HomeMy Public PortalAbout09.06.2022 City Council Meeting Packet Posted 09//02/2022 Page 1 of 1
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, September 6, 2022
7:00 P.M.
Medina City Hall
2052 County Road 24
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the August 16, 2022, Work Session
B. Minutes of the August 16, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Resolution Accepting the Resignation of Tim Sedabres from the Planning Commission
B. Extend Deadline for Meander Park and Boardwalk PUD General Plan Application
VI. COMMENTS
A. From Citizens on Items Not on the Agenda
B. Park Commission
C. Planning Commission
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. 2023 Preliminary Budget & Tax Levy
1. Resolution Approving Proposed Tax Levy for 2023
2. Resolution Approving Proposed General Fund Budget for 2023
3. Resolution Reducing Debt Service Tax Levies for 2023
4. Establish Public Discussion Date for Final 2023 Tax Levy and Budget
B. Weston Woods Building Height PUD Amendment
1. Ordinance Amending the Weston Woods of Medina PUD District
2. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and Summary
C. Water Treatment Plant Filters 1 and 2 Rehabilitation Project
1. Resolution Approving Bidding Documents and Authorizing the Advertisement for Bids
VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
IX. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
XI. ADJOURN
Meeting Rules of Conduct to Address
the City Council:
• Fill out & turn in comment card
• Give name and address
• Indicate if representing a group
• Limit remarks to 3-5 minutes
MEMORANDUM
TO: Medina Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator
DATE OF REPORT: September 1, 2022
DATE OF MEETING: September 6, 2022
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Report
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve Resolution Accepting Resignation of Tim Sedabres from the Planning
Commission – Tim Sedabres has resigned from his position on the Planning Commission
effective August 15. Staff recommends approval of the resolution accepting Tim
Sedabres’ resignation.
See attached resolution.
B. Extend Deadline for Meander Park and Boardwalk PUD General Plan Application – The
applicant intends to submit their application in the next month and has requested an
extension of time. Staff does not have concerns with providing an extension in this case
and recommends approval of the extension of time to submit the General Plan of
Development for the Meander Park and Boardwalk PUD until December 30, 2022
See attached memo.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
A. 2023 Preliminary Budget & Tax Levy – Staff will provide a brief presentation on the
proposed tax levy and general fund budget at the regular council meeting. A budget open
house will take place at the 6 PM Work Session. The proposed 2023 general fund budget is
included with the packet.
Recommended Motions:
1. Adopt the resolution approving the 2023 preliminary tax levy.
2. Adopt the resolution approving the 2023 preliminary general fund budget.
3. Adopt the resolution reducing debt service tax levies for 2023.
4. Establish the 2023 final tax levy and budget discussion for December 6, 2022,
at 7:00 p.m.
B. Weston Woods Building Height PUD Amendment – 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.
2
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.
Recommended Motions:
1. Adopt ordinance amending the Weston Woods PUD to increase maximum
height of the single-family lots to 36 feet
2. Adopt resolution authorizing publication by title and summary
C. Water Treatment Plant Filters 1 and 2 Rehabilitation Project – WSB completed a
feasibility study of the Medina water treatment plant in March 2022 in response to the
treatment deficiencies experienced at the facility in 2021. The feasibility study
recommended to proceed with a rehabilitation project of the existing filters in 2022 and to
expand the plant by installing a third filter in 2024 to meet the short-term and long-term
water demands. Since the completion of the feasibility study, plans and bidding
documents have been prepared for the filter rehabilitation project and are ready for City
Council review and discussion.
Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution approving bidding documents and authorizing
the advertisement for bids.
X. APPROVAL TO PAY BILLS
Recommended Motion: Motion to approve the bills, EFT 006497E-006522E for $109,818.69,
and order check numbers 053338-053389 for $181,499.25, and payroll EFT 0512087-0512149
for $116,704.99.
INFORMATION PACKET:
• Planning Department Update
• Police Department Update
• Public Works Department Update
• Claims List
Medina City Council Work Session Minutes
August 16, 2022
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES OF
AUGUST 16, 2022
The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in work session on August 16, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. at
the Medina City Hall, 2052 County Road 24, Medina, MN.
I. Call to Order
Members present: Martin, Albers, Cavanaugh, DesLauriers,
Members absent: Reid
Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, City Clerk/Assistant to the City
Administrator Caitlyn Walker, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, Finance Director Erin
Barnhart, Public Safety Director Jason Nelson, Planning Director Dusty Finke
II. 2023 Budget and CIP Discussion
Finance Director Erin Barnhart provided the City Council with an updated draft budget for 2023.
Barnhart presented two options for the property tax levy. Option #1 has a 22.596% 2023 tax rate
which is a 0.0% tax rate increase from the 2022 levy. This would be an overall tax levy increase
of $1,023,549, a 20.6% increase from 2022. Option #2 has a $21.685% tax rate which is a 4.0%
tax rate decrease from the 2022 levy. This would be an overall tax levy increase of $786,077, a
15.8% increase from 2022. The City Council agreed to move forward with Option #1. They
supported this option to put a significant amount of the revenue increase towards future fire
needs and a fire facility.
The Council also briefly discussed the need to continue evaluating the way staff benefits and
compensation are structured. This topic will be covered under the compensation study with
DDA in 2023.
Public Safety Director Jason Nelson provided a brief update on the Community Service Officer
(CSO) recruitment process which will be discussed under item 8D during the regular meeting of
the city council following the work session meeting. Nelson explained that the applicant pool is
very limited and that he will be requesting the authority to hire one full-time CSO instead of two
part-time CSOs.
III. Adjourn
Cavanaugh made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:46 p.m. on August 16, 2022. Martin
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
1
DRAFT 1
2
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2022 3
4
The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in regular session on August 16, 2022 at 5
7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Chambers. Mayor Martin presided. 6
7
I. ROLL CALL 8
9
Members present: Albers, Cavanaugh, DesLauriers, and Martin. 10
11
Members absent: Reid. 12
13
Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, Attorney Dave Anderson, Finance 14
Director Erin Barnhart, City Engineer Jim Stremel, City Planning Director Dusty Finke, 15
Planning Consultant Nate Sparks, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, City 16
Clerk/Assistant to the City Administrator Caitlyn Walker, and Chief of Police Jason 17
Nelson. 18
19
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (7:00 p.m.) 20
21
III. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA (7:01 p.m.) 22
The agenda was approved as presented. 23
24
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (7:01 p.m.) 25
26
A. Approval of the August 3, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 27
Martin noted that prior to the meeting Johnson distributed changes that she proposed for 28
incorporation. 29
30
Moved by Albers, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the August 3, 2022 regular City 31
Council meeting minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 32
33
V. CONSENT AGENDA (7:02 p.m.) 34
35
A. Approve Resolution Accepting the Resignation of Community Service 36
Officer Jackson Carroll-Billman 37
B. Approve Resolution Granting Extension to File for Final Plat Approval for 38
Pioneer Trail Reserve 39
C. Approve WSB Service Quote for Wellhead Protection Plan Amendment Part 40
1 41
D. Approve Chippewa Road Watermain Extension Agreement 42
E. Appoint June Ney to Youth Park Commission Seat 43
Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by DesLauriers, to approve the consent agenda. 44
Motion passed unanimously. 45
46
VI. COMMENTS (7:03 p.m.) 47
48
A. Comments from Citizens on Items not on the Agenda 49
There were none. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
2
B. Park Commission 1
Scherer reported that the Park Commission will meet the following night to discuss the 2
Loram/Scannell proposal in terms of park dedication, a grandstand proposal from the 3
Hamel Athletic Club and Hamel Hawks, and Lakeshore Park improvements. He noted 4
that the improvements at Lakeshore Park will focus on enjoyment of the lake and a few 5
items may be moved to Maple Park. He noted that four youth members applied to join 6
the Commission. 7
8
DesLauriers asked for an update on Hunter Park. 9
10
Scherer provided an update on the pickleball court progress. He believed it would be 11
finished this fall but noted that they are awaiting the nets. 12
13
C. Planning Commission 14
Planning Commissioner Rhem reported that the Commission held five public hearings 15
the previous week. He stated that one of which was the concept plan for the apartment 16
building at 500 Hamel Road. He stated that comments were received from the public 17
and the Commission expressing concern with the scale and that it did not fit into the 18
area. The suggestion was made to focus on reduction of scale, architectural and design 19
improvements, and a second entrance. He stated that the Commission also considered 20
an ordinance amendment for integrated development, which the Commission 21
recommended for approval. He stated that the Commission considered the 22
Loram/Scannell proposal and felt that the application was not complete, desired more 23
stormwater information and requested more information to come back for review. He 24
stated that the Commission lastly considered a PUD amendment for Weston Woods to 25
allow additional height for walk out homes and the Commission recommended approval 26
of that item as well. 27
28
VII. PRESENTATIONS 29
30
A. Resolution Recognizing Administrative Assistant to the Police Department 31
Anne Klaers for 15 Years of Service to the City of Medina (7:11 p.m.) 32
Martin read the draft resolution recognizing Anne Klaers for 15 years of service to the 33
City of Medina. 34
35
Moved by Cavanaugh, seconded by DesLauriers, to Adopt the Resolution Recognizing 36
Administrative Assistant to the Police Department Anne Klaers for 15 Years of Service to 37
the City of Medina. Motion passed unanimously. 38
39
Albers expressed appreciation for the work Ms. Klaers does. 40
41
Nelson commented that Ms. Klaers is firm, tough and has great customer service. He 42
commented that she takes care of the department and is very dedicated. He stated that 43
he could not ask for a more loyal and good employee. He commented that his 44
department is like a big family, and she is like the mother hen, watching over them. 45
46
VIII. NEW BUSINESS 47
48
A. Medina Apartments LLC – 500 Hamel Road – Concept Plan Review (7:17 49
p.m.) 50
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
3
Johnson stated that the applicant has requested review of a concept plan for 1
development of a 97-unit apartment building at 500 Hamel Road. 2
3
Cavanaugh stated that he will be recusing himself from this discussion as he has done 4
for previous requests for this property. He explained that he does not have a financial 5
interest in this property, but he does own the adjacent property and granted an 6
easement to the first developer for this property. 7
8
Finke stated that this property is designated and zoned Uptown Hamel, which 9
encourages concept plan review for any development plan application. He stated that 10
the land use contemplates a mix of residential and commercial uses, noting that 11
residential development would have a density range between four and 20 units per acre 12
while 15 to 20 units per acre is allowed if there is underground parking. He stated that 13
this request would include underground parking and with a parcel size of approximately 14
five acres the request would have 19.8 units per acre as proposed. He reviewed the 15
proposed Site Plan noting that parking is proposed underground with more than one 16
space per unit and additional surface parking proposed behind the building. He noted 17
that there is a utility easement running along the street for this property which would not 18
allow development as close to the street as typically required in the zoning district. He 19
advised that the previous development request for this property was granted a variance 20
to allow a larger front setback to avoid that utility easement. He displayed the 21
architectural rendering of the building and provided details on the proposed 22
infrastructure including the access to the building, potential improvements to Hamel 23
Road, and proposed trail along Hamel Road. He noted that staff would recommend 24
additional connectivity for pedestrians and recreation opportunities onsite to support the 25
97 units. He stated that while the previous development request for this property would 26
have required looped watermain, this proposal would utilize private services that would 27
connect to Hamel Road. He stated that the stormwater pond to the west was planned to 28
accommodate the water from this site, but an additional pond is shown to the north to 29
accommodate additional stormwater. He stated that the previous development request 30
went into detail on the buried debris onsite and staff would recommend the same type of 31
plan for management of that material. He provided details on the building height and 32
noted that staff has made suggestions to break up the mass of the building. He noted 33
that the zoning district requires the third story to be setback from the other two stories. 34
He explained that the applicant believes that the front porch element provides that 35
required setback of the third story, therefore staff desires input from the Council on that 36
element. He noted that the Planning Commission held a public hearing the previous 37
week at which several residents spoke in opposition of the proposed development, 38
raising concerns related to traffic, the scale of the development, etc. He stated that 39
those minutes were provided in the Council packet along with the technical comments of 40
staff. 41
42
Albers asked for more detail on the third level setback requirement. 43
44
Finke explained that the third story is intended to be setback a minimum of six feet from 45
the lower levels. He stated that the applicant can speak to the elements they 46
incorporated in an attempt to address that but noted that much of the building has a 47
single face. 48
49
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
4
Martin commented that she does not believe the first-floor porches constitute structure 1
and stated that the second floor is clearly identified, and the six feet would be counted 2
back from the second floor. 3
4
Albers commented that he has a hard time visualizing that. 5
6
Martin provided different examples of things that could be incorporated to provide that 7
relief. She stated that when reviewing the materials, she thought that this building 8
