HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-10-2022 Planning Commission Packet POSTED AT CITY HALL: August 5, 2022
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2022
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Changes to Agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Representative at next City Council meeting
5. Planning Department Report
6. Public Hearing – Medina Apartments LLC – 500 Hamel Road –
Concept Plan for construction of a 97-unit apartment building (PID
1211823310048)
7. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code
related to setback requirements within integrated/coordinated
developments in the business, commercial, and industrial zoning
districts
8. Public Hearing – Scannell Properties/Loram – Preliminary Plat and Site
Plan Review for subdivision of three lots and development of
approximately 396,000 sq. ft. of warehouse/office/industrial on 25 acres
– east of Arrowhead Dr., south of Hwy 55 (PIDs 1111823220003 and
1111823230001)
9. Public Hearing – Weston Woods of Medina – east of Mohawk Dr.,
south of Chippewa Rd – PUD Amendment to increase maximum height
for single family lots from 32 feet to 36 feet.
10. Approval July 12, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes
11. Adjourn
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 July 19, 2022
City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: July 13, 2022
MEETING: July 19, 2022 City Council
SUBJECT: Planning Department Updates
Land Use Application Review
A) Cates Ranch/Willow Drive Warehouse Industrial – Comprehensive Plan Amendment– Jeff and
Chris Cates have submitted an amendment request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a
warehouse/industrial development east of Willow Drive, north of Chippewa Road. The
amendment proposes to change the future land use of approximately 30 acres from Future
Development Area to Business for an approximately 300,000 s.f. development. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing at the June 14 meeting and recommended approval of the
amendment. The Council reviewed on July 5 and directed staff to prepare a resolution of
approval, which will be on the July 19 consent agenda. Staff will request this item be pulled
from consent if we receive further comments.
B) Life-Style Auto Condo – South of Hwy 55, west of Pioneer – SH Ventures has requested
review of a PUD Concept Plan for development of 9 buildings with approximately 218,740
square feet of space for privately owned garage condos. The Planning Commission and City
Council had previously reviewed a larger proposal of 12 buildings with approximately 258,000
square feet and generally did not express support for the proposed rezoning. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing and provided comments at the July 12 meeting. Generally,
Commissioners did not believe the PUD was consistent with the Comp Plan or the purpose of
the PUD district. Staff intends to present to Council on August 3.
C) Hamel Townhomes Final Plat – 342 Hamel Rd – Hamel Townhomes, LLC has requested final
plat approval for a 30-unit townhome development. The City Council is tentatively scheduled
to review at the August 3 or August 16 meeting.
D) Loram/Scannell Medina Industrial – 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 approved the findings of fact
and made a negative declaration on the need for an EIS at the April 5 meeting. Staff will route
the record of decision as required. The applicant has now also applied for preliminary plat and
site plan review approval for construction of approximately 450,000 s.f. of office warehouse on
three lots. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will present when complete, potentially at
the August 10 Planning Commission Meeting.
E) Pioneer Highlands Preliminary Plat – Onyx Performance Investment LLC has requested
approval of a 4-lot rural subdivision located on approximately 67 acres south of Pioneer Trail,
east of Willow Drive. Staff is conducting preliminary review. A hearing may be held at the
August 10 Planning Commission meeting.
F) 500 Hamel Road Apartment Concept Plan – Medina Apartments LLC has requested review of
a concept plan review for development of a 97-unit apartment building at 500 Hamel Rd.
Preliminary review is underway, and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for the August 10
Planning Commission meeting.
MEMORANDUM
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 July 19, 2022
City Council Meeting
G) Elam Accessory Structure CUP – 1582 Homestead Tr. – Tim and Megan Elam have requested
a conditional use permit for construction of a barn/storage building with a footprint of
approximately 10,000 s.f. Preliminary review is underway, and a public hearing is tentatively
scheduled for the August 10 Planning Commission meeting.
H) Blooming Meadows Concept Plan – east of Holy Name Drive, north of Lakeview Drive – Pillar
Homes has requested review of a Concept Plan Review for a 5-lot rural subdivision. The
applicant proposes a PUD and requests flexibility from the Rural Residential zoning standards.
Standard RR zoning would permit 5 lots on the subject site, but the applicant proposes
alternative lot arrangement to allow for wetland restoration in a large portion of the site and
creation of a wetland bank. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 14 and
was generally supportive of the concept. Council provided comments on June 21. Staff will
await a formal application.
I) Prairie Creek Final Plat – Stelter Enterprises has requested final plat approval for a 17-lot villa
subdivision at 500 Hamel Road. The applicant is re-evaluating their plans and staff will present
to Council when and if the applicant is prepared to move ahead.
J) 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.
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 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) 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.
M) Baker Park Townhomes, Johnson ADU CUP, 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.
Other Projects
A) Uptown Hamel RFP – staff met with WSB for a kick-off meeting for work on the Uptown
Hamel Market/Feasibility study. The engagement strategy was discussed at length. A tour with
the consultant is scheduled for the afternoon of June 30.
B) Hackamore Road – Staff met with WSB and the Elm Creek watershed related to permitting for
the Hackamore Road project. The City Attorney has also drafted a Memorandum of
Understanding between Medina and Corcoran, which is currently being reviewed by staffs.
Staff tentatively intends to present to Council on August 3.
C) CR19 Sewer/Quad-City Agreement – Independence Request – staff met with City of
Independence staff related to their request for 26 additional sewer connections for a proposed
residential development northwest of County Road 19 and Perkinsville Road. Staff is
evaluating capacity and implications of providing additional units and tentatively intends to seek
City Council direction at the August 3 meeting.
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety
DATE: July 14, 2022
RE: Police Department Updates
This past week we experienced many extra visitors to the Hamel area. The Fox 9 Town Ball Tour
game was a big hit with many spectators that attended the activities. Thursday, Friday, and Saturday
the downtown Hamel area was busy again with many stopping to enjoy cold beverages, music and
food after the Hamel Rodeo ended each day. On Sunday, the annual Hamel Parade was well attended.
Our Officers, Community Service and Reserve Officers did a fantastic job with keeping everything
well organized as they always do. It was fun to be the leader of the parade and see all the smiles on the
faces of those along the parade route.
The past week officers have been conducting speed enforcement as part of a traffic safety grant from
the Office of Traffic Safety. We continue to see high speeds on our major roadways in the city but one
thing that has been noticed is that we are not seeing the extremely high speeds like we were last year
where we had several stops of over 100 miles per hour.
Update on the new body cameras. We have been actively using them since right after the first of the
year. Since that time, we have had several requests from individuals along with the courts for the video
footage. One thing we did not anticipate when getting the body cameras is the administrative assistant
staff time it would take to not only review but to prepare and redact for those requesting footage.
Many of these videos for civilian requests must be watched several times to ensure that all data
practice laws are being followed and depending on how long each video is it becomes very time
consuming. We are still figuring out best practices and trying to refine how to get these requests
completed in a timely manner.
We continue to run short staffed on the Community Service Officer side of things. We are currently
looking for any individuals that would be interested in this type of work. The first application deadline
has come and gone with only one application. We have decided to open it up again and widen our
candidate search area. Currently, our Community Service Officer Jackson Billman is finishing up law
enforcement skills schooling and he already has a conditional offer from a metro agency, which he has
accepted. We anticipate him leaving in late August or early September. We are hoping that we can
attract some candidates in the next few weeks.
Patrol:
The following are updates of Patrol Officers between June 29, 2022, and July 12, 2022: Officers
issued 13 citations and 27 warnings for various traffic offenses, responded to 1 property damage
accident, 13 medicals, 4 suspicious calls, 2 traffic complaints, 8 assists to other agencies, and 11
business/residential alarms.
On 06/30/2022 Officers responded to assist Corcoran Police Department with a personal injury
accident involving a motorcycle that had crashed on County Road 50. Medina Officers assisted with
carrying the unconscious patient out of a wooded area to the waiting ambulance.
On 07/03/2022 at 2254 hours Officer was dispatched to a reported drug overdose in the 500 block of
Highway 55. An adult female had been drinking heavily and stated she took a handful of pills to end
her life. The female was sent to the hospital for evaluation.
On 07/04/2022 Officer was dispatched to assist a motorist in the area of Highway 55 and County Road
19. Upon arrival the officer learned a 12-year-old had their hand caught between the center console
and the seat and could not get it out. Loretto Fire Department also responded, and they were able to
move the seat enough in order get their hand unstuck.
On 07/05/2022 Officer responded to the 500 block of Clydesdale Circle to take a runaway report. A
fourteen-year-old foster child was reported to have possibly run away from the residence. Officers
entered the child as a runaway. She was later found in Golden Valley by police and returned home.
On 07/08/2022 Officers were dispatched to a report of suspicious activity at Casey’s. Employees
reported three vehicles out at the gas pumps for the past half hour and the occupants kept holding their
phones up to the gas pumps. Officers made contact with the individuals. They were identified and
denied doing anything illegal. They were sent on their way.
On 07/09/2022 Officers were dispatched to a report of an 89-year-old female unconscious at a
residence along Deer Hill Road. Upon arrival officers found the female conscious but uncooperative
and said she wanted to die. Patient was transported to the hospital for a mental health evaluation.
On 07/11/2022 Officers responded to a reported drug overdose at McDonalds. It was reported a female
was unconscious in the restroom and an off-duty firefighter was on scene rendering aid. Hamel Fire
also responded and while attempting to establish a nasal airway the female regained consciousness.
She was transported to the hospital.
On 07/11/2022 Officer took a theft report from North Metro Companies, 2402 Highway 55. The
owner reported a piece of equipment was stolen from the lot overnight. The equipment was valued
around $3,500. The owner was working at providing video footage from that evening.
Investigations:
After several reports of restraining order violations, information was obtained, and charges were sent
for consideration for one suspect to be charged with 4 separate incidents.
On June 28th I received a theft report of $500, with the suspects being a business in Nebraska.
Investigation is ongoing.
On June 27th I received a report of financial transaction card fraud at a local retail establishment. The
suspect has not been identified; however, he is active in three other cases in the metro area.
There are currently 10 cases assigned to investigations.
1
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: July13, 2022
MEETING: July 18, 2022
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
STREETS
• The Arrowhead/Highway 55 intersection is on track to be completed within the
next two to three weeks. The street has remained open while work is being
completed.
• The Chippewa Road connection is moving along right on schedule. Curb and
asphalt are being installed this week which means the street will be open to the
Bridgewater neighborhood within the next few days.
• The Hackamore Road kick-off meeting with WSB has been scheduled for July
18th. Staff from Corcoran and Medina will be in attendance to work through
public engagement, the memorandum of understanding, and several other items.
• The Iroquois Street overlay project is now complete. The pavement looks great
and there should be very little maintenance for the next few years.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
• Water usage is up, and the plant is keeping up with the demand. The current
drought monitor indicates our area is in the “abnormally dry” phase (which is
typical for July in Minnesota). We are thankful for the recent rain showers which
always mitigate water consumption.
• Bid specifications are being put together for the media replacement in the water
treatment plant.
• Staff is awaiting the proposal for the Wellhead Protection plan that must be
completed by 2023. It is a time-consuming process to prepare the delineations
and vulnerability assessments as is required by the Minnesota Department of
Health.
• Staff met with the watershed and the city of Corcoran to discuss the potential
stormwater improvement requirements for the Hackamore Road project.
PARKS/TRAILS
• Public Works is making progress on the renovations at Hunter Park. The concrete
maintenance strip has been installed on both the new courts and ballfield.
MEMORANDUM
2
• The park land acquisition on Chippewa Road is complete. Included in your
packet is the CIP with items for planning and development over the next few
years for the park. In the spring I plan to start a tree nursery for the purpose of
planting and/or replacing trees within our parks.
• The Meander Road trail extension from County Road 116 to the existing trail
(around 300 feet to the west) is almost complete. Residents in the neighborhood
are happy to see the trail extended and appreciate the improved visibility for
vehicles at the intersection.
• Staff remains very busy keeping up with park related requests. The Jamboree and
Fox 9 Town Ball Tour were big events, as was the Hamel Rodeo Parade. It was
great to see the community out in full force for these events.
MISC
• Public Works hosted a Fire and Extinguisher Safety training class / team building
event last week; the Hamel Fire Department performed the training.
Medina Apartments LLC – 500 Hamel Road Page 1 of 7 August 10, 2021
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: August 3, 2022
MEETING: August 10, 2022 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Medina Apartments LLC– 500 Hamel Road – Concept Plan Review –
Public Hearing
Summary of Request
Medina Apartments LLC has requested review of a concept plan review for development of a
97-unit apartment project at 500 Hamel Road. The subject property is located north of Hamel
Road, across from Elm Creek Drive. The property is approximately 6.7 acres in size (4.9 net
acres), is currently vacant and guided and zoned Uptown Hamel. The northern portion of the site
slopes down to a wetland, and the western portion of the site includes a stormwater pond which
was constructed by the City to treat stormwater from the site and property to the west.
Rainwater Nature Preserve is located east of the site, with the rest of Uptown Hamel to the east.
Single family homes are located to the south, with fourplexes to the southwest. The property to
the west includes warehouse uses. An aerial of the site and surrounding property can be found
below.
MEMORANDUM
Medina Apartments LLC – 500 Hamel Road Page 2 of 7 August 10, 2021
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Purpose of Concept Plan Review
Concept plan reviews are encouraged for new development within Uptown Hamel. According to
Section 825.63 of the City Code: “Concept plan review serves as the basis for informal
conceptual discussion between the city and the applicant regarding a specific land use proposal.
It is designed to assist the applicant in preparing a formal land use application for the city’s
consideration. The purpose of the concept plan review is to identify significant issues, suggest
design considerations and discuss requirements of the city’s official controls.”
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning
The subject property is guided Uptown Hamel in the Comprehensive Plan and zoned Uptown
Hamel (UH). The purpose of the Uptown Hamel district is “to create a distinctive Uptown
Hamel area that is an attractive, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use town center, by using building
facades, porches, walkways, landscaped plazas, lighting, signage, landscaping and parking to
blend retail, office, higher-density housing, specialty shops, and gathering spots into a unified
and viable community.”
Uptown Hamel allows commercial development, residential development with a net density
between 4-20 units/acre or a combination of commercial and residential development.
Proposed Site Layout
The concept proposes a three-story, 97-unit apartment building with underground parking.
Additional surface parking is proposed north of the building.
The site includes approximately 4.9 net acres and allows a residential density of 4-15 units/acre
(up to 20/units/acre with underground parking). This would equate to a range of 20-98 units on
the subject property. The western 1.5 acres of site is a stormwater pond and filtration basin that
treats stormwater from a broader area to the west in addition to the subject site.
The Uptown Hamel district requires buildings to be set closer to the street with parking behind
the building. In this case, there is a 30 foot wide Metropolitan Council sewer main easement
north of Hamel Road. This easement prevents the buildings from being located closer than 30
feet to Hamel Road. Staff believes the existence of the sewer easement creates a practical
difficulty in meeting the maximum 10-foot setback and would justify either a variance or
otherwise providing a deviation from the requirement.
UH Requirement Proposed
Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling 2178 s.f. 2200 s.f.
Maximum Lot Area per Dwelling 10,890 s.f. 2200 s.f
Minimum Lot Size N/A 6.73 acres
Minimum Lot Width N/A 590 feet
Minimum Lot Depth N/A 492 feet
Min. Front Yard Setback 0 feet 30 feet (Hamel Rd)
Max. Front Yard Setback 10 feet 30 feet (Hamel Rd)
Rear Yard Setback As necessary 229 feet
Side Yard Setback 8 feet (or 0) 48 feet
Max Height 50 feet 45 feet
Max. Hardcover 90% Not provided
Medina Apartments LLC – 500 Hamel Road Page 3 of 7 August 10, 2021
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The subject site slopes from west to east. The applicant proposes to set the basement floor at the
approximate elevation of the lower portion of the site on the east. It does not appear practical for
the lower floor to be any lower because of adjacent ponds, wetlands, and floodplains.
The conceptual grading plan proposes to add fill to the western portion of the site to bury the
lower level. The first floor and ground elevation in this area would sit approximately 8 feet
higher than Hamel Road.
The City had reviewed a 17-unit villa development upon this site last year from a different
developer. The previous applicant indicated that they were not going to proceed with the project
as a result of the site development costs.
Architectural Design
The Uptown Hamel district includes the following architectural requirements.
• Materials. Exterior materials shall consist of one or more of the following: natural brick,
stucco, stone, wood, glass, or commercial grade fiber cement lap siding with a wood
appearance which is installed per manufacturer’s specifications. Treated or anodized
metal may be used for trim.
• General. All new buildings, structures, expansions, remodeling, and development plans shall
conform to these design standards and be compatible and complementary to the buildings
proposed to be retained downtown. Elements of compatibility include, but are not limited to:
building height, form, mass and bulk, fenestration, exterior material appearance, color,
exterior material durability, detailing, setbacks, landscaping, exterior lighting and site
improvements.
• Building - Street. Building design shall make the street visually more interesting,
functionally more enjoyable and useful and economically more viable. Buildings, porches,
and plaza spaces shall be designed to bring the building and its activity more in contact
with the street.
• New Building and Major Expansions. New buildings… should be compatible with adjacent
and nearby buildings. Buildings shall be designed and oriented consistent with this
ordinance, proposed use of the property, uses on adjacent properties and nearby amenities.
Buildings shall be designed and oriented so as not to detract from one another or vistas.
Views from the residential areas should be protected. Where these views exist, partial
loss of the view may be an unintended but justified result when development takes place
consistent with other provisions of this ordinance. Entrances shall be placed for easy
access from the street. Utilities shall be placed underground and meters and transformers
shall be hidden from view.
• Integrate – Coordinate. New buildings, structures, remodeling and expansion shall be
integrated and coordinated with development on abutting property. Elements for
integration and coordination include, but are not limited to, sidewalk and pedestrian
ways and their continuity; site lighting; site access; building orientation; building
entrances…
• Porches (Overhangs – Canopies – Arcades). Porches, which overhang into walks, are one
of Uptown Hamel’s trademarks. These features should be preserved, enhanced, and
improved. New commercial structures on Hamel Road and Sioux Drive are expected to be
designed and constructed with these features.
Medina Apartments LLC – 500 Hamel Road Page 4 of 7 August 10, 2021
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
• Fenestration – Modulation. Windows and openings shall be generous, especially on the
street side, and their placement and design shall express the pedestrian- friendly, livability
of the town center. …Buildings shall be modulated a minimum of once per 40 feet in frontage
to avoid long, monotonous building walls. This modulation may include varying building
height, building setback, or building materials/design. At the street level, at least 30 percent
of the façade should be glass in windows and doors.
• Plazas. Plazas or small extensions of the sidewalk into or on private property are encouraged
especially at key focal points and selected locations. Plazas will serve as a unifying link
between businesses and sidewalks. The design and form of the plazas shall accommodate
social and business interaction, provide a setting for buildings, sidewalks and other plazas,
and should accommodate sitting, watching and in some instances outdoor food services.
Plazas shall include special pavements (for example, concrete brick pavers or exposed
aggregate), decorative lights and decorative trees, shrubs and flowers with emphasis on
providing a variety of color, texture, and form throughout the year. … Decorative fences and
walls will be used to delineate spaces and to accommodate grade changes. Plaza furniture is
encouraged including benches, drinking fountains, bike racks, waste containers, kiosks, and
decorative signs and plaques. Monuments and sculpture will be encouraged e.g. clock towers,
gazebos, water fountains, etc. …”
The applicant provided a conceptual elevation of the Hamel Road facing portion of the building
without dimensions or specific information on materials.
Based upon the limited information provided, the proposed architecture appears to propose
covered patios along Hamel Road. Because of the sewer easement and proposed grade change,
these will set further back from the trail/sidewalk. The applicant does propose a walkway
connection with the trail along Hamel Road.
The conceptual architectural sketch does not specify materials, but appears to propose LP or
fiber cement siding which is permitted in the Uptown Hamel district. Board and batten accents
are also shown. Staff would suggest additional accent materials be considered upon final design.
The proposed elevations appear to provide a fair amount of modulation as described in the code.
The conceptual elevation also shows a significant number of windows.
The conceptual elevations do not appear to set the street-facing third story back as required.
Staff would recommend that these elements be included on a formal request.
Transportation/Pedestrian/Trails/Park Dedication
The applicant proposes a driveway at the Hamel Road/Elm Creek Drive intersection. This
driveway would provide access to the underground parking on the east of the building and
continue behind the building to provide access to the surface parking.
Hamel Fire has recommended a 2nd access to the parking lot in case the access is blocked. Staff
believes providing a 2nd access point is challenging and notes that the structure is also accessible
from Hamel Road. Staff recommends that the circulation within the parking lot be improved and
other measures be implemented in consultation with the Fire Department to mitigate the single
access point.
Medina Apartments LLC – 500 Hamel Road Page 5 of 7 August 10, 2021
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Hamel Road has a speed limit of 30 MPH adjacent to the site, so the City Engineer does not
believe turn lane improvements are necessary. While the apartment building would generate a
significant number of trips, the City Engineer does not find that this would cause congestion or
impacts to the broader local transportation system. The City Engineer has recommended that an
analysis to determine whether improvement should be required to Hamel Road to better
accommodate turning maneuvers at the proposed driveway. The project may necessitate
widening of Hamel Road to improve turning maneuverability into the site access.
The concept plan shows construction of a trail along the north side of Hamel Road, which has
been identified in the City’s trail plan. Staff would recommend construction of this trail as part
of the park dedication requirements of the site. A sidewalk connection is proposed from the trail
to the entrance of the building as well as to connect to some of the first floor patios. Staff
recommends that recreational amenities be included in the final design.
