HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-08-2020 Planning Commission PacketMEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
7:00 P.M.
Meeting to be held telephonically/electronically
pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021
Call -in Information: 612-517-3122 (Conference ID 904 665 050#)
Electronic access (via Microsoft Teams): link available at https://medinamn.us/pc
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of the City Code —
Pertaining to density and net area per dwelling in the Residential -Mid
Density (R3), Residential Multiple Family (R4), Mixed Use (MU) and
Mixed Residential (MXR) zoning districts
6. Approval of November 10, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes
7. Council Meeting Schedule
8. Adjourn
POSTED AT CITY HALL December 4, 2020
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: November 23, 2020
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates — December 1, 2020 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Review
A) Holy Name Lake Estates — north of Pinto Drive, northwest of Holy Name Lake — Donavon
DesMarais has requested preliminary plat approval for a six -lot rural subdivision. The
applicant also requests a variance from the maximum cul-de-sac length to expand Pinto
Drive to serve the site. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the November 10
meeting. A number of neighbors spoke at the hearing, mainly asking questions about the
construction. Following the hearing, the Commission unanimously recommended approval
of the variance and preliminary plat. The Council reviewed at the November 17 meeting
and directed staff to draft a resolution of approval. The resolution is scheduled to be
presented to the Council on December 1.
B) Three Rivers Park Outdoor Learning Center CUP — 4001 County Road 24 — Three Rivers
Park has requested a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a 1900 square foot building
in the Outdoor Learning Center. The building would include showers and an infirmary for
guests. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the November 10 meeting. No
one spoke at the hearing. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
amended CUP. Staff intends to present to Council on December 1.
C) Weston Woods Preliminary Plat and PUD General Plan — east of Mohawk Drive, north of
Highway 55 — Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested a Preliminary Plat
and PUD General Plan for development of 76 twinhomes, 42 single-family, and 33
townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing at the November 10 meeting. Two comments were received and one person spoke
at the meeting in favor of the project. Following the hearing, the Commission unanimously
recommended approval. Staff intends to present the application to the City Council on
December 15.
D) Pioneer Trail Preserve — 2325 Pioneer Tr. — James and Melissa Korin have requested a 3 -
lot subdivision of a 40 acre parcel. Staff is conducting preliminary review and will prepare
for public hearing when complete, potentially at the December 8 Commission meeting.
E) Schwarz Accessory Dwelling Unit —1425 County Road 24 — Chaid and Jessica Schwarz
have requested a conditional use permit to convert an existing home to an accessory
dwelling unit to allow construction of a new home on their property. The CUP would also
permit three accessory structures on the site. The applicant is considering withdrawing the
application because they do not believe they will proceed with the renovation for the ADU
at this time.
F) Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning — 2575 and 2590 Cates Ranch Drive —
Robert Atkinson has requested a change of the future land use from Future Development
Area to Business, a staging plan amendment to 2020, and a rezoning to Business Park. The
application is incomplete for review, and the City has requested additional materials.
G) Meadow View Townhomes— north of Highway 55, west of CR116 — Lennar has requested
final plat approval to develop 125 townhomes on approximately 20 net acres. The Council
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 December 1, 2020
City Council Meeting
adopted documents of approval on September 15. Staff has conducted a preliminary review
and requested revisions. The Council adopted a resolution of approval on November 17.
H) Deer Hill Preserve 4r"' Addition — Property Resources Development Corporation has
requested final plat approval for the 4t" Addition, which is proposed to include six lots. The
Council reviewed and granted a resolution of approval at the October 20 meeting. Staff will
work with the applicant on the conditions of approval before executing the plat.
I) Roehl Final Plat — 1735 Medina Road — The Estate of Robert Roehl has requested a
preliminary plat to subdivide 28 acres into two lots. The City Council granted preliminary
plat approval on June 16. The applicant has requested final plat approval. The Council
adopted a resolution of approval at the October 6 meeting. Staff will work with the
applicant on conditions of approval before the plat is recorded.
J) Ditter Subdivision — 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive — Tom and Jim Ditter have requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Interim Use Permit to
replat their existing four lots into five lots. The City Council adopted documents of
approval on September 15. The Met Council has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and authorized the City to put it into effect. Staff will await final plat
application.
K) Adam's Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning — Jan-Har, LLP (dba Adam's
Pest Control) has requested various approvals for development of a 35,000 s.f. office
building, restaurant, and 13,000 s.f. warehouse/repair shop north of Highway 55, west of
Willow Drive (PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001). The Planning
Commission held a public hearing at the November 12 and March 10 meetings and
recommended approval. The City Council adopted approval documents on March 17.
L) Johnson ADU CUP, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery — The City Council has
adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the
conditions of approval in order to complete the projects.
M) Hamel Haven subdivision — These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is
working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded.
Other Projects
A) Density Regulations/Sound Suppression Bonus — As directed by the Minnesota
Department of Labor and Industry, staff is preparing an ordinance amendment removing the
option for additional density for residential projects which incorporate sound suppression
into buildings. A public hearing is scheduled for the December 8 Planning Commission
meeting.
B) Corcoran Annexation Request — The City of Corcoran has received a request for
development of a mini -storage facility at 22410 Highway 55 (north of Highway 55 and west
of Rolling Hills Road). The subject property extends approximately 0.3 acres into Medina.
The applicant and City of Corcoran have inquired if Medina would be willing to allow
Corcoran to annex this 0.3 acre. Staff has requested additional information related to the
proposed development.
C) Meander Road Analysis — Staff continues to review sightlines and other matters presented
by the petition from residents of Fields of Medina. Staff had already intended to stripe the
east side of Meander at County Road 116 to provide a wider shoulder for pedestrian use.
Staff is preparing options to improve sightlines coming out of Jubert Drive onto Meander
Road.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 December 1, 2020
City Council Meeting
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
600 Clydesdale Trail
Medina, MN 55340.9790
p: 763-473-9209
f:763-473.8858
non -emergency: 763.525.6210
MEMORANDUM Emergency 9-1-1
TO: City Council
FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety,
Through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: November 23, 2020
RE: Department Updates
Last week Administrative Assistant Klaers, Sergeant Boecker and I spent two days reviewing our
policy and procedure manual. This is something that is usually done every other year from front to
back. We had not updated the manual for the past two and a half years as Chief Belland wanted me
to determine how policies were dictated after I was promoted. There are mandatory policies from
the Police Officers Standards Training (POST) Board that are reviewed annually and changed as
case law or legislative direction merits. The new policy manual will be rolled out to the staff on
December 15, 2020. This is no small undertaking as it is very labor intensive to ensure all the
federal, state, and local court decisions are taken into account along with legislative decisions.
