The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About08-13-2019 POSTED IN CITY HALL: August 9, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2019 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 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 – 1582 Homestead Trail – Megan and Tim Elam – Conditional Use Permit and Variance for accessory dwelling unit and accessory structures 6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code related to residential setbacks, required yards and allowed encroachments 7. Approval of July 9, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes 8. Council Meeting Schedule 9. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 August 7, 2019 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: August 1, 2019 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – August 7, 2019 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Raskob Elm Creek Addition – 500 Hamel Road – The John W Raskob Trust has requested to subdivide the 8 acres (approximately 4 net acres) of property into two separate parcels so that the family could market the two separately. The City Council granted preliminary approval at the May 21 meeting. The applicant has now requested final plat application, which will be presented to the Council at the August 7 meeting. B) Elam CUP and Variance – 1582 Homestead Trail – Megan and Tim Elam have requested a conditional use permit (CUP) for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and additional accessory structures, including a pool house and detached garage. The applicant has requested a variance from the maximum number of bedrooms and habitable square footage of an ADU to utilize the existing home previously used as caretaker’s home as an ADU and to construct a new home in the location of the home they demolished two years ago. The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on August 13, 2019. C) 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 north of Highway 55, west of Willow Drive (PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001). Staff is conducting a preliminary review, and the item will be scheduled for a public hearing when complete, potentially at the September 10 Planning Commission meeting. D) 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. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will schedule when complete for review, potentially at the September 10 meeting. E) Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park Third Addition/OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate company for OSI) has requested approval of a site plan review, preliminary plat and rezoning to construct a 2nd building north of their existing facility. The applicant proposes to construct the building on a separate lot and to rezone the property to Business, in line with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The Council adopted approval documents on November 7. The applicant has now requested final plat approval. The applicant has also proposed some slight adjustments to the site plan, which were presented at the Planning Commission on March 12. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amended site plan. Staff will present to the City Council when the final plat is prepared. F) Richardson Lot Combination – PIDs 18-118-23-24-0116 and 18-118-23-24-0117 – Big Island Land LLC (Dale Richardson) has requested a lot combination of two vacant parcels along Ardmore Avenue, just west of County Road 19. The parcels do not meet relevant lot standards and the applicant desires to combine them to construct a single home. The application is currently incomplete, and staff has requested additional information. Staff will schedule when complete for review. G) R2 Collector Road Setback Amendment – Matt and Nikki Cole have requested that the City amend the required setback from a collector roadway within the R2 zoning district from 35 Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 August 7, 2019 City Council Meeting feet to 30 feet. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the July 9 meeting and recommended denial of the request. However, the Commission recommended that the City review the setbacks more broadly. H) Munsell Wetland Buffer Vacation – 3157 Wild Flower Trail – Daniel Munsell has requested that the City vacate a portion of the wetland buffer easement in the back of their property in The Enclave. The applicant argues that the developer could have “averaged” the width of the buffer into adjacent open space owned by the City and proposes to narrow it upon their property. The City Council approved the vacation on July 2, the vacation and easement have been recorded and the project will be closed. I) School Lake 2nd Final Plat, School Lake 2nd Easement Vacation, Johnson ADU CUP, Maxxon, 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. J) Woods of Medina, Hamel Haven subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded. Other Projects A) Quad City Agreement – staff has received comments from the other communities. Greenfield has requested approximately a 50% increase in units and Independence has requested approximately 30% increase. The increases are proposed to support new development, not to bail out existing systems. Staff has discouraged the cities from requesting additional units for additional developments and is considering a response. With the exception of the request for these additional units, it appears that most other matters have been settled. Staff is hoping to present the Agreement for Council approval at the August 18 meeting. B) Zoning Enforcement – one correction notice is pending for zoning violations. TO: City Council FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety, Through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: August 1, 2019 RE: Police Department Updates Hamel Rodeo Weekend All the events with the Hamel Rodeo dances, rodeo and parade went well. Our staff put in the extra hours to ensure safety. We had big crowds and the heat never let up. We tried a new parade route that seemed to work out. There were no interruptions with the