The City reviewed park dedication for the subject site when it was split from the land to the east
back in 2019. At the time, the City determined that no land would be required for park
dedication, but rather a cash-in-lieu fee of $3500 per unit, which would amount to $339,500 for
97 units with credit for the cost of construction of the trail improvements along Hamel Road.
Soils/Buried Debris
A significant amount of buried construction debris has been identified on the site. A Phase I and
Phase II Environmental Assessment were completed in 2006-2007. The Assessments identified
buried construction debris on the site. Soil borings and water sampling identified some locations
which exceeded Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), arsenic and other chemical which were
measured. In addition, when the City excavated for the ponds in the western portion of the site,
tiles which contained asbestos were encountered and had to be disposed of properly.
It is recommended that a Response Action Plan (RAP) and Contingency Construction Plan
(CCP) be implemented for construction activity on the site. These documents establish a plan on
how construction will be conducted, how materials will be handled and sampled, which materials
will need to be disposed of and in which manner, and other means to limit groundwater or other
contamination.
The previous villa development would have required public utilities to be located on-site which
would have interacted with the buried debris. Construction of the apartment building will
significantly reduce potential issues with city utilities.
There are grants available to assist with the extra cost of developing contaminated sites,
completing the necessary documentation and testing, and disposing of hazardous materials. If the
developer applies for such funds, staff recommends that the City support the application.
The applicant has indicated that they are aware of the potential challenges posed by the debris
and soils conditions on the site.
Medina Apartments LLC – 500 Hamel Road Page 6 of 7 August 10, 2021
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review
The concept plan includes a conceptual grading plan. Stormwater management was provided for
the site through construction of the stormwater pond in the western portion of the site as part of
acquisition of the easement area.
Grading and drainage plans will need to be designed to direct site runoff to the pond in the
western portion of the site, or to provide additional treatment. The grading plan will also need to
be designed so that it will not negatively impact the drainage from Hamel Road. Improvements
will need to be constructed adjacent to Hamel Road (likely either curb/stormsewer or a ditch) to
accommodate drainage from the new trail and from the site so that drainage does not negatively
impact Hamel Road.
There is a wetland along the northern portion of the site which also has a floodplain with a base
flood elevation of 974.6. No wetland or floodplain impacts are proposed.
The developer of the subject site is required to provide a small area of floodplain mitigation
adjacent to the wetland to off-set the installation of a driveway on the eastern portion of the site
(east of 492 Hamel Road). This property was subdivided from the subject site in 2019 and
installation of a driveway will necessitate some fill within the floodplain of Elm Creek. To off-
set this fill, the property owner agreed that the developer of the subject site would mitigate the
floodplain.
Sewer/Water
The concept plan does not provide detail on utilities, but it would be anticipated that the building
would be supported by a service from Hamel Road. Extension of City infrastructure into the site
will likely be very limited.
Tree Preservation and Landscaping
The Uptown Hamel zoning district does not require specific landscaping plantings. A minimum
of 5% of the site is required to be landscaped, anticipating more of a “downtown” development
form. The concept submittal did not include proposed landscaping detail.
There are 108 trees on the site, mostly consisting of volunteer trees such as boxelder and
cottonwood.
The City’s tree preservation would allow 37 (35%) of the trees to be removed without
replacement. The applicant proposes to remove 73 trees. Replacement beyond the allowed
amount is required on an inch:inch basis. Because of the large size of the trees on the site, this
would result in 441 inches of replacement trees.
Section 828.41 Subd. 7 provides for a waiver of a portion of the replacement when “an applicant
has exhausted all reasonable design options for a Development Site.” Staff acknowledges that
most of the trees would need to be removed to develop this site at the density identified in the
Comprehensive Plan, especially the cottonwood and boxelder trees scattered throughout the
center of the property. Staff believes it is appropriate to consider some amount of waiver, but
recommends that landscaping plans accommodate as much on-site planting as practical.
Medina Apartments LLC – 500 Hamel Road Page 7 of 7 August 10, 2021
Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
City Code generally prohibits the use of domestic City water for use in lawn irrigation systems.
Generally, a neighborhood utilizes stormwater reuse from ponds for irrigation purposes. Because
this property is utilizing a City stormwater pond for treatment, this will require additional
consideration. The City’s water supply ordinance allows for waivers from the irrigation
prohibition where properties are served by a City stormwater system.
City staff recommends that, if possible, an irrigation system be installed to reuse water from the
City stormwater pond west of the site. At this time, the applicant has not provided detail to allow
for this. If it can be shown that irrigating from the City pond is not practical, staff would
recommend that irrigation systems be permitted on City water.
Staff Comments
The Planning Commission and Council will not take formal action, but should provide comments
on the Concept Plan to inform a future application.
Staff has provided comments throughout the report, which are summarized below:
1. Future land use requests shall be subject to relevant provisions of the City Code.
2. A Response Action Plan (RAP) and Contingency Construction Plan (CCP) be
implemented for construction activity on the site.
3. A variance would need to be requested for the increased setback from Hamel Road
because of the existing sewer easement on the property.
4. A trail shall be constructed along the north side of Hamel Road and pedestrian circulation
should be provided within the site.
5. Architectural plans shall meet the requirements of the Uptown Hamel district.
Specifically, the third-story facing Hamel Road should be set back as required.
6. The applicant shall provide a turning analysis and update the site layout ensure adequate
emergency vehicle circulation.
7. The applicant shall provide required floodplain storage as described in the development
agreement for Raskobs Elm Creek Addition.
8. If it is possible to do so and with the agreement of the City, the development shall utilize
the stormwater pond to the west for reuse for lawn irrigation.
9. Future plans shall address the recommendations of the City Engineer.
10. Park dedication shall be provided as cash-in-lieu fee of $3500 per unit.
Attachments
1. Engineering Comments
2. Applicant Narrative
3. Concept Plan Documents
K:\017878-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Concept)\_2022-08-05 500 Hamel Rd Apt Site Concept Plan - Engineering Review.docx
7
0
1
X
E
N
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
|
S
U
I
T
E
3
0
0
|
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
,
M
N
|
5
5
4
1
6
|
7
6
3
.
5
4
1
.
4
8
0
0
|
W
S
B
E
N
G
.
C
O
M
August 5, 2022
Mr. Dusty Finke
City Planning Director
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: 500 Hamel Rd Apartment Site Concept Plan – Engineering Review
City Project No. LF-22-327
WSB Project No. 017878-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
WSB staff have reviewed the 500 Hamel Rd Apartment Site Concept Plan dated July 18, 2022.
The plans propose to construct a 97-unit apartment building and related improvements at 500
Hamel Road.
The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general
engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with
regards to engineering and stormwater management matters.
Concept Site Plan & General
1. With preliminary plat submittal(s) provide the following:
o Existing site/removal plans that includes topographic survey/information that
extends 50 feet beyond the limits of the proposed development. Include
additional topography south of the proposed public/shared access improvements.
o More detailed grading, drainage, erosion control plans. Considerations for
minimizing drainage into the underground parking area will be needed.
o Utility plan/profile drawings for watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer.
o Site plan containing more detailed information, notes, curbing around the parking
lot/access drive, and signing/striping.
o Sheet that includes the pertinent City Standards details or other details needed to
construction the proposed improvements.
o Typical section details for streets, trails, and sidewalks meeting the City’s
standards, at minimum. The final pavement sections shall be designed by a
registered geotechnical engineer for the specific soil conditions found on the site.
2. Provide a vehicle turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all
building structures and provide any required turn around space(s) as required by the City
Fire Marshall.
3. The applicant will be required to install a bituminous trail along Hamel Road. See
additional comments provided by the City Planner on pedestrian access and mobility
requirements.
4. City staff will provide additional comments on the plat, tree preservation plan, and
landscaping plans separately from this review.
500 Hamel Rd Apartment Site Concept Plan – Engineering Review
August 5, 2022
Page 2
K:\017878-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Concept)\_2022-08-05 500 Hamel Rd Apt Site Concept Plan - Engineering Review.docx
5. The Remedial Investigation Report and Response Action Plan will need to be updated to
accommodate the progress in the design and specifically the implications of excavating
for proposed basements and utility depths. Consideration of bedding for utilities and
foundations should be included with this report or as a separate evaluation (with the
street design recommendations). An analysis of the quantity of contaminated material
shall be provided along with any recommendations on how building foundations should
be protected or sealed/waterproofed to provide long term protection from the
contaminants. See additional comments within this review.
6. See marked up sketch plan for additional comments and easement considerations. Not
all comments on the plans are detailed in this review letter.
7. The applicant will be required to install a bituminous trail along Hamel Road adjacent to
the site and further east of the site to connect into the widened shoulder of Hamel Road .
See additional comments provided by the City Planner on pedestrian access and mobility
requirements.
8. The applicant will be required to widen Hamel Road, install concrete curb, and provide a
parking lane on the north side. See additional comments provided by the City Planner on
this item.
9. Retaining walls are being proposed on the plan. For walls greater than 4’ in height a
design provided by a structural engineer will be required to be submitted for review. A
safety fence will also be required for walls greater than 4’ in height.
Erosion/Sediment Control / SWPPP
10. A full review of erosion/sediment control will be conducted with the final plat/construction
plan submittal. Submit a SWPPP meeting all requirements 5.6-5.23 of the construction
stormwater general permit.
11. An NPDES permit must be submitted to the City prior to start of construction.
Water/Sewer Utilities
12. With future submittals show the existing sewer and watermain system in more detail
including the nearest existing hydrants, valves, and manhole locations. Show proposed
watermain, sanitary sewer mains, service locations, hydrants and valve locations.
13. Watermain looping connections will be needed to minimize long dead-end watermain
sections. Consideration of further watermain looping needs and stubs for future phases
or other adjacent developments will be required and reviewed with future submittals.
With this in mind, at minimum the City will require that the internal site watermain is
extended to the easterly property line with a stub and temporary hydrant.
14. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the City Fire Marshall. Provide an exhibit of
hydrant coverage with a maximum of 250’ radius. A review of valve locations will be
provided with future plan submittals.
15. City’s typical standard is to place sewer a minimum of 10’ below the surface (18” vertical
separation below the watermain). Where this depth is not feasible, the City will allow an 8’
depth; depths less than 8’ will require review on a case-by-case basis and require
insulation and/or insulated pipe, at minimum.
16. The underlying fill conditions (various forms of debris from the demolition of a building)
will require that a geotechnical evaluation is provided that includes a specific
bedding/support evaluation of utility piping systems (watermain, sanitary sewer, and
500 Hamel Rd Apartment Site Concept Plan – Engineering Review
August 5, 2022
Page 3
K:\017878-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Concept)\_2022-08-05 500 Hamel Rd Apt Site Concept Plan - Engineering Review.docx
storm sewer). Buried debris can continue to break down over time causing settlements
and otherwise provide poor foundation conditions.
17. Any public sanitary sewer and watermain shall be encompassed by drainage and utility
easements where located outside of public road right of way. Drainage and utility
easements will need to allow for a 1:1 trench from the invert of the utility with a minimum
of 20’ centered on the utility.
18. Where any sewer pipe (storm or sanitary) crosses the watermain, include a note saying
“Maintain 18-Inch Separation, 4” Rigid Insulation”. Provide dimension notes in various
locations between the watermain and storm/sanitary sewer.
19. The watermain improvements will require approval from the MDH and/or MN DOLI. The
sanitary sewer improvements will require a permit from the MPCA. Provide completed
and approved permit documents with final construction plans.
Civil Construction Details
20. Include typical section details for street, trail, sidewalk meeting the City’s standards. The
final street section shall be designed by a registered geotechnical engineer for the
specific soil conditions found on the site.
21. With final plat submittal, Include a typical section/design on the plans for the proposed
retaining walls and safety fencing.
22. A full review of standard details will be conducted with final plat/construction plans.
Traffic & Access
23. Based on the proposed site plan the anticipated traffic generation for a 98 -unit apartment
development would be 661 daily trips, 40 AM peak hour trips and 50 PM peak hour trips.
These trips would be added to the existing traffic on Hamel Road. The most resent daily
traffic count on Hamel Road in this area is 2,500 from 2017.
24. Hamel Road adjacent to the site is a local Municipal State Aid Street. The existing
roadway has a 25ft two lane rural cross section with no shoulders. The roadway has a
posted 30mph speed limit.
25. One access driveway is proposed from the site across from Elm Creek Drive. With the
proposed concentrated site traffic generation at one site access, an analysis was
completed documenting if right and/or left turn lanes are needed usi ng criteria outlined in
the MnDOT/LRRB Research Report 2008-14. This document outlines several criteria for
turn lane warrants, including those found in the MnDOT Road Design Manual and the
MnDOT Traffic Engineering Manual.
The analysis was completed using the following assumptions.
• 3,160 vehicles per day on Hamel Road (2,500 existing and 660 site traffic)
• 316 PM peak hour vehicles on Hamel Road (10% of ADT)
• 221 westbound vehicles (70%) and 95 eastbound vehicles (30%)
• 50 PM peak hour site trips (32 in / 18 out)
• 22 PM peak hour trips turning right into site (70%)
• 10 PM peak hour trips turning left into site (30%)
The figures below represent the criteria outlined for left turn lanes with major roadway
speed of 30-35mph and for right turn lanes with various speeds for the major roadway.
500 Hamel Rd Apartment Site Concept Plan – Engineering Review
August 5, 2022
Page 4
K:\017878-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Concept)\_2022-08-05 500 Hamel Rd Apt Site Concept Plan - Engineering Review.docx
Based on the above analysis no left turn lane from Hamel Road would be warranted
however, a right turn lane from Hamel Road would be warranted at the time the
development is fully occupied. Additional analysis and discussion with the developer will
be required to determine when and how this would be accomplished.
26. A sight line analysis should be completed at site driveway intersection on Hamel Road
and included considerations for landscaping, parking, and monument sign locations, if
applicable. A site distance analysis/exhibit was provided on the Landscape Plan (Sheet
L2.1), but the site distance needs to accommodate a 30 MPH roadway per MnDOT
design requirements as well as the proposed on-street parking.
Stormwater Management
27. Provide a Stormwater Management plan meeting all requirements on the Medina
Stormwater Design Guideline.
28. According to FEMA flood plain maps Zone AE 100-yr flood fringe encompasses much of
this site. The floodplain elevation that applies to this parcel is 974.6. Please show
floodplain elevation on future plan sets. The city requires compensatory storage at a 1:1
ratio for any filling the in the floodplain. Complete.
29. When this parcel split in 2018, there was floodplain fill on the eastern parcel that was not
mitigated at that time. This fill amounts to 3,312 cf. Previous grading plans show this
migration amount on the western parcel. This should be incorporated into th e site
development plans; Add a label to where this is being proposed.
30. The development will need to meet the appropriate standards for Elm Creek Watershed
Management Commission. Please submit approved permit information to the City.
Confirm low floor/low opening requirements from Elm Creek Watershed to verify the
structure meets all requirements.
31. The City requires two feet of freeboard from structure low openings to 100-year high
water levels and EOF’s. The HWL of the adjacent basin is 983.26 and the EOF is 985.
Therefore, the minimum low opening for adjacent structures is 987
32. Provide updated boring logs to verify soils around proposed buildings and stormwater
BMP’s. Separation will be required from the adjacent wetland and floodplain.
500 Hamel Rd Apartment Site Concept Plan – Engineering Review
August 5, 2022
Page 5
K:\017878-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Concept)\_2022-08-05 500 Hamel Rd Apt Site Concept Plan - Engineering Review.docx
Volume Control
33. Per city of Medina standard 1.1 inches of runoff from net new impervious surfaces must
be captured and retained onsite. Infiltration is required where feasible. Refer to design
guide for additional credits.
34. This development drains to a regional wet pond/filtration basin system constructed in
2015. The regional basins were designed to meet rate control and water quality
requirements for this site. The ponds were designed to assume that 80% (2.7 acres) of
the buildable portion of this parcel would be impervious surface. Provide detailed
impervious surface information for the proposed development to ensure that the
proposed impervious is less than 2.7 acres. Any impervious not routed to the filtration
basin will be required to be treated onsite.
35. Provide calculations of new impervious and how much is being treated by each BMP.
Complete. Required Volume (ft^3) = Impervious Surfaces (SF) * 1.1 (in) * 1/12 (ft/in)
Rate Control
36. Post development discharge rates must be less than or equal to existing conditions
discharge rates for the 2-year (2.5-inch), 10-year (4.3-inch), and 100-year (7.3-inch) Atlas
14 MSE 3, 24-hour storm events. Complete.
37. Provide calculations of each discharge point from the site to verify that discharge rates
are reduced.
Water Quality
38. For new development, the water quality control standard shall be considered satisfied if
the volume control standard has been satisfied. If it is infeasible to meet the volume
control standard due to site constraints the proposed BMP will need to detain and treat
sufficient volume of stormwater to achieve a phosphorus load reduction of 20% from
existing conditions using and approved BMP.
Modeling
39. Provide modelling to show existing conditions and proposed conditions for the site. In-
progress, HydroCAD model provided, but will require updating to address remaining
comments.
Wetlands
40. The wetland is classified as a Manage 1 by the City of Medina and will require a 30 -foot
average (20-foot minimum) buffer. The location of the upland buffer, including buffer
monument signs, and revegetation plan must be shown on the site plan around the full
extent of the wetland within the project parcels. The location of the buffer monuments
must also be shown on the wetland buffer plan. Upland buffer zone markers must be
placed at a minimum of one marker per lot at the upslope edge of the Upland Buffer Zone
and then every 250 feet thereafter and on all common lot lines. A wetland buffer sign is
needed at the northern most lot line adjacent to the rail right of way. Show this sign on
the plans. Complete.
41. If either permanent or temporary impacts to wetlands are proposed, an approval from the
Wetland Conservation Act will be required.
42. Wetland buffer vegetation must consist of acceptable natural vegetation and cannot
contain turf grass. Show the proposed buffer vegetation on the plans.
500 Hamel Rd Apartment Site Concept Plan – Engineering Review
August 5, 2022
Page 6
K:\017878-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Concept)\_2022-08-05 500 Hamel Rd Apt Site Concept Plan - Engineering Review.docx
43. Note that the property owner or homeowners’ association is responsible for maintaining
the Upland Buffer Zones on their property.
Environmental
44. In 2015/2016, WSB’s environmental team assisted with the Hamel Road Stormwater
Pond project. The City obtained a permanent stormwater pond easement (the Easement
Site) consisting of the land located immediately west of 500 Hamel Road (the
Application Site). The Easement Site has never been developed. However, evidence of
demolition debris dumping was identified at the Easement Site during environmental due
diligence. Further, the Application Site was identified as a closed tank leak site (Leak
#11595) indicating a leak has occurred from a tank system. Site closure does not mean
the site is free of contamination.
Investigations completed at the Easement Site identified buried debris consisted of
brick, concrete, clay block, wood, metal, reinforced bars, pipe, carpeting, ceramic tile,
and other miscellaneous materials. Analytical testing of the debris identified elevated
concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) equivalents, arsenic, and copper above the
industrial soil reverence values (SRV) in soil. Additionally, asbestos containing
materials (ACM), consisting of multiple floor tile and floor tile mastic, was identified in the
debris at the Easement Site. Further, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) impacts,
consisting of acenaphthene, fluoranthene, fluorene, pyrene, BaP equivalents, and
arsenic where identified in shallow groundwater at the Easement Site exceeding MDH
drinking water standards.
Consequently, WSB prepared a Response Action Plan (RAP) in preparation for the
stormwater project, as well as enrolled the Easement Site into the MPCA’s Voluntary
Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) program. The Easement Site was assigned VIC ID
VP32320. The RAP was approved by the MPCA and a No Association Determination
(NAD) was issued to the City related to the identified non-petroleum contamination.
During construction, WSB assisted with the screening and segregation of debris
impacted soil at the Easement Site for the construction of two stormwater ponds. The
purpose of the RAP was to screen and manage the contaminated media generated
during the construction of the stormwater ponds, not to clean up the entire Easement
Site. A total of 4,893 tons of asbestos containing waste material was excavated during
pond construction and disposed offsite at Vonco II Landfill located in Becker,
MN. Contaminated media (including buried asbestos and PAH impacted soil) still
remains in place at the Easement Site beyond the project excavation limits. It was
recommended that an affidavit or restrictive covenant be filed for the Easement Site
because of the remaining contamination. It is unknown if an affidavit or restrictive
covenant was filed.
45. The Application Site is located immediately east of the Easement Site which has
documented contamination resulting from previous construction debris
dumping. Further, construction debris dumping and contamination impacts to soil and
groundwater remain in place at the Easement Site. It is unknown if construction debris
dumping has occurred at the Application Site. However, it is recommended the
environmental documents prepared for the Easement Site are provided to the
Application Site team. Further, the Application Site is associated with a closed tank leak
(Leak #11595). Therefore, the Application Site team should have a plan (e.g. RAP) to
manage contaminated media encountered during construction and ensure proposed
buildings are protected from soil vapor intrusion.
500 Hamel Rd Apartment Site Concept Plan – Engineering Review
August 5, 2022
Page 7
K:\017878-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Concept)\_2022-08-05 500 Hamel Rd Apt Site Concept Plan - Engineering Review.docx
The applicant has provided a RAP, but the original plan for the proposed homes was to
construct them as a slab on grade to avoid disturbance of buried debris/garbage. The
current submittal for final plat now shows the homes to have full basements requiring
more significant disturbance of the underlying material. The Remedial Investigation
Report and Response Action Plan will need to be updated to accommodate the progress
in the design and specifically the implications of excavating for full basements.
