of Marsh Pointe Preserve Ordinance by Title
and Summary – Attached is a resolution for summary publication of the Marsh Pointe
Preserve Ordinance. Staff recommends approval.
See attached resolution.
D. Adopt Resolution Granting Preliminary Plat and PUD General Plan Approval for Marsh
Pointe Preserve – Staff drafted the attached resolution consistent with the direction from
the February 2, 2022, City Council Meeting. Staff recommends approval.
See attached resolution.
E. Approve Marsh Pointe Preserve Wetland Replacement Plan – The wetland replacement
plan is consistent with the direction from the February 2, 2022, City Council Meeting.
Staff recommends approval.
See attached plan.
2
F. Approve Temporary Liquor License to Wildlife Rehabilitation Center of Minnesota – All
required paperwork has been submitted for the temporary liquor license. Staff
recommends approval.
G. Approve Rooftop Elements Ordinance Amendment - Staff drafted the attached ordinance
consistent with the direction from the February 15, 2022, City Council Meeting. Staff
recommends approval.
See attached ordinance.
H. Authorize Publication of Rooftop Elements Ordinance by Title and Summary - Attached
is a resolution for summary publication of the Rooftop Elements Ordinance. Staff
recommends approval.
I. Approve Weed Control Services Agreement with Jenco Property Maintenance – Public
Works Director Steve Scherer is recommending an agreement with Jenco Property
Maintenance for weed control services for 2022 and 2023. Staff recommends approval.
See attached agreement.
J. Appoint Will Gunter to the Park Commission – Interviews took place recently to fill the
remaining opening on the Park Commission. The interview panel recommended Will
Gunter for the Park Commission opening. Staff recommends approval.
See attached resolution.
K. Approve Uptown Hamel Economic Development RFP - In the Fall of 2021, the City of
Medina was awarded a grant from Hennepin County through their Housing & Economic
Development Corridor Planning program due to the great work of Planning Director
Dusty Finke. The grant is for a maximum of $25,000 from Hennepin County and requires
at least a 25% match (minimum of $6250 if the full grant is utilized) from the City. The
grant was intended to be used to fund a request for proposals (RFP) for economic
development consulting services. The intent of the project is to receive guidance from a
firm with successful experience in economic development to create an actionable plan for
how the City and property owners can encourage and support development. The plan will
be based on current and projected market conditions, previous community visioning
sessions, conversations with business and property owners, and existing development.
Staff recommends approval.
See attached request for proposals.
3
VII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Medina Ventures – Medina Park and Boardwalk – PUD Concept Plan - 1472 Highway 55
– The City Council reviewed the PUD Concept Plan at the February 2, 2022, meeting
from Medina Ventures, LLC for the Meander Park and Boardwalk development. Further
review was requested by the City Council at the February 15, 2022, meeting. The
applicant is available to discuss this further at the March 1 meeting. The full report from
this review is available upon request and an excerpt from the meeting minutes is attached
for reference. Staff believes improved connectivity through the Meander Park and
Boardwalk site is important. This would provide easier access for the uses on the east
side of the project to Meander and from the uses on the west side of the site to future
Tamarack. The Council can accept additional feedback on this matter from the applicant
and the property owner to the east and provide additional feedback on the concept plan, if
any, at the March 1 meeting. This is a concept review and no formal action is typically
taken by the City Council.
B. Jeffery and Chris Cates – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Proposed
Commercial/Industrial Development – After preparing the EAW and reviewing and
preparing responses to comments, staff does not believe the project meets the criteria for
requiring an EIS as described in state rules. The project would be subject to review by
various agencies if it were to proceed with final design, and staff believes the regulatory
process would provide adequate opportunity for review and implementation of
appropriate mitigative measures. The City retains discretion when ultimately making
decisions on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and other relevant land use
applications. The City’s determination on whether an EIS is required does not limit the
City’s decision-making on land use requests. The Comp Plan Amendment will be
reviewed through the formal process, where more information will be provided for
review. The comments and report from the EAW will be one component of this
information.
Potential Motions:
1. Motion to approve the Cates Industrial Park EAW Findings of Fact and Record of
Decision
2. Motion to adopt the resolution approving the response to comments, findings of fact, and
record of decision for the Cates Industrial Park EAW and making a negative declaration
upon the need for an Environmental Impact Statement
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Deng – Variance from setback from ISTS to wetland – 2472 Parkview Drive (PID
1611823330002) – Public Hearing – Jet Deng has requested a variance from the City’s
minimum setback requirement for components of an individual subsurface sewage
treatment system (ISTS, or septic system) to a wetland at 2472 Parkview Drive. The
4
subject site is located at the northeast corner of County Road 24 and Parkview Drive. The
applicant proposes to add an addition on the home, adding a bedroom. Adding a
bedroom requires expansion of the ISTS and the tanks also need to be updated. The
existing tanks and soil treatment and dispersal area (mound) of the ISTS are
approximately 30 feet from the wetland and do not currently meet the 75-foot setback.
The new proposed tanks would be further from the wetland than the existing tanks.
However, the proposed expansion of the mound would be approximately three feet closer
to the wetland.
Potential Motion:
Move to direct staff to draft a resolution approving the variance subject to the conditions
noted in the staff report.
B. Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit CUP – Rehkamp Larson Architects has submitted a
request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on behalf of the Abraham family to build an
Accessory Dwelling Unit on their property at 3003 Hamel Rd. The Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) will have two bedrooms, a living space, a kitchen, and a two-car garage. The
ADU will be built in conjunction with a new home on their property and will have
compatible building materials and architectural style as the main house. The subject
property is 16.97 acres in size and is zoned Rural Residential. Most of the southern
border of the property is on School Lake or its shoreland. The property is bordered to the
north by Hamel Rd (County Rd 115). The neighboring property to the east is vacant and
to the west is a single-family home. The lot is subject to the requirements of the
Shoreland Overlay District because it is located adjacent to School Lake. The previous
home and barn on the property were demolished in 2017, so the subject property is
currently vacant. The proposed use would develop the property to have a single-family
home and one accessory structure.
Potential Motion:
Move to direct staff to draft a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions described in the staff report.
XI. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 006258E-006284E for $86,501.64
and order check numbers 052621-052684 for $144,723.98, and payroll EFT 0511649-0511679
for $56,260.95.
INFORMATION PACKET:
• Planning Department Update
• Police Department Update
• Public Works Department Update
• Claims List
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2022
1
DRAFT 1
2
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2022 3
4
The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on February 15, 2022 at 5
7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6
7
Martin read a statement explaining that the meeting continues to be held in a virtual 8
format due to the ongoing pandemic and provided instructions for public participation. 9
10
I. ROLL CALL 11
12
Members present: Albers, Cavanaugh, DesLauriers, Martin, and Reid. 13
14
Members absent: None. 15
16
Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Planning Intern Colette Baumgardner, 17
City Attorney Ron Batty, Finance Director Erin Barnhart, City Engineer Jim Stremel, City 18
Planning Director Dusty Finke, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, and Chief of Police 19
Jason Nelson. 20
21
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:04 p.m.) 22
23
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:04 p.m.) 24
The agenda was approved as presented. 25
26
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:04 p.m.) 27
28
A. Approval of the February 2, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 29
Martin noted that prior to the meeting Johnson distributed corrections that she had 30
suggested for incorporation. 31
32
Moved by Martin, seconded by Reid, to approve the February 2, 2022 regular City 33
Council meeting minutes as amended. 34
35
A roll call vote was performed: 36
37
DesLauriers aye 38
Albers aye 39
Cavanaugh aye 40
Reid aye 41
Martin aye 42
43
Motion passed unanimously. 44
45
V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:05 p.m.) 46
47
A. Approve Police Department Animal Impound Agreements 48
B. Approve Purchase Agreement for 2120 Chippewa Road 49
C. Approve Resolution Accepting Park Bench Donation from Duane and Jan 50
Hendrickson 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2022
2
D. Approve Brush Grinding Agreement with Minnesota Topsoil 1
E. Approve Hunter Park Court Surface Color Installation Agreement 2
F. Approve Hunter Park Fence Installation Agreement 3
G. Approve Hunter Park Asphalt Agreement 4
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Reid, to approve the consent agenda. 5
6
A roll call vote was performed: 7
8
DesLauriers aye 9
Albers aye 10
Cavanaugh aye 11
Reid aye 12
Martin aye 13
14
Motion passed unanimously. 15
16
VI. COMMENTS (7:07 p.m.) 17
18
A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 19
There were none. 20
21
B. Park Commission 22
Scherer reported that the Park Commission meets the following night to consider the 23
results of the Lakeshore Park survey, 2120 Chippewa Road land acquisition, and will 24
also review updates of the park fund. 25
26
C. Planning Commission 27
Planning Commissioner Popp reported that the Planning Commission met the previous 28
week to review a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory dwelling unit at 29
3003 Hamel Road. He explained that the accessory dwelling unit would have two 30
bedrooms and would be constructed in conjunction with the primary home on the 31
property. He stated that the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the 32
request. 33
34
VII. NEW BUSINESS 35
36
A. 744 Aster Road Proposed Easement Vacation – Public Hearing (7:11 p.m.) 37
Johnson stated that there is a proposed easement vacation for 744 Aster Road. He 38
stated that vacating two feet of the easement would allow construction of a larger deck in 39
the rear yard. 40
41
Finke presented the request to vacate two feet of an existing 20-foot easement running 42
through the backyard of the subject property. He stated that there is an existing 43
stormwater pipe running through the easement, noting that the stormwater pipe is 44
privately owned and operated by the HOA. He stated that the City does take public 45
easements over such infrastructure as the City has the right, but not obligation, to 46
maintain that infrastructure if not done by the HOA. He stated that because of the 47
easement there would only be eight feet from the back of the home to the easement line. 48
He stated that the applicant would like to have ten feet for a deck. He stated that staff 49
believes that the vacation of two feet of the easement would still allow for proper 50
maintenance activity should that be necessary. He stated that a utility locate was 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2022
3
completed to ensure no other utilities in the easement. He asked that the Council hold a 1
public hearing before taking any action. 2
3
Martin opened the public hearing. 4
5
No comments. 6
7
Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by Martin, to close the public hearing. 8
9
A roll call vote was performed: 10
11
DesLauriers aye 12
Albers aye 13
Cavanaugh aye 14
Reid aye 15
Martin aye 16
17
Motion passed unanimously. 18
19
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to adopt the Resolution Vacating a Portion 20
of the Drainage and Utility Easements within 744 Aster Road. 21
22
A roll call vote was performed: 23
24
DesLauriers aye 25
Albers aye 26
Cavanaugh aye 27
Reid aye 28
Martin aye 29
30
Motion passed unanimously. 31
32
VIII. OLD BUSINESS 33
34
A. Ordinance Amendment – Rooftop Elements (7:18 p.m.) 35
Johnson stated that the majority of the Council reviewed this at meetings in December 36
and January and agreed that further regulation of height would not be necessary, and 37
that the framework presented and recommended by the Planning Commission would be 38
suitable. He also reiterated the comments from the City Attorney that were included in 39
the staff memo. 40
41
Baumgardner provided background information on the process the Council, staff and 42
Planning Commission have gone through over the past several months related to the 43
review of rooftop elements. She stated that the Council reviewed this at its last meeting 44
and agreed with the regulation method as presented by staff. She reviewed the draft 45
ordinance regulations and recommended adoption as presented. 46
47
Darrin Rosha, representing BAPS, stated that the proposal from BAPS included 20- and 48
35-feet roof heights with spires of 30 feet in height and flagpoles atop, for total height of 49
50 feet. He stated that as proposed, the spires would be five feet higher than allowed if 50
coming from the 35 feet height. He noted that the flagpoles would also be a few feet 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2022
4
above that. He stated that he has spoken with a few members of the Council outside of 1
the meeting. He stated that BAPS brought forward its request when there were no 2
regulations, and the spires and flagpoles would be lower than existing rooftop elements 3
found in Medina. He stated that when moving forward, entities would be aware of the 4
regulations prior to submitting requests but such regulations did not exist when BAPS 5
came forward with its proposal. He stated that as proposed, the preferred design for 6
BAPS would not be allowed which is important for their religious beliefs. 7
8
Asit Waghani, representing BAPS, stated that they are wanting a larger site that will act 9
as their home. He stated that they acquired the land in Medina and started the process 10
of site plan approval. He noted that they did receive a unanimous recommendation of 11
approval from the Planning Commission and then received questions about the rooftop 12
elements by the City Council. He stated that the Council ultimately decided to institute a 13
moratorium related to rooftop elements which caused more delay. He stated that they 14
decided to remove the rooftop elements from their design to receive approval for the 15
remainder of their building, with anticipation to amend their site plan after the rooftop 16
element discussion was completed. He explained that the spires are important for their 17
religious beliefs. He stated there would be a few feet difference between their request 18
and what is proposed for the regulation. He asked if BAPS could be considered similar 19
to the other religious institutions that have rooftop elements exceeding the height 20
proposed in the ordinance. 21
22
Cavanaugh asked if 50 feet is the maximum height requested. 23
24
Waghani confirmed that 50 feet would be the maximum height for rooftop elements. 25
26
Cavanaugh asked if that would include the flagpoles and flags. 27
28
Waghani replied that the flags would be a few feet higher. 29
30
Martin noted that the Council has reviewed this at multiple meetings and the proposed 31
draft has also been reviewed by the City Attorney. 32
33
Reid commented that she does not understand why a Conditional Use Permit could not 34
be applied for. 35
36
Martin stated that the Council had discussion on that concept at the last two meetings. 37
She asked if Reid had certain circumstances in mind that would justify a CUP. 38
39
Reid stated that this is a specific request, and she did not understand why the request 40
for a CUP could not be made. She stated that there is an industrial area down the road 41
where a CUP could be requested. She stated that this building would not be converted 42
to another use in the foreseeable future therefore she did not see an issue. 43
44
Martin stated that a CUP could be requested if the ordinance includes a provision to 45
allow that request. She stated that there is not a provision in the draft ordinance that 46
would permit a party to seek a CUP to exceed the maximum allowed height for a rooftop 47
element. 48
49
Reid replied that she did not see a large difference between rooftop equipment and 50
rooftop elements. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2022
5
1
Martin clarified that Reid is stating that the ordinance should provide an option to seek a 2
CUP, similar to rooftop equipment. 3
4
Batty stated that if the Council wants to allow something else by CUP, it can do that by 5
including a CUP for this use in this district. He stated that would require that the 6
conditions under which a CUP would be issued would need to be articulated. He stated 7
that there is an entire section of the City Code which lists conditional uses within zoning 8
districts and the related standards and conditions. He noted that those standards and 9
conditions would need to be listed in the ordinance. 10
11
Martin stated that staff did provide some suggestions and the Council ultimately decided 12
that a provision for a CUP should not be included in this ordinance. 13
14
Cavanaugh commented that he spoke with staff earlier today and it did not seem that 15
adding a provision for a CUP would be the best path to follow. 16
17
Albers stated that he is noncommittal on whether to add a provision for a CUP. 18
19
Martin asked for input from staff. 20
21
Finke commented that there would be an option to add a provision to allow a CUP. He 22
explained that a purpose would need to be identified for the additional height and 23
specific standards would need to be developed that would apply. He asked the type of 24
standards that would mitigate the reason it is being designated as a conditional use 25
rather than a permitted use. He provided examples of other conditional uses and the 26
standards that apply to mitigate those uses. He stated that it was not clear to staff as to 27
the additional standards that would apply or the purpose, but for the idea of allowing 28
additional height. 29
30
DesLauriers stated that when they went through this process, they separated rooftop 31
equipment and rooftop elements. He asked if rooftop equipment has the ability to 32
request a CUP. 33
34
Finke replied that a CUP can be requested for mechanical equipment and noted that 35
conditions were developed specific to that purpose. He stated that the conditions are 36
related to screening of the equipment, whereas you cannot adequately screen rooftop 37
elements in the same manner. 38
39
DesLauriers stated that perhaps screening is required for architectural elements, such 40
as screening the flagpole with netting and allowing the flag to show. 41
42
Reid suggested that the applicant explain in its request for a CUP that the architectural 43
element is necessary for the design of the building and justification be provided in that 44
manner. 45
46
Martin stated that an architectural element is a part of the design so she was unsure how 47
that would work. She asked the offset for having the additional height. She recognized 48
that screening would defeat the purpose of having an architectural element. She 49
believed that the goal in establishing regulation for rooftop elements was to protect the 50
rural character of Medina and its viewscapes. She stated that the only method in which 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2022
6
she would think a CUP could be used for that purpose would be if there were adequate 1
setbacks to ensure that the impact of the additional height would be less to adjacent 2
properties. 3
4
Reid appreciated the discussion and stated that perhaps there is not a solution, but she 5
wished there were. 6
7
Cavanaugh stated that the building next door to this site (Autoplex) is approaching, if not 8
at, 50 feet. He stated that the building as originally proposed by BAPS would have fit 9
within the existing regulations the City had. He stated that he does not see a large 10
difference between 45 and 50 feet. He suggested a solution under subdivision one, 11
section B, to add a part three that would allow 50 feet above the average grade for all 12
non-residential districts. 13
14
Finke provided suggested language should the Council desire to add that provision. 15
16
Reid agreed that would provide more flexibility and supported the addition. 17
18
Albers commented that he could also support that change. 19
20
DesLauriers stated that he would also agree to the change. 21
22
Martin noted that she would also agree with the change. She asked staff and received 23
confirmation that the action could be to direct staff to make the suggested change and 24
bring the item back for approval on the next Consent Agenda. 25
26
Moved by Martin, seconded by Reid, to direct staff to further revise the proposed 27
ordinance presented to add a third measurement in respect to architectural features that 28
would apply in non-residential districts as discussed by the Council and to bring the 29
matter back to the Consent Agenda. 30
31
A roll call vote was performed: 32
33
DesLauriers aye 34
Albers aye 35
Cavanaugh aye 36
Reid aye 37
Martin aye 38
39
Motion passed unanimously. 40
41
IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (8:05 p.m.) 42
Johnson stated that Finke provided information requested by the Council on future 43
Tamarack Drive and Meander Road. Staff asked if the Council wanted to revisit that 44
topic at the March 1st meeting. 45
46
DesLauriers commented that he does think the topic should come back to review the 47
notes and ensure that everyone is still on the same page as they move forward. 48
49
Reid agreed that this should come back as there are many moving parts. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2022
7
Martin confirmed the consensus of the Council to bring that topic back for additional 1
review. 2
3
Albers proposed that item be on the worksession agenda for the second meeting in 4
March rather than the regular Council agenda. 5
6
DesLauriers agreed that a worksession setting would be appropriate noting that perhaps 7
the landowners can be a part of that discussion as well. 8
9
Johnson confirmed the item could be placed on the works session agenda in March. 10
Staff will check with the landowners to determine which Council meeting in March 11
(March 1st or March 15th Work Session) they are available to meet with the City Council. 12
13
X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (8:12 p.m.) 14
No additional comments. 15
16
XI. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (8:12 p.m.) 17
Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by Martin, to approve the bills, EFT 006251E-006257E 18
for $46,969.66, order check numbers 052599-052620for $114,213.39, and payroll EFT 19
0511614-0511648 for $57,767. 20
21
A roll call vote was performed: 22
23
DesLauriers aye 24
Albers aye 25
Cavanaugh aye 26
Reid aye 27
Martin aye 28
29
Motion passed unanimously. 30
31
XII. ADJOURN 32
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Martin, to adjourn the meeting at 8:13 p.m. 33
34
A roll call vote was performed: 35
36
DesLauriers aye 37
Albers aye 38
Cavanaugh aye 39
Reid aye 40
Martin aye 41
42
Motion passed unanimously. 43
44
45
__________________________________ 46
Kathy Martin, Mayor 47
Attest: 48
49
____________________________________ 50
Scott Johnson, City Administrator 51
Resolution No. 2022-
March 1, 2022
Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. ____
AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOAN FOR
ADVANCE OF CERTAIN ROAD CONSTRUCTION COSTS
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota (the “City”) as
follows:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. The City plans on incurring costs related to a road construction project on Arrowhead
Drive in the City (the “Project Costs”).
1.02. The City intends to advance funds from one or more City funds to pay the Project Costs,
and proposes to designate such advances as an interfund loan in accordance with the terms of this
resolution.
1.03. The City may determine to issue taxable general obligation bonds or other obligations in
the future to pay the interfund loan authorized pursuant to this resolution.
1.04. If the City does not issue obligations to pay the interfund loan, the City will pay the
Interfund Loan with assessments received for the Arrowhead Drive project and other funds of the City.
Section 2. Repayment of Interfund Loan.
2.01. The City shall borrow funds from various sources to pay all or a portion of the Project
Costs in a principal amount of up to $800,000 (the “Interfund Loan”). [Interest shall accrue on the
principal amount from the date of disbursement of the Interfund Loan at the rate of 5% per annum.] [No
interest shall accrue on the Interfund Loan.]
2.02. The Interfund Loan is payable from (i) the proceeds of obligations the City may issue in
the future to pay the Interfund Loan; (ii) the assessments received from the Arrowhead Drive project; and
(ii) from any other revenues available to the City.
2.03. Principal and interest payments (the “Payments”) on the Interfund Loan shall be made at
the time from any revenue sources that are available to make installment payments. Payments will be
credited to the respective City fund from which the Interfund Loan was drawn. All Payments shall be
applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal of the Interfund Loan.
2.04. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under the Interfund Loan is pre-
payable in whole or in part at any time by the City without premium or penalty.
2.05. The City may at any time make a determination to forgive the outstanding principal
amount and accrued interest on the Interfund Loan to the extent permissible under law.
Agenda Item #5A
Resolution No. 2022-
March 1, 2022
2.06. The City may from time to time amend the terms of this Resolution to the extent
permitted by law, including without limitation, amendment to the payment schedule and the interest rate.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution is effective upon approval.
Dated: March 1, 2022
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
Caitlyn Walker, 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.
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
FOR “MARSH POINTE PRESERVE”
AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The city of Medina received a request to change the zoning classification of the
property legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”) to Planned Unit
Development. Based on the written and oral record before the Planning Commission and City
Council during review of the request as well as all additional testimony submitted to the City, the
City Council has found that the proposed rezoning of the Property to Planned Unit Development
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and serves the purpose of the Planned Unit
Development district.
Section 2. The Property is hereby rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The
location of the Property subject to the zoning amendment is depicted on the map in Exhibit B
attached hereto.
Section 3. The Marsh Pointe Preserve Planned Unit Development General Plan is hereby
approved.
A. All entitlements, including but not limited to, allowed uses, density, dimensional
standards, setbacks and development standards established within this PUD District
are hereby set forth by the Marsh Pointe Preserve General Plan dated December 13,
2021 which are incorporated herein by reference.
B. Any standards not specifically addressed by this ordinance shall be the
requirements set forth in the Medina Zoning Ordinance, including the Single- and
Two-Family Residential (“R2”) and other relevant standards.
Section 4. Allowed Uses. The allowed uses within the PUD District shall be the
permitted, conditional, and accessory uses described in the R2 zoning district, except that two
family dwelling shall not be permitted.
Section 5. Lot Standards. Lots within the PUD District shall be subject to the
requirements of the R2 zoning district except as explicitly described below.
A. Minimum lot size: 9,000 square feet
B. Minimum lot width: 68 feet
C. Minimum lot depth: 100 feet
D. Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet
E. Minimum side yard setback: 7.5 feet
Agenda Item #5B
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
F. Minimum rear yard setback: 25 feet. The rear yard setback may be reduced to 15
feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area, but may not be reduced if
abutting public park property.
G. Minimum Collector Roadway setback: 40 feet
H. Maximum impervious surface coverage: 55%
Section 6. Design and Development Standards. All standards not specified by this
ordinance shall be the same as found in the Medina Zoning Ordinance for the R2 zoning district.
The following deviations from the underlying performance standards are hereby in place for the
Marsh Pointe Preserve Planned Unit Development:
A. Building materials and design shall be consistent with the standards approved by
the City Council at the time of final plat approval. At a minimum, architectural
requirements shall include:
i. Primary materials. Primary siding material shall be fiber cement, engineered
wood siding, stucco, or similar alternative (no vinyl).
ii. Accents materials. Horizonal lap siding shall not exceed 50% of street-facing
façade (excluding garage doors).
iii. Front façade shall include porch
iv. Garage doors shall include window elements
v. Front and rear elevations shall provide roof differentiation, dormers, or
similar elements.
B. Structures shall be one-story design excepting basements. Bonus space may be
constructed within the roofline of the structure, but the eave height shall be limited
to one-story at the front elevation. The elevation of the highest point of the roof
shall not exceed:
i. Blocks 1-2: 32 feet above the ground elevation at the garage.
ii. Blocks 3-5: 35 feet above the ground elevation at the garage.
C. Landscaping and tree replacement shall be consistent with the landscaping plan
approved by the City Council at the time of final plat approval, which shall be
subject to review for consistency with all required enhancements.
Section 7. Subdivision Design Standards.
A. The arrangement and dimensions of lots, blocks, outlots, rights-of-way, and easements
shall be as depicted with the Marsh Pointe Preserve plat approved by the City Council.
Such plat shall be consistent with the preliminary plat dated December 13, 2021 except
as modified by the City Council at the time of final plat approval.
B. “Street A” may be permitted to exceed the maximum length and number of lots served
described within the Subdivision Ordinance, as depicted on the preliminary plat dated
December 13, 2021.
Section 8. The City of Medina Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to place this
ordinance into effect and to make the appropriate changes to the official Medina zoning map to
reflect the change in zoning classifications as set forth above only upon recording of the Marsh
Pointe Preserve plat with Hennepin County.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
Section 9. A copy of this ordinance and the updated map shall be kept on file at the Medina
City Hall.
Section 10. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, publication, and recording
of the Marsh Pointe Preserve plat.
Adopted by the Medina City Council this ___ day of ___________, 2022.
CITY OF MEDINA
By:
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
By:
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on this day the ____ of ___________, 2022.
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of the Property
Ordinance No. ### 5
DATE
EXHIBIT B
Map Showing Location of Property Subject to Marsh Pointe Preserve PUD
Resolution No. 2022-##
March 1, 2022
Member ________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-##
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 establishing a planned unit development district for “Marsh Pointe Preserve” and
amending the official zoning map; 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 five pages in length and contains a map; and
WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform
the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina
that the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ### to be published in the
official newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety:
Public Notice
The city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ##, an ordinance establishing a
planned unit development district for “Marsh Pointe Preserve.” The ordinance rezones property
proposed to be subdivided and developed as Marsh Pointe Preserve to planned unit development.
The subject property includes 4250, 4268, 4290, and 4292 Arrowhead Drive.
The full text of the ordinance is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular
business hours.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city
clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post
a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city.
Agenda Item #5C
Resolution No. 2022-## 2
March 1, 2022
Dated: March 1, 2022.
______________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ________
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2022-##
DATE
ME230-755-782023.v2
Member _________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-##
RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD GENERAL PLAN
APPROVAL FOR MARSH POINTE PRESERVE
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, BPS Properties, LLC (the “Applicant”) owns property at 4250-4292
Arrowhead Drive (the “Property”), which is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested approval of a planned unit development general
plan and preliminary plat to subdivide and develop the Property into 30 detached single-family
lots; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary plat is tentatively proposed to be called Marsh Pointe
Preserve; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing, reviewed the information provided by the Applicant and City staff, heard testimony from
interested parties, and recommended approval of the general plan and preliminary plat; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2022, the City Council reviewed the proposed general plan
and preliminary plat, considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and heard
additional testimony; and
WHEREAS, regarding the purpose of the Planned Unit Development regulations, the City
Council finds that the proposed Planned Unit Development:
a. supports higher standards of site and building design and development of single-story villa
homes;
b. effectuates the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and
c. results in a more desirable environment than might be possible through strict application
of zoning and subdivision regulations; and
WHEREAS, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions noted below, the City Council
makes the following findings of fact regarding the preliminary plat based on the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance:
a. The proposed preliminary plat is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and is not
premature for consideration;
b. The subdivision is appropriate for the physical conditions on the site including the
topography, storm water, natural resources, and soils;
Agenda Item #5D
Resolution No. 2022-## 2
March 1, 2022
ME230-755-782023.v2
c. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development and meets minimum
lot size standards;
d. The proposed subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage;
e. The proposed subdivision is not likely to be injurious to public health; and
f. The proposed subdivision and its improvements will not conflict with public or private
streets, easements, or right-of-ways.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina, Minnesota
hereby grants approval of the PUD general plan and preliminary plat approval for Marsh Pointe
Preserve, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1) The approvals hereby granted are contingent upon approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan,
approval of which must be obtained prior to action on the final plat.
2) The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include
the conditions described below as well as other requirements of city ordinance or policy.
3) The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated December 15, 2021
except as may be modified herein. Final plans shall be provided at the time of final plat and
shall address the comments of the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Elm Creek Watershed District,
other relevant staff and agencies and the conditions noted herein. The plans shall be subject
to review and approval by the City Engineer.
4) The plat shall provide drainage and utility easements over all stormwater improvements,
wetlands, and drainageways and along the perimeter of lots as recommended by the City
Engineer.
5) The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance, including
provision of easements, planting of vegetation and installation of signage.
6) Homes constructed within the PUD shall be consistent with the architectural requirements
approved by the City Council at the time of final plat approval and as described in Ordinance
###.
7) The Applicant shall update the plat to dedicate Outlot D of the preliminary plat, located at the
southeast corner of Arrowhead Drive and “Street A,” as right-of-way. Landscaping may be
allowed within this area if approved by City staff, but may be removed at any time if deemed
necessary by the City.
8) The Applicant shall construct a turn lane on Arrowhead Drive at the proposed intersection
with “Street A” recommended by the City Engineer.
9) The Applicant shall update the street alignment as recommended by the City Engineer,
including removing sudden curves of “Street A” approaching Arrowhead Drive and providing
a wider a boulevard between the street and trail.
10) The Applicant shall grant trail easements as recommended by City staff for the trails shown
on the plan. The Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of $141,400 in lieu of additional
land dedication.
11) The Applicant has represented to the City that it has agreements with the owners of parcels to
the north of the Property related to the removal of dead trees and invasive species and
installation of new landscaping that it has access to those parcels to perform the required work.
The Applicant shall update the landscaping plans to incorporate the work required by these
agreements.
Resolution No. 2022-## 3
March 1, 2022
ME230-755-782023.v2
12) The Applicant shall update landscaping plans to identify proposed landscaping on adjust the
location of plantings so that vegetation will not interfere with the trail when mature.
13) The Applicant shall update grading in the rear of Block 2 so that drainage does not impact the
trail.
14) The Applicant shall submit information to verify that the average 50-foot buffer is provided
around the wetlands.
15) The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site
improvements to ensure completion.
16) The Applicant shall execute and record a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement in a form and
of substance acceptable to the City Attorney to describe the responsibility of the property
owners to maintain the private stormwater improvements.
17) The property shall be subject to the City’s lawn and landscaping irrigation regulations. No
lawn or landscape irrigation systems shall be permitted to be connected to the City water
system. The Applicant shall address comments of the City Engineer and Public Works
Director related to the design and installation of the irrigation system.
18) The Applicant shall obtain all permits required by Elm Creek Watershed District, the
Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Metropolitan
Council and any other relevant agencies.
19) The Applicant shall provide title evidence prior to or at the time of final plat application and
abide by the recommendations of the City Attorney with regard to title matters and recording
instructions.
20) The final plat shall accommodate to the satisfaction of the City the 3 foot wide strip of property
currently owned by the City adjacent to the Property.
21) The Applicant shall dedicate on the final plat or otherwise provide an easement to the City to
accommodate the future Diamond Lake Trail extension across the wetland south and east of
Block 5. The easement shall provide flexibility for its location across the wetland area.
22) The final plat application shall be filed within 180 days of the date of this resolution or the
approval hereby granted shall be considered void, unless a written request for time extension
is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council.
23) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the
cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents.
Dated: March 1, 2022.
By: _______________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
By: ___________________________
Caitlyn Walker, 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. 2022-## 4
March 1, 2022
ME230-755-782023.v2
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2022-## 5
March 1, 2022
ME230-755-782023.v2
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of the Property
https://medinamn.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/Active Packets/CC PACKET - MAR 1/CA Approved/5E - Marsh Pointe Wetland Replacement Plan/5E -
MEMO - WR-22-169 - Medina Mayor & CC - Marsh Point Preserve NOD - 022222.docx
54
0
G
A
T
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
|
BU
R
N
S
V
I
L
L
E
,
M
N
|
55
3
3
7
|
95
2
.
7
3
7
.
4
6
6
0
|
WS
B
E
N
G
.
C
O
M
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor Martin and Medina City Council Members
From: Alison Harwood, WSB
Date: February 23, 2022
Re: Marsh Pointe Preserve Replacement Plan
City Project No. WR-22-169
WSB Project No. 19715-000
The Marsh Pointe Preserve project proposes to develop approximately 39 acres of land into 30
single-family home lots and associated public roads, site amenities, and stormwater ponding. An
existing entrance road provides access to three private residences currently within the project
area. To develop the site, the entrance road must be upgraded (widened) to meet city roadway
standards. A 10-foot trail is also proposed which will connect to a park located in Outlot A,
northeast of the project site. Widening of the road and construction of the trail will result in 0.26
acres of impact to two wetlands. The applicant will mitigate for the impacts at a 2:1 ratio through
purchase of 0.53 acre of wetland from Bank No. 1649, also located in Hennepin County.
The application was noticed to the Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP)
on January 31, 2022. Comments were allowed until February 25, 2022. Members of the TEP
(LGU, Hennepin Conservation District, DNR, and BWSR) met on February 14, 2022 to discuss
the replacement plan. Comments generally included discussions of various trail options. The full
comments and responses from the applicant were summarized and provided to the TEP following
the completion of the comment period. Following review of the responses, the TEP was satisfied
with the replacement plan as proposed.
On behalf of the City of Medina, Local Government Unit for the Wetland Conservation Act, I
recommend that the City Council approves the wetland replacement plan for the Marsh Pointe
Preserve project. A Notice of Decision is attached for review.
Agenda Item #5E
BWSR TEP Findings & Recommendation Form - October 2019 1
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Technical Evaluation Panel Form
This form can be used to document TEP findings and recommendations related to WCA decisions,
determinations, enforcement and pre-application reviews.
Local Government Unit: City of Medina County: Hennepin
Landowner/Applicant: BPS Properties, LLC Agent/Representative(s): Ken Arndt, MNR
Project Name: Marsh Pointe Preserve Project No. (if any): WR-22-169
Project Location: 4250, 4268, 4290, and 4292 Arrowhead Road; Medina, MN
Purpose of TEP Findings/Recommendation - check all that apply and describe
☐ Pre-application review ☒ Application Review (related to WCA Decision)
☐ Local Government Road Wetland Replacement Program Eligibility ☐ WCA Determination Request
☐ Other (specify):
Describe: Replacement Plan Review
Meeting Type – check all that apply and specify dates as applicable
☐ In-Person Meeting(s), Date(s): ☒ Electronic Exchanges (email, skype, etc.): 2/14/22
☐ Onsite Review(s), Date(s): ☐ Other (specify):
Findings and Recommendations
Applicant provided an overview of the proposed project and replacement plan, including evaluated
alternatives and minimization measures. Project proposes to impact a total of 11,471 square feet of fill to
facilitate construction of a roadway and adjacent trail. The TEP provided the following comments, followed by
the applicant’s responses:
Comment: Could the applicant place the trail south of the roadway to reduce wetland impact as the wetland
on the south appears narrower, and change the crossing to a boardwalk?
Response: Applicant indicated that the trail system will connect to a trail and park system northeast of the
project area. The trail was designed to reduce the overall amount of road crossings. In addition, the City was
not supportive of shifting the trail to the south in this location and would still require a sidewalk adjacent to
the road.
Comment: The majority of the wetland impact is off-site to the north. Is there an approved delineation for
this area?
Response: The applicant indicated that based on desktop and onsite review the area north of the project was
assumed to be wetland.
Comment: Could the trail through the wetland be reduced to 5-feet (sidewalk width)?
Response: The applicant and City indicated that this would impact the City’s ability to maintain the trail.
Comment: The TEP requested that the applicant determine the amount of impact from the trail itself (vs. the
roadway) to more fully understand the trail’s impact.
BWSR TEP Findings & Recommendation Form - October 2019 2
Response: The impact from the roadway itself is XXXX sf. The impact from the trail is XXXX sf. Additionally, the
City would require a 5-foot sidewalk even if no trail were proposed, so ultimate impacts from the trail itself
are minor.
☐ Attachment(s) (specify):
DNR Protected Waters and Shoreland Protection Zone
Will the project/activity affect DNR public waters, DNR public waters wetlands or wetlands within the
shoreland protection zone? ☐ Yes ☒ No If yes, DNR representative is a member of the TEP.
Signatures
☒ LGU TEP Member: Alison Harwood Agree with Findings & Recommendations: ☐ Yes ☐ No
Signature: Date:
☒ SWCD TEP Member: Stacey Lijewski Agree with Findings & Recommendations: ☐ Yes ☐ No
Signature: Date:
☒ BWSR TEP Member: Ben Carlson Agree with Findings & Recommendations: ☐ Yes ☐ No
Signature: Date:
☒ DNR TEP Member: Wes Saunders-Pierce Agree with Findings & Recommendations: ☐ Yes ☐ No
Signature: Date:
BWSR NOD Form – November 5, 2019 1
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Notice of Decision
Local Government Unit: City of Medina County: Hennepin
Applicant Name: BPS Properties, LLC (George Stickney)
Applicant Representative: Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. (Ken Arndt)
Project Name: Marsh Pointe Preserve LGU Project No. (if any): WR-22-169 (19715)
Date Complete Application Received by LGU: January 13, 2022
Date of LGU Decision: March 1, 2022
Date this Notice was Sent:
WCA Decision Type - check all that apply
☐Wetland Boundary/Type ☐Sequencing ☒Replacement Plan ☐Bank Plan (not credit purchase)
☐No-Loss (8420.0415) ☐Exemption (8420.0420)
Part: ☐ A ☐ B ☐ C ☐ D ☐ E ☐ F ☐ G ☐ H Subpart: ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7 ☐ 8 ☐ 9
Replacement Plan Impacts (replacement plan decisions only)
Total WCA Wetland Impact Area: 0.26 acre permanent
Wetland Replacement Type: ☐ Project Specific Credits:
☒ Bank Credits: 0.53 acre
Bank Account Number(s): 1649
Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendations (attach if any)
☒ Approve ☐ Approve w/Conditions ☐ Deny ☐ No TEP Recommendation
LGU Decision
☒ Approved with Conditions (specify below)1 ☐ Approved1 ☐ Denied
List Conditions: Confirmation of withdrawal of wetland credits
Decision-Maker for this Application: ☐ Staff ☒ Governing Board/Council ☐ Other:
Decision is valid for: ☒ 5 years (default) ☐ Other (specify):
1 Wetland Replacement Plan approval is not valid until BWSR confirms the withdrawal of any required wetland bank credits. For project-
specific replacement a financial assurance per MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 and evidence that all required forms have been recorded on
the title of the property on which the replacement wetland is located must be provided to the LGU for the approval to be valid.
LGU Findings – Attach document(s) and/or insert narrative providing the basis for the LGU decision1.
☐ Attachment(s) (specify): Click here to enter text.
☒ Summary: BPS Properties, LLC. proposes to develop approximately 39 acres of land into 30 single-family
home lots and associated public roads, site amenities, and stormwater ponding. An existing entrance road
provides access to three private residences currently within the project area. To develop the site, the entrance
road must be upgraded (widened) to meet city roadway standards. A 10-foot trail is also proposed which will
connect to a park located in Outlot A, northeast of the project site. Widening of the road and construction of
the trail will result in 0.26 acres of impact to two wetlands. The applicant will mitigate for the impacts at a 2:1
ratio through purchase of 0.53 acre of wetland from Bank No. 1649, also located in Hennepin County.