It has been a very busy two weeks on the COVID front. With the spike in COVID cases across
Minnesota, we at the police department have not been immune to it. Several officers have been
tested and quarantined due to exposers. As you can imagine, this affects not only the officers that
are being asked to quarantine, but also their partners as they are required to work more hours. We
continue to utilize the disinfectant equipment that has been purchased to get our squads, squad room
and entire police department as clean as possible. To date, we as a Lakes Area Emergency Group
are as close to activating our lakes area emergency staffing plan as we ever have been. All area
departments have been impacted and we are monitoring staffing levels daily. I reached out to our
fire departments. Most indicate that COVID is also impacting their agencies but not to the level
where there are any concerns about service interruptions. They too are meeting and talking with
their mutual aid partners on a regular basis.
Sergeant Boecker is on vacation currently and it is well deserved. Sergeant Boecker has been doing
a fantastic job since his promotion managing the patrol officers and keeping up with all his
administrative duties. He has been a big addition to the management team.
Last week Officer McGill put together our annual cold weather / night qualification firearms shoot at
the Delano Range. In the past, this has been something where we all get together after for dinner but
because of COVID we were not able to do that part of the teambuilding this year.
I continue to get positive praise from community members about our police officers. The past two
weeks I have received emails, faxes and phone calls about officers and their performance. It is
always nice to receive the positive feedback as I believe that our officers go above and beyond even
in difficult times, which is what we all strive to do.
Investigations:
Officers responded to a theft in progress at Target. Upon arrival, two suspects were apprehended and
will be charged with theft. I executed a search warrant on the suspect's vehicle and located
numerous stolen items from Target. Suspects have been stealing from the business over the last few
weeks. Suspects will be charged via formal complaint.
Investigating another theft from Target. I have been able to positively identify one of the suspects
involved. Making attempts to identify the second suspect.
Completed a background investigation for a new reserve officer applicant.
There are currently (11) cases assigned to investigation.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson
FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director
DATE: November 20, 2020
MEETING: December 1, 2020
SUBJECT: Public Works Update
STREETS
• The streets are in good "winter" condition after our final grade. As is usual, the approach
of colder temperatures and frost will move the streets around and some will become
rough.
• The signpost at Walnut and Cedar was recently hit, so the sign was reset.
WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER
• Public Works repaired a damaged hydrant at Loram after a forklift backed into it.
• As mentioned previously, the new 2020-2025 MS -4 Stormwater Permit is available. I
will review the permit with engineering and include Lisa DeMars to assist in the
development of our maintenance policy. We had the first of what we are sure will be
many conference calls to begin completion of the thirty -two -page application.
• The carp gate on Ardmore Creek is scheduled for installation on Monday, November
23rd. The project is expected to take a couple of days.
PARKS/TRAILS
• The tunnel under the R/R crossing at Highway 12 and Baker Park Road is complete. We
received our first complaint regarding graffiti and cars driving through the tunnel. I am
looking into who owns responsibility for the tunnel as it was a Three Rivers project on
City and R/R right of way. Medina will need to replace a portion of the trail which was
badly damaged when the tunnel was built and the sewer line was moved.
• Public Works will flood the skating rink and make snow when conditions are right.
• Public Works responded to a graffiti complaint at the Hamel Community Center.
MISCELLANEOUS
• The gates and wiring for the compost/brush pile are almost complete. Over the winter we
will develop a process for accessibility. We will be posting "property protected by video
surveillance" signs.
Agenda Item: 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director
DATE: December 3, 2020
MEETING: December 8, 2020 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Min Area per dwelling
Background
Regulations of various multi -family zoning districts generally allow development at the lower
end of the allowed density range as a default, and allow additional density if applicants
incorporate additional design elements into a project. Examples of elements which can provide
bonus density include:
• Affordable housing
• Recreational amenities, open space preservation
• Exceeding environmental protections
• Exceeding minimum architectural or landscaping requirements
• Underground parking
• Amenities within the units (fireplaces, etc.)
Current regulations also provide additional density if an applicant exceeds minimum sound
suppression requirements between units.
Earlier this fall, the City received correspondence from the Minnesota Department of Labor and
Industry (DOLI) that the agency believed the City's zoning ordinance providing additional
density for enhanced sound suppression was inconsistent with the building code. A community
is not allowed to adopt building code standards which are inconsistent with the state building
code.
The City attempted to discuss the issue with DOLI, expressing our position that the provision is
an optional incentive rather than a building code requirement, and that it was a zoning regulation
pertaining to density/lot size which is permitted by law.
DOLI disagreed with the City's interpretation and threatened to take legal action. The City
Council, while continuing to disagree with DOLI's position and finding it unfortunate to do so,
directed staff to initiate an amendment to consider removing the provision.
The attached ordinance would remove the provision. While the subject is being discussed, staff
thought it would be an opportunity to consider the density regulations more broadly.
Ordinance Amendment
Page 1 of 5 December 8, 2020
Min. Area per Dwelling Planning Commission Meeting
Description of Density Regulations
Following is a brief description for how the density of development is regulated in the districts.
Each district establishes a minimum and maximum "net lot area per unit." This can be equated
to a density, but is not as apparent. As a result, staff describes the requirements in terms of
density below.
Each district allows for development at the lower end of the density described in the Comp Plan.
An applicant can choose to incorporate various design elements to receive bonus density. The
districts limit the density to the amount described in the Comp Plan, so even if a project would
implement all the bonuses, it could not exceed the maximum.
R3 — Mid -Density Residential
This district is intended to implement the Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use of the
Comp Plan, which would allow density between the range of 5-7 units per net acre.
The R3 district allows 5.0-5.5 units/acre without bonuses. The following density bonuses are
available in the district, and are described more in-depth on pages 1-2 of the ordinance:
Optional Bonus
Lot Area/Unit
Reduction
Density Bonus
Calculated
Affordable Housing
1700
1.50 unit/acre
LEED/Low Impact Development
1220
1.00 unit/acre
Underground Parking
1220
1.00 unit/acre
Oversize garage/storage
350
0.25 unit/acre
Recreation facilities/open space
350
0.25 unit/acre
R4 — Residential Multiple Family
This district is intended to implement the High Density Residential (HDR) land use of the Comp
Plan, which would allow density between the range of 12-15 units per net acre.