looked similar to another along Highway 55 that is a flat line and seems to go on for a 9
long amount of time. She did not believe the building was appealing aesthetically. She 10
explained that Uptown Hamel is the heart of the community, and they desire walkability 11
and development that enhances that community with plazas and a mix with retail uses. 12
She noted that this just seems like a row of apartments. She stated that height is a big 13
issue and would challenge the east side, with the parking rising up from the ground with 14
three stories. 15
16
DesLauriers stated that if 50 feet is the maximum height and this has a proposed height 17
of 45 feet. He asked if it would actually be considered 53 feet if they are starting with 18
eight feet. 19
20
Finke explained that the City measures building height from the average grade. 21
22
Martin asked if the increased grade has an impact on the building height. 23
24
Finke explained that it does not as every site is effectively graded. 25
26
Mark Buchholz, applicant, commented that he also agrees that the architecture needs 27
work. He stated that he was encouraged following the Planning Commission that there 28
was input from the community that they can incorporate into their design. He stated that 29
they chose this location because of the community. He stated that they want to engage 30
the community, Council, and staff to have discussion in order to develop a project that 31
everyone can be happy with and that will enhance the vibrancy of Uptown Hamel. He 32
stated that they reached out to a community member in order to setup a meeting with 33
community members to continue to gather input and work together. He commented that 34
they recently built in Monticello and even though the residents were not initially 35
supportive, the project has been a success and they have a letter of recommendation 36
from that community. 37
38
Martin stated that she appreciates the tone and open mindedness. She recognized the 39
comments that have been received from residents and Planning Commission thus far 40
that will also be provided to the developer if they have not already. She stated that the 41
Council has read the minutes from the Planning Commission already. She commented 42
on a recent development approved for Hamel Road that followed a similar process and 43
where the developer was able to work with the Council to incorporate different 44
architectural elements to better meet the Uptown Hamel vision. She recognized the 45
desire for walkability and a reduced front setback but acknowledged that this building 46
must be setback 30 feet because of the utility easement. She stated that 30 feet allows 47
creativity and provided some examples. She commented that the design provided does 48
not meet her definition of a porch. She also provided different ideas that could be 49
incorporated to break up the mass of the building and setback that third story. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
5
Buchholz stated that they included a lower detail concept in order to gather this feedback 1
to proceed with design. 2
3
Martin provided additional ideas that could be incorporated to better fit with the rural 4
character of the community. 5
6
Albers agreed with the comments that the third level should be setback. He asked the 7
length of the building along Hamel Road. 8
9
Buchholz stated that he is unsure as his architect had a conflict and could not attend 10
tonight. 11
12
Finke estimated about 400 feet. 13
14
Albers commented that he did not believe the intent for Uptown Hamel was to have a 15
400-foot building running along the road. He stated that there is a townhome 16
development a few properties east of this noting that the orientation of the townhomes 17
broke up the view to make it appear smaller. He stated that perhaps the end of the 18
building faces Hamel Road to reduce that scale. 19
20
Buchholz stated that it was their perception of the zoning ordinance that they should 21
build to Hamel Road. He noted that there are also site constraints with the existing 22
stormwater pond and preserve that need to be maintained on the property. He stated 23
that they are also working with Braun Intertec to manage the buried debris and they 24
have found that the best solution would be to leave that debris in place with the 25
approved MPCA cover above, which would be the parking lot. He commented that they 26
want this to fit in with the small town feel of Uptown Hamel. 27
28
Albers stated that if this comes back he would not want to see a 400-foot building 29
running along Hamel Road. 30
31
DesLauriers stated that this almost looks like a hotel. He referenced the comment about 32
a fire lane and noted that if the units are broken up, that fire lane could come through. 33
He commented that there may be a challenge with only one access for the site. 34
35
Todd Olen, representing the applicant, acknowledged the vision for Uptown Hamel 36
noting that they attempted to find a balance between the site constraints and what is 37
allowed by the zoning district. He referenced the regional basin, noting that there is a 38
natural grade increase from the basin to the property. He commented that they 39
attempted to fit the building into the natural grade of the property with the surface 40
parking hidden behind the building. He provided additional details on the grading that 41
would be necessary for the site. He stated that the regional stormwater basin on the 42
west side of the property has two basins, a wet pond and infiltration basin. He stated 43
that the high-water elevation is a controller as to where the lowest floor elevation and 44
opening can be. He stated that their goal is to direct as much water from the site as they 45
can into the regional basin, while the lower portion would drain into a smaller basin they 46
would create to the northeast. 47
48
Martin recognized that there are site constraints for 97 units, whereas there would be 49
less constraint with a lesser number of units and smaller scale development. She stated 50
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
6
that there could be more flexibility and more interest if there are multiple buildings. She 1
asked the height from the right-of-way. 2
3
Olen provided details on the elevation from the first floor at both sides of the building. 4
He stated that there was a recommendation from the Fire Chief to consider a second 5
access. He noted that as an alternative they did show proof of circulation for a 60-foot 6
fire truck as recommended by Code. 7
8
Martin commented that one concern with three story buildings is fire safety and 9
emergency evacuation that would rely on a ladder truck. She was curious if a ladder 10
truck could circulate through the property. 11
12
DesLauriers commented on the different scenarios he would be concerned with in an 13
emergency scenario for a fire vehicle on the site. He stated that the previous 14
development concept had a nice path in and out of the site. He stated that perhaps that 15
could be considered if the building is broken up a bit. 16
17
Buchholz commented that there is a 30-foot drive with no parking, therefore there would 18
be sufficient space for multiple vehicles to pass, even if a vehicle is in the way. 19
20
Martin commented that she would be curious if a ladder truck could navigate the site. 21
She stated that they could go into quite a bit of detail with windows, plazas, etc. She 22
stated that she was concerned that when people are walking along Hamel, they would 23
be looking up at the building constructed on an earthen pedestal. She stated that 24
perhaps there could be more ingenuity in the design to better incorporate this into the 25
community. 26
27
DesLauriers commented that the developer received a lot of feedback from the 28
community, Planning Commission and Council that they could work with to present a 29
better design. 30
31
Buchholz stated that they were trying to understand the desires of the community and 32
City while still meeting the zoning criteria. He stated that when looking at the whole site, 33
the wetlands are not buildable land, but this would not be as overpowering as there is 34
still much more than five or six acres on this site. 35
36
Martin commented that the Council has read all the comments expressed at the 37
Planning Commission meeting as well as the written comments received. She provided 38
another opportunity for residents to provide comments. 39
40
Frank Mignone, 3316 Red Fox Drive, commented that at the Planning Commission the 41
hazardous waste on the site was discussed. He commented that additional hazardous 42
waste was dumped on the site following the material that was buried on the site. He 43
stated that Medina purchased a small piece of that land and spent $200,000 to clean up 44
that land. He stated that pouring concrete over the waste does not destroy it. He 45
commented that the backyard of this property would be the railroad and unless there is a 46
fence constructed it would endanger the lives of the children living on the property. He 47
commented that he has 4.5 acres with one sewer and one well. He asked how 97 units 48
would be supported by private utilities. He commented that this building should enhance 49
the neighborhood but believed that this does the opposite. 50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
7
Martin stated that she had not thought about a fence but agreed that would be a good 1
element to incorporate. 2
3
DesLauriers stated that perhaps walking paths could also be added through the 4
wetlands. 5
6
Fred Stelter, 14505 43rd Avenue N in Plymouth, stated that he was the former developer 7
that gained approval for the villa development. He stated that ultimately the ponding is 8
put at the high side of the site, therefore Elm Creek Watershed introduced new rules 9
which wiped out the ability to have basements on much of the property, therefore the 10
cost for the infrastructure exploded on the site and it was no longer feasible to construct 11
single-family residential on the site. He stated that he received many comments that an 12
apartment building would be preferred for drainage. He stated that this development 13
would work better with the land. He stated that in terms of the debris he also worked 14
with Braun Intertec and there is not hazardous waste on the site, it is construction debris 15
that is buried. He commented that he had the same issue with the topography of the site 16
because of the layout of Hamel Road and of the site. He stated that the developer is 17
doing their best to work with the topography and challenges of the site. 18
19
DesLauriers recalled that the Preliminary Plat for the villas was approved for slab on 20
grade and did not recall basements. 21
22
Stetler replied that they had switched to include basements for Final Plat because of the 23
cost for the piers. He stated that days before Final Plat submission he pulled the project 24
because Elm Creek changed how the regulations were applied. 25
26
Martin commented that the reason there is higher density for this property is because it 27
abuts industrial property and therefore transitionally it would make sense to have multi-28
family housing on the site. 29
30
Andy Bell, 3485 Elm Creek Drive, referenced the second pond proposed in the northeast 31
and asked how much water that would introduce to the wetlands. He stated that his 32
property receives a lot of backup water during rain events. 33
34
Olem explained that Elm Creek is stricter than most and provided input on the 35
regulations they would have to meet. He noted that post development they would need 36
to meet or reduce the pre-construction runoff rates. He stated that the regional basin 37
accommodates runoff from several properties including the subject property. He stated 38
that the regional pond was intended to manage all the water from the subject site but 39
because of the topography of the site there is no physical way for all that to drain to the 40
regional basin which is why they proposed a second basin. 41
42
Llyod Hilgart, Mayor of Monticello, stated that Buchholz asked him to write a letter of 43
recommendation and he said that he would be happy to attend and speak. He noted 44
that he spoke with Martin the previous week as well. He stated that he met Buchholz 45
and his partner four years ago when they presented a project in Monticello that was not 46
warmly received. He stated that there was a lot of collaboration that occurred which 47
resulted in a great project. He commented that they also collaborated on another 48
redevelopment in their downtown which is just about to kick off. He stated that they had 49
been attempting to redevelop their downtown for many decades and between the City 50
staff, the developers, the EDA, and City Council, it has been a pleasure to work together. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
8
He stated that the developers do what they say and hold and manage their projects after 1
construction. He recognized that there is opposition to development in every community 2
when a site has been vacant. He stated that if the developer moves forward in Medina, 3
the City will be pleased with the end result and product developed. 4
5
Albers asked where the first project is located in Monticello. 6
7
Hilgart provided details on the location of the first project, which is south and west of the 8
new fire station. He provided additional details on the collaboration for the project. He 9
stated that the second project includes removal of asbestos, knocking buildings down, 10
and redevelopment. 11
12
Kendall Arrow, 3435 Elm Creek Drive, stated that she spoke with Buchholz following the 13
Planning Commission meeting and he commented that there is nothing better than a 14
sunset over an open field. She noted that the property is an open field, and the 15
neighbors enjoy that. She commented that while Stetler stated that the material on the 16
site is buried construction debris, it was actually noted the previous week that is the 17
buried debris from the burned Medina Ballroom. She stated that she has read articles 18
that there is asbestos on the site. She stated that Uptown Hamel is not Fargo and 19
therefore the design does not fit. She commented that Uptown Hamel is also not 20
Monticello. She stated that she did research on the Monticello project noting that at one 21
of the meetings the developer stated that amenities cost money. She noted that the only 22
amenity in this building would be underground parking and commented that there is only 23
one elevator for 97 units. She stated that if these are intended to be luxury apartments, 24
she would desire amenities on the site. She also asked for traffic analysis on the roads 25
in this area, outside of Hamel Road as many people will take Elm Creek Drive as an 26
alternate route. She expressed concern for the children in her neighborhood as there 27
are no sidewalks. 28
29
Kyle Gregor, 495 Ridgeview Circle, asked why Stetler is advocating on behalf of the 30
developer. He did not believe Stetler should have an interest anymore. He asked if the 31
infrastructure could support this number of tenants. He commented that he would also 32
be interested in a traffic study, noting that Hunter Road would be a good place for a 33
speed trap. He commented that these are supposed to be class A apartments but asked 34
if the apartments could be fully leased at a high rent. He asked what would happen if 35
the units could not be fully leased at that rate, whether that would decrease the class of 36
the apartments. 37
38
Martin appreciated the input of the residents from this neighborhood, noting that she met 39
many of the residents in this area and it is an area the City takes pride in. She did not 40
want to see the integrity of that neighborhood compromised by this development. 41
42
Dan Lamere, 4625 Brockton Lane, commented that his aunt lives at 465 Hamel Road. 43
He stated that the word luxury was thrown around at the Planning Commission meeting 44