parade, even with the proposed Brockton Road construction project. The people seemed to have a great time. AutoMotorPlex The AutoMotorPlex held their Caffeine and Octane event at their facility on Arrowhead Drive. The event is held every 2nd Saturday of the month April through November. This event was in the middle of the Hamel Rodeo. The AutoMotorPlex had their largest number of participants and attendees since the events inception. The show went off without any issues. We had two officers monitoring traffic and ensuring everyone is following the driving rules. We also had one of our reserves assisting with traffic control. Our personnel worked with the AutoMotorPlex staff to ensure the traffic plan was followed. We look forward to more successful events in the future. Update on Sgt. Nelson As you know, Sgt. Nelson had suffered some negative side effects from a gallbladder surgery in June. He returned home from the hospital on July 18th. He is still recovering. We are hoping for a speedy recovery. New Mobile Data Computers (MDC) In the last two weeks we took delivery of our new MDC for our squads. The computers were backordered since January. They were taken to Hennepin Radio to be programed and will be installed in our squads next week. The computers they are replacing were seven years old, which is very old for mobile computers. Melissa Robbins Hired by Buffalo Police Department Our CSO Melissa Robbins has been offered a full-time licensed officer position with the Buffalo Police Department. Her last day will be August 7th. I want to thank Melissa for all her great work for our department and the City. I wish her the best in her law enforcement endeavors. MEMORANDUM Patrol Updates For the dates of July 10 through July 29, 2019, our officers issued 44 citations and 113 warnings for various traffic infractions. There was a total of 3 traffic accidents, 10 medicals, 19 alarms and 4 DWI. Investigation Update Attended a two-day training in Rochester. The training was called F.E.T.I (Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview). The two-day course focused on interviewing victims of trauma. The course was very interesting, and I gained some useful information to use in future interviews. Investigating a sexual assault that occurred several times over the last few years. The victim is a juvenile female. A Corner House interview has been scheduled for the victim. The suspect is known. Investigation is ongoing. Investigated (2) cases where customers failed to pay for their gasoline. After investigating, both incidents were accidental. The gasoline was paid for and there were no charges. Investigating the theft of a piece of construction equipment from a home that is under construction. Investigating a report from Hennepin County Child Protection in regard to possible verbal abuse at residence. Investigation is ongoing. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: August 1, 2019 MEETING: August 7, 2019 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS x Construction did not take place on Hickory Drive the week of July 29th as the contractor was awaiting the clearing/grubbing subcontractor to mobilize onto the site. Storm sewer and watermain work may be available as soon as 8/5 x The Brockton project continues into Stage 2. Public Works worked with the contractor for water shut off/on this week. x Public Works started blacktop patching Deer Hill east in preparation for the overlay in 2020. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER x Public Works repaired a sewer service in the Cherry Hill area a few weeks ago and the street has now been repaired. x Well #6 cost for repair was as expected at $22,685. This included a new motor, pump, three sections of drop pipe, a check valve, labor to clean the well, and reinstall these items. The well casing looked good and the well has performed as expected for over twelve years. I expect it to perform for many more years. x Public Works has repaired eight catch basins so far. We are getting caught up on the stormwater repairs. All curb and blacktop have been replaced. x Staff continues to work on the Quad City agreement. We are having difficulty negotiating the units allowed but will continue to work on it. PARKS/TRAILS x The parks are in good shape and Public Works started trimming trees and brush along trails to allow for better access for maintenance vehicles and plow equipment. x Hunters Lions Park’s tennis court and basketball court were resurfaced and look great. We have received positive feedback on the repair. A new addition to the tennis court is youth tennis lines, which were a request by some residents. MISCELLANEOUS x Emery’s Tree Service has been trimming trees along roads and city property that Public Works doesn’t have equipment to remove. Tim and Megan Elam Page 1 of 6 August 13, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item: 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ben Schneider, Planning Intern and Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: August 5, 2019 MEETING: August 13, 2019 Planning Commission SUBJ: Tim and Megan Elam ADU Variance and CUP Review Deadline Application received: July 16, 2019 120-day review deadline: November 12, 2019 Summary of Request Tim and Megan Elam own 1582 Homestead Trail, which is a 34-acre lot zoned as rural residential (RR). They are requesting a pair of conditional use permits (CUPs) and a variance. The first request is to allow the current house on the property to be classified as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to allow for construction of a new principal home on the property. Given the size of this house and number of bedrooms, a variance would be needed to grant this CUP. The other CUP is to allow the following accessory structures: a child playhouse, a gazebo, a standalone garage, and a planned cabana. In the early 1990’s, a previous owner built a principal dwelling of about 18,000 square feet and a caretaker house of about 3,200 square feet. These structures both remained until October 2017 when the property sellers demolished the principal house. When the applicants bought the