The R4 district allows 12.0-12.8 units/acre without bonuses. The following density bonuses are
available in the district, and are described more in-depth on pages 3-4 of the ordinance:
Optional Bonus
Lot Area/Unit
Reduction
Density Bonus
Calculated
Affordable Housing
500
2.22 unit/acre
LEED/Low Impact Development
230
0.94 unit/acre
Exceeding Arch/Landscaping
230
0.94 unit/acre
Underground Parking
340
1.44 unit/acre
Oversize garage/storage
110
0.44 unit/acre
Recreation facilities/open space
230
0.94 unit/acre
Unit amenities
110
0.44 unit/acre
Ordinance Amendment
Min. Area per Dwelling
Page 2 of 5
December 8, 2020
Planning Commission Meeting
MU — Mixed Use
No property within the City is currently zoned MU. The zoning district implemented a land use
which was in place during the 2010-2020 Comp Plan and all property has been rezoned since
adoption of the updated Plan.
Staff has included the removal of the sound suppression allowance in the attached ordinance to
appease DOLI. The district could be deleted from the code in its entirety in the future when the
City conducts a broader clean-up of the zoning code.
MXR — Mixed Residential
This district is intended to implement the Mixed Residential land use of the Comp Plan, which
requires a mix of housing types that result in an overall density within a range of 3.0-3.5 units
per net acre. The land use requires a portion of the units (approximately 1/3) to be higher density
units in excess of 8 units/acre.
To implement the objectives of the Comp Plan, the MXR district allows a portion of the site to
be developed with 8.0-10.0 units/acre without bonuses. The following density bonuses are
available in the district, and are described more in-depth on pages 6-7 of the ordinance:
Optional Bonus
Lot Area/Unit
Reduction
Density Bonus
Calculated
Affordable Housing
560
1.49 unit/acre
LEED/Low Impact Development
390
1.00 unit/acre
Exceeding Arch/Landscaping
390
1.00 unit/acre
Underground Parking
560
1.49 unit/acre
Oversize garage/storage
110
0.27 unit/acre
Recreation facilities/open space
390
1.00 unit/acre
Unit amenities
110
0.27 unit/acre
Proposed Amendments
The attached ordinance proposes the following three changes.
Removal of Option for Density Bonus for Enhanced Sound Suppression
The attached ordinance removals the option for property owners to receive additional density if
they choose to exceed minimum sound suppression between units.
Addition of Option in R3 for Bonus Density for Exceeding Architectural/Landscaping
Other multi -family districts provide the option for bonus density for projects which exceed
minimum architectural or landscaping requirements. However, this option is not provided in the
R3 district, so staff recommends that this provision be considered for the R3 district as well.
The attached ordinance would provide up to an additional 0.25 units/acre for projects which
exceed these requirements.
Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 5 December 8, 2020
Min. Area per Dwelling Planning Commission Meeting
Size of Storage Area to Receive Bonus Density
The City currently requires new townhomes to include a garage with a minimum area of 400
square feet (approximately 19.5'x 21.5'). The multi -family districts provide additional density if
a project includes larger townhome garages or lockable storage areas in the case of apartments.
The districts differ in terms of how much storage space is required to qualify for the bonus. The
bonus is provided if townhome garages are 60 or 100 square feet larger (depending on the
district) or if lockable storage of 25 or 50 square feet is provided in apartments (depending on the
district).
Staff believes that the size requirements in many of these districts are likely too large for the
additional density provided. Staff recommends that the requirements be updated to require a
minimum of 40 square feet in townhome garages (approximately 2 additional feet of depth or
width) and 25 square feet for apartment storage.
Discussion Items
Staff seeks any general feedback that the Planning Commission and Council have on the density
is implemented in the districts. Questions to be considered may be:
1. Are the amounts of bonuses as desired?
2. Are there other design elements which should be considered?
3. Are the density ranges permitted without bonuses as desired?
Flexibility for Density Range
In addition to the general questions above, staff requests feedback on whether the districts should
provide additional density flexibility as described in the Comprehensive Plan.
One of the objectives of the land use chapter allows the City to grant density beyond the range
described for the use in the Comp Plan up to +20% as follows: "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."
Currently, the R3 zoning district explicitly limits the bonuses to permit no more than 7
units/acre, but the R4 district states "the density after the bonus(es) must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan."
Staff believes this ambiguity suggests that it could be argued that in the R4 zoning district, the
bonuses could allow for the +20% bonus described in the Comp Plan, while the R3 district
would not.
Staff recommends that this ambiguity be clarified. The Planning Commission and Council can
discuss whether it desires to allow the flexibility in either district. It may be appropriate to allow
for the flexibility in R4 but not R3 since the 12-15 unit/acre range is so narrow from a %
standpoint.
Ordinance Amendment Page 4 of 5 December 8, 2020
Min. Area per Dwelling Planning Commission Meeting
If the flexibility is prohibited explicitly in the districts, it could still be possible for an applicant
to request it through use of a PUD. However, this process introduces more unknowns for an
applicant.
Bonus Density on Smaller Lots
Many of the density bonuses provide bonuses equivalent to fractions of units/acre. In the case of
smaller lots, this means that the bonuses may not even be able to be utilized. For example, a
0.25 unit/acre bonus on an acre lot would not provide a bonus.
Staff recommends discussing whether it would be appropriate to add a provision that each bonus
provide a bonus of at least one unit.
Potential Action
The Planning Commission should first hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. After
the Commission completes review, it could consider the following action:
Move to recommend approval of the ordinance regarding minimum lot area per dwelling in
the R3, R4, MU, and MXR zoning districts.
Attachments
1. Draft Ordinance
Ordinance Amendment Page 5 of 5 December 8, 2020
Min. Area per Dwelling Planning Commission Meeting
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO MINIMUM AREA
PER DWELLING UNIT IN THE R3, R4, MU, AND MXR ZONING DISRICTS;
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 841.1.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by
deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 841.1.05. (R3) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code. Many of these
standards may be applied across a coordinated development so that individual lots may not meet
all requirements (lot area and impervious surface coverage, for example) but the development as
a whole is consistent with the standards. In these situations, the city shall require documentation
which describes the property which is subject to the coordinated development.
Subd. 1. Density of Development: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with
the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 2. Minimum Net Area per Unit: 7,920 square feet per unit, except as modified by Subd.
4 below.
Subd. 3. Maximum Net Area per Unit: 8,700 square feet per unit
Subd. 4. Density Bonuses: Certain design and construction features serve to reduce the real
and perceived impacts of crowding prevalent in multiple -residential dwelling units and
building complexes. The Minimum Net Area per Unit requirement above may be reduced
in accordance to the following, except that total reductions shall not exceed 1,700 square
feet of Net Lot Area per unit to ensure the density after the bonus(es) is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
(a) Affordable Housing (max. reduction = 1,700 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit).