but was unsure how that classification would fit with the ponds and train. He stated that 45
it also sounded like a walkway would be installed to connect to the park area across the 46
hill and asked how they would cross the creek. He stated that he is not excited about 47
this plan and a 400-foot building at that height is a problem. 48
49
Rock Moore, 3475 Elm Creek Drive, echoed the comments of the previous speakers. 50
He commented that this is clay country and his home shakes when the train goes by. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
9
He stated that this building would move from the train, and it would not be luxury. He 1
stated that the residents in this area do not want this development. He expressed 2
concern with traffic and safety concerns for the children in that area. He commented 3
that his property often floods, and he would want a guarantee that this would not further 4
flood his property. 5
6
Paul Gressel, 3431 Elm Creek Drive, stated that his family recently moved to their home 7
and chose this area because it is unique and not like the other communities in the area. 8
He stated that other communities have the same development look, whereas this area 9
has unique character. He stated that the developer and his team have been kind about 10
accepting input from residents. He stated that he is not anti-development. He noted that 11
this proposal is one unit less than the maximum allowed. He stated that the design does 12
not fit the area or consider the City. He stated that the debris discussion did not include 13
the mention of asbestos. He stated that they contested the input from the Fire 14
Department when a second access was recommended. He noted that the developer 15
spoke with the Mayor of Monticello, asking him to come speak but has not spoken with 16
the adjacent property owner who expressed concern for the hazardous chemicals that 17
could come in his windows during construction. He stated that the developer did not 18
propose dedication of park land and instead proposed paying a higher fee. He 19
commented that there are no amenities for a family that may move into this property. He 20
commented that these appear to be signs that the intent does not match the words being 21
spoken. He commented that this is early in the process for development of Uptown 22
Hamel and believed that the City should not accept the first development plan and 23
instead should stick to the vision for the community. 24
25
Martin stated that perhaps a better expression of the market needs should be discussed 26
along with the proposed amenities for the building. She commented that developers in 27
more confrontational developments have met with residents and noted that perhaps that 28
would be beneficial in this situation. She stated that there is always attention in the City 29
when the property is zoned to accommodate a certain type of development while also 30
appeasing the desires of residents. She noted that this site is adjacent to commercial 31
development and an industrial park, therefore multi-family would be a good transitional fit 32
going into residential development. She stated that the Metropolitan Council also 33
attempts to spread growth between the communities and specifies that cities must 34
identify sites that could support more dense development, noting that this is one of those 35
sites. She stated that Medina is lucky that this site falls in the Uptown Hamel zoning 36
district which has additional design criteria. She stated that in order to meet the design 37
criteria the unit count may need to be reduced. She commented that they would need to 38
see something more aesthetically pleasing and that feels right for the area. She stated 39
that this is an opportunity to work with the developer to create something more 40
amenable to everyone. She stated that the City can provide a building to accommodate 41
the dialogue between the developer and residents. She thanked the development team, 42
Mayor of Monticello, and residents for their input tonight. 43
44
Cavanaugh rejoined the Council. 45
46
Martin briefly recessed the meeting. 47
48
Martin reconvened the meeting. 49
50
51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
10
B. Hamel Townhomes (8:50 p.m.) 1
Johnson stated the Hamel Townhomes project is approximately a two-acre site with 30 2
townhomes proposed. He stated the request is for Final Plat consideration. 3
4
DesLauriers recused himself from the discussion. 5
6
Sparks presented a request for Final Plat for Hamel Townhomes at 342 Hamel Road. 7
He stated that the subject site is adjacent to the Rainwater Nature Preserve and 8
reviewed the other adjacent uses. He stated that Preliminary Plat approval was granted 9
on June 7, 2022 and noted that the units would be available for individual ownership with 10
an HOA for the shared amenities and spaces. He reviewed the purpose of Final Plat 11
review and stated that the project is not changing from the Preliminary Plat approval. He 12
stated that there were comments made during Preliminary Plat to be incorporated. He 13
provided details on circulation, areas to be marked no parking, tree removal and grading, 14
tree replacement and the landscaping plan, and architectural changes. He noted that 15
the two buildings facing the street were of the most concern to the Council and displayed 16
the proposed elevation for the building facing the street. He presented the draft Final 17
Plat resolution and noted the conditions that would be included. He stated that this is 18
generally consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and additional details were 19
provided for architecture, trees, and landscaping to address the previous comments. He 20
stated that staff recommends approval as presented. 21
22
Martin noted that the report was extremely detailed including the draft resolution and 23
conditions that incorporate the comments made previously. She stated that she was 24
satisfied with the architectural details that were added as well as the enhanced 25
landscaping and trees. She stated that there were previous comments made relating to 26
the HOA documents and regulations related to the front porches and what can be stored 27
on the porches. She referenced the comments related to signage to ensure there is not 28
parking in front of garages and believed that should be within the Development 29
Agreement and HOA documents. 30
31
Anderson stated that there is nothing memorialized in the Development Agreement 32
related to stipulations about storage on the front porches but noted he could add that 33
information. 34
35
Martin stated that she would want the regulation to address items that can be on the 36
porch as well as conduct. 37
38
Anderson confirmed that the no parking in front of garages is addressed in the 39
Development Agreement and private road document. 40
41
Martin commented on the eight guest parking spaces, which is limited parking, and 42
therefore resident parking is not allowed in those spaces. She commented that 43
residents will not read the Development Agreement and perhaps language should be 44
included in the HOA documents as that is more likely to be read by residents. She also 45
referenced snow removal and wanted it clear that snow cannot be stockpiled on the site. 46
47
Anderson confirmed that those items can be addressed in the agreement. He noted that 48
part of the private road would be marked as a fire lane which would also prevent parking. 49
He confirmed that the language and stipulations can be added to the HOA agreement as 50
well as the other agreements. 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
11
1
1. Resolution Granting Final Plat for Hamel Townhomes – 342 Hamel 2
Road 3
Moved by Martin, seconded by Albers, to Adopt the Resolution Granting Final Plat 4
Approval of the Hamel Townhomes Subdivision with the caveat that the HOA documents 5
will incorporate additional regulations. Motion passed unanimously. 6
7
2. Development Agreement 8
Moved by Martin, seconded by Albers, to Approve the Development Agreement by and 9
between the City of Medina and Hamel Townhomes LLC with the understanding that the 10
City Attorney will enhance the agreement related to the HOA provision and City Attorney 11
review to ensure the matters regarding storage and conduct on the porches, snow 12
storage limitations, parking restrictions, and marketing materials provide easily 13
understandable information about the restrictions. Motion passed unanimously. 14
15
DesLauriers rejoined the Council. 16
17
C. Industrial Park Integrated Development Ordinance (9:11 p.m.) 18
Johnson stated that this item would provide flexibility for integrated developments that 19
share site improvements. He noted that most of the zoning districts allow for this 20
flexibility whereas the industrial district does not. 21
22
Finke stated that this would make amendments to the industrial zoning district to better 23
align with what is allowed in the business districts. He noted that these changes would 24
be consistent with other intents in the zoning district. He stated that the Planning 25
Commission supported the proposed changes and provided a brief review of the 26
proposed changes to the ordinance. 27
28
Martin provided some grammatical suggestions. 29
30
1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code Pertaining to Lot 31
Standards within Integrated Developments 32
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to Adopt the Ordinance Pertaining to Lot 33
Standards within Integrated Developments, subject to the grammatical changes 34
suggested by Martin. Motion passed unanimously. 35
36
2. Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and 37
Summary 38
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Albers, to Adopt the Resolution Authorizing 39
Publication by Title and Summary. Motion passed unanimously. 40
41
D. Community Service Officer Hiring (9:19 p.m.) 42
Johnson stated that Nelson is requesting to combine the two part-time CSO positions 43
into one full-time CSO position. 44
45
Martin noted that the Council discussed this concept in-depth during the work session, 46
which included the financial impacts. 47
48
Nelson asked to combine the two part-time CSO positions into one full-time CSO 49
position. He stated that the candidate they are currently backgrounding was the only 50
viable candidate and she has indicated that she needs full-time hours and could not 51
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
12
work part-time. He stated that if the background check is passed and they are able to 1
extend the offer for the position there would be a cost savings to the budget by moving 2
forward with the method proposed. He stated that the candidate pool for Police Officers 3
and CSOs is limited. He commented that CSOs do a lot of work and reviewed some of 4
those duties and responsibilities. He noted that the last CSO was lost due to them 5
accepting a full-time position and the second CSO left to accept a Police Officer position. 6
7
Martin commented that while the department is without a community service officer, she 8
can drive to the station to pick up her Council packet and deliver the others. 9
10
Nelson commented that the Officers would continue to deliver packets, but it may not be 11
in timely order because of needed response to calls for service. 12
13
Albers asked if the position were advertised as a full-time position, would they receive 14
more candidates. 15
16
Nelson believed they would have received more candidates. 17
18
Martin commented that perhaps this motion should dictate that if the candidate does not 19
accept the position, Nelson would have the authority to advertise for a full-time CSO. 20
21
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Martin, to approve the hiring of Ashley Lewerenze 22
to the position of full-time Community Service Officer, contingent on the successful 23
passing of her background check and medical examination, with a beginning hourly 24
wage (non-exempt) of $21/hour and other benefits to be at the same rate as other non-25
union employees, in accordance with the City Personnel Policy with a probationary 26
period o 12 months from the date of hire; should the candidate not accept, Nelson would 27
have the authority to advertise the position as one full-time position or two part-time 28
positions. Motion passed unanimously. 29
30
IX. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT (9:27 p.m.) 31
Johnson had nothing further to report. 32
33
X. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (9:27 p.m.) 34
Martin commented that the next day she will attend a breakfast meeting with Rep. Dean 35
Phillips and the other mayors in his district. She highlighted some of the issues the 36
mayors in this region will be bringing forward for discussion and welcomed any 37
additional suggestions. She noted the following week, Rep. Dean Phillips will be hosting 38
a town hall forum at the Medina Ballroom. She also noted the upcoming event she will 39
be hosting at her home. 40
41
XI. APPROVAL TO PAY THE BILLS (9:30 p.m.) 42
Moved by DesLauriers, seconded by Cavanaugh, to approve the bills, EFT 006476E-43
006496E for $52,590.54, order check numbers 053279-053337 for $577,902.36, and 44
payroll EFT 0512051-0512086 for $57,730.80 and payroll manual check 020453 for 45
$3,797.84. Motion passed unanimously. 46
47
Medina City Council Meeting Minutes
August 16, 2022
13
XII. ADJOURN 1
Moved by Albers, seconded by DesLauriers, to adjourn the meeting at 9:31 p.m. Motion 2
passed unanimously. 3
4
__________________________________ 5
Kathy Martin, Mayor 6
Attest: 7
8
____________________________________ 9
Scott Johnson, City Administrator 10
Resolution No. 2022-XX
September 6, 2022
Member _____ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING RESIGNATION OF TIM
SEDABRES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2021 the City Council appointed Tim Sedabres to the Planning
Commission, with a term to expire on December 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022, Tim Sedabres submitted a letter of resignation from his
position on the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Medina that
Tim Sedabres letter of resignation from the Planning Commission is hereby accepted.
Dated: September 6, 2022.
______________________________
Todd Albers, Acting Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ______
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Agenda Item #5A
1
Caitlyn Walker
From:Dusty Finke
Sent:Tuesday, August 16, 2022 10:18 AM
To:Caitlyn Walker
Cc:Scott Johnson
Subject:FW: Planning commissioner resignation - Sedabres
Hi Caitlyn,
We received a resignation from Commission Sedabres. If Council action is necessary, please prepare for the September
6 meeting, thanks!
Dusty Finke
City of Medina
From: Tim Sedabres <tim.sedabres@medinamn.gov>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 8:22 PM
To: Beth Nielsen <beth.nielsen@medinamn.gov>
Cc: Dusty Finke <dusty.finke@medinamn.gov>; Kathleen Martin <kathleen.martin@medinamn.gov>
Subject: Planning commissioner resignation ‐ Sedabres
Chair Nielsen ‐ Please accept this notice as my resignation from the planning commission, effective today.
We have sold our home in Medina and are relocating. It has been a pleasure to serve the City of Medina alongside
yourself and the other commissioners.
Thank you.
Tim Sedabres
Meander Boardwalk and Park Page 1 of 1 September 6, 2022
Extension for PUD General Plan Application City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: September 1, 2022
MEETING: September 6, 2022 City Council
SUBJECT: Medina Ventures – Medina Park and Boardwalk –
1472 Highway 55 (PID 0211823330003)
Background
During January-March 2022, the City of Medina reviewed and provided comments on a Concept
Plan for the Medina Park and Boardwalk Planned Unit Development (PUD) located north and
south of Meander Road, west of Cavanaugh Dr.