46. In addition to generating more impacted soil due to deeper utilities, the deeper utility’s
might also require dewatering during utility installations for this project since
groundwater is 10-22 feet below grade. This may require a permit and some analytical
sampling during the dewatering process. The RAP stated that the MPCA will be notified
when a final groundwater dewatering plan is decided (if necessary). If dewatering is
proposed, the applicant will need to move forward with this step.
The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted
plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or
modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards.
We would be happy to discuss this review in more detail. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if
you have any questions or if you would like to set up a time to meet.
Sincerely,
WSB
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
To: The City of Medina
From: Buchholz Properties LLC
Re: 500 Hamel Road Development Narrative
We are pleased to present you with a 97 unit development project at 500 Hamel Road, Medina, which
will serve as a compliment to Uptown Hamel’s “blend of retail, office, specialty shops, and residential places.”
The new development will provide vibrancy to the area and fulfill a demand for higher density residential within
the community. In the process of designing the architectural elements of the building (and its orientation on the
site), great attention was given to the surrounding properties, the community, and the surrounding architectural
elements and nuances. In particular for this project, we gave great consideration to Uptown Hamel and its
historical elements. We determined that Hamel has a scale ranging from one to three stories and traditional
architecture. Hamel’s walkable streetscape is inviting to pedestrians and truly encapsulates the “Main Street ''
feel that communities covet. We believe it is appropriate to capture the same timeless elements in the design of
our project.
The proposed design aesthetic features American colonial trim details with horizontal wood grain siding
that is minimum maintenance. Main floor walk-out patios and covered porches with standing seam metal roofs
will mesh with the main street of Uptown Hamel. A rhythm of gable roof peaks and a roof-top patio above the
main entrance reduces the building ’s perceived scale by separating the building ’s facade into distinct sections
while matching the proportions of traditional architecture. All residential parking will be hidden underground,
while guest parking is concealed behind the building as a strategy to maintain the Uptown/Downtown
streetscape. The development will allow for a soft transition from industrial to residential while providing
sufficient unit density appropriate for this site.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our concept, we truly appreciate the opportunity to work with
your City to accomplish mutual goals.
Best Regards,
Mark Buchholz, President
Buchholz Properties
PH: 701-371-1646 E:mark@buchprop.com
Hamel Roa
d
H
u
n
t
e
r
D
r
Sidewalk
10' Setba
c
k
30' Easem
e
n
t
ST
ST
SS
MB
MB
TBX
SS
SSMH
RE=983.9
MB
H Y
D
HYD
981.56
SS
SS
TBX
C
H
Y
D
HYD
975.90
SS
MB
SS
SS
SS
HH
100-YR FLOODPLAIN
ELEV. = 974.6
100-YR FLOODPLAIN
ELEV. = 974.6
SS
HOUSE
OUT
BLDG.
-B
I
T
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
-
-B
I
T
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
-
REGIONAL FILTRATION BASIN #1
REGIONAL POND
WETLAND #2
WETLAND PER DELINEATION PER
JACOBSON ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC.
DATED 6/15/2021
Abandoned VCP
100-YR FLOODPLAIN
ELEV. = 974.6
HWL: 982.9
Existing Wet Basin
100 yr floodplain: 982.9
EOF: 982.6
Stormwater
Basin
EOF: 984.4
Railro
a
d
980
981
983
979
982
7.1 %
Slope
985
988
X 988
X 992
99
0
990
991
992
9
8
0
9
7
5
99
0
98
9
988
984
99
1
99
2
990
986
987
989
985
89
0
979
980
981
982
983
98
4
X 984
Apartment
Building
FFE: 992
Low Opening
981 X
X
L.P.
X
H.P.
X L.P.
L.P. X
X
H.P.
89
6
990
986
990
985Sidewalk
Flood
p
l
a
i
n
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
NORTH04080
Hamel Rd Apartments
Medina, MN
Site Plan and Concept Grading
Integrated Development Page 1 of 3 August 10, 2022
Ordinance Amendment Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: August 4, 2022
MEETING: August 10, 2022 Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment – Integrated Developments – Public Hearing
Background
The City’s zoning regulations include various provisions which provide flexibility for integrated
developments which share site improvements. This flexibility allows for it to be easier for
adjacent buildings to be owned by separate parties, but to still be developed in a cohesive way to
share access, parking, stormwater, and similar improvements.
Staff believes these provisions are positive and provide opportunity to improve the layout and
function of sites.
During review of the Loram/Scannell project which is currently underway, staff noted that the
Industrial Park (IP) zoning district does not include provisions similar to the Business and
Commercial zoning districts which would explicitly allow similar flexibility. In this case of
Loram/Scannell, the applicant proposes to place share loading dock circulation space between
buildings which are proposed on separate lots. Current regulations would require setbacks from
the common property lines between the buildings, which would not allow this area to be shared.
In addition, the City’s subdivision ordinance generally requires new lots to have frontage on a
public or private street. The Loram/Scannell subdivision proposes to create lots located behind
each other and separated from the public roadway. Access is proposed through a private access
easement over the front lot. Staff believes it is reasonable to consider whether it should be
permissible to allow lots within integrated developments which are provided access through
another property.
Exemption for Parking Lot/Loading Area Setbacks for Integrated Development
The Business and Commercial zoning districts currently include provisions which allow
parking/loading and driveway setbacks to be reduced to zero between properties within an
Integrated Development. For example, the Business Park zoning district states the minimum
setback for parking is 20 feet “except no setback is required to accommodate shared/joint
parking, loading dock circulation, or fire lanes across a common lot line within an integrated
development.”
Staff recommends adding similar language to the Industrial Park zoning district as proposed on
page 4 of the attached ordinance. Allowing for shared loading dock circulation especially seems
to be consistent with other requirements of the IP district. The IP district limits loading dock
areas unless located within a “courtyard” surrounded predominantly by buildings. Sharing the
circulation area between two buildings allows such a courtyard to be arranged most efficiently.
MEMORANDUM
Integrated Development Page 2 of 3 August 10, 2022
Ordinance Amendment Planning Commission Meeting
Staff believes it is reasonable to allow for two properties under separate ownership to share the
circulation area between them and supports adding a similar allowance in the IP district which is
currently allowed within the Commercial and Business districts.
Exemption for Frontage Requirement for Integrated Development
Ensuring that property proposed to be subdivided has adequate access is an important
consideration during subdivision review. The most common way to ensure this is to require
frontage upon a right-of-way.
The subdivision ordinance currently requires lots to have frontage on a public or private right-of-
way, with the exception of rural residential lots under certain circumstances. Communities
commonly require frontage on streets in order to create lots. It appears that the requirement for
frontage on a public street was included in the model subdivision ordinance which most
communities enacted in the 1970s-1980s.
This requirement prevents a lot from being subdivided with one lot behind another. Over time,
the City has modified the general frontage requirements. Early in the 1980s, the City added an
allowance from frontage on a “private right-of-way.” In 2006, the City added a provision to
which allows rural lots without frontage, provided they have an access easement to a public
roadway.
Staff has suggested language within the attached ordinance which would add an exception for
Integrated Developments to the provision requiring lots to have frontage on a public or private
roadway. As drafted, staff recommends limiting the exception to commercial, business, and
industrial properties.
It is difficult to project the implications of not requiring frontage going forward. In the case of
rural subdivisions, it has resulted in some examples of shared driveways which went over one
property to another. The alternative would in those cases would have been a “flag lot” where
one lot has a narrow frontage on the street, but still mostly sets behind the other.
This language has the potential to provide more flexibility in lot layout within a subdivision by
allowing shared access over one lot to get to another. This may reduce the amount of public or
private streets which are required to serve property. It may also reduce curb cuts/access points
onto adjacent streets because lots which sit behind another would need to be share a common
access.
A potential downside of not having frontage on a roadway is that there may be disputes related to
the access easement. City staff has witnesses these types of disputes on several shared accesses
over time. If lots are created to have frontage, it reduces potential conflict when one property
needs access or another. It would be possible for two properties to still share an access even if
both have frontage, but having the frontage would provide the owners with an alternative if there
were issues in the future.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) provisions could also allow flexibility to create lots in similar
ways. The City would maintain a higher level of discretion in the PUD process rather than the
standard subdivision process.
Integrated Development Page 3 of 3 August 10, 2022
Ordinance Amendment Planning Commission Meeting
Potential Action
Staff recommends that the provisions related to setbacks for shared parking and circulation be
added to the IP zoning district. Adding an exemption for frontage requirements may require
additional discussion.
If, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed changes are
appropriate, the following action could be taken:
Move to recommend approval of the ordinance pertaining to lot standards within
Integrated Developments.
Attachments
1. Ordinance
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO LOT STANDARDS WITHIN INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENTS
WITHIN INDUSTRIAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION. Section 820.29 Subd. 4(g) of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended
by adding the underlined language and deleting the struck through language as follows:
(g) Location. All lots shall have frontage upon a public or private right-of-way, except as
follows:
(i) Lots without frontage upon a public or private right-of-way may be permitted
in the following rural zoning districts: agricultural preserve, rural
residential, rural residential-urban reserve, rural residential-1, and rural
residential-2.
(ii)(1) Lots without frontage upon a public or private street shall only be
permitted if provided access to a public or private street through an
easement with a minimum width of 60 feet. The location, form and
substance of the easement shall be acceptable to the City. Suitable soils
within the area of the easement providing access to lots without frontage
upon a public or private street shall be subtracted from the area of the lot
on which they are located for the sake of meeting minimum lot size
requirements.
(iii)(2) The subdivider shall be required to demonstrate that adequate physical
access can be provided within the proposed easement.
(iv)(3) Notwithstanding the above, a lot which does not meet the requirements of
this Subd. 4(g) shall be considered conforming with regards to these
requirements if the lot was of record prior to June 13, 2013.
(ii) Lots without frontage upon a public or private right-of-way may be permitted
within an Integrated Development as described in the zoning code within
commercial, business, or industrial districts. Lots without frontage shall
only be permitted if: 1) the City Council finds that the proposed layout of
the lots is acceptable without the provision of frontage; and 2) easement
documentation in a form and of substance acceptable to the City is
recorded against properties included within the Integrated Development to
provide access over other property within the Integrated Development to a
public or private right-of-way.
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
SECTION II. Section 825.07 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by
adding the new Subd. 49.3.1 as follows:
Subd. 49.3.1 Integrated Development - A development that (i) is located within a
commercial, business, or industrial zoning district and consists of multiple parcels which utilize
shared improvements, including, but not necessarily limited to, parking, access, loading dock
circulation, and stormwater management facilities, and (ii) is subject to an instrument that meets
all requirements of the City that is recorded against all respective parcels within the integrated
development and provides all rights and obligations related thereto.
SECTION III. Section 833.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by
adding the underlined language and deleting the struck through language as follows:
UUUUUUUUUSection 833.05. Lot, Setback and Building Size Requirements.UUUUUUUUU The following minimum
requirements shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications
set forth in other sections of this ordinance (when setback provisions overlap, the most restrictive
provisions of both setbacks shall apply.) See Figure 1.
Subd. 1. Lot of Record: A lot of record, which existed on or before December 31, 1999
and has one or more of the following shall be considered buildable without requiring a
variance provided all other provisions of the ordinance are met.
(a) more than 1 acre
(b) less than the required lot width
(c) less than the required lot depth
Subd. 2. Minimum Lot Area: 5 acres.
Subd. 3. Minimum Lot Width: 300 feet.
Subd. 4. Minimum Lot Depth: 300 feet.
Subd. 5. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 50 feet.
Subd. 6. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 50 feet.
Subd. 7. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 50 feet.
Subd. 8. Setback from Residential: The minimum setback from lot lines abutting
residential zones is 100 feet. When commercial and residential zones are separated by a
road right of way, the setback shall be 100 feet from the commercial property line.
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
Subd. 9. Wetland Setback: Shall be a minimum of 25 feet for a wetland less than 1 acre
and 50 feet for wetlands greater than 1 acre, and such setback shall be natural vegetation,
5 0 f t .
5 0 f t .
5 0 f t .
5 0 f t .
5 0 f t .
5 0 f t .
2 5 f t .
5 0 f t .
2 5 f t .
5 0 f t
5 0 f t
5 0 f t
5 0 f t
5 0 f t
5 0 f t
R e s i d e n t i a l Z o n i n g
6 0 f t .
P
a
r
c
e l
1
P
a
r
c
e l
2
1 . 9 8 a c
4 3 a c
. 3 5 a c . 8 1 a c
#
#
#
#
. 8 7 a c
2 . 2 1 a c
. 9 1 a c
4 . 2 9 a c ( 4 2 . 6 % o f t o t a l s i t e ) R e s i d e n t
Z o n i n g
4 . 4 4 a c ( 5 0 % o f t o t a l s i t e )
. 2 1 a c
. 5 6 a c . 5 6 a c . 5 6 a c
1 . 6 7 a c
. 1 3 a c
F i g u r e 1
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
M i n i m u m 5 0 f t . , f r o n t a n d r e a r y a r d s e t b a c
S t r e e t
R e q u i r e d O p e n S p a c e
T h e s e f i g u r e s a r e i l l u s t r a t i v e .
F o r e x a m p l e , p a r k i n g w o u l d l i k e l y h a v e l a n d s c a p e d a r e a s w h i c h m i g h t n o t c o u n t a s h a r d c o v e r .
5 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 F
R e s i d e n t i a l Z o n i n g
W e t l a n d s
P a r c e l B o u n d r y W e t l a n d s S e t b a c k ( 2 5 - 5 0 F e e t )
P r o p e r t y L i n e S e t b a c k ( 5 0 f e e t )
R e s i d e n t i a l S e t b a c k ( + 5 0 F e e t )
B u i l d a b l e L a n d
I n d u s t r i a l P a r k Z o n i n g
R e q u i r e d A d d i t i o n a l S e t b a c k f r o m R e s i d
R e q u i r e d o p e n s p a c e t o m a i n t a i n 5 0 % m a x i m u m i m p e r v i o u c o v e r a g e
P r o t e c t e d W e t l a n
M i m i m u m 5 0 f w e t l a n d s e t b a c ( o v e r 1 a c r e )
M i n i m u m 2 5 f t w e t l a n d s e t b a c ( l e s s t h a n 1 a c
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
but shall not be a mowed and/or fertilized lawn.
Subd. 10. Business to Business Parking Lot Setback: Parking may be allowed within 25
feet from a commercial zone if an appropriate buffering plan is approved. Required
setbacks shall not be required in situations which accommodate shared parking, loading
dock circulation, or fire lanes across a common lot line within an Integrated
Development.
Subd. 11. Business to Residential Parking Lot Setback: Parking may be allowed within
50 feet of a residential zone if there is no line of sight between the vehicles in the reduced
setback and the main floor of the residences. An approved landscape plan which could
include a berm may be allowed to be constructed to meet the line of site requirements
thereby allowing parking in some portion of the 100 foot setback.
Subd. 12. Limitations on Setbacks: No required front yard, side yard, rear yard and
wetland setback or other required setbacks shall be used for building, storage, or other
functions except for recreation and open space uses. When setback provisions overlap,
the most restrictive provision of both setbacks apply. (See also Impervious Coverage in
the Design and Development Standard – all uses)
Subd. 13. Building Height: No building shall exceed 30 feet, unless the building has a
sprinkler system, in which case the height shall not exceed 35 feet.
SECTION IV. 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.
Loram/Scannell Page 1 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: August 4, 2022
MEETING: August 10, 2022 Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Loram/Scannell Properties – Preliminary Plat,
Site Plan Review, CUP - PIDs 1111823230001 and 1111823220003
Summary of Request
Scannell Properties and Loram have requested land use approval for development of
approximately 396,000 square feet of warehouse/office space located east of Arrowhead Drive,
south of Highway 55. Loram proposes to move many of
its operations from other sites into the building on Lot 2.
The applicant has indicated that they were hopeful some
of their vendors and related businesses may occupy the
other spaces in the intermediate term, but may provide
additional space for Loram’s growth in the future as well.
The following applications have been requested to
implement the proposed construction:
1) Preliminary plat for subdivision of three lots
2) Site Plan Review for new construction
3) Conditional Use Permit for Warehouse use
The subject site is predominantly farmland. There is a large wetland along the east of the subject
site and six smaller wetlands located around the property. Most of the site is fairly flat, except
the eastern portion which slopes to the wetland.
The aerial at the top of the following page depicts the subject site and surrounding land uses as
follows:
• North – Loram main facility – zoned Industrial Park
• South – Automotorplex – zoned PUD
• West – Hennepin County Public Works facility
• Southeast – BAPS temple (site plan approved, currently vacant)
• East – Wayzata Schools (guided Mixed Residential)
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
The property is guided for Business development in the Comprehensive Plan and staged for
current development (staged after 2018). The property is zoned Industrial Park (IP).
MEMORANDUM
Proposed construction: 396,000 s.f.
Three Buildings/Lots
Area: 24 acres
Future Land Use: Business
Staging: 2018
Current Zoning: Industrial Park
Loram/Scannell Page 2 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Chapter 4410 of Minnesota Rules regulates Environmental Review and requires mandatory
completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for development of 300,000
square feet or more of warehouse/light industrial space within a city of Medina’s size.
The purpose of an EAW is to develop an analysis and overview of the potential impacts of the
development, determine if the project will cause any significant environmental impacts that
cannot be mitigated through normal review processes, and provide information for planning and
design.
The EAW was completed and reviewed by relevant agencies during the spring of 2022. The
City Council adopted the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision on the EAW on April 5, 2022
and determined that the project does not necessitate an Environmental Impact Statement. The
City received comments which recommended reducing wetland impacts with any development
and also related to recommended stormwater management and traffic improvements.
Loram/Scannell Page 3 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Preliminary Plat
The applicant proposes to plat the subject property into three lots. The following table compares
the proposed lots to the standards of the IP District.
IP
Requirement
Lot 1
(west lot)
Lot 2
(north lot)
Lot 3
(south lot)
Minimum Lot Area 5 acres 7.50 acres 5.07 acres 8.79 acres
Minimum Lot Width 300 feet 777 feet 322 feet 455 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 300 feet 420 feet 683 feet 822 feet
Transportation, Streets, Right-of-way and Access
The applicant proposes a new access along the south of the property, and also to connect to and
share the existing Loram access just north of the property line.
The subdivision ordinance currently requires that all new lots have frontage upon a public or
private right-of-way (with the exception of rural lots in certain conditions). The plat proposes
that Lots 2 and 3 will sit east of Lot 1 and not have frontage on a public or private roadway. An
amendment providing flexibility from certain subdivision and zoning standards within integrated
developments is currently being considered by the City. This amendment would allow for
commercial, business, and industrial properties to within an integrated development to share
access through a driveway and not have frontage on a public or private right-of-way. If adopted,
the amendment would allow for the proposed arrangement. If the amendment is not adopted, the
plat would not be consistent with code requirements. In such case, the applicant would either
need to amend the plat or address the requirement in another way (potentially a Planned Unit
Development).
Arrowhead Drive is a Hennepin County roadway (CR118), and Hennepin County recommends
that a left-turn be constructed at the new southern access as part of the required site
improvements. Hennepin County recommended 50-feet of right-of-way, and the preliminary
plat appears to propose such dedication.
The County also recommends that the existing trail along Arrowhead Drive be reconstructed and
shifted to the east for increased distance from Arrowhead Drive. The trail was shifted closer to
Arrowhead Drive along this property to avoid wetland impacts. Staff does not recommend
relocating the trail unless it is necessary for road widening. Staff does recommend additional
trail easement be required to accommodate future relocation if necessary.
Wetlands/Floodplains
The subject property is adjacent to a large wetland along the eastern property line, and six
smaller wetlands are located throughout the site. The applicant proposes to impact five of the
other wetlands in their entirety and much of the western wetland for a total of 1.26 acres of
wetland impacts for the proposed construction. In addition, the minimum required wetland
buffer widths are not provided adjacent to the areas of wetlands being impacted.
Staff has recommended that wetland impacts be reduced, especially for the wetland along the
western portion of the site adjacent to Arrowhead Drive, which has not been consistently farmed
in recent years. The applicant proposes retaining walls immediately adjacent to the impacts on
Loram/Scannell Page 4 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
the edge of the wetlands to remain, which prevents minimum required upland buffers from being
created.
Impacts are subject to approval of a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Replacement Plan
permit, which are subject to state WCA rules. The applicant just recently submitted a WCA
permit, which is under review by the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) of various agencies.
Preliminary feedback from the TEP raised serious reservations with the proposed permit and
requested additional alternatives to be considered. If the impacts are allowable under WCA
rules, the applicant proposes some on-site wetland mitigation, but predominantly to purchase
credits.
As proposed, access to Lots 2 and 3 require wetland impacts. As such, staff recommends that
review of the preliminary plat is contingent upon WCA approval. Regardless of whether the
proposed impacts may be allowable under WCA regulations, staff strongly recommends that
wetland impacts to the western wetland be reduced and that minimum upland buffers be
provided adjacent to remaining wetlands for consistency with relevant City regulations.
The wetland protection ordinance requires upland
buffers with average width as described to the right:
As noted above, most of the small wetland are
proposed to be impacted in their entirety. Much of the western wetland is also proposed to be
impacted and smaller impacts are proposed along the east of the larger wetland to the east.
Remaining wetlands do not appear to provide upland buffer areas meeting the minimum buffer
standards noted above. Staff recommends that the area of upland buffers be mitigated in areas
which do not meet minimum standards where impacts are permitted.
Floodplains
No floodplains are identified by FEMA mapping on the subject property.