1 Findings must consider any TEP recommendations.
Attached Project Documents
☒ Site Location Map ☐ Project Plan(s)/Descriptions/Reports (specify):
BWSR NOD Form – November 5, 2019 2
Appeals of LGU Decisions
If you wish to appeal this decision, you must provide a written request within 30 calendar days of the date you
received the notice. All appeals must be submitted to the Board of Water and Soil Resources Executive Director
along with a check payable to BWSR for $500 unless the LGU has adopted a local appeal process as identified
below. The check must be sent by mail and the written request to appeal can be submitted by mail or e-mail.
The appeal should include a copy of this notice, name and contact information of appellant(s) and their
representatives (if applicable), a statement clarifying the intent to appeal and supporting information as to why
the decision is in error. Send to:
Appeals & Regulatory Compliance Coordinator
Minnesota Board of Water & Soils Resources
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
travis.germundson@state.mn.us
Does the LGU have a local appeal process applicable to this decision?
☒ Yes1 ☐ No
1If yes, all appeals must first be considered via the local appeals process.
Local Appeals Submittal Requirements (LGU must describe how to appeal, submittal requirements, fees, etc. as applicable)
Send petition and $500 to: City of Medina, 2052 County Road 24, Medina, MN 55340
Notice Distribution (include name)
Required on all notices:
☒ SWCD TEP Member: Stacey Lijewski ☒ BWSR TEP Member: Ben Carlson ☐ LGU TEP Member (if different than LGU contact):
☒ DNR Representative: Melissa Collins, Wes Saunders-Pierce
☒ Watershed District or Watershed Mgmt. Org.: Elm Creek Watershed District
☒ Applicant (notice only): George Stickney ☒ Agent/Consultant (notice only): MNR Inc (Ken Arndt)
Optional or As Applicable:
☒ Corps of Engineers: ☐ BWSR Wetland Mitigation Coordinator (required for bank plan applications only):
☐ Members of the Public (notice only):
☒ Other: Lisa DeMars, City of Medina; Dusty Finke, City of Medina; Eric Trelstad
Signature: Date:
This notice and accompanying application materials may be sent electronically or by mail. The LGU may opt to send a
summary of the application to members of the public upon request per 8420.0255, Subp. 3.
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO HEIGHT OF ROOFTOP ELEMENTS
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. A new Section 825.22 is hereby added to the code of ordinances of the City of
Medina as follows:
Section 825.22. Height Limitations for Rooftop Elements. The building height limitation
established in each zoning district shall not apply to the objects and features described in this
section. The height of such objects and features shall be regulated as described herein.
Subd. 1. Rooftop Architectural Elements
(a) The following architectural elements and similar elements located on a structure shall be
subject to the regulations described in Subd. 1(b):
(i) Belfries
(ii) Spires or steeples
(iii) Weathervanes
(iv) Flags and flagpoles, if attached to a structure
(v) Cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space
(vi) Parapet walls
(vii) Other architectural elements
(b) No rooftop architectural element, as described in Subd. 1(a), shall extend above the greater
of the following:
(i) ten feet above the highest point of the roof on which it is located;
(ii) a horizontal line five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in
the respective zoning district in which it is located, as measured from the average
grade around the building; or
(iii) in non-residential districts, a vertical distance of 50 feet as measured from the
average grade around the building to the top of the architectural element.
Subd. 2. Rooftop Equipment
(a) The following rooftop equipment and similar equipment, when located on a structure,
shall be subject to the regulations described in Subd. 2(b):
(i) Chimneys or flues
(ii) Smokestacks
(iii) Cooling towers
(iv) Elevator penthouses
Agenda Item #5G
(v) Necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances and related screening apparatus
(vi) Poles, towers, and other structures for essential services
(vii) Television, radio, or telecommunication antennas, excluding antennae regulated by
Section 828.75 et. seq.
(b) No rooftop equipment, as described in Subd. 2(a), shall extend greater than twelve feet
above the highest point of the roof on which it is located, except by conditional use
permit that shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall establish, to the satisfaction of the City Council, that the
equipment is necessary for the function of the building and utilizing shorter
equipment is impractical or less advantageous.
(ii) The equipment shall not limit solar access to adjacent and/or neighboring
properties.
(iii) The city may require additional landscaping, screening and architectural
elements to minimize the impact of the taller mechanical elements.
(iv) The provisions of Section 825.39 are satisfied.
Subd. 3. Rooftop Solar Equipment shall be subject to the limitations described in Section
828.09.
SECTION II. Clause (f) of Section 815.05, Subd. 2 of the code of ordinances of the City of
Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as
follows:
(f) Flags. No flag on a flagpole shall exceed 40 square feet in area. No single property shall
fly more than three flags at one time. Flagpoles shall not exceed extend more than 40
feet in heightabove grade, except if attached to a structure, in which case they shall be
regulated by Section 825.22. If the total area of the flags exceeds 72 square feet, the
excess area shall be included in any Sign Area calculations for the property. Wall-
mounted flags shall be limited to one flag per property and shall not exceed 20 square
feet in area;
SECTION III. Section 825.19, Subd. 2 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is
amended by deleting the stricken language as follows:
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.
SECTION IV. Clauses (f) of Section 834.07, Subd. 1 of the code of ordinances of the City of
Medina regulating the Architectural Standards of the Uptown Hamel District is amended by
deleting the stricken language as follows:
(f) Height. New building heights shall not exceed three stories, except as
described herein. Along all street frontages and park property lines, building
heights exceeding two stories shall have the third story set back at least six feet
from the front line of the building, and the fourth story shall be set back 12 feet
from the front line of the building. Basement levels shall not be considered a
story, so long as more than 50 percent of the basement structure is below grade at
the average of all areas around the building. Total building height shall not exceed
50 feet., except structures such as belfries, chimneys, flues, monuments, cupolas
and domes which do not contain living space, are permitted, provided they are not
higher than 10 feet above the height of the building. In the case that the distance
from grade to the eave (or top corner of a flat roof) of a structure exceeds 30 feet,
additional fire suppression apparatuses may be required by the city. A fourth story
may be allowed if ten percent of residential units are dedicated affordable housing
units.
SECTION V. Clause (i) of Section 834.07, Subd. 1 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina
regulating the Architectural Standards of the Uptown Hamel District is amended by deleting the
stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
(i) Equipment. Equipment shall not be mounted on the roof unless it can be
demonstrated that there is no other reasonable alternative. If allowed, rRooftop
equipment shall be screened using the architectural elements and material from
the building, provided they are consistent with these design standards, and shall
otherwise adhere to all requirements contained in Section 825.22.
SECTION VI. Subclause (s)(iv) of Section 831.07, Subd. 1 of the code of ordinances of the City
of Medina regulating the Design and Development Standards for the Urban Commercial district is
amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
(s) Building Materials and Building Appearance –
(iv) Screening of Rooftop Equipment – All rooftop equipment shall be
designed to minimize undesirable views and forms when viewing rooftops
from higher elevations and abutting property. Equipment shall be screened
through the use of architectural elements and materials, which are
consistent with the design and architecture of the building. Wooden boards
or similar material constructed or assembled in a fence-type method or
design shall not be used to screen rooftop equipment. All requirements in
Section 825.22 shall also be adhered to. Screening elements should not
exceed 8 feet in height.
SECTION VII. Subclause (u)(v) of Section 833.07, Subd. 1 of the code of ordinances of the City
of Medina regulating the Design and Development Standards for the Industrial Park District is
amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows:
(v) Screening of Rooftop Equipment – All rooftop equipment shall be
designed to minimize undesirable views and forms when viewing rooftops
from higher elevations or abutting property. Equipment shall be screened
through the use of architectural elements and materials, which are
consistent with the design and architecture of the building. Wooden boards
or similar material constructed or assembled in a fence-type method or
design shall not be used to screen rooftop equipment. All requirements in
Section 825.22 shall also be adhered to. Rooftop equipment and screening
elements shall not exceed 8 feet in height.
SECTION VIII. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, Ordinance No. 677, the interim
ordinance adopted by the city council on November 3, 2021, establishing a moratorium on
certain rooftop elements, as that term is defined therein, shall be repealed and be of no further
force or effect.
SECTION IX. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this _____day of ______, 2022.
______________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
_________________________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of ______, 2022.
Resolution No. 2022-##
March 1, 2022
Member ________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-##
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 height of rooftop elements; 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
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
height of rooftop elements. The ordinance added limitations to the height of both architectural
rooftop elements and rooftop equipment, summarized as follows:
No rooftop architectural elements shall extend above the greater of the following:
(i) ten feet above the highest point of the roof on which it is located;
(ii) a horizontal line five feet greater than the maximum building height allowed in the
respective zoning district in which it is located, as measured to the average grade; or
(iii) in non-residential districts, a vertical distance of 50 feet as measured from the average
grade around the building to the top of the architectural element.
No rooftop equipment shall extend greater than twelve feet above the highest point of the roof on
which it is located, except by conditional use permit.
The ordinance also repeals the interim ordinance regulations and moratorium on certain rooftop
elements which were established by Ordinance No. 677.
The full text of the ordinance is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular
business hours.
Agenda Item #5H
Resolution No. 2022-## 2
DATE
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: March 1, 2022.
______________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ________
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
1
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: March 19, 2021
MEETING: April 6, 2021
SUBJECT: Weed Control Services Agreement
Weed Control is necessary on all City-owned sites in both the spring and fall.
When Public Works is occupied with jobs of higher priority, weed control is outsourced.
Jenco Property Maintenance has done a good job for us and has agreed to extend their
previous contract price.
Recommendation
It is the recommendation of Staff to extend the Weed Control Services Agreement with
Jenco Property Maintenance for an additional two years, 2022 and 2023, at the total
contract rate of $11,634.00.
Attachments
• Weed Control Services Agreement
• Exhibit A – Jenco Property Maintenance
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item #5I
1
WEED CONTROL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made this 1st day of March, 2022 by and between Jenco Property
Maintenance, P.O. Box 1015, Delano, MN 55328, a Minnesota corporation (the
“Contractor”) and the City of Medina, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”).
Recitals
1. The City has been authorized to enter into a contract for weed control services; and
2. The City has approved the contract for weed control services with the Contractor; and
3. The parties wish to define the scope of services and terms of their agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Contractor agree as follows:
Terms
1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES. The Contractor will perform weed control services in late spring
and early fall for the City on the properties listed in 3.0. Contractor will notify the Public
Works Director or designee when spraying will take place and may be asked to show
product analysis. “Weed control services” must be the same or comparable to the following
herbicide stipulations, after approval by the Public Works Director:
Weed control only* - All Properties (listed below in 3.0 COMPENSATION):
• Late Spring (5/15-6/15):
o 1.0-1.5 ounces per 1000/Sq Ft - low order 2.4D w/Surfactant (liquid)
• Early Fall (August-September):
o 1.0-1.5 ounces per 1000/Sq Ft - low order 2.4D w/Surfactant (liquid)
*Public Works will apply fertilization with crab grass treatment in early spring.
The City will also accept one add alternate per proposed contract submittal for environmentally
sensitive applications.
2.0. TERM. The term of this contract will be for 2022 and 2023.
3.0 COMPENSATION. The City shall compensate the Contractor for weed control services in
the spring at a rate of $5,817 and in the fall at a rate of $5,817, provided by the Contractor
on the City-owned sites listed below and shown on Exhibits A, B, and C, at the price quoted.
The City reserves the right to reduce or eliminate applications as it sees necessary and
agreed upon by both the Contractor and the City prior to the application date. Any non-
contract requests for weed control by the Public Works Director will be negotiated and
contracted separately. The City is exempt from sales tax.
2
1. Hamel Legion Park, 3200 Mill Drive
All greenspace – Hamel Legion Park (Exhibit B)
2. Morningside Park
3. Holy Name Park
4. Hunter Lions Park (Exhibit B)
5. Lakeshore Park
6. Maple Park
7. Rainwater Nature Area
8. Walnut Park/Drainage Area
9. City Hall
10. Public Works/Police Facility (Exhibit C)
11. Hamel Water Treatment Plant
12. Hamel Well House #1
13. Hamel Well House #2
14. Willow Drive Water Tower
15. Independence Beach Well House
16. Sioux Drive Roadway Strip
17. Evergreen Road Boulevard Strip
18. County Rd 101/Clydesdale Trl
19. German Liberal Cemetery
20. Park at Fields of Medina
21. Hamel Well House #8
* The City has the right to delete any of the above properties, and will notify the Contractor
before final contracts are signed.
4.0 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
4.01 Both the Contractor and the City acknowledge and agree that the Contractor
is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. Any employee or
subcontractor who may perform services for the Contractor in connection with this
Agreement is also not an employee of the City. The Contractor understands that the City
will not provide any benefits of any type in connection with this Agreement, including but
not limited to health or medical insurance, worker’s compensation insurance and
unemployment insurance, nor will the City withhold any state or federal taxes, including
income or payroll taxes, which may be payable by the Contractor.
4.02 The Contractor will supply and use its own equipment and tools to complete
the services under this Agreement.
4.03 The Contractor acknowledges that any general instruction it receives from
the City has no effect on its status as an independent contractor.
5.0 INSURANCE. The Contractor will maintain adequate insurance to protect itself and the
City from claims and liability for injury or damage to persons or property for all work performed by
the Contractor and its respective employees or agents under this Agreement. The Contractor shall
name the City as an additional insured under its commercial general liability policy in limits
3
acceptable to the City. Prior to performing any services under this Agreement, the Contractor shall
provide evidence to the City that acceptable insurance coverage is effective.
6.0 WORKER’S COMPENSATION.
6.01 The Contractor will comply with the provisions of the Minnesota worker’s
compensation statute as an independent contractor before commencing work under this
Agreement.
6.02 The Contractor will provide its own worker’s compensation insurance and will
provide evidence to the City of such coverage before commencing work under this
Agreement.
7.0 INDEMNIFICATION. The Contractor will hold harmless and indemnify the City, its
officers, employees, and agents, against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and
expenses (including defense, settlement, and reasonable attorney’s fees) for claims as a result of
bodily injury, loss of life, property damages and any other damages arising out of the Contractor’s
performance under this Agreement.
8.0 APPLICABLE LAW. The execution, interpretation, and performance of this Agreement
will, in all respects, be controlled and governed by the laws of Minnesota.
9.0 PRIVATIZATION CLAUSE. Contractor agrees to comply with the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act (the “Act”) and all other applicable state and federal laws relating to data privacy
or confidentiality. All data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained or disseminated by
the Contractor in performing its obligations is subject to the requirements of the Act, and the
Contractor must comply with the requirements of the Act as if the Contractor was a government
entity.
10.0 ASSIGNMENT. The Contractor may not assign this Agreement or procure the services of
another individual or company to provide services under this Agreement without first obtaining the
express written consent of the City.
11.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENTS. This Agreement constitutes the entire
Agreement between the parties, and no other agreement prior to or contemporaneous with this
Agreement shall be effective, except as expressly set forth or incorporated herein. Any purported
amendment to this Agreement is not effective unless it is in writing and executed by both parties.
12.0 NO WAIVER BY CITY. By entering into this Agreement, the City does not waive its
entitlement to any immunity under statute or common law.
13.0 TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time, for any reason.
If the contract is terminated early, the City will pay a prorated fee for the services performed to date
in that calendar year.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year
written above.
4
CITY OF MEDINA
By _____________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
By ______________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
JENCO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
By ______________________________
Mike Jensen, Owner
1
WEED CONTROL AND FERTILIZATION
SCOPE OF SERVICES & SUBMITTED PROPOSALS
Proposal Submitted By: Jenco Property Maintenance
Address: 4036 55th St SW Delano, MN 55328
Phone: 612-991-8419
E-mail: Mike@jencopm.com, office@jencopm.com
Please return proposals to Steve Scherer, Public Works Director, at the City of Medina by
4:30pm on Tuesday February 11th.
Proposed Terms
1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES. The Contractor will either perform weed control and fertilization
services or only weed control services for the City on the properties listed in 3.0
COMPENSATION. Contractor will notify the Public Works Director or designee when
spraying will take place and may be asked to show product analysis. “Weed control and
fertilization services” must be the same or comparable to the following fertilizer and herbicide
stipulations, after approval by the Public Works Director:
1.1 Fertilization and weed control - HAMEL LEGION PARK: FERT WILL BE DONE
UPON REQUEST FROM THE CITY AND WILL BE QUOTED SEPARATELY
AT THAT TIME.
• Early Spring applications: (4/15-5/15)
o 19-0-5 @ .75# of Nitrogen per 1000/Sq ft / 25-30% SCU or PCSCU
Minimum, w/.10 Dimension
• Late Spring applications: (5/15-6/15)
o .75# of Nitrogen/.20% Potassium per 1000/Sq Ft
o .1.0-1.5 ounces per 1000/Sq Ft - low order 2.4D w/Surfactant (liquid)
• Early Fall applications: (August-September)
o .75# of Nitrogen/.20% Potassium per 1000/Sq ft
o 1.0-ounces per 1000/Sq Ft - low order 2.4D w/Surfactant (liquid)
• Late Fall applications: (September-October)
o 25-0-5 @ .75# of Nitrogen per 1000/Sq ft - - 50% SCU (Broadleaf as
needed)
1.2 Fertilization and weed control- All Other Sites (listed below in 3.0
COMPENSATION): FERT WILL BE DONE UPON REQUEST FROM THE CITY
AND WILL BE QUOTED SEPARATELY AT THAT TIME.
1.3
• Late Spring (5/15-6/15):
o 1.0# Nitrogen/.25% Potassium per 1000/sq ft
o 1.0-1.5 ounces per 1000/Sq Ft - low order 2.4D w/Surfactant (liquid)
• Early Fall (August-September):
2
o 1.0# Nitrogen/.25% Potassium per 1000/sq ft
o 1.0-1.5 ounces per 1000/Sq Ft - low order 2.4D w/Surfactant (liquid)
The City will also accept one add alternate per proposed contract submittal for environmentally
sensitive applications.
1.3 Weed control only* - All Properties (listed below in 3.0 COMPENSATION):
• Late Spring (5/15-6/15):
o 1.0-1.5 ounces per 1000/Sq Ft - low order 2.4D w/Surfactant (liquid)
• Early Fall (August-September):
o 1.0-1.5 ounces per 1000/Sq Ft - low order 2.4D w/Surfactant (liquid)
*Public Works will apply fertilization with crab grass treatment in early spring.
The City will also accept one add alternate per proposed contract submittal for environmentally
sensitive applications.
2.0. TERM. The term of this contract will be for years 2022 and 2023.
3.0 COMPENSATION. The City shall compensate the Contractor for weed control and
fertilization services or weed control only services provided by the Contractor on the City-
owned sites listed below and shown on Exhibits A, B, and C, at the price quoted. Any non-
contract request for weed control or fertilization by the Public Works Director will be
negotiated and contracted separately. The City is exempt from sales tax.
3.1 Proposal for fertilization and weed control:
Early Spring Late Fall
A. Hamel Legion Park, 3200 Mill Drive
- All greenspace – Hamel Legion Park
(Exhibit B – Approx. 29 acres) Upon Request
Late Spring Early Fall
- All greenspace – Hamel Legion Park
(Exhibit B – Approx. 29 acres)
B. Morningside Park (1.5 Acres)
C. Holy Name Park (1.5 Acres)
D. Hunter Lions Park (Exhibit B) (3.5 Acres)
E. Lakeshore Park (.62 Acres)
F. Maple Park (2.5 Acres)
G. Rainwater Nature Area (.65 Acres
H. Walnut Park/Drainage Area (.48 Acres)
H. City Hall (3 Acres)
I. Public Works/Police Facility (Exhibit C) (1.75 Acres)
I. Hamel Water Treatment Plant ((.51 Acres)
J. Hamel Well House #1 (.6 Acres)
K. Hamel Well House #2 (.1 Acres)
L. Willow Drive Water Tower (.60 Acres)
3
M. Independence Beach Well House (.50 Acres)
N. Sioux Drive Roadway Strip (.10 Acres)
O. Evergreen Road Boulevard Strip (.10 Acres)
P. County Rd 101/Clydesdale Trl (.7 Acres)
Q. German Liberal Cemetery (.7 Acres)
R. Hamel Well House #8 (.1 Acres)
S. Park at Fields of Medina (6.1 acres)
TOTAL PER YEAR (including sales tax): (Approximately 54.61 sprayable acres)
3.2 Proposal for Weed Control only:
Late Spring Early Fall
A. Hamel Legion Park, 3200 Mill Drive
- All greenspace – Hamel Legion Park
(Exhibit B – Approx. 29 acres) $ 2900.00 $ 2900.00
B. Morningside Park (1.5 Acres) $ 165.00 $ 165.00
C. Holy Name Park (1.5 Acres) $ 165.00 $ 165.00
D. Hunter Lions Park (Exhibit B) (3.5 Acres) $ 385.00 $ 385.00
E. Lakeshore Park (.62 Acres) $ 66.00 $ 66.00
F. Maple Park (2.5 Acres) $ 275.00 $ 275.00
G. Rainwater Nature Area (.65 Acres) $ 68.00 $ 68.00
H. Walnut Park/Drainage Area (.48 Acres) $ 55.00 $ 55.00
H. City Hall (3 Acres) $ 330.00 $ 330.00
I. Public Works/Police Facility (Exhibit C) (1.75 Acres) $ 192.00 $ 192.00
I. Hamel Water Treatment Plant (.51 Acres) $ 55.00 $ 55.00
J. Hamel Well House #1 (.6 Acres) $ 66.00 $ 66.00
K. Hamel Well House #2 (.1 Acres) $ 40.00 $ 40.00
L. Willow Drive Water Tower (.60 Acres) $ 66.00 $ 66.00
M. Independence Beach Well House (.50 Acres) $ 55.00 $ 55.00
N. Sioux Drive Roadway Strip (.10 Acres) $ 40.00 $ 40.00
O. Evergreen Road Boulevard Strip (.10 Acres) $ 40.00 $ 40.00
P. County Rd 101/Clydesdale Trl (.7 Acres) $ 77.00 $ 77.00
Q. German Liberal Cemetery (.7 Acres) $ 77.00 $ 77.00
R. Hamel Well House #8 (.1 Acres) $ 40.00 $ 40.00
S. Park at Fields of Medina (6.1 acres) $ 660.00 $ 660.00
TOTAL PER YEAR (including sales tax): (Approximately 54.61 sprayable acres)
$ 5,817.00 $ 5,817.00
* The City has the right to delete any of the above properties and will notify the Contractor
before final contract is signed.
4.0 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Resolution No. 2022-
March 1, 2022
Member ____________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
RESOLUTION APPOINTING PARK COMMISSIONER WILL
GUNTER
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City is required to appoint City representatives to City commissions as
well as area jurisdictions, agencies, authorities and commissions as indicated by governing
documents, State statute, or City codes.
WHEREAS, the City Council intends to appoint Will Gunter to the Park Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Medina
hereby appoints Will Gunter to the Park Commission.
Dated: March 1, 2022.
______________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Caitlyn Walker, 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.
Agenda Item #5J
Uptown Hamel Page 1 of 2 March 1, 2022
Economic Development RFP City Council Meeting
+
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Colette Baumgardner, Planning Intern
Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: February 23, 2022
MEETING: March 1, 2022 - City Council
SUBJECT: Uptown Hamel Economic Development RFP
Background
In the Fall of 2021, the City of Medina was awarded a grant from Hennepin County through their
Housing & Economic Development Corridor Planning program. The grant is for a maximum of
$25,000 from Hennepin County and requires at least a 25% match (minimum of $6250 if the full
grant is utilized) from the City. The grant was intended to be used to fund a request for
proposals (RFP) for economic development consulting services.
The intent of the project is to receive guidance from a firm with successful experience in
economic development to create an actionable plan for how the City and property owners can
encourage and support development. The plan will be based on current and projected market
conditions, previous community visioning sessions, conversations with business and property
owners, and existing development.
Summary of RFP
The RFP consists of two main research components: market analysis and redevelopment
feasibility analysis/action plan. The market analysis will identify the current and projected
demand for goods and services in Uptown Hamel with a specific focus on food and beverage
businesses. The redevelopment feasibility analysis/action plan will identify barriers to
developing to the current market potential and opportunities to be leveraged. The feasibility
analysis will pay special attention to any potential gaps between the current market potential and
the development allowed in the city code.
These two components will then be used to create an action plan for the City on how to support
improvements, expansions, and new development in Uptown Hamel.
The proposed RFP has been discussed among the Uptown Hamel property owner’s group, and
they reached an informal consensus supporting the future work. At the time of their review, the
RFP included another section requesting the creation of development design standards. However,
upon further discussion with Hennepin County, they advised that design standards would be out
of scope for this RFP. Staff also believes that the results of this analysis may very well inform
creation of design standards, but such work would likely be provided by a different type of
professional.
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item #5K
Uptown Hamel Page 2 of 2 March 1, 2022
Economic Development RFP City Council Meeting
Given the timeframe for solicitation and review, the services on the proposed RFP would begin
in mid-May 2022. The grant funding from Hennepin County must be spent by the end of 2022.
Recommended Action
Move to approve the Request for Proposal for economic development in Uptown Hamel.
Attachment
1. Proposed Economic Development Request for Proposal
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Uptown Hamel Market Analysis and
Redevelopment Feasibility Study
Submission Deadline: April 1, 2022
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
763-473-4643
2
I. Introduction
The City of Medina, in partnership with Hennepin County Housing and Economic Development,
invites you to respond to this request for proposals (“RFP”) for economic development consulting
services focused in the Uptown Hamel area of the City of Medina.
Redevelopment and improvement in Uptown Hamel has been a priority in the City’s planning over
the past 15 years. Significant investments have been made in street, utility, sidewalk, and lighting
improvements using with Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and property owner assessments.
However even with these improvements, redevelopment in Uptown Hamel has been limited. The
purpose of this contract is to create an actionable plan of how the City can best support
improvements and expansions in Uptown Hamel. The anticipated award of the contract is May 3.
II. Background
The Hamel Road corridor through Uptown Hamel is Medina’s “downtown” area. The Uptown
Hamel area is a half mile stretch of Hamel Road between the City’s eastern border and its
Rainwater Nature Area, just east of Hunter Drive (shown in Attachment 1). Uptown Hamel’s
western half currently includes predominantly single-family homes, and its eastern half includes a
mix of businesses and institutional uses including antique shops, small offices, a bar, a bank, the
Hamel Fire Department, and a postal office.
Uptown Hamel is bordered to the south by Hamel Legion Park - the City’s primary community
park. Hamel Legion Park includes a community building and regularly hosts youth baseball
programs and tournaments at its ballfields. Significant residential development has occurred to
the south of Uptown Hamel in both Medina and Plymouth in the past decade. Approximately 340
single family and townhome units have been developed within ¼ mile of the corridor, with
estimated market values between $400,000 and $700,000. Down the bluff to the north, a
commercial development has occurred along State Highway 55. A credit union, restaurant, hair
salon/boutique, dance studio, and an Aldi grocery store have opened there between 2008 and
2015.
The City of Medina has a commitment to protecting its natural resources and rural character,
which means opportunities for commercial development in the City is limited. As the area guided
towards creating a pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use town center, Uptown Hamel is a unique
opportunity in the City. The area also contains some of the highest residential densities allowed in
the City with allowance up to 20 units per acre.
During the latest comprehensive plan process, residents indicated they would like to see Uptown
Hamel revitalized, while maintaining its unique character. The City has continued public
engagement efforts since and found there is a sustained desire for more restaurants, coffee
shops, other gathering spots, and more pedestrian-friendly infrastructure in the area.
Revitalization and redevelopment of Uptown Hamel is a high priority for Medina’s future
economic development efforts. A market study and feasibility report complete with actionable
next steps will be essential as a catalyst for this work.
3
III. Project Goals
The purpose of this RFP is to create an action plan that the City and property owners will use to
guide revitalization and redevelopment in Uptown Hamel.
Objectives include:
Conduct a market study analyzing the current conditions and projected demand for
different uses in Uptown Hamel.
Complete a redevelopment feasibility analysis considering potential commercial/retail,
professional office, mixed use and housing development.
Identify economic constraints and other development barriers.
Provide recommendations to address those barriers to realize redevelopment and infill
opportunities desired by community.
IV. Scope of Services
The following list summarizes the tasks to be included as part of this work. City staff welcome
suggestions in the proposal for additional elements that could enhance the process and product.
The City has received a Corridor Planning grant from Hennepin County Housing and Economic
Development of up $25,000 to support the project. The grant requires a minimum match of 25%
from the City.
Demographic and Market Analysis
Define trade area with demographic data.
Analysis of current economic climate of Uptown Hamel and the defined trade area.
Identify existing supply and projected demand for different uses and business types. Use
types should include commercial, retail, food & beverage, professional office, and
housing. Specific attention should be provided for the potential for food and beverage
establishments.
Deliverable: Market study report summarizing the above. City staff to provide input and
assistance as needed. Staff to review and approve prior to report finalization.
Redevelopment Feasibility Analysis and Action Plan
Identify opportunities which may encourage investment in Uptown Hamel and
strategies/actions to take advantage of such opportunities.
Identify challenges which may discourage investment in the area and strategies/actions to
address the barriers identified.
Use variety of data collection methods such as property owner interviews/roundtable,
developer interviews/roundtable, literature review, or others.
Consider how the physical surroundings, built form, and existing regulatory requirements
impact its feasibility for redevelopment and improvements, including traffic, building
height and massing, parking and pedestrian connectivity.
4
Provide a projection of future development potential that includes square footage of
different land use types that could be supported by the market, including residential as
well as commercial space.
Provide proof of concept drawings exhibiting potential mass and scale of development
which could be supported by market potential.
Deliverable 1: A feasibility report summarizing the above. City staff to provide input and
assistance as needed. Staff to review and approve prior to report finalization.
Deliverable 2: An action plan for the City and property owners to encourage and support
improvements, expansions, and new construction, incorporating elements from the market
analysis and feasibility report. City staff to provide input and assistance as needed. Staff to review
and approve prior to report finalization.
V. Requirements and Proposal
A. Cover Letter (1 page)
B. Project Proposal (4 pages maximum)
1. Provide a detailed description of your approach to the scope of work. Include
details on your data collection approach, expected number of site visits, and
how you will ensure the work will be specific to Uptown Hamel.
2. Communicate your understanding of the scope of work. Include any key
issues expected to be associated with performing the required consulting
services.
C. Timeline (4 pages maximum for items C – G)
1. Provide a proposed schedule. Identify key milestones and the number of
hours required for each task.
D. City Resources
1. List the resources or other assistance that you expect are required from the
City in order to complete each task in the scope of services.
E. Proposed Project Team Members and Experience
1. Identify the lead consultant and other team members that will be providing
service to this project, including their percentage of time dedicated to the
project.
2. Provide a brief biographical history and project experience for each team
member. Include most recent economic development services provided to
similar government entities.
3. Provide a list of current and anticipated workload and an indication of how
you can provide the service demands from Medina.
5
F. Client References
1. Furnish at least three client references from relevant services provided in the
last five years.
2. Provide the references name, title, and contact phone number.
G. Project Fee
1. Your fee shall include all home/office expenses, including any personnel costs
and incidental expenses that would be incurred during the services provided to
Medina.
2. Your fee should include a summary of projected retainer, hourly rates or
combination thereof.
H. Additional Information (1 page)
1. Include other items that you feel the City should review or consider during their
review of your firm’s qualifications.
VI. Selection Criteria
Evaluation of proposals will be based on the following criteria:
Submittal Review
• Approach and scope of services
• Relevant qualifications of firm(s) and personnel
• Demonstrated experience and success in similar economic development activities
• Estimated fees and reimbursables
Top ranking firms may be invited to interview before the City review team between April 18 and
April 27. The review team will recommend their choice to the City Council for approval of a
contract.
VII. Project Schedule and Deliverables
Solicitation of Request for Proposals: March 7, 2022 – April 1, 2022
Deadline for RFP Submittals: April 1, 2022
Review of Proposals and Interviews of Firms: April 1, 2022 – April 22, 2022
Selection of Consulting Firm and Award of Contract: April 22, 2022 – May 3, 2022
Services Begin: May 9, 2022
6
VIII. Proposal Submittal
Interested consulting firms should submit their proposal via email to Dusty Finke at
dusty.finke@medinamn.gov by April 1, 2022, with subject line “Uptown Hamel RFP Application:
[insert business name].”
All questions shall be directed to Planning Director Dusty Finke at 763-473-8846 or via e-mail at
dusty.finke@medinamn.gov
Other Considerations
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals submitted and parts of any and all
proposals, and to waive all irregularities and technicalities.
The selected firm will be required to enter into a contract with the City prior to commencing
work. The content of this RFP and the proposal will be incorporated said contract.
There shall be no reimbursement for any expenses with responding to this Request for Proposal.
Responses to this request for proposals will become public information in accordance with the
Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.
Attachment 1: Uptown Hamel Project Area
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 1 of 3 March 1, 2022
PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: February 24, 2022
MEETING: March 1, 2022 City Council
SUBJECT: Medina Ventures – Medina Park and Boardwalk – PUD Concept Plan
1472 Highway 55 (PID 0211823330003)
Background
The City Council reviewed a PUD Concept Plan at the February
2, 2022 meeting from Medina Ventures, LLC for the Meander
Park and Boardwalk development. The full report from this
review is available upon request and an excerpt from the meeting
minutes is attached for reference.
After the review was completed, Joe Cavanaugh, whose family
owns the large commercial-guided property to the east, raised
concerns related to access and lack of connectivity related to the
concept plan. Mr. Cavanaugh also referenced meeting minutes from the City Council’s
discussion of the Tamarack Drive study in 2020 in which Council members at the time had stated
a preference for a frontage road extending through the Meander Park and Boardwalk site and
connecting. This information was not provided for the public hearing or prior to City Council
review.
Tamarack Drive Study Information
As discussed at the February 2 meeting, the City completed a visioning study during the summer
of 2020 for future Tamarack Drive between Meander Road and Hamel Road, including a
signalized intersection at Highway 55. The report from this study is attached.
Two potential street concepts which were discussed during review of the Study. These concepts
were created to show different alternatives for design of Tamarack Drive and potential
circulation through adjoining future commercial development. These concepts are in Appendix
A of the Tamarack Drive study (page 16).
• “Concept A” showed Tamarack Drive as a standard roadway and showed a frontage road
connecting future Tamarack Drive to Meander Road further west, through the Meander
Park and Boardwalk site.
• “Concept B” showed Tamarack as a parkway design and showed a frontage road
connecting with Meander Road further east, at the intersection of Cavanaugh Drive (the
western access to Fields of Medina neighborhood).
MEMORANDUM
Proposed Uses: Event Venue
Restaurant
Day Care
9,200 s.f. retail
3-unit townhome
Gross Site Area: 18 acres
Net Site Area: 4.9 acre commercial
1.5 acre residential
Agenda Item #8A
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 2 of 3 March 1, 2022
PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
Mr. Cavanaugh presented minutes from the discussion on the Tamarack Drive study in which the
Council expressed a preference for Concept A. The minutes from the three meetings in 2020 are
attached for reference. Staff does not believe the final report on the Tamarack Drive study
explicitly chose between Concept A and Concept B. In fact, the final report includes both
concepts for context. The study acknowledges that access and circulation through the
commercial development would need to be determined based upon site layout and other factors.
It is worth noting that at their initial discussion of the study on May 19, 2020, the City Council
did state a preference for Concept A. Comments included:
• Preference for standard roadway for Tamarack Drive shown in Concept A rather than
“parkway” shown in Concept B
• Preference for not aligning access point with Fields of Medina (headlights, encourages
traffic into commercial development west of residential)
The Council passed a motion (3-2 vote) at the first meeting to “proceed with Concept #A as the
preferred option, including a full access with signal at Highway 55.”
The study was discussed at two more City Council meetings where the concept was refined
through continued discussion with adjoining property owners and the City Council over the
course of three months. Ultimately, the final report included a “Conceptual Roadway
Geometrics and Alignments” which showed two potential accesses west of Tamarack Drive and
a note that “one access to extend through future development to Meander Road.” The specific
location on Meander Road is not shown, and both Concept A and Concept B are attached to the
report as an exhibit. Although the final report did not specify between the concepts, the
Council’s early discussions were generally more supportive of Concept A.
The past discussions are certainly helpful information for the City Council to consider, but staff
believes it is certainly reasonable for the Council to reexamine the information and consider new
or changes in circumstances as development occurs.
Meander Park and Boardwalk Concept Plan - Transportation
The applicant proposes one access for the commercial property to Meander Road along the west
of the project. The City Engineer has provided preliminary traffic comments which are attached.
The February 2 review referenced the Tamarack Drive study completed during the summer of
2020. The vision anticipated a signalized intersection at Highway 55 and Tamarack Drive which
would serve as the primary access for commercial development in the area, including the subject
site. The study included a broader study of the future circulation for development property east
and west of Tamarack Drive as well. The conceptual layout approved at the end of the study
calls for connection from Meander Road to Tamarack Drive. This connection could be either a
public roadway or a private access, depending on the layout of the development to the west of
Tamarack Drive but was intended to provide improved connectivity for all uses to Tamarack
Drive (and Highway 55).
The study included the “commercial concepts” A and B which showed two potential alternatives
for connectivity through the commercial development west of Tamarack Drive and south of
Meander Road. Both concepts showed connectivity between Tamarack Drive and Meander
Road. Concept A showed the connection extending further west, through the Meander Park and
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 3 of 3 March 1, 2022
PUD Concept Plan City Council Meeting
Boardwalk site. Concept B showed the connection extending the intersection of Cavanaugh
Drive, the entrance to Fields of Medina West.
Staff recommended during review that the Meander Park and Boardwalk layout be updated to
provide a primary route through the site from Meander Road to the eastern property line. This
would provide better access for the uses on the east side of the Meander Park and Boardwalk
project and leave the opportunity for connectivity to the east as well. Staff had requested
feedback on whether the City Council believed it was necessary to require right-of-way for a
public street to serve this purpose, or if it could be served through a private drive aisle with
limited interference by parking spaces.
The applicant indicated that dedicating land necessary for a frontage road would severely impact
the viability of the proposed development of the site.
City Council Feedback Requested
As noted above and discussed on February 2, staff believes improved connectivity through the
Meander Park and Boardwalk site is important. This would provide easier access for the uses on
the east side of the project to Meander and from the uses on the west side of the site to future
Tamarack.
If the City prefers a public street similar to “Concept A”, the connection through the Meander
Park and Boardwalk site would likely need to occupy a larger footprint. Updating the parking lot
to accommodate a private drive through the site would occupy less space than a public street, but
still require some additional space within the current layout.
The Council can accept additional feedback on this matter from the applicant and the property
owner to the east and provide additional feedback on the concept plan, if any, at the March 1
meeting.
Attachments
1. Excerpt from 2/2/2022 City Council minutes
2. Tamarack Drive visioning study report [excludes Appendix B (Full Traffic Analysis) and
Appendix E (Agency minutes) – available upon request]
3. Excerpt from 5/19/2020 City Council minutes
4. Excerpt from 7/21/2020 City Council minutes
5. Excerpt from 8/18/2020 City Council minutes
6. Applicant narrative
7. Concept Plan
8. Conceptual architectural information
1
Dusty Finke
From:Scott Johnson
Sent:Tuesday, February 15, 2022 5:12 PM
To:Kathleen Martin; Dino Deslauriers; Todd Albers; Robin Reid; Joseph Cavanaugh
Cc:Dusty Finke
Subject:Fwd: Tamarack Drive/Meander Road access concepts
Attachments:07-21-2020Minutes.pdf; 08-18-2020Minutes.pdf; 05-19-2020Minutes.pdf; 7A - Tamarack Corridor
Study Report 081320 - Final Draft Report & Exhibits - Reduced.pdf; TamarackConceptAlignment.pdf;
concept plans.pdf
Mayor and Council Members,
Planning Director Dusty Finke has put together the following information regarding Tamarack Drive/Meander
Road. Council Members requested the background information. Please let staff know if you have questions regarding
this information.
