HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-14-2013CITY OF MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
1. Call to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners Robin Reid, Randy Foote, Charles Nolan and
Mark Osmanski
Absent: V. Reid and Kent Williams
Also Present: City Councilmember Kathleen Martin, City Planner Dusty Finke, Nate
Sparks of NAC and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson.
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council proceedings
Martin updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City
Council.
4. Planning Department Report
Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects.
5. Approval of the April 9, 2013 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes.
Motion by Foote, seconded by R. Reid, to approve the April 9, 2013 with one minor
change. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: V. Reid and Kent Williams)
6. Public Hearing — Randy Cole & Sandra Fenske - 2959 Lakeshore Avenue -
Request for a Variance to the Setback Requirements from the Ordinary High
Water Line (OHWL) of Lake Independence for an addition and deck onto their
home (PID 18-118-23-23-0022).
Sparks presented request for a Variance to the OHWL setback requirements. He
explained the lot is approximately 7500 square feet in size. The applicant is
proposing a full addition with a narrow deck and stairs. The stairs extend out into the
yard currently and would be proposed to be less intrusive and would be parallel to the
deck and not towards the lake. In 1999 variances were granted to build a home on the
property to replace a cabin. The house was then built 25 feet from the road rather
than the 30 foot requirement, even though they weren't approved for the 25 foot
setback. Staff is not sure how this happened, though the front of the house appears to
be in line with the other homes along the lake. He said some consideration at the time
of construction may have been allowed, but staff is unsure. The lot currently exceeds
the allowable hard cover. Sparks further summarized the neighboring properties and
Variances granted along the lakeshore.
1
Sparks reviewed the Variance Criteria with the Commission and explained if the
Variance was granted as requested, it wouldn't change the character of the area. He
said lately the City has been looking closer at the impact of the local waters. He said
in this case, if the Commission were to consider approving the Variance staff would
recommend the applicant improve the stormwater runoff. Improvements would be to
replace existing hardcover in areas where plastic is used around landscaping and
replace it with permeable products. Sparks said the Watershed would also like to see
reduced hardcover on the lot which would assist in less runoff to the lake.
Sparks said by granting a Variance for this property it wouldn't be creating
precedence for others. He further suggested stormwater management be reevaluated.
R. Reid asked why the applicant needed a variance when they are reducing the
setback distance from original variance approved. Sparks explained that the original
Variance was approved for the deck and not for a full addition. Finke said the request
increases what was originally approved by increased massing of the addition going up
three stories and an additional deck.
Osmanski asked where the stormwater was located. Finke and Sparks explained its
location and that the catch basin would be to catch their own drainage. Nolan asked
what ideas would be helpful on a residential scale. Sparks said staff would have the
City Engineer look at it to determine what would be best. He said perhaps a small
raingarden to slow the water from getting to the lake. He said it would need to be
large enough to serve the purpose. Foote asked if any of the other land owners had
anything similar and Sparks said he couldn't tell from the applicant's location.
Nolan asked if the construction of the home not meeting the setback was by the
current owner. Sparks said no, it was a different land owner.
Public Hearing opened at 7:00 p.m.
Applicant Sandra Fenske of 2959 Lakeshore Avenue explained that the City had
made improvements to some of the runoff issues in the area and sees huge
improvements from Balsam. She said she'd be willing to take the plastic out from the
landscaping areas. Nolan asked the size of the house and she said it was a four
bedroom. Nolan asked what prompted the dimensions for the addition and Fenske
said it was determined by the current size of the deck. Dave Raskob, the applicant's
builder, explained that he's a neighbor and builder and wanted to work with the
existing conditions and make the same size with no additional impact to the lake.
Nolan asked what was currently on the ground elevation under the deck. Raskob said
it currently has a concrete slab which is cracked and would be taken out and replaced
to improve it.
Foote asked if the applicant gets water from the neighboring properties. Fenske said
they used to get water from the lot to the north but they made improvements with a
swale and don't have issues any longer.
2
Public Hearing closed at 7:37 p.m.
Osmanski, Foote, and R. Reid said they would approve the variance if the applicant
reduced the impervious surface. Nolan said he didn't see exchanging the plastic for
the fabric as an equal exchange. He asked for the applicant to look at some of the
hard surface areas and to reduce it further. He suggested trading a built surface for
landscaping or forgoing the grilling deck or the deck out by the lake. Nolan
commented that the applicant is adding to the footprint. Osmanski suggested a
specific percentage of reduction be recommended as an option. Nolan said at a
minimum he would want to see the drainage system improved. He said it's common
for properties to be able to mow right up to the lake, but then there isn't anything to
stop the chemicals from going into the lake. Foote said they were all good points and
if they lowered the size of the addition that would be acceptable. Nolan said they
wouldn't have to lessen the addition size, but rather eliminate the grilling deck,
sundeck, fire pit or something.
R. Reid asked if Nolan's issue was the additional 86 square feet being added for the
deck. Nolan said it was the increased hard cover on a lot that currently doesn't meet
the minimum and are asking for something additional.