Sewer/Water/Easements
Existing sewer and water mains are located within Arrowhead Drive and along the southern
property line of the subject property. Staff recommends that the sewer and water lines extended
to serve the three properties remain privately owned and operated. The City Engineer has
reviewed and provided comments on the utility plans, which staff recommends be addressed.
Staff recommends that drainage and utility easements be provided as recommended by the City
Engineer, including along the perimeter of lots, over utilities, and over wetland areas.
Park Dedication
The Park Commission is scheduled to review the proposed subdivision at the August 17 meeting
to make a recommendation on required Park Dedication. The City’s subdivision ordinance
requires the dedication of up to 10% of the buildable property, a cash payment in-lieu of land
dedication, or some combination.
The City’s parks plan does not call for parkland in the area of the subject site. The trail plan
identifies the existing trail along Arrowhead Drive. Staff recommends that additional trail
easement be required along the proposed right-of-way to allow for relocation of the trail in the
Wetland Required
buffer
Large wetland to east 30 feet
Other wetlands 20 feet
Loram/Scannell Page 5 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
future if Hennepin County determines that it desires to do so. In addition to the trail easement,
staff would recommend cash in-lieu of additional land dedication. The fee is based upon 8% of
the pre-developed market value of the land, with such value to be confirmed by the City
Assessor.
Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation
The following criteria are described in the subdivision ordinance: “In the case of all subdivisions,
the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the
following findings are made:
(a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city,
or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28.
(b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such
that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not
meet minimum lot size standards.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or
private streets, easements or right-of-way.
If the plat meets relevant ordinance standards and does not meet the criteria above, it should be
approved. In this case, staff has identified two primary considerations related to the proposed
plat:
1) Lots 2 and 3 do not provide frontage on a public or private street as currently required by
the subdivision ordinance. An ordinance which may potentially provide flexibility to this
requirement is currently under review. Alternatively, the applicant may consider a PUD
application to allow for the proposed layout.
2) Access and usability of the proposed lots within the plat require wetland impacts, which are
subject to WCA permitting.
Until these matters can be addressed, staff would not recommend approval of the preliminary
plat.
If the considerations above are able to be addressed, staff would recommend that the following
conditions be applied to review of the plat:
1. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include
the conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy.
2. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon construction of a roadway to provide
access to the site from Willow Drive.
3. The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated _______, except as
may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
4. The Applicant provide park dedication as recommended by the Park Commission.
Loram/Scannell Page 6 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
5. The plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements as recommended by the City
Engineer, including but not limited to: adjacent to the perimeter of the lots, over all water
mains and hydrants, over stormwater improvements, and over all wetland areas.
6. The plat shall be subject to the City’s wetland protection ordinance, including provision of
minimum required upland buffers adjacent to wetlands on the site and vegetation
establishment.
7. The Applicant shall dedicate a trail easement adjacent to Arrowhead Drive to
accommodate potential relocation of the existing trail further from the street.
8. Sewer and watermain improvements within the lots shall be privately maintained.
9. The Applicant shall address the comments of the City Engineer.
10. Turn lane improvements on Arrowhead Drive as recommended by Hennepin County
Transportation shall be constructed as part of the subdivision improvements.
11. The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit in an amount of 150% of the cost of site
improvements in order to ensure completion.
12. The Applicant shall provide title documentation at the time of final plat application and
abide by the recommendations of the City Attorney with regard to title matters.
13. The final plat applicant shall be filed within 180 days of the date of the resolution granting
preliminary approval or the approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for
time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council.
14. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant
documents.
Proposed Site Plan
The applicant has indicated that the proposed uses would include predominantly warehouse
space along with office space. Warehouse/distributing is an allowed conditional use in the IP
district, and office is a permitted use. The CUP for warehousing will be discussed later in this
report. Any other use would be subject to confirmation that such use is permitted in the district
and potentially subject to separate conditional use permit review.
Following is a summary comparing the proposed construction to the dimensional standards of
the IP district.
IP District
Requirement
Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
Minimum Front Yard
Setback
50 feet 150’ 75’ (W) 75’ (W)
Rear Yard Setback 50 feet 60’ (E) 62’ (E) 55’ (E)
Side Yard Setback 50 feet 85’ (N)
92’ (S)
73’ (N)
87’ (S)
92’ (N)
102’ (S)
Setback from
Residential
100 feet
332’ (SW) NA 225’ (E)
Parking Setbacks
Front Yard 50 feet 68’ 0’ NA
Rear and Side Yard 50 feet (25’
w/ buffer)
25’ 0’ (N-shared) 25’ (S)
Maximum Hardcover 70% 74% (all lots) 74% (all lots) 74% (all lots)
Building Height 35 feet 35’ 37’ 37’
Loram/Scannell Page 7 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
As noted above, Loram proposes to occupy the building on Lot 2. The applicant proposes to
construct parking across the northern property line of Lot 2 to accommodate shared parking with
the Loram building to the north. The applicant also proposes the loading dock court to be
divided by the property lines for each building to allowed shared use of this area. Existing IP do
not explicitly allow for these improvements to extend into required yard setbacks, but the City is
currently reviewing an ordinance amendment which would allow for it. Staff recommends a
condition that the Site Plan Review is contingent upon adoption of this amendment.
The overall site as proposed exceeds the maximum hardcover permitted within the IP zoning
district. Loram owns an additional 18 acres to the east of the subject site which approximately
14 acres are wetland. The applicant has indicated that they propose to incorporate a portion of
the property to the east into this project to increase the gross area, which would technically
review the hardcover percentage. Staff recommends a condition that the proposed hardcover be
reduced to meet the IP district unless the plat is updated. Staff also recommends that information
be provided to verify that the existing Loram property to the north meets impervious surface
requirements because parking is proposed across the property line.
The IP district limits building height to 35 feet, measured from the average grade around the
building. The building elevations suggest that buildings 2 and 3 may be taller than permitted in
the IP district. It appears that some of the height may be result of parapet walls, but additional
detail will be required to confirm that roof height meets the IP district.
Wetlands and Floodplains
Matters related to wetlands and floodplains are described within the preliminary plat section
above. The site plan proposes to impact 1.26 acres of wetlands. Impacts are subject to WCA
permit review, which was recently submitted. In addition to WCA regulations, various City
zoning requirements require the minimization of wetland impacts and the protection of wetland
areas. Staff has recommended that the layout be updated to reduce impacts and to provide
improved upland buffer adjacent to wetlands which are not impacted.
Building Materials and Design
The IP zoning district requires the following architectural standards. The Planning Commission
and Council can discuss whether the proposed building is consistent with the standards or
recommend conditions if necessary.
Materials
The following table summarizes the proposed buildings with the requirements of the IP district.
None of the proposed buildings meet the requirements of the IP district. Staff recommends that
the architectural plans be updated. The full language from the IP district is copied below the
table.
Materials Required Building 1 Building 2 Building 3
Glass, stone, brick, stucco Min 20% 10% glass, 5% brick 13% (glass) 10% (glass)
Precast concrete Max 80% 85% 87% 90%
Metal, wood, fiber cement Max 20%
Loram/Scannell Page 8 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
The IP district requires: “All exterior building materials shall be durable and non-combustible
(except for wood used as an allowed accent material), consisting of one or more of the
following: At least 20 percent shall be brick, natural stone, granite, stucco (but not - Exterior
Insulation and Finish System (EIFS)), copper or glass. Up to 20 percent may be wood,
engineered wood, fiber cement, anodized aluminum or similar metals which may be used as an
accent material if appropriately integrated into the overall building design and in the case of
wood, not subject to damage caused by heavy use or exposure. Lap siding shall not be used.
When requested, samples of the external materials shall be submitted to the City. Concrete and
pre-cast concrete panels may be allowed provided the total of such material does not make up
more than 80 percent of the exterior material.
Building Appearance – The IP district requires: “All buildings and structures and remodeling of
either existing or new buildings shall take into account compatibility related to architectural
quality and mass of the structure to be constructed. Elements of compatibility include, but are
not limited to: building form, mass, height and bulk; fenestration, exterior materials and their
appearance, color (compatible and harmonious with the building, other nearby buildings which
meet the standards described above and the natural setting in the area) durability, setback,
landscaping, exterior lighting, and site improvements.”
Modulation
The IP district requires: “The design of buildings shall employ architectural modulation to
minimize the apparent scale and dimension of structures. Modulation means harmonious
changes or variations of the massing and façade of a structure. Modulation is intended to
achieve high quality architecture which is aesthetically pleasing and functional. Modulation may
be achieved by variations in the form, mass, bulk and height of structures and shall be combined
with architectural features to achieve a high standard of design. At least the following shall be
used as guidelines:
(1) Building design should avoid blank walls and large unbroken expanses of walls exposed to
the outside.
(2) Building design should mitigate the visual impacts of a large building mass through offsets,
projections, and recesses in the façade.
(3) The appearance of massive roofs should be avoided by variations in the rooflines and
height. Dormers, deep eaves, overhangs and cornices may help create visual interest.
(4) Decorative roof elements should be incorporated into other roof or wall elements to avoid
looking “tacked on.”
(5) Building elevations should be articulated to provide a reasonable amount of visual interest
by varying the shape or pattern of windows, building materials, textures, and colors.”
Building 1, which is most visible along Arrowhead Drive, is approximately 600 linear feet
parallel with the roadway. Architectural design of the facade is differentiated by color variations
of the proposed precast panels and areas of more increased window coverage at the corners of
the building and in the center. A series of small parapet walls variations is also included. The
Planning Commission and City Council can provide feedback on whether the architectural
design is consistent with the standards above.
Loram/Scannell Page 9 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Transportation/Access
Transportation and access are discussed above within the review of the preliminary plat. Staff
recommends that pedestrian connections be improved throughout the site.
Non-Pedestrian Transportation
Staff recommends that the internal sidewalk configuration be improved to allow more convenient
walking throughout the site and between buildings. The IP district also requires that bicycle rack
locations be identified.
Loading Docks
The IP district requires that loading dock areas be screened from adjacent property and streets to
the fullest extent practicable. The proposed layout screens loading docks between the buildings
very well from the north, south, and west.
The IP district also states that loading docks shall not be located within 300 feet of a residential
property. The loading docks are approximately 250 feet from the eastern property line, which is
with a property guided for residential development. There are approximately 475 feet of wetland
east of the property line before the buildable land to the east. Staff would recommend significant
screening east of the loading dock.
Parking
The applicant proposes 389 parking spaces and has indicated that this should be sufficient based
upon the anticipated employee county for the buildings. Staff has requested additional
information based upon the proposed amount of employees and the division between office and
warehouse space. The City’s zoning code requires the following, based upon 20% office
assumption.
The parking code does allow the City to adjust parking requirements based upon available data.
The applicant has not submitted information to support an adjustment to parking requirements.
Staff does not recommend approval of the site plan unless parking is shown to be sufficient.
Lighting
The City’s lighting ordinance requires light trespass to be no more than 0.3 FC at property lines,
and 0.0 FC at residential districts (eastern property line) and that lighting be downcast. The
applicant has submitted a lighting and photometric plan that appear to meet these requirements.
Tree Preservation
The subject property is almost entirely farmed or wetlands. There are a small number of trees
along the edge of the field. Staff recommends that information be provided on the existing trees
and removal. Replacement likely will be required, but will probably be a small number
compared to landscaping requirements.
Office 1 stall per 250 s.f. 118,800 s.f. (20%) 317 stalls
Warehouse 1 stall per employee
or 1 stall per 2000 s.f.
277,200 s.f. (80%) 139 stalls
Total 456 stalls
Loram/Scannell Page 10 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Landscaping
The IP district includes the following landscape requirements:
• Street Trees – not less than one tree per 50 feet, or fraction thereof, of street frontage
The subject site includes 777 feet of frontage along Arrowhead Drive, which would
require a minimum of 16 trees clustered along the frontage. The relatively small setback
and retaining walls immediately adjacent to the wetland impacts limits the opportunity
for planting along most of the frontage, especially if the applicant intends to try to create
replacement wetlands along the frontage. The applicant proposes few trees along the
frontage, and 82 total trees concentrated along the limited landscaped areas to the north
and south of the drive lanes. Staff recommends additional trees to meet the requirements
for planting along the Arrowhead frontage, and also to soften the east end of the loading
area.
• Open Space Trees – Complement form and function of open spaces
Very little open space is proposed to remain on the site with the exception of stormwater
basin or unimpacted wetland, so opportunities for planting is limited.
• Building Setting - At least 15 feet of landscaped area shall be provided adjacent to all
buildings except for walks, plaza space and approved loading docks.
The applicant proposes 15 feet between the parking lot and buildings. Much of this area is
proposed to be occupied by sidewalks running parallel to the building, many of which appear to
be almost 10 feet wide. Staff recommends that sidewalk width be minimized as much as
possible to increase the area for landscaping.
• Parking lot landscaping – minimum of 5% of the interior of surface parking lot area;
islands every 20 spaces
Staff has calculated that approximately 6% of the parking lot includes landscaping and
required landscaping islands are provided.
Stormwater
The applicant proposes a biofiltration basin east of building 3. The City Engineer has reviewed
and provided comments. Staff recommends that these comments be addressed.
The project will also be subject to Elm Creek Watershed review and approval.
Sewer/Water
Existing sewer and water mains are located within Arrowhead Drive and along the southern
property line of the subject property. Staff recommends that the sewer and water lines be extend
to serve the three properties remain privately owned and operated. The City Engineer has
reviewed and provided comments on the utility plans, which staff recommends be addressed.
Utilities, Mechanical Equipment, and Trash and Recycling Facilities
The IP districts requires:
• All utilities shall be placed underground. Transformers and similar equipment, if any,
should be located inside a building or shall be fully screened from view.
Loram/Scannell Page 11 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
• 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.
• To the extent possible, all mechanical equipment, meters and transformers shall be
placed inside the building or in a mechanical court formed by walls which completely
enclose and screen the equipment. Utilities serving the site shall be placed underground.
No information has been provided on mechanical and utility equipment. Staff recommends that
this information be provided consistent with IP standards.
All trash and material to be recycled are required to be stored within the principal building,
within an accessory structure, or within an enclosed outdoor area adjacent to the principal
structure. The applicant has indicated that trash and recycling will be within the building.
EV Preparedness
The City recently adopted an ordinance which requires applicants to describe Electric Vehicle
(EV) charging infrastructure preparedness or implementation is proposed. Staff recommends
that the applicant provide this information and strongly encourages the applicant to consider
preparing some locations for EV infrastructure.
Outdoor Storage
Outdoor storage areas are required to be identified on the site plan, screened from view, and
limited to 20% of the footprint of the building on the lot. No outdoor storage areas are identified
on the plan, so staff recommends a condition that no outside storage area is permitted unless
identified for review.
Conditional Use Permit – Warehouse
Warehousing/Distributorship is a conditional use within the IP zoning district. Conditional Use
Permits (CUPs) are subject to specific requirements for each use which are above the general
zoning requirements, and also subject to a general set of criteria for all CUPs.
The following specific standard is described in the IP district for warehousing:
“Parking and truck configuration may require additional consideration.”
Hennepin County has recommended that the existing Loram access north of the subject site be
used as the main entrance for trucks. Staff recommends a condition requiring signage and other
practices to direct as much of the truck traffic to that location as possible. Staff believes that the
loading dock courtyard between the three buildings as proposed should help limit the impact of
truck circulation to a great degree.
Loram/Scannell Page 12 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
General CUP Standards
Following are the general CUP standards from Section 825.39 of the zoning code, along with
potential finding on each:
Subd. 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the immediate vicinity.
Subject to the conditions recommended, staff does not believe these will be a concern.
Subd. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
Staff does not believe the CUP will impede development.
Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities
have been or are being provided.
These matters are discussed above, and subject to the conditions recommended, staff believes they
will be addressed.
Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street
parking and loading space to serve the proposed use.
These matters are discussed above. Additional information is necessary to confirm adequacy of
parking.
Subd. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor,
fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control
lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties
will result.
Subject to the conditions recommended, staff does not believe these will be a concern.
Subd. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of
the City and to the existing land use.
The uses are all permitted in the zoning district.
Subd. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The uses are all permitted in the zoning district.
Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City.
Staff does not believe the proposed CUP would conflict with the policies of the City.
Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Subject to construction of the turn lane on Arrowhead Drive, staff believes this would be achieved.
Subd. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare
or general unsightliness.
Subject to the conditions recommended, staff does not believe these will be a concern.
Loram/Scannell Page 13 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Subd. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
The applicant is attempting to commence site work during the fall of 2022, with construction of
buildings 1 and 2 in 2023. The timeline for building 3 would be based upon uptake of building 1.
Staff recommends that the site plan review be valid for a no longer than a period of three years.
Subd. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning
Officer.
Loram is listed as the owner of the property.
Staff Comments
The purpose of a Site Plan Review is to review compliance with relevant land use regulations. If
the proposed construction meets the requirements, it should be approved. The City can apply
conditions as necessary to ensure compliance with City requirements.
Based upon the information provided, staff has identified a series of items which would need to
be addressed to be in compliance with relevant requirements. Staff has recommended that the
items be addressed prior to hearings. The applicant has requested that the information be
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for feedback. Most significantly, the
applicant seeks feedback on whether the Planning Commission and City Council find that the
layout and footprint of the proposed development (including proposed wetland impacts and
mitigation) is consistent with City objectives and policies and could be supported, subject to
meeting WCA requirements.
Staff has identified the following items to be addressed:
1. The Site Plan Review is contingent upon a finding that the proposed impacts are
consistent with the standards of the Wetland Conservation Act, and contingent upon
approval and implementation of a Wetland Replacement Plan.
2. Alterations should be considered to the layout to minimize impacts to remaining wetlands
and to provide buffering adjacent to unimpacted wetlands.
3. Proposed impervious surface amounts exceed the maximum permitted within the IP
zoning district.
4. Proposed building materials do not meet IP district standards.
5. Proposed buildings elevations appear to exceed maximum height allowable in the IP
district.
6. Proposed upland buffers adjacent to unimpacted wetlands do not meet minimum
requirements and significant buffer area is lost as a result of proposed impacts.
7. Proposed planting along the Arrowhead street frontage does not meet IP standards.
8. Provide additional information on area of anticipated uses and employment to review
whether adequate parking is proposed.
9. Provide Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure preparedness plan. The City encourages
implementation of some preparedness practices to minimize the cost of future
installation.
10. Proposed shared parking and loading docks do not meet minimum setback requirements.
The City is currently considering an ordinance amendment which would allow for
elimination of this setback, but the Site Plan as proposed does not abide by setback
requirements unless the change is adopted.
Loram/Scannell Page 14 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
If the matters above are addressed, staff would recommend that the following conditions be
considered in connection with the Site Plan Review.
1) The Site Plan Review and CUP shall be contingent upon plat approval.
2) The Applicant shall install all improvements shown on the plans dated _____________,
except as may be modified herein. The design of all improvements shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing construction.
3) The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance,
including installation of vegetative buffers, recordation of easements, and installation of
signage.
4) The Applicant shall update landscaping plans to provide additional tree planting along the
Arrowhead Drive frontage and east of the loading docks.
5) The Applicant shall increase landscaping adjacent to the buildings, including through
reducing sidewalk width to the extend possible.
6) All parking lot and landscape lighting shall be downcast and shielded.
7) The Applicant shall provide information on transformer, meter, and HVAC equipment
and provide screening measures for review and approval.
8) All comments from the Elm Creek Watershed District shall be addressed.
9) All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed.
10) The Applicant shall submit impervious surface calculations for the property to the north
onto which shared parking is proposed to extend.
11) All trash and recycling shall be stored within the buildings. If storage is proposed outside
the building, location and enclosure shall be submitted for review and approved by staff
for consistency with IP standards prior to storing outside.
12) No outdoor storage shall be permitted unless specifically proposed and approved by the
City as part of a Site Plan Review.
13) The Applicant shall update plans to provide improved sidewalk connectivity and to
identify bicycle storage areas.
14) The Applicant shall install signage and take other measures to encourage trucks and most
vehicles to utilize the northern shared access.
15) The site plan review approval shall be effective for one year and thereafter shall be
considered null and void. Building 3 may be constructed as a separate project, provided
the permit is obtained within three years of approval.
16) The Applicant shall obtain necessary permits from the City, Hennepin County, Elm
Creek Watershed, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Metropolitan Council, and any other relevant agency prior to commencing
construction activity on the Property.
17) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for
the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, site plan review, and related documents.
Potential Action
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission first hold a public hearing on the application.
Although staff has identified a series of matters which would need to be addressed to bring the
plat and site plan review into compliance with relevant requirements, the applicant has requested
that the Planning Commission and City Council review and provide feedback, especially related
to how the proposed layout in relation to wetland impacts and mitigation.
Loram/Scannell Page 15 of 15 August 10, 2022
Pre Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting
Staff would suggest that the Commission review the comments of staff and determine if the
Commission would recommend any changes. Following review, the following action could be
considered:
Motion to recommend that the preliminary plat and site plan address the matters
identified in the staff report [with the following additions or changes].
Attachments
1. Engineering Comments
2. Civil Plans
3. Architectural Plans
K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx
7
0
1
X
E
N
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
|
S
U
I
T
E
3
0
0
|
M
I
N
N
E
A
P
O
L
I
S
,
M
N
|
5
5
4
1
6
|
7
6
3
.
5
4
1
.
4
8
0
0
|
W
S
B
E
N
G
.
C
O
M
July 28, 2022
Mr. Dusty Finke
City Planning Director
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Preliminary Plat & Plan Review
City Project No. LR-22-318
WSB Project No. 020306-000
Dear Mr. Finke:
WSB staff have reviewed the Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Preliminary Plat & Plans
submitted to the City on July 18, 2022. The applicant proposes to construct a total of three
office/warehouse buildings by combining two parcels totaling 25.1 acres.