Scott
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dusty Finke <dusty.finke@medinamn.gov>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 4:45:59 PM CST
To: Scott Johnson <scott.johnson@medinamn.gov>
Subject: Tamarack Drive/Meander Road access concepts
Hi Scott,
Here is a summary of my review of the Tamarack Drive study and council minutes:
At the February 2 meeting, the Council reviewed a PUD Concept Plan for the Meander Park and
Boardwalk development. During discussion, the Council discussed the Tamarack Drive study completed
in 2020 and two potential street concepts which were discussed during review of the Study. These
concepts were created to show different alternatives for design of Tamarack Drive and potential
circulation through adjoining future commercial development. These concepts are attached as
“concepts.pdf”
* “Concept A” showed Tamarack Drive as a standard roadway and showed a frontage road connecting
future Tamarack Drive to Meander Road further west, through the Meander Park and Boardwalk site.
* “Concept B” showed Tamarack as a parkway design and showed a frontage road connecting with
Meander Road further east, at the intersection of Cavanaugh Drive (the western access to Fields of
Medina neighborhood).
During review of the Meander Park and Boardwalk concept, the Council discussed the interplay between
the proposed development and the two concepts. City staff commented on the importance of good
connectivity from the proposed access on the western edge of the development through the site and to
the east property line even if the frontage road did not extend through the site. The developer
expressed concerns with the impact of a frontage road through the site on the ability to develop the
2
site.
Following the City’s formal review of the concept plan, Joe Cavanaugh, whose family owns property east
of the subject site, met with staff and contacted City Council members related to the concept plan and
the Tamarack Drive study. Mr. Cavanaugh presented information which he thought was important for
the Council to discuss when considering the development and access/circulation. Unfortunately, this
information was not provided during the hearing or review process. Generally, Mr. Cavanaugh states
that the City Council had approved of “Concept A” during review of the Tamarack Drive study and now
urges the City to secure that access through the Meander Park and Boardwalk site.
Multiple City Council members requested that staff provide more detail on the subject. The following
summary and attached documents are intended to summarize the information.
Staff believes access and connectivity to and through the site are important subjects for both the
current development application and also for the transportation planning for the City. If City Council
members or applicant believe the subject warrants further discussion within the context of the concept
plan, staff would suggest the discussion be scheduled to continue publicly at the March 1 meeting.
Staff reviewed the Tamarack Drive study final report and City Council minutes from three meetings the
study was discussed based upon the information presented by Mr. Cavanaugh. This information is
attached.
Staff does not believe the final report on the Tamarack Drive study explicitly chose between Concept A
and Concept B. In fact, the final report includes both concepts for context. The study acknowledges
that access and circulation through the commercial development would need to be determined based
upon site layout and other factors.
It is worth noting that at their initial discussion of the study on May 19, 2020, the City Council did state a
preference for Concept A. Comments included:
1. Preference for standard roadway for Tamarack Drive shown in Concept A rather than “parkway”
shown in Concept B
2. Preference for not aligning access point with Fields of Medina (headlights, encourages traffic into
commercial development west of residential
The Council passed a motion (3‐2 vote) at the first meeting to “proceed with Concept #A as the
preferred option, including a full access with signal at Highway 55.”
The study was discussed at two more City Council meetings where the concept was refined through
continued discussion with adjoining property owners and the City Council over the course of three
months. Ultimately, the final report included a “Conceptual Roadway Geometrics and Alignments”
which showed two potential accesses west of Tamarack Drive and a note that “one access to extend
through future development to Meander Road.” The specific location on Meander Road is not shown,
and both Concept A and Concept B are attached to the report as an exhibit. Although the final report
did not specific between the concepts, the Council’s early discussions were generally more supportive of
Concept A.
The past discussions are certainly helpful information for the City Council to consider, but staff believes
it is certainly reasonable for the Council to reexamine the information and consider new or changes
circumstances as development occurs. As noted above, if Councilmembers want to have additional
discussions, it can request the discussion be added to the March 1 agenda.
7
0
1
X
E
N
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
|
S
U
I
T
E
3
0
0
|
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
,
M
N
|
5
5
4
1
6
|
7
6
3
.
5
4
1
.
4
8
0
0
|
W
S
B
E
N
G
.
C
O
M
Final Report Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jim Stremel, PE, City Engineer
Date: August 13, 2020
Re: Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study
Background
The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan anticipates residential, institutional, and commercial growth
within the Tamarack Drive corridor. The study corridor is located from Hamel Road to the south
up to Meander Road to the north. There has been development interest on the north side of
Trunk Highway (TH) 55 within the medium density parcels, and on the south side of TH 55 where
the Wayzata School District recently purchased property. Although no specific plans are
underway for construction of a school on this site, staff believes it is appropriate to anticipate the
potential after 2025, when the property is staged for development. It is anticipated that the
development along the corridor will likely be completed by multiple parties at different times.
The Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study was initiated to develop a cohesive plan guiding the
transportation needs, right-of-way, public utilities, access points/spacing, pedestrian mobility, and
other parameters within the Tamarack Drive corridor. The Study will provide a guide to the City
for the following as development occurs:
1. Requiring right-of-way to allow construction of the proposed improvements.
2. Require construction of portions of the roadway as part of the required improvements by
adjacent developments.
3. Provide a framework for securing financial contributions for certain portions of the
roadway which benefit all of the adjacent developments and may not be able to be
constructed until a future time.
Information and materials used in the preparation of this report were collected from the City of
Medina, Hennepin County, MnDOT, and other impacted agencies. This data included:
· Existing and historic traffic volume data
· Updated crash history
· Proposed and anticipated development plans
· Wayzata School master site plans
· As built roadway and utility plans
· Survey/topographic data previously obtained or readily available
· Wetland and floodplain locations from available GIS or other mapping
· Property owner and stakeholder engagement data
Existing Conditions
Roadway
Currently, there is no connection between TH 55 and Meander Road or between TH 55 and
Hamel Road. A prescriptive easement does exist for the current unmaintained roadway south of
TH 55, but not to the north. The proposed roadway corridor is a combination of agricultural land,
floodplains, and wetlands. There is no existing paved (improved) roadway or City utilities within
the proposed corridor. There is an access off of TH 55 in both the north and south directions
including eastbound and westbound turn lanes. Just to the south of TH 55, CP Railroad owns and
operates a single track and a narrow crossing exists.
City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum
August 13, 2020
Page 2
TH 55 is an east/west four-lane facility with two lanes in each direction and left and right turn
lanes at Arrowhead Drive, future Tamarack Drive and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116). West of
Arrowhead Drive the roadway transitions to a two-lane facility. TH 55 at the future Tamarack
Drive intersection currently has eastbound and westbound left and right turn lanes. TH 55 has a
functional classification of a Principal Arterial. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 55 MPH.
Utilities
There is a 16-inch trunk watermain located adjacent to TH 55. From Tamarack Drive, the
watermain runs on the north side of TH 55 west and on the south side to the east. An existing 24-
inch trunk sewer runs parallel along the south side of TH 55 in a drainage and utility easement
adjacent to the existing road right-of-way. At the westerly property line of the commercial property
to the west of Tamarack Drive, a sewer main runs north/south connecting to the trunk main and to
the residential neighborhood to the north. A storm sewer culvert runs underneath TH 55 at the
intersection with Tamarack Drive connecting the low-lying wetland areas on each side of the
highway. No other storm sewer exists at this location.
Traffic Forecasting Analysis (Summary)
Existing peak hour turning movement and daily traffic volumes were developed based on existing
data available for the area. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts are based on the current City
of Medina, Hennepin County, and MnDOT State Aid count data.
Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed site will occur between existing conditions and any
given future year due to other development within the region. This background growth must be
accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts
in the area, traffic has stayed somewhat constant or dropped in the past few years. Based on this
review, a factor of 1.1 (0.5%/year) over a 20-year period was used to project traffic from existing
conditions to the 2040 analysis year.
The trip generation used to estimate the proposed area traffic is based on rates for other similar
land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual, 10th Edition. The future area development traffic was determined based on the City’s
2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use and adjacent development Traffic Studies. The 2040 Future
Land Use Plan shows that the area will include: commercial, medium density residential, mixed
residential, and rural residential uses north of TH 55 and a future Wayzata School District use
south of TH 55. The size of the land use estimates was based on available land in the area
assuming typical uses from similar sites and density calculations outlined in the City’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
Traffic forecasts were prepared for the twenty-year design (year 2040) condition, representing the
full development of the area. The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual
background traffic growth and anticipated area development site traffic generation to determine
the 2040 Build traffic conditions.
The estimated existing and projected 2040 traffic volumes are shown below in Table 1.
Table 1: Existing and Projected ADT Traffic Volumes
Location Existing ADT Projected 2040 ADT
Tamarack Drive south of Meander Road NA 1,750
Tamarack Drive north of TH 55 NA 8,300
Tamarack Drive south of TH 55 NA 3,300
Tamarack Drive north of Hamel Road NA 1,000
TH 55 west of Arrowhead Drive 16,600 22,300
City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum
August 13, 2020
Page 3
Location Existing ADT Projected 2040 ADT
TH 55 west of future Tamarack Drive 18,800 24,800
TH 55 west of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) 18,800 27,200
TH 55 east of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) 25,000 33,500
Meander Road east of Arrowhead Drive 400 1,200
Meander Road west of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) 900 2,200
Arrowhead Drive north of Meander Road 1,050 7,100
Arrowhead Drive south of TH 55 2,200 2,500
Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) north of Meander Road 9,600 12,200
Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) north of TH 55 9,600 11,000
Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) south of TH 55 2,200 2,600
Hamel Road east of Arrowhead Drive 1,200 1,400
Hamel Road west of Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) 1,600 2,100
Traffic Operations Analysis & TH 55 Signal Review (Summary)
The traffic operations analysis was completed for the Tamarack Drive area, including the
intersections of:
· TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive
· TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116)
· Meander Road at Arrowhead Drive
· Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116)
· Hamel Road (CSAH 115) at Arrowhead Drive (CSAH 118)
· Hamel Road (CSAH 115) at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116)
· Tamarack Road at Meander Road (projected only)
· Tamarack Road at Development Access (projected only)
· Tamarack Road at TH 55 (projected only)
· Tamarack Road at Hamel Road (projected only)
Tamarack Drive has been identified by the City of Medina as a future Collector roadway between
Meander Road and Hamel Road that would provide access to the development area north and
south of TH 55. The access of Tamarack Drive at TH 55 is included in the MnDOT Access
Management Guidelines as a future full movement signalized intersection. In addition, left and
right turn lanes are currently provided for both eastbound and westbound TH 55 at the future
Tamarack Drive intersection.
The City has been guiding development of the areas adjacent to TH 55 based on the current City
2040 Comprehensive plan assuming a full movement signalized access on TH 55 at Tamarack
Drive. However, in order to verify the need for this access, two roadway access alternatives were
included as part of this analysis including:
1. A full movement signalized intersection with northbound and southbound left and right
turn lanes; and
2. A partial access, right-in/right-out stop-controlled intersection with northbound and
southbound right turn lanes.
The traffic analysis evaluated the operations for the existing and projected 2040 conditions at the
impacted area intersections with the proposed Tamarack Drive corridor improvements using
Synchro/SimTraffic software for the traffic signal and stop sign control intersections and RODEL
software for the roundabout controlled intersections. The capacity and LOS analysis was
completed for the AM and PM peak hours assuming the two Tamarack Drive Improvement
City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum
August 13, 2020
Page 4
access alternatives. The following table shows the level of service comparison of the existing and
2040 build conditions with both access alternatives at TH 55 considered.
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Intersection
Existing Projected 2040 Full
Access
Projected 2040
Right-in/Right-out
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Si
g
n
a
l
TH 55 at
Arrowhead Dr D (E) C (E) E (F) D (E) F (F) E (F)
Si
g
n
a
l
TH 55 at
Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) E (F) D (E) F (F) F (F) F (F) F (F)
Th
r
u
-
St
o
p
Meander Rd at
Arrowhead Dr A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) A (B) A (B)
Th
r
u
-
St
o
p
Meander Rd at
Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (F) A (C) F (F) A (F) F (F) C (F)
Th
r
u
-
St
o
p
Hamel Rd (CSAH 115 at
Arrowhead Dr A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A)
Th
r
u
-
St
o
p
Hamel Rd (CSAH 115) at
Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) A (A) A (A) A (B) A (A) A (B) A (B)
Th
r
u
-
St
o
p
Meander Rd at
Development Access NA NA A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A)
Th
r
u
-
St
o
p
Meander Rd at
Tamarack Dr NA NA A (A) A (A) A (A) A (A)
Th
r
u
-
St
o
p
Tamarack Dr at
Development Access NA NA A (B) A (B) A (A) A (B)
Si
g
n
a
l
TH 55 at
Tamarack Dr NA NA D (E) D (E) C (E) C (E)
Th
r
u
-
St
o
p
Hamel Rd at
Tamarack Dr NA NA B (C) A (A) C (D) A (A)
C = Overall LOS, (D) = Worst movement LOS Source: WSB
The details of the traffic analysis and alternative comparison is documented in the memorandum
attached in the appendix. Based on the analysis documented in the memorandum, WSB has
concluded the following:
· The City of Medina identified the need to prepare a preliminary plan and vision for the
future Tamarack Drive corridor from Meander Road to Hamel Road (CSAH 115). The
corridor has been included in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
· The access to TH 55 at Tamarack Drive is included in the MnDOT Access Management
Guidelines. In addition, MnDOT completed a preliminary corridor design concept for TH
55 from I-494 to the Crow River in 2007 and an EA/EAW in 2008. These documents both
identified a future controlled intersection access at the TH 55 and Tamarack Drive.
· The areas north and south of TH 55 adjacent to the future Tamarack Drive corridor is
planned for commercial and residential development north of TH 55 and a future
Wayzata School District use south of TH 55.
City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum
August 13, 2020
Page 5
· The future area development is anticipated to generate up to 10,307 daily, 752 AM peak
hour and 1,030 PM peak hour trips north of TH 55 and; 3,079 daily, 955 AM peak hour
and 260 PM peak hour trips south of TH 55.
· Two roadway access alternatives were prepared and analyzed including a full movement
signalized intersection with northbound and southbound left and right turn lanes, and a
partial access, right-in/right-out stop-controlled intersection with northbound and
southbound right turn lanes.
· The results of the existing conditions traffic operations analysis results show that all
intersections are operating at overall LOS D or better during both the weekday AM and
PM peak hours, except the intersection of TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM
peak hour which is operating at an overall LOS E.
· The analysis results for the 2040 condition with a full movement signalized intersection at
TH 55 and Tamarack Drive show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS
D or better during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of:
TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55
at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS
F; and Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) during the AM peak hour operating at
an overall LOS F.
· The analysis results for the 2040 condition with right-in/right-out intersection at TH 55 and
Tamarack Drive show that all intersections would be operating at overall LOS D or better
during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours, except the intersections of TH 55 at
Arrowhead Drive during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F and PM peak
hour operating at an overall LOS E; TH 55 at Pinto Dive (CSAH 116) during the AM and
PM peak hours operating at an overall LOS F; and Meander Road at Pinto Drive (CSAH
116) during the AM peak hour operating at an overall LOS F.
· Based on comparison of the two access alternatives, the right-in/right-out access
alternative would divert traffic to the adjacent roadways and would have significant traffic
operation impacts specifically at the adjacent intersections of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive;
TH 55 at Pinto Drive (CSAH 116);and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) at Meander Road. In
addition, there is a safety concern with vehicles turning out from Tamarack Drive merging
with vehicles on TH 55 traveling at 55mph.
Based on these conclusions the following is recommended:
1. Provide a full movement intersection at TH 55 and Tamarack Drive to provide access to
the existing and future development area north and south of TH 55, as identified by the
City of Medina and in the current MnDOT Access Management Guidelines for the TH 55
corridor.
2. The construction of Tamarack Drive including the full movement access connection to TH
55 should be completed as development continues to occur in the area north of TH 55. It
is recommended that should Meander Road reach a level of 3,100vpd, which would be a
level to warrant a traffic signal at the Meander Road and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116)
intersection, the connection to TH 55 should be completed.
Assuming the existing traffic volume on Meander Road (900vph) with the full
development of the Meadow View Townhomes (1,010vpd), a portion of the commercial
development (1,190vpd) or approximately 12% of the development could be completed
prior to the need for the construction of Tamarack Drive.
City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum
August 13, 2020
Page 6
3. As the area adjacent to TH 55 and Tamarack Drive is developed, continue to review the
warrants for installation of a traffic signal system at the intersection. When warrants are
met, work with MnDOT for approval and construction of the traffic signal system.
Based on review of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control (MnMUTCD) traffic
signal warrants, it is estimated that the required traffic volume currently exist on TH 55
(>15,000vpd) to warrant a traffic control signal system; however, it is anticipated that the
approximately 35% of the development on the north side of TH 55 or the school
development on the south side of TH 55 or a combination of both (>3,100vpd) would
need to be completed to warrant the traffic signal system.
4. As traffic grows in the area work with MnDOT and Hennepin County on possible
improvements at the intersections of TH 55 at Arrowhead Drive; TH 55 at Pinto Drive
(CSAH 116); and Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) at Meander Road to improve future traffic
operations
The full traffic forecast and operations analysis is included in Appendix B.
Proposed Improvements & Concept Plan Development
Commercial Site Analysis
WSB’s Land Development team analyzed the commercial areas north of TH 55 for potential site
layouts and access points to the proposed Tamarack Drive extension. This included a site-fit
analysis to maximize potential commercial uses with current City ordinance guidelines for
setbacks and parking areas. The uses considered include a convenience store/gas station, hotel,
single/multi-tenant retail, and a single tenant retail (with loading dock), with various access
options to both Tamarack Drive and Meander Road.
Based on feedback gathered as part of the public engagement process, two concepts for the
corridor were developed: an undivided roadway (Concept A) and a parkway (Concept B). Each
concept displayed a roundabout at Tamarack Drive and a future frontage road providing access
to the east and west to commercial areas. An alternate two-way stop intersection was also
considered. At Meander Road and Tamarack Drive, a two way stop intersection was shown
graphically. These concepts are provided in Appendix A.
Full Corridor Concept Plan
Based on the traffic forecasting, analysis, and stakeholder input, a concept plan for the entire
corridor was developed that includes the recommended geometric improvements, preliminary
intersection control design (stop condition or roundabout), signal improvements at TH 55, and
right-of-way needs. The street section considered for each of the concepts include an undivided
roadway/parkway design with both sidewalks and multi-use trails. The divided/parkway roadway
option was not preferred by the City Council; the roundabout was the preferred intersection
control at the primary commercial site entrance. The installation of a roundabout at the
commercial site entrance will provide improved turning/access operations and be safer than a
traditional intersection configuration for both vehicles and pedestrians. The proximity of a
roundabout can also be located closer to TH 55 than a traditional four-legged intersection.
Pedestrian connectivity is also an important component of the corridor considering the proposed
land uses and the need to connect the north and south portions of the corridor. The proposed
concepts include a multi-use trail and a sidewalk, one on each side of the roadway along with a
crossing at TH 55. The Three Rivers Park District is planning a regional trail system (Diamond
Lake Trail Corridor) and the City believes the Tamarack Corridor is a feasible location for this
improvement, including a crossing at or near TH 55. City staff have been in contact with the
Three Rivers Park District and is a willing partner for this opportunity.
The corridor concept figures have been included in Appendix A of the report.
City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum
August 13, 2020
Page 7
Railroad Crossing Improvements
The proposed improvements to the intersection of Tamarack Drive at TH 55 will require an
expansion of the railroad crossing on the south side of TH 55 to accommodate the proposed
roadway and pedestrian improvements. Canadian Pacific Railroad will require that a new four-
quadrant gate system is installed. With these improvements, a railroad quiet zone (whistle-less
crossing) is also proposed.
Public Utility Planning
Utility extensions along Tamarack Drive, including storm sewer and new watermain, are proposed
to be a part of the final alignment option(s). The watermain extension is proposed to be 16-inch
ductile iron trunk line from TH 55 to the existing Meander Road. This line will provide additional
looping within the system, as well as a point of connection for the future developments. It is
anticipated that adjacent development would connect to this trunk main and extend further into
the area and serve individual lots.
Existing sanitary sewer is located along the south side of TH 55, westerly boundary of the
commercial area that connects at Meander Road and Cavanaugh Drive, and at Jubert Drive. As
development occurs, it is anticipated that these development areas will connect to the sewer at
these locations and extend further to serve individual lots.
Storm sewer improvements will likely include a storm piping system sized to convey runoff from
an urban street section to meet State Aid design criteria, stormwater treatment areas to capture
and retain storm sewer in accordance with City and Elm Creek Watershed Management
Commission (ECWMC), and culverts to facilitate flow to the existing floodplains. Additional
discussion of the stormwater management improvements is included in the section below.
Right-of-Way Considerations
Additional right-of-way will need to be acquired for the extension of Tamarack Drive north and
south of TH 55, where no platted easement exists. The proposed right-of-way needs have been
compiled electronically with the CAD work completed with this visioning study and can be
provided upon request.
It is important to note that the City may request more right of way from property
owners/developers then what is shown in the exhibits. Right of way that is not utilized for the
public improvements would be vacated once the projects are completed. The location of the
proposed right-of-way is shown graphically in Figure 1 in Appendix A of the report.
Public Engagement Activities
Public Engagement Activities
In order to gather input and engage the public on a vision for the Tamarack Drive corridor, City
staff prepared a survey, mapping activity (currently underway), and held an open house. Initially,
when the scope of the project was prepared, and in-person open house was proposed to engage
the pubic on this project. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and to respect the CDC
guidelines limiting public gatherings, the public engagement strategy needed to be in a virtual
format that did not require direct in-person contact. With that challenge at hand, the City
ultimately decided to use Social Pinpoint, an online public engagement platform where surveys
and a mapping interface can be developed. Here is a summary of the virtual public engagement
activities utilized for this study, which generally focused on the portion of the corridor north of TH
55.
· A survey was developed asking for input on various hard-scape design elements and
street sections that would be feasible in the corridor. These included a center median
(parkway) street section, typical undivided street section, round-about/traditional
City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum
August 13, 2020
Page 8
intersection designs, landscaping ideas, and pedestrian access options. Those who
participated were able to vote on these various options and provide other input on the
“ideas wall.” Enclosed with this memo are the survey results and comments placed on
the ideas wall.
· A virtual open house through a webinar platform was held on April 14, 2020 that included
general information on the corridor and study elements, a commercial site
analysis/mapping, review comments provided on the initial online survey, and live
resident feedback (voice calls and written questions) from residents during the meeting.
The intent was to mimic what would normally have been available at an in-person
meeting.
· Based on the initial survey results and the virtual open house, two final concepts were
created (Concepts A & B) utilizing both a parkway roadway design and a traditional
undivided roadway section with various commercial site alternatives. The concepts were
posted on Social Pinpoint and open for comments until May 28th.
The results of the initial survey and comments provided for the final Social Pinpoint website are
included in Appendix D. The final commercial site layout concepts in response to the public
engagement comments are located in Appendix A.
Meetings with Adjacent Property Owners
The City met with adjacent property owners that had an interest in the design and access points
along the Tamarack Drive corridor. Three different engineering firms representing the various
property owners provided input on behalf of their clients on the geometric design of Tamarack
Drive north of TH 55. Discussions with the property owners included the location of the proposed
roundabout (as close to TH 55 as possible), the addition of a second commercial access
(traditional intersection) north of the roundabout, and the need for a future loop road from
Tamarack Drive west through the future commercial area to Meander Road. The property owners
also commented on the need to be as equal as possible with the split of the proposed right-of-
way needs for Tamarack Drive.
A loop road west of Tamarack Drive through the future commercial area could originate at either
the proposed roundabout or the traditional intersection location north of the roundabout. The loop
road could be public or private but in either case will be determined at the time of an actual
development plan submittal for the commercial area.
Figure 1 located in Appendix A shows the final concept plan for the corridor based on adjacent
property owner input.
Agency Coordination
A number of coordination meetings were held with project stakeholders including Hennepin
County to discuss the proposed improvements throughout the corridor including detailed
discussions on the intersection at Hamel Road and TH 55.
Meeting with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
City engineering staff met with MnDOT to discuss the intersection of Tamarack Drive and TH 55
and the need for a fully signalized intersection to accommodate the proposed traffic for a fully
developed condition. At that time of the meeting MnDOT was receptive to the improvements but
asked that the City provide them with an analysis of the traffic forecasting, traffic operations, and
a review of alternatives in-lieu of further improvement to the intersection at TH 55. The City
provided the requested analysis and MnDOT provided a letter of concurrence for the proposed
signalized intersection.
City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum
August 13, 2020
Page 9
In preparation for the actual signal improvements, MnDOT will require that a more refined design
is submitted for review and approval. The timeframe for final design review and approval by
MnDOT can take up to 18 months.
Meeting with CP Railroad & MnDOT Rail Safety
City staff met with representatives of both Canadian Pacific Railroad and MnDOT Rail Safety.
The proposed improvements to the intersection of Tamarack Drive and TH 55 were discussed
along with the potential need to expand the railroad crossing on the south side of TH 55. The
primary take-away from this meeting was that further refinement of the proposed design is
needed and coordination with CP Railroad will be required to acquire the additional right-of-way
for the improvements. The railroad will require that the local agency fund any improvements
needed including the crossing panels, improvements needed to facilitate a whistle-less crossing,
and the gate/lighting system. The timeframe to design and coordinate these improvements and
right-of-way acquisition with CP Railroad and the Federal Railroad Administration on the whistle-
less crossing can take up to 24 months.
Meeting with Hennepin County
City staff met with Hennepin County to discuss proposed improvements at Hamel Road. The
improvements of Hamel Road will be necessary to accommodate the increase in traffic
associated with development and will include the need for a dedicated left turn lane at minimum.
Hennepin County asked that the City continue to provide updates as the project progresses.
Once development occurs between Hamel Road and TH 55 and a specific plan is being
developed, the County will require review and approval of any proposed changes to the
intersection at Hamel Road. The timeframe for final design review and approval by Hennepin
County can take up to 12 months.
The meeting minutes and documentation of these discussions are included in Appendix E.
Permitting Considerations
Stormwater Management
The preferred concept plan exceeds the 5,000 square foot threshold requiring a City of Medina
Stormwater Management Plan for any new impervious surfaces. The total new impervious within
the project area is approximately 200,000 square feet (4.6 acres). The stormwater management
plan must include at a minimum:
· Volume Control – Design calculations of a BMP to capture and retain onsite 1.1 inches of
runoff from the net new impervious surface.
· Rate Control – Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to show that post development
discharge rates are less than existing discharge rates.
· Storm Sewer Sizing – Storm sewer sizing to meet State Aid design criteria.
The proposed improvements are located within the Elm Creek Watershed Management
Commission (ECWMC). A permit will be required from ECWMC because the proposed
improvements disturb more than 1 acre. Since this is a linear project, the net new impervious
surface must meet ECWMC’s runoff rate restrictions, volume control requirements, and water
quality requirements listed below:
· Runoff rates for post development must be less than existing discharge rates.
· Stormwater runoff volume must be abstracted onsite to meet 1.1 inches of runoff from the
net new impervious surface.
· No net increase in total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) from the
existing conditions.
The City of Medina’s standards are more stringent than ECWMC’s for stormwater management
for this project. NPDES permitting will be required for construction activity. Based on the amount
City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum
August 13, 2020
Page 10
of impervious cover proposed, the NPDES permitting requirements for treatment and volume
control do apply but are satisfied through the City and ECWMC permitting.
To meet the requirements of the City of Medina and ECWMC, it is anticipated that adjacent
development will oversize their stormwater management to treat impervious created from the
Tamarack corridor. Since timing of development cannot always be predicted, temporary ponds
may need to be installed as necessary to manage stormwater. Preliminary BMPs have been
sized along the corridor to manage runoff if the timing of development does not correlate with
road construction.
It will be necessary to extend an existing culvert that runs under TH 55. The culvert extension is
located in the northeast corner of the intersection of TH 55 and Tamarack. Along with this culvert
extension some regrading of the existing ditch will be necessary. The culvert and ditch will be
designed such that the hydraulic capacity is maintained.
Environmental
Based on a review of the National Wetland Inventory and nearby approved wetland delineations,
wetland impacts may occur as a result of development and the extension of Tamarack Drive
including the area at TH 55 with the proposed signal improvements. A wetland delineation will
need to be completed for parcels that do not already have approved boundaries. Impacts are
anticipated north and south of the intersection of Tamarack and TH 55. Options to minimize
wetland impacts will need to be evaluated during final design. The project will require permits
from the DNR, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), WCA (via City of Medina), and ECWMC.
We expect it will take 6-9 months to prepare documents/plans and obtain permits from all
agencies.
Mitigation for WCA regulated wetland impacts will be required at a 2:1 ratio and it is anticipated to
be provided through the purchase of wetland credits from an USACE approved wetland bank or
through onsite mitigation. Wetland banks are available in Hennepin County at a cost of
approximately $2.50-$3.00/square foot (2020 dollars). Options for onsite mitigation will also be
reviewed and would require 5 years of monitoring following construction to ensure success.
The State’s Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) rules were reviewed. The project
would not trigger an EAW based on the mandatory thresholds for a highway project.
Utilities
For the extension of the 16-inch trunk watermain from TH 55 to Meander Road, a Minnesota
Department of Health watermain permit will be required.
Construction
For disturbance greater than 1 acre a MN Pollution Control Agency (NPES) permit will be
required for construction activities. Permitting requirements for permanent BMP’s will be satisfied
through the City and ECWMC permits.
Project Cost Estimates & Funding
Opinion of Probable Cost
A detailed opinion of cost for the project can be found in Appendix C of this report. The opinion
of cost incorporates estimated 2020 construction costs and includes a 10% construction
contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at 28% of the construction cost and include
engineering, legal, financing, and administrative costs. The table below provides a summary of
the opinion of probable cost for the options under consideration.
City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum
August 13, 2020
Page 11
Table 2: Estimated Project Cost Summary
Description Estimated Project
Cost
TH 55 Signal $ 645,000
North Approach Street & Storm $ 497,000
South Approach Street & Storm $ 600,000
Railroad Crossing Improvements $ 791,000
North Street & Storm to Meander Rd $ 1,374,000
Watermain Looping Connection $ 401,000
South Street & Storm to Hamel Rd $ 1,206,000
Grand Total Estimated Project Cost $ 5,514,000
The above costs in Table 2 are estimated project costs for roadway, storm sewer, stormwater
improvements, signal improvements, and watermain as indicated for the various areas of the
project. The cost to obtain right-of-way for the proposed improvements was not included with the
project estimates; It has been assumed that adjacent property owners would provide the
necessary right-of-way with proposed development. The approximate cost to mitigate disturbed
wetland areas was included with the estimated costs. It was assumed the purchase of wetland
credits and not onsite mitigation.
Excavation quantities were estimated based on available soil information (NRCS) and known
wetland locations; soil borings or a geotechnical analysis were not completed with the visioning
study. The actual depth and composition of peat or other poor soils within the project area could
affect the cost of the project significantly. Soil borings and a geotechnical analysis are
recommended if the City proceeds with further refinement of the design.
Potential Project Funding/Implementation
It is likely that several projects may occur at different times within the corridor prior to full
completion of this vision. Most of the proposed improvements will be implemented with adjacent
development to extend public streets, utilities, and other infrastructure. Agreements to fund these
projects would be required of developers or property owners. Portions of the improvements that
cannot be constructed with adjacent development may need to be implemented as a public
project and funded through an area-wide Chapter 429 Special Assessment to benefitting property
owners.
Based on discussion with MnDOT and Hennepin County, it is not anticipated that a cost share of
the intersection improvements at either Hamel Road or TH 55 is possible. The City may also
need to fund a portion of the trunk watermain looping connection, but the share of the cost will be
determined at the time of development approvals.
Summary, Recommendations, & Next Steps
Summary
The Tamarack Drive corridor is located from Hamel Road to the south up to Meander Road to the
north. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and specifically the Future Land Use Plan, shows
that this area has been planned for a combination of medium density residential, mixed
residential, and commercial land uses.
City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum
August 13, 2020
Page 12
It is anticipated that the development along the corridor will likely be completed by multiple parties
at different times. The study will provide a guide to the City for the following as development
occurs:
1. Requiring right-of-way to allow construction of the proposed improvements.
2. Provide a framework for securing financial contributions for certain portions of the
roadway/intersection improvements which benefit adjacent landowners.
3. Require construction of portions of the roadway, watermain, or other improvements in
conjunction with adjacent developments.
There has been development interest on the north side of TH 55 with the medium density
residential property and on the south side of TH 55 within the mixed residential zoning area
where the Wayzata School District recently purchased property. Plans have been submitted to
the City for a townhome development within the medium density residential property. Although
no specific plans are underway for construction of a school on the Wayzata School District site,
staff believes it is appropriate to anticipate the potential after 2025, when the property is staged
for development.
The corridor visioning study is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and represents the
City’s vision for this corridor.
Roadway, Intersections, and Signal at TH 55
The Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study and the final concept plan is based upon input from
City Council, City staff, MnDOT, Hennepin County, comments made through the public
engagement process, input from property owners, and the City’s engineering team. The final
vision incorporates a roundabout as the preferred primary access to the future commercial area
and an undivided roadway section where possible. The installation of a roundabout at the
commercial site entrance will provide improved turning/access operations and be safer than a
traditional intersection configuration for both vehicles and pedestrians. The proximity of a
roundabout can also be located closer to TH 55 than a traditional four-legged intersection.
The concept plan also indicates a loop road west of Tamarack Drive through the future
commercial area, which could originate at the proposed roundabout location or the traditional
intersection to the north of the roundabout. This shared access could be designated as public or
private but in either case would be determined at the time of a specific development plan
submittal for the commercial area.
Based on the traffic forecasting and operations analysis completed with this study, a signal at TH
55 is warranted when approximately 35% of the development occurs on the north side of TH 55,
the school development on the south side of TH 55, or a combination of both (>3,100vpd) occurs.
The proposed medium density residential development (Meadowview Townhomes) will not in
itself warrant the signal at TH 55; the proposed increase in traffic for this development is 1,190
vehicles per day (vpd). It is anticipated that further development within the corridor would likely
trigger the need for a full signalized intersection at TH 55 to accommodate the increase in traffic
levels. It is important to note that the increase of traffic could change if the final development is
not consistent with the Future Land Use Plan.
The timeframe for design, review, right-of-way acquisition, and approvals between MnDOT and
CP Railroad for the intersection at TH 55 could take 18 to 24 months prior to the construction of
the proposed improvements.
City of Medina Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Report Memorandum
August 13, 2020
Page 13
List of Appendices and Figures
Appendix A
Figure 1 – Full Corridor Exhibit
Figure 2 – Commercial Analysis Concept
Appendix B
Traffic Study
Appendix C
Engineer’s Opinion of Project Costs
Appendix D
Social Pinpoint Survey
Social Pinpoint Mapping Responses
Appendix E
Meeting Minutes with MnDOT
Letter of Concurrence for TH 55 Signal from MnDOT
Meeting Minutes with CP Railroad & MnDOT Rail Safety
Meeting Minutes with Hennepin County
Appendix A
Figure 1 – Full Corridor Exhibit
Figure 2 – Commercial Development Concept
W
S
B
F
i
l
e
n
a
m
e
:
D
a
t
e
:
P
r
i
n
t
e
d
:
8
/
1
2
/
2
0
2
0
K
:
\
0
1
5
5
9
9
-
0
0
0
\
C
a
d
\
La
y
o
u
t
\
0
1
5
5
9
9
-
0
0
0
_
l
o
.
d
g
n
City of Medina
Tamarack Drive Corridor Study
REQUIREMENTS
PLANS AND SIGHT DISTANCE
BASED ON DEVELOPMENT
ROAD INTERSECTION WILL BE
FINAL LOCATION OF HAMEL
Legend
ROADWAY
SHOULDERS (PAVED)
CURB
SIDEWALK
INPLACE SIGNAL
PROPOSED SIGNAL
DELINEATED WETLAND
EXISTING R/W
PROPOSED R/W
S
TO
P
ROUNDABOUT OPTION
S
TO
P
N
0
SCALE IN FEET
150 300
Figure 1
S
TO
P
EXISTING ADT
PROJECTED 2040 ADT
XXX
(XXX)
MINNESOTA
55
M
e
a
n
d
e
r
R
o
a
d
H
a
m
el
R
o
a
d
Conceptual Roadway Geometrics and Alignments
August 2020
MEANDER ROAD
DEVELOPMENT TO
FUTURE
EXTEND THROUGH
ONE ACCESS TO
BASED ON DEVELOPMENT
ACCESS TO BE DETERMINED
EXACT ALIGNMENT AND
4
0
'
4
0
'
5
0
'
4
0
'
4
5
'
6
6
'
9
'
7
0
'
4
5
'
1
1
0
'
1
2
5
'
160'
160'
400
(1800)
900
(2200)
1200
(1400)
18,800
(24,800)
0
(1000)0
(3300)
0
(8300)
0
(1750)
18,800
(27,200)
1600
(2100)
C:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
e
k
e
l
l
y
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
_
M
e
d
i
n
a
\
0
1
5
5
9
9
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
0
4
2
9
2
0
Tamarack Drive Study - Commercial Area Concepts
Tamarack Drive Study - Medina, Minnesota
April 29, 2020 | WSB Project number: 015599-000
Concept A Concept B
Scale in Feet
800’0’200’400’North
Scale in Feet
800’0’200’400’North
WET
WE
T
W
E
T
WE
TWE
T
WET
WE
T
W
E
T
WE
T
WET
WET
WE
T
WE
T
WE
T
WE
T
WE
T
WE
T
WET
WET
W
E
T
WET
WE
T
W
E
T
WE
TWE
T
WET
WE
T
W
E
T
WE
T
WET
WET
WE
T
WE
T
WE
T
WE
T
WE
T
WE
T
WET
WET
W
E
T
FUTURE
MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
FUTURE
MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
Undivided Roadway Section - 66’ R.O.W.Parkway Section - 80’ R.O.W.
Tamarack Drive - Undivided Road Tamarack Drive - Parkway
Alternate Intersection at
Commercial Entrance
Alternate Intersection at
Commercial Entrance
Note: Commercial uses are illustrative only to show context for potential street orientations.
LEGEND
PROPOSEDTAMARACK DR ALIGNMENT
COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
LANDSCAPESCREENING
STORMWATERMANAGEMENT AREA
FRONTAGEROAD
DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
ROUNDABOUT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
wetland wetland
wetland wetland
wetland wetland
RETAIL
3.0 ac. +/-
COM
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
3.0 acr
e
s
+
/
-
HIGH
W
A
Y
5
5
HIGH
W
A
Y
5
5
MEANDER ROAD
RETAIL
2.3 ac. +/-
RETAIL
1.5 ac. +/-
RETAIL
3.0 ac. +/-
COMMERCIAL
2.5 ac. +/-COMMERCIAL
5.5 ac. +/-
City Park
Fields of Medina City Park
Fields of Medina
COMMERCIAL
5.0 ac.+/-
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
1.
8
a
c
.
+
/
-
MEANDER ROAD
stormwater
management
Paved Trail Paved Trail
MedianSidewalkSidewalk
TA
M
A
R
A
C
K
D
R
TA
M
A
R
A
C
K
D
R
TA
M
A
R
A
C
K
D
R
COM
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
3.0 acr
e
s
+
/
-
RETAIL
1.0 ac.
RETAIL
1.0 ac.
RETAIL
2.0 ac.
