HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-2008CITY OF MEDINA
2052 COUNTY ROAD 24
MEDINA, MN 55340
AGENDA
MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEDINA CITY HALL
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of May 13, 2008 Planning Commission draft minutes
6. Greenwood Stables LLC — Sara G. Hogan — 1982 Hamel Road (PID #10-118-
23-42-0001) - Conditional Use Permit and Variances to the side yard setback
requirements to replace existing barn with a new 18,996 square foot private
horse barn/indoor riding arena (Continued Item — Closed Public Hearing).
7. Public Hearing - Hennepin County Public Works Facility -1600 Prairie Drive
(PID 10-118-23-12-0003 and 10-118-23-11-0004) — Planned Unit
Development Amendment General Plan for the construction of a Wind
Turbine with a height of 80 meters (or 262 feet) to the top of the tower and a
369 foot in height wing span.
8. Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8, Section 834
of the City's Zoning Ordinance — Pertaining to regulations related to Uptown
Hamel District.
9. Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control Ordinance — Request for
Recommendation from Planning Commission — (No Public Hearing)
10.0pen Discussion Items
a) Rural Residential Zoning District Standards and Accessory Structure
Standards.
b) Affordable Housing Policy
11. Future Meeting Information
12. Adjourn
Posted in City Hall May 28, 2008
Updated June 6, 2008
Agenda Item: 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Associate Planner; through Planning Director Benetti
DATE: June 4, 2008
MEETING: June 10, 2008 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Greenwood Stables (Sara Hogan) —1982 Hamel Road —
Variance and Conditional Use Permit for construction of a horse barn
Application Deadline
Original Application Received: April 15, 2008
Complete Application Received: April 29, 2008
120-day Review Deadline: August 27, 2008
Update from May PC Meeting
At the May 13 meeting, the general consensus of the Commission appeared to be to recommend
denial of the setback variance to locate an 18,740 S.F. accessory structure 41 feet from the
western property line. The applicants (Hogans) stated that they would propose an updated
location for the structure that meets animal structure setback requirements. The Commission
tabled the application to allow for this change.
The applicants have submitted updated plans with a new location very close to the center of the
lot. The location meets setback requirements and is much less visible from Hamel Road.
Engineering have expressed a few comments regarding the new location, but they have said their
comments can be added as conditions prior to a building permit being issued.
Overview of Request
Sara Hogan has requested approval of a conditional use permit and a variance to construct a
horse barn at 1982 Hamel Road. The existing large structure would be demolished and the new
structure placed more towards the center of the lot. The proposed structure is approximately
2,500 square feet larger and approximately the same height as the existing structure.
The structure is proposed for private use only, and no commercial use is requested. Following is
a list of the requests necessary to allow construction of the structure:
Conditional Use Permit (accessory structure) — Section 825.19 states that parcels over 3 acres
in size may include up to two accessory structures for an aggregate total of 3,000 sq. ft. in size.
Additional accessory buildings and square footage is permitted on parcels over 5 acres in size via
a CUP. The purpose of a CUP is to allow the City Council to impose conditions on the use which it
considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Variance (building height) — Subd. 3 of Section 825.19 requires that accessory structures in
residential districts not exceed the height of the principal structure on the property. The proposed
structure height is 21.25 feet while the home structure height of the home is 19.5 feet. In terms of
gross height, the peak of the proposed structure is 26.5 feet while the home is 26.75 feet to the peak.
Site Description
The subject property is approximately 19.25 acres in size and is zoned Rural Residential.
Existing structures include the home and an existing 16,300 horse barn located in the southwest
corner of the lot. Two large paddocks, an outdoor riding ring, and driveway/parking space are
also located in the vicinity of the existing horse barn. Hard surfaces cover approximately 11 % of
the site, and excluding the items required by ordinance (setback areas, septic sites, >6% slopes),
the technical "hardcover" is approximately 16%.