The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general
engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with
regards to engineering and stormwater management matters.
Preliminary Plat & General Comments
1. The City Planner will provide comments pertaining to the proposed landscaping, overall
trail/pedestrian access, and tree preservation plan under separate cover. Acknowledged
by applicant.
2. The preliminary plat is hard to read with all of the infrastructure/grading shown. Provide a
cleaner version for review. Show proposed drainage and utility easements. Plat cleaned
up but provide dimensions of utility easements to the property lines in various locations.
3. With final plat submittal, provide a sheet with hatching for differing pavement types
(streets, concrete walk, bituminous trails, etc.). Provide signing and striping sheet(s).
Confirm whether or not there will be a monument sign. Revised site plan submitted, but
monument sign said to be constructed by others and by the contractor; clarify what is
being proposed.
4. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building
structures as required by the City Fire Marshall. The Fire Marshall will review and provide
comments under separate cover. In-progress, awaiting Fire Marshall review.
5. In order to calculate a letter of credit and construction engineering escrow amounts for
the final development agreement, an engineer’s estimate (in Excel format) of the
proposed utility improvements (watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, ponding, etc.)
and a schedule for completion of construction will be required. The estimate should also
include the cost of landscaping items.
6. Any work within Hennepin County right of way will require a permit. The applicant shall
also meet the requirements of the County’s plat review committee. Acknowledged by
applicant.
City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review
July 28, 2022
Page 2
K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx
Existing Site & Demolition Plan (Sheet C200 – C204)
7. Confirm whether additional removals within Arrowhead Drive for the watermain
connection to the north will be needed due to proximity of connection to the edge of
roadway. Watermain shown as 8’ from back of curb. Note, to protect back of curb during
construction.
8. The existing site and demolition plans will also need to include existing utility locations,
pipe sizes, pipe material types, etc. Show more of the watermain along Arrowhead Drive.
Make sure the text shows up on each of the sheets/views, move text so that it is not on
top of linework and is readily legible.
Erosion/Sediment Control, SWPPP Plans, & Details (Sheets C300 – C312)
9. The proposed project will disturb more than one acre. Develop and include a SWPPP
consistent with the MPCA CSWGP with future plan submittals. SWPPP shall include all
requirements in the Construction Stormwater General permit section 5.3-5.26
10. Provide a location map of the project site with a one mile radius showing all discharge
locations and adjacent water bodies.
11. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided
with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to
construction commencing.
12. A more detailed review of erosion/sediment control will be conducted with the final plat
submittal.
Site Plan (Sheets C401 – C404)
13. The City Planner will provide comments pertaining to the proposed landscaping,
pedestrian access/mobility, and tree preservation plan under separate cover.
Acknowledged by applicant.
14. Typical pavement sections were provided on the plan. The final pavement section shall
be designed by a registered geotechnical engineer for the specific soil conditions found
on the site. Provide geotechnical report with future submittals. Geotechnical report with
paving designs provided. Typical pavement sections were not included with this
submittal. Several detail pages included with the previous submittal were not included
with this one (Sheets C3.11, C4.06, C4.07, C5.06, etc.)
Grading, Drainage, and Storm Sewer Plans (Sheets C500 – C504)
15. Provide and note EOF locations for all low points inside and outside the roadway. Provide
EOF arrows with highpoint/EOF elevations at locations on plans. Some CBMHs are
shown as having EOFs that are lower than their rim elevations.
16. With final plat submittal provide the following:
a. In general maintain all surface grades within the minimum of 2.0% and maximum
33% slopes. Vegetated swale grades shall also be a minimum of 2.0%. Some
areas identified as being greater than 3:1 or less than 2%
City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review
July 28, 2022
Page 3
K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx
b. Drainage arrows on plans showing direction of runoff. Note specifically high
points between each side-yard swale.
c. Include percent slope In all other swale locations and verify that it meets the City
requirement of 2%. See western swales along Arrowhead Drive
d. Add rip-rap quantities and class notes at each flared end section and pond
overflows (if applicable).
e. Note the size of proposed storm sewer structures.
i. Provide pipe sizes and directions corresponding to invert elevations
ii. Match crowns or 0.8 flow lines of pipes
17. At the southeasterly portion of the site, there is a portion proposed to be graded toward
the adjacent property to the south. At this location, the parking lot could overflow into the
greenspace; this area needs to be graded to drain in the easterly direction and not into
the adjacent property.
Utility Plan (Sheets C600 – C603)
18. Watermain shall be encompassed by drainage and utility easements where located
outside of public road right of way. Drainage and utility easements will need to allow for a
1:1 trench from the invert of the utility with a minimum of 20’ centered on the utility. The
City will not require easements for the sanitary sewer within the site. Twenty-foot (20’)
easements were provided over all watermain. The City will provide guidance whether all
valves (including service valves) and hydrants need to be encompassed by drainage and
utility easement. Increase easement as necessary.
19. At the southeasterly portion of the site along the property line, extend the watermain and
sewer main east matching the locations proposed by the adjacent property owner.
Otherwise, proposed landscaping will be impacted with this connection:
20. Add general notes to the utility plans to the effect of:
a. The City shall not be responsible for any additional costs incurred that are
associated with variations in the utility as-built elevations. All utility connections
shall be verified in the field.
City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review
July 28, 2022
Page 4
K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx
b. The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on
the submitted plans. The Owner and Engineer of Record are fully responsible for
changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s
standards.
c. All watermain and sanitary sewer testing shall be conducted in accordance with
the City standards and specifications. Copies of all test results shall be
submitted to the City (Public Works Director, City Engineer), the Owner, and the
Engineer of Record.
d. Watermain shall have a minimum cover of 7.5’.
e. The City will require televising for sanitary sewer pipe installations prior to
accepting a warranty for the utility system; provide report and video files to the
City for review.
f. Tracer wire installation shall be in accordance with the latest edition of the MN
Rural Water Association Standards. See these standards for further details.
21. With final plat submittal provide the following:
a. Provide dimension notes from watermain to parallel sewer mains (storm and
sanitary sewer); the minimum horizontal separation between mains is 10 feet.
Where watermain crosses storm or sanitary sewer, add a note at each location to
the effect of “Maintain 18” Minimum Separation, 4” Rigid Insulation” on both the
plan view and profile view locations (both utility and storm sewer sheets).
Acknowledged by applicant, to be submitted with future plat updates.
Watermain:
22. Watermain looping connections will be needed to minimize long dead-end watermain
sections. Consideration of further watermain looping needs and stubs for future phases
or other adjacent developments may be required and reviewed with future submittals.
Complete.
23. Hydrant locations shall be approved of by the Fire Marshal; typically, a maximum of 250’
influence radius (approximately 400’ spacing) is required to serve the immediate
residential areas. Provide an exhibit showing hydrant influence spacing. In-progress,
awaiting Fire Marshall review.
24. The watermain connections to the building(s) shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Fire Marshall. Show the location of the PIV and curb stop location on the plan(s). The
City requires that domestic and fire services are separate taps from the main. A separate
curb stop is required for the domestic service and gate valve (PIV) for the fire line. In-
progress, awaiting Fire Marshall review.
25. The City will require that the watermain is connected to the existing watermain along the
southerly property line as opposed to a separate connection within Arrowhead Drive. It is
anticipated that the property owner/developer for the property to the southeast will be
extending the watermain further east; a connection to the easterly end of this future stub
should be made into the Loram property.
26. Hydrants and adjacent valves should be located and fully encompassed within curbed
islands. Gate valves symbols shifted to islands or notes added.
Sanitary Sewer:
27. The City will require that the sewer main is connected to the existing main along the
southerly property line as opposed to making a separate connection within Arrowhead
Drive. Complete.
City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review
July 28, 2022
Page 5
K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx
Construction Notes & Standard Details Plans (Sheets C100, C405 – C407, C505 – C506,
C605 – C607)
28. Provide specific details for the proposed stormwater treatment areas.
29. Provide specific details for each of the control structures proposed.
30. A full review of standard details will be conducted with the final plat submittal.
Traffic & Access
31. The Site Plan shows a new access on the east side of the site to the property to the north
across a railroad spur. Who will be using this access and how will it impact the circulation
of both sites?
32. An evaluation of turn lane needs for the access on Arrowhead Drive (CSAH 118) shall be
provided based on the Hennepin County Comment from the EAW “County guidelines
based partially on MnDOT, FHWA, etc. best practices recommends turn lanes in both
directions for access(es) with these many projected trips” and the Developer response in
the EAW “Turn lane needs will be evaluated based upon final site layout and required if
necessary”.
33. Hennepin County approval and permit will be required for the access to Arrowhead Drive
(CSAH 118) and working in the County right-of-way. Acknowledged by the applicant.
34. Provide a figure showing truck movements throughout the site including the largest truck
and the largest fire truck. Driveways and circulation routes shall be designed to
accommodate these vehicles.
Stormwater Management
35. The applicant will need to submit a Stormwater Management Plan and modeling
consistent with Medina’s Stormwater Design Manual. Complete.
36. The development will need to meet the City’s volume control requirement to capture and
retain onsite 1.1” of runoff from the net new impervious surface. By satisfying the volume
requirement the water quality requirement is considered met. Follow the City’s
Stormwater Design Manual for alternative credits towards the volume requirement if
infiltration is not feasible. Complete.
37. The development will need to meet the City’s rate control requirement, which states that
post development discharge rates must be less than or equal to existing conditions
discharge rates. Complete.
38. The applicant may want to consider using the stormwater ponds for irrigation. Credits for
volume control can be given for stormwater reuse. City ordinance does not allow for
municipal water system to be used for irrigation. Complete.
f. Provide additional details for the water reuse system. Along with a map showing
the irrigatable areas.
g. Required design submittal packages for water reuse BMPs must include:
Complete.
i. An analysis using Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District
Stormwater Reuse Calculator. An example of the Calculator can be
City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review
July 28, 2022
Page 6
K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx
found in Appendix E. The full spreadsheet can be requested from the
City.
ii. Documentation demonstrating adequacy of soils, storage system, and
delivery system
iii. Operations and maintenance plan. The O& M plan should follow the
guidelines listed in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual.
iv. Approved capacity of an irrigation practice will be based on:
1. An irrigation rate of 1.0 inches per week over the irrigated
pervious area(s) or the rate identified through the Stormwater
Reuse Calculator (whichever is less); or as approved by the City
2. No greater than a 26 week (April 15th to October 15th) growing
season.
v. Design of the irrigation system must include, but is not limited to, the
following items. Each system will be reviewed and approved by the City
on a site-by-site basis.
1. Plumbing code review, adherence, and permitting, if applicable.
2. Water reuse pump system design including supply line, intake,
meter, and pump
3. Electrical and controls design
4. Construction drawings, specifications, and system integration
vi. Two (2) feet of permanent pool from the bottom of the pond must be
maintained following drawdown for irrigation. Stormwater Design Manual
City of Medina, MN WSB Project No. 011705-000 Page 20 5. Use rates
should be monitored at least monthly for at least three years. This should
be compared to the water budget analysis of the design to determine
whether the modeled level of performance is being achieved.
39. The City requires two feet of freeboard from structure low openings to 100-year high
water levels and EOF’s. Provide maintenance access to all ponding facilities. Complete.
40. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards for Elm Creek
Water Management Commission and the applicant shall submit for the required permits.
41. The proposed drainage exhibit in the stormwater report shows differed drainage area
number than the existing drainage area for the site. 25.65 ac existing and 25.69. Explain
difference in drainage area and any offsite drainage that could account for the difference.
Provide an updated stormwater narrative that reflects all changes in acreage, drainage
areas, and HWL.
42. Stormwater Pond 8P shows different HWL elevations in the grading detail on sheet C506
than on the plan set and in the hydroCAD modeling. Confirm HWL and confirm all
elevations match.
43. Provide additional pretreatment in conformance with the City Design Manual. Provide 4’
sump structures prior to discharge into the basin for pretreatment.
44. Adjacent wetland shows a OHWL of 988.8. The pond is shown to have a bottom of
984.20. Provide a clay liner to ensure that there is separation from the pond and
wetland.
City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review
July 28, 2022
Page 7
K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx
h. Stormwater basin could have potential future impacts on hydrology of wetland if
they are not separated.
i. Attach detail of stormwater pond with Clay liner.
45. Draintile should have a clay liner underneath along with geotextile fabric under the tile.
Update plans and standard detail to show this.
j. Filtration shall have 3’ of separation from seasonally saturated ground water.
Appears there may be conflict with the adjacent wetland, leading to inundation
and maintenance issues.
k. Provide drain tile location on plan sheet including clean outs.
46. Provide a standard detail for draintile cleanouts.
l. Call out locations of cleanouts on the grading plan to ensure future maintenance
and access.
47. Include an stabilized EOF showing grades and location on the grading plan.
48. Provide designated maintenance access to stormwater BMP’s for future maintenance.
Show areas on plan for maintenance and how access will be to the draintile.
m. Filtration bench cannot be used for maintenance access.
Wetlands & Environmental
49. Clearly delineate existing wetland boundaries on the plan. Complete
50. Wetland impacts are referenced on the plan and note “see wetland permit application”.
To date, no replacement plan application has been received by the LGU. A No Loss
application suggesting incidental wetlands on site is currently under review. A
replacement plan must be submitted that clearly documents the purpose and need for the
project, avoidance alternatives, and implemented minimization measures. A replacement
plan was submitted to the LGU on 7/19/22 and will be reviewed under WCA and city
wetland regulations.
51. Wetlands 4 and 5 are DNR Public Waters. A DNR public waters permit may be required
for impacts to these wetlands, including any proposed stormwater outfalls.
52. Wetland buffers may be required around the remaining portions of Wetland 8 and the
wetland mitigation area. Show wetland buffers on the site plan. Wetland 8 is classified as
a Managed 3 wetland which requires an average buffer width of 20 feet (minimum 15
feet). Wetlands created for the purpose of onsite mitigation require a minimum 25-foot
buffer per MN Rules 8420.0522 Subpart 6.B. Wetland buffers should not be proposed in
a way that impacts wetland. If the minimum buffer requirements cannot be met while
avoiding impacts to the wetland, the design must be modified to allow room for wetland
buffer or, if that’s not feasible, a variance should be requested.
53. Provide the wetland buffer seed mix proposed for the site.
54. Include wetland buffer signage locations on the plan.
The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted
plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or
modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. With future submittals,
include a response to the comments in this letter.
City of Medina – Loram/Scannell Office/Warehouse Project – Engineering Review
July 28, 2022
Page 8
K:\020306-000\Admin\Docs\2022-07-18 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2022-07-28 Loram-Scannell Office-Warehouse Project - WSB Engineering Comments.docx
We would be happy to discuss this review in more detail. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if
you have any questions or if you would like to set up a time to meet.
Sincerely,
WSB
Jim Stremel, P.E.
City Engineer
Weston Woods Page 1 of 6 August 10, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height Planning Commission Meeting
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: August 4, 2022
MEETING: August 10, 2022, Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Weston Woods – Mark and Kathleen Smith – Amended PUD and Plat -
East of Mohawk Dr., North of Hwy 55
Summary of Request
Mark Smith has requested an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Weston
Woods of Medina. The Weston Woods PUD includes a total of 147 homes, with a mixture of
single-family and townhomes south of Chippewa Road and twin-homes and villas north of
Chippewa Road.
The applicants propose to increase the maximum allowed building height of the single-family
lots within the PUD from 32 feet to 36 feet. The single-family lots are located south of
Chippewa Road and east of Mohawk Drive.
The City Council granted approval of the PUD in January 2021 and Final Plat approval in April
2022. At the time of final plat approval, the City also approved an amendment to the originally
approved PUD to widen some of the lots, resulting in three less lots.
The plat has been recorded, so the previous approvals would still be in place if the City does not
approve the amendment to the PUD.
The applicant intends to sell the single-family lots to Hanson Builders, who would build the
homes on the 40 single-family lots. As Hanson Builders has prepared building permits for the
lots, they have discovered that the homes they intend to construct exceed the City’s maximum
allowed building height. The allowed building height was not adjusted as part of the PUD and is
limited to 32 feet, measured from the average grade round the home to the midpoint of the roof.
This 32 foot limitation is common in single-family districts in the City.
The applicant has described in their narrative and attached presentation why they believe the
additional height results in desirable design and preferred development style. The presentation
includes information related to the height of several homes Hanson Builders has constructed near
Medina. The builder has notified owners of these homes that the Planning Commissioners and
Council members may visit the property to view the height in person.
MEMORANDUM
Weston Woods Page 2 of 6 August 10, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height Planning Commission Meeting
Existing Height Limitations
Most of the City’s single-family districts limit height to 32 feet. Several districts include
provisions which allow
additional height up to 35 feet
(or 40 in the Rural Residential
district) under certain
conditions such as increased
setbacks by 50%.
The reasoning behind allowing additional height in Rural Residential seems straightforward,
since homes are going to be spaced significantly further from each other. In the case of suburban
neighborhoods, increasing setbacks may only result in homes being 25 feet apart rather than 20
feet apart.
Definition/Factors in Calculation
Building height in the City’s zoning ordinance is defined as:
“The vertical distance measured from the average grade around
the building (points measured every 10 feet around the building), to the top cornice of a
flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the
highest point of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round roof, and to the mean
elevation between the eave and peak for the highest pitched, hipped or gambrel roof. If
the average grade exceeds the building’s grade along the front of the lot by more than
three feet, the lowest grade shall be used.”
For single-family homes with a pitched roof, staff describes the
height more simply as the distance between the “average grade”
and the “mid-point” of the roof. This means that three pieces of
information come into play:
1) Elevation of the eave – this is influenced by number of stories
and ceiling height of each floor
2) Elevation of the peak of the roof – this is influenced by the
factors of the eave + roof pitch
3) Average grade around the home (measured every 10 feet) –
this is influenced by how much of the perimeter of the home is
a walkout, lookout, or full basement.
Staff has found that some context
behind the numbers in these height
calculations is helpful.
Ceiling Height
In terms of internal ceiling height, it is
fairly common for residents in Medina
to prefer some 9’-10’ floors. The table to the right describes how this relates to the height.
Zone Max Height
RR 40’
R1 (Bridgewater, Reserve, Woods of Medina) 32’ (35’ w/ + setbacks)
R2 (Fields of Medina, Enclave) 32’ (35’ w/ + setbacks)
Wild Meadows (PUD) 30’ (40’ w/ + setbacks)
Ceiling Height
Basement 8’-9’
Main level 9’-10’+
Upper level 8’-9’
Floor structure +2’ per story
Distance to eave 29’-31’+ from basement
21’- 24’ +from front elevation
Height
Weston Woods Page 3 of 6 August 10, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height Planning Commission Meeting
Walkout/Lookouts
A walkout basement elevation tends to be 8’-10’ lower than the front elevation of a home and a
lookout basement elevation tends to be 4’-5’ lower. Roughly speaking, if you assume a
consistent grade to the lower elevation, this would “add” approximately 4’-5’ to the height of
walkouts or 2’-3’ to the height of lookouts. These calculations are influenced by the grading on
the site. There have been various instances when a builder “holds up” the front grade around the
house, effectively making the height calculation lower, even though the peak and eave of the
building does not change.
Roof Pitch
Roof pitch affects the height calculation because a steeper pitch
raises the “mid-point” to which height is calculated. The table to
the right describes the effect of various pitches on a roof spanning
45 feet, which is a common building envelope in suburban districts.
Every additional foot that the peak rises above the eave results in a
0.5 foot increase in calculated height because it is measured to the
mid-point. Although potentially obvious, it should be noted that a
roof which spans a larger home would result in a higher peak/height
calculation, even at the same pitch.
Experience from Plan Reviews
While reviewing plans for homes in various projects, staff has noted that larger custom homes
often need to make trade-offs to meet the 32’ maximum height requirement. If a homeowner is
interested in a walk-out basement with taller ceilings in the basement or main level, they have
often had to reduce roof pitch.
For example, the 32’ height limitation would make it difficult to design a home with walkout
basement, 9’ basement, 10’ main level. It may be possible to design with a 6/12 or 7/12 roof
pitch and if the grading is manipulated around the home with retaining walls to hold the front
grade up around to the back of the home. This type of scenario was common in Bridgewater,
where you can see a lot of retaining walls around the backs of the homes.
It is important to note that within a suburban development, certain aspects of a site cannot
necessarily be adjusted by a home buyer. Whether a lot will function as a walkout/lookout or
full basement is determined by factors including grading on adjoining properties and street and
sewer elevation. A buyer probably cannot lower the basement floor to change to a lookout to
make the house shorter. Manipulating the grade along the sides of homes may make it more
challenging to carry drainage between two homes.
Staff reviewed some recent homes to provide examples of different heights of homes in Medina
and how different ceiling heights and roof pitches have affected them. Homes with taller
ceilings and steeper roofs can be found in the rural area because height is currently allowed
above 32’.
Distance Above Eave
for Roof Spanning 45’
Pitch Distance
6/12 11.25’
7/12 13.125’
9/12 16.875’
10/12 18.75’
12/12 22.5’
Weston Woods Page 4 of 6 August 10, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height Planning Commission Meeting
Address Development Type Ceilings Pitch Height
527 Ellisia Court Reserve of Medina WO 8’/9’/8’ 7/12 30.4’
523 Twinflower Reserve of Medina WO 8’/9’/8’ 6/12 27.6’
1810 Deer Hill Ct. Deer Hill Preserve WO 9’/10/8’ 12/12 33.5’
1820 Deer Hill Ct. Deer Hill Preserve WO 9’/9’/9’ 12/12 33.2’
4420 Poppy Dr. Woods of Medina LO 9’/10’/9’ 8/12 28.5’
756 Shawnee Woods Woods of Medina LO 10’10/9’ 12/12 30’
Regulations in Other Communities
Staff reviewed height limitations in other communities, and it does appear that Medina’s height
requirement is generally more limiting. A summary of regulations is attached for reference.