RETAIL
3.0 ac.+/-
RETAIL
4.0 ac.+/-
RETAIL
2.5 ac.+/-
RETAIL
3.0 ac.+/-
COMMERCIAL
8.0 ac.+/-
COMMERCIAL
4.0 ac.+/-
TA
M
A
R
A
C
K
D
R
stormwater
management
Appendix B
Traffic Study
Appendix C
Engineer’s Opinion of Project Costs
WSB Project:Tamarack Drive Corridor Design By:LME
Project Location:Medina, MN Checked By:JLS
City Project No.:
WSB Project No:015599-000 Date:8/13/2020
Item
No.
MnDOT
Specification
No.
Description Unit
Estimated Total
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price Estimated Total Cost
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 20,900.00$ 20,900.00$
2 2231.604 BITUMINOUS PATCHING S Y 245 200.00$ 49,000.00$
3 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 336 12.00$ 4,032.00$
4 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 256 18.00$ 4,608.00$
5 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 264 24.00$ 6,336.00$
6 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 48 70.00$ 3,360.00$
7 2565.601 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS 1 350,000.00$ 350,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 438,236.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (15%) 65,735.40$
SUBTOTAL 503,971.40$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 141,111.99$
TOTAL 645,000.00$
8 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 12,800.00$ 12,800.00$
9 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 3455 3.00$ 10,365.00$
10 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 849 12.00$ 10,188.00$
11 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 849 12.00$ 10,188.00$
12 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 1900 14.00$ 26,600.00$
13 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 634 16.00$ 10,144.00$
14 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 2073 24.00$ 49,752.00$
15 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 691 20.00$ 13,820.00$
16 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3 300.00$ 900.00$
17 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 888 35.00$ 31,080.00$
18 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 600 1.25$ 750.00$
19 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 173 5.00$ 865.00$
20 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 308 88.00$ 27,104.00$
21 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 410 86.00$ 35,260.00$
22 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 300 15.00$ 4,500.00$
23 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 550.00$ 2,200.00$
24 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 690 24.00$ 16,560.00$
25 2531.504 6" CONCRETE MEDIAN S Y 84 60.00$ 5,040.00$
26 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 150 1.00$ 150.00$
27 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 8 4.00$ 32.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 268,298.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 26,829.80$
SUBTOTAL 295,127.80$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 82,635.78$
TOTAL 378,000.00$
t, this is a place holder - NO WETLANDS WITHIN ROAD ROW (EXCEPT WITHIN TH 55 AREA)WETLAND MITIGATION COST 25,000.00$
28 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION LS 1 38,000.00$ 38,000.00$
29 2106.601 CHANEL REALIGNMENT LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
30 2503.502 36" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
31 2503.503 36" RC PIPE CULVERT L F 160 100.00$ 16,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 67,000.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 6,700.00$
SUBTOTAL 73,700.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 20,636.00$
TOTAL 94,000.00$
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
A. Roadway Costs - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack
B1. Roadway Costs - North TH 55/Tamarack Approach
B2. Storm Sewer - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack North
32 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 18,100.00$ 18,100.00$
33 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 5074 3.00$ 15,222.00$
34 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 1247 12.00$ 14,964.00$
35 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 1247 12.00$ 14,964.00$
36 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 2791 14.00$ 39,074.00$
37 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 931 16.00$ 14,896.00$
38 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 3045 24.00$ 73,080.00$
39 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 1015 20.00$ 20,300.00$
40 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3 300.00$ 900.00$
41 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1304 35.00$ 45,640.00$
42 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 600 1.25$ 750.00$
43 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 254 5.00$ 1,270.00$
44 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 452 88.00$ 39,776.00$
45 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 603 86.00$ 51,858.00$
46 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 300 15.00$ 4,500.00$
47 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 550.00$ 2,200.00$
48 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 690 24.00$ 16,560.00$
49 2531.504 6" CONCRETE MEDIAN S Y 84 60.00$ 5,040.00$
50 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 150 1.00$ 150.00$
51 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 8 4.00$ 32.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 379,276.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 37,927.60$
SUBTOTAL 417,203.60$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 116,817.01$
TOTAL 534,000.00$
t, this is a place holder - NO WETLANDS WITHIN ROAD ROW (EXCEPT WITHIN TH 55 AREA)WETLAND MITIGATION COST 25,000.00$
52 2106.601 CHANEL REALIGNMENT LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
53 2503.502 36" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
54 2503.503 36" RC PIPE CULVERT L F 160 100.00$ 16,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 29,000.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 2,900.00$
SUBTOTAL 31,900.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 8,932.00$
TOTAL 41,000.00$
55 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 31,200.00$ 31,200.00$
56 2540.602 RAILROAD CROSSING PANELS LF 115 1,500.00$ 172,500.00$
57 2565.601 GATE SYSTEM LS 1 450,000.00$ 450,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 653,700.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 65,370.00$
SUBTOTAL 719,070.00$
INDORECT COST TOTAL (10%) 71,907.00$
TOTAL 791,000.00$
B2. Storm Sewer - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack North
C3. Roadway Costs - Railroad Crossing
C1. Roadway Costs - South TH 55/Tamarack Approach
58 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 39,300.00$ 39,300.00$
59 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$
60 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$
61 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 47.0 3.00$ 141.00$
62 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 9490 3.00$ 28,470.00$
63 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 3866 12.00$ 46,392.00$
64 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 2552 12.00$ 30,624.00$
65 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 5220 16.00$ 83,520.00$
66 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 5694 24.00$ 136,656.00$
67 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 10 300.00$ 3,000.00$
68 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$
69 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 2438 35.00$ 85,330.00$
70 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 2600 1.25$ 3,250.00$
71 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 475 5.00$ 2,375.00$
72 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 845 88.00$ 74,360.00$
73 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 1126 86.00$ 96,836.00$
74 2360.504 TYPE SP 9.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C), 3.0" THICK S Y 709 50.00$ 35,450.00$
75 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 500 15.00$ 7,500.00$
76 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 5 550.00$ 2,750.00$
77 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 4801 10.00$ 48,010.00$
78 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 240 15.00$ 3,600.00$
79 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 2860 16.00$ 45,760.00$
80 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 48 70.00$ 3,360.00$
81 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
82 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
83 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
84 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
85 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$
86 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$
87 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$
88 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$
89 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 191 30.00$ 5,730.00$
90 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$
91 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 1734 1.25$ 2,167.50$
92 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 40 5.00$ 200.00$
92 2575.604 SODDING S Y 1014 7.00$ 7,098.00$
93 2575.605 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
94 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 2600 1.00$ 2,600.00$
95 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 1300 1.00$ 1,300.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 824,954.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 82,495.45$
SUBTOTAL 907,449.95$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 254,085.99$
TOTAL 1,162,000.00$
96 2503.502 24" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
97 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$
98 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 1300 60.00$ 78,000.00$
99 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 64 70.00$ 4,480.00$
100 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM) EACH 6 750.00$ 4,500.00$
101 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 39 450.00$ 17,550.00$
102 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPEC (OUTLET) EACH 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
103 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 12 2,500.00$ 30,000.00$
104 2511.509 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III EACH 50 250.00$ 12,500.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 150,530.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 15,053.00$
SUBTOTAL 165,583.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 46,363.24$
TOTAL 212,000.00$
105 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 9,500.00$ 9,500.00$
106 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 4 6,800.00$ 27,200.00$
107 2503.602 8" GATE VALVE EACH 2 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$
108 2503.602 16" GATE VALVE EACH 3 10,000.00$ 30,000.00$
109 2503.603 6" DIP WATERMAIN L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$
110 2503.603 8" DIP WATERMAIN L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$
111 2503.603 16" DIP WATERMAIN L F 1300 130.00$ 169,000.00$
112 2504.604 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION S Y 20 40.00$ 800.00$
113 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 2000 10.00$ 20,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 284,500.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 28,450.00$
SUBTOTAL 312,950.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 87,626.00$
TOTAL 401,000.00$
D. Roadway Costs - Tamarck North of TH 55
E. Storm Sewer - Tamarck North of TH 55
F. Watermain - Tamarck North of TH 55
114 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 28,000.00$ 28,000.00$
115 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$
116 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$
117 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 47.0 3.00$ 141.00$
118 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 6732 3.00$ 20,196.00$
119 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 4642 12.00$ 55,704.00$
120 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 1609 12.00$ 19,308.00$
121 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 3703 16.00$ 59,248.00$
122 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 4039 24.00$ 96,936.00$
123 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 17 300.00$ 5,100.00$
124 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$
125 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1729 35.00$ 60,515.00$
126 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 3320 1.25$ 4,150.00$
127 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 337 5.00$ 1,685.00$
128 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 600 88.00$ 52,800.00$
129 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 799 86.00$ 68,714.00$
130 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 500 15.00$ 7,500.00$
131 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 5 550.00$ 2,750.00$
132 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 3652 16.00$ 58,432.00$
133 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
134 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
135 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
136 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
137 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$
138 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$
139 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$
140 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$
141 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 288 30.00$ 8,640.00$
142 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$
143 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 2614 1.25$ 3,267.50$
144 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 60 5.00$ 300.00$
145 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 4,000.00$ 2,400.00$
146 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 3920 1.00$ 3,920.00$
147 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 1960 1.00$ 1,960.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 586,841.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 58,684.15$
SUBTOTAL 645,525.65$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 180,747.18$
TOTAL 826,000.00$
148 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION LS 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
149 2503.502 24" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
150 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$
151 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 1950 60.00$ 117,000.00$
152 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 64 70.00$ 4,480.00$
153 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM) EACH 7 750.00$ 5,250.00$
154 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 59 500.00$ 29,500.00$
155 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPEC (OUTLET) EACH 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
156 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 14 2,500.00$ 35,000.00$
157 2511.509 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III EACH 50 250.00$ 12,500.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 269,730.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 26,973.00$
SUBTOTAL 296,703.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 83,076.84$
TOTAL 380,000.00$
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 3,952,066.00$
GRAND TOTAL COSTS 5,514,000.00$
H. Storm Sewer - Tamarck South of TH 55
G. Roadway Costs - Tamarck South of TH 55
WSB Project:Tamarack Drive Corridor Design By:LME
Project Location:Medina, MN Checked By:JLS
City Project No.:
WSB Project No:015599-000 Date:6/26/2020
Item
No.
MnDOT
Specification
No.
Description Unit
Estimated Total
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price Estimated Total Cost
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 20,900.00$ 20,900.00$
2 2231.604 BITUMINOUS PATCHING S Y 245 200.00$ 49,000.00$
3 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 336 12.00$ 4,032.00$
4 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 256 18.00$ 4,608.00$
5 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 264 24.00$ 6,336.00$
6 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 48 70.00$ 3,360.00$
7 2565.601 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS 1 350,000.00$ 350,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 438,236.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (15%) 65,735.40$
SUBTOTAL 503,971.40$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 141,111.99$
TOTAL 645,000.00$
8 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 12,800.00$ 12,800.00$
9 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 3455 3.00$ 10,365.00$
10 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 849 12.00$ 10,188.00$
11 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 849 12.00$ 10,188.00$
12 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 1900 14.00$ 26,600.00$
13 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 634 16.00$ 10,144.00$
14 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 2073 24.00$ 49,752.00$
15 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 691 20.00$ 13,820.00$
16 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3 300.00$ 900.00$
17 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 888 35.00$ 31,080.00$
18 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 600 1.25$ 750.00$
19 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 173 5.00$ 865.00$
20 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 308 88.00$ 27,104.00$
21 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 410 86.00$ 35,260.00$
22 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 300 15.00$ 4,500.00$
23 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 550.00$ 2,200.00$
24 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 690 24.00$ 16,560.00$
25 2531.504 6" CONCRETE MEDIAN S Y 84 60.00$ 5,040.00$
26 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 150 1.00$ 150.00$
27 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 8 4.00$ 32.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 268,298.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 26,829.80$
SUBTOTAL 295,127.80$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 82,635.78$
TOTAL 378,000.00$
t, this is a place holder - NO WETLANDS WITHIN ROAD ROW (EXCEPT WITHIN TH 55 AREA)WETLAND MITIGATION COST 25,000.00$
28 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION LS 1 38,000.00$ 38,000.00$
29 2106.601 CHANEL REALIGNMENT LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
30 2503.502 36" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
31 2503.503 36" RC PIPE CULVERT L F 160 100.00$ 16,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 67,000.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 6,700.00$
SUBTOTAL 73,700.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 20,636.00$
TOTAL 94,000.00$
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
A. Roadway Costs - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack
B1. Roadway Costs - North TH 55/Tamarack Approach
B2. Storm Sewer - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack North
32 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 14,800.00$ 14,800.00$
33 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 4063 3.00$ 12,189.00$
34 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 999 12.00$ 11,988.00$
35 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 999 12.00$ 11,988.00$
36 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 2235 14.00$ 31,290.00$
37 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 745 16.00$ 11,920.00$
38 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 2438 24.00$ 58,512.00$
39 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 813 20.00$ 16,260.00$
40 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 3 300.00$ 900.00$
41 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1044 35.00$ 36,540.00$
42 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 600 1.25$ 750.00$
43 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 204 5.00$ 1,020.00$
44 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 362 88.00$ 31,856.00$
45 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 483 86.00$ 41,538.00$
46 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 300 15.00$ 4,500.00$
47 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 4 550.00$ 2,200.00$
48 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 690 24.00$ 16,560.00$
49 2531.504 6" CONCRETE MEDIAN S Y 84 60.00$ 5,040.00$
50 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 150 1.00$ 150.00$
51 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 8 4.00$ 32.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 310,033.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 31,003.30$
SUBTOTAL 341,036.30$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 95,490.16$
TOTAL 437,000.00$
t, this is a place holder - NO WETLANDS WITHIN ROAD ROW (EXCEPT WITHIN TH 55 AREA)WETLAND MITIGATION COST 25,000.00$
52 2106.601 CHANEL REALIGNMENT LS 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
53 2503.502 36" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
54 2503.503 36" RC PIPE CULVERT L F 160 100.00$ 16,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 29,000.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 2,900.00$
SUBTOTAL 31,900.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 8,932.00$
TOTAL 41,000.00$
55 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 31,200.00$ 31,200.00$
56 2540.602 RAILROAD CROSSING PANELS LF 115 1,500.00$ 172,500.00$
57 2565.601 GATE SYSTEM LS 1 450,000.00$ 450,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 653,700.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 65,370.00$
SUBTOTAL 719,070.00$
INDORECT COST TOTAL (10%) 71,907.00$
TOTAL 791,000.00$
B2. Storm Sewer - Intersection TH 55/Tamarack North
C3. Roadway Costs - Railroad Crossing
C1. Roadway Costs - South TH 55/Tamarack Approach
58 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 30,200.00$ 30,200.00$
59 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$
60 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$
61 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 47.0 3.00$ 141.00$
62 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 6067 3.00$ 18,201.00$
63 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 3866 12.00$ 46,392.00$
64 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 2552 12.00$ 30,624.00$
65 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 3337 16.00$ 53,392.00$
66 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 3640 24.00$ 87,360.00$
67 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 10 300.00$ 3,000.00$
68 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$
69 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1559 35.00$ 54,565.00$
70 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 2600 1.25$ 3,250.00$
71 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 304 5.00$ 1,520.00$
72 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 540 88.00$ 47,520.00$
73 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 720 86.00$ 61,920.00$
74 2360.504 TYPE SP 9.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C), 3.0" THICK S Y 709 50.00$ 35,450.00$
75 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 500 15.00$ 7,500.00$
76 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 5 550.00$ 2,750.00$
77 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK S F 4801 10.00$ 48,010.00$
78 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 240 15.00$ 3,600.00$
79 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 2860 16.00$ 45,760.00$
80 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 48 70.00$ 3,360.00$
81 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
82 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
83 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
84 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
85 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$
86 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$
87 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$
88 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$
89 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 191 30.00$ 5,730.00$
90 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$
91 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 1734 1.25$ 2,167.50$
92 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 40 5.00$ 200.00$
92 2575.604 SODDING S Y 1014 7.00$ 7,098.00$
93 2575.605 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$
94 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 2600 1.00$ 2,600.00$
95 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 1300 1.00$ 1,300.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 632,785.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 63,278.55$
SUBTOTAL 696,064.05$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 194,897.93$
TOTAL 891,000.00$
96 2503.502 24" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
97 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$
98 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 1300 60.00$ 78,000.00$
99 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 64 70.00$ 4,480.00$
100 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM) EACH 6 750.00$ 4,500.00$
101 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 39 450.00$ 17,550.00$
102 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPEC (OUTLET) EACH 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
103 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 12 2,500.00$ 30,000.00$
104 2511.509 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III EACH 50 250.00$ 12,500.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 150,530.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 15,053.00$
SUBTOTAL 165,583.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 46,363.24$
TOTAL 212,000.00$
105 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 9,500.00$ 9,500.00$
106 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 4 6,800.00$ 27,200.00$
107 2503.602 8" GATE VALVE EACH 2 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$
108 2503.602 16" GATE VALVE EACH 3 10,000.00$ 30,000.00$
109 2503.603 6" DIP WATERMAIN L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$
110 2503.603 8" DIP WATERMAIN L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$
111 2503.603 16" DIP WATERMAIN L F 1300 130.00$ 169,000.00$
112 2504.604 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION S Y 20 40.00$ 800.00$
113 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 2000 10.00$ 20,000.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 284,500.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 28,450.00$
SUBTOTAL 312,950.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 87,626.00$
TOTAL 401,000.00$
D. Roadway Costs - Tamarck North of TH 55
E. Storm Sewer - Tamarck North of TH 55
F. Watermain - Tamarck North of TH 55
114 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 28,000.00$ 28,000.00$
115 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$
116 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.2 4,000.00$ 800.00$
117 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 47.0 3.00$ 141.00$
118 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 6732 3.00$ 20,196.00$
119 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON C Y 4642 12.00$ 55,704.00$
120 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 1609 12.00$ 19,308.00$
121 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 3703 16.00$ 59,248.00$
122 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) C Y 4039 24.00$ 96,936.00$
123 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 17 300.00$ 5,100.00$
124 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 25 175.00$ 4,375.00$
125 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1729 35.00$ 60,515.00$
126 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 3320 1.25$ 4,150.00$
127 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 337 5.00$ 1,685.00$
128 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 600 88.00$ 52,800.00$
129 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) TON 799 86.00$ 68,714.00$
130 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 500 15.00$ 7,500.00$
131 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 5 550.00$ 2,750.00$
132 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 3652 16.00$ 58,432.00$
133 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
134 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$
135 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 45 60.00$ 2,700.00$
136 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
137 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 5 250.00$ 1,250.00$
138 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$
139 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 1000 2.50$ 2,500.00$
140 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 500 8.00$ 4,000.00$
141 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 288 30.00$ 8,640.00$
142 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 500 2.50$ 1,250.00$
143 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 2614 1.25$ 3,267.50$
144 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 60 5.00$ 300.00$
145 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1 4,000.00$ 2,400.00$
146 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 3920 1.00$ 3,920.00$
147 2582.503 DOUBLE SOLID LINE PAINT L F 1960 1.00$ 1,960.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 586,841.50$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 58,684.15$
SUBTOTAL 645,525.65$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 180,747.18$
TOTAL 826,000.00$
148 2106.601 POND CONSTRUCTION LS 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$
149 2503.502 24" FLARED END EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
150 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 160 50.00$ 8,000.00$
151 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 1950 60.00$ 117,000.00$
152 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 64 70.00$ 4,480.00$
153 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM) EACH 7 750.00$ 5,250.00$
154 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 59 500.00$ 29,500.00$
155 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES SPEC (OUTLET) EACH 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
156 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3') EACH 14 2,500.00$ 35,000.00$
157 2511.509 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III EACH 50 250.00$ 12,500.00$
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 269,730.00$
CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%) 26,973.00$
SUBTOTAL 296,703.00$
INDIRECT COST TOTAL (28%) 83,076.84$
TOTAL 380,000.00$
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 3,690,654.00$
GRAND TOTAL COSTS 5,146,000.00$
G. Roadway Costs - Tamarck South of TH 55
H. Storm Sewer - Tamarck South of TH 55
Appendix D
Social Pinpoint Survey
Social Pinpoint Mapping Responses
1
Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study: Social Pinpoint Activity Results
Survey (22 responses as of 04/21/20)
Section 1: Example Roadways Ranking
1 = most preferred choice, 6 = least preferred choice
Summary
Votes for Each Rank by Example
Rank Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6
1 6 0 12 1 1 2
2 2 3 5 0 9 2
3 4 3 1 5 3 4
4 0 5 3 5 4 3
5 3 4 0 7 3 2
6 5 5 0 2 0 7
6
0
12
1 1
22
3
5
0
9
2
4
3
1
5
3
4
0
5
3
5
4
33
4
0
7
3
2
5 5
0
2
0
7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6
Ranking Distribution Overview
1 2 3 4 5 6
2
Example 1
6
2
4
0
3
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6
Example 1 Ranking Distribution
3
Example 2
0
3 3
5
4
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6
Example 2 Ranking Distribution
4
Example 3
12
5
1
3
0 0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 2 3 4 5 6
Example 3 Ranking Distribution
5
Example 4
1
0
5 5
7
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 2 3 4 5 6
Example 4 Ranking Distribution
6
Example 5
1
9
3
4
3
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6
Example 5 Ranking Distribution
7
Example 6
2 2
4
3
2
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 2 3 4 5 6
Example 6 Ranking Distribution
8
Section 2: Roadway Features
Summary
Yes Votes by Feature
Feature Yes Votes Percent
Trees/Vegetation 18 82%
Sidewalks and/or Trails 18 82%
Grass or Landscaped Median 14 64%
Decorative Lighting 13 59%
Roundabout 5 23%
Bump-Out (Curb Extension) 2 9%
Concrete Median 2 9%
Sidewalks and/or Trails
Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 18/22 (82%)
Comments:
· Trails will be nice. Combination of this with natural landscaped median.
· Trails are a good idea.
· It would be nice to extend the trails in the area along both sides of Tamarack Drive.
· Trail/sidewalk is great for families and kids to be able to walk and bike the area
· Making the neighborhoods connected with bike trails wold be ideal.
· Walking, jogging and biking trail
· Trails or wide sidewalks are a must. Lots of pedestrians in high residential areas and for
commercial business.
· Adding trails is always positive in my opinion.
2
2
5
13
14
18
18
0 5 10 15 20
Concrete Median
Bump-Out (Curb Extension)
Roundabout
Decorative Lighting
Grass or Landscaped Median
Sidewalks and/or Trails
Trees/Vegetation
Number of Yes Votes
9
Trees/Vegetation
Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 18/22 (82%)
Comments:
· This would be an ideal scenario.
· I prefer trees and vegetation.
· The more trees/vegetation the better as far as I'm concerned.
· We need WAY MORE TREES in Medina so that along with other vegetation, that gets manicured
and taken care of would be great to see.
· Mature trees and beautiful flowers like hanging baskets...
· Whether trees/bushes are located on street sides or the median, they fit that location of Medina
well and make it a greener more luxurious look than just roadway.
Grass or Landscaped Median
Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 14/22 (64%)
Comments:
· Aesthetically pleasing.
· Landscaped is nice. Grass, if not maintained, will be aesthetically unappealing.
· I like the look of landscaped medians.
· Would prefer this over concrete median, but a median is needed.
· Landscaping will be key to make this look upscale and nice.
Decorative Lighting
Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 13/22 (59%)
Comments:
· Optional - but not necessary.
· I would prefer to not have any additional lights/streetlights added.
· I like the idea of decorative lighting as long as it doesn't increase the overall light pollution near
residences. Would be nice along trails for safety in the evening, but it does have a more
commercial/retail feel to me.
· We don't have enough lighting in general in our current neighborhood in the Fields of Medina
on Jubert Trail. Also on Meander there is hardly any lighting. For community safety I would like
to see more lighting in general.
· Well lit roads to take safe evening walks.
· I'm not in favor of adding light pollution to our neighborhood.
Roundabout
Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 5/22 (23%)
Comments:
· Just doesn't feel right for the area.
· No roundabout, too much road, not necessary for this plan and future road.
10
Concrete Median
Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 2/22 (9%)
Comments:
· Maintenance issues with this. Not ideal or sustainable long term.
· I don't like concrete.
· I prefer landscaped medians to concrete.
· concrete is so ugly and does not provide an upscale look
· One of the reasons I love living in Medina is because of the wildlife and natural beauty. I don't
believe that a concrete median would be consistent with the current landscape.
Bump-out (Curb Extension)
Yes, this feature fits my vision for Tamarack Drive: 2/22 (9%)
Comments:
· I would not want to encourage parking along Tamarack Drive. I think there should be other,
dedicated parking areas.
· I think that will slow traffic which will be great. Traffic on Meander drives WAY too fast.
Other Features (What other features would you like to see that were not included in the examples above?)
Comments:
· I think that the combination of the trails with natural landscaping is an ideal scenario.
· A stop light at 55/Tamarak is critical to manage egress and release pressure on the
meander/116/arrowhead egress that will come from future development
· Please ensure Tamarack and ideally, Arrowhead becomes whistle free crossings for train track
parallel to 55. Thank you! The whistle free crossings create a better environment for families to
enjoy the growing neighborhoods, the ability to play outside without interruption and sleep with
windows open.
· Would like to see Many Tall evergreens planted on the North side of Meander to separate the
Fields of Medina Neighborhood to what will be the newly developed space.
· benches, small grass areas for walking, sitting.
· I live in the Fields of Medina - West neighborhood, and my biggest concern is the volume and
speed of cars on Meander road. Because of how the road straightens out, cars often exceed the
40 mph speed limit, which makes me nervous to have my children playing in the back yard.
Thank you for consulting the community for this project!
11
Ideas Wall (14 comments as of 04/21/20)
Within each comment type, responses are sorted from most likes to least.
Things I would like to see (7 comments)
1. If townhomes are built the city should leverage Meander Rd for an outlet to both 116 and
Arrowhead. Meander can be expanded with a median to 4 lanes. No railroad crossing req.
There will be minimal traffic northbound to Hamel Rd.
We’ve been told by Medina city officials numerous times that the county will not allow an
intersection with a light at Mohawk and now somehow it is appropriate to add another
intersection and a light on hwy 55. I can’t see any logic or rationale with this decision.
[5 Likes, 3 Dislikes]
2. We need to very mindful of walkable areas from Meander onto 116. This walkway does not go
through and is very dangerous - especially for those turning right from the southbound lane.
We need to be able to mitigate future issues that limit sight lines for those that walk this route.
From my standpoint, we cannot move forward with this project until we address the potential
density issues that will impact this area. [3 Likes, 0 Dislikes]
3. Need to have a traffic light at 116/meander and/or tamarack/55. Currently it's very dangerous
making a left or right turn off of meander to 116. Meander can't support additional traffic from
this new development at this intersection without a light. [3 Likes, 0 Dislikes]
4. Please consider traffic and safety along all of Meander Road with the addition of this proposed
neighborhood and new road. There is significant pedestrian traffic from the current residential
areas along Meander and traffic controls such as roundabouts at the existing roads of Jubert Dr
and Cavanaugh Dr as well as the proposed intersection of Tamarak could assist with slowing
traffic and keeping families safe [2 Likes, 0 Dislikes]
5. If we do need to better link parts of Medina north and south of Hwy 55, could we add a bike and
pedestrian tunnel or tasteful access bridge?
Always concerning seeing people try to cross the Hwy & hoping drivers follow the traffic lights.
Would be nice for the retail and restaurant space to have a very walkable almost park like feel
with benches, landscape, fountains, etc. that encourage community vs. a typical strip mall.
Adding the biking & pedestrian access could help encourage that vibe. [1 Likes, 0 Dislikes]
6. *If increasing residential density, will need a plan to mitigate light pollution.
*A nice to have for the residents in the area would be an off leash dog park.
*Meander Road will need to be expanded into a total of 4 lanes (2 lanes in each direction) to
accommodate traffic, with a median in between.
*And please refrain from using any roundabouts!
*When evaluating restaurant ideas, prioritize local eateries/breweries and fast casual (like
Chipotle and Punch Pizza). [1 Likes, 0 Dislikes]
7. first choice would be to see an upscale retail / restaurant development use the entire space to
compliment an upscale community like Medina. Using the entire space would allow ample
room to keep a country like feeling and draw people from neighboring cities.
12
Second choice would be to move the proposed neighborhood to Meander and Arrowhead
where they would already have access to 2 exits eliminating the additional traffic on Meander.
[0 Likes, 0 Dislikes]
Things I would not like to see (4 comments)
1. I fail to see how 138 new townhomes, an additional traffic restricting light on hwy 55 and a new
railroad crossing aligns with the council’s stated mission statement; “Keep Medina Rural”.
Perhaps a business park with small retail shops, restaurants and coffee shops, and maybe a
soccer pitch accessible via Meander Rd to 116 and Arrowhead would be less invasive and serve
the neighborhoods in the area better without further restricting traffic on hwy 55.
[9 Likes, 2 Dislikes]
2. Agree with all other comments. This proposed neighborhood and new road do not make sense
in this location. This does not fall in line at all with the vision of Medina and why residents move
here. If you need to bring down the average home price in Medina, please don't do it at the
expense of other residents. There is PLENTY of space in Medina to add a massive townhouse
development that would not be adjacent to an another established neighborhood. Put this
development on the other side of 55 [2 Likes, 0 Dislikes]
3. I have concerns that the existing park that already accommodates, both East and West Fields of
Medina, Bridgewater and the Foxberry neighborhoods would not be large enough to
accommodate another 100+ homes. [0 Likes, 0 Dislikes]
4. For safety reason's I would not want a hotel overlooking the park. [0 Likes, 0 Dislikes]
Other comments (3 comments)
1. It would be nice to get public comments on if adding another through road across 55 is the
correct design plan vs. just the aesthetics; which I imagine to be ignored regardless. I totally
understand new access points to the proposed development area will need to be created off of
55, but I don’t understand why it’s seen as necessary for it to go all the way through to Meander
or across the highway to connect to Hamel road. Agreed with another poster that a light at
Meander/116 would be better. [6 Likes, 0 Dislikes]
2. If Medina is committed to keeping a rural feeling, they should take a hard look at allowing 130
plus town homes and determine if that really fits the vision of Medina. One of the most
attractive qualities of this area is Wayzata schools without the congesting and constant building
like Plymouth. What does this mean for our schools that are already filled to the max? Will this
result in redistricting yet again? I think this is a slippery slope. [5 Likes, 0 Dislikes]
3. As Medina expands the neighborhoods near Pinto and Arrowhead, it would be ideal to ensure
Tamarack and Arrowhead become whistle free train intersections. To enjoy the peace of the
countryside and allow residents to sleep with windows open - whistle free train intersections
are a must as Medina expands developments. [3 Likes, 0 Dislikes]
1
Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study: Concepts A & B Comments
A total of 20 comments were received as of 05/18/20. The three types of comments are outlined below
along with map showing the location of the comment:
• Something I Like
• Something I Don’t Like
• Make a Comment
Something I Like
Marker Comment Likes Dislikes
1
I like landscape screening - important for keeping kids out of the
commercial area and keep "Medina" feel of rural view for Fields of
Medina homes. Please ensure retail buildings are tasteful on all sides not
just front face.
5 0
2
Love that paved trail crosses 55. I hope it continues south to Hamel road
providing residents access beyond immediate trails for biking. I'm also a
fan of the median as it creates a greener area for residents and
commercial alike.
0 0
3 Much more aesthetically appealing. Trees and median needs to be
maintained. 3 0
4 I like Concept A better than Concept B. Tamarack Drive is only going to
be about .5 miles long--I don't think it needs a median with trees. 0 2
5 I like the roundabout concept as well as the parkway, which for a such a
short segment wouldn't have really high maintenance costs. 0 0
6
A staggered entrance between the commercial area and neighborhood
would allow for traffic coming from west to enter the commercial area
before getting to the neighborhood and potentially cut down on some
traffic where there high pedestrian traffic
2 0
7 Parkway is more aesthetically pleasing and allows for more landscaping
options, though it must be maintained 0 0
8 Prefer the roundabout over the alternate intersection option for the
commercial entrance 1 0
9 I prefer less retail/commercial. 0 0
10
Prefer having the pond closer to Meander instead of Highway 55 -
however, not at the extent of having an intersection here. Remove the
intersection and keep the pond.
0 0
2
“Something I Like” Comment Locations
3
Something I Don’t Like
Marker Comment Likes Dislikes
1
Would prefer not to have a four way intersection at the neighborhood
entrance and commercial area entrance.
If a 4 way intersection is added here it need needs to be controlled,
preferably by a roundabout
1 0
2 A four-way stop here would significantly negatively impact the
neighborhood. 2 0
3 Less traffic into our neighborhood - Fields of Medina. 2 0
4
Having commercial traffic sharing an intersection with the neighborhood
is highly undesirable, and adds risk to the many children in this
development.
0 0
5
Why is there a need to extend Tamarack drive to Hamel Road? There is
not enough traffic to warrant that. Let's keep Medina rural and not an
extension of the overdeveloped Plymouth.
0 0
6 We don't need to develop so much in Medina. There are traffic issues on
116 and that intersection is too busy. Let's keep Medina rural. 0 0
4
“Something I Don’t Like” Comment Locations
5
Make a Comment
Marker Comment Likes Dislikes
1
Need more traffic control along Meander as Tamarack Drive and the
future commercial and medium density residential building will create
more traffic - this is a residential area with a lot of pedestrian activity
and the safety and comfort of the families in the area needs to be
considered
1 0
2 Please consider the safety of crossing Meander Road to the park by
adding cross walks to the intersection 0 0
3
Something for the city to consider is that the railroad crossing at
Arrowhead and 55 is still an extremely loud horn and signal crossing. If
the city is putting in 100-plus townhomes and increasing the tax
revenue so significantly, it makes sense to address this railroad
crossing, as almost every single resident in Fields of Medina is
frustrated with that issue.
1 0
4
In addition to landscape screening on the south side of Meander - a
white vinyl privacy fence like that seen on the Charles Cudd
development on Meander/116 would add privacy to the homes
backing up to Meander.