Section 827.35 Subd. 2 of the City Code states: “A General Plan of Development for the
proposed project shall be submitted to the City within 180 days of review of the Concept Plan by
the City Council. If a General Plan of Development is not submitted by this deadline, the
applicant shall be required to resubmit a Concept Plan for review by the Planning Commission
and City Council unless, prior to the expiration, the applicant requests an extension of time in
writing and the City Council grants the request for good cause. Any extension so granted may be
subject to conditions for such period of time not exceeding 180 days, or such other period as the
City Council deems appropriate.”
The applicant intends to submit in the next month and has requested an extension of time. Staff
believes the reason for establishing a time limit is to reduce the likelihood that circumstances
surrounding the subject site, proposed development, or City’s land planning or regulations
change significantly in a way that affect the comments provided during concept plan review.
Staff does not have concerns with providing an extension in this case.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the following action:
Approve extension of time to submit the General Plan of Development for the Meander
Park and Boardwalk PUD until December 30, 2022.
Attachment
Extension Request
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item #5B
1
Dusty Finke
From:Chris Pederson <madmrchristopher@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, August 26, 2022 12:12 PM
To:Kathleen Martin; Dino Deslauriers; Robin Reid; Joseph Cavanaugh; Todd Albers
Cc:Dusty Finke; Paul Schroeder; Mark S. Radke
Subject:Request for Extension on General Plan application for Meander Park & Boardwalk Development
Good afternoon Medina City Council,
Medina Ventures, LLC is currently on track to submit the our PUD General Plan application for the Meander Park &
Boardwalk Development by September 9, 2022 as discussed with City Staff earlier this year as well as referenced in
additional communications throughout the spring/summer as we've been preparing the application.
Section 827.35 Subd.2 of the General Plan of the Development states:
A General Plan of Development for the proposed project shall be submitted to the City within 180 days of review of the
Concept Plan by the City Council. If a General Plan of Development is not submitted by this deadline, the applicant shall
be required to resubmit a Concept Plan for review by the Planning Commission and City Council unless, prior to the
expiration, the applicant request an extension of time in writing and the City Council grants the request for good cause.
Given the last review by the Medina City Council of our Concept Plan took place on March 1st, as of today, August 26,
Medina Ventures is still within the 180 day window (barely) to submit this request per the code.
Therefore, let this email serve as my request in writing for an up to 60 day extension to submit our PUD General Plan
application for the Meander Park & Boardwalk Development.
I ask this in good faith as myself and multiple others have spent considerable time and resources working diligently to
properly prepare this general application for a unique and unprecedented PUD development that I believe will be a
major asset to the community once approved and completed. The potential of having to resubmit a Concept Plan if an
extension weren't granted would significantly hinder all of the progress and momentum that we currently have with our
team, partners and available resources.
Thank you for your consideration of this request and look forward to hearing a response at your earliest convenience as
we continue to move forward to hit our target of a September 9, 2022 submittal.
Have a nice weekend.
Sincerely,
Chris Pederson
Medina Ventures, LLC
Resolution No. 2022-
September 6, 2022
Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED TAX LEVY FOR 2023
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has adopted legislation, which requires all
municipalities to pass a resolution adopting a preliminary budget and certifying the total proposed
tax levy amount to the County Auditor prior to September 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Medina, Minnesota, to comply with this law and
submit a proposed property tax levy including general operating and debt levies; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Medina,
County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be proposed for 2023 upon the
taxable property in the City of Medina, for the following purposes: To raise $5,120,600 as adequate
revenue for the general fund operating budget, $424,946 as adequate revenue for debt service,
$312,500 for capital equipment, $61,000 for capital road fund and $112,000 for municipal park
fund.
General Fund $5,111,700
Capital Equipment $ 312,500
Capital Road Fund $ 61,000
Municipal Park Fund $ 112,000
Debt Service:
2012A G.O. CIP Bonds $ 364,791
2015A G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 60,155
Total Levy: $6,022,146
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk, Caitlyn Walker, is hereby instructed to
transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the county auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Date: September 6, 2022.
____________________________________
Todd Albers, Acting Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
Agenda Item #7A
Resolution No. 2022- 2
September 6, 2022
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _____
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2022-
September 6, 2022
Member _______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR 2023
BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Medina, County of Hennepin, Minnesota,
that the following sums of money be proposed for the 2023 General Fund budget:
Revenues Expenditures
General Fund $6,590,246 $6,590,246
Date: September 6, 2022.
____________________________________
Todd Albers, Acting Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ____ and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2022-
September 6, 2022
Member ______ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-
RESOLUTION REDUCING DEBT SERVICE TAX LEVIES FOR 2023
WHEREAS, Hennepin County maintains a bond register with the City’s scheduled bonded
debt levies for taxes payable in 2022, and requests a City resolution canceling the debt levy if the
City does not levy the scheduled amounts; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that specific debt levies may be partially reduced due
to the accumulation and projection of other revenue sources, including previously collected tax
levies, previously collected and future projected special assessments, and utility fund contributions;
and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city council of the City of Medina,
County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following reductions of debt service levies be made for
taxes payable in 2022:
Scheduled Proposed Reduction
Levy Levy To Levy
Debt Service:
2015A G.O. Improvement Bonds $ 60,155 $ 60,155 $ -
2016A G.O. Refunding Bonds $ 95,738 $ - $ 95,738
2020A G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds $ 455,989 $ 364,791 $ 91,198
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk Caitlyn Walker, is hereby instructed to
transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the county auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Date: September 6, 2022.
____________________________________
Todd Albers, Acting Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ____ and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Resolution No. 2022- 2
September 6, 2022
and the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Weston Woods Page 1 of 7 September 6, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: September 1, 2022
MEETING: September 6, 2022, City Council
SUBJECT: Weston Woods – Mark and Kathleen Smith – PUD Amendment -
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
Agenda Item #7B
Weston Woods Page 2 of 7 September 6, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height City Council 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 7 September 6, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height City Council 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’. Photos of these homes are attached for reference.
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 7 September 6, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height City Council 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 the 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 7 September 6, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height City Council 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 7 September 6, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height City Council 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.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed PUD amendment at their
August 10 meeting. Commissioners supported the full request to 36-feet in height limited to just
the single-family homes in Weston Woods. Commissioners noted that most of the lots in the
single-family portion of this development do not really set in the viewsheds of other properties.
The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendment.
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 City Council concurs that the amendment is not inconsistent with the purpose of the PUD
ordinance, objectives of the Comp Plan, the following actions could be taken:
a) Move to adopt the ordinance amending the Weston Woods PUD to increase maximum
height of the single-family lots to 36 feet
b) Move to adopt the resolution authorizing publication by title and summary.
Weston Woods Page 7 of 7 September 6, 2022
PUD Amendment - Height City Council Meeting
Attachments
1. Weston Woods PUD Ordinance with proposed amendment
2. Resolution to publish by title and summary
3. Excerpt from 8/10/2022 Planning Commission minutes
4. Summary of other Communities
5. Comp Plan Info
6. Photos of homes referenced in this report
7. Applicant narrative
8. Presentation from Hanson Builders
Ordinance No. ___ 1
DATE
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WESTON WOODS OF MEDINA
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Medina previously adopted Ordinance 686, establishing a
Planned Unit Development District for Weston Woods of Medina and changing the zoning
classification of the property legally described in Exhibit A (the “Property”) to Planned Unit
Development.
Section 2. The Property remains zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. The location
of the Property is depicted on the map in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Section 3. The Weston Woods of Medina Planned Unit Development District is hereby
amended by adding the underlined language in Section 5 below. All other aspects of the Weston
Woods PUD District remain unchanged.
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 4/6/2022,
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 be allowed on
one 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
DATE
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.
vii. 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
DATE
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 rear yard setback: 15 feet
vi. 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.
vii. 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.
viii. 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. Except the amendment noted in Section 5 above, remaining requirements of
Ordinance No. 686 remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
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 and publication.
Ordinance No. ___ 4
DATE
Adopted by the Medina City Council this ____ day of ____, 2022.
CITY OF MEDINA
By:
Todd Albers, Acting Mayor
Attest:
By:
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on this day the ___ of _____, 2022.
Ordinance No. ___ 5
DATE
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of the Property
Lots 1-4, Block 1,
Lots 1-8, Block 2,
Lots 1-4, Block 3,
Lots 1-9, Block 4,
Lots 1-10, Block 5,
Lots 1-5, Block 6,
Lots 1-4, Block 7,
Lots 1-9, Block 8,
Lots 1-4, Block 9,
Lots 1-16, Block 10,
Lots 1-10, Block 11,
Lots 1-18, Block 12,
Lots 1-6, Block 13,
Lots 1-8, Block 14, and
Outlots A-K,
Weston Woods of Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Ordinance No. ___ 6
DATE
EXHIBIT B
Map Depicting “Single Family,” “Twinhome,”, “Villahome,” and “Rowhome” Lots
Resolution No. 2022-##
September 6, 2022
Member ________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-##
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. ### BY TITLE AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an
ordinance amending the Weston Woods of Medina Planned Unit Development district; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statues § 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publications by title and
summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance is six pages in length and contains a map; and
WHEREAS, the city council believes that the following summary would clearly inform
the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina
that the city clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. ### to be published in the
official newspaper in lieu of the ordinance in its entirety:
Public Notice
The city council of the City of Medina has adopted Ordinance No. ###, an ordinance amending
the Weston Woods of Medina Planned Unit Development district. The ordinance establishes a
maximum allowed height of 36 feet for the Single-Family lots within the PUD district.
The full text of the ordinance is available from the city clerk at Medina city hall during regular
business hours.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Medina that the city
clerk keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and that she post
a full copy of the ordinance in a public place within the city.
Dated: September 6, 2022.
______________________________
Todd Albers, Acting Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
Resolution No. 2022-## 2
September 6, 2022
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ________
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 8/10/2022 Minutes
1
Public Hearing – Weston Woods of Medina – East of Mohawk Drive, South of Chippewa Road –
PUD Amendment to Increase Maximum Height for Single Family Lots from 32 Feet to 36 Feet
Finke asked and received confirmation that the Commission is comfortable with the information in the
staff report and welcomed questions.
Rhem asked the difference between 35 feet and 36 feet as discussed.
Finke stated that the suggest of staff to not exceed 35 feet was based on what was common in other
communities. He stated that 36 would be a unique number and it seemed that 35 feet provided flexibility
to achieve what was being sought in this development.
Popp provided an example which he believed would actually add eight feet in height.
Finke stated that if everything else were to remain static, adding four feet of additional height increases
the midpoint of the roof from the eave, to actually be eight feet from sea level.
Dean Hanson, Hanson Builders, stated that they hope to be the custom builder for Weston Woods which
has several different products of homes. He stated that the issue they ran into is that their buildings do not
fit the current ordinance in terms of height. He stated that a few things have changed in building since he
began in 1979 as homes have become bigger and taller. He provided an example of a home built in
Plymouth that would not be allowed to built under the current PUD regulations in this development. He
explained what is unique in Medina to calculate height compared to other communities. He noted that
while the front height requirement would be met, it would not be met on the side and rear of the home and
therefore the average formula that Medina uses would not be met. He explained how grades can be
manipulated to meet the required averages but ultimately creates other issues and not the best end
product. He referenced an area of Weston Woods that would have the option for a lookout on the side to
take advantage of the pond views but would then create an issue for the average height although it would
meet the height requirement in the front.
Finke stated that it is worth noting that the current definition does lead folks towards having to make
tradeoffs, whether that is the grading around the home or lesser pitch. He stated that the matter of full
basement, walkout or lookout does not have that flexibility for residents as those are settled by the
development.
Hanson provided another example of a home that would meet the requirements but noted that is not the
type of home that would be found within this development.
Popp asked the sale price of the first example compared to the second example.
Hanson stated that the first example would have a price around $1,300,000 compared to the second which
would be around $700,000.
Jacob asked the number of lots for this product in the development.
Hanson replied that 40 lots would be this type of product.
Nielsen asked how many lots would not meet the 35 feet.
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 8/10/2022 Minutes
2
Hanson replied that 85 percent of the homes could be built using that calculation and he could use some
of the other methods to meet the average. He stated that with 36 feet all of his models could be
constructed.
Nielsen asked why Medina took a different approach on its calculation.
Finke replied that it was purposeful on the vision of that time of not wanting to have super high peaks.
He noted that the height was adjusted from 30 feet to 32 feet in 2008.
Hanson commented that it would also work to take a simple approach to stay with 32 feet but only take
the one measurement from the front. He noted that most other communities use a front height of 35 feet.
He confirmed that he could build all his products if only the front height were measured and that were left
at 32 feet. He noted that the unintended consequence of the average method is the impact that it has on a
walkout lot home.
Nielsen opened the public hearing at 10:19 p.m.