Generally, it appears that a maximum height of 35 feet is common in other communities.
Comparing the requirements is a bit complicated by the fact that communities also measure the
height in various ways. For example, the City of Orono limits height to 30 feet, which, on its
face, would suggest a more restrictive standard. However, Orono measures the 30 feet from the
highest grade rather than the average grade. On a walkout with the walkout elevation 8’-9’
below the front elevation, this would be comparable to a height of 34 feet using average grade.
Staff Comments
Staff does not oppose increasing the maximum allowed height within the Weston Woods PUD
by some extent. In fact, staff believes the discussion may be appropriate more broadly in City
regulations, which would be a matter for future consideration. People prefer walkout basements
and lookout windows as much as possible. Buyers are appearing to prefer taller ceilings within
the structure as well. However, the current discussion is only proposed to apply to the 37 single-
family lots within the southern portion of the Weston Woods PUD.
Staff originally suggested that the applicant limit their request to a height of 35-feet. This was in
recognition that it was a common limitation in other communities and an attempt to limit the
scale of the change.
The applicant has indicated that there are unique circumstances on some lots in Weston Woods
which led them to request 36 feet of height rather than 35 feet. The applicant anticipates
proposing some garages with a 1-foot or 2-foot additional drop below the 1st floor elevation on
some lots. The applicant has indicated this allows them to raise the basement floor in some cases
where there is higher ground water without also raising the garage floor and increasing the slope
of the driveway. The applicant has also noted that several lots have ponds or wetlands along the
side property line. These lots would slope down to the edge of the water, which would lend itself
to having a walkout along a portion of the side of the home in addition to the rear. Having more
of perimeter of the home as a walkout results in a higher calculated height, even if the roof does
not change.
Weston Woods Page 5 of 6 August 10, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height Planning Commission Meeting
Because the maximum height is measured to the mid-point between the peak and the eave, if the
eave height remains constant, every one-foot increase in allowed height effectively could allow
the peak of a roof to be two feet higher if the slope of the roof is increased.
If the Planning Commission and Council are open to providing additional flexibility beyond 35-
feet within this PUD related to the drop garages and side walk-outs as described by the applicant,
it may be possible to craft language which would still limit the peak of the roof. The City
included language of this kind in the Marsh Pointe PUD, which actually restricted height below
the amount allowed in other districts. In the case of Marsh Pointe, the applicant proposed one-
story buildings and the City limited the height by limiting the peak to no more than 35 feet above
the elevation of the garage.
Review Criteria
The City has a high level of discretion when considering requests for PUD, and similarly has a
high level of discretion when considering proposed amendments to a PUD.
Section 827.41 of the Code describes the process for reviewing proposed amendments and
modifications from the terms or conditions of a PUD or an alteration in a project. This section
states that review of any amendment would follow the same review procedure as was followed
with respect to the General Plan of Development.
Purpose of PUD
Section 827.25 of the City Code establishes the following purpose for PUDs:
“PUD - Planned Unit Development provisions are established to provide comprehensive procedures
and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and/or
nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing for a mixture of uses. The
PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot
area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage:
Subd. 1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of
economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of
structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
Subd. 2. Higher standards of site and building design.
Subd. 3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as
high-quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic
features and the prevention of soil erosion.
Subd. 4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development
practices which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the
standard requirements of the City.
Subd. 5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to
surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and
lower intensity uses.
Subd. 6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and
orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of
development and service facilities.
Subd. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby
lower development costs and public investments.
Subd. 8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive
Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)
Weston Woods Page 6 of 6 August 10, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height Planning Commission Meeting
Subd. 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict
application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.”
When the City is considering the initial rezoning to a PUD, the City is considering this purpose
when determining whether to approve of the rezoning of a property from the underlying district
to a PUD. The Planning Commission and Council are weighing whether the proposed flexibility
of the PUD better meets these and other objectives of the City than would be achieved through
standard zoning.
When considering proposed amendments to a PUD, staff believes it is appropriate to consider the
Purpose of the PUD and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. However, it is appropriate to
approach the calculation differently. If the City does not approve of the amendment, the
previously approved PUD would still be in place.
Based upon the scale or significance of the proposed amendment, it may not clearly meet the
criteria but would still be acceptable. On the other hand, if the Planning Commission and City
Council find that an amendment is inconsistent with these purposes and other City objectives
when compared to the unamended PUD, it may be appropriate to deny the amendment.
Staff has attached relevant excerpts from the Vision, Goals, and Land Use chapters of the
Comprehensive Plan for convenience.
Potential Action
Staff does not have concern allowing additional height within the Weston Woods PUD. Staff
would recommend additional discussion if the allowance is to be higher than 35 feet, with the
potential of adding additional limitations for any height over 35 feet. This may include limits on
which lots may be eligible, or limitations on the gross peak height if height above 35’ is allowed.
If the Planning Commission concurs that the amendment is not inconsistent with the purpose of
the PUD ordinance, objectives of the Comp Plan, staff has identified the following potential
actions which could be made:
1. If Commission supports 36-feet:
Move to recommend approval of an amendment to the Weston Woods PUD to increase
maximum height of the single-family lots to 36 feet [option: and to direct staff to review
potential additional standards for height above 35-feet].
2. If Commission supports 35-feet:
Move to recommend approval of an amendment to the Weston Woods PUD to increase
maximum height of the single-family lots to 35 feet [or other preferred number].
Attachments
1. Summary of other Communities
2. Comp Plan Info
3. Weston Woods PUD Ordinance with proposed amendment
4. Applicant narrative
5. Presentation from Hanson Builders
Summary of Single-Family Building Height Regulations in other Communities
Plymouth – 35 feet
Building Height, Principal Building: The vertical distance from the average of the highest and
lowest point of grade for that portion of the lot covered by the building to the highest point of
the roof for flat roofs, to the roof deck line of mansard roofs, and to the mean height between
eaves and ridge for gable, hip, and gambrel roofs.
Orono – 30 feet
Building height means the vertical distance between the highest existing ground level or ten
feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the top of the cornice of a flat roof,
or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch-type roof,
or the median height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic changes
which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in
determining building height.
Minnetrista – 35 feet (more w/ CUP)
Building height means the vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished
grade along the front of the building to the highest point of the roof surface in a flat roof, to the
deck line of mansard roofs, and to the mean height level between eaves and ridge of gable, hip and
gambrel roofs.
Maple Grove – 35 feet or 3 stories, whichever is greater
Building height means a distance to be measured from the mean ground level to the top of a
flat roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof, to the deck line of a
mansard roof, or to the uppermost point on all other roof types.
Corcoran – 35 feet
BUILDING HEIGHT: The vertical distance to be measured from the grade of a building line to
the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof
directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the upper most point on a round or other arch
type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. (building line is
front setback)
Dayton – 35 feet
Building Height
The vertical distance between the lowest elevation where the exterior building wall emerges
from the finished grade elevation (pursuant to an approved grading plan) and the highest point on
the building.
Victoria – 35 feet
Building height means the vertical distance between the ground elevation abutting a building and
the midpoint elevation of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof.
Shorewood – 35 feet
BUILDING HEIGHT. A distance to be measured from the lowest land grade to the top of a flat
roof, to the mean distance (between eaves and peak) of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof,
to the roof deck line of a mansard roof, to the uppermost point on all other roof types. The lowest
land grade shall mean the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground, paving
or sidewalk within the area between the structure and the property line or when the property line
is more than five feet from the building, between the building and a line five feet from the
building.
Chanhassen – 35 feet
Building height means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the
building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the highest point of a
flat roof or average height of the highest of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof
Woodbury – 40 feet
Building height means the vertical distance above a referenced datum measured to the highest
point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height
of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The reference datum shall be selected by either
of the following, whichever yields a greater height of building:
(1)
The elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a five-foot (1,524
mm) horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground
surface is not more than ten feet (3,048 mm) above lowest grade.
(2)
An elevation ten feet (3,048 mm) higher than the lowest grade when the sidewalk or ground
surface described in subsection (1) is more than ten feet (3,048 mm) above the lowest grade.
The height of a stepping or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the
building.
Lake Elmo – 35 feet
Building height means the vertical distance between the average of the ground level elevations to
the top of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the midpoint on a pitched roof which is
between the highest point (peak of building) and lowest point (bottom of the truss at the top plate
of the wall) on the roof
Baytown – 35 feet
(24) Building Height: The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest
point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of
the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The reference datum shall be selected by either of
the following, whichever yields a greater height of the building: (A) The elevation of the highest
adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a 5 foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of
the building when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than 10 feet above lowest grade.
(B) An elevation 10 feet higher than the lowest grade when the sidewalk or ground surface
described in Item A above is more than 10 feet above the lowest grade. The height of a stepped
or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building.
Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan
Community Vision
The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant
goals and strategies.
Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its
residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City,
while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well-designed neighborhoods, places of recreation
and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the City will be commensurate with available
transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity.
Community Goals
The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform objectives
and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to
promote the rural character of Medina.
• Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community.
• Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning,
engineering and development.
• Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted
residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other
Community Goals. Such development and growth shall be at a sustainable pace
proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and wastewater
infrastructure available to the City.
• Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular
timeframes.
• Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire
community.
• Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities,
connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents.
• Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents
at all stages of their lives.
• Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential
areas of the City.
• Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s police
department and coordinate with its contracted volunteer fire departments.
• Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient
staff and long-range planning and financial management.
Future Land Use Plan Principles
The Future Land Use Plan guides the development of Medina through 2040, and will be used to
implement the City’s goals, strategies and policies. The Plan is guided by the Vision and
Community Goals as furthered by the following principles:
Development Patterns and Neighborhood Form
• Encourage open spaces, parks and trails in all neighborhood developments. Surveys
indicate that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual access to green
spaces.
• Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are well connected with
roads, trails or sidewalks.
• Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development patterns
consistent with existing rural residential development.
• Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible in
scale, architectural quality and style with existing neighborhoods.
• Stage residential growth to minimize the amount of adjacent developments which
occur within the same time period.
• Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future
infrastructure availability.
• Concentrate higher density development near service oriented businesses to help
promote walkability.
• Consider planned development in surrounding communities when making land use
decisions in the City.
Road Patterns
• Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with use
forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes.
• Establish collector streets with good connections through the community’s growth
areas.
• Promote trails and sidewalk access near roads and thoroughfares to encourage multi-
modal transportation choices.
• Consider opportunities to improve north-south travel within the City.
Open Spaces and Natural Resources
• Preserve natural resources throughout the community and provide educational
opportunities to residents to help them understand the value of natural areas.
• Preserve open spaces and natural resources.
• Protect wooded areas and encourage improvement of existing resources and
reforestation. Evaluate existing woodland protections and supplement as necessary.
• Support the guidelines identified in the Open Space Report to preserve the City’s
natural systems.
Business Districts and Commercial Areas
• Focus service businesses and development near urban residential densities and along
primary transportation corridors.
• Provide connections between residents and commercial areas and promote businesses
within mixed-use areas.
• Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to reduce
traffic and commuting demands.
• Emphasize service and retail uses which serve the needs of the local community and
provide opportunities for the community to gather.
• Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides
open spaces and protects natural resources.
Low Density Residential (LDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 2.0 units per acre and 3.0.units per acre which are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary use in this area is single- and two-family residential development.
Residential Uses
Objectives:
1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant
natural characteristics of the property.
2. Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that
protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district. Such
modification shall generally not exceed -10% of the minimum density or +20% of the
maximum density requirement of the relevant land use.
3. Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary.
4. Regulate land within the Mixed Residential land use to provide opportunities for
residential development with a density in excess of 8 units/acre. Flexibility is
purposefully provided within the land use to support opportunities for a single project to
provide both low- and high- density housing or for multiple developers to partner on
independent projects within a Mixed Residential area.
5. Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low
impact development design standards.
6. Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public
facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth
strategies.
7. Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan.
8. Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the
provision of urban services that will hinder future division.
9. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes,
conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open
space and natural features.
10. Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with
adequate facilities and open space.
11. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety.
12. Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot
sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land
use, market demands, and development standards.
13. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible
with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of
ecologically significant natural resources.
14. Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development
is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking,
green space, landscape buffering and height limitations.
15. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic
enhancement and safety.
16. Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to
reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required.
17. Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new
development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space.
18. In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD’s in
exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi-family
units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources.
19. Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development
characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood.
20. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods
and to maintain public health and safety.
July 15, 2022
Dusty Finke AICP
City Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: Weston Woods of Medina; PUD Amendment for PIDs 03-118-23-42-0001, 03-118-23-
41-0001, and 03-118-23-43-0005
Dear Mr. Finke:
We represent Mark of Excellence Homes (“MOE”) and Mark and Kathleen Smith, the developer
of Weston Woods of Medina (the “Project”). This letter and the accompanying materials
constitute a request for amendment of the PUD to address demand for single family homes with
walkouts within the Project.
Background and Project Description
The Developer of the above project obtained approval of Comprehensive Plan amendments,
rezoning and PUD Development Plan from the City of Medina (the “City”) for what are
described below as Twinhomes, Rowhomes and Single-Family lots. In addition, with City
approval, the Developer has commenced construction of public improvements contained within
the approved PUD Development Plan.
In response to market conditions and in discussion with Hanson Homes, the proposed building of
homes on the Single Family Lots, the Developer has proposed a modest adjustment to building
height as referenced set forth at Section 840.2.06, Subd. 2.
Pursuant to Section 830, Subd. 3(i), the Developer has applied to amend the PUD to provide for
these changes. The rationale for this change from 32 feet to 36 feet is simple, it allows a housing
type that is in demand on the Single Family Lots. The change will clearly allow walkout homes.
Under the ordinance as written, it is difficult to meet the City requirements because the City uses
the average elevation with grades shot in several locations around the house. Since the walkout
grade is typically eight to nine feet lower than the front elevation, the house plan does not meet
the existing requirement when the grades of a walkout lot are included.
To clarify the need for the height change, the majority of homes on the Single Family Lots will
be under the existing building height limit of 32 feet. Most of the homes with lookout and
walkout basements will be at or under 35 feet which is allowed by certain exception under the
Dusty Finke AICP
July 15, 2022
Page 2
zoning ordinance. However, several of the proposed homes on the Single Family Lots face a
lower grade elevation on the rear and side due to proximity to either a stormwater pond or the
creek. On these lots, because some of the homes will be exposed on two sides at the lower level,
the average height will be up to 36 feet. In addition, dropping the grade from front to back
allows more windows in the lower level which not only provides more natural light, but also
provides emergency egress, and sheds stormwater away from the foundation.
Proposed Minimum Standards
Concurrent with this amendment, the City will consider adoption of an ordinance updating and
establishing minimum standards for the PUD, including the following:
A. The Single Family Lots shall be subject to the requirements of the R2 zoning district
except as explicitly described below.
i. Minimum lot size: 9,000 square feet
ii. Minimum lot width: 70 feet
iii. Minimum lot depth: 130 feet
iv. Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet, except garage doors facing the street
shall be setback a minimum of 30 feet
v. Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet
vi. Minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet. The rear yard setback may be reduced
to 20 feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area, but may not be
reduced if abutting public park property.
vii. Minimum Collector Roadway setback: 40 feet
viii. Maximum impervious surface coverage: 45%
ix. Maximum building height: 36 feet
The changes contained within this amendment are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as
well as the findings and criteria for approval of the PUD for Weston Woods of Medina. Please
contact me with any questions about the above narrative or the enclosed materials.
Sincerely,
William C. Griffith, for
Larkin Hoffman
Direct Dial: 952-896-3290
Direct Fax: 952-842-1729
Email: wgriffith@larkinhoffman.com
cc: Mark Smith
Ordinance No. ___ 1
_____________, 2022
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ___
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
FOR “WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA”
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 (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 zoning amendment is depicted on the map in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Section 3. The Weston Woods of Medina 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 Weston Woods General Plan dated 12/4/2020,
which are incorporated herein by reference, except as may be modified by this
ordinance or Resolution 2021-03.
B. Any standards not specifically addressed by this Ordinance shall be subject to the
requirements set forth by the City of Medina Zoning Ordinance, including the
Single- and Two-Family Residential (“R2”) and Mid-Density Residential (“R3”)
zoning districts and other relevant standards.
C. The lots within the Property shall be classified as “Single Family,” “Twinhome,”
“Villahome” or “Rowhome” as described in Exhibit B and shall be subject to the
relevant standards described herein.
Section 4. Allowed Uses. The allowed uses within the PUD District shall be as follows:
A. Single Family Lots. The permitted, conditional, and accessory uses shall be those
described in the R2 zoning district. A community pool shall allowed on a single
family lot within the PUD.
B. Twinhome Lots. The permitted, conditional, and accessory uses shall be those
described in the R2 zoning district, except that Accessory Dwelling Units shall
not be permitted.
Ordinance No. ___ 2
_____________, 2022
C. Villahome Lots. The permitted, conditional, and accessory uses shall be those
described in the R2 zoning district, except that Accessory Dwelling Units shall
not be permitted.
D. Rowhome Lots.
i. The following shall be permitted uses within the Rowhome Lots:
a. Townhouse Dwellings, provided no structure contains more than
six dwelling units
b. Parks and Open Space
c. Essential Services
ii. There shall be no conditional uses permitted within the Rowhome Lots
iii. The accessory uses shall be those described in the R3 zoning district.
Section 5. Lot Standards.
A. The Single Family Lots shall be subject to the requirements of the R2 zoning
district except as explicitly described below.
i. Minimum lot size: 9,000 square feet
ii. Minimum lot width: 70 feet
iii. Minimum lot depth: 130 feet
iv. Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet, except garage doors facing the street
shall be setback a minimum of 30 feet
v. Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet
vi. Minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet. The rear yard setback may be
reduced to 20 feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area, but
may not be reduced if abutting public park property.
vi. Minimum Collector Roadway setback: 40 feet
viii. Maximum impervious surface coverage: 45%
ix Maximum building height: 36 feet
B. The Twinhome Lots shall be subject to the requirements of the R2 zoning district
except as explicitly described below.
i. Minimum lot size: 3,948 square feet
ii. Minimum lot width: 42 feet
iii. Minimum lot depth: 90 feet
iv. Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet to back of curb
v. Minimum distance between buildings: 25 feet. Bay windows, balconies,
eaves, overhangs, canopies and other ornamental features not affixed to
the ground may extend into this setback, provided they do not extend a
distance greater than three feet from the structure.
vi. Minimum side yard setback: 5 feet, except the side yard setback shall be
reduced to zero for the common wall between two dwelling units. Bay
windows, balconies, eaves, overhangs, canopies and other ornamental
features not affixed to the ground may extend into this setback.
vii. Minimum rear yard setback: 15 feet
viii. Minimum Collector Roadway setback: 40 feet
ix. Maximum impervious surface coverage: 70%
Ordinance No. ___ 3
_____________, 2022
C. The Villahome Lots shall be subject to the requirements of the R2 zoning district
except as explicitly described below.
i. Minimum lot size: 6,000 square feet
ii. Minimum lot width: 60 feet
iii. Minimum lot depth: 100 feet
iv. Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet to back of curb
v. Minimum distance between buildings: Based on side yard setback, except
bay windows, balconies, eaves, overhangs, canopies and other ornamental
features not affixed to the ground may extend into this setback, provided
they do not extend a distance greater than three feet from the structure.
vi. Minimum side yard setback: 7.5 feet. Bay windows, balconies, eaves,
overhangs, canopies and other ornamental features not affixed to the
ground may extend into this setback.
vii. Maximum impervious surface coverage: 70%
D. The Rowhome Lots shall be subject to the requirements of the R3 zoning district
except as explicitly described below.
i. Minimum Setback from Perimeter of Site: 40 feet
ii. Private street setback: 23 feet to back of curb
iii. Collector Roadway Setback: 40 feet
iv. Minimum distance between buildings: 24 feet
Section 6. Design and Development Standards. All standards not specified by this
ordinance are to be the same as found in the Medina Zoning Ordinance for the relevant
underlying zoning district. The following deviations from the underlying performance standards
are hereby in place for the Weston Woods of Medina 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 review, which shall be subject to review
for consistency with the enhancements required in Resolution 2021-03.
B. Landscaping shall be consistent with the landscaping plan approved by the City
Council at the time of final plat review, which shall be subject to review for
consistency with the enhancements required in Resolution 2021-03.
Section 7. The City of Medina Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to place this
ordinance into effect and to make the appropriate changes to the official zoning map of the City
of Medina to reflect the change in zoning classifications as set forth above only upon adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment related to the Property and recording of the Weston Woods
of Medina plat.
Section 8. A copy of this Ordinance and the updated map shall be kept on file at the
Medina City Hall.
Section 9. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, publication, and recording
of the Weston Woods of Medina of Medina plat.
Adopted by the Medina City Council this 5th day of April, 2022.
Ordinance No. ___ 4
_____________, 2022
CITY OF MEDINA
By:
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
By:
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on this day the _____ of __________, 2022.