The density bonus shall be based on the proportion of units which will be preserved
as affordable housing and the nature of the restriction utilized to maintain
affordability.
(b) LEED Certification or similar (max. reduction = 1,220 square feet of Net Lot Area per
Unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the level of certification, with the full
bonus available for the highest level of certification.
(c) Low impact development (max. reduction = 1,220 square feet of Net Lot Area per
Unit). The density bonus shall be based on the water quality improvements above
those required by the city.
(d) Underground Parking (max. reduction = 1,220 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit).
The density bonus shall be based upon the number of parking stalls provided, with
Ordinance No. ### 1
DATE
the full bonus available if at least one underground space is provided per dwelling
unit.
(e) Exceeding buildin" desiun, landscaping or buffer yard requirements max. reduction
= 350 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit)Sound suppression (max. reduction -
660 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). In order to be eligible, the STC rating
must be increased by ten from that specified as the minimum in the Minnesota State
(f) Oversized garages or lockable storage units (max. reduction = 350 square feet of Net
Lot Area per Unit). Additional storage must be at least 69-40 square feet for
townhomes or 25 square feet for other uses.
(g) Common open space and shared recreational facilities (max. reduction = 350 square
feet of Net Lot Area per Unit)
Subd. 5. Minimum Setback from Perimeter of Site: 20 feet, except as modified below. This
setback shall apply to structures, parking, and recreational areas.
(a) Increase adjacent to less intensive zoning district. The setback adjacent to or across a
street from property of a less intensive zoning district shall be increased to 40 feet.
(b) Increase for required buffer yard. The required setback shall be increased when
necessary to abide by buffer yard requirements.
Subd. 6. Street Setbacks: The following yard setback shall be required adjacent to public or
private streets. Structures, parking areas, and active recreational areas shall not be located
within this setback area. The required yard setback shall be based on the classification of
the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
(a) Private Street: 25 feet, except as follows:
(i) Parking areas and recreational areas shall be exempt from this requirement.
(ii) Reduction of setback for side- or rear -load garage: The front yard setback may
be reduced to 15 feet if garage doors do not face the street and if garage
walls facing the street include a window or architectural elements to give
the appearance of living space.
(b) Local Roadway: 40 feet
(c) Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet
Subd. 7. Minimum Setbacks between buildings within a development: 30 feet
Subd. 8. Maximum Impervious Surface: 50 percent of the total lot area. Impervious surface
coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices are implemented
which, according to the City Engineer, exceed stormwater retention and treatment
regulations. However, in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 65 percent of
the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded.
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
SECTION II. Section 841.2.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by
deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 841.2.05. (R4) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code. Many of these
standards may be applied across a coordinated development so that individual lots may not meet
all requirements (lot area and impervious surface coverage, for example) but the development as
a whole is consistent with the standards. In these situations, the city shall require documentation
which describes the property which is subject to the coordinated development.
Subd. 1. Density of Development: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with
the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 2. Minimum Net Lot Area per Unit: 3,400 square feet per unit
Subd. 3. Maximum Net Lot Area per Unit: 3,650 square feet per unit
Subd. 4. Density Bonuses: Certain design and construction features serve to reduce the real
and perceived impacts of crowding prevalent in multiple -residential dwelling units and
building complexes. The Minimum Net Lot Area per Unit requirement above may be
reduced in accordance to the following, except that the density after the bonus(es) must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
(a) Affordable Housing (max. reduction = 500 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit).
The density bonus shall be based on the proportion of units which will be preserved
as affordable housing and the nature of the restriction utilized to maintain
affordability.
(b) LEED Certification or similar (max. reduction = 230 square feet of Net Lot Area per
Unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the level of certification, with the
full bonus available for the highest level of certification.
(c) Low impact development (max. reduction = 230 square feet of Net Lot Area per
Unit). The density bonus shall be based on the water quality improvements above
those required by the city.
(d) Exceeding building design, landscaping or buffer yard requirements (max. reduction
= 230 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit).
(e) Sound suppression (max. reduction — 230 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). In
order to be eligible, the STC rating must be incr ascd by tcn from that specified as
the minimum in the Minnesota State Building Code.
(f3 Underground Parking (max. reduction = 340 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit).
The density bonus shall be based upon the number of parking stalls provided, with
the full bonus available if at least one underground space is provided per dwelling
unit.
(g)(I)_Oversized garages or lockable storage units (max. reduction = 110 square feet of Net
Lot Area per Unit). Additional storage must be 100 40 square feet for townhomes
or 50 25 square feet or greater for other uses.
(h) g Common open space and shared recreational facilities (max. reduction = 230
square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit)
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
0}(h) Dwelling unit amenities (max. reduction = 110 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit).
Amenities such as additional bathrooms, fireplaces, etc.
Subd. 5. Minimum Setback from Perimeter of Site: 20 feet, except as modified below. This
setback shall apply to structures, parking, and recreational areas.
(a) Increased setback for three-story buildings. The required structure setback shall be
increased to 40 feet if the building exceeds two and one-half stories.
(b) Increased setback adjacent to less intensive zoning district. The setback adjacent to or
across a street from property of a less intensive zoning district shall be increased to
40 feet.
(c) Increased setback for required buffer yard. The required setback shall be increased
when necessary to abide by buffer yard requirements.
Subd. 6. Street Setbacks: The following yard setback shall be required adjacent to public or
private streets. Structures, parking areas, and active recreational areas shall not be located
within this setback area. The required yard setback shall be based on the classification of
the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
(a) Private Street: 25 feet. Parking areas and recreational areas shall be exempt from
this requirement.
(b) Local Roadway: 40 feet
(c) Minor Collector Roadway: 50 feet
(d) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet
Subd. 7. Minimum Setbacks between buildings within a development: 30 feet or the average
height of the two structures, whichever is greater
Subd. 8. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: 60 percent of the total lot area. Impervious
surface coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices are
implemented which, according to the City Engineer, exceed stormwater retention and
treatment regulations. However, in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 70
percent of the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded.
SECTION III. Section 842.2.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by
deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 842.2.05 (MU) Multiple Family Residential Lot Standards. The following standards
shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the
city code. Many of these standards may be applied across a coordinated development so that
individual lots may not meet all requirements (lot area and impervious surface coverage, for
example) but the development as a whole is consistent with the standards. In these situations, the
city shall require documentation which describes the property which is subject to the coordinated
development.