Mark Smith, developer, stated that he visited other developments in the community and commented on
the way those developers made the average calculation work using retaining walls and window wells to
manipulate the grade. He stated that a look out and walkout provide more natural light and increased
safety. He noted that the proposed development plans for those other developments also do not match the
as-builts.
Finke commented that the average grade calculation is not that uncommon as a number of communities
use that method. He also questioned enforceability.
Nielsen closed the public hearing at 10:22 p.m.
Sedabres commented that Hanson builds wonderful homes that he would love to see in Medina. He
stated that he is conflicted because this is the desired product in Medina. He noted that there are other
homes in Medina that have made this work and therefore this would seem to accommodate the easy
floorplan. He stated that this is the product and intent, but other developers have built homes without
issues.
Grajczyk stated that he is looking at this solely for the Weston Woods development. He noted that he has
lived in a Hanson home, and it was well built and would add potential and value to the community. He
stated that in this PUD, he would support the 36-foot height.
Rhem echoed the comments of Grajczyk.
Jacob also agreed with Grajczyk.
Popp stated that he would be interested in a future discussion related to home height. He stated that he
does support the 36-foot height for this PUD.
Piper referenced the developments on the north side of Highway 55 and asked if there is a lot more land
for development of homes in that area. She asked if this would set a precedent.
Finke replied that this would apply only to the PUD. He stated that the applicant has suggested, and staff
does not necessarily disagree, that there are unique aspects to this PUD that would not set precedent. He
Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from Draft 8/10/2022 Minutes
3
stated that perhaps there should be a more broad review of building height in the near future based on the
building trends.
Popp asked if the views of the development would be a consideration of a PUD.
Finke confirmed that a PUD does provide flexibility to respond to circumstances.
Piper stated that the developer/builder is requesting a height of 36 feet.
Hanson confirmed that a height of 36 feet would allow all his home models.
Piper asked if the builder could work with 35 feet.
Hanson confirmed that he could live with 35 feet but could not build at 32 feet.
Piper stated that she was thinking 35 feet because that is the height most cities use.
Hanson stated that he is currently building in seven cities and has no issues because the height is
measured from the front grade, whereas the average method penalizes the walkout model.
Nielsen asked if there are any complaints of seeing those homes from the backside.
Hanson commented that could arise in a smaller development where homes are back-to-back whereas this
community would have great views.
Motion by Rhem, seconded by Jacob, to recommend approval of the PUD amendment for Weston
Woods to increase the building height to 36 feet. Motion carries unanimously.
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.
527 Ellisia Ct. 523 Twinflower Rd.
1810 Deer Hill Ct. 1810 Deer Hill Ct.
756 Shawnee Woods Rd. 4420 Poppy Dr.
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
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
AI Mich.Rs
RESIDENCE FOR:
f, AYI QJ 1 A •[
SA M. GRA*CNCG U6 &
.',4CP_DM �PIAj'
C PYRN3Hf N0 71Ck
Mii gn..4/� tll se
MMF
•• •••••• ••=0... IW /1M IMV11111.Ylra dal
Asa .O}1111111{MwOI
alit siMieemeiniwo wei
ME MO 111.•• 110144 /W wia.1.i�—
.2 •c• isuvcn
owe 11• 14.14. 01.41
--S-Y
K1 •% <Otfi1P.
lilu
SURVEY LEGEND
® ra.uA
careeCt
arrow r.••.•
ocAv[ a.•w
—•—I•wtrr WWI
for uw
•—_t _
— _ — wvarn nr row
—f-101 t•1
nor
IrwlpOw•
1.••X.111.4 1 SCUM .IOYIIOIO.••r••••• r r11
any". llama,
l rrs+m air= Nips awc wa
1 Wit 1••s•w 11•• immix A••••• r••n,7i•x•1•r•,••.•1•Ir••
••• W ••••••••••• rIa ••• ea.. Mx sr •60.1 •0•••• too Om OS
rY•wr. 71••r•• 01 s N••4••'rWM. •••••Ir•.•••
!•d•tswaim wlemst•bm an•.r•••••pt•fara
twat .lojimr••41s••1•••r•••xi, u••• wrlry• -.M7
a••. as r r•••••••••• r•Ym•.•••• /Mime Amp, p.•• -r..
tea WOO* &W. NES p•t•7 r im +4•• •.l.r • O: V••i
••••.r•iMamie r••• I•r. .r•r•1ar •••N f . I.iw 1 WW1 Mina ••wa1%•1R pwa•e••r•le p•.• torF
• Al vain, Xmas awed• Amami As A••l wk r•1•.oaxit
S TY 'nowt 4q r••• •sai•isry•X or prow * =sly
t••••w•••rt b• bet
• • w rio was was• r raw a pm •••••• mix. •••r IWWWWL.
poet voted Oast in,•• urns Nixon, Mr•• ass
7. Mond iwb in,• •iad • WNW ttw•MR •in • w olio! M
• +••••••••ars••a powwow ••••••• *ex
S. 1o6w•t1111••••••••ix: •a••••1!¢rr•r •rail
faielEHl 111•X10
Seoffewhin
L~aWm r..r
A1•fri OnfY1M - WO
1•wrld 0•�r 1lwoflrwwl•
P•••••1 is A►•anda• SWUM
•.�... w...• m• 111•..1•.
llirdid
W tar W • fllf, LIMY
Ma W wasr • 1•
~he
e
Mai - r-* 0.O1A a
Oa X - *TIN 0115-571 N
•1ND
-1N,
•W
.f>41
.1•• 3
.w.
1•••.f.•• r.t••rar•WWs••
liaw*rioft •r Oil W.f. OW mow fr/llOfw IS s r
anew op Owl owl SS f few 48Sta•rI•i d*rAv
mites Sow of !i• el•wr
nbl tits rth!.r dA•pM,=C.
4ddLlba4t�/d He SECT
t0•t1101
nabob* OH )101.11111014111 gINLIIINVX/5111.
ORA1i•1t1L 1W/ SW SWA00111r14110
P1P1 W
n 1.11 • 110IR•R.1•a/1
0117E 111.1 001111110115111411111.
"• -•••
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
l •f fOUM O•qi r ••••V"A A• IOW Mr Maas
CERTIFICATE 01' SURVEY
RUN.= FOR
HANSON BUILDERS
w••• • i lw'•••i• I• , ••••• 313
31 15 0 15 30 40
!C••1.A !1• lQET
III
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
��rr•..- : •..r.m. .� .-..... .• r.,.,�aaa ..r..�u. ..r.�w •�rOtero sw. .•Vllimmil YYrik.wrr .- .ear....... .+.-a
HUH
HUH
77477x
all
6330 RANIER LANE
IQ 1.sw 0CX I
w m m0wex. e
M41f GAM YN
SHERIDAN SP
rr vrs. i. wow.* comm.*
sy,w.v.w + 0.1111.1.
�yw..M.�.
SURVEY LEGEND
• •.•. Ma
• •
mom MN
N m •.I.4
v .•..n
• w. . s on et
• M .w1 •P•11
N. MOAN s.YI.W
..4 ~O M NNW,
• NANO POMP 106(
4 ..•O Nat
• WIM „I.0.w4 .
al MANN RION.
• i10 PUPA.
t•R• MI.1 11(x10.
f..•N M.
M.Nc 111
NONNfw 1Q
1-`-'1 -N
- =Ma ~a im
~oft MINI
o •--. ~WA wow
CNN= N.6
-1Y.1 101.1
QO M• .ww �=�^���
I-a.Oy1:yr•• r
NNC•10 a1 .u.a U
.w-�1 n. +-�;
-�--�.- 1Nat
-S- DAMN VMS* l a1
Y•M1[11
Wk. Ism Swin k -a
Ma i 6. u. $ A1 .1 - Y. ? ~1 •� .�
rw w W -)T -,,
n 114_ 1Y p
h1r16.�w1M"w -nil`-- k 44(1.43 I
Yr�/IFtlwrs -1111 dm,
-.nI --.:--:2'" •-: .(1
'-` •` k �j^2',
4IXlint I.10•((1 AuANI11Lt•mdir1 g o- r......Isal 61.14a.mba,....
IlNu t MI Law 1wePIM tw.O..tftw. .
1 •1 r.• swom wl rw •• •1.1 •Nr .r. •.•.np.ly.Mn••• 46.rA w( q w..IwI. II •. Now
✓ low 1•41 . *Ow fob 0.•Coe 11. M.r1 T.+ w. w 4rbe. rdror/r.wa O.
�Y11.ww maim s .•1.6M��•�M +w AMP dim** .+r.Y sr� .11`: *..` Nwo.molt.�w. s
Mi .•1 ▪ rir �ti NO N • ••••••• • A•+.1AN •r NI OWIN NIMIN..N.111pw. u/w
..r r6w4.•.w4 •w.(• • law r woo; I1w•.w enwrap Ndr.I NIMININ.
I Or. .-.wY(w.. trw.../Nor • wwr ldoww.Mwdhow
I •.+...,•hN at - - r•vl . Oro ow Now• w permed W..- r d.,
♦ ..1.1• .«Nr...rd•e. O... awl an rw.t• aws...L • 44•I •T w••4 w+r OM I. . li y Lamed lrw$allnp, w k!
w.•.1Ne r1•./ .• . Inwaw� ed, aid rw./w1...v uN ►..rla.w� Aoolow
Cr Imo *It. P ar .(M..wpla
I . lib Wr •. r.aNomad . ••a• w1)ww)•1.1NE.1.e1 0ymow s. pro rNEON 1..Nona row I I )4II fldItYCO1. ..11021 .
N )T/
..w ..,I ....we. N
yur.r U4..a 6.4a ... .er.1.1 rNM
L .•Ibww•11w .r•Lin o 1•K«eT/wrrr► ndl[. Y1 LdK R.! Ii..Y lase71. 2.147
.•11 1
116.6ingtillio op afore
1..11 1. Dsa1.611
KALE M PIET
r..idel. tl•401•
i \SATHRE. ERGQUIST. INC.
Irwraisl.. aw w.wd. .r I.I.. arbours
16.11. Uri. II. L aw Si
.CA1:111►Ig1
IdD C1�t WI
11MI N1 WAIL
C 8171FIC ATII. f1P SI IRWIN
(w Allronll
HANSON BUII.DFRS_ ..1E1191.
M OUE. sawn sr1111 DMIr11l
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.
u
!
p
E 011 i
1
■:Hl. 111�fu '
RESIDENCE FO R:
M ODEL
6305 WESTON LAP* N
RIDGE AT ELM CIEEN L13 B3
M S44. ATA
COPYRKAIIINO11Clo /
•a 1elww111.Awnn>•
10 M.A.& TalIMMINTO1
MOM•a srwNws
smoitait Neweiallt
Ana l 1111.40110WOOMI
..e•
rr•• .•
1,11 20.0t263YFEZI
0-30 20 00021
m...m.,,. &
lilu
LOT 4
In,.
•
•
a••r
2
Q i
SLAVEY LEGEND
•tt.
▪ ova saw
▪ oar w
• gas mat
V .0404.••
• per • ma wit
• Otia art Mae r. bM•to• MOM -. - COMP JI Mr=
• we•s• mamma a ••tra MM. — CO',.. OM•mt
▪ 30.ra she •nemmirce /«Ot =OW a, - e•••uQ .tow
JOO. 16G?•pw 10.4110413 ..
o.. tour .nee. t>.w• sae
ts• aeMwp MOMS •as•e7 T•L
...... Senn SW 4 ~CND Mt
® m••o •a4, MMISEEMI warms
M A•.,•• s•••s•••to = Pant
IMMO MISS AT TM* STAKES M•EO M>00 e1
llA4•a•a ISSOrill10 pF•Ttt.•M m1TmMl
xt7m sr.OLS
SAT* 124T -S/
MOMS@ LL.►T101R Satin Ill
•In/
ausr [NM
— • — WON m
—.a—My LOO
— •••If••r
~gni Si, .wall
At
mix
- wmti Mry•w sae
i
/itWiaaa W •r�A�rINS VIS 1.111.1.1.•
IVal
•••••••• maw IN loaf_
CIS e-_l,r CS 4- '
CBRTWICATE OF SURVEY
,IMeI@ •at
HANSON BUILDERS
- L S Moat w IIlOMII� AT MNCAM,Aram mr
=514r•o4 Mama Oaf Stan
I. 044.1. OM w•w. taMsLM••r Own amp
• /Werae•4 r i•a••ofrt1 ihrun M•••rbAr•n wins
••*• .•m.r•.wa14.••••••••••b•••••••••• •• *mr VW
mua. *mow ramp rrtorMa•sea•rrew•rA
••eras•.• arm w.•Ar•a ••sure •••••sere •I.ea,a, r
sea A4,A swum Yana W .•m Mei rash!' • nn4,
Mena Sim RINE lima r•t•M••>!p. la.. Saks 7a••••n•
•/ t•4 • miff li.rrSot Orel! • L• 1 r•4• • •••••••!1•Mt
Tv m•4a•4• •••••••••• Ortae Yews M sa r M slaw ••eater
M mw s•• /earn ••,••1•11•••••4•414.4
I •I•••4444, ..4,404Mtaawrm�..fw•.