1 0
6
“Make a Comment” Comment Locations
Appendix E
Meeting Minutes with MnDOT
Meeting Minutes with CP Railroad & MnDOT Rail Safety
Meeting Minutes with Hennepin County
Appendix F
Figure 3 – Approximate Buildable Areas Map
Figure 4 – Potential Benefitting Properties Map
Figure 5 – Potential Benefitting Parcels – Signal System
Figure 6 – Potential Benefitting Parcels – North Approach
Figure 7 – Potential Benefitting Parcels – South Approach
Figure 8 – Potential Benefitting Parcels – Grand Total
?ØA@
Prairie View Trl
Tamarack Dr
J
u
b
e
r
t
D
r
Cavanaugh Dr
Fescue Dr
Hamel Rd
Hickory Dr
CP Railroad
Highway 55
Jubert Trl
Meander Rd
3
12
2B
13
78
6
9
10
5 2A
4
1
11
Proje ct L ocation
Buildable Areas
Wetlands
100 Ye ar Floodplain
500 Ye ar Floodplain
0 550Feet¯Buildable Area MapTamarack Drive Project - TH 55Signal & Approach ImprovementsMedina, MN
Document Path: K:\015599-000\GIS\Maps\BuildableArea.mxd Date Saved: 6/24/2020 10:32:52 AM
1 inch = 550 f eet
?ØA@
Tamarack Dr
J
u
b
e
r
t
D
r
Prairie View TrlCavanaugh Dr
Fescue Dr
Hamel Rd
Hickory Dr
CP Railroad
Highway 55
Jubert Trl
Meander Rd
3
12
2B
13
78
6
9
10
5 2A
4
1
11
Approximate Project Location
Bene fitting Parcels
0 550Feet¯Potential Benefitting Parcel MapTamarack Drive Project - TH 55Signal & Approach ImprovementsMedina, MN
Document Path: K:\015599-000\GIS\Maps\AssessmentMap.mxd Date Saved: 6/24/2020 2:24:34 PM
1 inch = 550 f eet
City Project TAMARACK DRIVE PROJECT - TH 55 SIGNAL & APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS - SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Project No.015599-000
Date:6/26/2020
MAP ID PARCEL ID PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS BUILDABLE
AREA (AC)ZONING
TRAFFIC
GENERATION
RATE / ACRE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME
PERCENT OF
TOTAL TRAFFIC
GENERATED
1 211823440052 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROLLING GRN BUSINESS PK LLC
600 HWY 169 S #1660,
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 1.01 MED DEN RES 64.85 66 0.5%
2A 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES
15701 LA BONA TER,
MINNETONA MN 55345 15.52 MED DEN RES 64.85 1,006 7.4%
2B 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES
15701 LA BONA TER,
MINNETONA MN 55345 17.07 COMM 163.35 2,789 20.5%
3 211823340003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SHAMROCK HOLDING LLC
3650 YUMA LN N,
PLYMOUTH MN 55446 15.06 COMM 163.35 2,460 18.1%
4 211823310005 1248 STATE HWY NO 55 PAUL E HERRMANN
1248 STATE HWY NO 55,
HAMEL MN 55340 0.93 COMM 163.35 152 1.1%
5 211823330003 1472 STATE HWY NO 55 R & J PARTNERSHIP OF MEDINA
225 STATE HWY 55, HAMEL
MN 55340 4.67 COMM 163.35 762 5.6%
6 1111823210004 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J J & B A CAVANAUGH ET AL
3650 YUMA LANE N,
PLYMOUTH MN 55446 11.71 COMM 163.35 1,913 14.0%
7 1111823210002 1212 STATE HWY NO 55 ROBERT M MEALMAN ETAL
1212 HWY 55,
HAMEL MN 55340 0.35 COMM 163.35 58 0.4%
8 1111823210003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOSEPH J CAVANAUGH
3650 YUMA LANE N,
PLYYMOUTH MN 55446 0.25 COMM 163.35 41 0.3%
9 1111823210005 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY INC
P O BOX 188, HAMEL
MN 55340 5.08 COMM 163.35 830 6.1%
10 1111823240001 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284
210 COUNTY RD 101 N,
WAYZATA MN 55391 18.04 MIXED RES 55.34 998 7.3%
11 1111823310001 1222 HAMEL RD LYLE VOGELER
1222 HAMEL ROAD, HAMEL
MN 55340 0.60 MIXED RES 55.34 33 0.2%
12 1111823120003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF MEDINA
2052 CO RD NO 24, HAMEL
RD 55340 2.66 COMM 163.35 435 3.2%
13 1111823130002 1152 HAMEL RD INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284
210 COUNTY RD 101 N,
WAYZATA MN 55391 37.61 MIXED RES 55.34 2,081 15.3%
Figure 5 - Potential Benefitting Parcels - Traffic Generation Basis - Traffic Signal/Intersection
TH 55 TRAFFIC SIGNAL - SCHEDULE A
City Project TAMARACK DRIVE PROJECT - TH 55 SIGNAL & APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS - NORTH SIDE TH 55
Project No.015599-000
Date:6/26/2020
MAP ID PARCEL ID PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS
BUILDABLE
AREA (AC)ZONING
TRAFFIC
GENERATION
RATE / ACRE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME
PERCENT OF
TOTAL TRAFFIC
GENERATED
1 211823440052 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROLLING GRN BUSINESS PK LLC
600 HWY 169 S #1660,
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 1.01 MED DEN RES 64.85 66 0.7%
2A 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES
15701 LA BONA TER,
MINNETONA MN 55345 15.52 MED DEN RES 64.85 1,006 10.9%
2B 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES
15701 LA BONA TER,
MINNETONA MN 55345 17.07 COMM 163.35 2,789 30.2%
3 211823340003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SHAMROCK HOLDING LLC
3650 YUMA LN N,
PLYMOUTH MN 55446 15.06 COMM 163.35 2,460 26.6%
4 211823310005 1248 STATE HWY NO 55 PAUL E HERRMANN
1248 STATE HWY NO 55,
HAMEL MN 55340 0.93 COMM 163.35 152 1.6%
5 211823330003 1472 STATE HWY NO 55 R & J PARTNERSHIP OF MEDINA
225 STATE HWY 55, HAMEL
MN 55340 4.67 COMM 163.35 762 8.2%
6 1111823210004 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J J & B A CAVANAUGH ET AL
3650 YUMA LANE N,
PLYMOUTH MN 55446 11.71 COMM 163.35 1,913 20.7%
7 1111823210002 1212 STATE HWY NO 55 ROBERT M MEALMAN ETAL
1212 HWY 55,
HAMEL MN 55340 0.35 COMM 163.35 58 0.6%
8 1111823210003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOSEPH J CAVANAUGH
3650 YUMA LANE N,
PLYYMOUTH MN 55446 0.25 COMM 163.35 41 0.4%
9 1111823210005 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY INC
P O BOX 188, HAMEL
MN 55340 5.08 COMM 163.35 0 0.0%
10 1111823240001 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284
210 COUNTY RD 101 N,
WAYZATA MN 55391 18.04 MIXED RES 55.34 0 0.0%
11 1111823310001 1222 HAMEL RD LYLE VOGELER
1222 HAMEL ROAD,
HAMEL MN 55340 0.60 MIXED RES 55.34 0 0.0%
12 1111823120003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF MEDINA
2052 CO RD NO 24, HAMEL
RD 55340 2.66 COMM 163.35 0 0.0%
13 1111823130002 1152 HAMEL RD INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284
210 COUNTY RD 101 N,
WAYZATA MN 55391 37.61 MIXED RES 55.34 0 0.0%
Figure 6 - Potential Benefitting Parcels - Traffic Generation Basis - North Approach
TAMARACK DRIVE NORTH OF TH 55 - SCHEDULE B
City Project TAMARACK DRIVE PROJECT - TH 55 SIGNAL & APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS - SOUTH SIDE TH 55
Project No.015599-000
Date:6/26/2020
MAP ID PARCEL ID PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS
BUILDABLE
AREA (AC)ZONING
TRAFFIC
GENERATION
RATE / ACRE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME
PERCENT OF
TOTAL TRAFFIC
GENERATED
1 211823440052 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROLLING GRN BUSINESS PK LLC
600 HWY 169 S #1660,
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 1.01 MED DEN RES 64.85 0 0.0%
2A 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES
15701 LA BONA TER,
MINNETONA MN 55345 15.52 MED DEN RES 64.85 0 0.0%
2B 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES
15701 LA BONA TER,
MINNETONA MN 55345 17.07 COMM 163.35 0 0.0%
3 211823340003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SHAMROCK HOLDING LLC
3650 YUMA LN N,
PLYMOUTH MN 55446 15.06 COMM 163.35 0 0.0%
4 211823310005 1248 STATE HWY NO 55 PAUL E HERRMANN
1248 STATE HWY NO 55,
HAMEL MN 55340 0.93 COMM 163.35 0 0.0%
5 211823330003 1472 STATE HWY NO 55 R & J PARTNERSHIP OF MEDINA
225 STATE HWY 55,
HAMEL MN 55340 4.67 COMM 163.35 0 0.0%
6 1111823210004 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J J & B A CAVANAUGH ET AL
3650 YUMA LANE N,
PLYMOUTH MN 55446 11.71 COMM 163.35 0 0.0%
7 1111823210002 1212 STATE HWY NO 55 ROBERT M MEALMAN ETAL
1212 HWY 55,
HAMEL MN 55340 0.35 COMM 163.35 0 0.0%
8 1111823210003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOSEPH J CAVANAUGH
3650 YUMA LANE N,
PLYYMOUTH MN 55446 0.25 COMM 163.35 0 0.0%
9 1111823210005 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY INC
P O BOX 188,
HAMEL MN 55340 5.08 COMM 163.35 830 19.0%
10 1111823240001 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284
210 COUNTY RD 101 N,
WAYZATA MN 55391 18.04 MIXED RES 55.34 998 22.8%
11 1111823310001 1222 HAMEL RD LYLE VOGELER
1222 HAMEL ROAD,
HAMEL MN 55340 0.60 MIXED RES 55.34 33 0.8%
12 1111823120003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF MEDINA
2052 CO RD NO 24, HAMEL
RD 55340 2.66 COMM 163.35 435 9.9%
13 1111823130002 1152 HAMEL RD INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284
210 COUNTY RD 101 N,
WAYZATA MN 55391 37.61 MIXED RES 55.34 2,081 47.5%
TAMARACK DRIVE SOUTH OF TH 55 - SCHEDULE C
Figure 7 - Potential Benefitting Parcels - Traffic Generation Basis - South Approach
City Project TAMARACK DRIVE PROJECT - TH 55 SIGNAL & APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS
Project No.015599-000
Date:6/26/2020
MAP ID PARCEL ID PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS
BUILDABLE
AREA (AC)ZONING
TRAFFIC
GENERATION
RATE / ACRE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME
PERCENT OF
TOTAL TRAFFIC
GENERATED
1 211823440052 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROLLING GRN BUSINESS PK LLC
600 HWY 169 S #1660,
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 1.01 MED DEN RES 64.85 66 0.5%
2A 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES
15701 LA BONA TER,
MINNETONA MN 55345 15.52 MED DEN RES 64.85 1,006 7.4%
2B 1111823120004 1182 STATE HWY NO 55 EMIL J JUBERT ET AL TRUSTEES
15701 LA BONA TER,
MINNETONA MN 55345 17.07 COMM 163.35 2,789 20.5%
3 211823340003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SHAMROCK HOLDING LLC
3650 YUMA LN N,
PLYMOUTH MN 55446 15.06 COMM 163.35 2,460 18.1%
4 211823310005 1248 STATE HWY NO 55 PAUL E HERRMANN
1248 STATE HWY NO 55,
HAMEL MN 55340 0.93 COMM 163.35 152 1.1%
5 211823330003 1472 STATE HWY NO 55 R & J PARTNERSHIP OF MEDINA
225 STATE HWY 55,
HAMEL MN 55340 4.67 COMM 163.35 762 5.6%
6 1111823210004 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J J & B A CAVANAUGH ET AL
3650 YUMA LANE N,
PLYMOUTH MN 55446 11.71 COMM 163.35 1,913 14.0%
7 1111823210002 1212 STATE HWY NO 55 ROBERT M MEALMAN ETAL
1212 HWY 55,
HAMEL MN 55340 0.35 COMM 163.35 58 0.4%
8 1111823210003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOSEPH J CAVANAUGH
3650 YUMA LANE N,
PLYYMOUTH MN 55446 0.25 COMM 163.35 41 0.3%
9 1111823210005 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY INC
P O BOX 188,
HAMEL MN 55340 5.08 COMM 163.35 830 6.1%
10 1111823240001 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284
210 COUNTY RD 101 N,
WAYZATA MN 55391 18.04 MIXED RES 55.34 998 7.3%
11 1111823310001 1222 HAMEL RD LYLE VOGELER
1222 HAMEL ROAD,
HAMEL MN 55340 0.60 MIXED RES 55.34 33 0.2%
12 1111823120003 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF MEDINA
2052 CO RD NO 24, HAMEL
RD 55340 2.66 COMM 163.35 435 3.2%
13 1111823130002 1152 HAMEL RD INDEPENDENT SCHL DIST 284
210 COUNTY RD 101 N,
WAYZATA MN 55391 37.61 MIXED RES 55.34 2,081 15.3%
Combined Potential Benefit - SCHEDULES A - C
Figure 8 - Potential Benefitting Parcels - Traffic Generation Basis - Combined Potential Benefit
Medina City Council Excerpt from 5/19/2020 Minutes
1
A. Tamarack Drive Corridor/Visioning Study – Concept Review and Update (7:37
p.m.)
Stremel identified the corridor area, noting that the intent is to plan for future improvements and
gather input from stakeholders and residents. He noted that the future improvements would
most likely occur in phases as adjacent land develops. He reviewed the guidance that the plan
would provide. He reviewed the adjacent land uses within the corridor, highlighting the potential
future land uses for those properties when/if they develop. He also reviewed the staging
periods for the different parcels within the corridor. He reviewed the different steps of the study
process that were completed.
Chuck Rickart, WSB Traffic Engineer, stated that they did an extensive traffic analysis for the
area with the primary goal of reviewing the corridor and anticipated traffic volumes from future
development. He stated that they also met with MnDOT, at their request, as MnDOT wanted to
determine that a signal would be the appropriate traffic control at that intersection, which
required study of other roadways in the area. He provided details on how the analysis was
completed, using the land uses identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He provided a
comparison of the existing daily traffic counts on the corridors to the projected 2040 numbers,
which assume a full movement signalized intersection at Tamarack and Highway 55. He stated
that if the signal is not provided there would be a significant shift in the traffic pattern. He
provided background information on the levels of service grades identified for the different
intersections and then reviewed the existing levels of service and projected levels of service for
the different intersections. He reviewed the different improvements proposed within the study
and the related service level that would be anticipated.
Martin stated that she has difficulty in predicting what will be needed for future development but
recognizes the need to plan ahead. She stated that perhaps the Council should choose the
most desirable options, rather than making choices based off cost, with the recognition that
those choices would only move forward if there is sufficient funding.
Anderson asked if staff reviewed what would happen to overall traffic north of Highway 55, by
eliminating the throughput from 55 at Tamarack up to Meander.
Rickart stated that if the properties developed to the full extent proposed in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan, there would be a significant increase in traffic on Meander Road.
Stremel stated that there would be a significant change in the level of traffic and level of service
at the adjacent intersections.
Anderson stated that this plan is gross in his opinion and does not match the desire to maintain
the rural character of Medina.
DesLauriers stated that he shares the same concerns. He noted that from 116 to Willow Drive
there are currently five stoplights on Highway 55, and this would make a 6th stoplight within a
two-mile radius. He stated that it gets to be a lot. He recognized that traffic controls are
needed, and it is tough to find the right balance.
Anderson stated that he is shocked that the State would agree to place a full stoplight at
Tamarack for that reason.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 5/19/2020 Minutes
2
Pederson stated that he has a completely different point of view. He stated that with the school
location there would need to be a safe access for buses to come in and out. He noted that this
is also the last retail area within Medina. He commented that much of the infrastructure costs
would be paid for through development. He asked whether a roundabout could be installed at
Pinto and Meander. He stated that it appears that MnDOT has planned for this improvement
with the turn lanes and median.
Stremel stated that the roundabout could be considered for Pinto and Meander.
Rickart replied that they have not yet reviewed that option but could look into that option as well.
He agreed that there are intersection elements in place at Tamarack, it just needs the added
control. He stated that with the right-in/right-out option at Tamarack, the traffic counts on
Meander would be anticipated to double. He noted that with no access to Highway 55, the
traffic count could exceed 10,000 cars per day on Meander.
Stremel stated that the public engagement process helped to drive the design and provided
details on the public engagement process. He presented the design options preferred through
the public engagement process. He reviewed the next steps noting that once input is received
from the Council, additional design work will be completed, and the remaining study work will be
completed. He stated that staff would also develop a feasibility study for the intersection signal
as a separate project. He stated that cost estimates and possible funding mechanisms would
also be reviewed and included in the final study report.
Finke stated that if there was not going to be an intersection at Highway 55 and Tamarack, the
land uses in that area would be different. He stated that there are six or seven property owners
through the corridor with different land uses, therefore there will most likely be projects
completed at different periods of time. He explained that the corridor study will help to provide
guidance on the needed improvements for each phase of development. He stated that input is
needed from the Council as to whether the parkway standard design is preferred and whether
there is a desire for a roundabout at the commercial entrance to the north.
Martin commented that the parkway is beyond what she envisions Medina to be and does not
seem to fit the character of the community. She stated that she would like to experiment with a
roundabout.
Anderson stated that he is stunned by this proposal. He stated that if this has to move forward,
he would prefer to see the roundabout in the commercial area. He stated that he is curious
about the parkway, as that could be viewed as the nicer option of the two as it seems to result in
more land, trees, and vegetation with a wider road.
Martin stated that it seems like a lot of road and suburbia for Medina.
Albers asked what the expense would be for the City to maintain a parkway segment of road, as
it appears there would be a lot of maintenance with the shrubs, trees, and mowing. He asked it
if would be worth it to attempt to achieve that look for that short segment of roadway. He
echoed the comment that this is a lot of information to digest. He asked the timeline when
projects would become real and move forward. He stated that given the unknown economic
times, he would be cautious on the timing of the projects. He stated that he thought that
roundabouts are much more expensive than a signal.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 5/19/2020 Minutes
3
Anderson echoed the comments of the timing of this project related to the unknown economic
times. He stated that potentially nothing may occur within the corridor for five years and asked
for information on the timing.
Pederson stated that this is a similar process to Chippewa, noting that it is important for
planning to get ahead of the curve and determine access, which eliminates the safety concerns
that would arise when development occurs. He stated that developers will provide a
contribution for the improvements needed for their segment of the corridor improvements. He
stated that staff will need this information for future discussions with developers. He stated that
he likes the roundabout but does not like the cost of a roundabout.
Martin stated that it is important to plan for traffic improvements that will be needed when
development requests come forward. She stated that guidance should be given with the caveat
that the improvements would be dependent upon the development that comes forward and the
funding available/required. She asked the Council to provide input on the differences between
Concept A and Concept B. She commented that everyone has trepidation with the
development that may come and the need for forecasting of traffic improvements that would be
needed.
Stremel stated that a similar roundabout discussion occurred in the Chippewa corridor study.
He noted that in this corridor, the cost between a signal and roundabout would not be that
different because the intersection is not yet developed. He noted that the adjacent development
would provide the right-of-way and some of the other elements. He stated that perhaps the
difference in cost between the two options in this location would be 10 to 15 percent, whereas in
an established intersection the difference would be about 25 percent.
Finke stated that with this plan in place, the lion’s share for the construction of the
improvements within the corridor would be funded by the adjacent development. He explained
that is why it is important to have this plan in place prior to development requests coming
forward. He stated that it will be a challenge to develop a funding mechanism for the signal. He
stated that it would be fair to assume there would not be a contribution from MnDOT for the
Highway 55 signal.
DesLauriers stated that he likes the stop sign location at Meander and the roundabout which
helps the flow of traffic. He recognized that there would be a higher cost for the roundabout, it
would provide benefit. He stated that he likes Concept A. He stated that while the parkway
option is aesthetically pleasing, it would be hard to maintain and instead prefers the option with
a road and sidewalk. He referenced the locations for water retention ponds and stated that he
prefers the far-left option shown in Concept B rather than the far-left option shown in Concept A.
He stated that the Concept B option would help to breakup the retail development from the
adjacent residential development.
Stremel stated that it is difficult to predict the type of development that would be proposed for
the commercial areas identified and therefore staff provided those options to generate feedback.
Finke stated that the main difference between the two concepts on the west end is the
intersection that reaches Meander, noting that Concept A extends to the west of Fields of
Medina whereas Concept B merges at the Fields of Medina neighborhood.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 5/19/2020 Minutes
4
Albers stated that he likes the idea of Concept A, where the intersection is not aligned with the
neighborhood and imagined that would be the preference of the neighborhood as well. He
stated that this option would attempt to stagger that increased traffic.
Martin agreed with the comments of Albers.
Stremel confirmed that was a prominent comment from the public, preferring the connection
occur further west.
Scherer asked if that west access would present any issues with sightlines.
Stremel stated that sightlines were considered when determining that west connection.
Scherer recognized the comments from Albers related to increased maintenance that would be
needed with the parkway design. He stated that if there is not an intersection to Highway 55
that would really increase Meander and 116 traffic. He stated that this really is a clean slate and
it is important to look at all the options. He stated that staff discussed the roundabout option in
depth, noting that the roundabout would support a variety of different angles for connections to
occur which provides flexibility in planning for adjacent properties.
Martin confirmed the consensus of the Council was that the preferred options was for a
roundabout, for the westerly road connection to occur west of the Fields of Medina, and for a
more traditional divided road rather than a parkway.
Martin asked if the cost to finalize the study is included in the budget.
Johnson confirmed that the study was a part of the 2020 budget.
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Martin, to proceed with Concept #A as the preferred
option, including a full access with signal at Highway 55.
A roll call vote was performed:
Pederson aye
Anderson nay
DesLauriers aye
Albers nay
Martin aye
Motion passed.
Anderson stated that he voted against this because he is concerned that by completing the
study it would encourage developers and development.
Albers echoed the sentiment that this study could be seen as the City advertising for
development.
Martin stated that she is supporting this because she is looking for further study and input from
the relevant agencies related to the curb cut but is not voting for the construction of the roads or
development. She stated that this is a planning exercise and not a method to promote
development.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 5/19/2020 Minutes
5
Moved by Martin, seconded by Pederson, to direct staff to take actions necessary to secure
approval from relevant agencies for the access at Highway 55 and to complete the Tamarack
Drive Study.
A roll call vote was performed:
Pederson aye
Anderson nay
DesLauriers aye
Albers nay
Martin aye
Motion passed.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 7/21/2020 Minutes
1
Stremel provided an overview of the discussion that occurred at the previous review of the study
on May 19th. He noted that Council provided direction on the preferred vision of an undivided
roadway with a roundabout for commercial entry. He noted that the final report was included in
the packet. He displayed the preferred roadway design, noting that they attempted to minimize
the parkway feel as previously directed.
DesLauriers asked if there was feedback from the School District and other landowners on the
south side of Highway 55.
Stremel stated that he was not aware of any comments.
Finke stated that staff received an email from Loram, expressing concern with the location of the
southern approach and requesting that the approach be moved to the east to limit the amount of
land needed from the west.
Stremel stated that the intersection has been slid as far to the east as possible. He stated that
they have attempted to balance the right-of-way needs between the eastern and western sides
to the extent possible. He reviewed the options that were reviewed for the commercial access,
noting that because of the anticipated level of traffic in this corridor, a roundabout was found to
be the best option for intersection control. He highlighted some of the benefits of a roundabout
in this location compared to traditional intersection controls. He displayed the remainder of the
north and south improvements along with a total potential project costs that include all the
improvements.
Pederson stated that it was mentioned that the southern portion of the project could not be
developed until 2025 and asked why the southern portion cost was included then. He asked if
MnDOT would move forward with the intersection without both the northern and southern
improvements.
Stremel stated that the intent of including the cost was to include the potential costs for the
whole corridor, as that helps to put the scope and cost of improvements into perspective.
Chuck Rickart, WSB, stated that there would not be an issue with building an intersection, the
issue will be with the control of that intersection, which would be based on traffic generation. He
stated that when reviewing the traffic projections, approximately 3,500 vehicles per day would
be needed to trigger consideration of the signal improvement by MnDOT.
Stremel stated that noted within the report, the proposed townhome development would not
trigger the signal on its own and would only equate to about one third of that need.
Martin asked if the estimated costs are just hard costs or whether they include acquisition as
well.
Stremel replied that no right-of-way costs were included, although some costs were included for
wetland mitigation.
Martin asked where the boundaries are for the purposes of the various land uses related to
these improvements, specifically whether property and land use boundaries are straddled.
Stremel identified property lines and different land uses.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 7/21/2020 Minutes
2
Martin asked if there would then be a risk that the properties could be sold in two parcels, which
would not align the cul-de-sac with the property line.
Stremel stated that with the Lennar development plan submitted, their property would be
subdivided, and the proposed split would be identified. He stated that several different iterations
were reviewed with different roundabout locations and provided background information on the
proposed location for that improvement.
Martin commented that it would seem that would put the City at risk for a huge land acquisition
cost.
DesLauriers agreed that if that were moved north closest to the purple line, some of those
acquisition costs could be eliminated.
Martin commented that is one of the few commercial/retail pieces left along Highway 55 and
taking that much from that property could make that piece undevelopable or less valuable.
Stremel stated that the roundabout could be moved to the north somewhat.
Martin commented that the east/west alignment seems to be equal for the property owners.
She stated that her concern is with the west and east legs of the roundabout. She asked for
information on land use and tax parcels. She stated that if the property to the west side were all
owned by one property owner, perhaps that owner did not care where the roundabout comes
into the property. She stated that, from her perspective, there are two parcels on the west side,
that if sold separately with the proposed alignment, would create unusable land and acquisition
costs.
Pederson stated that he agrees that it should go down the property line to keep the land values
at what they should be.
Martin stated that currently the cost estimates do not include land acquisition costs and it
appears that the road plans, as presented, could cause the City to incur right-of-way costs.
Stremel reviewed some of the funding considerations, noting that several projects may be
completed to accomplish the entire corridor. He stated that many of the improvements would be
implemented with adjacent development, along with a potential to implement/fund some of the
improvements through special assessments. He stated that if the Council approves the report,
it does not commit the City to spending funds on any of the project elements.
Pederson referenced the south side and asked if there is enough room for the railroad crossing
and intersection.
Stremel agreed that it is narrow but is not much different than the Arrowhead crossing. He
noted that review was only done for an at grade rail crossing.
Rickart commented that an overpass or underpass in this location would be extremely
expensive as the road would need to move and it is physically not possible in this location. He
explained how the signal would operate in order to clear an approach prior to a train arriving at
the crossing.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 7/21/2020 Minutes
3
Martin referenced the display that shows the proposed Lennar development and again
commented on the right-of-way shown for the different properties and curving of the road.
Stremel stated that the curve in the road helps to avoid the wetland as much as possible to
prevent additional mitigation costs.
Martin stated that she understands that some of this planning was done based on assumptions
of future developments in order to provide a vision for the corridor. She commented that may
change as future developments come forward.
Carol Schimnich, representing the Jubert property, stated that there are only two owners, the
Juberts on the east and the Cavanaughs on the west side.
Martin noted that the Council also received the written comments from the Jubert property prior
to the meeting. She noted that Johnson delivered a counterproposal to the concept plan from
the Cavanaughs.
Eric Miller, representing the Cavanaughs, stated in the private development world they desire
greater depth on the parcel, which is the highway frontage piece zoned for commercial. He
stated that this is a fairly large piece, with both pieces totaling 28 acres. He stated that from
their perspective it would make sense to have more depth on the highway frontage side and
move the intersection to the north. He stated that will also better align with the property line and
provide an opportunity for right-of-way to be shared between the two parcels. He stated that the
parcel to the north is a bit of a transitional piece between single-family residential and
commercial. He stated that the best commercial developments generate traffic, which requires
proper management of that traffic and access. He stated that if there is not proper access to
those developments, there would not be good commercial developments. He stated that with
thoughtful planning they would move the roundabout north and consider another access to the
highway frontage property. He stated that having more depth to the highway frontage property
would allow for a variety of commercial uses to develop on that parcel. He stated that they need
redundancy in access and roadway in order to provide good access. He referenced the north
leg of the roundabout, noting that there was an access from the townhomes going directly to
Tamarack Drive. He commented that access will be low volume and therefore they suggest that
be redirected to the east leg of the roundabout. He noted that their concept would have minimal
impacts to wetlands. He noted that stormwater improvements will need to be planned for and
locations will need to be identified, whether they be regional systems or individual systems. He
stated that this design also eliminates the remnant parcels on both sides of the roadway. He
stated that their concept also includes phasing for some of the improvements. He noted that a
portion of the improvements would need to occur at this time in order to support the Lennar
project. He stated that equitable right-of-way allocations are important to all the property
owners in the corridor.
Albers referenced the pond proposed in the southeast corner and asked if that could be in the
northwest corner instead.
Miller confirmed that stormwater facilities could be placed where they are needed and explained
that they simply identified the need for a stormwater facility. He stated that with the drainage
patterns, a facility on the east side would be preferable.
Martin appreciated that a lot of retail developers want a full cut access plus a right-in/right-out at
minimum. She stated that she also agrees that it would make sense to move the access to the
Medina City Council Excerpt from 7/21/2020 Minutes
4
north. She commented that the Cavanaugh plan does not seem to be as beneficial to the
Jubert property. She stated that she does like the road alignment.
Miller stated that if he were representing the Juberts, the three quarters access could be a right-
in/right-out to the east. He stated that further thought and consideration could be given to the
Jubert property in the same way he has provided that to the Cavanaughs.
Pederson asked how far the roundabout would be from Highway 55.
Miller replied that the roundabout would be about 650 feet from Highway 55.
Joe Cavanaugh stated that their goal is to place their property in the best position for future
development. He stated that they have spoken with people in the development world that had
the same position Miller expressed. He stated that there are different ownerships between the
Cavanaugh parcels, with different ages and timelines.
Finke stated that the City attempted to engage with the property owners and broader community
early in the process. He noted that some of this information came through later in the process,
along with a pending application, and staff has been working to understand everyone’s interest.
He stated that the roundabout ended up further south for some of the reasons Miller talked
about related to that site which are supported by additional accesses south of the roundabout
towards Highway 55. He stated that the legs off the roundabout would be the first access off the
Highway and would accommodate the majority of the left bound traffic without implementing
additional turn lanes. He stated that the location is also based on leaving a sufficient amount of
space between Highway 55 to allow for stacking.
Scherer stated that he agrees with Finke, noting that the whole purpose was to limit the
accesses closest to Highway 55. He stated that staff has worked hard to make this the best-
case scenario. He stated that this is a clean slate and they do not want to create the same
problems that exist on other roadways.
Martin asked if the additional access points are removed with the roundabout as the access
point, could that roundabout be moved further north to align with the property line.
Scherer stated that staff spoke today about perhaps slightly moving it and changing the way the
westerly finger comes off the roundabout.
Stremel commented that there is only so far you can go to twist the access points clockwise; it
will just start to create tighter curves. He noted that there is some flexibility in twisting those
fingers.
Rickart referenced the first left turn shown on the Cavanaugh proposal, which would split the
commercial property and generate a good amount of the anticipated daily trips. He stated that a
left turn into that site would not be long enough to accommodate the anticipated que and
therefore would backup in the through lane and potentially to Highway 55. He stated that
although it would not be ideal, a right-in/right-out would be better than a three-quarter access.
He stated that the only way to accommodate the turn lane would be to widen Tamarack all the
way to Highway 55.
Stremel noted that there could also be some time until the roundabout is constructed in a fully
developed scenario, under the Cavanaugh proposal.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 7/21/2020 Minutes
5
Miller commented that the speed in a roundabout is significantly lower as that is meant to be a
calming device. He agreed that the three quarters access would need to be studied and proper
turn lane lengths would need to be found. He recognized that additional right-of-way may be
needed. He believed that the development community would support those options. He stated
that if there is not proper access, there will not be a successful commercial development. He
recognized that there is a certain level of congestion for a commercial development.
Finke stated that part of the thought was to push the roundabout as far south as possible.
Miller commented that it really comes down to depth in order to have flexibility to attract users in
the marketplace. He stated that they are attempting to have more depth on the Highway 55
frontage to provide flexibility for development in the future. He stated that pushing that access
to the north provides them with that depth.
Finke stated that he has seen situations with lined roundabouts in commercial settings and
asked for details on the spacing of those.
Rickart replied that having two roundabouts in this corridor would not line up with the property
line. He stated that two roundabouts could fit, but there would be significant impacts to the
Lennar property.
Stremel stated that if the roundabout were pushed towards Highway 55, the City would need to
show that spacing would not impact the Highway 55 intersection and that queuing would not
happen in close proximity to the intersection.
Martin asked how far the roundabout would need to be from Highway 55 to be acceptable to
MnDOT.
Rickart stated that it would depend upon the amount of traffic generated from the adjacent
properties. He stated that the roundabout could be moved slightly to the south, but not much,
perhaps 50 to 75 feet.
Martin referenced the proposed City plan and asked why the cul-de-sac consumes more of the
western parcel than the easterly parcel.
Stremel stated that is to help avoid the proposed pond on the Lennar parcel. He stated that
they have come close to balancing the right-of-way on the approach to Highway 55. He noted
that there is more taken on the east in that location, therefore the additional right-of-way in the
roundabout balances that out. He confirmed that more right-of-way is being taken from the
Jubert side than the Cavanaugh side.
Paul Tibone, Lennar, stated that he sent Finke an email earlier this week based on the
reconfiguration models of the roundabouts proposed by the Cavanaughs. He stated that Lennar
has been working with the Juberts since February or March of this year, as well as working with
the City. He reviewed the steps they have followed thus far to incorporate comments from staff,
the public, the Commissions and Council. He stated that the configuration from the
Cavanaughs makes the secondary access point for the Lennar site not possible. He stated that
with the Cavanaugh proposal they would lose eight to nine units, which would significantly
impact their project that has already been through much of the City processes. He stated that
as the parcels develop, the City would gain the necessary right-of-way and therefore it would
Medina City Council Excerpt from 7/21/2020 Minutes
6
not matter if the Cavanaugh properties are developed at different times. He noted that they
have a preliminary plat that has already gone through the Planning Commission and they
support the WSB design as it is proposed by staff. He stated that the Cavanaugh design would
place almost all the ponding on the east side, which would further encumber the Jubert property
and the preliminary plat they have into the City.
Martin asked if Lennar is still in a contingency period.
Tibone replied that they are still within the contingency period.
Martin asked the amount of right-of-way that would be dedicated along the Tamarack corridor.
Tibone replied that they would be dedicating their 40 feet, which would be half the roadway.
Martin thanked everyone for their comments. She stated that the Council is always looking to
ensure that its opinion is not slanted towards a proposed development and is instead fair to all
the property owners.
Pederson stated that this is a complicated subject and agreed that the right-of-way should be
taken equally amongst each property owner and the stormwater ponds should be divided to the
best of the engineer’s ability. He stated that he finds it difficult to make the left-hand turn
coming into that property. He asked if the roundabout would serve as it should or whether a
traditional intersection should be considered. He also believed that the Council should be
careful of splitting properties and devaluing those properties.
Albers echoed the comments of Pederson that perhaps instead of a roundabout, two
intersections should be created. He stated that option may also be more cost effective. He
stated that maximizing the developable value of the land is important from a tax perspective and
would not want to see infrastructure hinder that ability. He stated that he would prefer to
continue to look at the plan and work with all the property owners to find the best option. He
stated that this is the opportunity for the City to do this right and more time should be spent on it.
Martin asked if Albers believes that City staff should sit down with the adjacent property owners
and their engineers to work on the plan.
Albers confirmed that would be his recommendation.
DesLauriers stated that he believes that additional work would be needed by all parties to come
to some type of agreement. He stated that he likes the roundabout and would like to see it
shifted to the north. He stated that he understands that commercial development needs a three
quarters access, but it would be challenging to have that traffic crossing the road and could
cause accidents. He stated that taking away the Tamarack access to Lennar could be a good
idea to reduce the potential for a dangerous and congested intersection in the future.
Anderson echoed the comments of the members thus far in that there are not firm development
proposals from the commercial property. He encouraged the parties to sit down with their
engineers and City staff to try to find a solution.
Martin stated that she would assume that the paramount interest is public safety and a close
second would be to preserve and enhance land value. She stated that neighboring cities have
sometimes overengineered road improvements. She commented that having the City work with
Medina City Council Excerpt from 7/21/2020 Minutes
7
adjacent property owners can provide benefit. She noted that she does not want to leave
remnant parcels. She confirmed the consensus of the Council for additional work to be done.
Moved by Anderson, seconded by DesLauriers, to direct staff to work with the property owners
with the goal of public safety and enhancing land values.
A roll call vote was performed:
Pederson aye
Anderson aye
DesLauriers aye
Albers aye
Martin aye
Motion passed unanimously.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 8/18/2020 Minutes
1
Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study – Final Concept Plan (7:27 p.m.)
Johnson stated that at the July 21st meeting the Council reviewed this concept and directed staff
to work with the adjacent property owners in order to develop a plan that meets the interests of
all parties. He stated that staff held that meeting and thought that all the parties agreed on the
proposal being presented tonight. He stated that emails were received from Anderson and Eric
Miller, representing the Cavanaughs, that were distributed to the Council. He stated that this is
a visioning study that sets the parameters for the corridor.
Martin stated that this does not commit the City or any parties to these improvements and is
simply intended to guide future development of the corridor.
Stremel provided background information on the process thus far. He stated that a draft of the
final study was presented at the last meeting with a review of the concept plan. He stated that
comments were provided from adjacent landowners and the direction from Council was for staff
to setup a meeting with the adjacent landowners to further discuss the corridor. He felt that the
meeting went well and there were great discussions for the corridor and adjacent development
needs. He provided a comparison of the previous concept and the revised concept. He stated
that there is general support for the roundabout in the newly proposed location. He highlighted
the additional elements that were added to the new concept following the meeting with those
landowners. He stated that the next step would be for the Council to adopt the study with the
fully signalized intersection at TH 55.
Martin appreciated the work that was put into the revised plan.
Albers asked how far south the roundabout shifted and whether the amount of right-of-way is
equitable between the property owners.
Stremel replied that the roundabout was moved about 60 feet to the south, which was as far
south as staff was comfortable with. He stated that staff attempted to make the right-of-way
split as equitable as they could.
Pederson asked for details on the Loram property and the wetland.
Stremel confirmed that Loram would need access from Tamarack because of the wetland
location.
Pederson asked if Loram was comfortable with the right-of-way being taken.
Stremel stated that he did not receive a response from Loram but noted that the median cannot
be reduced because of quiet zone requirements. He stated that they have not yet received a
development plan for that portion of the Loram property.
Finke stated that Loram’s interest was to minimize the right-of-way as much as possible. He
commented that the right-of-way split is 2 to1 between the City and Loram.
DesLauriers asked if Wayzata Schools was invited to the meeting with staff.
Finke stated that he was unsure if the School District was invited to this discussion as the
corridor study concentrated on the north side. He stated that the School District has been a part
of the broader process.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 8/18/2020 Minutes
2
DesLauriers stated that the previous discussion was for a desire to move the roundabout closer
to the lot lines. He asked if the property owners were in agreement with the alignment.
Stremel stated that it is not a straight alignment, noting that typically roundabouts have some
curve to them, and staff did the best they could to balance the right-of-way needed on all
properties.
DesLauriers commented that he is concerned with the intersection to the north coming out of
Lennar, noting that could be very troublesome with people coming from that access, the
roundabout, and from Meander.
Stremel replied that the idea would be that the roundabout would serve as the primary
commercial access and the Lennar access would have less commercial access. He stated that
the amount of traffic generated from the residential side would be less than the commercial side
and noted that the peak times for residential and commercial are usually different.
DesLauriers stated that he would like to limit the volume to that intersection.
Stremel stated that based on input from adjacent landowners, it was important for them to have
a second access to the commercial properties.
Martin asked the concern of DesLauriers.
DesLauriers stated that he is concerned with the volume of traffic in the roundabout and then
with the Lennar and Meander intersections.
Martin stated that she is not bothered by the proposed alignment. She stated that other cities
have roundabouts and straight intersections that seem to work fine. She believed that there
was sufficient length available for those actions.
Anderson stated that he can see the point raised by DesLauriers and asked if there is a right-in
or left-out for Lennar.
Stremel stated that there is no right-out but there is a southbound left turn into the development.
DesLauriers asked and received confirmation that vehicles coming from Lennar could go left,
right, or straight.
Finke stated that the volumes are slightly higher for Tamarack north of the roundabout than
Meander but not by much.
Stremel stated that the traffic flow between the intersections was not updated. He stated that
given that the roundabout would serve as the primary access to commercial, there would be a
reduction in the flow to the secondary commercial access and then further north to Meander.
He again mentioned that the peak times for the commercial and residential properties would be
different.
Finke stated that the intent would be to have a low speed for the corridor, at 30 mph, further
slowed by the roundabout.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 8/18/2020 Minutes
3
Anderson referenced the projected cost for the south portion of the project and asked if the
intent would be that Wayzata Schools and other developers would pay for those improvements.
Stremel replied that much of the cost to the south is the railroad crossing. He stated that cost
would be split between the properties to the south side: Wayzata Schools, the City, and Loram.
Finke commented that based on acreage, most of the property in that area is owned by the
School District.
DesLauriers commented that Wayzata appears to own the majority of the land on the south side
and therefore it would seem that they should have been involved.
Finke stated that the School District has been involved in the process throughout, with the
exception of the last meeting to discuss the improvement to the north.
Martin confirmed that the School District was involved in the discussions but most likely did not
have any interest in the improvements to the north that were discussed at the last meeting.
Pederson stated that it was his understanding that the railroad crossing improvements in other
areas included grant funds to implement quiet zones and the remaining funds were paid by the
City.
Stremel stated that the railroad improvements could be paired with the TH 55 intersection. He
confirmed that it would be a City project.
Pederson noted that the last three quiet zone projects were City projects that involved grant
funds and he would then think this would follow the same process.
Martin agreed that she would not be willing to commit City funds if there were not grant funds
involved. She noted that if the improvement is desired without grant funds because of
development, that cost could involve participation from the developers.
Pederson stated that he believed that access should be provided to the Cavanaugh property to
ensure that area is viable and successful and therefore supports the alignment as proposed.
Stremel commented that turn lanes were added along with the slow speed to ensure that could
be provided safely.
Eric Miller, representing the Cavanaughs, stated that they recognize that a certain amount of the
improvements are going to move forward with the townhome development that will set an
alignment for the roadway based on the visioning study. He stated that they are still uncertain
as to the financial obligations, stormwater management allocations and right-of-way dedication
that would be necessary. He stated that they are concerned that there will be a question placed
upon the Cavanaughs for right-of-way dedications to be provided to support the development to
the south. He stated that they will want a clear picture of the entire project and related
obligations. He stated that they would like to move forward with full transparency and hopes
that they will not be put in a position where they do not have time to think through the requests
in a thoughtful and responsible manner. He stated that just because they are not objecting to
this does not mean they fully support requests that could be made in the future to support
development to the south.
Medina City Council Excerpt from 8/18/2020 Minutes
4
Anderson commented that this is a visioning study that would not commit the City to expenditure
of funds. He referenced a portion of the study that states it is not anticipated that a cost share
of the Hamel Road or TH 55 would be possible, and that the City would need to fund a portion
of the watermain loop. He stated that on the one hand the City wants to move ahead and adopt
the visioning study, but within the study it is clear that two primary funding sources, Hennepin
County and MNDOT, would not be available for the cost-shares of those intersections. He
stated that if a motion is made, he would want a statement made that makes it clear that at this
time the City will not bear any costs associated with this project.
Martin stated by adopting the visioning study the City is not committing any funds. She stated
that in the future there may be a decision for the City to contribute funds. She recognized the
language and at this time the City does not have funding partners but that does not mean there
may not be partners in the future. She confirmed the consensus of the Council that adopting
the visioning study would not commit the City to expenditure of funds.
Moved by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to adopt the Tamarack Drive Corridor Visioning Study
with fully signalized intersection at TH 55 provided, however that in adopting such visioning
study the City Council does not commit to spending funds for any of the road improvements
envisioned by the study or taking any additional steps as outlined in the study.
A roll call vote was performed:
Pederson aye
Anderson aye
DesLauriers nay
Albers aye
Martin aye
Motion passed.
DesLauriers stated that he supports the roundabout and signalized traffic signal but does not
support the secondary Lennar access.