Potential wetlands have been identified in the east and north portions of the property. The City's
wetland engineer has conservatively located the wetlands in order to install fencing and to
conduct any upland buffering which may be required by the wetland ordinance in place at time
of permit. The applicant has contracted for a wetland delineation to be completed as well. The
potential wetlands are identified by the hatched areas in the aerial above. The proposed structure
is approximately 140 feet from the closest potential wetland. Following approval of the wetland
delineation, fencing will be installed to keep horses out of any wetland, and a 20' Upland Buffer
will be created adjacent to the edge of the downgradient wetland.
The applicants wish to install a cement manure containment area to the west side of the structure.
Staff suggests this as a condition, along with other manure management provisions.
2
Building Details
The proposed structure is 184 feet in length (east -west) and 144 feet wide (north -south) at the
widest point. The structure juts out to this full width for approximately 1/3 of the total length of
the structure. The structure is a pole frame building and exterior building material is proposed to
be 29 gauge steel, which the plans identify as two -toned. The architectural design strives for a
typical barn look, with barn doors, faux hay doors, and cupolas along the roofline. These
elements and the layout of the structure break up the massing a bit, especially along Hamel Road
(see attached building plans). The previous plan had shown a fake barn door along the long side
of the structure, but has now been removed. The door broke up the appearance of the long side
of the building nicely, but the applicants removed it because that side now is not visible. The
Planning Commission may add specific recommendations regarding architectural requirements
at their discretion.
The floorplan of the structure identifies a 72x184 indoor riding arena in the far west portion of
the structure. Farther east, within the widest portion of the barn, a 72x66 area is shown for horse
stalls and 16x48 for storage (see attached building plans).
As mentioned above, the proposed structure is both larger and taller than the existing structure.
The Fire Marshal has required a 20-foot fire access lane (built to a 7-ton standard) be built to the
northeast corner of the barn.
Conditional Use Permit Ordinance Compliance
Section 825.39 states that when considering a CUP, the City shall consider the effect of the
proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of occupants or surrounding
lands. Among other things, the City shall consider the following:
1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the immediate vicinity.
The updated proposed location is near the center of the 20-acre parcel, which helps minimize
impacts on neighboring property. If the Commission believes that additional steel exterior
buildings are a concern, they may wish to recommend some material differentiating or some
other architectural improvements.
2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
Staff does not believe the proposed use will impede normal and orderly development.
3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are
being provided.
Staff does not believe that the proposed structure will increase the need for utilities or access
roads. The City Engineer has stated that the applicants will have to provide a plan for the drain
tiles which are located on the property, since the proposed barn would be located over the tiles.
Additionally, the applicants will have to identify 20' upland buffers around the wetland
downgradient from the structure. The fire marshal has also required a 20-foot fire lane to access
the northeast corner of the structure. Plans will need to identify this fire lane.
3
4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and
loading space to serve the proposed use.
No commercial activities are allowed, and staff believes the existing loading area is sufficient for
private use. As stated above, the Fire Marshal has required a substantial fire lane to serve the
barn.
S. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor,
fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to
control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring
properties will result.
The proposed location in the center of the lot will help reduce the impact on neighboring
properties. The applicants wish to construct an enclosed manure containment area which will
also reduce impacts. The applicant proposes no signage and lighting is shown as downcast and
shielded.
6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
Staff believes a private horse barn, as a use, is reasonably related to the existing land uses in the
vicinity.
7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
The proposed accessory structure exceeds the height of the principal structure (the home), which
is not allowed under Section 825.19 of the Code. See below for more information on this
subject. Staff believes that other aspects of the application are consistent with the purposes of the
zoning code.
8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City.
Staff does not believe the use is in conflict with the Comp Plan policies for the Permanent Rural
Area.
9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Staff does not believe the proposed structure will increase traffic hazard or congestion.
10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or
general unsightliness.
The applicants proposed landscaping adjacent to the structure. The updated location of the
structure As stated above, the Planning Commission may wish to make additional architectural
recommendations at their discretion to reduce the impact of the large steel structure.
11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
The applicant wishes to complete construction before the end of the year.
12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer.