Subd. 1. Density of Development: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with
the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
Subd. 2. Minimum Net Area per Unit: 8,750 square feet per unit
Subd. 3. Maximum Net Area per Unit: 12,500 square feet per unit
Subd. 4. Requirements for Maximum Density: Certain design and construction features serve
to reduce the real and perceived impacts of crowding prevalent in multiple -residential
dwelling units and building complexes or to meet other City objectives. Additional density
of 5 to 7 units per acre shall be allowed provided that the density is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the overall density average of the subject site does not exceed 7
units per acre.
(a) Affordable Housing (max. bonus = 1.5 unit/acre). The density bonus shall be based on
the proportion of units which will be preserved as affordable housing and the nature
of the restriction utilized to maintain affordability.
(b) LEED Certification or similar (max. bonus = 1.0 unit/acre). The density bonus shall be
based upon the level of certification, with the full bonus available for the highest
level of certification.
(c) Low impact development (max. bonus = 1.0 unit/acre). The density bonus shall be
based on the water quality improvements above those required by the city.
(d) Underground Parking (max. bonus = 1.0 unit/acre). The density bonus shall be based
upon the number of parking stalls provided, with the full bonus available if at least
one underground space is provided per dwelling unit.
must be increased by ten from that specified as the minimum in the Minnesota State
Building Code.
}(e1 Oversized garages or lockable storage units (max. bonus = 0.25 unit/acre).
Additional storage must be at least 100 40 square feet for townhomes or 50 25
square feet for other uses.
(to a) Common open space and shared recreational facilities (max. bonus = 0.25 unit/acre).
Subd. 5. Minimum Setback from Perimeter of Site: 20 feet, except as modified below. This
setback shall apply to structures, parking, and recreational areas.
(c) Increase adjacent to less intensive land use. The setback adjacent to or across a street
from property of a less intensive land use shall be increased to 40 feet.
(d) Increase for required buffer yard. The required setback shall be increased when
necessary to abide by buffer yard requirements.
Subd. 6. Street Setbacks: The following yard setback shall be required adjacent to public or
private streets. Structures, parking areas, and active recreational areas shall not be located
within this setback area. The required yard setback shall be based on the classification of
the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
(d) Private Street: 25 feet, except as follows:
(i) Parking areas and recreational areas shall be exempt from this requirement.
(ii) Reduction of setback for side- or rear -load garage: The front yard setback may
be reduced to 15 feet if garage doors do not face the street and if garage
Ordinance No. ### 5
DATE
(e)
(f)
walls facing the street include a window or architectural elements to give
the appearance of living space.
Local Roadway: 40 feet
Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet
Subd. 7. Minimum Setbacks between buildings within a development: 30 feet
Subd. 8. Maximum Impervious Surface: 50 percent of the total lot area. Impervious surface
coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices are implemented
which, according to the City Engineer, exceed stormwater retention and treatment
regulations. However, in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 65 percent of
the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded.
SECTION IV. Section 843.05 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by
deleting the struck through language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Section 843.05. MXR-3 Subdistrict Standards for Townhome, Multiple Family Residential
and other Uses. The following standards shall be observed for townhomes, multiple family
residential uses and other uses, excluding single-family and two-family dwellings. The standards
shall be subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the City
Code. Many of these standards may be applied across a coordinated development so that
individual lots may not meet all requirements (lot area and impervious surface coverage, for
example) but the development as a whole is consistent with the standards. In these situations, the
City shall require documentation which describes the property which is subject to the
coordinated development.
Subd. 1. Density of Development and Number of Units: Development or redevelopment
shall be consistent with density and number of unit requirements of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Subd. 2. Density Bonuses: Exceptions or modifications to the density requirements may be
considered natural resources are protected or exceed other standards of the zoning
district.
Subd. 3. Minimum Net Area per Dwelling Unit: 4,350 square feet, except as modified by
Subd. 4. below.
Subd. 4. Reduction of Minimum Net Area per Dwelling Unit. Certain design and construction
features serve to reduce the real and perceived impacts of crowding prevalent in multiple -
residential dwelling units and building complexes. The Minimum Net Lot Area per Unit
requirement above may be reduced in accordance to the following, except that the density
after the reduction(s) must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Notwithstanding
the reductions awarded for a development, in no event shall the bonus(es) allow for an
increase in building height, nor a net area per dwelling unit less than 2900 square feet.
Ordinance No. ### 6
DATE
(a) Affordable Housing (max. reduction = 560 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit).
The density bonus shall be based on the proportion of units which will be preserved
as affordable housing and the nature of the restriction utilized to maintain
affordability.
(b) LEED Certification or similar (max. reduction = 390 square feet of Net Lot Area per
Unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the level of certification, with the
full bonus available for the highest level of certification.
(c) Low impact development (max. reduction 200 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit).
The density bonus shall be based on the water quality improvements above those
required by the city.
(d) Exceeding building design, landscaping or buffer yard requirements (max. reduction
390 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit).
Sound s r ctie�-. s eei-ef44et-L-et-A-r-ea per Unit). To
be eligible, the STC rating must be increased by ten from that specified as the
minimum in the Minnesota State Building Code.
( ). Underground Parking (max. reduction 560 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). The
density bonus shall be based upon the number of parking stalls provided, with the
full bonus available if at least one underground space is provided per dwelling unit.
(g)( Oversized garages or lockable storage units (max. reduction 110 square feet of Net
Lot Area per Unit). Additional storage must be 100 40 square feet for townhomes
or 50 25 square feet or greater for other uses.
(h) g Common open space and shared recreational facilities (max. reduction = 390
square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit)
40) Dwelling unit amenities (max. reduction 110 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit).
Amenities such as additional bathrooms, fireplaces, etc.
SECTION V. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this day of , 2020.
Kathleen Martin, Mayor
Attest:
Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk
Published in the Crow River News on the
Ordinance No. ###
DATE
day of , 2020.