December 2021
Meander Park & Boardwalk Development
1472 Highway 55 Medina, MN 55340
PUD Concept Plan Submission
Medina Ventures, LLC
PUD Concept Plan Application General Information and Present Status References
Subd. 2. Information Required according to section 827. Zoning -Zoning Districts of Medina
City Code
Sections (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j)
(a) General Information:
Land Owned by R&J Partnership of Medina with plans to sell property to Medina
Ventures LLC for development
Reg Pederson 2821 Comstock Lane Plymouth, MN 55447
Jeff Pederson 4145 Mohawk Drive Medina, MN 55340
Applicant Name
Chris Pederson – Owner Medina Ventures, LLC
4130 Fescue Drive Medina, MN 55340
Professional Consultants
David Kalogerson – Owner of Kalcon Construction – General Contractor
2859 Gale Road, Minnetonka MN 55391
Pablo Villamil – Owner of Villamil Architecture – Architect
2324 Brewster Street St. Paul, MN 55108
Kelly Ness – Owner of Skysurv - Surveyor
5775 Wayzata Blvd. #700 St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Peter Galzki – Civil Engineering Consultant
413 Ridgeview Circle Medina, MN 55340
Jon Knudsen – Owner of Area M Consulting, LLC – Environmental Consultant
2023 Alameda Street Roseville, MN 55113
Mark Radke – Felhaber Larson – Attorney
220 S. 6th Street Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402
Matthew Plec – Great Southern Bank – Lending Consultant
7685 Zachary Lane North Maple Grove, MN 55369
Evidence that Applicant has sufficient control over property
See attached/enlocsed Letter of Intent signed by owners of R&J Partnership
(b) Present Status:
4172 Highway 55 Medina, MN Zoning Classification is Commercial Highway for property south of
Meander Road and low density residential for property north of Meander road
See additional attachments showcasing zoning classifications, map depicting subject property within
1,000 feet and written statement described as project narrative
(d) Site Conditions:
Please refer to attached/enclosed documents including but not limited to the site survey and
wetland delineation
(e) Schematic drawings of proposed development:
Please refer to attached/enclosed documents including but not limited to the site plan
(f) Statement of estimated number of dwelling units:
Please refer to attached/enclosed documents including but not limited to the zoning map and
site plan
(g) Construction Stage Statement:
At this time we hope to have all buildings to be built in one construction season but will depend
greatly on the timing and status of city approvals and individual pads being sold beyond the
venue. Refer to project narrative for greater detail on buildings.
(h) Provisions for public or private open space or service facilities, a statement describing the
provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service
facilities.
We anticipate having a single entity control the service, care and maintenance of all open,
public and private outdoor spaces and any service facilities onsite.
(i) General intents of any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to
property included in the proposed PUD. –
We intend to have some type of restrictive covenants in place but will depend on concept plan
feedback from the Planning Commission, City Council and additional internal discussions with
project consultants as the project progresses.
(j) Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, wells, sanitary sewer, septic and
storm sewers.
Please refer to attached/enclosed plan grading, drainage and utility plans
December 8, 2021
Meander Park & Boardwalk – Medina, MN, by Medina Ventures, LLC
Project Narrative
Meander Park & Boardwalk is a proposed commercial planned unit development located on the north
side of Highway 55, 900 feet east of Arrowhead Drive.
As the over 18-acre site is surrounded by wetlands to the west and to the south, a wetland delineation
was conducted in September of 2021, which revealed approximately 6 acres of developable land on the
site. Access to the site is located at Meander Road on the north side of the main property.
A development review meeting took place on October 29, 2021 with the City Planner, Dusty Finke, and
Public Works Director, Steve Scherer. From discussions with the City Planning department and
consultation with the City engineer, the main road access to the development should be placed at least
four hundred feet from the nearest intersection, which is located to the east and serves as the main
access to the Fields of Medina West neighborhood.
There have been multiple iterations of the concept plan reviewed by the Development team, and the
current site plan is optimized to achieve the overall intent of the development,: To provide a walkable,
aesthetically pleasing entertainment and relaxation destination that incorporates the natural beauty of
the land while providing access to desirable amenities that benefit nearby residents of Medina as well as
other surrounding communities.
The proposed development achieves this intent by focusing on the incorporation of some unique design
elements described below. These elements all support the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and Community
Goals which are noted and described in more detail below.
The Boardwalk
The most important of these is a long and winding boardwalk that follows the natural curves of the
existing wetlands. This expansive boardwalk is meant to serve three main purposes for the
development. The first is functional in that it will provide the buildings within the development, the
benefit of having, if they so choose, an additional access point with visibility and/or outdoor seating and
service areas to potential guests, depending on the type of business. The second purpose of the
boardwalk is to immerse all guests, including the public, in the natural beauty of the wetlands and to
interact directly with the wildlife that frequent the site. The final purpose of the boardwalk is to provide
a unique design aesthetic for the entire development that sets it apart from the majority of other
commercial developments in neighboring suburbs, where asphalt tends to dominate majority of the
public access points.
These three functions directly support multiple parts of the Comprehensive Plan’s community goals,
including preserving rural vistas, open spaces, wetlands and encouraging an attractive, vibrant business
community that complements residential areas of the City. Furthermore, if given prudent consideration,
the boardwalk could be key in helping preserve and expand the trail and park system to connect
neighborhoods and encourage healthy lifestyles for its residents via the Diamond Lake Regional Trail.
Parks, Plazas and Ponding
The next unique component of Meander Park & Boardwalk will be to incorporate parks, plazas and
ponding throughout the development. As guests arrive, their eyes will be drawn to ponding and green
space surrounding the entrance at Meander Road. These green spaces will feature trees, native grasses,
small flower gardens and some designated areas for casual lawn games such as bean bags, shuffleboard
and bocce ball. As guests park and begin walking toward the site, Meander Park’s plazas will greet them
next. Whether it is the calming sounds from the water fountains or the visual appeal of locally
commissioned art sculptures, the plazas create an incredible space between buildings that provides an
ambience that will make people forget they just pulled off the Highway. The parks, plazas and ponding
component also supports the Comprehensive Plan’s community goals by preserving open spaces.
The Venue
The anchor of the development will be a multi-story entertainment venue. The venue will be majority-
owned, financed and run by the developer which will not only provide a beautiful building on-site, but
one that will also attract the type of businesses that a high-end, venue would lend itself to. The venue
will be designed to host a wide variety of events such as weddings, celebrations of life, corporate events,
smaller music recitals, artistic performances, fine art displays, botanical showcases, local fundraisers,
fashion shows, speaking engagements, religious celebrations, and other cultural experiences.
The design of the building will have a focus on form and function with the intent of being able to serve a
wide range of event types and thus attract a larger network of people, businesses and organizations. We
believe the demographics of Medina and the surrounding communities tend to be highly educated,
upper-middle class residents with an increasingly diverse population of religious, racial and ethnic
backgrounds, which this venue would seek to serve through its ability to accommodate the needs of
potential clients, whatever those needs may be. For example, the venue itself will feature a large,
commissary kitchen that will be built to accommodate a variety of pre-approved local restaurants and
caterers in the area. So, whether it be a classic American meat and potatoes party, a private Diwali
celebration or a vegan luncheon, the venue’s business model can provide the necessary flexibility. This
model also is attractive given the current state of the food service industry and the desire of many
companies within that market to expand or begin to provide off-site catering. Furthermore, the venue
will be designed with outdoor space available for professional tenting, allowing guests the option of
holding a ceremony, reception or event outdoors. There will also be areas designated for lawn games
and commissioned art sculptures to adorn the venue and park plaza areas as time and resources allow.
Lastly, the conservatory and gazebo will be additional highlights of the venue explained below.
The Venue: Conservatory
If meandering down a boardwalk on a fall Friday afternoon with close friends or seeing a child smile
while snacking on an ice cream cone in summer isn’t enough, imagine walking through an expansive
conservatory on a day with clear blue skies in the heart of a cold Minnesota winter. The conservatory
will add another unique element to Meander Park and, just like the other elements, will serve more than
one purpose. First of all, the conservatory will serve as an additional feature to the venue providing a
space that adds grandeur to a wedding ceremony, visceral intimacy to a celebration of life or perhaps
just a little humidity and respite from the bitter cold and dryness of a cold winter’s day. Lastly, the
conservatory will operate with the intention of being open to guests of the development as well as for
private events and thus provide additional opportunities to utilize the development. This could include,
educational opportunities for local school field trips, a non-profit brunch fundraiser or private soirees for
any reason whatsoever.
The Venue: Gazebo Area
The Gazebo Area is located in a small portion of the site near the southwest corner of the property. We
expect this area to be accessed via an extension of the boardwalk, and may feature elements like a small
bar, fire pit, and/or intimate gathering space for a private ceremony. Given the relatively close proximity
to Highway 55 and the potential noise and visual challenges it could bring, this part of the development
is being reviewed with additional research required to determine what may work best. Regardless of the
final design, this space will provide yet another area of the development for guests to enjoy.
The venue, it’s nearby gazebo and conservatory components also effectively support the community
goals of the Comprehensive Plan in similar ways as the previous elements, especially in the promotion of
public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community.
Mixture of Additional Businesses
Although the developer will not have full control over what businesses decide to call Meander Park &
Boardwalk home, we plan to market directly to the following types of businesses: Family restaurants,
professional offices, cocktail lounges, breweries, indoor/outdoor food halls, daycares, salons, med spas,
bakeries, ice cream shops, toy stores, fast casual food services, boutique fitness facilities, wine/craft
brew shops and/or photography studios.
At this stage, aside from the venue and its components, we have six additional buildings/spaces on the
site plan we would like to have occupied by the businesses mentioned above. Our current priority is
attracting both a restaurant and daycare as we feel these two business types are critical to the
development’s overall success. The restaurant is a priority given the large and ongoing demand for
additional dining options in Medina and the daycare to help fill the large need for families with young
children, some who continue to be on waiting lists at several daycare centers throughout the West
Metro. Also, these two businesses in particular help offset parking given the former will see the most
traffic on nights and weekends and the latter on weekdays alone.
North Property Villas
The north side of the development, which is located north of Meander Road and just west of the Fields
of Medina neighborhood, is zoned Low Density Residential. Although this is in direct contrast to the
south side described above which is zoned Highway Commercial, we are still looking to develop the
northern portion and believe the approximately 1.5 acres of buildable land would allow for up to three
villa style dwellings. By developing the north and south properties at the same time, the timing impact
of construction operations could be minimized and could provide a better economy of scale for the
entire project. Especially considering the sewer and water connections that will be required on both
sides of Meander Road. The access drive to the north side of the development would be to the west to
line up directly across from the entrance to the south side of the development. These villas would be
constructed to take advantage of the sweeping views of protected wetland located on and just west of
the property and could also take into account the buildable upland area and how it tapers from being
fairly wide near Meander Road to narrow as it extends north.
5100
Venue
2700
Conservatory
5100
Space
2200
Space
2200
Space
2700
Space
1600
Gazebo
2100
Space
7500
Day Care
235 PARKING SPACES
PLAZA
BOARDWALK
PLAZA
PARK
Meander Rd
HWY 55
SETBACK
WETLAND DELINIATION
S
T
O
R
MW
ATE
R
P
O
N
D
7500
Fenced Play Area
25'15'
Ca
v
a
n
a
u
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
Architect
Pablo Villamil
612.388.6622
PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com
\//\
VILLAMIL ARCHITECTURE
Owner
Chris Pederson
Medina Ventures LLC
MadMrChristopher@gmail.com
A0212/07/21
Concept
1" = 100'-0"1 Site Plan
5100
Venue
2700
Conservatory
5100
Space
2200
Space
2200
Space
2700
Space
1600
Gazebo
2100
Space
7500
Day Care
HWY 55
2000
Unit 1
2000
Unit 2
2000
Unit 3
Meander Rd
x 1 0 0 0 '
x 9 9 8 'x 9 9 6 'x 9 9 4 'x 9 9 2 'x 9 9 0 'x 9 8 8 'x 9 8 6 '
x 1 0 0 0 '
x 9 9 8 '
x 9 9 6 '
x 9 9 4 '
x 9 9 2 '
x 9 9 0 '
S
T
O
R
MW
A
TE
R
P
O
N
D
Ca
v
a
n
a
u
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
Architect
Pablo Villamil
612.388.6622
PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com
\//\
V
IL
L
A
M
IL
A
R
C
H
IT
E
C
T
U
R
E
Owner
Chris Pederson
Medina Ventures LLC
MadMrChristopher@gmail.com
A03
1
2
/
0
7
/
2
1
C
o
n
c
ep
t
1" = 100'-0"1 Grading and Drainage Plan
5100
Venue
2700
Conservatory
5100
Space
2200
Space
2200
Space
2700
Space
1600
Gazebo
2100
Space
7500
Day Care
Meander Rd
HWY 55
2000
Unit 1
2000
Unit 2
2000
Unit 3
SEWER
WATER
Ca
v
a
n
a
u
g
h
D
r
i
v
e
Architect
Pablo Villamil
612.388.6622
PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com
\//\
V
IL
L
A
M
IL
A
R
C
H
IT
E
C
T
U
R
E
Owner
Chris Pederson
Medina Ventures LLC
MadMrChristopher@gmail.com
A04
1
2
/
0
7
/
2
1
C
o
n
c
ep
t
1" = 100'-0"1 Utility Plan
Architect
Pablo Villamil
612.388.6622
PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com
\//\
VILLAMIL ARCHITECTURE
Owner
Chris Pederson
Medina Ventures LLC
MadMrChristopher@gmail.com
A0112/08/21
Concept
1 Existing Conditions
1"=100'
Architect
Pablo Villamil
612.388.6622
PabloV@VillamilArchitecture.com
\//\
VILLAMIL ARCHITECTURE
Owner
Chris Pederson
Medina Ventures LLC
MadMrChristopher@gmail.com
A0509/09/21
Concept
Postframe Fun Childcare
Boardwalks
Articulated Storefronts, Sidewalk Plaza
Passage
Boardwalk Storefronts
Meandering Boardwalk
Inside / Outside
Venue -Interior/Exterior
Beerhouse Plaza
Park Plaza
Handsome Modern
Standalone Modern
In-Out Perimeter
alkip
Tpr
orsPopmwm
oig
•
0"'L
•
�, J1,aYj�i4,..�,i_� .R+•.a k_ a Xe. is ll..liF ,r.1I Liµ �,h •.1
I ti
•
tl : '� � i `.�IW X lith-;111141, 1100,1
N;11Y7, �h
L ..!
fiM ;: lr �YJ I
I,L x
J y
Y '1 1
Ird
• �1,Jri-'
�J�1a^ �� sw�l��
fir � •, Yr 4�.I
1 iT 1 1 .1� i 1 ,
rz:11 ���0
ifkrir , ik:
N L. • r1 id �' � '3
Ii
• '1
Jeff and Chris Cates Page 1 of 2 March 1, 2022
Environmental Assessment Worksheet City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: February 24, 2022
MEETING: March 1, 2022 City Council
SUBJECT: Jeffery and Chris Cates – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) –
Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development –
PIDs 04-118-23-11-0002, 04-118-23-14-0004
Background
On December 21, 2021, the City Council authorized release of the Cates Industrial Park
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for comment. The comment period ended on
February 3. The applicant has also requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow for the
development. Review of the Comp Plan Amendment is pending, awaiting completion of the
EAW.
State Rules establish the City as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this type of
EAW. This City is now responsible to review comments from the public and other agencies, to
respond to the comments as necessary, and to make a determination on whether or not additional
environmental review is necessary via an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
During the comment period, the City received eight written comments from the following
agencies:
• State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
• Metropolitan Council
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
• Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
• Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission
• City of Corcoran
• Minnesota Department of Administration State Archaeologist
These comments are exhibits to the draft Findings of Fact and Record of Decision (FOF/ROD)
which is attached for City Council review and approval. None of the agencies recommended that
an EIS be required. Staff has included draft responses to the comments within the FOF/ROD.
Review of the Concept Plan Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment is underway and is
tentatively scheduled to be presented to Council on March 15. Processing the EAW as required
by state Rules does not bind the City’s decisions on subsequent land use requests.
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item #8B
Jeff and Chris Cates Page 2 of 2 March 1, 2022
Environmental Assessment Worksheet City Council Meeting
The City retains discretion when ultimately making decisions on the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and other relevant land use applications. The City’s determination on whether an
EIS is required does not limit the City’s decision-making on land use requests. The Comp Plan
Amendment will be reviewed through the formal process, where more information will be
provided for review. The comments and report from the EAW will be one component of this
information.
Staff Recommendation
After preparing the EAW and reviewing and preparing responses to comments, staff does not
believe the project meets the criteria for requiring an EIS as described in state rules. The project
would be subject to review by various agencies if it were to proceed with final design, and staff
believes the regulatory process would provide adequate opportunity for review and
implementation of appropriate mitigative measures.
As such, staff recommends the following actions:
1. Motion to approve the Cates Industrial Park EAW Findings of Fact and Record of
Decision
2. Motion to adopt the resolution approving the response to comments, findings of fact, and
record of decision for the Cates Industrial Park EAW and making a negative declaration
upon the need for an Environmental Impact Statement
Attachment
1. Draft Findings of Fact and Record of Decision
2. Draft Resolution
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
1
CATES INDUSTRIAL PARK
Findings of Fact and Record of Decision
City of Medina
March 1, 2022
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
2
1. Administrative Background
The Cates Family is proposing to redevelop an approximately 69.8-acre site located north of
Highway 55 at Chippewa Road and Willow Drive in Medina. The proposed project consists of a
total of approximately 664,500 square feet of office/warehouse uses on the site. Development
would include new infrastructure, including water service, sewer, stormwater, streets, and
utilities. All of these new services would be extensions to existing infrastructure or upgrading
existing systems to support the new land development.
The City of Medina is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this project. An
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared in accordance with Minnesota
Rules Chapter 4410. The EAW was mandatory per Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart
14: Industrial, commercial, and institutional facilities.
The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for
review and comment to the required distribution list. A notice of availability was published in
the EQB Monitor on January 4, 2022. This notice included a description of the project,
information on where copies of the EAW were available, and invited the public to provide
comments.
The EAW was made available electronically on the City of Medina’s website at
https://medinamn.us/cates-ranch-eaw/.
The EAW comment period extended from January 4 to February 3, 2022. Written comments
were received from eight agencies. All comments received were considered in determining the
potential for significant environmental impacts.
Based on the information in the record, which is composed of the EAW for the proposed
project, the comments submitted during the public comment period, the responses to
comments, and other supporting documents, the City of Medina makes the following Findings
of Fact and Conclusions.
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
3
2. Findings of Fact
2.1 Project Description
The Cates Family owns three parcels of approximately 68.9 acres of agricultural land located
north of Highway 55 at Chippewa Road and Willow Drive in Medina. There is an existing
farmstead and associated structures on the site.
The proposed project consists of a total of approximately 664,500 square feet of
office/warehouse uses on the site. Development would include new infrastructure, including
water service, sewer, stormwater, streets, and utilities. All of these new services would be
extensions to existing infrastructure or upgrading existing systems to support the new land
development.
The proposed project would necessitate an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
various land use approvals for which the City would maintain discretion and authority to decide
irrespective of the determination on whether an Environmental Impact Statement shall be
ordered.
2.2 Corrections to the EAW or Changes to the Project since the EAW was Published
There have been no changes to the proposed project design since the EAW was published.
2.3 Agency and Public Comments on the EAW
During the comment period, the City of Medina received eight written comments from the
following agencies:
• State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
• Metropolitan Council
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
• Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
• Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission
• City of Corcoran
• Minnesota Department of Administration State Archaeologist
Consistent with state environmental rules, responses have been prepared below for all
substantive comments received during the comment period. Original comments in their
entirety are included in Appendix A.
1) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), February 2, 2022
Comment: “Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are
no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known
or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project .”
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
4
Response: Comment noted. Thank you for your review. Per the additional
comments from the OSA, the developer still intends to complete a Phase I
archeological reconnaissance survey prior to development to determine if the
project could damage any unrecorded sites.
2) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), January 31, 2022
Comment: “Permits and Approvals (Item 8) Please be aware, if the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) 404 permit is required, the MPCA 401 Water Quality Certification
must also be included and becomes an enforceable component of the associated federal
license or permit. The scope of a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification is limited to
assuring that a discharge from a federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with
water quality requirements. Along with an Antidegradation Assessment, the 401
program recommends that the applicant meet with the MPCA in advance of requesting
a 401 Water Quality Certification. The MPCA is the 401 certifying authority in the State
of Minnesota.”
Response: Thank you for your comment. An MPCA 401 Water Quality
Certification is included in the Permits and Approvals table in Section 8 of the
EAW. If required, a pre-filing meeting will be requested from the MPCA at least
30 days prior to submitting the 401 Water Quality Certification request.
Comment: “Permits and Approvals (Item 8) In addition, in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, the Project should include the MPCA as a regulator of all surface waters as
defined by MN Stat. § 115.01 subd. 22. Waters of the state. Even though there may be
surface waters that are determined to be USACE non-jurisdictional, or exempt from the
WCA, all surface waters are regulated by the MPCA and any surface water impact needs
to be described in the application and may require mitigation. For further information
about the 401 Water Quality Certification process, please contact Bill Wilde at 651-757-
2825 or William.wilde@state.mn.us.”
Response: Comment noted. The proposer will coordinate with MPCA on any 401
Water Quality Certification process, if needed.
Comment: “Water Resources (Item 11) If the 68.9 acre Project will disturb 50 or more
acres and has the ability to discharge to the impaired North Bay of Peter Lake, the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will need to be submitted to MPCA for
review and approval prior to issuance of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Construction Stormwater Permit (CSW
Permit). Note that the SWPPP will require plans for additional Best Management
Practices (BMPs), not mentioned in the EAW, during construction for runoff that
ultimately discharges to the impaired water. Also, redundant down gradient sediment
controls will be required if the construction must encroach the existing 50 ft. of natural
buffer to the wetlands.”
Response: Comment noted. A SWPPP will be submitted to the MPCA and BMPs
will be described in the SWPPP. Redundant down gradient sediment controls will
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
5
be installed if the construction must encroach the existing 50 feet of natural
buffer to the wetlands.
Comment: “Water Resources (Item 11) A volume reduction method must be considered
first for management of stormwater runoff. In addition to the planned stormwater
basins or potential infiltration areas, the Project proposer should also consider reducing
stormwater volume through use of pervious pavements, stormwater reuse and green
roofs on buildings, which also reduce energy consumption.
Response: Comment noted. A volume reduction method will be considered, and
the project proposer will also consider reducing stormwater volume through
recommended methods.
Comment: “Water Resources (Item 11) In addition, the Project proposer is strongly
encouraged to plant deeper rooted native vegetation and trees instead of lawns on the
29.5 acres of open space to help absorb stormwater from the site as well as provide
pollinator habitat. Please direct questions regarding CSW Permit requirements to
Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or Roberta.Getman@state.mn.us.
Response: Comment noted. The proposer will consider planting deep rooted
vegetation.
3) Metropolitan Council, February 3, 2022
Comment: “Item 9 – Planned Land Use (Freya Thamman, 651-602-1322; Todd Graham,
651-602-1750) As the EAW notes, the site is currently guided as Future Development
Area and staged for development post-2040. A comprehensive plan amendment is
needed to reguide the site and stage for near-term development.
Should the development proceed, employment in Medina will surpass the 2030
forecast, with the 2040 employment forecast also likely too low. The development
would add three new buildings including 664,500 square feet of light in dustrial,
warehouse, and office space. A communitywide employment forecast increase should
accompany the amendment. If the development may employ as many as 500 or 600
jobs, Council staff advise adding +300 or +400 jobs to the current communitywide
employment forecast.
Council staff are responsible for maintaining forecast allocations to Transportation
Analysis Zones (TAZs). Following approval of the amendment, Council staff would
allocate the forecast increase to TAZ #913 for both the 2030 and 2040 decennial
milestones. City staff are welcome to contact Council Research with any questions.”
Response: The City will consult with Metropolitan Council staff on the need to
update these projections in connection with the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, if it is approved. The City does not believe communitywide
employment forecasts will likely need to be adjusted because other recent
developments approved by the City have resulted in comparatively low
employment per acre.
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
6
Comment: “Item 11 – Water Resources - Wastewater (Roger Janzig, 651-602-1122)
Although the Metropolitan Disposal System has adequate capacity for this project
location, it is not currently included in the 2030 MUSA. As identified above, the Council
will require an amendment to the guiding land use and staging plan for the site prior to
extension of wastewater service.”
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: “Item 18 – Transportation (Victoria Dan, 612-349-7648)
The Cates Industrial Park development does not presently impact fixed route transit. As
the City is aware, the Metropolitan Council in coordination with MnDOT have begun to
study the feasibility of future bus rapid transit in the Trunk Highway 55 corridor
between downtown Minneapolis and Medina. At this early stage, it is not clear what
impacts, if any, the project may have on transit feasibility.”
Response: Comment noted.
4) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), February 3, 2022
Comment: “Page 7, Geology. The section should discuss the glacially deposited
unconsolidated sediments that exist in this area and overlie the consolidated Paleozoic
bedrock. The sediments appear to consist mostly of clay and are at least 150 feet thick.”
Response: Thank you for the additional information.
Comment: “Page 12, Stormwater. The DNR recommends that water from the
stormwater ponds be used for irrigating the landscaping on the site. The use of
stormwater from constructed stormwater features does not require a DNR Water
Appropriation Permit.”
Response: The City prohibits the use of water from the municipal water supply
for landscape and lawn irrigation. Any landscape irrigation system would be
required to be supplied from stormwater ponds as required by City ordinance.
Comment: “Page 12, Stormwater. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also
increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local
lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment,
potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider
promoting local business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered
through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available
for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information
and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have
attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private
companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their
organizations.
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
7
We also encourage cities and counties to consider how they may participate in the
Statewide Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the
overuse of chloride. Here are some educational resources for residents as well as a
sample ordinance regarding chloride use.”
Response: Comment noted. The project will comply with all city of Medina, Elm
Creek Watershed Management, MPCA, county, and state rules for stormwater
management, and chloride use will be addressed in the Stormwater
Management Plan that will be reviewed by the city for compliance. City public
works maintenance staff has completed MPCA Smart Salt training.
Comment: “Page 13, Water Appropriation. Ditches border each of the parcels and
connect to wetlands on the site. In addition to construction dewatering for utilities and
footings, It should be noted that if there is a need to pump water to allow culverts to be
placed for roads to cross the ditches, or to construct the wastewater lift station &
associated sewer lines, then a DNR Water Appropriation Permit could be needed for the
dewatering if the volume of water exceeds 10,000 gallons per day (or one million
gallons of water per year).”
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: “Page 18, Rare Features. The DNR concurs that impacts to rare features are
unlikely to occur as a result of this project.”
Response: Comment noted. Thank you for your review.
Comment: “Page 18, Rare Features. We appreciate that the development will use native
seed mixes and plants in project stormwater features and landscaping in order to
provide pollinator habitat. The Board of Soil and Water Resources’ website contains
many great resources for choosing seed mixes and establishing native plants.
Response: Comment noted.
5) Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), February 2, 2022
Comment: “Traffic: A pan, tilt, zoom (PTZ) camera should be added to the signal system
at MN 55 and Willow Dr as mitigation for the proposed development traffic, as it will
enable MnDOT Signal Operations to monitor and adjust operations as needed. Fiber
optic cable will be needed to connect the camera to the existing fiber network.
Minor signal timing adjustments (ie lengthen cycle) may be considered. The connection
of Chippewa Road to Arrowhead Dr is important to provide alternate routes onto MN
55.
Questions regarding these comments should be directed to Eric Lauer-Hunt, MnDOT
Metro District Traffic at eric.lauer-hunt@state.mn.us or 651-234-7875.”
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
8
Response: A camera will be added to the signal system at MN 55 and Willow
Drive, as recommended for monitoring the TH 55 at Willow Drive intersection.
MnDOT staff indicated in preliminary meetings that neither significant alteration
of signal timing nor the addition of a second southbound left-turn lane on Willow
Drive would be supported until Highway 55 is expanded to a four-lane
configuration through Willow Drive.
Additional study will be completed as part of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and/or with the site design and review process to determine if the
local transportation system can support the proposed project and what
improvements are necessary to mitigate potential impacts. The study will include
review of site traffic distribution assuming Chippewa Road is extended ; inclusion
of other anticipated developments in the area; analysis of interim design year
phasing; analysis of access, lane configuration and traffic control mitigation
alternatives on Willow Drive and Chippewa Road.
Comment: “Permits: Any use of, or work within or affecting, MnDOT right of way will
require a permit. Permits can be applied for at this site:
https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload a copy of this letter when applying
for any permits.
Please direct questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig of MnDOT’s Metro
Permits Section at 651-775-0405 or Buck.Craig@state.mn.us.”
Response: Comment noted. A MnDOT permit will be applied for if any use of, or
work within or affecting, MnDOT right of way.
6) Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission, December 21, 2021
Comment: Future development on the project site shall conform to ECWMC rules and
standards. A complete list of the Elm Creek WMC rules and standards can be viewed at
Application Requirements – Elm Creek Watershed. Site development must meet these
stormwater, wetlands, buffers, floodplains, and erosion control standards.
Response: Comment noted. The site plan will comply with all City of Medina, Elm
Creek Watershed Management, MPCA, county, and state rules for surface water
management.
Comment: Please be advised that the property immediately to the north, in Corcoran,
includes Hennepin County Ditch #3 and a designated FEMA floodplain. This mapped
FEMA floodplain is inconsistent with topography and future remapping efforts are likely
to extend the FEMA mapping onto the proposed Cates Industrial Park site.
Response: Comment noted. As site plans progress, the site development will
conform to the applicable floodplain regulations and setbacks. FEMA designates
the adjacent parcel as Flood Zone A. Zone A does not have a Base Flood
Elevation or depth of flooding defined. The applicant will work with FEMA to
Determine a BFE and use this information in determining whether the subject
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
9
project will be impacted. The site will conform to the applicable floodplain
regulations and setbacks.
Comment: The cumulative effect of increased runoff volume is an emerging issue in the
ECWMC due to rapid development and the construction of impervious issues on the
landscape. Increased runoff volume is associated with increased flood risk for
downstream communities and degradation of channel banks due to increased non-peak
flows, aquatic species disturbance due to hydrologic regime changes, and the warming
of stormwater runoff. Site soils show Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D, low and very low
infiltration potential (high runoff potential). To the extent reasonable, the site design
should limit increased annual runoff volume by using best management practices.
Response: Comment noted. Per City of Medina Guidelines there is no allowable
Increase in runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. Proposed
rates must be equal to or less than existing conditions. Volume control is
required at a rate of 1.1 inches of runoff from the net new impervious surface,
which is more stringent than state guidelines. Volume control onsite will be
maximized to the extent feasible. Refer to the Medina Design Guidelines for
Volume control credits when infiltration is not feasible.
7) City of Corcoran, January 27, 2022
Comment: When the City of Medina's draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan was made
available for review in 2017, the City of Corcoran submitted a letter (dated June 22,
2017) that did not provide specific feedback on the parcels guided as "Future
Development Area" other than a recommendation that the City of Medina consider
modifying this area to allow development within the 20-year planning period to support
regional sanitary sewer improvement. Additionally, the City of Corcoran noted that the
areas between Willow Drive and Rolling Hills Road, to the east of Cates Ranch Industrial,
were guided for Business and Rural Commercial which was inconsistent with the Existing
Residential and Low-Density Residential designations immediately adjacent to the north
in Corcoran. At that time, we asked for the City of Medina to consider requiring
buffering between proposed industrial uses and the existing residential uses in
Corcoran. This same scenario applies to the two parcels in the request, and we again ask
the City of Medina to require buffering and screening to mitigate impacts from light and
noise from industrial uses developed on Cates Ranch Industrial should the
comprehensive plan amendment move forward.
Response: Comment noted. Any future development request will be subject to
relevant requirements related to buffering, landscaping, and lighting limitations.
Comment: Also, in the letter to the City of Medina dated June 22, 2017, the City of
Corcoran asked the City of Medina to consider extending the planned trail for a portion
of Willow Drive to the north boundary to align with the City of Corcoran's own plan for a
trail along Willow Drive. Since this time, the City of Corcoran has further contemplated
an improvement project along Willow Drive that includes bituminous trail to the Medina
border along the west side of the roadway. We recommend you require construction of
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
10
the trail within Medina, or at a minimum preserve right-of-way to allow for a future trail
connection.
Response: Thank you for the comment. Any development will be subject to
Subdivision review and the City will consider trail improvements when
determining appropriate amount of right-of-way.
Comment: Floodplain elevations indicate that a portion of the site has floodplain within
the site, and the floodplain extends north into Corcoran. We request that the applicant
be required to study this floodplain to define the Base Flood Elevation around this are a
and ensure the development does not impact adjacent parcels.
Response: Comment noted. Flood Zone A is shown on the adjacent property
without a BFE. Currently FEMA does not show the subject property within
Zone A. The applicant will work to determine the BFE for this area to determine
if the proposed project has any floodplain impacts. If the subject property is
shown to be within Zone A the site will be required conform to the applicable
floodplain regulations and setbacks.
Comment: Willow Drive to the north of Medina is a gravel road which is not able to
support significant traffic from a proposed industrial development. We ask that all
reasonable measures be implemented to ensure development traffic goes south to
Highway 55.
Response: Comment noted. See Response to MnDOT comments above (#5). In
addition, as outlined in the EAW Traffic Study, Willow Drive will be paved up to
the site boundary and right turn lanes will be provided at each site access. The
City will consider other practices to limit traffic to the north including site design
and signage.
Comment: Our two cities have an interconnection of water systems at Wild Meadows
and Ravinia along Hackamore Road for use during maintenance or emergencies.
Although Corcoran is rural, we recommend a watermain stub be considered to the
Corcoran boundary to serve as a future interconnect.
Response: The City will discuss potential for interconnect with the City of
Corcoran at the time of subdivision and site plan review if the project proceeds.
8) Minnesota Department of Administration State Archaeologist, January 25, 2022
Comment: I appreciate being given the opportunity to comment on the above listed
project. Although no archaeological site is currently recorded within the proposed
project area, and the majority of the project area has previously been cultivated, it does
not mean archaeological sites are not preserved, intact beneath the plowzone.
Therefore, I recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct a phase I reconnaissance
survey to determine if the project could damage unrecorded archaeological sites,
including archaeological sites from the historical period. The Minnesota Historical
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
11
Society maintains a list of archaeologists at:
http://www.mnhs.org/preservation/directory.
Response: Comment noted. The proposer will conduct a phase I reconnaissance
survey to determine if the project could damage any unrecorded archaeological
sites.
2.4 Decision Regarding Need for an Environmental Impact Statement
The City of Medina finds that the analysis completed for the EAW and the additional
information considered in this document of findings of fact and conclusions are adequate to
determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects based on
consideration of the four criteria identified in Minnesota Rules, part 4410, subpart 7.
2.4.1 Type, Extent and Reversibility of Impacts
The City of Medina finds that the analysis completed for the EAW is adequate to determine
whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW described
the type and extent of impacts to the natural and built environment anticipated to result from
the proposed project. Based on the EAW analysis and mitigation commitments, t he proposed
project is not anticipated to result in substantial impacts. Any potential impacts would be
subject to and mitigated by ongoing public regulatory authority.
2.4.2 Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects
Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of the proposed project when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or
person undertakes such other actions. Impacts from the residential development adjacent to
the project site will be addressed via the regulatory permitting and approval processes and will
be individually mitigated to ensure minimal cumulative impacts occur.
2.4.3 Extent to which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by the Ongoing
Public Regulatory Authority
The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in coordination
with regulatory agencies and will be subject to the plan approval and permitting process.
Permits and approvals that have been obtained or may be required prior to project
construction are shown below:
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
12
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Local
City of Medina
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Applied for
Rezoning To be applied for
Preliminary and Final Plat To be applied for
Site Plan Approval To be applied for
Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for
Building Permits To be applied for
Erosion Control, Grading, and
Stormwater Permit To be applied for
Sewer and Water Permit To be applied for, if needed
Wetland Conversation Act
Replacement Plan Approval To be applied for
Elm Creek Watershed District Watershed District Permit To be applied for
Regional
Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan
Amendment To be applied for, if needed
State
Minnesota Department of
Health Water Extension Permit To be applied for, if needed
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for, if needed
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Construction Site Stormwater
Permit To be applied for
Section 401 Water Quality
Certification To be applied for, if needed
Sanitary Sewer Extension
Permit To be applied for, if needed
Notice of Intent of Demolition To be applied for, if needed
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permit
To be applied for
Minnesota Department of
Transportation Right of Way Permit To be applied for, if needed
Federal
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit To be applied for, if needed
2.4.4 Extent to which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of
Other Environmental Studies
The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as
a result of environmental review, regulatory procedures, and experience on similar projects.
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
13
3. Conclusions and Record of Decision
1. All requirements for the environmental assessment worksheet of the proposed project
have been met.
2. The EAW and the permit development processes related to the project have generated
information that is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for
significant environmental effects.
3. Areas where potential environmental effects have been identified will be addressed
during the final design of the project. If the project were to proceed, it would be subject
to regulatory authority which will be sufficient to implement mitigation necessary to
address potential environmental effects. Mitigation will be provided where impacts are
expected to result from project construction, operation, or maintenance. Mitigation
measures are incorporated into project design and have been or will be coordinated
with state and federal agencies during the permit process.
4. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules, part 4410 .1700, the project does not have the
potential for significant environmental effects.
5. An environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed project.
Cates Industrial Park
Finding of Facts and Record of Decision
14
Appendix A
Agency Comments
MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287
mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER
February 2, 2022
Dusty Finke
Planning Director
City of Medina
2052 Co Rd 24
Medina, MN 55340
RE: EAW – Cates Industrial Park
Medina, Hennepin County
SHPO Number: 2022-0484
Dear Dusty Finke:
Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for
the above-referenced project.
Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the
National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in
the area that will be affected by this project.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial
assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need
to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by
our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal
agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106.
Please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Program Specialist, at
kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding our review of this project.
Sincerely,
Sarah J. Beimers
Environmental Review Program Manager
January 31, 2022
Dusty Finke
Planning Director
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
Re: Cates Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Dusty Finke:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for the Cates Industrial Park project (Project) in the city of Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The Project consists of a new office and warehouse development. Regarding matters for which the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility or other interests, the MPCA
staff has the following comments for your consideration.
Permits and Approvals (Item 8)
• Please be aware, if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404 permit is required, the MPCA 401
Water Quality Certification must also be included and becomes an enforceable component of the
associated federal license or permit. The scope of a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification is
limited to assuring that a discharge from a federally licensed or permitted activity will comply with
water quality requirements. Along with an Antidegradation Assessment, the 401 program
recommends that the applicant meet with the MPCA in advance of requesting a 401 Water Quality
Certification. The MPCA is the 401 certifying authority in the State of Minnesota.
• In addition, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the Project should include the MPCA as a
regulator of all surface waters as defined by MN Stat. § 115.01 subd. 22. Waters of the state. Even
though there may be surface waters that are determined to be USACE non-jurisdictional, or exempt
from the WCA, all surface waters are regulated by the MPCA and any surface water impact needs to
be described in the application and may require mitigation. For further information about the 401
Water Quality Certification process, please contact Bill Wilde at 651-757-2825 or
William.wilde@state.mn.us.
Water Resources (Item 11)
• If the 68.9 acre Project will disturb 50 or more acres and has the ability to discharge to the impaired
North Bay of Peter Lake, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will need to be
submitted to MPCA for review and approval prior to issuance of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Construction Stormwater Permit (CSW
Permit). Note that the SWPPP will require plans for additional Best Management Practices (BMPs),
not mentioned in the EAW, during construction for runoff that ultimately discharges to the impaired
water. Also, redundant down gradient sediment controls will be required if the construction must
encroach the existing 50 ft. of natural buffer to the wetlands.
Dusty Finke
Page 2
January 31, 2022
• A volume reduction method must be considered first for management of stormwater runoff. In
addition to the planned stormwater basins or potential infiltration areas, the Project proposer
should also consider reducing stormwater volume through use of pervious pavements, stormwater
reuse and green roofs on buildings, which also reduce energy consumption.
• In addition, the Project proposer is strongly encouraged to plant deeper rooted native vegetation
and trees instead of lawns on the 29.5 acres of open space to help absorb stormwater from the site
as well as provide pollinator habitat. Please direct questions regarding CSW Permit requirements to
Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or Roberta.Getman@state.mn.us.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please provide your specific responses to our
comments and notice of decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Please be aware
that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the
purpose of pending or future permit action(s) by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the
Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If
you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at
Karen.kromar@state.mn.us or by telephone at 651-757-2508.
Sincerely,
Karen Kromar
This document has been electronically signed.