Motion by Foote, seconded by R. Reid to recommend approval of the Variance
to the setback requirements from the OHWL on Lake Independence for an
addition and deck onto their home, conditioned that the private drainage is
improved as recommended by staff and the impervious surface be reduced
including but not limited to the areas within the landscaped areas. Ayes by
Foote, Osmanski, and R. Reid. Nay by Nolan. Motion carried. (Absent: V. Reid
and Kent Williams).
7. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina City Code
relating to required street widths.
Finke presented the street width regulation changes. Nolan asked what the previous
changes were. Finke said the previous ordinance didn't have minimum standards in
City Code. He explained that in December a new ordinance was adopted relating to
road improvements which required a minimum roadway width. As recommended
currently, any subdivision with three lots or more would require a road meeting
minimum roadway width requirements. The proposed changes in the draft ordinance
modify the number of lots that trigger the road improvement. One lot into two lots
would not be required to meet the minimum width requirements. Foote asked as an
example, if a property owner came in and wanted to divide their one lot into two lots
and it was approved and didn't need to make improvements, but then a neighbor on
the same road comes in to divide their one lot into two, would the second party on the
roadway have to improve the road? Finke responded by saying the ordinance
presumes some sort of improvement, but the two owners on the same road could seek
the same flexibility without having to widen the road, but they would not be able to
then apply again and further subdivide any portion of the original lot.
3
Nolan asked staff if they were aware of any other municipalities that allow less than
20 feet in width roadways. Finke said not to his knowledge with new streets. He said
currently a person on an existing road wouldn't be allowed to subdivide without
improving the entire road to 20 feet in width.
Nolan asked if a cap should be put on the flexibility of people subdividing on a
narrower road. Finke said the ordinance is written to provide the City a lot of
flexibility. R. Reid asked at what point is a driveway turned into a road. Finke said
over two lots would trigger it.
Neil Wolfe, Hamel Fire Department, said 20 feet is for a reason, because they are
driving big trucks. Running a 24 foot truck which is 8 % feet wide in 10 below zero
temperatures with trees along the road is difficult. He said some driveways are as
long as a quarter of a mile in length and he feels the width standards are there for a
reason and that it works. He said some of the houses being built are the size of a
commercial building (5-10,000 square feet) and their trucks can't get down an 18 foot
roadway. The standard fire access road requirements need to remain.
R. Reid asked how we separate the difference of a driveway and a road. Wolfe said a
lot of existing private roads are as difficult to maneuver through as are driveways.
Nolan asked if there was any liability to the City if the roadway width was reduced.
Finke said the new ordinance would allow staff to have the ability to discuss requests
related to road widths. Wolfe said he doesn't want to deviate from the 20 foot
requirements. Finke said the new urban subdivisions will be 28 feet and it's the rural
property areas that would have the flexibility. Finke said that Wolfe made a good
point concerning rural areas possibly needing more road width than urban areas since
urban areas have fire hydrants. Wolfe said it's a difficult task at best to make sure no
one gets hurt, but with the long winters it's dangerous with the ice and weight of the
trucks. Inherently the tanker trucks are the most dangerous to drive. If a fire is at a
home and it has a long driveway it should have appropriate accessibility with a 20
foot wide driveway for safety reasons. He said the Fire Department has 8-12 minutes
to mitigate a fire.
R. Reid asked how wide a tanker was and Wolfe said Hamel's is 8'8". Finke
explained that with snow plowing the guys run into the same problem, though the
City has the option to use different vehicles based on the location they are plowing.
Wolfe added that it's happened once already where the fire trucks couldn't access the
house due to site circumstances and accessibility.
Public Hearing opened at 8:20 p.m.
Bob Mitchell of 1745 Willow Drive said in his building he had to have a water
bladder in each building until the City built a water tower. He said if properties aren't
4
accessible to the Fire Department, insurance companies aren't going to insure the
building(s).
Public Hearing closed at 8:22 p.m.
Foote said he's generally been in favor of wider roads. He said he would like to keep
it at 20 feet in width which would then not open up the City to legal issues. Osmanski
said he is in favor of safe streets, but to allow flexibility to create adjustments to
existing narrower streets for small subdivisions would be nice if it wouldn't put the
fire fighters at risk.
R. Reid asked if the City had reduced the roadway widths on any subdivisions. Finke
said only one he could think of was 20 feet in width. He said the question is if
someone comes in would the 18 foot road be sufficient with improvements or would a
24 or 28 foot roadway width be required. Foote said his concern is multiple
subdivisions serviced by an 18 foot wide roadway. Nolan asked if they were talking
about the road or the driveway. Finke said the road to get to the driveway.
Nolan asked Wolfe if the ordinance would allow flexibility and if safety is a factor in
design. Wolfe said he maintains the opinion that a 20'width road should be required
since trucks will only be getting larger. The ability to allow people to not meet the 20'
roadway width would only increase the number of requests the City would see.