Ordinance No. ___ 5
_____________, 2022
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of the Property
That part of the South Half of Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence North
01 degrees 13 minutes 50 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the east line of South half a
distance of 833.09 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 22
degrees 09 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 86.32 feet; thence Southerly 173. 73 feet along
a tangential curve concave southeasterly, having a central angle of 11 degrees 25 minutes 46
seconds and a radius of 870. 89 feet; thence South 10 degrees 43 minutes 23 seconds West,
tangent to said curve, a distance of 534.34 feet; thence southerly 29.99 feet along a tangential
curve concave easterly, having a central angle of 10 degrees 06 minutes 25 seconds and a radius
of 170.1 feet; thence South 00 degrees 36 minutes 58 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a
distance of 30.00 feet to the south line of said South Half and said line there terminating.
Abstract property
AND
Parcel 1:
The Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23,
except the West 468 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter lying West of a line extending from
the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter to a point on the North
line of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter 660 feet West along said North line from
the Northeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter, all in Section 3, Township
118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property.
Parcel 3:
Outlot B, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Abstract property
Parcel 4:
The North 468 feet of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 5:
The West 468 feet of the South 590 feet of the North 1058 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Ordinance No. ___ 6
_____________, 2022
Parcel 6:
That part of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3,
Township 118 North, Range 23, lying South of the North 1058 feet thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Torrens property
Ordinance No. ___ 7
_____________, 2022
That part of the South Half of Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118, Range 23,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence North
01 degrees 13 minutes 50 seconds East on an assumed bearing along the east line of South half a
distance of 833.09 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 22
degrees 09 minutes 09 seconds West a distance of 86.32 feet; thence Southerly 173. 73 feet along
a tangential curve concave southeasterly, having a central angle of 11 degrees 25 minutes 46
seconds and a radius of 870. 89 feet; thence South 10 degrees 43 minutes 23 seconds West,
tangent to said curve, a distance of 534.34 feet; thence southerly 29. 99 feet along a tangential
curve concave easterly, having a central angle of 10 degrees 06 minutes 25 seconds and a radius
of 170.1 feet; thence South 00 degrees 36 minutes 58 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a
distance of 30.00 feet to the south line of said South Half and said line there terminating.
Abstract property
AND
Parcel 1:
The Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23,
except the West 468 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 2:
That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter lying West of a line extending from
the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter to a point on the North
line of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter 660 feet West along said North line from
the Northeast corner of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter, all in Section 3, Township
118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property.
Parcel 3:
Outlot B, Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Abstract property
Parcel 4:
The North 468 feet of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 3, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 5:
The West 468 feet of the South 590 feet of the North 1058 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 118 North, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Torrens property
Parcel 6:
That part of the West 468 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3,
Township 118 North, Range 23, lying South of the North 1058 feet thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Ordinance No. ___ 8
_____________, 2022
Torrens property
Ordinance No. ___ 9
_____________, 2022
EXHIBIT B
Map Depicting “Single Family,” “Twinhome,: and “Rowhome” Lots
4887-3382-2249, v. 2
Weston Woods of Medina
•Current Maximum Building Height per Medina ordinance is 32’ (as measured
from grade to center of roof)
•This is similar to all the cities we work in. The difference is for all other cities
this number is only measured at the front yard (street side) to the center
point of the roof. No averaging with the two sides and back elevations.
•The typical walkout rear grade is 8’ to 9’ lower than the front grade. This
makes the roof midpoint about 40-41’.
•Now if averaging is required with the back and the sides of the home (Like the
building department requires in Medina) then the average heights will be
around 36’
Information
•The front height did not change but the average would disallow a 32’
home on a walkout lot, yet the building department would allow the
same home on a full basement lot.
•From the street they both look the same.
Information
•Allow the same home to be built on a walk-out lot that is permitted to
be built on a full basement lot
•Either by:
-Increasing the “average” height (from 32’ to 36’)
OR
-Simply making the 32’ height restriction measured only at the
front elevation and nowhere else (knowing that walk-outs will be
higher on the back and sides of the house)
Request
Cities Hanson Builders is currently building our
custom homes:
•Plymouth
•Maple Grove
•Dayton
•St. Michael
•Lake Elmo
•Stillwater/Baytown Township
•Woodbury
•Gem Lake/ White Bear Lake
In all these cities, the maximum height is 32’ with or without “walkout
lots”. If it is 32” at the front, it is good.
NOTE: All homes shown in this presentation can be built in all the
above cities
Homes in the Power Point
6322 Ranier Lane, Maple Grove
6330 Ranier Lane, Maple Grove
6305 Weston Lane N, Maple Grove
6294 Weston Lane N, Maple Grove
18685 61st Ave, Plymouth
18840 61st Ave, Plymouth
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Plymouth Lot: Walkout Non-Compliant in Medina on walk-out lot
#6322
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Plymouth Side Elevation
#6322
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Plymouth Rear Elevation
#6322
i1i:e?'41P. . 4:ill! !tii Mt!:
ii EM I
11Ft$i 1i. .*i;tit:V.1il.' /
li .,747
Al
.. F3l id[Rs
RESIDENCE FO R:
(.%99 R AIL S?. L AIC
NAM FR&*tMC[ u6 d
xtvDAd 61. T
C PYRI[3ftr NOTI
• �Pa+ �iw.=IA .IVIMwi
rw... .u.•.1,u ,..r1,
1111.111.1.10 011. 1111110,/.
wcnsamen
+1, rwns•
w.1�
1, a••••r
• 041,1... .,11
fat ULCITIMIrlitas
i
SURVEY LEGEND
• /m•1 Moo
▪ u6. Mar
m met .La
• •~al
mama M[r
• tOd P11 9M
! MM. mom
as. 111•Y 0 •r•r.
▪ m _4 1...u1a•
• .r ra. arr..
3 n•.
n �.R •seer._•
▪ cao.c a
7 us.” mow
e.r• mnacc C.rms.
semsett
~•••1• M11
arum`(
- 0CM11..70113
�- - 11•••1111 arw
=MVO sees
—.star. IMO
OM. Ma
....Mill_
— — Ri7SD • r Iaam1
— s••• Mt
/TM
-•411 /MOM aA.a .•i
zap
'S
-wrma. !
1111,410.6
•Illta
g A�
. Ix. Lgv {�o
ye"
F
i'
a
0
• Mot
Vlilsl.S
• Moll
NeettftLa x 1hr 1 1013th M5•alrtlo, a••ra.1q r ammo
—
m Noma
L wars tam Pair Lm. YM Om•• Mao
>. In a••r••dlble••I••r••♦r..qr moo" 0..+••••b•
•••••• Mom Mao a•s am Ms so pro • MOM am conbr
4411•..,. Timms, efoomM.omu•Wi Y armr.�
Oeselkoramir YaaMar Irma. Wt. say om•`•Y•Yera•.mar
MmR a•pYs••r.ammi•er•M•ai glib wafter.. Ma•I
••••e•. man IMMO *Ind papa,. ban pow rII
yY.••m19 alm n in a. rr Odal low tt l+r••. a•• 1Yb411.1.
Pa, •11•••••IrM•Mir,&moot Mika •1se, mod r mid leaf. FM
••••••=Op Mowl rqmmibfir mr r aamigo •iks •11.10•••
map bas Wporn sop ad Way iM
1 Ma mr• • maw 2%4 MM. ••••••m• Pm. •m••F
♦ 411maim Mom /1•r • 1.aaM••1• MW wele mda k.er•fa
I ThPmt Maw *Pa Mumps ral ray W m ma mar whew lady
Omar M•.+alYMIL
• • a open m= lama•/•• Ms mom, moo ea• nom •art omr
peek •m••d flies awe aim Ilea bum Eta
7. I...ow parr — •cowl y *sift 1111••• .rr• • •e •1V.* 410
I •'•.4 aminay MOM• Ian gram miasma am
▪ t !•1rel DQ Ursa*, IMIN 7 Diorama plw•M•r.rm•0
OinClrl�rr0371! Dru • �•D
n••raleb
Stsineasediso !win
1✓N>✓Dnn•.
ru_lld Crawler - WO
• r•iw•r (Mow Ame!mem
1••.•••• to•I►• n_ •..w ra.
aq..•• r.�r es.
M Aar W • fm•y, tf Toil
Ma Am LIME
an
fly
1I 45ders M m r• •OS L.• Ml
MM.
V, NI
OS L.• MID
t1{u-f^ V tol a.-.•• i•
:*a+,iam* urlu //RPM •1•7+•1.•1a7a...
•..... q iMlfyIP• 11••11 i/r41•0T.mi.1;ard•e•q.r
also As la elm Sri dlf.aa
nand 1ha 11 J. M etAapmG ]7)1
:mama.3c.b4 rt! warms Limo N•. w:
JOBS Nos
wRD tarot ON
CIWIetr`IL Mat eMLPODS Wren, M.
alor10ir BOO lirdININI_r. • mmoIA
C1•T a•Fe
NOUN 11•1141111 11 FE DM ANN OIL
000011011 Mal*
1rI
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
J. .a ILIUM r1O 111NW 16.01-{ w two iaa...
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
Mlir♦7FD FOB
HANSON BUILDERS
}.••.li Tawdry ••.mM.r•w
30 13 0 13 30 60
SCALP . BB ?SET
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Plymouth Lot: Walkout Non-compliant in Medina on walk-out lot
#6330
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Plymouth Walkout Side Elevation
#6330
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Plymouth Rear Walkout Elevation
#6330
7. • •. .. . •re..rsir.air.raw.n._rr.s.. rr.w.ra-w.silmAmi-..m.+.-..
D
-.
as
111111
leVal
titi41 E
i'f
•
6330 RANIER LANE
tar t3M cyxI
sour PROMPENC E
w?II WM. w+
SHIRNOAN SP
aa+a/
i3
!_, .11'1
. �a1 1..M.. . M.1.....+6O.Oi t
00,46
INIOMIC IA O. NOMPO vM1•8
_ Nan
Nam Nan
Nam
N oa wt •[
• .., ••• w,
• No• . it •I1.•
• In too", await
t•w•o WWI*
w •owl• ILCOIM
• •w. • NAM 11•a
B .wo •OI[
m •• ••w t rwwnw •.
m N. swam MOWN
O aunt .s
NON MINN
1wMncwls
MINN 1w
MONO, I.O1
tk .buns 1101
rv-. ww
�• _- . 7 cwswr
--�.- a•w.w w,wwn
OMNI( Owl
_fwaV, fnf.
—OWN N•..
—1 1•tO•I•w :41110U•
swami, w.• •w.a 6 _ 1>1 .0
.w— Iw• n.
.— •10 ,“- 10.6
—OIL— M.•II ws•:• Ut
WHOA
NV lwwfwwa-a
fin t/1• &r1.4. Wt
1
Dw4M11141414weadm -uu r. IAA a ..
=rt.. flew Waft.011116111111- MO -
- PSIS R,,�
,. tytt..•.a .t• •w•• -••III N
hw>•dYo •I Awe IY.t1w• •1Yf ti
IM N. Nat 111811 rpor muica ...Ors le Ow Ne eN611 061 Nn•1 ••••••••0.1P•
• N.7
toed
•11a f
•1)1.1
• w
4,
I. Mem all lw w Um Mete I olehowarrw• r
1 e4.•w.. .r.I r••wr•rM•.rrwowed enem y w.arr.•r..«►r y.wr r M. . n•�
r wa win eel lta/ • 001s. !NO ON* d ho M wpm* Tr whew we r Y••w•I••r1.1re r r
wwawaw••nw+ •w.•r •w ed M~he haw ewe wwWin Wm Owe rrWee •a OS Usk peso
=WOW a wl.
wet. �w •w�•yw11w414 W �p•.1I w►* WINOhw.•rIMI •i.. a••r1+W porgy
Newer waa •1wrfs owl woes• Memea.1•w11IMW en wow1•. wfr remake me
4. awl ramen ~sow Ole law wonset Mow w1enema •rrwry,41Iu
1 Wee .w•ww•Wm. w•••.aw ww•..r.t•" •••*NNW
I Imlay w qA W V e•wr , /1•o ..• over.. pers.! We as Wee
l Yea MUh ow w• w •••••.•r•r.w• wwse a w•r w•4 w lwa a•w• qdna wlw.wlw war• l we• 10 Lam/ Iwo/ lamp s, w dw
Ow how of b Par I(/l1r•I•a
I r un••+w.. .ar •.1••w •w+rat r.r.ww•I ••roam cm* a•• r./wow pow r►"
• f 1• 411r . w we 11rw r r on o,. N NO M.w.•n1 O•••••.•••• /w r owl w in r ea m Dag Wit In de /(la..
1 Ml w•yea avow •►.r•ray •wrawr.••y.lw•w l 4.I.aGB1
L SIE'www/••.wwl NNI ANI •w'.nw•wr•
D1dd L WEAR !LS N.a.oMl Lase IN MIR
It• VON
7•'W onoo
• 1MI
•MI
• NI•
Ww.111•. wrth i
011•1 -/MM O$.AMM
NM. 4P14 01.1-.n71
f!«
•1QI
•••t1
� f0
!CALK N!!6T
INNIIIIINIII reeeo
( �'iRTWF.CATF(IF31IRimI y MI D dY11o1 1OI>>OMO♦OMRROM/rIll
1r
rw,u1D1 9R 041103141 oIs
SATNHE -BERGQUIST, INC.
wr wrl cedar s MY/W.owl r .•l ado0114
tom• )I • T awY* Ise -1ap>7 ICO t 12/6.1 tall 1 IIM101S
/11M1w If is .
HANSI3 N BUII.DFRs au* .o.1
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
Streetscape in this Plymouth Neighborhood –These homes cannot be built in Medina on walk-out lots, only on full basement flat lots.Streetscapes would look the same for walk-out lots and full basement lots.
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Maple Grove Lot: Full Basement Compliant because it sits on a full basement lot
#6305
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Maple Grove Side Elevation Full Basement Compliant
#6305
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Maple Grove Rear Full Basement Compliant
#6305 NOTE: Same home would not be compliant on a walk-out lot.
H
tE r
1i4
,
c.
i-iAN s )N
RESIDENCE FO R:
M ODEL
6305 WESTON LANE N
RIDGE AT ELM C EEK L13 B3
AI..W.RA
cidanffitilliana
..4 we.wn.10w.s.a.
%avOx:IY W.. .e,
•••• 1906• 14.1 41e *NOW
.MAY.
IdMill•//11 Olin
5-
r
i
i
LC,'T 9
•a
•r.✓
CO
cl
PROM= NO • 1 /
a- - 140.3
-
IN/
r - n•1
w��k~
on,
•.0 •
1. +
7,
/
I� r•,. tea.
47soir
qtoo
~' •*' • rep
SURVEY LEGEND
• oar pm. 0.• aw.O 0 a n.r 1 00.1.
▪ ass ...r m. MONO Oda10• ..rue MK
■ 101 raw a wr1A.e •10R MI * ..wr• 1.14
▪ .w• wr. LO w/r••. MrN••r = ••..•R;
• .(1• w..•..r M1140.0.1 wain.. 1- 04/0/1 NORM
• Nara. sari g ANY .R10. --+_-- dr••w airs
• low. w '"I111K••iO1 wrri oe.a10 - ••Ora NSW
Mt 1r 113•134,110 11•11101,11
.7QD DEW AT 1134!! 8TItri)N Ma, talMO O.
OWNS..N 1* ••DI.O111111•IAr?011•.•l1Wl
010009 OL1
11•i 1ad•...1)
Ne.111•3•!I•T1ai
A
maw 111
.•p7
airs+ a.•
— • •— •NRM. NIP
no• WM,
— —na
rsM= a I .••r
— — P1r.11
.err
—a— •0.104 W M/ ire.
I
girr no `I . ut TIC WWI
AT IIJ1 A1>1. �6t r.a
1. Mows Or 1..... 1ArrariLWOW Ow. Miaow
a rwaw•.sw••balsa N1•rrrrr.grwpm/7W .r..•.
.�.r1....M1e•Ar MrrwSoho boo rsarl• Wier lire MrO•
• WA was Wmowwsow. rY rl.or•rt•r1•. rwpm. ow
r.r.r•wr r• •.•rrrloan .rliana. Ma lam .r r
as Ala alMr••.r..—..••.kr w.• ••Y ow caw r raw
•y ons le gels Wawa • r r•l•rrll•6 l.rsyr 1rwml••
W sway0/! drO Or ■ 1•r• .ws �• ••..r 101m d71
la • 0.rwr..W Omaha ••�•. liar New mil/ ONO, •....•••m
w�ywwd r/•.+rY r wr•Mows •.l7ww eflia rM
NM MOMS .abase it rr ww.assansr swim Wimp
4.0
r�.
O�.L hrO•
(.k•wllrm•. rr ti/! y
m•1-rir Of 10-1,10 " •
w•rar sow. 1•.s
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
.•e•Arllr.r.r •rr•w r r. aswiss
ti rraw wr..•r.r• •arsrt. Lora •.r.e.•
LL•r.rrerr. rw.wawErwa..yr kw Nwn•.wen /NW
Ors Mom* 44, WIN
A r••^r wr lr.1•16 arum. • r.e.s Ob wry
write roil 1j.r WPM wr= sarr•r rrlV Ina
N1pr/OA. Own.r.m • WNW, Woken .lb.. r'Ir.4dirt
W.b Wass Mies Worn plow •.rw•••r.•w.k
•asst
DOl WOLa Dirk]. 11oIC IATSJI 0UI.}•Jh•
ftlieriALIILREILTh
/Wm alrr i.•r
Pad Elea 1o• • FS
"�. t+7. i•w Swam
...mil T.• N.•r.w.r Orris...
•or/ ••rr•. rlrrn•r
1.e1._37
.M t+s •.1V1. w. L71.1.
Ka air IMMO
T Mr b wily IW M wsa.MR Omom .10 IwlMb w sr
raw 4Y d.•w •rwli•r ail W I r• rb Limed W lr.b•r
odor the ]n•KM Sin 4fl
Owed tils AS do of Domala.3220-
L3ri& L fem k.PLS 1an•I Lams •r1•47
,e.L/.e.k.•r..
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
nlwwkm me
HANSON BUILDERS
balsa 12 Tomei. 111
:: IC 0 :1:1 X
5 �- 1 %UT
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Maple Grove Lot: Walkout Non-Compliant for Medina on walkout lot
#6294
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Maple Grove Side Elevation
#6294
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Maple Grove Rear walk-out Basement Non-Compliant
#6294
y
2
mu
1111
191111
~roan
6294 WESTON LANE N
10112 r MCI I
MO•11Md®t
WMc1 it A«
STONEBROOK
OAid+
raa0o--swa--
- ,»OriMe
arm rruvre am Kora . IfNEMO
ollimwlrollYelrMMIN{1MM
r . 11011. 00.
rr-'ice.+.c.��
M q 6..[YMr.MM14 .0 MOM&
aawn.`.
r
T
3 t
I -•nu
• far f•e
• lass as
a of
WWI
e +c .1i
MO Ma ,.a
• WIMP WOOL
r NOM elms
ana was*
..asass .at
mas a Mat
i ►.I• war.
/we WPM as
saa s
f•! Mae
Haab to
IM Mad
--ova Male
►rat• ►4.•a
Saba ma
Cal= tom
---.—sue Ian
a.a f•a
_•_._4.,M
— Mae NJ 401
— Sr— 4.r
- — s/a 4.M I/
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
If=TO 1•1111•1117.. bras a Mt Me 01140111
WI! ssisl
• MI
CERTD7CA'E OF SURVEY
flaTAIUM
HANSON BUILDERS
•1
L 1 lab a NS NOM AT UM al/11 *wombat 4. M awllf
.�•srw•[ Ii'A teat. Wawa
Aalsi OMMINN W SOON WIw lb S Miran
I 101 1.1• Iwo r lafa K Al arsaw/•••••••Wr•.w••Ir. ab
gad lip •.rb►• IWr•s•wSam /albCamas Oa -bran
wag, Ir.atra•./=In ar•iml.wr rr.ep+.a rat
=lama a/a salsa a wawa •aalr.sr, Isar Sea
Aia pima owe *a ••••••4 wiw.m/•Wtom M•Y• •saw 46.0.0 AN.
— ► salaam Nap Ilet+Ig/ta PPP NW olip.01ti r•••we
OyI•f.OwQ•w'ar•►br s•►aml r(l. .ia lsesr•Yi
watti.r•r W •14..01 at write -i. Who amaxaskt i w is
1•i r•q r a••ae• slim of Ns Mims am* law al palm
4. 4.) a•olef N.
, taf =trio anima NI dos /WA= flea aa•tF
• A/a.s—a r•► •w•••••••►4f r to as aa01•11Mr
I TbeNapa any aasavast qr *no *II •s•s M.wayl••
•e *ma ails al
♦ ANY qa•w Vasa L•waa Y pa. fsrawe. Oilyrsawl^
▪ war/ Itr r a►.• Ms•arM•arl bas
1 Is/sasaa ram. yam•Valdes alas sa lapalaM
L ,1414, MOM OWN, wp•o.7••w►.►A
► 110.48�al fl�sMt_..
ol�.sI tt OO, lark !14 I, =CI AIIV Ao T MOM. 11 f
r yrr -1") .141.2
ll,-•.._ . to •M(i
lift•••• Iaf sYatlt• . MJ
-.crave F.h•,Ora - WQ
•►aI
+.r... • • a.1I•••aa Maws • 4.1
M-„- rasa ►a lam a • •1► 1
s
lr/w►I�.a- l.ISTM
►aLot aa.e.s
011takwe
1.1. ••• . -M a f'•fl I►,N t Intl
a'••ta
/►-"Kr us•`-01t•t
law*, owl* ON r woo. S.4 c -ft ,.a y-4ast _T es
t•/Rwry Owt 1st tut [e l dlh:-=ri<d Lady
awl Sr boo of Iwo NIMaaaa
DINA Nis P• 4►ff•es.r. 2I
DWN L. //M*. 1{/ MI•waw Wow N.. i1:IT
IskIWlSsflas
:,:.ALL• L� `t.'!