Karen Kromar
Project Manager
Environmental Review Unit
Resource Management and Assistance Division
KK:rs
cc: Dan Card, MPCA, St. Paul
Roberta Getman, MPCA, Rochester
Bill Wilde, MPCA, St. Paul
February 3, 2022
Dusty Finke, Planning Director
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
RE: City of Medina- Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) –
Cates Industrial Park
Metropolitan Council Review No. 22721-1
Metropolitan Council District No. 1
Dear Dusty Finke:
The Metropolitan Council received the EAW for the Cates Industrial Park project in the City of
Medina on December 28, 2021. The proposed project is located north of Highway 55 at
Chippewa Road and Willow Drive. There is currently an existing farmstead on the site. The
proposed project consists of approximately 664,500 square feet of office/warehouse uses.
Development would include new infrastructure, including water service, sewer, stormwater,
streets, and utilities.
The staff review finds that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns
and does not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary
for regional purposes.
We offer the following comments for your consideration.
Item 9 – Land Use (Freya Thamman, 651-602-1322; Todd Graham, 651-602-1750)
As the EAW notes, the site is currently guided as Future Development Area and staged
for development post-2040. A comprehensive plan amendment is needed to reguide the
site and stage for near-term development.
Should the development proceed, employment in Medina will surpass the 2030 forecast,
with the 2040 employment forecast also likely too low. The development would add three
new buildings including 664,500 square feet of light industrial, warehouse, and office
space. A communitywide employment forecast increase should accompany the
amendment. If the development may employ as many as 500 or 600 jobs, Council staff
advise adding +300 or +400 jobs to the current communitywide employment forecast.
Council staff are responsible for maintaining forecast allocations to Transportation
Analysis Zones (TAZs). Following approval of the amendment, Council staff would
allocate the forecast increase to TAZ #913 for both the 2030 and 2040 decennial
milestones. City staff are welcome to contact Council Research with any questions.
Items 11– Water Resources - Wastewater (Roger Janzig, 651-602-1122)
Although the Metropolitan Disposal System has adequate capacity for this project
location, it is not currently included in the 2030 MUSA. As identified above, the
Council will require an amendment to the guiding land use and
staging plan for the site prior to extension of
wastewater service.
Page - 2 | February 3, 2022 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Item 18 – Transportation (Victoria Dan, 612-349-7648)
The Cates Industrial Park development does not presently impact fixed route transit. As
the City is aware, the Metropolitan Council in coordination with MnDOT have begun to
study the feasibility of future bus rapid transit in the Trunk Highway 55 corridor between
downtown Minneapolis and Medina. At this early stage, it is not clear what impacts, if
any, the project may have on transit feasibility.
This concludes the Council’s review of the EAW. The Council will not take formal action on the
EAW. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Michael Larson,
Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1407 or via email at Michael.Larson@metc.state.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Angela R. Torres, AICP, Manager
Local Planning Assistance
CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division
Judy Johnson, Metropolitan Council District 1
Freya Thamman, Sector Representative
Michael Larson, Principal Reviewer
Reviews Coordinator
N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Medina\Letters\Medina 2022 Cates Industrial Park EAW OK w Comments Review 22721-1.docx
Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email
Region 3 Headquarters
1200 Warner Road
Saint Paul, MN 55106
February 3, 2022
Dusty Finke, Planning Director
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
Dear Dusty Finke,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Cates Industrial Park EAW. The DNR respectfully submits
the following comments for your consideration:
1. Page 7, Geology. The section should discuss the glacially deposited unconsolidated sediments
that exist in this area and overlie the consolidated Paleozoic bedrock. The sediments appear to
consist mostly of clay and are at least 150 feet thick.
2. Page 12, Stormwater. The DNR recommends that water from the stormwater ponds be used
for irrigating the landscaping on the site. The use of stormwater from constructed stormwater
features does not require a DNR Water Appropriation Permit.
3. Page 12, Stormwater. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the
amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local lakes and streams
does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels
that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city
participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and
property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter
maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and
counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save
money for their organizations.
We also encourage cities and counties to consider how they may participate in the Statewide
Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here
are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride
use.
4. Page 13, Water Appropriation. Ditches border each of the parcels and connect to wetlands on
the site. In addition to construction dewatering for utilities and footings, It should be noted that
if there is a need to pump water to allow culverts to be placed for roa ds to cross the ditches, or
to construct the wastewater lift station & associated sewer lines, then a DNR Water
Appropriation Permit could be needed for the dewatering if the volume of water exceeds
10,000 gallons per day (or one million gallons of water per year).
5. Page 18, Rare Features. The DNR concurs that impacts to rare features are unlikely to occur as
a result of this project.
6. Page 19, Rare Features. We appreciate that the development will use native seed mixes and
plants in project stormwater features and landscaping in order to provide pollinator habitat.
The Board of Soil and Water Resources’ website contains many great resources for choosing
seed mixes and establishing native plants.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Melissa Collins
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Phone: 651-259-5755
Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us
CC:
Equal Opportunity Employer
Metropolitan District
Waters Edge Building
1500 County Road B2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
An equal opportunity employer
MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113
February 2, 2022
Dusty Finke
Planning Director
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
SUBJECT: MnDOT Review #CPA21-009
Cates Industrial Park CPA
NE Quad MN 55 & Willow Drive
Medina, Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Finke:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans for the Cates Industrial Park CPA. MnDOT
has reviewed the documents and has the following comments:
Traffic:
A pan, tilt, zoom (PTZ) camera should be added to the signal system at MN 55 and Willow Dr as
mitigation for the proposed development traffic, as it will enable MnDOT Signal Operations to
monitor and adjust operations as needed. Fiber optic cable will be needed to connect the camera
to the existing fiber network.
Minor signal timing adjustments (ie lengthen cycle) may be considered. The connection of
Chippewa Road to Arrowhead Dr is important to provide alternate routes onto MN 55.
Questions regarding these comments should be directed to Eric Lauer-Hunt, MnDOT Metro
District Traffic at eric.lauer-hunt@state.mn.us or 651-234-7875.
Permits:
Any use of, or work within or affecting, MnDOT right of way will require a permit.
Permits can be applied for at this site: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload a copy of
this letter when applying for any permits.
Please direct questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig of MnDOT’s Metro Permits
Section at 651-775-0405 or Buck.Craig@state.mn.us.
Review Submittal Options
MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received
electronically can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint
link. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as:
MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113
1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments
may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are
necessary, number each message.
2. PDF file(s) uploaded to MnDOT’s external shared internet workspace site at:
https://mft.dot.state.mn.usmetrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning
development review staff at for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file name(s)
after the document(s) has/have been uploaded.
If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 234-7797.
Sincerely,
Cameron Muhic
Senior Planner
Copy sent via E-Mail:
Buck Craig, Permits Lance Schowalter, Design
Jason Swenson, Water Resources Eric Lauer-Hunt, Traffic
Andrew Lutaya, Area Engineer Doug Nelson, Right-of-Way
Michael Samuelson, Multimodal Jesse Thornsen, Multimodal
Jason Junge, Transit Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council
elm creek
Watershed Management Commi ssion
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
3235 Fernbrook Lane
Plymouth, MN 55447
PH: 763.553.1144
E-mail: judie@jass.biz
CHAMPLIN • CORCORAN • DAYTON • MAPLE GROVE • M EDINA • PLYMOUTH • ROGERS
December 21, 2021
City of Medina
Mr. Dusty Finke, Planning Directory
2052 County Road 24
Medina, Minnesota 55340
Re: Medina Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Cates Industrial Park
Dear Mr. Finke
On behalf of the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC), I would like to offer the
comments below on the Medina Comprehensive Plan Amendment- Cates Industrial Park based on the
Watershed’s purpose as defined in Minnesota Statutes 103B.210 and its goals identified in the 2015
Third Generation Plan:
• Future development on the project site shall conform to ECWMC rules and standards. A
complete list of the Elm Creek WMC rules and standards can be viewed at Application
Requirements - Elm Creek Watershed. Site development must meet these stormwater,
wetlands, buffers, floodplains, and erosion control standards.
o Please be advised that the property immediately to the north, in Corcoran, includes
Hennepin County Ditch #3 and a designated FEMA floodplain. This mapped FEMA
floodplain is inconsistent with topography and future remapping efforts are likely to
extend the FEMA mapping onto the proposed Cates Industrial Park site.
o The cumulative effect of increased runoff volume is an emerging issue in the ECWMC
due to rapid development and the construction of impervious issues on the landscape.
Increased runoff volume is associated with increased flood risk for downstream
communities and degradation of channel banks due to increased non-peak flows,
aquatic species disturbance due to hydrologic regime changes, and the warming of
stormwater runoff. Site soils show Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D, low and very low
infiltration potential (high runoff potential). To the extent reasonable, the site design
should limit increased annual runoff volume by using best management practices.
Please contact me if you have any questions on this information.
Sincerely
Ross Mullen, Technical Advisor to the Commission
Cc Jim Kujawa, ECWMC; Judie Anderson, ECWMC
CITY OF CORCORAN
A Hidden Gem Waiting To Be Discovered
www.corcorannmgoa
January 27, 2022
Dusty Finke
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Cates Ranch Industrial
Mr. Finke,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment in
reference to the property known as "Cates Ranch Industrial", located on Willow Drive, North of
Highway 55. It is our understanding that this request will re -guide approximately 70 acres of
land currently identified as "Future Development Area" to "Business" within the 2040
Comprehensive Plan for Medina. This change in land use guiding will allow for an Industrial
Park Zoning designation, and three industrial buildings for warehouse or light manufacturing are
anticipated as a result.
The City of Corcoran has reviewed the materials received by the City on December 16, 2021,
and offers the following comments:
1. When the City of Medina's draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan was made available for review in
2017, the City of Corcoran submitted a letter (dated June 22, 2017) that did not provide
specific feedback on the parcels guided as "Future Development Area" other than a
recommendation that the City of Medina consider modifying this area to allow development
within the 20 -year planning period to support regional sanitary sewer improvement.
Additionally, the City of Corcoran noted that the areas between Willow Drive and Rolling
Hills Road, to the east of Cates Ranch Industrial, were guided for Business and Rural
Commercial which was inconsistent with the Existing Residential and Low -Density
Residential designations immediately adjacent to the north in Corcoran. At that time, we
asked for the City of Medina to consider requiring buffering between proposed industrial
uses and the existing residential uses in Corcoran. This same scenario applies to the two
parcels in the request, and we again ask the City of Medina to require buffering and
screening to mitigate impacts from light and noise from industrial uses developed on Cates
Ranch Industrial should the comprehensive plan amendment move forward.
Continued on the following page...
Administrative Offices
8200 County Road 116
Corcoran, MN 55340
Phone: 763-420-2288
Police Department Offices
8200 County Road 116
Corcoran, MN 55340
Phone: 763-420-8966
Public Works Offices
9100 County Road 19
Corcoran, MN 55357
Phone: 763-420-2652
CITY OF CORCORAN
A Hidden Gem Waiting To Be Discovered
www.corcoraman.gov
2. Also, in the letter to the City of Medina dated June 22, 2017, the City of Corcoran asked the
City of Medina to consider extending the planned trail for a portion of Willow Drive to the
north boundary to align with the City of Corcoran's own plan for a trail along Willow Drive.
Since this time, the City of Corcoran has further contemplated an improvement project along
Willow Drive that includes bituminous trail to the Medina border along the west side of the
roadway. We recommend you require construction of the trail within Medina, or at a
minimum preserve right-of-way to allow for a future trail connection.
3. Floodplain elevations indicate that a portion of the site has floodplain within the site, and the
floodplain extends north into Corcoran. We request that the applicant be required to study
this floodplain to define the Base Flood Elevation around this area and ensure the
development does not impact adjacent parcels.
4. Willow Drive to the north of Medina is a gravel road which is not able to support significant
traffic from a proposed industrial development. We ask that all reasonable measures be
implemented to ensure development traffic goes south to Highway 55.
5. Our two cities have an interconnection of water systems at Wild Meadows and Ravinia along
Hackamore Road for use during maintenance or emergencies. Although Corcoran is rural,
we recommend a watermain stub be considered to the Corcoran boundary to serve as a
future interconnect.
Please feel free to contact Interim City Administrator, Jessica Beise, with questions at
jbeise corcoranmn.gov or 763-400-7029.
Sincerely,
Tom McKee //Jessica Beise
Mayor / Interim City Administrator
City of Corcoran City of Corcoran
Copy: Kendra Lindahl, City Planner
Natalie Davis McKeown, Planner
City File
Administrative Offices
8200 County Road 116
Corcoran, MN 55340
Phone: 763-420-2288
Police Department Offices
8200 County Road 116
Corcoran, MN 55340
Phone: 763-420-8966
Public Works Offices
9100 County Road 19
Corcoran, MN 55357
Phone: 763-420-2652
Letter 1
328 West Kellogg Blvd St Paul, MN 55102
OSA.Project.Reviews.adm@state.mn.us
Date: 01/25/2022
Dusty Finke
City of Medina
763-473-8846
dusty.finke@medinamn.gov
Project Name: Cates Industrial Park
Known or Suspected Cemeteries
☐ Platted Cemeteries
☐ Unplatted Cemeteries
☐ Burial File
Notes/Comments
I appreciate being given the opportunity to comment on the above listed project. Although no
archaeological site is currently recorded within the proposed project area, and the majority of the project
area has previously been cultivated, it does not mean archaeological sites are not preserved, intact beneath
the plowzone. Therefore, I recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct a phase I reconnaissance survey
to determine if the project could damage unrecorded archaeological sites, including archaeological sites
from the historical period. The Minnesota Historical Society maintains a list of archaeologists at:
http://www.mnhs.org/preservation/directory.
Recommendations
Letter 2
☐ Not Applicable
☐ No Concerns
☐ Monitoring
☐ Phase Ia – Literature Review
☒ Phase I – Reconnaissance survey
☐ Phase II – Evaluation
☐ Phase III – Data Recovery
If you require additional information or have questions, comments, or concerns please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Tworzyanski
Assistant to the State Archaeologist
OSA
Kellogg Center 328 Kellogg Blvd W
St Paul MN 55102
651.201.2265
jennifer.tworzyanski@state.mn.us
Resolution No. 2022-##
March 1, 2022
Member _________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-##
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS,
FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE
CATES INDUSTRIAL PARK EAW AND MAKING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REGARDING THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 subpart 14, requires that an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet be prepared for projects that involve construction of a new or expansion
of an existing warehousing or light industrial facility equal to or in excess of 300,000 square feet;
and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2021, the Cates Industrial Park Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (the “EAW”) was completed relating to a proposed project to consist of a
total of approximately 665,000 square feet of office/warehouse uses on the site and new
infrastructure, including water service, sewer, stormwater, streets, and utilities; and
WHEREAS, the City is the Responsible Government Unit for preparing the EAW for the
project pursuant to above-stated Rules; and
WHEREAS, on December 30, 2021, the City submitted a press release to the Crow
River News announcing the completion of the EAW and its availability for public comment; and
WHEREAS, by January 4, 2022, copies of the EAW were distributed to all persons and
agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list and other interested
parties; and
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2022, the EAW was publicly noticed in the EQB Monitor,
commencing the 30-day public comment period; and
WHEREAS, the 30-day comment period ended February 3, 2022 at 4:30 p.m., and the
City accepted and responded to all written comments received in accordance with state
requirements; and
WHEREAS, none of the comments received recommended preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (an “EIS) for the project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project requires an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and various other land use approvals for which the City maintains discretion and authority
notwithstanding the EAW process or determination whether an EIS is required; and
Resolution No. 2022-## 2
March 1, 2022
WHEREAS, the proposed project is also subject to relevant regulatory authority and
review by various agencies related to mitigating potential environmental impacts during the
review process; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and
Record of Decision dated March 1, 2022 related to the EAW, which is incorporated into this
resolution as if fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Medina, Minnesota that:
1. The EAW was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700.
2. The EAW satisfactorily addressed the environmental issues for which existing
information could have been reasonably obtained.
3. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, the proposed project
does not have the potential for significant environmental effects.
4. The City adopts the Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision
for the Cates Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (the “Record of
Decision”) and directs the Planning Director to maintain the Record of Decision and to
distribute it in accordance with the EQB rules.
5. Based upon the adopted Record of Decision, the City herby makes a “negative
declaration” as it relates to the EAW and hereby determines that an Environmental
Impact Statement is not required for the proposed project.
Dated: March 1, 2022.
__________________________________
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Caitlyn Walker, 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. 2022-## 3
March 1, 2022
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of the Property
Lot 3, Block 1 and Outlot A, Cates Ranch, Hennepin County, Minnesota;
And
Lot 1, Block 1, Cates Ranch 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Huajie Deng – 2472 Parkview Dr. Page 1 of 3 March 1, 2022
Variance – ISTS Wetland Setback City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: February 24, 2022
MEETING: March 1, 2022, City Council
SUBJECT: Huajie Deng – Variance from setback from ISTS to wetland –
2472 Parkview Drive (PID 1611823330002) – Public Hearing
Summary of Request
Jet Deng has requested a variance from the City’s minimum setback requirement for components
of an individual subsurface sewage treatment system (ISTS, or septic system) to a wetland at
2472 Parkview Drive. The subject site is located at the northeast corner of County Road 24 and
Parkview Drive. An aerial of the site and proposed ISTS location can be found below.
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item #9A
Huajie Deng – 2472 Parkview Dr. Page 2 of 3 March 1, 2022
Variance – ISTS Wetland Setback City Council Meeting
Section 720.09 Subd. 5 requires that “Tanks and soil treatment and dispersal areas shall be
setback a minimum of 75 feet from wetlands.” This requirement was enacted by the City as an
additional requirement beyond the minimum state standard. The City has the authority to adopt
more stringent requirements, but not less. State requirements do not include a minimum setback
from wetland locations.
The applicant proposes to add an addition on the home, adding a bedroom. Adding a bedroom
requires expansion of the ISTS and the tanks also need to be updated. The existing tanks and
soil treatment and dispersal area (mound) of the ISTS are approximately 30 feet from the
wetland and do not currently meet the 75-foot setback. The new proposed tanks would be
further from the wetland than the existing tanks. However, the proposed expansion of the mound
would be approximately three feet closer to the wetland.
Analysis
The existing home and ISTS were constructed prior to the City adopting the wetland setback and
the existing ISTS does not meet wetland setback requirements. The applicant proposes to
increase the setback from the tanks to the wetland. Staff believes it would be reasonable to
approve of the location of the tanks as proposed because the existing service line exits the home
in this location and because the applicant proposes to increase the setback compared to the
existing tanks.
The applicant reviewed for other locations for the septic mound. The applicant’s designer
indicates that locations near the home are either too steep or have been impacted by site
construction. Alternative locations are over 500 feet from the home and in areas that are
wooded.
Section 720.21 states that the City Council has the authority to consider variances from certain
requirements of the septic ordinance, including required setbacks to wetlands. The ordinance
establishes the following criteria for reviewing variance requests for ISTS. Staff has provided
potential findings for each criterion in italics:
1. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this
Section, and is in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapters 7080, 7081, and 7082.
As noted above, the wetland setback is above and beyond the minimum Minnesota standard
requirement. The applicant proposes to increase the setback for the tanks from the wetland,
which is more in line with City requirements. Staff recommends a condition requiring
additional monitoring of the system to serve the purpose and intent of the septic ordinance.
2. The City Council determines that the applicant has established there are practical
difficulties in meeting the strict letter of this Section.
The applicant has submitted a letter from their septic design describing the practical
difficulties they have identified to locate an ISTS in a location meeting the wetland setback
requirement.
Huajie Deng – 2472 Parkview Dr. Page 3 of 3 March 1, 2022
Variance – ISTS Wetland Setback City Council Meeting
3. The condition causing the demonstrated difficulty is unique to the property and was not
caused by the actions of applicant.
Staff believes the physical conditions noted by the applicant (service line exiting home
toward adjacent wetland, limitations related to steep slopes and impacted soils, and
wooded site) are not common on other properties and were not caused by the applicant.
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.
Staff recommends a condition which allows the City to require more active or frequent
monitoring or maintenance, if necessary, to reduce potential for impact impacts.
The ordinance states “in granting a request for a variance, the City may attach such conditions as
it deems necessary to conform to the purpose and intent of this Section and to protect the health,
safety, and welfare.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff believes the request overall meets the criteria presented in this report. Staff recommends
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The owner shall have the ISTS inspected and assessed by an ISTS designer following
three years of operation to determine whether additional monitoring and maintenance
requirements shall be implemented to improve long-term operation of the ISTS. The
owner shall submit record of this inspection and recommendations of the designer to the
City.
2. The owner shall take necessary actions in the future as directed by the professional
monitoring the ISTS, which may include, but is not limited to:
a. adjusting dosing
b. additional pumping
c. maintenance
3. A permit for installation of the ISTS shall be obtained within one calendar year of
approval of the variance.
4. 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 variance.
Potential Action
The ISTS ordinance states that the City Council will hold a public hearing on any variance
request for variance before taking action. Following the hearing, if the City Council finds that
the variance criteria have been satisfied, the following action could be taken:
Move to direct staff to draft a resolution approving the variance subject to the conditions
noted in the staff report.
Attachments
1. Comments from Building Official
2. Letter from Applicant’s designer
3. Septic Site Plan
1
Dusty Finke
From:Todd Geske <tg@mwimn.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 10, 2022 12:21 PM
To:Dusty Finke
Subject:Jet Deng property, drainfield location variance request
Dusty,
Based upon the information provided from the septic designer Tristan Ende, I would approve the variance request to use
the existing location for the reconstruction and 15 foot (approximate) expansion of the mound/drainfield. Both the rock
bed and absorption area will be shifted to the west with a small portion extending east into the setback. A septic review
and permit is required for all reconstructive work prior to installation. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Metro West Inspections
689 North Medina St
Loretto, MN 55357
763-479-1720
24910 Territorial Road, Rogers, Minnesota 55374 • 763-428-4489
info@endeseptic.com • www.endeseptic.com
______________________________________________________________________________
Project: 2472 Parkview Drive Medina, MN
A variance for a septic tank replacement and mound rockbed
rebuild is being requested. The reason for the variance request is
the layout of the property. There is a very large wetland that
surrounds most of the property. The land to the south of the
home has compacted vehicle trails and land slopes that exceed
15-20 percent which make building a new mound system nearly
impossible. The only other possible usable portions of land are
nearly 500 feet away from the home making the installation
process impossible in addition some of the usable portions are
too close to the County Roads. The property is surrounded with
large, mature trees. A number of these trees would need to be cut
down to accommodate room for a new system. Therefore the
most logical conclusion is to place the new mound where the old
mound was located by obtaining a variance to be within 50 feet of
the wetland.
Tristan Ende
Ende Septic Service
LIC#C9206
Conditional Use Permit Page 1 of 6 March 1, 2022
Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Colette Baumgardner, Planning Intern; through Planning Director Finke
DATE: February 14, 2022
MEETING: March 1, 2022, City Council
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Dwelling Unit – 3003 Hamel Rd
Public Hearing
Summary of Request
Rehkamp Larson Architects has submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on
behalf of the Abraham family to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit on their property at 3003
Hamel Rd. The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) will have two bedrooms, a living space, a
kitchen, and a two-car garage. The ADU will be built in conjunction with a new home on their
property and will have compatible building materials and architectural style as the main house.
MEMORANDUM
Approximate Location of
Home and ADU
Agenda Item #9B
Conditional Use Permit Page 2 of 6 March 1, 2022
Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit City Council Meeting
The subject property is 16.97 acres in size and is zoned Rural Residential. An aerial view of the
property can be found on the previous page. The majority of the southern border of the property
is on School Lake or its shoreland. The property is bordered to the north by Hamel Rd (County
Rd 115). The neighboring property to the east is vacant and to the west is a single-family home.
The lot is subject to the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District because it is located
adjacent to School Lake.
The previous home and barn on the property were demolished in 2017, so the subject property is
currently vacant. The proposed use would develop the property to have a single-family home and
one accessory structure.
Following is a comparison of the proposed ADU to the setback requirements of the RR district:
RR
Requirement
Proposed
Minimum Front Setback 50 feet 760 feet
Minimum Side Setback 50 feet 206 feet (east)
244 feet (west)
Minimum Rear Setback 50 feet 540 feet
Minimum Setback from School Lake 150 feet 292 feet
Maximum Hardcover
(shoreland overlay district)
25% ~7% (with
house/driveway)
CUP Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units
An ADU is an allowed conditional use within the Rural Residential zoning district, subject to the
following review criteria (City Code Section 826.98, Subd. p). Staff has provided potential
findings for each in italics.
(i) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a property. No
accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a property on which a lodging room or a
second residential dwelling is located;
The proposed ADU would be the only accessory dwelling on the property, and it would
be an accessory to the single-family home.
(ii) Accessory dwelling units within the SR (Suburban Residential), UR (Urban
Residential), R1 (Single-Family Residential) or R2 (Two-Family Residential) zoning
districts shall be attached to the principal single family structure;
The property is zoned Rural Residential, so an ADU is permitted as an accessory
structure. The ADU is connected to the principal building with a covered breezeway, so
depending on construction of the breezeway, it will likely be considered “attached” to the
principal building in this case.
(iii) The lot shall contain an existing single-family dwelling unit;
The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family dwelling and the ADU
concurrently. Staff recommends a condition that the ADU becomes effective upon
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the home.
Conditional Use Permit Page 3 of 6 March 1, 2022
Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit City Council Meeting
(iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the lesser of
the following:
1) 750 square feet for a one-bedroom unit;
2) 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit; or
3) 40 percent of the habitable area of the principal single-family dwelling;
The habitable area of the ADU is 908 square feet, and it is less than 40% the habitable
area of the principal dwelling.
(v) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of
habitable space;
The habitable area of the ADU is 908 square feet, which exceeds 300 square feet.
(vi) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms;
The ADU contains two bedrooms.
(vii) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per bedroom for the
accessory dwelling unit. Such parking spaces shall not interfere with accessing the
required garage spaces for the principal single-family dwelling;
The ADU has two dedicated garage spaces that do not interfere with the principal
structure garage.
(viii) No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory
dwelling unit;
The ADU shares a driveway with the principal dwelling.
(ix) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the
principal single-family dwelling;
This is an on-going requirement, which staff recommends as a condition if approved.
(x) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the
accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence;
This is an on-going requirement, which staff recommends as a condition if approved.
The property owner intends to live in the principal structure and friends and family
members will occupy the ADU when visiting.
(xi) If the accessory dwelling unit is located within a structure detached from the
principal single-family dwelling, the architectural design and building materials shall be
of the same or higher quality and shall complement the single-family dwelling.
Additionally, the structure shall meet the setback requirements of the principal structure
and shall count towards the maximum number and building size of accessory structures
permitted on a property;
The ADU will be built at the same time as the principal dwelling, and the two structures
are designed to be architecturally compatible with each other. The ADU meets the
requirements for setbacks, and would be the only accessory structure on the property.
Conditional Use Permit Page 4 of 6 March 1, 2022
Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit City Council Meeting
(xii) Adequate utility services shall be available to serve the accessory dwelling unit.
This shall include adequate capacity within individual sewage treatment systems for both
the principal single family dwelling and the accessory dwelling, where applicable.
The application contained a design report for a new primary and secondary sewage
treatment system. The design has been reviewed by the City Building Official, and it is
expected to be adequate.
(xiii) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit above the first
floor shall be located in a way to minimize visibility from the street and, to the extent
possible, from neighboring property. Such stairway shall incorporate a deck a minimum
of 27 square feet in area;
No exterior stairway is proposed.
(xiv) The City Council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions
or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the single-family residential
character of the surrounding area. A copy of the resolution approving an accessory
dwelling unit and describing the conditions, restrictions and limitations on the use shall
be recorded against the property.
The Planning Commission and City Council may wish to discuss any additional
limitations which are deemed appropriate.
General Conditional Use Permit Standards
In addition to the specific standards for both the accessory structures and the accessory dwelling
unit noted above, the Planning Commission and City Council are to consider the following
general criteria when reviewing all CUPs (City Code Section 825.39):
1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish
and impair property values within the immediate vicinity.
Staff does not believe the ADU will be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property
nor will the CUP impair property values.
2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
Staff does not believe the ADU will impede the normal and orderly development of
surrounding vacant property.
3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
Staff recommends the provision of these facilities and compliance with City Engineer
review comments as a condition, if approved.
4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking
and loading space to serve the proposed use.
Staff believes adequate parking exists on the property.
Conditional Use Permit Page 5 of 6 March 1, 2022
Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit City Council Meeting
5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor,
fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to
control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring
properties will result.
Staff does not believe an accessory dwelling structure would bring up these concerns, as
they are more relevant for commercial uses.
6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of
the City and to the existing land use.
The proposed uses are listed as allowed conditional uses.
7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
Staff believes accessory dwelling units are consistent with the purposes of the zoning
code and the RR zoning district.
8. The use is not in conflict with the policies of the City.
Staff does not believe the proposed use is in conflict with the policies of the City.
9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Staff does not believe the CUP would cause traffic or congestion concerns.
10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or
general unsightliness.
Staff does not believe the use would cause these concerns.
11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
The applicant intends to construct the new home later this year.
12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer.
The City Attorney has not requested additional documentation with regards to ownership
at this time.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The City has a relatively low amount of discretion regarding conditional use permits. If the
proposal meets the specific and general standards discussed above, it should be approved. The
City may impose additional conditions that the City Council considers necessary to protect the
best interests of the community.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed CUP on February 8th. An excerpt
from the draft meeting minutes is attached for reference. No members of the public submitted
comments on the proposed CUP during the public hearing. The Planning Commissioners all
expressed support for the project, and they did not propose any changes to the staff
recommendation presented.
Conditional Use Permit Page 6 of 6 March 1, 2022
Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit City Council Meeting
The Planning Commissioners and Staff recommend approval of the CUP, subject to the following
conditions:
1) This conditional use permit shall be contingent upon construction of a new single-family
home on the Property, and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
2) The single-family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit may not be conveyed separately
and shall at all times be under common ownership.
3) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the
accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence.
4) The applicant shall address the comments of the City Engineer and obtain necessary
permits from the City, Hennepin County, Minnehaha Creek Watershed, and other
relevant agencies.
5) Grading, drainage, and erosion control plans shall be subject to review and approval by
the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
6) The application shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including provisions for recordation of easements, planting of appropriate vegetation and
installation of required signs.
7) The property owner shall abide by all conditions of Medina City Code Section 826.98,
Subd. 2(p).
8) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs
associated with the review of the application for the Conditional Use Permit.
Potential Action
If the City Council finds that the proposed CUP is consistent with City objectives and intends to
act at the March 15 meeting, the following actions could be taken:
Move to direct staff to draft a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit based upon
the findings and subject to the conditions described in the staff report.
Attachments
1. Excerpt from 2/8/2022 Planning Commission minutes
1.2.Applicant narrative
2.3.Applicant description of compliance with Conditional Use Permit Application
requirements
3.4.Site Plan/Building Plans
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 2/8/2022 Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Rehkamp Larson on Behalf of Chad and MT Abraham – 3003 Hamel
Road – Conditional Use Permit for Construction of Accessory Dwelling Unit – PID
1611823210007
Baumgardner presented an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a two-
bedroom accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and provided details on the subject site. She provided
renderings of the proposed ADU noting that there will be two dedicated garage stalls for the ADU.
She reviewed the specific conditions related to an ADU and noted that staff believes that all general
conditions are met within the proposal. She reviewed the staff recommended conditions and stated
that staff recommends approval of the request.
Popp asked for details on a well and whether that is included in the utilities.
Baumgardner confirmed that would be included in the review process by the City Engineer.
Ryan Bicek, representing the applicant, stated that he was present to address any questions. He stated
that the ADU will be constructed with the main house for the purpose of using it as a guest house.
Nielsen opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m.
No comments.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
The Commission members expressed support for the project and had no additional questions.
Nielsen asked and received confirmation that the applicant agrees with the conditions as
recommended by staff.
Motion by Piper, seconded by Jacob, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit with
the conditions noted by staff.
A roll call vote was performed:
Grajczyk aye
Jacob aye
Piper aye
Popp aye
Rhem aye
Sedabres aye
Nielsen aye
Motion carries unanimously.
Guest House Conditional Use Permit
3003 Hamel Road, Medina, MN
January 28, 2022
Along with the design and construction of a new house at 3003 Hamel
Road, a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (Guest House) is
being requested for this property. This Guest House will have two
bedrooms/living spaces and will meet all the City of Medina’s requirements
relating to Accessory Dwelling Units. The Guest House will be located directly
adjacent to the Main House and has been designed with massing, proportions,
and materials that will visually tie the buildings together.
Thank you
Abraham Guest House Conditional Use Permit Application
3003 Hammel Road, Medina, MN
January 7, 2022
Accessory Dwelling unit requirement summary for 3003 Hammel Road, Medina MN
(i)This will be the only accessory dwelling unit located on the property
(ii) This dwelling unit is not in UR, R1, or R2 zoning districts so requirement to be
attached does not apply.
(iii) This will be built along with a principle single family dwelling unit.
(iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1000 sf as it will
be a 2 Bedroom unit. Refer to drawings showing the square footages that apply.
(v) The accessory unit contains more than 300 SF of habitable space (908 SF of
habitable space) as shown on the drawings.
(vi) This accessory dwelling unit contains 2 bedrooms as shown on the drawings.
(vii) The design has 2+ parking spaces so meets the 1 off street parking space per
bedroom rule and will not interfere with accessing the required garage spaces for the
principle single family dwelling. This is shown on the Site plan A01 and A02.
(viii) This accessory dwelling unit will not have a 2nd driveway
(ix) This accessory dwelling will be used as guest house so will not be sold or conveyed
separately from the principle single family dwelling.
(x) The property owner will occupy the principle single family dwelling unit.
(xi) This accessory dwelling unit meets all setbacks required for the principle structure
and also compliments the design of the principle dwelling by matching materials,
Architectural proportions, and design elements. See 3D model views on A08 and
exterior elevation drawings.
(xii) Adequate utility services are being planned for and will be available to serve the
accessory dwelling unit including septic system that will be designed to adequately meet
the needs of both the principle single family dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit.
(xiii) There is no exterior stairway to the accessory dwelling unit.
Medina City Code 826. Zoning – District Provisions
826. Zoning – District Provisions Page 74 of 78
(vii) a grading plan shall be submitted and approved by the City in accordance
with the recommendations of the University of Minnesota Extension
Service and approved by the City Engineer. Said plan shall clearly
demonstrate that storm water runoff from the hard surfaces on the
property is directed away from the stable areas and manure containment
facilities, and surrounding wetlands, streams or lakes (if any) and the site
must maintain these drainage patterns to the satisfaction of the City;
(viii) the site shall install runoff retention and vegetative infiltration systems,
consistent with the recommendations of the University of Minnesota
Extension Service and as approved by the City, down slope from the
stables and manure containment area. The vegetation adjacent to any
wetlands shall be subject to the city’s wetland protection ordinance;
(ix) diligent effort shall be made to prevent the cribbing of trees in or near
pastures, and efforts to maintain grass in the pastures by limiting use
thereof as appropriate and by providing supplemental feed to prevent
over grazing by instituting a pasture management program in accordance
with the recommendation of the University of Minnesota Extension
Service and as approved by the City; and
(x) the city council may require compliance with any other conditions,
restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect
the residential character of the neighborhood.
(p) Accessory Dwelling Units.
(i) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a property. No
accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a property on which a
lodging room or a second residential dwelling is located;
(ii) Accessory dwelling units within the SR (Suburban Residential), UR (Urban
Residential), R1 (Single-Family Residential) or R2 (Two-Family
Residential) zoning districts shall be attached to the principal single family
structure;
(iii) The lot shall contain an existing single-family dwelling unit;
(iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the lesser
of the following: 1) 750 square feet for a one-bedroom unit; 2) 1,000
square feet for a two-bedroom unit; or 3) 40 percent of the habitable area
of the principal single-family dwelling;
(v) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of
habitable space;
(vi) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms;
Medina City Code 826. Zoning – District Provisions
826. Zoning – District Provisions Page 75 of 78
(vii) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per bedroom
for the accessory dwelling unit. Such parking spaces shall not interfere
with accessing the required garage spaces for the principal single-family
dwelling;
(viii) No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory
dwelling unit;
(ix) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the
principal single-family dwelling;
(x) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or
the accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence;
(xi) If the accessory dwelling unit is located within a structure detached from the
principal single-family dwelling, the architectural design and building
materials shall be of the same or higher quality and shall complement the
single-family dwelling. Additionally, the structure shall meet the setback
requirements of the principal structure and shall count towards the
maximum number and building size of accessory structures permitted on a
property;
(xii) Adequate utility services shall be available to serve the accessory dwelling
unit. This shall include adequate capacity within individual sewage
treatment systems for both the principal single family dwelling and the
accessory dwelling, where applicable.
(xiii) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit above the
first floor shall be located in a way to minimize visibility from the street
and, to the extent possible, from neighboring property. Such stairway
shall incorporate a deck a minimum of 27 square feet in area; and
(xiv) The city council may require compliance with any other conditions,
restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect
the single-family residential character of the surrounding area. A copy of
the resolution approving an accessory dwelling unit and describing the
conditions, restrictions and limitations on the use shall be recorded against
the property.
Amendment History of this Section
November 5, 1985 – Ord. 224 – Added Section 826.26 and Subd. 3 of Section 826.01, establishing the Rural
Residential 1 Zoning District.
THE ABRAHAM FARMHOUSE
3003 Hamel Road, Medina, MN
GENERAL NOTE:
FULL-SIZE SET: 24" x 36" SHEETS- SCALE AS NOTED @ EACH DWG.
HALF-SIZE SET: 11" x 17" SHEETS- SCALE IS 1/2 OF NOTED @ EACH DWG.
Owners:
Chad and Mikki Abraham
2920 Fox Street
Orono, MN 55356
Architect:
Rehkamp Larson Architects Inc.
2732 West 43rd Street
Minneapolis, MN 55410
t. 612.285.7275
Contacts:
Jean Rehkamp Larson, AIA
jean@rehkamplarson.com
Ryan Bicek, AIA
ryan@rehkamplarson.com
CONTACTS
Landscape Architect:
Keenan Sveiven
15119 Minnetonka Boulevard
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Contact: Kevin Keenan
kevin@kslandarch.com
t. 952.475.1229
c. 612.328.2560
DRAWING INDEX
Interior Designer:
Brooke Voss
530 N 3rd Street Studio 320
Minneapolis, MN 55401
t. 763.227.0008
Contacts:
Brooke Voss
brooke@brookevossdesign.com
Structural Engineer:
Bunkers & Associates, LLC
Structural Engineers
6687 Forest Street
Farmington, MN 55024
t. (651) 366.2853
Contact: Eric Bunkers, P.E.
A00
A01
A02
A08
A10
A10.3
A11
A11.3
A13
A20
A21
A27
TITLE SHEET
SITE DIAGRAM
SITE DIAGRAM
PRELIMINARY 3D VIEWS
LOWER LEVEL REFERENCE PLAN
LOWER LEVEL DETAILED PLAN
MAIN LEVEL PLAN REFERENCE PLAN
MAIN LEVEL DETAILED PLAN
ROOF PLAN REFERENCE
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS REFERENCE
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS REFERENCE
GUEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- DETAILED
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
2 BEDROOM GUEST HOUSE (ADU)
Builder
Streeter & Associates
Deephaven Office
18312 Minnetonka Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
t: (952) 449-9448
Contacts:
Nate Wissink
nwissink@streeterhomes.com
t: (952) 346-2488
c: (612) 250-0829
Contact Josh Swanson
jswanson@streeterhomes.com
c: (612) 799-7620
RE
H
K
A
M
P
L
A
R
S
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
I
N
C
.
27
3
2
W
e
s
t
4
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
M
p
l
s
,
M
N
5
5
4
1
0
Te
l
.