4 N-•L•arr•••••Y r►ei•iof• rr=rein re••r1••dri•
1 Tw■lmr Mows Seas away./ may rr•• perm •dry rb
r.r. •••••••••• SUM
l A•1r.arnwto 4,e•••••••.•!■wells tarn} MS
flew rw•M'J••• shwa W alewr*end Lsa
1 P•••••1••10 Mss Mr • •rare r•••• mks *Op arm* am
l erUwaft mottran p.m r/ aw•w•t
I ems=
TM WO -a I3 TIO3U1701 AT CRIIIT•fall Ian
Del• n
Ty sf Atom Swim
/Warm Noirimam
44•MMe l fkwereee - vi
swami l+! •Ise •I•••••••
...wit..., Swaim. •r•n•m.
f•m••r. La,sr /Imo Omura,
leallaileak • L
W Nit Y•M.lr, Wirt
rG Its WWI • f•
t I••••• mitt, Sri ale arm. Oro,•+MI. fa M•ewlb w Or
• ar a7 4••t •asai•• toe Y I marbly In.MI toad Surer
rte De Ins Misers eCIve.L
amid So :taro 10rw•••209t.
2••e1 L JAW*. /tit NomwtIMOSlL
•••Jq•+••.w
��ITL�yiw-
>to,n
Lair 73- Tomah" I„•asp tuT
IC 0 :0 T
s:u 24>gr
III
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
nit
Moos
6241 WESTON LANE N
Mt. MU
IO W • AIK1EV[
AMC Mit AIM
amom
STO NEBRO OK
raawaarMIwar eW. wog
Amin a, ttwrn.aw«
swam* w.. icwwewwaeae
.ta
�wr�^ wi�w
1•iwrr11ww.orw�w rr
110MraWokrwararw
11411.11
Lug
AO Wail
WNW Pam
as 1111
Nav
••• MT
e aw•.•a
*Ma .10.41
WOW *IWO
wails *PAM
aaaa aaro MAN
ma ma
&tele 11.01111•111
16/1.0. a. _
IOW CM!&V, AT •17.i MANIA N acs 711 AV IL
., fw
t •yy`i O
t `f /
tas Ba!
•
SATHRE-BERGUUIST, INC.
la•a•ma.aaa.+ •area •a t if (LAMM
. 1..•
•Ma
CHRTIFICA'E Of SURVEY
IIANSON BUILDERS
AS
•
•
a t •Yw t !Ir 0.01 AT AIR.'*1.lama'. N awes
al 11111111 GIL ilia•.
•arc if• Waafr Pal Map firm a waa
w tap maw 00, ww•r w*Lava way N Amami game••r
a.maapaw Mr* um •• Pa pal a 4o Imo Or CO ml•
aaef. Alm a m*.ah•aa• at MN. awl Amapa
PalmPalmman a••••00.0•1•10••••••••••• af ••t
A A. ammo a••a• mall 11weal* ...Pam .,./Ay Mena
Mk. Imam m.a►wway aM1.1.a AA ap.d11Amara,
Oma11•wOeOSMa* a am Palmar(•.•4... 1aaaa ••1
ra•i 1Papalra.l.•mart mag •ta•aamp mamas ,iai
a•aa*Arwad Papa aim ••.Ir. er■aa+a r ammo '
as •d I. •••r. .1•111
t•a a:ai•• wti,rr•:x+rwa....=•.1=eee.1...,R
At •1 •aa •w. w •aawM . magir w • .•maw a r • Aroma
The p.m. Plan. fa •aapha lda.1.• •Mp•••• a M aid M
m**eaMet f.flat
A MQ•a. MO. Amman.. agawa 111 wawa. M •t•aaa••
YwY -Ya MaarwMamrl Ira
h+mniwr •111144010••w•m• ••• a. M • *IPaTl•►At
r•+Oh+e maw any.w.q wa•a wA
1.t•h.ar It • tL M aa; TIM REM AT AL. oMI•t•a7 M
T�wii��llrlad-�10
•�paeaaara�
TI•.11•a4/w 10a7a
Nara 111 A/114.1111 w.
At.•...a Fla sir
I.rt.w-s
Mr. tl.•Yak • A. 08 ?NO
1.1..1111 ae+iapMsirs
a1••1Nr a11!'III.
a1r-Mr o►a-*WS
.H i
• M1
•m.A
-*MP
• Ma
-M•1
MN** a..,•.1, nit Ira awn_ 111•, CC =art yas: arc
net WI.. 1* Oatt is tmy:sse Lai
Yz+�
arm r Imo dd. art. ara•.t•.•ea
Duel 4ii. r* 4galatMviw. Fm i
'Are L. 11.1..14,>U xt••.••• Llw•a N.. at s*
III
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
w �� �•.
j1-
i� Bu ild ms
Psi
::
t.
RESIDENCE FOR:
SPCC TOME
W'ESTIN Il1GE LI It
EXCELSIOR 'VP
selee el AVE it
COP1itlG 1T lOfl
ri ..arwr.w
•fl _Oi_an_C OMM
4.11•0/1.0 11.0.1•11”.P...
w..101a..
;....»�...A..11
iii•i.li
/••=10/011111/14
rwa»... wm
11[LYLldr II?! amp
100!19 ZP 1324201
SUMEY LEGEND
•
•
e
&Evian _c&
MM. n ....r
I] • rr DOA
D o. .te 1.tr 4.1.e
CD WirsoOse Mau .
O Sit ar MOM
�i Nom. prone n niu =
jX*Jl c.rw .N♦.
4710 .NlI
r tPIN1. 4
— e w. 1.w
r' 'I orranc
-�► - or..Nn _NL
- t..mr .__1
~AK MOP
—.1111WWW WIN
—•- —tear+ my
— I—ae0ar.
.. _ rwrP 20 MOM
—0— 01.10 w r
—largo rrrx
Nd 11 r/r►r1
Nw 11w11.rN_.
De.Wplwr P Mr Done- WQ
dry Nor NNr.
MnNml ILr1Y.rla
r,I .d irrrier MO
_�. rr�N-
Hy.r Top N/1r•rataPb. e.a
Ayad Oeaar Iron ItA.•
famain lrl tt 1W1 ♦ N6slrl u ua. es.../fte, lemabil Ow Smoot NN....C++,
I. I.: IOW MI Mum lw PY..AIr..Y.ar.
1 w lr.. r.. ew rrrr • Warr r N M•l pup s. N •sure MI NN. odp Ng N r.116
raN/ w1..•.. P1N.1. Gybe ems CM GO .l NP .N iNar. y• em. so...rNiNr.N NerN r r.
. q-rA.Nwlrone Sol l.r. w.Wino. nrrwr.prNom r Sion ubyPa r.
sm/rtonr rsnr UrrYlrrr..1.10**244NNw.aarNreeYidarsWi npm* Yea
1rwF(w wrMtty ►r arreflNik.w Oa d on Wa.tr rNa e tilliwalni
.war lrlroe rem.rroe Nara ohmrN Nry •rlrl.1...moriP r• r a/Y ron.N.b
1 Nid d onors t r1Nr•11►Yr•.rr r0lr.rd 1.+... A red rYreir.
1 ... it . .. . .a ...71• rr mews /swami. mil.argN
♦ a w sae N oel ra rte rr.rar at M ..1=LWut• tamd r r•
1 Yew7 .ld *brag OwnrnrAoel.Ne ml dr. wool en ed am ma0r•r drd..mgMNlra
; w.N imd as ow, PrrNr ..t.aPwrr eon ...d ui • ••••••• ••••• •••••••••ffierarimopia •Nimam Dort* ]dA 1 +Y H!:NrrNrW_att.
1 r ni.ed iniwk 'NOr..• l .rre r r.ab• NMlwrr rNr.►4
1 tilt' owe" r.4N . •••• • ...ft 1.6.
1
1awemo omega /rp r a ny
01N. own Oro•a7I
0111,1 •0114 N
NI 0
70 b
WAIJIDt Parr
I sr..y .. Wiry 0 .01 d.. ...w flat. t NMI w y r al widow
• 1 drat mparslm ml d el I. 6417 La ssa tar Suvyrae.r
W 4w .11Lt Leon of Mars ala
[Witt P..drrl PIS ►4are0 Liars Ns 41!44
SATHRE•8ERGQl1IST, INC
.1•1o1a101 0ONO 11 1,14 elaa Non. rNOrddre
Soma 11 • Ar.rk IN - Pa ge Ile
A0a>Aw
PaeCNN QM
IYY0111w 1L
oSta sS et COP
e e.(rcds
cuUI'I ATE all SURVEY
Pe1P A1[OPR
HANSON B UILDERS
11A5*P1MI*O.ROA 11111110a L
_ 14.11. 1/46,4
III
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-1 AN SON
RESIDENCE FOR:
smC
WEST1 I RIDGE LI 182
EASTWOOD SP C
! MAYO IIS! AVE N
wefts* _ was. n
IMO NM K AMM.
.WI y1
WinPaniriOd MIAMI MN
O s.YWM
I•14 NONNI Oa NOY
va OF.11411111 OA CCA*0.1
�W Yam.O W OA. / MIN NMI MUM
f776?) 2P
SURVEY LEGEND
Z wrw.
atm •••••
NI ••.
• r
• •w PM In
• •. •w,• •_• 12
..4,
I ▪ •S1....O .Mt
m .* Mr
m ,,1411.• ..r• er e.R•
if 160•• •0 4RN\
.OR e P L14Room
3„MX. •.•.• M.w..
114TH ME
•••WM• .r
'emit Mt
nom ...4..
f• t - ...1 =MX!,
"X14-- MOON ..leSS
..-- _4 •••.
01140101I Cd 1,
.-- • —••IN. *Mt
11.0r 4•• •
- - •Op1. 41 M.
- —M.•XI/
.....—• - .•M(
—s —•UX• IIII.S• IM
hrun4•
Nl: •3�. •tw.n-lr
414 OY WORM • •
4 1. lr Marl - M'
t), .4..c.M.I rt. . IL.tit_M
6••w hal 1..ta n
Tv, d....4•tm Crab.
4..•.• TV . 4M•ri.•
4— ...fl
►►.pt��d 7 .' nr
ie
Rq.•4 Tw.' 1en4•.iY.1.
•OQ4
•111/
• M. l
12 1
MI
114
112—
osted
Iw`
LOT •a 411).
TMtisY 11)
tf - 1h�
r - W44
—
tau
viv
• w lily
• — 58 .04
►1 T ..I n
II , n
R•••021Sp n v
• rs
.,
.tic., 4 .•
M06.3C4yyy s7.0, I �i Qu
�j a a�_ • —__II4t2lpp �1
AVB�N OR �s_
$144
TRArt
1
I nk -Bair 4%
rata
LOT 1+
1
mull, • /. lr II 4 LN rlr 1@o it/M Ul Ilma•I 11114•e.i•.•t
• YY• t.•Ms A... Pm ". t1•.•.•1•••.
••••s 4 '• Yb•ir•f.•7,•.Y rm• •I . by •• ••1wl4err4.1 t41bt•• ils .Ir•r
.. Nove ls W IMM•(44.ir. fl.0 I. Mom, /V,•+.••.••. 4611• •Mr11. Ma
•.,dmama. mom •.M•••. Mamas Y.. tM.•i. Mt t.•.••w Mt Ita dm, 0•••
rYI MAY.•.1•—••salute M•..MIIIw.4.1•••rwl.r•.4••ytspwvp. -
&KM i•• ..q P1► 4. b.II mom MI �.•b Om all M4••1d M14t►rs•l%wt 141•• ••ry••.w.•••• M•nM•••• •• ••• km "mow 4e.d A•y r••
*XX WIN.* Wiliam TR dap Flaw woromollo44 441.4 4.op
.I w ww. M .I•MM• I. ••. N w.Y a••.4••...•.
ti 4. 444.44 .4•44 44.4.” omma lmlpoddmeammr••rr d m; 1.• ••• dim. MOM"
• 4W '-Iw41d MP.w•I. 1 1451 ' t. Mar•�rr1••Y /1I•rir•W
Mmm• FMK r•wy.•M 55. 514 IMAM •IP.. wr 1 4t
GIN' brim
d.••..•n•• y 4111.