The property is going through a sale. The previous owner signed the application in addition to
the Hogans.
4
Criteria for Height Variance
According to Section 825.45 of the City Code: "a variance from the provisions of the zoning
ordinance may be issued to provide relief to the landowner where the ordinance imposes undue
hardship or unique conditions to the property owner in the use of the land...A variance may be
granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist:"
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape,
topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of this
Ordinance, have had no control
The allowed height of the accessory structure depends on the height of the home on the
property, which the applicant had no control over.
2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this
Ordinance.
Property owners within the same district with taller homes would be allowed to build accessory
structures of this height.
3. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
The home was constructed prior to the applicant purchasing the property, so the height
limitation did not result because of the actions of the applicant.
4. That granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privileges
that is denied by this Ordinance to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the
same district.
Because the height of the accessory structure is limited by the height of the home on the lot,
owners of "taller" homes would be allowed to have accessory structures of this size throughout
the Rural Residential district.
S. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
The applicants have reduced the pitch of the roof in order to reduce the height of the structure.
The proposed structure is the same height as the building to be demolished, and is no taller than
would be allowed in the district if the home on the site happened to be taller. Additionally, the
gross peak height of the proposed structure is lower than the peak height of the house.
6. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance or to
property in the same zone.
The proposed structure is shorter in height than would be permitted under the ordinance if
the home on the parcel happened to be taller.
City Discretion
The City generally has relatively limited discretion to deny a Conditional Use Permit. If the
application meets City ordinances, the CUP should be approved. In this case, a number or
ordinance provisions are not met. This would give adequate rationale to deny the CUP. The
City has a higher level of discretion with variances. The City has adopted regulations, and may
only grant variances if the applicant proves hardship and explicitly meets the criteria described
above.
5
If the City approves of the CUP, the City has discretion to impose conditions on the approval that
protect the best interests of the surrounding community and the city as a whole. Section 825.41
states that these conditions could include, but are not limited to:
• Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions.
• Limiting the height, size or location of buildings.
• Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points.
• Increasing the street width.
• Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces.
• Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs.
• Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or
nearby property.
• Designating sites for open space.
Staff has recommended conditions below.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit. The consensus of the Commission
appeared to have been supportive of the height variance as well. Staff suggests the following
conditions:
1) A conditional use permit is hereby granted for construction of an accessory structure with
a maximum footprint of 18,740 square feet in size. A variance is also granted permitting
the building height of the accessory structure to exceed the building height of the
principal structure on the parcel.
2) The structure shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans received by
the City on May 27, 2008 except as otherwise noted within this resolution.
3) The applicant shall warrant that the addition proposed is for private use only, and that no
commercial and/or fee -based activities shall occur.
4) The gross distance from grade to the peak of the structure shall not exceed 26.5 feet.
5) The building height of the accessory structure shall not exceed 22 feet.
6) The applicants shall submit a plan acceptable to the City with regards to manure
management, containment, and disposal. The applicants and future owners shall be
responsible for abiding by this approved manure management plan;
7) The applicants shall install a cement manure containment area to contain a volume of
3,100 cubic feet of manure;
8) Manure must be disposed of in a way consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency rules at least one time every three months;
6
9) The applicant and all future owners of the subject property shall comply with any future
livestock intensity standards as established by the City. Until such time, the applicant
shall comply with the following animal unit intensity ratio:
Animal Units
Animal Species
Minimum Grazable Acres per
Animal Unit
Horse
1
Cow
1
Llama
0.5
Goat
0.5
Sheep
0.5
Pony
0.5
Domestic Fowl
0.1
Other animals not listed above
1 unit per 1000 lbs.
10) Plans submitted and approved by the City do not propose human dwelling as a use and do
not meet regulations for such a use.
11) The applicants shall create an Upland Buffer Zone of 20 feet in width adjacent to the
wetland downgradient from the proposed construction and execute necessary paperwork
to formalize the Buffer Zone.
12) The applicants shall install and maintain fencing in order to prevent grazing within the
wetlands and Upland Buffer Zones on the property.