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Plymouth Lot Walkout: Compliant for Medina
#18685
Note: Smaller home, lower ceilings, meets Medina calculations even on walk-out lots
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Plymouth Side Elevation
#18685
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Plymouth Rear Walkout
#18685
.: [3uildtt s
a
RESIDENCE FOR:
On• wamew••• •011::=....64•• •wr.s p
Pp./ 01=1.0101a/ CO MM
de IOW WI 0.01.1041”. WPM
..r.
R►CC HO ME
WESTIN RIDGE LIbb
EXCELSIOR 'O•
N IRO GIRT AVE N
10▪ 1...1*.. ••we••
r••w.m.
-
. ee•wr•a
•e•••aaewaaa n
12,20 201
WK €Y LEGEND
• ••+M t.. .
■ I•a. r11•
N NN NM
O MANS
• OF ••Y .I
• OF ..f ••w•
• swim Nona{
•- • ab. • MOM
w. FINNS. •..101
▪ WINN •J• I• M..I
€1 Mr Il l/
O 0.801• C NNW NUM
m •A K am
O war mew7 r r. WINN r• mom
O .rM Mr
.701411 • Itt
SIUD 4
• ••••M
r, --r =cant
- r - COMP M OWS
- M.1•.1 (USI
WOW MN*
CINOR TI MID
- 11rfa1' IMP
rl•0
-- - 1.--1111••••••
. .. • ••• — 111rO Mi NI NMI
..., ..— /rl •.
- *---.1— NON
— s— U.•I• Y. 7.u1 MI
av 1 1/11.6111
Mr Nom SI
Dvdo,9lff!< Me Or a - WO
0
I OW Moo d. .101i
1.11 taread •--161 ..11• -11•11
M••oel lbw lr••ea
Inca- Lle aM .. - NO
111.• •1 O.q•11o•i1.r. -•r•
Aw•oi 7.11 a11•• •1•• • p.. .1• -Ida ]
Avoca Pm i.nb . -WI
t am WW1= to a ra L *5 1111WM 611...•61 •..•.1.•w•..t I N..•a :. ..a ...M.
I. ill s. IS SIM On.•• OW& I•. •A• ••r* W.
a Min , 1••••I IM•• • ad ••II . .d papal* Nord Maim ly r +1•. .e►11•a *m a
or e •• Ion aim %•0• U*1•• 0•p11 ••••M••g wr.*•Sr *row.. 61.•61
ma ntes* , winos g eol ow sal Memoir
ammr•�.t•••d. •r� �rM.•i�ar•..•Ya.�i1• .•rM•Ia••W6pow* 6161
• •••Yampa •aw*/ Mama 1•r 1 1•• •11 ••1•.11.•.
ma rrr.•n+.tr•il►M...• ..Ml.r•i ps.wra.11.r•5
a •r 1 1.61. .•dr 1% 411•. 0.•. rmwdr 11.11. . &imp
• Y•..a•••lw *mama 4& NoI .1.srNod ••••10••
I, b.lr •14$_I •••r•0r1••e 1•d don 1••••. w•d am M•albr.a.*mow 1•.*Ina
• ry•w- 1611•.61 .••q•• Mw trow* • •WC i• i••• •d•i •• *army=
Arnim dr•i V•••
a
•• ••••d •.1• dr.w.• •.• •L •••0 •1•611.. ••• 410 .114••
1.•)• 11 1.1•Mr ►••yd. •w •61..-61.
1Nrlal 1I l
11. .• •••r..rrtpp*
0p -a lp Of 4.811
01111• ••113 Of01. VIM
KALB WNW
I booby a•My W •r r1•y, Ms, or 1 1)61 we Folioed •y r ..Ni1•
ay t en a p• .a1•• oe1 u.I I r • gi rt, .a •sII1.M 1. .wy.1.4.
Wh .add >r1. .f **mesas.
Orl• ••7.11 l ay . `4•1 •1.Mr.71tf.
MAUL ► ..•.•n P I barns ..s lilall• 41844
yn..irr••••0• . •a
4tySATHRE •BERGQUIST , INC
•
}
S'14.•
wirdw ••r rlraoaoe 1111161 0•1•4•41•110•1•4•41•11A
IrrN-/0.14 IN -1.1•5 bf• "MAL
G6RTIFIC ATl10P SURYBY
►afMA[OiOI
HANSON Alnl .nFIIS
Mbit CUM
OMA N MW
OlGle//MNP
{Late I11a10
�1�1•
MOOS SP AISII •iwi1110•It
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Plymouth Lot: Walkout Compliant small home
#18840 NOTE: Smaller home, Lower ceilings, meets Medina calculations even for walk-out lots
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Plymouth Side Elevation
#18840
Hanson Builders: Designed for Life
City of Plymouth Rear Walkout
#18840
I
�� nnu n�
rwu i w �u
I:1111kt i !�
I'II I
HANS OM
: fig ilc hirs
RESIDENCE FOR:
,VFSTN Mae LI t ez
EA sTwo00 SP • C
IMIOGIST AVE M
OUBISULLIIIIM
••••• •••• •0 04 1ELL .14 w �t
• r0Mt1riMCpMO.►
Mal rrwa o110. uor�
aUuea0 xrtr. w••wm
✓ twawuwrwvww
•• ••114.4.1•11.••••• •••
tde .63.11art sat,"
•••• •••• esew
u
ar _ r
&Assa m rums%
IfMlfi77 Z9 1+79707'
tlllr_rlt ES • eriztiOre
SURVEY LEGEND
• .Sr, RIRII
3,,, MOM
yea nr�e
Oaed IIQ
eer._Y• a lma
wanner ...ot
issi ssa .111•.1 .
I ... ...1 =Kerr
..-go... - ee1.•ea •orMO
+— OVOlmal ..o
e..000 WV
—OWN, WM.
MM
I—reOOM.
--.. OUSho lum .t ! 1■b
■ oe re,
-m--.— .M.e
—S—IMAM RIMS. IN
Y M1 �YWg1�MY
aeN le■w
NG .�alel/s-rt
MK OA 1r&•r
Mi. Rae I.Y.I - w
. Ie.I PIQ...• WV
Oinad fiat
T•r wyeadaslMrs
PIt.. ..t16•S.Ndle
Rajn ialleleir
11l .d fr. Alnw YsYler •v11
/Ma ma r•II..melam O..es • Sam I
b■01Au dI� U. Mika a. O * N CO PO AMMON..ram. so/ad Isamu( Oe■9r
•MT
/ • � R•BJt Sp v
' Sams 0-5.20'58•
- - 58 .04
S
• 61ST qyg oa - s"'m
NO RTH:
I talww .eo.•. Yr11•y eN.e• .M.wwM
1 Woo O ro t.. Warm •rlNl..rham oral /■.R► .4• •y.Maa••r.{bsrilkow. Ar
r ewtwr am aloha ■.M. I Iw Or co M limn" Timm.. woo awls e.ee7. .dilw la Ow
mama' a m. Some. a •ms whim moo lo moor holm my mamehOm Fos Ma OW SY alb 01•• •
moo rIa mmo, Y.law.. IYI•rOO1I•II■�e�.. llwyoma so amm o.* lord w sR amon wo of 011ea
es as mo il* Imo la ma*
bob Oar ol Wan • dams hi 1111/044 /al.
mmo aneroan lommi s Ysal. tram* .7yerdd watre.eawndea r wr.s•s s ok h MOMS* 1.
.. ne la 6 0.1141 00 NY ew• w..A Iwed ww.w...lA-n.. ...•.•
1. .w.. lwr. Woman( •Ia p pion r•••samsbw.••w away
I MMhalo rl le.+wwd M.we.ed■. sae M.d.w l.wad . n. .4r. 0.
S V e•elre el.wq shwa noon! mamma de. so pool w dw ...Mb e.. la dish. eYAr.l
{ .11 .r.. am mad A nima w s woo. wort NM....wT. ow w• •. r I. Ile amid OW swim. rasa
er._Y drd 1....
1 ■opw.e who M om .e.Mtwl..le Sonora . em• op HORS lo t
■ •• w/ Y•.i. MY. ID a. •woos. . •.•
A %whoa[
Tal WIon II& 11.1.01 MOM ROW MII• Y111 No
COS
,. ,..I M: Me. o Mw.
O el•sea Oa M. MM
mt.-10N M.1-e7 M
211"4,___4.0___ 20 40
>-aaaaa,
SCALE M 2yEr
1 Wary smmOO W d■Y dr. .. /Is, sr .rp•• .w lapsed y r N udder
•d dirnd l Oipw•YW K 6d I in • duly Lama lard fu rry*e►!M
II. Y.. of d■. O•A•n{rldl
Dowd WW 146 6r dOase, RO
D•r d L,1A. r& ►19 Nmes6 liras N. 71/$7
rMMyI.Anmr
SATNRE-BERGOU IST INC
aeW.no.o ir wr Mlw.w Ma' moo t ome -
Solos .e-tombw11 • %oral
OPI x16.!112
MO O M! ON
OWN ISIS
OI111O I®a►•ACC
Y.O ■ m6
PICNIC'S
Ci12TIPICa7Ti M SURVEY
RPM= Sit
HAN SON AUtLD PRS
NOU N Mawr Pm ell OeS4I111
1
CITY OF MEDINA 1
PLANNING COMMISSION 2
DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3
Tuesday July 12, 2022 4
5
1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Rhem called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6
7
Present: Planning Commissioners Ron Grajczyk, John Jacob, Cindy Piper, Justin Popp, and 8
Braden Rhem. 9
10
Absent: Planning Commissioners Beth Nielsen and Timothy Sedabres. 11
12
Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke. 13
14
2. Changes to Agenda 15
16
No comments made. 17
18
3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19
20
Reid provided an update on the considerations and actions of the City Council during the past 21
two meetings. 22
23
4. Representative at Next City Council Meeting 24
25
Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Popp volunteered 26
to attend in representation of the Commission. 27
28
5. Planning Department Report 29
30
Finke provided an update. 31
32
6. Public Hearing – SH Ventures, Inc. – Planned Unit Development Revised 33
Concept Plan (PID 0511823220005) 34
35
Finke stated that the Commission reviewed a concept for this property in fall of 2021 and the 36
applicant has since reduced the proposed scale. He stated that the concept would include nine 37
buildings on the 35-acre property. He stated that the property is guided future development 38
area (FDA) in the Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned rural residential/urban reserve. 39
He presented the concept site plan providing details on access and reviewing the conceptual 40
building drawings. He suggested that the Commission discuss the proposed use, the scale of 41
development, and whether the PUD objectives are achieved through this proposed 42
development. He stated that the previous concept proposed access to Highway 55, but the 43
updated concept proposes access from Pioneer Trail. He noted that dedication of right-of-44
way was also shown along the northern boundary of the site. He noted that if the plan does 45
move forward there is most likely flexibility within the layout to provide right-of-way in 46
different locations as preferred by staff. He noted that the rural business holding (RBH) 47
district standards were provided in the staff report for comparison purposes and advised that 48
those minimum standards are not met through this proposal. He noted that within the RBH 49
district the allowable space is determined based off SAC units, even though the property 50
would not connect to municipal water and provided additional details. 51
2
52
Rhem asked if a rezoning and/or Comprehensive Plan amendment would be necessary to 53
support this use. 54
55
Finke stated that a rezoning would be necessary, but there would need to be discussion on 56
whether a Comprehensive Plan amendment would also be necessary. 57
58
Rhem invited the applicant to address the Commission. 59
60
Bill Stoddard, applicant, commented that they have reduced the scale by over 30 percent 61
since the last concept review which uses only 13 percent of the gross land, while donating 3.6 62
acres to the City for future transportation purposes. He commented that while they reduced 63
the density, they also increased the overall land amount as they have an additional two plus 64
acres under contract. He stated that they also increased screening between the subject 65
property and property to the east. He commented that they left the northeast quadrant 66
basically empty in order to maintain the rural character in that area. He noted that they also 67
softened the look of the buildings to better blend into the area. He felt that this would be a 68
good use for the corridor as the property was previously zoned commercial. He believed that 69
this would fit well with the future development that will most likely occur in this area and it 70
will also increase the tax base of the City without placing additional burden on City services. 71
He noted that there is demand for this use in this area, noting that the existing auto 72
condominium complex will be sold out by the time this project moves forward. He believed 73
that this use would generate less noise and traffic than multiple homes. 74
75
Piper asked Lot 1, Block 2, is currently owned by the applicant. 76
77
Stoddard commented that there is a 31-acre property and six-acre property that he has under 78
contract but has not yet closed on. 79
80
Piper referenced the property to the south and asked if that is a residence. 81
82
Stoddard confirmed that is a home. He estimated 340 feet between the existing home and 83
proposed development. 84
85
Piper referenced Parcel B and asked if that is separate and for future expansion purposes. 86
87
Stoddard replied that it is proposed to be used for septic and would not be proposed to have 88
future development. 89
90
Rhem asked the applicant for input on the right-of-way recommendation of staff. 91
92
Stoddard replied that he was not aware that right-of-way would be wanted on both the north 93
and south. He noted that they are proposing 5.0 acres of development and would be donating 94
3.6 acres of right-of-way along the northern boundary. He stated that they would lose more 95
units if they provided that on the south as well, essentially donating more land to the City 96
than they would be developing. 97
98
Rhem stated that a second phase was mentioned and asked for details. 99
100
Stoddard stated that MnDOT mentions addressing the intersection at some time and therefore 101
has shown that the six-acre parcel could have a building of up to 20,000 square feet in the 102
future for planning purposes. 103
104
3
Rhem opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. 105
106
Brian Stewart, 4565 Pioneer Trail, stated that his family moved into the home two years ago 107
and chose the location in order to find a more rural area. He stated that he was surprised to 108
find this proposal for this property. He commented that he has a long driveway that touches 109
the covenant area. He was concerned with the additional traffic this could bring to the quiet 110
residential area. He noted that there is a large horse ranch on one side with a community of 111
residential homes on the other side. He did not believe this motorplex use would fit in that 112
area. He expressed concerns with noise from events as well as drinking and driving. He 113
stated that the land is currently priced very low because it is dirt, noting that he actually 114
checked into purchasing the property just to keep it vacant. He noted that Medina is not 115
lacking in tax base and could easily replace the tax base that would be generated from this 116
property with a few multi-million-dollar homes. He commented that Highway 55 is very 117
busy and believed that the additional vehicles from this site onto Pioneer Trail would not be 118
helpful and would turn that into a racetrack. He stated that if this is approved, he would come 119
back for a carwash that he would place at the end of his driveway. 120
121
Piper asked if the resident has a lot line shared with this proposed development. 122
123
Stewart commented that his driveway has a 23-foot easement at the end, which is one of the 124
seven involved in the covenant, therefore this request would impact the access to their 125
driveway. 126
127
Paul Humiston, 3955 Chippewa Circle, appreciated the comments from staff relating to 128
access. He stated that the first development that comes into that corridor along Highway 55 129
should include long-term plans for access that does not impact the residents to the east or the 130
horse farm. He stated that his property is south of this proposed development, and they 131
treasure the views from their property. He realized that there will eventually be development 132
but would like to see a better plan for it. He commented that this proposed development 133
would change what they can see and how their neighborhood is perceived. He stated that 134
they appreciate the community goals of Medina and noted that there is nothing remotely rural 135
in this proposal and did not believe it fit in this area of Medina. 136
137
Neil Campion, 4585 Pioneer Trail, commented that this concept came as somewhat of a 138
surprise. He stated that he met with the developer about one month ago to review the new 139
concept and commented that even though the development proposal has been scaled back, 140
that does not alleviate his concerns. He commented that his property is directly to the east of 141
this proposed development and to the south of the additional property under contract, 142
therefore he would be impacted on two sides. He stated that if this is approved, it should be 143
assumed that everything to the west and south should be an industrial park, and no one would 144
want to build a residential property adjacent to this development. He noted that unfortunately 145
the homes to the east are already built. He commented that Pioneer Trail is a nice road where 146
people can walk and kids can ride bikes, but that will be impacted by the additional traffic 147
this use would bring. He noted that this use would have monthly open houses and asked 148
where parking would occur for those events. He stated that he is not concerned with the view 149
from Highway 55 and is more concerned with the view that the existing residents would 150
have. He commented that he is against this proposal and the impact to privacy it would have 151
on the existing residents. 152
153
Leonard Leuer, 3625 Chippewa Road, commented that the motorplex would be the home of 154
several high-performance vehicles and was aware of no Medina maintained roads that has a 155
speed limit of over 40 mph. He commented that there has been more youthful exuberance on 156
the tar roads. He asked how these drivers would be dealt with and believed that it should be 157
4
the job of the applicant. He suggested that membership be tied to driver/vehicle infractions, 158
meaning that membership can be revoked for infractions. He commented that there is a 159
billboard on the property to the east and asked if that would be removed with this proposal. 160
161
Lisa Hanson, 4555 Pioneer Trail, appreciated the comments thus far as she also lives in the 162
area. She expressed concern for Pioneer Trail turning into a drag racing strip. She stated that 163
she walks her dog on that road and people ride horses on that road. She did not believe this 164
was a good fit for the property at this time. She stated that perhaps the access could be 165
provided from CR 19. 166
167
Brian Hauge, 3505 Pioneer Trail, stated that they built their home on 13 acres seven years 168
ago. He appreciated the concept of increasing tax base for the community but believed there 169
was a balance. He stated that he has three small children that ride their bikes with him on 170
Pioneer Trail to Hamel Road/Hamel Park. He stated that this past weekend they biked past 171
the motorplex on Arrowhead and there were vehicles racing by on Hamel Road. He 172
recognized that the vehicles were not doing anything illegal but acknowledged that there is an 173
impact. He stated that moving the access from Highway 55 to Pioneer just moves that 174
problem. He stated that there will be events at the facility and did not believe Pioneer Trail 175
was the logical access point. 176
177
Todd Albers, 4800 Covey Trail, stated that his road is about one mile east of the project. He 178
stated that he was a member of the Planning Commission and Steering Committee when the 179
Comprehensive Plan was developed. He noted that this property was purposely designated as 180
FDA in order to purposefully postpone development. He stated that the committee spent a lot 181
of time listening to residents, addressing those concerns, and protecting the rural vistas and 182
viewsheds. He stated that the Metropolitan Council is looking to place additional 183
infrastructure in this general area, although it may be located in another community, and if 184
that is done, this area would be needed for residential development in order to support the 185
infrastructure. He stated that he is also very opposed to the access on Pioneer Trail as that 186
road is not currently designed to handle additional traffic. He commented that there is a lot of 187
pedestrian traffic without shoulders. He stated that additional traffic would create hazards for 188
residents in this area. 189
190
Rhem closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. 191
192
Popp stated that many of the comments from the public align with what he has been thinking. 193
He stated that he was opposed to this when the Commission reviewed it in the fall and did not 194
see anything that changes that. He did not see synergy with the existing infrastructure and 195
would like to honor and preserve the rural heritage of Medina. He stated that this strongly 196
contradicts rural residential and specifically the existing residents to the east. He stated that it 197
is not assumed that there will be commercial development in this area, and it could become 198
residential. He stated that the use of FDA is smart planning, and the City should not take that 199
for granted. He did not see a benefit in changing the use. He stated that while there would be 200
economic benefit for the City through this development, it would impact the reasons why 201
residents move to Medina. He stated that he still opposes this development concept. 202
203
Piper echoed the comments of Popp. She stated that she did not like the concept in the fall 204
and still does not like it. 205
206
Jacob asked the typical setback from Highway 55. He noted that most businesses are not 207
visible from Highway 55. 208
209
5
Finke replied that the minimum setback in the planned development area is 50 feet but 210
acknowledged that many facilities are setback further. 211
212
Jacob agreed that Pioneer Trail would not be a good fit for access to the site and believed that 213
should come from CR 19. He asked if there have been any traffic studies that would provide 214
data on the traffic patterns of a motorplex use. 215
216
Finke stated that traffic counts have not been done specific to that use. 217
218
Jacob stated that it would be interesting to know that for comparison purposes to different 219
uses. He noted that a set of buildings would be relatively calm with the exception of their 220
events but agreed that he would not want to live next to that use either. 221
222
Grajczyk stated that it is good to have FDA areas in Medina as a placeholder for future 223
development and allow the community to react to future needs. He stated that Highway 55 is 224
a major thoroughfare and will be extremely busy in the future. He stated that he likes the 225
FDA guiding and believes it should remain. He stated that currently there are five homes to 226
the east and reviewed other adjacent uses, noting that this is a mixed-use area that will pose 227
challenges in the future. He stated that even the existing motorplex should work with the 228
City Police to ensure safety is provided for events. He stated that he does like the idea of 229
creating some type of frontage roads heading to the west towards CR 19, which would 230
provide an opportunity to open that area and reduce traffic. He stated that the goal is to have 231
a well-rounded community and would like to see the FDA remain on the parcel to allow the 232
City to react to future needs. 233
234
Rhem echoed the comments of the Commission. He stated that he is opposed to the concept 235
and has concerns with access on Pioneer Trail. 236
237
Finke noted that this concept will be presented to the City Council at its August 3rd meeting. 238
239
7. Approval of the June 14, 2022 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 240
241 Motion by Piper, seconded by Jacob, to approve the June 14, 2022, Planning Commission 242
minutes with the noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Nielson and 243
Sedabres) 244
245
8. Adjourn 246
247
Motion by Grajczyk, seconded by Piper, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Motion 248
carried unanimously. 249