CI.1•RI71 (414-44411
13411••1 C,I M. 1f:4
2$ l0 0 10 20
40
SCALE 114 PEET
Ikcal) 4.111) 4w INV I.. q. Ila or t,•••1•••• pmmilb4rIlI•d•
my r4 I IIIM*11 • led SW I s. • Sly Lamed laud $sv... a• dn
11.1.. Oar 41.4 .1 Hertel.
nrrird W 144•a elfimbe t, ]lo .
a nd L 'Ark, ►U frr.rnr L.)► 2$14)
I 1 SATHRE•BERG QIJIST, INC
• mum v aMMIMPAMPO 1110011410
Mimed- T.t.6•I4•Rrpn
a• 1110111181
CTZlWICA TA [S719URV!SY ra10cawr.
IMMU M
MINN 04 011.
0111O1mHPd60
MVOS
�OII1R!1.117 ram no rma l y1
HANSON BUILDP S _ • 114. • mo w
MEMORANDUM
TO: Acting Mayor and City Council
FROM: Greg Johnson, through City Engineer Jim Stremel
DATE: September 1, 2022
MEETING: September 6, 2022
SUBJECT: Water Treatment Plant Filters 1 and 2 Rehabilitation – Approve Plans/Specs
and Authorize Advertisement for Bids
Background:
WSB completed a feasibility study of the Medina water treatment plant in March 2022 in
response to the treatment deficiencies experienced at the facility in 2021. The feasibility study
recommended to proceed with a rehabilitation project of the existing filters in 2022 and to
expand the plant by installing a third filter in 2024 to meet the short-term and long-term water
demands. Since the completion of the feasibility study, plans and bidding documents have been
prepared for the filter rehabilitation project and are ready for approval. The filter rehabilitation
project includes the furnishing of all labor and materials for the construction of the following:
- Removal and disposal of existing filter media.
- Furnishing and installing new filter media.
- Inspection of interior steel surfaces of filter vessels.
- Complete blasting and painting interior steel surfaces of filter vessels (Bid Alt. No. 1).
- Removal and disposal of existing media retaining nozzles.
- Furnishing and installing new media retaining nozzles.
- Disinfection of filter vessels and appurtenances.
- Providing system start-up and training.
It is likely that the interior of the steel filter vessels will require blasting and painting due to the
age of the existing coatings. However, that cannot be determined until the existing media is
removed and the filter walls are inspected. Therefore, it was decided to include the coating work
as part of a bid alternative (bid alternate no. 1) and not as part of the base bid, should the existing
coating system be in adequate condition. A complete set of bidding documents is available upon
request.
Project Cost & Funding:
The total opinion of probable cost for the base bid is $472,500 which includes a 10%
contingency factor and a $25,900 fee for indirect costs for legal, engineering, administrative, and
financing. The total opinion of probable cost for Bid Alternate No. 1 was estimated to be
$162,000 for a total project cost (base bid and bid alternates) of $634,500. This opinion of
probable cost is based on current market conditions. Market conditions, particularly filter media
supply, are rapidly changing due to unpredictable alterations in the supply chain of raw materials
Agenda Item #7C
2
and product availability which may affect overall project cost. Funding is proposed through
water funds.
Next Steps:
The next step is for the City Council to approve the bidding documents and authorize
advertisements for bidding of the project. We are recommending bidding this project
electronically as we have done for a number of infrastructure projects since 2019.
The proposed bid date is Tuesday October 4, 2022 at 11:00 AM. With that schedule in mind, it is
anticipated bids will be presented at the City Council meeting on October 18th for consideration
of award.
It is anticipated project construction will occur this winter.
City Council Action Requested:
Adopt the resolution approving bidding documents and authorizing the advertisement for bids.
Resolution No. 2022-XX
September 6, 2022
Member ___________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT FILTERS 1 AND 2 REHABILITATION
PROEJCT AND ORDERING THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
WHEREAS, the city engineer has prepared bidding documents for the Project, the removal
and disposal of existing filter media, furnishing and installing new filter media, the inspection of
interior steel surfaces of filter vessels, completion of blasting and painting interior steel surfaces
of filter vessels (Bid Alt. No. 1), removing and disposing existing media retaining nozzles,
furnishing and installing new media retaining nozzles, disinfecting filter vessels and
appurtenances, and providing system start-up and training; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2022, the bidding documents were presented to the City
Council for approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Medina, as
follows:
1. The bidding documents for the Water Treatment Plant Filters 1 and 2 Rehabilitation
dated September 6, 2022 are hereby approved.
2. The city engineer is directed to insert in the Crow River News and in the Finance &
Commerce an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such
approved bidding documents. The advertisement shall be published in the Crow River
News on September 15, 2022 and in the Finance & Commerce on September 15 and
September 22 of 2022. The advertisements shall specify the work to be done, shall state
that the bids will be received electronically until 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 4,
2022, at which time they will be publicly opened electronically in the council chambers
of the city hall by the public works director and engineer, will then be tabulated, and
will be considered by the council at 7:00 p.m. on October 18, 2022, in the council
chambers of the city hall. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during the
consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the council on the issue
of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed as set forth in the
instructions to bidders in compliance with the requirements of electronic bidding and
bid security.
Resolution No. 2022-XX
September 6, 2022
2
Dated: September 6, 2022
_________________________
Todd Albers, Acting Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Caitlyn Walker, City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
___________ and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 September 6, 2022
City Council Meeting
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: September 1, 2022
MEETING: September 6, 2022 City Council
SUBJECT: Planning Department Updates
Land Use Application Review
A) Weston Woods Height PUD Amendment – The developer has requested an amendment to the
Weston Woods PUD to increase the maximum height allowed for homes on the single-family
lots in the southern portion of the development from 32 feet to 36 feet. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing at their August 10 meeting and recommended approval of the
PUD amendment. Staff intends to present to Council at the September 6 meeting.
B) Adam’s Pest Control Final Plat – Jan Har LLC has requested final plat approval for a two lot
subdivision for development of an office north of Hwy 55 and west of Willow Drive. The
property owner to the east of the site has not agreed to provide right-of-way, so the applicant
proposes access directly to Highway 55. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will present
to Council when complete, potentially at the September 20 meeting.
C) 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 has scheduled a hearing for the September 13 Planning Commission
meeting.
D) 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. Staff has scheduled a hearing for the September 13 Planning
Commission meeting.
E) Hamel Legion Park Grandstand – The Hamel Athletic Club has requested a site plan review
for construction of a grandstand at the Paul Fortin Field in Hamel Legion Park. Staff has
scheduled a hearing for the September 13 Planning Commission meeting.
F) Target/Medina Clydesdale Marketplace PUD Amendment – 300 Clydesdale Tr – Target has
requested an amendment to the Medina Clydesdale Marketplace Planned Unit Development to
allow additional signage for their Drive-Up services. Staff has scheduled a hearing for the
September 13 Planning Commission meeting.
G) 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. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their August 10 meeting and
recommended various updates to the plan. The applicant has indicated that they are preparing
supplemental information. Staff will present when prepared.
H) 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. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing at their August 10 meeting and Council provided
MEMORANDUM
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 September 6, 2022
City Council Meeting
comments on August 16. Staff understands that the developer and adjacent residents are
planning a neighborhood meeting during the evening of September 12.
I) Hamel Townhomes Final Plat – 342 Hamel Rd – Hamel Townhomes, LLC has requested final
plat approval for a 30-unit townhome development. The Council granted final plat approval on
August 16. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize documents prior to beginning of
construction.
J) Cates Ranch/Willow Drive Warehouse Industrial – Comprehensive Plan Amendment– Jeff and
Chris Cates have submitted an amendment request for a 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 Council
adopted a resolution granting preliminary approval and authorizing submission to Met Council
at the July 17 meeting. Staff has submitted to Met Council for review.
K) Blooming Meadows Concept Plan – east of Holy Name Drive, north of Lakeview Drive – Pillar
Homes has requested 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.
L) 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.
M) 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.
N) 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.
O) 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 – Roundtables were held with the Uptown Hamel Business Association
and property owners in the Uptown Hamel Area. WSB is working on the market analysis and
preparing a short survey. Staff is also preparing an engagement activity for Celebration Day.
B) Hackamore Road – staff is preparing to discuss potential easement acquisition with property
owners.
C) Long Lake Partnership – staff met with Minnehaha Creek staff related to the subwatershed
assessment and potential projects
D) Blooming Meadows Wetland Bank – staff held meetings with BWSR and the Corps of
Engineers related to the possible wetland bank in connection with the Blooming Meadows
concept
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety
DATE: September 1, 2022
RE: Department Updates
Background investigation on potential Community Service Officer candidate has been completed and
it was decided that the candidate would not be a good fit for the organization. The candidate was
advised, and we have again posted for the opening. A review of the applicants will be conducted on
September 12.
A Police Officer lateral candidate interview was conducted last week, and it was decided that the
candidate would be provided a background packet. Sergeant Boecker will be assigned the background
investigation after the packet is turned back in. The process is still ongoing and open for other
applicants until September 15.
We have noticed an uptick in medicals. I think that this correlates to the aging community and our
senior living and congregate care facilities. The brunt of these medical calls are in the Hamel Fire
Department area which has them responding to more calls than in years past. This fact is reflected in
their quarterly and annual reports. Hamel Fire has been doing a fantastic job keeping up with this
demand. I cannot say enough good things about their prompt response and the fantastic initial care
that is provided from them on these types of calls.
Patrol:
The following are updates of Patrol Officers between August 11 and August 30, 2022: Officers issued
19 citations and 49 warnings for various traffic offenses, responded to 8 property damage accidents, 1
personal injury accident, 24 medicals, 6 suspicious calls, 10 traffic complaints, 10 assists to other
agencies, and 10 business/residential alarms.
On 08/12/2022 Officers responded to assist Plymouth PD on a juvenile problem at Urban Air
Trampoline Park. A large group of juveniles inside had started fighting. Officers responded and
assisted in clearing the building of guests as the business was going to close for the day and assisted
with maintaining order in the parking lot as a large group was being rowdy.
On 08/13/2022 Officer responded to a report of an aggressive dog in the Wolsfeld Scenic and Natural
Area. A person who was running along the trails said she came upon a dog who became aggressive
towards her, and she wasn’t sure if the dog was trying to protect its owner or what was going on.
Officers arrived and were led to the area where the dog was seen. The dog was barking non-stop
towards the water of Wolsfeld Lake. Officers attempted to catch the dog, but the dog ran off. The
area where the dog was barking was checked but there was no sign of a dog owner. The dog did not
match a description of any reported missing dogs in the area as well.
On 08/13/2022 a resident called to report while he was at Lifetime Fitness in Plymouth someone
entered his locker in the locker room and stole his credit cards. The cards were later used to make
purchases at a Louis Vuitton store for $9,000 and $5,500 and an attempt at Nordstroms for $10,000
which was declined. The resident had already canceled the cards and the charges will be reversed.
The case will be forwarded to Plymouth PD as the initial theft occurred in their jurisdiction.
On 08/21/2022 Officer was dispatched to a safety check in the area of Highway 55 and Rolling Hills
Road on a report of a person in a wheelchair driving along the shoulder of the highway. The officer
located the person in a wheelchair who said he was trying to get to the Medina flea market. The
officer offered assistance in getting him there, but he declined.
On 08/22/2022 at 0356 hours Officer was dispatched to a vehicle in the ditch in the area of County
Road 19 and County Road 24. Upon arrival the officer detected an odor of an alcoholic beverage and
observed indicators of impairment. The officer administered field sobriety tests and ultimately placed
the driver under arrest for DWI. He was transported back to the Medina Police Department where he
submitted to a breath test which showed a BAC of .13. The case will be forwarded to the Medina
Prosecuting Attorney for charging.
On 08/26/2022 around 0950 hours a FedEx driver stopped by our police department lobby and
reported a juvenile female standing on the sidewalk to the west who appeared to need help. The
officer located the female who appeared to be non-verbal and believed to be a special needs child. The
officer was able to get the child into their car and began driving around the area. The child eventually
pointed to a residence along Clydesdale Circle. The officer contacted the child’s mother who said her
daughter had Downs Syndrome and was unaware that she had walked away. She also reported the
child had done the same thing two days prior and was found near Target. The case will be forwarded
to the embedded social worker for follow up.