13) The applicant shall abide by permitting requirements and follow the conditions of the
Building Official, Fire Marshal, and City Engineer.
14) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs
associated with the review of the Variances and Conditional Use Permit applications.
Attachments
1. Location map
2. Plans dated May 27, 2008
3. City Engineer memo
7
4�
Location Map
Subject Property: 1982 Hamel Road
),..„55
CHIPPLOTID-
PRA�Rr�� ,
enn ep in County; 0
Public Wo ❑
a
w
x
0
a
Hamel Road
r
BLA.CKFOOT TRL
June 3, 2008
Ms. Debra Peterson -Dufresne
Planning Assistant
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Hamel, Minnesota 55340
Re: 1982 Hamel Road
Bonestroo File No. 000190-08000-1
Plat No. L-08-027
Dear Deb,
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
Bonestroo
We have reviewed the site grading and building plans prepared by Gronberg and Associates, Inc. dated 5-27-08 for the
proposed horse barn at 1982 Hamel Road. The plans propose to remove an existing barn and construct a new one in a
different location north of the existing home. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters:
• The proposed grading plan will disturb more than one acre therefore a SWPPP is required. The SWPPP should
include erosion control and restoration plans for the old barn site as well as the new barn site and associated
grading for both sites.
• The plans should show primary and secondary septic system sites.
• More detail should be provided regarding the existing tile lines shown on the grading plan. The plans note that
the existing southerly tile line is to be moved but no indication as to where. The northerly tile line is shown but
there are no notes about relocating the line. Both lines run underneath the proposed barn. Additional
information as to where the tile lines will be relocated to, where they will discharge to and how this fits with the
proposed grading plan should be submitted and shown on a revised grading plan.
• A drainage area map and drainage calcs should be provided to quantify storm water flows for the 2, 10, and 100
year storm events. Storm water rates discharging from the property after the improvements must not exceed
discharge rates today.
• Details should be provided for the proposed driveway.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4863.
Sincerely,
BONESTR00
Tom Kellogg
Agenda Item: 10(b)
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Medina Planning Commissioners
FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning Director
DATE: June 10, 2008
RE: Affordable Housing Policy — Open Discussion Only
At the regular City Council meeting of June 3, 2008, Administrative Intern Kim Ann provided to
the Council and general public a PowerPoint presentation titled Affordable Housing Research for
the City of Medina. The presentation was meant to provide an overview and receive initial input
from the Council on establishing an Affordable Housing Policy in Medina.
The City Council requested the research material be presented to the Planning Commission for
your review as well, with the opportunity to provide input, ideas or suggestions on how to
implement such a policy in the City, and forward those onto staff and the Council for future
consideration.
Staff will provide a brief background on this research material at the Tuesday, June 10th meeting,
and will help facilitate any discussion on this item. This item is being presented without a public
hearing.
Attachment:
Affordable Housing Research for the City of Medina
Page 1 of 1 Planning Commission 06-10-08
Affordable Housing Research
for the City of Medina
for Chad Adams
prepared by Kim Ann
5/25/2008
Dynamics of Affordable Housing
Housing provides a necessary foundation for physical and social life. It provides shelter, security, recreation, and wealth. It plays a central
role in the health and well-being of its occupants and also supports their employment and educational endeavors. Among the poor, there is a
severe shortage of adequate, affordable housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost
burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, dothing, transportation and medical care. An estimated 12 million renter
and homeowner households now pay more then 50 percent of their annual incomes for housing, and a family with one full-time worker
eaming the rrini mum wage cannot afford the local fair -market rent for a two -bedroom apartment anywhere in the United States."'
Purpose of this report
To provide the reader vvith 1) General information on Affordable Housing and who it would serve, 2) Explain the financial tools that are
available in the Minnesota Metropolitan area, 3) An explanation of supportive services for Affordable Housing projects, 4) An explanation of
planning pdides that support Affordable Housing, and 5) Details of how Affordable Housing can be implemented in the community of Medina.