7
1 CITY OF MEDINA
2 PLANNING COMMISSION
3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
4 Tuesday November 10, 2020
5
6 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners Theresa Couri, Peter Galzki, Ron Grajczyk, Beth Nielsen,
9 Cindy Piper, Justin Popp, and Robin Reid.
10
11 Absent: None.
12
13 Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke, City Planner Deb Dion, and Planning
14 Consultant Nate Sparks
15
16 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda
17
18 No comments made.
19
20 3. Update from City Council Proceedings
21
22 Albers reported that the Council met the previous week and continued the public hearing
23 related to easement vacation for the Lennar application. He stated that the Council will meet
24 Friday to certify the results of the elections.
25
26 4. Planning Department Report
27
28 Finke provided an update.
29
30 5. Weston Woods of Medina — Mark Smith — North of Hwy 55, East of
31 Mohawk Drive — Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development General
32 Plan — Development of 76 Twinhomes, 42 Single -Family, and 32 Townhomes
33 — PIDs 0311823420001, 0311823410001, 0311823430005, and 0311823130002
34
35 Finke presented a request for a PUD and Preliminary Plat for the Weston Woods
36 development which includes a 150 -unit residential development and seven -acre passive park
37 area that would be dedicated to the City. In April, the Council adopted conditional approval
38 of a Comprehensive Plan amendment for this parcel and reviewed a Concept Plan for this
39 PUD. Since that time, the City has submitted an environmental assessment worksheet to the
40 State for comment and review, which relates to the wetland impacts contemplated for the
41 Chippewa Road extension from Mohawk Drive to Arrowhead. He stated that none of the
42 agencies recommended that the more in-depth environmental review be required. He stated
43 that the following week staff is recommending that the Council make the determination that
44 an environmental impact statement not be required. He displayed an aerial photograph of the
45 subject site and reviewed the zoning designation/land uses of each of the two parcels along
46 with adjacent properties. He identified the areas of the project proposed for townhomes,
47 twinhomes and single-family homes. He provided details on the Chippewa Road extension.
48 He stated that the applicant has requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which allows
49 flexibility to the zoning standards in return for better serving the objectives of the zoning
50 ordinance and other City objectives. He provided details on three different types of lots
51 proposed, noting that most of the flexibility requested is internal to the site which allows
1
52 more open space on the peripheral of the site. He reviewed the details related to architectural
53 design and provided photograph examples of the different home products. He stated that the
54 southern site includes about 14 acres of woodlands, noting that half of that area would be
55 preserved as a passive park. He noted that tree replacement would be required for removals
56 above what is allowed by Code. He provided details on wetland impacts and infrastructure.
57 He noted that the plat would be contingent upon approval of the PUD. He stated that two
58 public comments were received, one of which was included in the Commission packet, and
59 provided to the Commission. He stated that staff recommends approval of the PUD and
60 Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
61
62 Nielsen asked and received confirmation that the Planning Commission recommended denial
63 of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. She referenced the proposed list of conditions and
64 asked where the road would fall in that list.
65
66 Finke confirmed that would be included in condition six.
67
68 Grajczyk asked if the developer intends to build the twinhomes and townhomes but not the
69 single-family homes.
70
71 Finke replied that the applicant can answer that question in their presentation.
72
73 Popp referenced condition 10 and asked if that would mean that the watermain would not
74 source the irrigation system.
75
76 Finke confirmed that to be true. He explained that the City does not allow any new
77 residential development to use the City's domestic water system for lawn and landscape
78 irrigation. He stated that the applicant proposes stormwater reuse to supply water for
79 irrigation purposes.
80
81 Popp referenced condition 12 and asked for a highlight of recommendations that may be
82 included from the City Engineer related to Chippewa Road.
83
84 Finke stated that the primary comments were to attempt to reduce the wetland impacts for the
85 roadway. He noted that as the broader permit process is completed for Chippewa Road there
86 will be many other comments from multiple agencies and the plan will be adjusted
87 throughout the process.
88
89 Mark Smith, applicant, stated that they intend not to build the single-family product as their
90 main business has been the construction of twinhomes and townhomes. He stated that he is
91 present to address any additional questions.
92
93 Reid opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m.
94
95 Doug Macky, 4562 Bluebell Trail N, stated that initially this project stirred up a lot of
96 discussion amongst his neighbors. He stated that after reviewing the plan and the evolution
97 over the past year, this looks like a great use and similar neighborhood. He stated that they
98 were pleased with the Fields of Medina neighborhood, including the trails and park, which
99 have benefited the residents. He stated that he is excited to have a product of this type in the
100 community that is available for those in the community that are aging or attempting to
101 downsize. He referenced the park and private trails proposed and asked how the Bridgewater
102 residents could access those amenities as there is not a park within Bridgewater.
103
2
104 Mr. Smith stated that they would have a trail that would be constructed with the new
105 Chippewa Road and would connect to Arrowhead and that trail. He stated that there is
106 another connecting point that will link to the park. He confirmed that there would be access
107 for the Bridgewater residents to enjoy those amenities.
108
109 Mr. Macky commented that this looks like a great development and does not believe there is
110 an opposition from the existing residents. He stated that this will be a benefit to the area.
111
112 Finke acknowledged the written comment received after the packet was sent out from the
113 resident at 4111 Cavanaugh in support of the project and will become part of the record.
114
115 Todd Albers, 4800 Cubby Trail, asked if the single-family home product could be switched to
116 townhomes if the market does not have demand for single-family homes.
117
118 Mr. Smith replied that their intent would not be to change that housing product, as there is a
119 strong demand for single-family housing. He explained that his business typically does not
120 construct custom single-family homes and therefore they would use a different builder for
121 that product to compliment the other housing products. He stated that they would not
122 propose to add additional twinhomes or townhomes. He stated that there is a demand for the
123 twinhome and townhome product in this area, noting that even some Bridgewater residents
124 have expressed interest as their children age, and they are looking to downsize.
125
126 Reid closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
127
128 Galzki stated that he is happy to hear the residents in this area are supportive of the project
129 and hopes that is a result of communication with the developer. He stated that he appreciates
130 the changes that have been made by the developer and the contributions, especially the
131 Chippewa Road extension. He commented that although this would require some changes
132 and flexibility, it would provide an overall benefit to the community as well.
133
134 Piper commented that she is impressed and will be eager to see what is done with the park
135 area. She commented that for the number of homes in that area, 5.1 acres feels small for a
136 park. She stated that she does like the design.
137
138 Nielsen commented that she is still not in favor of moving up the staging but believes that
139 good adjustments have been made to the plan and sees the benefits that would be provided to
140 the City. She was also pleased that those previously opposed to the development in the
141 neighboring development are now supportive.
142
143 Grajczyk thanked the applicant and City staff for working together to find the best ways to
144 make use of the property and work with the neighboring residents. He commented that he
145 likes the layout in this design better, which provides more buffered areas between the
146 development and adjacent properties.
147
148 Couri stated that she agrees with the comments that this would provide a housing product
149 needed in the community to allow residents to downsize from their larger homes. She stated
150 that this appears to be a well-done project.