Wolfe said he still maintains the opinion of requiring 20' roadway width. Foote
asked Wolfe how he felt if pullover areas would be created and Wolfe responded by
saying it would still be a danger to his fire fighters when they pull over on a class five
roadway.
Motion by Osmanski, seconded by Foote, to deny the Ordinance Amendment to
allow flexibility to reduce street widths less than 20 feet. Motion carries
unanimously (Absent: V. Reid and Kent Williams).
8. Continued Public Hearing — Thomas T. Morrison — Lot Subdivision of one
existing Lot into Two Lots at 1525 Hunter Drive (PID 25-118-23-22-0005) and a
Variance from minimum Road Width requirements.
Sparks presented the application. He explained to the Commission that the applicant
withdrew his request for a Variance to the road width requirements today, but would
still like to subdivide his property.
Foote asked how long the road was and Sparks said about a quarter mile. Nolan said
he wasn't at the meeting last month and went to the property and didn't think that it
would be that difficult to expand. R. Reid commented that there would be quite an
expense to widen and make the road improvements. She further asked what the
narrowest and widest points of the road were. Sparks explained it ranged between 18
feet and 20 feet. Finke said they've gone out since winter and the road is on average
18 1/2 feet wide. Nolan asked what design specifications the City would require for a
5
private road. The Commission discussed and Finke said it would have to meet City
regulations.
Truck Morrison, the applicant, said he withdrew his request for a Variance. He said
since the previous meeting he had met with the Ferris's lawyer and had worked
through concerns they had about the driveway running parallel along their property.
Morrison said they agreed to install eight spaded trees to place anywhere the Ferris's
so choose. Foote asked if the applicant was willing to build the road to the 20 foot
width standard and Morrison said if they had to they would, but are hoping to not
have to widen the area closest to Hunter Drive.
Ferris of 1535 Hunter Drive said he thought six more homes could be allowed along
their roadway and is inevitable. So by definition, the area will become a development
over time. He thinks the road width issue will continue over time.
Morrison said three of the nine homes have driveways 1/4 mile long and narrow. Nolan
said if the driveway isn't safe for a fire truck to drive down, then property owners are
losing some of the fire protection.
Public Hearing closed at 8:52 p.m.
R. Reid asked for clarification concerning there not being a need for a Variance since
they were just subdividing one lot into two. Finke said yes and that a condition
should be placed on the application to require the road to meet City standards.
Finke suggested the applicant and Ferris have a formal agreement with staff
reviewing it as it relates to the easement for the driveway. The Commission agreed to
include it as a condition.
Nolan said he is pleased that two property owners could get together and resolve their
differences since he hadn't seen it happen very often.
Morrison asked if they could have more than 180 days to file with the County and the
Commission said they would be willing to allow.
Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Foote, to approve a Lot Subdivision of one
existing Lot into Two Lots conditioned on modifying condition number four to
require a 20 foot roadway being constructed and to allow for the applicant to
have more than 180 days to file the necessary paperwork with Hennepin County
to effectuate the lot split. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: V. Reid and
Kent Williams).
9. Continued Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina
City Code related to flag lots, lot frontage, driveway regulations, minimum street
grades, and the use of public easements and rights -of -way.
Finke presented the ordinance Amendment.
6
Nolan asked at what point does a driveway become a road. Finke said with four
homes. Finke said the minimum width standard deals with the reduction of side
loaded garages. It also requires new driveways in nonrural districts to be paved
which are common in suburban areas. The frontage of a flag lot should have a
minimum of 1 % street gradient. Finke said rural lots would be required to have 60
feet of street frontage. Martin asked why 60 feet and Finke said it was chosen to be
consistent with the rural right-of-way width requirements. Finke explained that the
width would be wide enough to create a road if necessary in the future.
Martin asked for clarification of suitable soils within private roads or access
easements. Finke explained that suitable soils under private streets within outlots do
not count for adjacent property. He noted that the proposed ordinance amendment
would treat the area within an access easement the same as if it were in an outlot, and
it wouldn't be counted towards the suitable soils for either property. He noted that
the reason for this is that locating a septic system within the access easement would
be inconsistent with its use for access. However, if the subdivider proposed a flag lot,
suitable soils within the flagpole would be counted towards the lot in which they are
located.
Finke explained utility easements are a big concern. Drainage is typically
accommodated in rear drainage utility easements and property owners tend to do what
they think are minor improvements that cause drainage issues. Nolan asked if we
would review these requests.
Continued Public hearing closed at 9:19 p.m.
Motion by Foote, seconded by R. Reid to Approve the Ordinance Amendment
related to flag lots, lot frontage, driveway regulations, minimum street grades,
and the use of the public easements and rights -of -ways as drafted and conditions
within right-of-way. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: V. Reid and Kent
Williams).
10. Council Meeting Schedule
Nolan to attend and present at the May 21 st, 2013 Council meeting.
11. Adjourn
Motion by Osmanski, seconded by R. Reid, to adjourn at 9:22 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously. (Absent: V. Reid and Kent Williams)
7