The format of this report is in narrative outline for the purpose of the intended audience to gain information by glancing through its sections
prior to an oral presentation.
I. Affordable Housing
A General Information on Affordable Housing
1. Understanding the Need
There is a lack of affordable housing for people of all ages and incomes create stress on families, dampen area productivity and stifles
job grovvth. Communities in the seven-camty metropolitan area are required by state law to plan for "sufficient existing and new
housing" to meet their local share of the region's overall need for low -and r noderate-income housing. The law also requires the
Metropolitan Council to assist communities to accomplish this planning.2
Currently Affordable Housing Prices in Minnesota Metropolitan Area are $158,000-215,000 (60-80%). According to 2007, the maximum
4 person household can afford $206,800 at the 80%Area Median Income MI). A rental unit for the same family is considered to be
able to afford a tvo bedroom unit for $883.
In reference to Appendix VI, a letter from MFHA. Medina's share of the regional affordable housing deed for the decade 2011 to 2020 is
forecasted to be 384 new affordable units.
2. Who does Affordable Housing serve?
• "Movers and the Shakers"- young professionals, community support personnel, vdunteers.
. Younger families — start-up family homestead, keeping generations together by having family units dose by each other.
• Larger families — a larger unit family who's needs are not met through rental units.
. Current residents facing escalating prices; through "built around"
. Older Generations- `fife Cyde Housing" or assisted living services, keeping this population dose to the caregivers
. `Transitional Lifestyles"- divorced parents, military families, transient employees (eg: traveling nur.,oe)
. VVo-king poor, temporarily displaced workers and college attending adults
See Appendix 1 for the Affordability Table.
3. Current Trends
• Mxed - "Urban Village" Concept
. Increased Housing Density and Land Growth Restrictions/Containment for multi -modal transportation & land conservation.
. Creating Job/Transit/I-lousing Linkages
• Mxed Income Housing Developments with attractive design. -See Appendix 11 for metro area developments-.
• Home awiership for stability and booster self -achievement
• Environmentally friendly land -use and building (going "Green")
. Increase demand for lower maintenance housing
. Increase fa' Lifecyde housing to keep residents in the community that they are familiar with.
. Indusionary Zoning- a mix of socio-economic levels to stabilize the community.
. System Built Housing or pre -fabricated homes vs "Stick Built" that reduce costs of the dwelling.
• Elder Cottage Housing Opportunities "ECHO' units. ECHO units allow older adults to get needed support while remaining
independent in their own homes, and allow adult children the privacy and space.
4. Barriers
• Lack of infrastructure vvithin rural communities
• Politics- City Council, resistance among residing community members, Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) perspectives.
1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Affordable Housing. http://www.hud.gov/ retrieved 1/17/08.
2 Metropolitan Council. Affordable Housing.retrieved 1/010/08 at http://www.metrocouncil.org/about/facts/AffordableHousingFacts.pdf
" P r o g r a m s c o n f l i c t w i t h d e v e l o p m e n t i d e a l s
" D e n s i t y v e r s u s l o n g - t e r m s u s t a i n a b i l i t y
" C o m p l e x d e v e l o p m e n t - d e v e l o p e r b a c k s o u t m i d w a y
" C o n s t r u c t i o n / D e v e l o p m e n t c o s t s a n d f e e s
" L a c k o f s u p p o r t s e r v i c e s f o r H e n n e p i n C o u n t y r u r a l c o r r m u n i t i e s
" L a c k o f c r e a t i v e d e s i g n s : D e f a u l t D e s i g n v s . I n n o v a t i v e D e s i g n s
" C o m m u n i t y c h a r a c t e r : D o w n - z o n i n g v s . U p - z o n i n g , d i s t i n c t i v e e d g e s v s . a s s i m i l a t i o n
" H i g h l y P r i c e d l a n d v a l u e t h a t p u s h d e v e l o p m e n t c o s t s b e y o n d t h e a f f o r d a b l e p r i c e r a n g e .
B . A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g D e f i n i t i o n s
1 ) "