151
152 Popp stated that initially he was hesitant because of the staging and slow growth vision of the
153 Comprehensive Plan. He commented that this is a well thought out design and appreciates
154 the preservation of open space and wetland. He stated that the benefits to the City are also
155 obvious and he is pleased with the development and reaction of the neighboring residents.
156
3
157 Reid commented that when the Commission previously reviewed the project the request was
158 made to provide a variety of architectural styles and designs, which has been done. She
159 stated that adding this variety of housing will be a benefit to Medina and she is happy with
160 the proposed plan.
161
162 Finke commented that there is a park search in this area to serve not only this site but other
163 properties that will develop in this area.
164
165 Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend approval of the PUD General Plan of
166 Development and Preliminary Plat, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
167
168 A roll call vote was performed:
169
170 Nielsen aye
171 Galzki aye
172 Piper aye
173 Grajczyk aye
174 Couri aye
175 Popp aye
176 Reid aye
177
178 Motion carries unanimously.
179
180 6. Holy Name Lake Estates — Donavan DesMarais — North of County Road 24, Northwest
181 of Holy Name Lake — Preliminary Plat for Six -Lot Subdivision on Approximately 90
182 Acres and Variance from Maximum Cu1-De-Sac Length — PIDs 2411823210001,
183 2411823220002, and 2411823240001
184
185 Sparks presented a request for Preliminary Plat with a cul-de-sac length variance for the
186 subject site. He noted that the request would require an extension of Pinto Drive into the
187 property. He stated that three parcels would be divided into six lots and the lots generally
188 meet the rural residential standards except for the cul-de-sac length. He stated that the
189 subject property has a flag lot configuration that connects to Pinto Drive, which would serve
190 as access to the site and the road would continue as shown on the plat. He stated that if the
191 existing road were considered a cul-de-sac, it would already exceed the cul-de-sac length
192 standard. He stated that the applicant proposes lots that generally meet the lot standards. He
193 noted that the property requires a soils contestation, as the applicant believes that the
194 Hennepin County soils map is inaccurate for this property. He stated that the applicant has
195 submitted a diagram that identifies the contested soil areas. He stated that it does appear that
196 the contest of the soils map is acceptable. He provided details on the cul-de-sac length
197 standard and proposed variance. He stated that this is the only access for the parcel and there
198 are no other alternatives, therefore this could be considered as a reasonable request. He
199 provided details on the proposed trails as recommended by the Park Commission which
200 would include dedication of trail easements and cash in lieu. He stated that the proposed tree
201 removal would meet the City's requirements. He stated that staff recommends approval of
202 the plat with the conditions noted in the staff report.
203
204 Nielsen asked why there is a limit on the length of a cul-de-sac.
205
206 Sparks explained that the intent is to prevent a long cul-de-sac with many homes on it in an
207 urban area. He stated that the City regulation is 750 feet and/or 20 homes. He stated that if
208 something were to happen, the City would not want to have long segments of roads that
209 cannot be accessed by public safety. He noted that it is also difficult for plow trucks to go
4
210 down long segments of road with no way out. He stated that this is the nature of this rural
211 area and there is not another option, therefore this does not seem very impactful.
212
213 Nielsen stated that she lives on a cul-de-sac road in the neighboring community and asked if
214 the length of her road is known for comparison.
215
216 Grajczyk asked for details on the path of Pinto Drive.
217
218 Sparks stated that there are existing homes in this area and the new portion of Pinto Drive and
219 confirmed that the new segment would go between two of the homes.
220
221 Grajczyk asked if Holy Name Lake is considered an impaired water body and whether there
222 would be street improvements for Pinto Drive in terms of stormwater management.
223
224 Sparks stated that this application is going through the permitting process of the watershed.
225 He was unsure of whether the lake is considered impaired. He noted that stormwater
226 management would be provided through stormwater ponding and other infrastructure within
227 this plan.
228
229 Grajczyk asked if any upgrades or improvements would be needed for Pinto Drive near 24.
230
231 Sparks noted that a portion of the road would be reconstructed along with this project and the
232 City Engineer has provided comments. He stated that additional stormwater management is
233 not required for the improved section of roadway as it is already existing roadway that is just
234 being improved.
235
236 Piper asked for details on the width of the new Pinto Drive that would go within the
237 subdivision.
238
239 Donavan DesMarais, the applicant, replied that the roadway would range in width from 22 to
240 24 feet as allowed by City Code. He stated that anywhere Pinto would connect to 24 and has
241 been deemed substandard would be made standard through improvement. He stated that they
242 would also reengineer a portion of the road that has been deemed substandard to meet the
243 City requirements. He stated that it will be a wider road all the way through which would
244 serve the new homes along with the two existing homes that are served by the shared gravel
245 driveway. He stated that this development would include large acreage lots ranging from 10
246 to 23 acres that would have a rural feel. He noted that the improvement work would be
247 completed to Pinto Drive to make access to the landlocked parcels.
248
249 Paul Otto, project engineer, stated that they are in the process of review from the watershed,
250 noting that their plans have been revised to incorporate the first round of suggestions from
251 that entity. He stated that they will improve ditch sections and culverts to handle stormwater.
252 He stated that within the development there would be a number of ponds, infiltration areas,
253 and other stormwater management elements to meet the City and watershed requirements.
254 He stated that the road would be paved and provided dimensional standards.
255
256 Grajczyk asked how soon the applicant would begin construction if this is approved.
257
258 DesMarais replied that due to seasonality they would postpone the start of this to late May
259 when the road restrictions are lifted. He estimated that the first home construction would
260 begin in late summer of 2021.
261
5
262 Nielsen asked if public safety has commented on the length of the cul-de-sac and whether
263 there have been concerns expressed.
264
265 Sparks replied that negative comments were not received from public safety.
266
267 Reid opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m.
268
269 Bruce Eidenshank, 2232 Pinto Drive, stated that there is a utility that runs through the front of
270 his property and asked if it has been considered to route that underground. He commented
271 that there is a wetland near his barn that drains to a ditch on the proposed development. He
272 commented that when the ditch backs up, it floods into his barn, and asked if there are plans
273 to improve that with a culvert. He referenced the Hennepin County park trails map, which
274 appears to run through his property and asked if there could be clarity provide on that
275 diagram.
276
277 DesMarais commented that the utility easement for power would go underground and run
278 along Pinto Drive as it enters the subdivision, confirming that the overhead line would be
279 replaced with the underground system. He stated that they continue discussions with the
280 watershed to ensure any impact to wetlands would be mitigated. He stated that he is unsure
281 of the source of backup to that wetland mentioned but stated that perhaps there are things
282 they can do with sitework that can address that issue. He noted that they would not want to
283 create or perpetuate existing issues.