On 08/28/2022 at 1000 hours Officer responded to a report of a damaged vehicle on the shoulder of
the roadway along County Road 101 near Prairie Creek Road. The officer made contact with a female
who appeared to be sleeping behind the wheel. She advised she had run out of gas and was waiting for
her husband. The officer smelled the odor of alcoholic beverage and marijuana coming from the
vehicle. He administered field sobriety tests and ultimately arrested the driver for DWI. She was
transported to the Medina Police Department and later released to her husband. It was later learned
that the female had an extraditable warrant for her arrest out of Texas. When she came to the police
department for her vehicle release, she was placed under arrest for the warrant and transported to
Hennepin County Jail.
Investigations:
Received a report of a theft where the suspect was in Florida. I was able to identify the suspect and
speak with him. Determined to be a civil issue regarding a business transaction. Case closed.
Attended a Cornerhouse interview with a juvenile victim related to a sexual abuse allegation case.
Nothing of such nature was disclosed. Case closed.
Received another juvenile abuse allegation. Cornerhouse interviews being scheduled for the week of
8/29 – 9/2.
Attended the Hennepin Traffic Advisory Committee (HTAC) monthly meeting on August 25th.
Completed the CSO background and provided findings to Chief Nelson.
There are currently 4 cases assigned to investigations.
1
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: August 31, 2022
MEETING: September 06, 2022
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
STREETS
• The Arrowhead Drive/Highway 55 intersection is complete. The City Engineer
anticipates the final budget will use the contingency allotment, plus may come in
slightly over budget. Final numbers are being tallied now.
• Public Works is managing the replacement of several heaved sidewalk sections
within the City. This is as expected because the addition of more concrete to the
infrastructure means there will be more failures to deal with.
• Pavement overlays have been completed at City Hall and on Oakview Road.
• Medina Road has been restriped and crosswalks and arrows have been painted
where required.
• Public Works removed a tree on Clydesdale Trail that was destroyed during a car
fire.
• Public Works milled several heaved/failing culverts and replaced blacktop
throughout the City.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
• The water plant continues to keep up with demand. Per the Minnesota Drought
Monitor, Medina remains in the “moderate Drought” category.
• Public Works has been working on several catch basins on city streets which are
failing.
• The Wellhead Protection Plan is due by 2023. It is a time-consuming process to
prepare the delineations and vulnerability assessments as is required by the
Minnesota Department of Health. WSB has been engaged to complete this
project.
• Greg has been replacing an unusual amount of faulty radios in the meter reading
system this month.
PARKS/TRAILS
• Public Works replaced dead shrubs and added mulch in Hamel Legion Park near
Well #7 for the purpose of screening.
• The trail on Hunter Drive has been seal coated, fog sealed, and restriped.
MEMORANDUM
2
• Public Works devoted most of their time over the last two weeks to Hunter Park.
All the concrete has been poured, everything has been final graded and seeded,
and the catch basin has been raised. We are currently waiting for the fence to be
installed around the courts. The activity generated several phone calls from
residents, who are especially excited for the pickleball courts to be completed.
• The Hamel Athletic Club (HAC) and the Hamel Hawks presented at the August
17th Park Commission meeting seeking funding to build the grandstand at Paul
Fortin Field. The group has raised funds and is asking the City for a sizeable
monetary and resource donation. The grandstand was added to the 2023 CIP as
the initial plan from HAC indicated City funding would not be sought, but instead
secured through fundraising. The Park Commission voted against park funding
and asked HAC to provide more information on projected use, impact, and
residential attitude toward the grandstand. Additionally, the Commission asked
HAC and the Hawks to provide a long-term (five year) comprehensive plan of all
desired upgrades/improvements/changes within the parks.
• Last week the front door of the Hamel Community Center was fixed so it locks
properly. Ductwork in the utility room was also completed.
MISC
• Greg Leuer and I met with Minnesota Safety Council to update the safety manual.
Our goal is to have it back to the safety committee for review within the next
month.
• Derek Reinking and Trevor Ratke attended the Minnesota Rural Water
Association Annual Operator Equipment Training Expo last week to earn water
and wastewater hours required to maintain their licenses.
• Work has begun to remove antennas from the water tower.
• Public Works is assisting in planning preparations for Medina Celebration Day on
Saturday, September 17. To minimize the congestion on the south end of the
building, the committee is planning to utilize the length of trail, starting with food
trucks near the north pavilion.
ORDER CHECKS AUGUST 16, 2022 – SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
053338 EVERTS, JACKSON/BESTY ....................................................... $59.20
053339 HENN COUNTY ASSESSOR ............................................... $14,000.00
053340 HENN COUNTY SHERIFF......................................................... $260.85
053341 HESTER, EDWARD .................................................................. $500.00
053342 KELLY'S WRECKER SERVICE INC .......................................... $170.00
053343 KRISHNA SANKIRTAN SOCIETY ............................................. $350.00
053344 KUCALA, CARTER .................................................................... $500.00
053345 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ................................................. $32,291.02
053346 PANDEY, RAVI ....................................................................... $1,075.00
053347 PULTE GROUP .................................................................... $20,000.00
053348 RADDOHL, SUZANNE .............................................................. $500.00
053349 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY ....................................... $980.95
053350 MICHAEL/ERIN STROMMEN .................................................... $100.00
053351 WESSIN, DAVID ........................................................................ $100.00
053352 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE .................................................. $60.00
053353 WOODDALE BUILDERS ...................................................... $10,000.00
053354 ALL ENERGY SOLAR ............................................................ $1,000.00
053355 DITTER PROPERTIES ........................................................... $5,000.00
053356 JD DOSSIER HOLDINGS LLC ............................................. $11,000.00
053357 PRECISION CHIROPRACTIC & WELLN ................................... $100.00
053358 ROMAN ROWAN/CONNIE FORTIN ....................................... $1,000.00
053359 BEAUDRY OIL & PROPANE .................................................. $1,771.79
053360 CITY VIEW PLUMBING ............................................................. $500.95
053361 CORE & MAIN LP ...................................................................... $251.65
053362 ECM PUBLISHERS INC ............................................................ $509.46
053363 EHLERS & ASSOC INC. ......................................................... $2,925.00
053364 ESS BROS. & SONS, INC. ..................................................... $5,871.75
053365 GRAINGER................................................................................ $116.65
053366 HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES I ................................ $500.00
053367 HAWKINS INC. ............................................................................ $30.00
053368 HENN COUNTY CORRECTIONS ................................................ $72.50
053369 HENN COUNTY TREASURER ............................................... $2,162.98
053370 KD & COMPANY RECYCLING INC ........................................... $769.30
053371 LANO EQUIPMENT INC ............................................................ $488.14
053372 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS.TRUST ........................................ $719.00
053373 NAPA OF CORCORAN INC ...................................................... $118.89
053374 NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTANTS ................................... $954.00
053375 NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC ............................................ $1,600.00
053376 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTION LLC .............................................. $304.77
053377 OMANN BROTHERS PAVING INC ........................................... $325.50
053378 PEARSON BROS., INC. ......................................................... $6,664.98
053379 RAINBOW PARTY ARTS .......................................................... $840.00
053380 RICHARD ALAN PRODUCTIONS .......................................... $1,400.00
053381 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES INC ................................ $11,180.25
053382 RUSSELL SECURITY RESOURCE INC .................................... $605.00
053383 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC ........................................ $33.21
053384 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL ............................................................... $645.56
053385 TEGRETE CORP .................................................................... $1,355.00
053386 TIMESAVER OFFSITE .............................................................. $614.38
053387 TWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES, IN ................................ $27,015.38
053388 SSI MN TRANCHE 1 #10322006 ............................................ $5,491.50
053389 SSI MN TRANCHE 3 #10327096 ............................................ $6,614.64
Total Checks $181,499.25
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS AUGUST 16, 2022 – SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
006497E PR PERA .............................................................................. $18,282.50
006498E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $18,396.95
006499E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $2,784.00
006500E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $4,008.91
006501E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $24.00
006502E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,929.37
006503E FRONTIER .................................................................................. $57.94
006504E AFLAC ....................................................................................... $491.08
006505E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ......................................... $12.00
006506E MINNESOTA, STATE OF ....................................................... $2,838.00
006507E FURTHER .............................................................................. $1,929.37
006508E PR FED/FICA ....................................................................... $17,816.28
006509E PR MN Deferred Comp ........................................................... $2,784.00
006510E PR STATE OF MINNESOTA .................................................. $3,907.08
006511E CITY OF MEDINA ........................................................................ $23.00
006512E PR PERA .............................................................................. $17,367.71
006513E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ....................................... $110.00
006514E FURTHER .............................................................................. $3,269.27
006515E ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICE .................................................. $6,358.70
006516E CENTERPOINT ENERGY ......................................................... $371.70
006517E DELTA DENTAL ..................................................................... $2,459.02
006518E FARMERS STATE BANK OF HAMEL ....................................... $150.00
006519E GREAT AMERICA FINANCIAL SERVI ...................................... $178.95
006520E MARCO (LEASE) ....................................................................... $795.61
006521E CITY OF PLYMOUTH ............................................................. $1,036.55
006522E WRIGHT HENN COOP ELEC ASSN ...................................... $2,436.70
Total Electronic Checks $109,818.69
PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT – AUGUST 17, 2022 & AUGUST 31, 2022
0512087 BILLMAN, JACKSON CARROLL ............................................... $450.27
0512088 ALBERS, TODD M. ...................................................................... $55.00
0512089 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ................................................... $1,137.75
0512090 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,788.42
0512091 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,920.17
0512092 CAVANAUGH, JOSEPH .............................................................. $55.00
0512093 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $2,460.73
0512094 DEMARS, LISA ....................................................................... $1,418.16
0512095 DESLAURIES, DEAN .................................................................. $55.00
0512096 DION, DEBRA A. .................................................................... $2,091.51
0512097 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $2,008.33
0512098 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,869.01
0512099 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $2,305.76
0512100 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................... $678.15
0512101 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $2,789.59
0512102 HANSON, JUSTIN .................................................................. $2,620.20
0512103 JACOBSON, NICOLE ................................................................ $909.85
0512104 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,740.17
0512105 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,633.79
0512106 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $2,080.19
0512107 MARTIN, KATHLEEN M .............................................................. $77.92
0512108 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $1,802.93
0512109 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,814.92
0512110 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,795.93
0512111 RATKE, TREVOR J ................................................................ $1,734.87
0512112 REID, ROBIN ............................................................................... $55.00
0512113 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $2,079.83
0512114 RUTH, BRENDA L. ................................................................. $1,652.47
0512115 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $2,613.08
0512116 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,527.21
0512117 VINCK, JOHN J ...................................................................... $1,842.74
0512118 VOGEL, DOMINIC A .................................................................. $872.71
0512119 VOGEL, NICHOLE .................................................................. $1,122.24
0512120 WALKER, CAITLYN M. ........................................................... $1,872.48
0512121 BURSCH, JEFFREY ............................................................... $1,225.43
0512122 ALTENDORF, JENNIFER L. ................................................... $1,137.75
0512123 BARNHART, ERIN A. ............................................................. $2,791.17
0512124 BOECKER, KEVIN D. ............................................................. $2,818.46
0512125 CONVERSE, KEITH A. ........................................................... $2,174.97
0512126 DEMARS, LISA ....................................................................... $1,706.88
0512127 DION, DEBRA A. .................................................................... $2,152.10
0512128 ENDE, JOSEPH...................................................................... $2,361.11
0512129 FINKE, DUSTIN D. ................................................................. $2,903.84
0512130 GLEASON, JOHN M. .............................................................. $2,041.79
0512131 GREGORY, THOMAS ............................................................... $886.62
0512132 HALL, DAVID M. ..................................................................... $2,203.79
0512133 HANSON, JUSTIN .................................................................. $2,573.03
0512134 JACOBSON, NICOLE ............................................................. $1,151.91
0512135 JOHNSON, SCOTT T. ............................................................ $2,765.82
0512136 KLAERS, ANNE M. ................................................................. $1,647.05
0512137 LEUER, GREGORY J. ............................................................ $2,032.05
0512138 MCGILL, CHRISTOPHER R. .................................................. $1,838.86
0512139 MCKINLEY, JOSHUA D .......................................................... $2,183.97
0512140 NELSON, JASON ................................................................... $2,887.87
0512141 RATKE, TREVOR J ................................................................ $1,833.57
0512142 REINKING, DEREK M ............................................................ $2,504.92
0512143 RUTH, BRENDA L. ................................................................. $1,738.03
0512144 SCHARF, ANDREW ............................................................... $2,407.33
0512145 SCHERER, STEVEN T. .......................................................... $2,674.86
0512146 VINCK, JOHN J ...................................................................... $2,459.49
0512147 VOGEL, NICHOLE ..................................................................... $993.12
0512148 WALKER, CAITLYN M. ........................................................... $1,910.20
0512149 BURSCH, JEFFREY .................................................................. $767.62
Total Payroll Direct Deposit $116,704.99