6
1
2
-
2
8
5
-
7
2
7
5
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
PROJECT PHASE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
Ab
r
a
h
a
m
F
a
r
m
h
o
u
s
e
30
0
3
H
a
m
e
l
R
o
a
d
Med
i
n
a
,
M
N
JANUARY 7, 2022
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT SET
21-004
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
U
S
E
P
E
R
M
I
T
_
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y
7
,
2
0
2
2
A00
TITLE
SHEET
RB, JRL
TH
E
A
B
R
A
H
A
M
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
216'-11"
82'-8"
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
AT
1
0
5
2
PROPOSED GUEST
HOUSE (ADU)
PROPOSED HOUSE
RE
H
K
A
M
P
L
A
R
S
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
I
N
C
.
27
3
2
W
e
s
t
4
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
M
p
l
s
,
M
N
5
5
4
1
0
Te
l
.
6
1
2
-
2
8
5
-
7
2
7
5
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
PROJECT PHASE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
Ab
r
a
h
a
m
F
a
r
m
h
o
u
s
e
30
0
3
H
a
m
e
l
R
o
a
d
Med
i
n
a
,
M
N
JANUARY 7, 2022
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT SET
21-004
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
U
S
E
P
E
R
M
I
T
_
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y
7
,
2
0
2
2
SITE
DIAGRAM
JRL
DN
DN
UP
DN
DN 2
DN 15
30
DN 2
216'-11"
82'-8"
DN
DN
UP
DN
DN 2
DN 15
30
DN 2
PROPOSED
MAIN LEVEL
AT 1052
PROPOSED GUEST
HOUSE (ADU)
PROPOSED HOUSE
RE
H
K
A
M
P
L
A
R
S
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
I
N
C
.
27
3
2
W
e
s
t
4
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
M
p
l
s
,
M
N
5
5
4
1
0
Te
l
.
6
1
2
-
2
8
5
-
7
2
7
5
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
PROJECT PHASE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
Ab
r
a
h
a
m
F
a
r
m
h
o
u
s
e
30
0
3
H
a
m
e
l
R
o
a
d
Med
i
n
a
,
M
N
JANUARY 7, 2022
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT SET
21-004
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
U
S
E
P
E
R
M
I
T
_
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y
7
,
2
0
2
2
SITE
DIAGRAM
JRL
1 3D VIEWS
3D VIEWS
RE
H
K
A
M
P
L
A
R
S
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
I
N
C
.
27
3
2
W
e
s
t
4
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
M
p
l
s
,
M
N
5
5
4
1
0
Te
l
.
6
1
2
-
2
8
5
-
7
2
7
5
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
PROJECT PHASE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
Ab
r
a
h
a
m
F
a
r
m
h
o
u
s
e
30
0
3
H
a
m
e
l
R
o
a
d
Med
i
n
a
,
M
N
JANUARY 7, 2022
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT SET
21-004
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
U
S
E
P
E
R
M
I
T
_
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y
7
,
2
0
2
2
UP
32STORAGE
006
32
32
UP
32 36
32
BEDROOM 2
002
MECH
ROOM
006
BATHROOM
004
4'-6"
5'
-
8
"
3'-2"
10
'
-
8
"
18'-11"
32
CLOSET
003
18'-11"
ELEVATOR
008
LOWER
STAIR
007
TILE
FLOOR DRAIN
LAUNDRY
005
POLISHED RUBBER
CONCRETE
ELEVATOR
HALL
009
LOWER
STAIR HALL
001
STAIR
UNEXCAVATED
006a
008a
003a
004a
004b
004c
005a
006a
006b
005a
STONE THESE
WALLS AT
INTERIOR
BE
N
C
H
W D
BE
N
C
H
ASSUME GYP.
BOARD WALLS
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
MATCH LINE
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
K
32
002a
275 SF
14
'
-
4
"
HABITABLE SPACE FOR ADU
ON THIS LEVEL= 275 SF
7'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"
25
'
-
0
"
14
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
A
B
C
D
A2
4
A21
1
A31
2
A31
RE
H
K
A
M
P
L
A
R
S
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
I
N
C
.
27
3
2
W
e
s
t
4
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
M
p
l
s
,
M
N
5
5
4
1
0
Te
l
.
6
1
2
-
2
8
5
-
7
2
7
5
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
PROJECT PHASE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
Ab
r
a
h
a
m
F
a
r
m
h
o
u
s
e
30
0
3
H
a
m
e
l
R
o
a
d
Med
i
n
a
,
M
N
JANUARY 7, 2022
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT SET
21-004
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
U
S
E
P
E
R
M
I
T
_
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y
7
,
2
0
2
2
LOWER FLOOR
PLAN
RB, JRL
1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/8" ON 11x17 = 1'-0"
GENERAL NOTES:
1. PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF SHEATHING
OR FACE OF CONCRETE WALLS @ EXTERIOR WALLS.
2. INTERIOR PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF
STUD UNLESS NOTED @ CL OR OTHERWISE.
3. COORDINATE ALL MECHANICAL OPENINGS IN
WALLS, FLOORS, CEILINGS, ROOFS OR OTHERWISE
W/ ARCHITECT & OWNER.
4.CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ALL MAIN
PLUMBING DRAINS/VENTS WITH TRUSS LAYOUT.
5. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MILLWORK SHOP
DRAWINGS FOR OWNER/ ARCHITECT REVIEW PRIOR
TO MILLWORK FABRICATION.
6. NO SPRAY TEXTURED OR KNOCK DOWN CEILINGS
7. ALL KITCHEN CABINETS TO GO FULL HEIGHT TO
CEILING U.N.O.
8. COORDINATE LOCATION OF ALL EXTERIOR
METER/EQUIPMENT (GAS, ELEC, ETC.) W/ OWNER
AND ARCHITECT.
9. PROVIDE ACOUSTIC BATT INSULATION IN WALLS
AROUND ALL BEDROOMS, BATHROOMS, LAUNDRY,
ETC. AND IN FLOORS BETWEEN LEVELS.
10.TEMPERED GLASS TO BE PROVIDED IN ALL
WINDOWS & DOORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE
DN
11'-4"
4'-41
2"
3'
-
7
"
3'-7"
6'-0"
3'
-
6
"
14'-0"
15
'
-
2
"
21'-0"
8'
-
7
"
UPDN
71
.
5
"
x
3
9
.
5
"
x
3
0
.
5
"
t
a
l
l
K
FILES
STONE
STONE STONE
8'-47
8"8'-47
8"
8'-47
8"
8'-6"8'-6"
26'-0"
GAS
FP
31
2"
8'-55
8"8'-1"
WOOD
WOOD
FLOOR
WOOD
WOOD
STONE/TILE
WOOD
TILE
WOOD
WINDOW SEAT
FLOOR DRAIN
FLOOR DRAIN
CURBLESS
SHOWER
101a
105a
105b
106a
103a
107a
101a
109a
108a
108b
COAT CLOSET
BUILT IN
SHELVES
BENCH W/ HOOKS
COAT CLOSET
REF. 30"
VFY SIZE
DW
TRASH/
REC.
BALCONY
24
'
-
6
"
4'-6"
4'-0"4'-0"
4'
-
0
"
OSE
BIB
HOSE
BIB
HOSE
BIB
4'-10"
8'
-
2
"
6'
-
6
"
10
'
-
3
"
2'
-
0
"
16'-6"
15
'
-
0
"
STONE
BENCH-
OPEN
TO
STAIR
STEEL BAR STOCK
AND WOOD COMBO
RAILING- DESIGN
TBD
STONE
WALLS
STONE
WALLS
STONE
WALLS
5'
-
1
0
"
3'-61
2"
6'
-
9
"
9'-4"
BUILT-IN
UNDER
WINDOWS
BUILT-IN
UNDER
WINDOWS
CONCRETE
ASSUME EPOXY
IPE
DECKING
DRAWER
MIC.
12
'
-
0
"
MATCH LINE
MA
T
C
H
L
I
N
E
32
48
36
32
32
36
ENTRY
101
MIKKI'S
OFFICE
ELEVATOR
109
STAIR
102
LIVING
ROOM
103
GUEST
KITCHEN
102
GUEST
BATH
105
GUEST
BEDROOM
106
MUDROOM
107
GUEST
GARAGE
108
STAIR
HALL
104
PANTRY
111
36"
REF.
168 SF FOR
BEDROOM SPACE
465 SF FOR KITCHEN
AND LIVING ROOM
DN 2
ENTRY
HALL
101
8'-47
8"
4'-10"
16'-2"
14
'
-
9
"
HABITABLE SPACE FOR
ADU ON THIS LEVEL=
168 SF + 465 SF= 633 SF
7'
-
6
"
7'
-
6
"
25
'
-
0
"
14
'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
A2
4
A21
1
A31
2
A31
RE
H
K
A
M
P
L
A
R
S
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
I
N
C
.
27
3
2
W
e
s
t
4
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
M
p
l
s
,
M
N
5
5
4
1
0
Te
l
.
6
1
2
-
2
8
5
-
7
2
7
5
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
PROJECT PHASE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
Ab
r
a
h
a
m
F
a
r
m
h
o
u
s
e
30
0
3
H
a
m
e
l
R
o
a
d
Med
i
n
a
,
M
N
JANUARY 7, 2022
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT SET
21-004
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
U
S
E
P
E
R
M
I
T
_
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y
7
,
2
0
2
2
MAIN LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN
RB, JRL
1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/8" ON 11x17 = 1'-0"
GENERAL NOTES:
1. PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF SHEATHING
OR FACE OF CONCRETE WALLS @ EXTERIOR WALLS.
2. INTERIOR PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF
STUD UNLESS NOTED @ CL OR OTHERWISE.
3. COORDINATE ALL MECHANICAL OPENINGS IN
WALLS, FLOORS, CEILINGS, ROOFS OR OTHERWISE
W/ ARCHITECT & OWNER.
4.CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ALL MAIN
PLUMBING DRAINS/VENTS WITH TRUSS LAYOUT.
5. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MILLWORK SHOP
DRAWINGS FOR OWNER/ ARCHITECT REVIEW PRIOR
TO MILLWORK FABRICATION.
6. NO SPRAY TEXTURED OR KNOCK DOWN CEILINGS
7. ALL KITCHEN CABINETS TO GO FULL HEIGHT TO
CEILING U.N.O.
8. COORDINATE LOCATION OF ALL EXTERIOR
METER/EQUIPMENT (GAS, ELEC, ETC.) W/ OWNER
AND ARCHITECT.
9. PROVIDE ACOUSTIC BATT INSULATION IN WALLS
AROUND ALL BEDROOMS, BATHROOMS, LAUNDRY,
ETC. AND IN FLOORS BETWEEN LEVELS.
10.TEMPERED GLASS TO BE PROVIDED IN ALL
WINDOWS & DOORS WHERE REQUIRED BY CODE
51 X 105
51 X 60
28 X 35
28 X 3528 X 3528 X 3528 X 35
36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59 36 X 59
64 X 24
64 X 67
36 X 63
36 X 55 69 X 24
69 X 67
36 X 55
70 X 67
70 X 24
36 X 39 58 X 63
8/0 X 7/10
015a
003a 003b 003c 004a 004b 004c 004d 005a 005b
119h 119i 119j
119e 119f 119g
119k
107a
108e 108f 108g
108h 108i 108j
108n108m108k
106a
105a 105b 105c 105d 105e 104c 104d
104b104a
002d
212d 212e 214a 213a 205f
205a 205b 205c 205d 205e
205g 205h 205i 205j
206a 206b 206c
103F
51 X 6050 X 60 50 X 60 50 X 60
50 X 105 50 X 105 50 X 105 51 X 105
ARCADIA STEEL
ARCADIA STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
DECORATIVE
CUPOLA WITH
VENTS
DECORATIVE
CUPOLA WITH
VENTS
METAL
STANDING SEAM
ROOFING-RED
METAL
STANDING SEAM
ROOFING-RED
CEDAR
SHINGLES
PHANTOM
SCREENS
SCREENS SCREENS SCREENS SCREENS
VERTICAL T&G
BARN WOOD-
RED
EGRESS
HORIZONTAL
RECLAIMED
SHIPLAP BARN
WOOD- RED
8'
-
1
0
"
5"
4'
-
7
1 2"
7'
-
0
"
9
12
7'
-
9
"
7'
-
1
0
1 2"
19
'
-
8
"
29
'
-
9
"
18
'
-
9
"
8
12
STONE
18
'
-
9
"
T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR
EL.
T.O. LOWER FLR. SLAB
EL:
T.O.PL. TYPICAL
EL.
1'
-
8
3 4"
8'
-
6
1 2"
10
'
-
1
1 8"
T.O. FOUNDATION
EL.
T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR
EL.
T.O.PL. TYPICAL
EL.
1'
-
6
3 4"
8'
-
1
1 8"
32 X 37 32 X 37 32 X 39
69 X 24
69 X 67
36 X 57 36 X 57 36 X 57 36 X 57 36 X 57 36 X 57
67 X 24
67 X 67
3/0 X 8/0 3/0 X 8/0
123b 123c 120c
119a 119b
119c 119d
108a
108c 108d
108b
209b 209c 209d 212a 212b 212c
108R 108S
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
PHANTOM
SCREENS
STEEL BAR
STOCK
HORIZONTAL
RAILING
DECORATIVE
CUPOLA WITH
VENTS
DECORATIVE
CUPOLA WITH
VENTS
CEDAR
SHINGLES
CEDAR
SHINGLES
METAL
STANDING SEAM
ROOFING
WB FIREPLACE
PHANTOM
SCREENS
SCREENSSCREENS SCREENS
VERTICAL T&G
BARN WOOD-
GRAY
VERTICAL T&G
RECLAIMED
BARN WOOD-
GRAY
6'
-
6
"
7'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
1 2"
7'
-
2
1 2"
AT BAR WINDOW WALL BEYOND ASSUME
(4) 24X48 WINDOW PANELS THAT ARE
BIFOLD. SO 2 EACH SIDE.
10
'
-
1
1
1 2"
20
'
-
5
"
T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR
EL.
T.O. LOWER FLR. SLAB
EL:
T.O.PL. TYPICAL
EL.
1'
-
8
3 4"
8'
-
6
1 2"
10
'
-
1
1 8"
T.O. FOUNDATION
EL.
T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR
EL.
T.O.PL. TYPICAL
EL.
1'
-
6
3 4"
8'
-
1
1 8"
RE
H
K
A
M
P
L
A
R
S
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
I
N
C
.
27
3
2
W
e
s
t
4
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
M
p
l
s
,
M
N
5
5
4
1
0
Te
l
.
6
1
2
-
2
8
5
-
7
2
7
5
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
PROJECT PHASE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
Ab
r
a
h
a
m
F
a
r
m
h
o
u
s
e
30
0
3
H
a
m
e
l
R
o
a
d
Med
i
n
a
,
M
N
JANUARY 7, 2022
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT SET
21-004
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
U
S
E
P
E
R
M
I
T
_
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y
7
,
2
0
2
2
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
RB, JRL
1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0"
2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0"
36 X 45
28 X 35 28 X 35 28 X 35 28 X 35 28 X 35
36 X 51 36 X 51
28 X 33
28 X 33
36 X 45
32 X 37 32 X 37
60 X 67 60 X 67
51 X 63
108c
103d 103e
102a
102b
123a
117a 118a 120a 120b
207a 208a
203a 203b 203c 203d 203e
203f 203g 203h 203i 203j 210a 210b 209a
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
DECORATIVE
CUPOLA WITH
VENTS
DECORATIVE
CUPOLA WITH
VENTS
METAL
STANDING SEAM
ROOFING-RED
CEDAR
SHINGLES
VERTICAL T&G
RECLAIMED
BARN WOOD-
WEATHERED
RED
VERTICAL T&G
RECLAIMED
BARN WOOD-
GRAY
HORIZONATL
SHIPLAP BARN
WOOD- GRAY
VERTICAL T&G
BARN WOOD-
GRAY
HORIZONTAL
RECLAIMED
SHIPLAP BARN
WOOD- RED
CUSTOM WD.
DOOR
RECLAIMED
BARNWOOD
TRIM, FASCIA,
SOFFITS,
RAFTER TAILS
7'
-
2
1 2"
7'
-
2
1 2"
8'
-
0
"
11
'
-
3
5 8"
21
'
-
4
"
11
'
-
1
1
1 2"
11
'
-
4
"
8
12
8
12
T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR
EL.
T.O.PL. TYPICAL
EL.
1'
-
8
3 4"
8'
-
6
1 2"
10
'
-
1
1 8"
T.O. FOUNDATION
EL.
T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR
EL.
T.O.PL. TYPICAL
EL.
1'
-
6
3 4"
8'
-
1
1 8"
32 X 47 32 X 47
64 X 67
64 X 24 36 X 5154 X 92 36 X 51
36 X 43
8/2 X 8/2
003d 003e
005c 005d 005e 005f 005g
108p
104e 104f
104g 104h 103a 103b 103c 113a
114a 114b 114c
206D
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
ARCADIA
STEEL
DECORATIVE
TIMBER BEAMS
COPPER
CHIMNEY CAPS
COPPER HALF
ROUND
GUTTERS
STEEL
BARSTOCK
RAILINGS
8'
-
0
"
DECORATIVE
CUPOLA WITH
VENTS
DECORATIVE
CUPOLA WITH
VENTS
METAL
STANDING SEAM
ROOFING-RED
CEDAR
SHINGLES
CEDAR
SHINGLES
DECORATIVE
TIMBER BEAMS
VERTICAL T&G
BARN WOOD-
GRAY
HORIZONATL
SHIPLAP
RECLAIMED
BARN WOOD-
GRAY
VERTICAL T&G
RECLAIMED
BARN WOOD-
GRAY
CUSTOM WOOD GARAGE DOORS- CLAD IN WEATHERED RED
HORIZONTAL
SHIPLAP
RECLAIMED
BARN WOOD-
GRAY
19
'
-
1
0
"
T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR
EL.
T.O. LOWER FLR. SLAB
EL:
T.O.PL. TYPICAL
EL.
1'
-
8
3 4"
8'
-
6
1 2"
10
'
-
1
1 8"
T.O. FOUNDATION
EL.
T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR
EL.
T.O.PL. TYPICAL
EL.
1'
-
6
3 4"
8'
-
1
1 8"
36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39
27 X 33
27 X 33 27 X 33 27 X 33
60 X 67
001a 002a 002b 002c
103a 103c107a104a
104b 101a60 X 67
DECORATIVE
CUPOLA WITH
VENTS
DECORATIVE
CUPOLA WITH
VENTS
METAL
STANDING SEAM
ROOFING
(GRAY)
CUSTOM WOOD GARAGE DOORS- CLAD IN WEATHERED GRAY
VERTICAL
RECLAIMED
SHIPLAP BARN
WOOD- RED
18
'
-
9
"
11
'
-
1
1
1 2"
STONE
36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39 36 X 39
27 X 33 27 X 33 27 X 33
27 X 33002e002f004a004b
103d 103e 102a 105a 108a 108b
DECORATIVE
CUPOLA WITH
VENTS
DECORATIVE
CUPOLA WITH
VENTS
METAL
STANDING SEAM
ROOFING
60 X 67 10X
EGRESS
VERTICAL
RECLAIMED
SHIPLAP BARN
WOOD- RED
18
'
-
9
"
11
'
-
1
1
1 2"
STONE
T.O. MAIN SUBFLOOR
EL.
T.O. LOWER FLR. SLAB
EL:
T.O.PL. TYPICAL
EL.
1'
-
8
3 4"
8'
-
6
1 2"
10
'
-
1
1 8"
T.O. FOUNDATION
EL.
T.O. UPPER SUBFLOOR
EL.
T.O.PL. TYPICAL
EL.
1'
-
6
3 4"
8'
-
1
1 8"
RE
H
K
A
M
P
L
A
R
S
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
I
N
C
.
27
3
2
W
e
s
t
4
3
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
M
p
l
s
,
M
N
5
5
4
1
0
Te
l
.
6
1
2
-
2
8
5
-
7
2
7
5
DRAWN BY:
ISSUE DATE:
PROJECT PHASE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
Ab
r
a
h
a
m
F
a
r
m
h
o
u
s
e
30
0
3
H
a
m
e
l
R
o
a
d
Med
i
n
a
,
M
N
JANUARY 7, 2022
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT SET
21-004
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
U
S
E
P
E
R
M
I
T
_
J
A
N
U
A
R
Y
7
,
2
0
2
2
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
RB, JRL
1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0"
2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0"
3 GUEST HOUSE- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0" 4 GUEST HOUSE- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/8" = 1'-0" 24x36 1/16" ON 11x17 = 1'-0"
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 March 1, 2022
City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: February 24, 2022
MEETING: March 1, 2022 City Council
Land Use Application Review
A) Marsh Pointe Preserve Preliminary Plat – 4250-4292 Arrowhead Drive – BPS Properties has
requested Preliminary Plat approval for a 30-lot subdivision east of Arrowhead Drive south of
Bridgewater. The City previously reviewed a concept plan for the project. The Council
reviewed on February 2 and directed staff to prepare approval documents, which staff intends to
present at the March 1 meeting.
B) Abraham Accessory Dwelling Unit CUP – 3003 Hamel Road – Chad and MT Abraham have
requested a CUP for a guest home to be constructed along with their new home at 3003 Hamel
Road. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the February 8 meeting and
unanimously recommended approval. Staff intends to present to the Council on March 1.
C) Deng Septic Variance – 2472 Parkview Drive – Jet Deng has requested a variance to
reconstruct and expand an existing septic drainfield in its existing location. Staff has scheduled
a public hearing for the March 1 City Council meeting.
D) Cates Ranch/Willow Drive Warehouse Industrial – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
Environmental Assessment Worksheet – Oppidan has requested review of an EAW and a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a warehouse/industrial development east of Willow Drive,
north of Chippewa Road. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 11 and
voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The comment period
has ended and staff is preparing findings for the EAW. Staff is tentatively planning to present
the EAW at the March 1 meeting and the Comp Plan Amendment at the March 15 meeting.
E) Prairie Creek Final Plat – Stelter Enterprises has requested final plat approval for a 17-lot villa
subdivision at 500 Hamel Road. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will present to the
City Council when complete, potentially at the March 15 meeting.
F) Hamel Townhomes Pre Plat and Site Plan Review – Hamel Townhomes LLC has requested
preliminary plat and site plan review approval for a 30-unit townhome development at 342
Hamel Road. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will schedule for a public hearing
when complete.
G) Loram/Scannell Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Loram and Scannell have
submitted materials for the City to prepare an EAW for a warehouse/industrial development east
of Arrowhead Drive, south of Highway 55, to the south of Loram’s existing facility. The
Council authorized release of the EAW for comment on February 2. The comment period will
expire on March 17 and staff will present draft findings after the deadline.
H) 744 Aster Road Easement Vacation – Balaji Venkatasubranian has requested to vacate the
southern two feet of a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement running through the rear
yard of 744 Aster Road. The Council adopted a resolution approving the vacation at the
February 15 City Council meeting. The project will be closed
MEMORANDUM
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 March 1, 2022
City Council Meeting
I) Ditter Heating and Cooling Site Plan Review – 820 Tower Drive – Ditter Heating and Cooling
has requested a Site Plan Review for an approximately 5,000 square foot addition to its building.
The application is incomplete for review and will be scheduled for a hearing when complete.
J) Meander Boardwalk and Park PUD Concept Plan – south of Meander Road, west of
Cavanaugh Drive – Medina Ventures has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for a
commercial development. The concept shows a day care facility (7,500 s.f.), a venue
(concerts/weddings/educational), and approximately 12,000-15,000 s.f. commercial space. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 11, provided comments, and was
generally supportive of the concept. The City Council provided comments at the February 2
meeting. The project will now be closed and staff will await a formal application.
K) BAPS Site Plan Review – 1400 Hamel Road – Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam
Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), Minneapolis, has requested Site Plan Review for construction
of a place of assembly. The Planning Commission reviewed at the September 14 meeting and
recommended approval. The City Council reviewed on October 5, October 19, and November 3
meeting. The applicant updated plans to be consistent with the recently adopted interim
ordinance pertaining to rooftop elements. The Council adopted a resolution for approval at the
November 16 meeting. The applicant has indicated that they will likely not begin construction
until spring.
L) Life-Style Auto Condo – South of Hwy 55, west of Pioneer – SH Ventures has requested
review of a PUD Concept Plan for development of 12 buildings with approximately 258,000
square feet of space for privately owned garage condos. The Planning Commission held a
public hearing and provided comments at the October 12 meeting. Most Commissioners
generally did not believe the proposal was consistent with the objectives of FDA land use of the
Comp Plan. The Council reviewed at the November 16 Council meeting and provided
comments. The applicant has requested that the City Council remain open, as they are
considering potential updates to their Concept Plan.
M) Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Pioneer Trail Preserve – These
projects have been preliminarily approved and the City is awaiting final plat application.
N) Caribou Cabin-Pinto Retail, Baker Park Townhomes, Johnson ADU CUP, Hamel Brewery,
St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these
projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete
the projects.
O) Weston Woods, Hamel Haven subdivision – These subdivisions have received final approval.
Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded.
Other Projects
A) Rooftop Elements Moratorium – Staff began researching regulations in other communities and
reviewing existing rooftop elements within the City. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the ordinance at the January 11 meeting and the City Council discussed on January
18 and February 15. Staff intends to present the ordinance for potential adoption on March 1.
B) Uptown Hamel RFP – staff prepared a draft RFP for consideration for the City Council at the
March 1 meeting. The RFP would solicit for a consultant to prepare a market study,
redevelopment feasibility, and action plan to support development and improvement in Uptown
Hamel.
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety
DATE: February 25, 2022
RE: Department Updates
The past two weeks things have slowed down somewhat at the police department. We are still
working on year-end reporting and dealing with data requests in reference to the trespassing complaint
investigation at Hennepin County Public Works Facility. We continue to get additional data requests
and have been working with Kennedy and Graven on those requests to ensure that we are in
compliance with state law.
It appears we have made it through another spike of COVID and things are sharply declining. We
have had officers, as like many of you, that were impacted either by getting infected themselves or
having family members getting it. We are very thankful that they were very short-term illnesses and
absences from work. Everyone has stepped up and answered the challenges that have been asked of
them so that there were no interruptions in our service levels to the community.
Last week we held our annual drug task force luncheon. Thank you to Councilmembers Albers and
Deslauriers and City Administrator Johnson for attending. This is an annual luncheon where officers
are recognized for the great work they do in front of some elected officials. This past year was another
record breaking for our task force. I cannot give them enough credit for all they do to reduce drugs
and crime from our communities. I look forward to sharing with you in the annual report a recap of
what they have accomplished and highlighting all their statistics.
This past week we conducted our annual use of force training. This is something that is required by
our licensing board. Sergeant Boecker is our use of force instructor and does a great job making sure
that all the mandates are covered.
Patrol:
The following are updates from Patrol Officers between February 9, 2022 and February 22, 2022:
Officers issued 11 citations and 14 warnings for various traffic offenses, responded to 2 property
damage accidents, 10 medicals, 3 suspicious calls, 3 traffic complaints, 4 assists to other agencies, and
6 business/residential alarms.
On 02/09/2022 Officers were called to an assault at Casey’s General Store, 700 block of Highway 55.
Officers learned a customer had prepaid for fuel but was having issues with the pumps not pumping
gas. The customer eventually asked for a refund which the employee said she could not do at the time.
Customer then asked for a receipt to show she was going to be refunded and employee refused this as
well. The customer became irate and knocked a store display off the counter and walked out of the
store. The store employee then walked out after her and attacked the customer, striking her several
times before another customer broke the two of them up. The customer was cited for disorderly
conduct. The employee was arrested for assault and booked and released at our Police Department.
On 02/11/2022 Officer was dispatched to a civil matter in the 300 block of Sunnyridge Lane, Loretto.
Resident reported loaning her car to a friend who she had not known very long. The friend was
supposed to return the car later that day but had failed to do so. Attempts to contact the person were
unsuccessful. Officer eventually made contact with the party who said he would return the car later in
the day. The following day the vehicle was still not returned. Attempts to contact the person were
unsuccessful. The next day officers stopped by the residence to follow up and learned the car had
been returned overnight at some point without the owner being notified. No charges are pending in
this case.
On 02/12/2022 Officer was dispatched to a report of an unconscious female in the 700 block of Lilium
Trail. Upon arrival the officer learned the female was not conscious and feeling like the room was
spinning. North Ambulance arrived to evaluate the patient.
On 02/14/2022 Officer took a fraud report by phone. Resident reported that someone had opened up a
Verizon account in their name and they had received a bill from Verizon for the fraudulent account.
The resident reported Verizon needed a police report number to open up a fraud investigation but
suspected that the account would be canceled and not expected to be responsible for any of the
charges.
On 02/15/2022 Officer was notified of an abandoned vehicle parked at the gas pumps of the Casey’s
for more than a week. Officers were unable to make contact with the owner of the vehicle and the
store was advised the vehicle was on private property and they could have it towed on their own.
On 02/16/2022 business contacted our department after finding a small vial containing a white
powdery substance in a common area. The substance was found to test positive as being cocaine. It is
not expected that the owner of the cocaine will call to report losing it so it will be marked for disposal.
On 02/16/2022 Officer responded to take a theft report from a construction trailer at the
Automotorplex. It was learned that a company who did some painting on one of the buildings
reported tools missing from one of their trailers and possibly saw another company using some of their
stolen tools. Case was forwarded to investigations for follow-up.
On 02/16/2022 Officer was dispatched to a possible deceased dog in the area of County Road 24 and
Hickory Drive. Upon arrival the officer determined that the deceased animal was a raccoon. The
deceased animal was removed from the roadway.
On 02/17/2022 Officers were dispatched to a vehicle in the ditch in the area of County Road 19 and
Hamel Road. The 911 caller also reported that they believed the driver to be intoxicated. Upon arrival
officers found a male sitting in the driver’s seat with his head down. Officers were eventually able to
get the attention of the male who showed indications of being intoxicated. The male was arrested for
suspicion of DWI. The driver later refused to submit to a breath test. He was transported to Hennepin
County Jail.
On 02/19/2022 Officer took a theft report by phone. Resident reported hiring a moving company to
deliver a bed. Resident reported receiving a fraud alert on their American Express card and found a
card to be missing from a nightstand in the room that the bed had been delivered to. The case was
forwarded to investigations for follow up.
Investigations:
Received a report where an employee from a moving company stole a credit card and attempted to use
the card for more than $800. The suspect was identified and later admitted to the theft and attempted
use of the card. The case was submitted for charging.
A suspect from a theft ($35,000 worth of tools) in June of 2021 was located this week and a warrant
was obtained for a DNA sample to compare against the sample that was submitted to the Hennepin
County Crime Lab. Investigation ongoing.
Received a report of a theft from a construction site sometime between September and October of
2021. An investigation has been started and is ongoing.
There are currently 17 cases assigned to investigations.
1
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE February 24, 2022
MEETING: March 1, 2022
SUBJECT Public Works Update
STREETS
• There has been just one snow event since the last update. Plowing went well with
no incidents.
• The road material bids have been sent out for the 2022 construction season. We
are expecting increases on almost all items.
• It’s still cold, but spring road restrictions are right around the corner. We’re
reviewing maps to document any updates.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
• I am working to obtain quotes for the replacement of approximately 1300 water
meter radio boxes. This is a large expense that we planned and budgeted for. In
addition to the radios, the VGB drive-by reader and laptop will be replaced
because our current reader is no longer being supported and can only read older
radios. I plan to order meters next week in a single purchase to save up to $20.00
per unit.
• The treatment plant expansion feasibility report is almost finalized and will be
included in the March 15th packet for review.
• We completed our Risk and Resilience Plan as required by the EPA. I’m proud of
the work and thoughtfulness put into establishing a great working document that
The City will now reference in the event of an emergency with our water system -
or any emergency that may arise. Distribution of this document is selective to
protect the sensitive information, so will not be reviewed in a public environment.
• Most of Public Works Staff will be attending the annual Minnesota Rural Water
Association conference the first week of March to attend classes and earn the
required certification credits for water and sewer. Lisa is here to answer phones,
and Jack and Jeff will handle any matters that come up.
• Numerous loads of compost material have been removed from our compost site to
make room for the machine to begin brush grinding next week.
MEMORANDUM
2
PARKS/TRAILS
• RFPs went out, and the deadline for lawn and grounds maintenance on city
properties is March 2nd . Historically we’ve entered into a two-year agreement
with the sub-contractor.
• A purchase agreement for the parkland acquisition on Chippewa Road is in the
hands of the seller and I expect to have it signed soon.
• We received an application from Mr Will Gunter for the open park commission
seat. The interview panel included the Park Commission Chair and Secretary, the
City Council Liaison, and members of Staff. The panel unanimously
recommends appointing Mr Gunter to the Park Commission (on your consent
agenda).
• Public Works has been cleaning up dead trees in Hariots Woods (Enclave) as a
continuation of our clearing and reforestation efforts.
PERSONNEL
• We received three applications for the Public Works Maintenance position and
will be conducting interviews in the upcoming week.
MISC
• Cleanup Day is on the calendar for Saturday April 30, 2022. Lisa has started the
process of coordinating services for the event. In March we will evaluate the
status of the pandemic and make a recommendation to Council on whether the
event should open back up to include food.
• A weed control and fertilization contract is enclosed in your packet.
ORDER CHECKS FEBRUARY 15, 2022 – MARCH 1, 2022
052621 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC ........................................ $255.22
052622 AMERICAN MAILING MACHINES ............................................. $270.00
052623 ASPEN MILLS INC ...................................................................... $35.00
052624 ASSN OF TRAINING OFFICERS .............................................. $175.00
052625 BATTERIES + BULBS ............................................................... $131.99
052626 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE .................................................. $6,094.29
052627 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MN ................................... $31,979.48
052628 CHARLES CUDD CO, LLC ................................................... $10,000.00
052629 CHAUDHRI, YASMIN ................................................................ $700.00
052630 CONTEMPORARY IMAGES ................................................... $2,767.07
052631 EAGLE BROOK CHURCH ......................................................... $250.00
052632 ECKBERG LAMMERS, P.C. ................................................... $1,701.00
052633 ECM PUBLISHERS INC ............................................................ $363.32
052634 ERICKSON, BRIDGET .............................................................. $500.00
052635 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC .............................................. $184.46
052636 GOODIN COMPANY ................................................................. $334.94
052637 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL ...................................................... $54.00
052638 GRAINGER.................................................................................. $16.56
052639 HAMEL LUMBER INC ................................................................ $141.06
052640 HAMEL LIONS CLUB ............................................................. $1,175.00
052641 HAWKINS INC. ....................................................................... $1,871.94
052642 HENN COUNTY INFO TECH .................................................. $2,542.82
052643 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER ............................................ $25.00
052644 HOTSY MINNESOTA ................................................................ $579.74
052645 MATTHEW E HUNZ .................................................................. $370.80
052646 JACOBS, SHELLEY .................................................................. $100.00
052647 JIMMY'S JOHNNYS INC ............................................................ $116.08
052648 KRISHNA SANKIRTAN SOCIETY ............................................. $640.00
052649 KROLL, JEAN/KARL .................................................................. $500.00
052650 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ............................................ $640.00
052651 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MGMT INC .......................................... $37.00
052652 CITY OF MAPLE PLAIN ............................................................ $927.71
052653 MARCO INC .............................................................................. $232.32
052654 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ................................................. $17,221.05
052655 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ................................................. $32,291.02
052656 MN SECRETARY OF STATE-NOTARY .................................... $120.00
052657 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ...................................................... $633.60
052658 NORTH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER .................................. $560.00
052659 OFFICE DEPOT ........................................................................ $527.90
052660 CITY OF ORONO ................................................................... $1,276.92
052661 PERRY'S TRUCK REPAIR ........................................................ $266.00
052662 PREMIUM WATERS INC ............................................................. $31.00
052663 RUSSELL SECURITY RESOURCE INC .................................... $215.00
052664 SOLUTION BUILDERS INC .................................................... $3,566.25
052665 STREICHER'S ........................................................................... $237.96
052666 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE INC ........................................ $589.68
052667 TALLEN & BAERTSCHI .......................................................... $2,389.97
052668 TIMESAVER OFFSITE ........................................................... $1,107.76
052669 TRITECH SOFTWARE SYSTEMS ............................................ $150.00
052670 TRUEMAN WELTERS INC ........................................................ $128.00
052671 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO., INC ............................................ $8,790.00
052672 ADAMS PEST CONTROL INC .................................................... $97.93
052673 ALL TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS INC ................................................ $600.00
052674 ASPEN MILLS INC .................................................................... $146.80
052675 FINANCE AND COMMERCE ..................................................... $251.04
052676 LANO EQUIPMENT INC ............................................................ $167.96
052677 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES .............................................. $55.00
052678 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT INC................................................... $89.51
052679 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ...................................................... $138.18
052680 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE CONSULTA .................................. $12.00
052681 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL ............................................................... $618.01
052682 TEGRETE CORP .................................................................... $2,518.00
052683 SSI MN TRANCHE 1 #10322006 ............................................ $2,264.86
052684 SSI MN TRANCHE 3 #10327096 ............................................ $1,950.78
Total Checks $144,723.98
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS FEBRUARY 15, 2022 – MARCH 1, 2022
006258E PR PERA .............................................................................. $18,182.81
006259E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $17,513.23
006260E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $3,034.00
006261E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $4,097.55
006262E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $24.00
006263E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,784.37
006264E MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT ............................................. $235.50
006265E MARCO (LEASE) .................................................................... $1,537.04
006266E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN ...................................... $2,212.13
006267E AFLAC ....................................................................................... $491.08
006268E CIPHER LABORATORIES INC. .............................................. $1,122.00
006269E CULLIGAN-METRO ..................................................................... $34.40
006270E FP MAILING SOL POSTAGE BY PHON ................................. $1,000.00
006271E FRONTIER .................................................................................. $57.23
006272E FURTHER ................................................................................. $629.28
006273E GREAT AMERICA FINANCIAL SERVI ...................................... $178.65
006274E DELTA DENTAL ..................................................................... $2,438.31
006275E MEDIACOM OF MN LLC ........................................................... $930.79
006276E PAYMENT SERVICE NETWORK INC .................................... $1,069.53
006277E XCEL ENERGY ...................................................................... $9,285.33
006278E CENTURYLINK.......................................................................... $252.82
006279E CENTERPOINT ENERGY ...................................................... $6,249.31
006280E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ......................................... $12.00
006281E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ....................................... $150.00
006282E ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICE .................................................. $9,054.10
006283E DELTA DENTAL ..................................................................... $2,438.31
006284E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN ...................................... $2,487.87
Total Electronic Checks $86,501.64
PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT – FEBRUARY 16, 2022
0511649 BILLMAN, JACKSON CARROLL ............................................... $629.02
0511650 COOK, JUSTIN W ..................................................................... $364.11
0511651 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ................................................... $1,137.75
0511652 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,788.42
0511653 BAUMGARDNER, COLETTE J .................................................. $506.69
0511654 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,768.55
0511655 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $2,082.79
0511656 DEMARS, LISA ....................................................................... $1,558.38
0511657 DINGMANN, IVAN W ................................................................. $463.81
0511658 DION, DEBRA A. .................................................................... $2,091.51
0511659 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $2,008.33
0511660 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,869.01
0511661 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $1,877.22
0511662 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................ $1,981.81
0511663 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $2,128.20
0511664 HANSON, JUSTIN .................................................................. $2,279.88
0511665 JACOBSON, NICOLE ............................................................. $1,089.38
0511666 JESSEN, JEREMIAH S. .......................................................... $2,441.82
0511667 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,277.01
0511668 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,616.29
0511669 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $2,127.85
0511670 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $1,473.75
0511671 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,087.92
0511672 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,795.93
0511673 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $2,364.22
0511674 RUTH, BRENDA L. ................................................................. $1,699.25
0511675 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $2,367.90
0511676 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,527.21
0511677 VINCK, JOHN J ...................................................................... $1,842.74
0511678 VOGEL, NICHOLE .................................................................. $1,140.70
0511679 BURSCH, JEFFREY .................................................................. $873.50
Total Payroll Direct Deposit $56,260.95