284
285 Sparks commented that the trail plan is usually quite generalized and conceptual. He stated
286 that the City would look to provide a connection between two roads in a generalized area. He
287 explained that as properties develop within the conceptual area, actual trail connections are
288 identified. He noted that the first diagram shows the conceptual trail plan while the second
289 shows the actual proposed segment that would connect to the road right-of-way.
290
291 Eidenshank asked if homeowners must pay for the utility reconnections.
292
293 DesMarais replied that he did not imagine that there would be a cost to existing residents and
294 any potential costs would be of the developer.
295
296 John Ducharme, 2182 Pinto Drive, asked what the improvements would be for the
297 north/south section of Pinto Drive. He asked if the powerlines along that section of Pinto
298 would also be buried.
299
300 Otto replied that they walked the site with City staff and acknowledged the challenging apron
301 of the resident. He stated that they designed around the end of that driveway, noting that they
302 would match into the decorative end of that driveway. He stated that they would raise the
303 road to better match that driveway. He stated that they will also add some fill on the west
304 side to have the slope fall back down. He commented that there would be a number of trees
305 removed that are within the right-of-way.
306
307 DesMarais replied that nothing on the northern property line would be buried. He noted that
308 the east/west line along the southern portion of the property would be buried.
309
310 Dave Truax, 355 Lakeview Road, asked if that is the only possible home site for lot four. He
311 commented that there is a ditch that runs where that home is shown as well and asked if that
312 would be filled or crossed with roadway.
313
6
314 Otto stated that the potential buyer could build anywhere on the property, but they would
315 assume they would want to be near the lake to take advantage of the views.
316
317 Truax commented that it would seem close to the existing lots for a large lot.
318
319 Otto replied that the proposed home site would match the City setbacks. He noted that the
320 ditch was not delineated as a wetland.
321
322 Reid closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m.
323
324 Galzki commented that any concern that he had was addressed by the resident questions. He
325 stated that it is nice to see this subdivision with the larger lots that Medina is known for. He
326 stated that this appears to be an improvement overall.
327
328 Piper asked if there would be an association for the six homes.
329
330 DesMarais replied that there are no plans to have an association but there would be covenants
331 in place that would manage curbside aesthetics. He stated that the build range would begin at
332 $1,500,000.
333
334 Piper commented that she lives on a road like the road proposed. She stated that if someone
335 is having lawn service, which parks on the road, it often blocks the road. She asked if that
336 has been brought to anyone's attention.
337
338 Otto stated that they are using the City standards for road width and in his opinion that would
339 be more of something the City should review if that is an issue in the community.
340
341 Grajczyk stated that he would want to ensure that the street improvements involve the
342 neighboring property owners to ensure their concerns are addressed.
343
344 Couri commented that she believes that this project is consistent with the rural nature of the
345 area.
346
347 Popp stated that it was good to hear the comments of the neighboring property owners. He
348 stated that the project seems logical and he has no concerns with the cul-de-sac as proposed.
349
350 Reid agreed that this would be a good type of development with the larger lots.
351
352 Motion by Piper, seconded by Couri, to recommend approval of the subdivision with the
353 variance subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
354
355 A roll call vote was performed:
356
357 Nielsen aye
358 Galzki aye
359 Piper aye
360 Grajczyk aye
361 Couri aye
362 Popp aye
363 Reid aye
364
365 Motion carries unanimously.
366
7
367 7. Three Rivers Park District — 4001 County Road 24 — Conditional Use Permit for
368 Construction of Shower Facility and Infirmary at the Outdoor Learning Center — PID
369 2011823210004
370
371 Sparks presented a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment for a new
372 structure at the Outdoor Learning Center. He reviewed the original approval and structures
373 that have received approval since that time. He stated that the subject parcel is 291 acres in
374 size and zoned public/semi-public. He stated that because this is a conditional use, an
375 amendment would be needed for improvements and/or additional structures. He displayed an
376 aerial photograph and identified the existing structures, noting that the new building would be
377 located south of the office and cabins and north of the maintenance shed. He stated that the
378 new building would be designed to match the cabins on the property and would be about
379 1,900 square feet. He stated that it would include showers, an infirmary area, along with
380 storage and laundry. He stated that the building would not increase the capacity of the site.
381 He noted that tree replacement would not be required as the tree removal would be minimal
382 and within the limitations of Code. He provided details on the proposed solar panels and
383 established wetland buffer area that would be protected from construction. He stated that
384 staff recommends approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
385
386 Jason Zemke, Three Rivers Park District, provided background information on the
387 development on this site noting that a shower building was originally contemplated but the
388 buildings were constructed in phases. He noted that the infirmary space is a State
389 requirement, and they are looking forward to better serving the users of this site. He noted
390 that previously there were bussing campers to the campground for showers and this would be
391 a much more efficient feature.
392
393 Nielsen commented that she has stayed in the cabins at the site and the showers would be a
394 nice addition.
395
396 Reid opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m.
397
398 No comments.
399
400 Reid closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m.
401
402 Galzki commented that he camped at Baker Park as a child and having the shower building
403 close to the campsite was a benefit. He stated that this will be an improvement to the site.
404
405 Piper echoed the comments of support.
406
407 Grajczyk agreed that this will be a nice addition to that area of the park.
408
409 Couri stated that she has also stayed at this site and showers will be a welcome amenity.
410
411 Popp stated that he likes the inclusion of the sustainable design elements.
412
413 Reid commented that this is a good project, and she appreciates the improvements Three
414 Rivers Park District continues to make for Baker Park.
415
416 Motion by Couri, seconded by Grajczyk, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use
417 Permit amendment subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
418
419 A roll call vote was performed:
8
420
421 Nielsen aye
422 Galzki aye
423 Piper aye
424 Grajczyk aye
425 Couri aye
426 Popp aye
427 Reid aye
428
429 Motion carries unanimously.
430
431 8. Approval of the September 8, 2020 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
432
433 Motion by Galzki, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the September 8, 2020, Planning
434 Commission minutes with the noted condition.
435
436 A roll call vote was performed:
437
438 Nielsen aye
439 Galzki aye
440 Piper aye
441 Grajczyk aye
442 Couri aye
443 Popp aye
444 Reid aye
445
446 Motion carries unanimously.
447
448 9. Council Meeting Schedule
449
450 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Reid volunteered
451 to attend in representation of the Commission.
452
453 10. Adjourn
454
455 Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen, to adjourn the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Motion carried
456 unanimously.
9