lot, they assumed they would be able to build a new principal dwelling to replace the one recently demolished. However, City Code Section 826.98, Subd. 2, part (p) states that ADU’s cannot have more than 2 bedrooms or more than 1000 square feet of habitable space. The existing house on their lot has 4 bedrooms and has 2,091 habitable square feet, so building a new principal home would not be allowed without a variance. Interestingly, staff was unable to determine how two homes were permitted to be originally built (1995). Existing 3,200 SF 4-Bedroom House Previous location of 18,000 SF House Tim and Megan Elam Page 2 of 6 August 13, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP Planning Commission Meeting A second CUP would be required to permit five accessory structures on the property. Section 825.19 of the zoning code requires a CUP to construct more than two accessory structures on a property. The proposed CUP is proposed for structures with the following building footprints: • Accessory Dwelling Unit: 1,980 square feet • Child playhouse with a closed roof: 120 square feet • Standalone garage: 441 square feet • Gazebo: 128 square feet • Cabana (proposed): 591square feet Analysis CUP for more than Two Accessory Structures Section 825.19, subd. 3 requires a CUP for a property larger than 5 acres to have more than two accessory structures and/or a total building footprint of all accessory structures over 5,000 square feet. If the applicants were to be granted their variance request, they would have to include their current dwelling when calculating this total footprint. But since the footprint of the house is 1,980, the applicants would still be under the 5,000 mark. Section 826.98 also includes regulations for accessory buildings. Subd. 2, part (m) states the following criteria for accessory buildings on residential properties greater than five acres: 1) The accessory building’s design shall include architectural interest through the appropriate use of the following elements: cupolas, dormers, windows, porches, overhangs, varied building foundation, or other design treatments which the city council determines create a quality architectural design that enhances the appearance of the Existing 3.200 SF 4-Bedroom House Proposed rendering of new 10,000 square foot principal house Tim and Megan Elam Page 3 of 6 August 13, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP Planning Commission Meeting accessory building and complements the principal dwelling and the rural residential character or residential neighborhood in which the building is to be constructed 2) At least two colors or textures shall be used in the accessory building’s exterior design, including contrasting trim or fascia 3) Any metal exterior materials on the accessory building shall be warranted to resist fading for a period of at least 15 years 4) The accessory building shall have an infiltration basin, rain garden, rain barrel or other similar best management practice used to capture storm water runoff from the building and to improve water quality. Said best management practice must be reviewed and approved by the city council When comparing the existing house, garage, playhouse, and gazebo with the proposed rendering, it is likely that the first 3 criteria would be met, assuming the applicants stay true to their current rendering. Regarding the 4th requirement, current plans for final construction would result in approximately 17,876 square feet of hardscape in the area by the new home. This is 63% less than the total hardscape of the previous principal home (48,654 square feet). This reduction in hardcover surface could be argued as an improvement in stormwater management. Accessory Dwelling Unit Part (p) of Section 826.98, Subd. 2 outlines criteria specifically for ADU’s: (i) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a property. No accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a property on which a lodging room or a second residential dwelling is located The applicants would only have one ADU (ii) Accessory dwelling units within the SR (Suburban Residential), UR (Urban Residential), R1 (Single-Family Residential) or R2 (Two-Family Residential) zoning districts shall be attached to the principal single-family structure This is a rural residential property, so no need for the ADU to be attached (iii) The lot shall contain an existing single-family dwelling unit The applicants would build a single-family dwelling unit to accompany their ADU. This would be a condition to approve the ADU CUP. (iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the lesser of the following: 1) 750 square feet for a one-bedroom unit; 2) 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit; or 3) 40 percent of the habitable area of the principal single-family dwelling This criterion is not met, which is why the applicants are applying for the variance to allow for more than 1,000 square feet of habitable space. (v) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of habitable space; The house that would become an ADU has 2,091 habitable square feet, so this criterion would be met. (vi) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms The variance request is to allow for 4 bedrooms Tim and Megan Elam Page 4 of 6 August 13, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP Planning Commission Meeting (vii) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per bedroom for the accessory dwelling unit. Such parking spaces shall not interfere with accessing the required garage spaces for the principal single-family dwelling There is ample parking on this 34-acre lot. This criterion would be met. (viii) No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory dwelling unit The existing home and the proposed home would share the same driveway. (ix) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the principal single- family dwelling This would need to be a condition to grant the ADU CUP (x) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence The applicants plan to live in the principal dwelling and their parents plan to live in the ADU (xi) If the accessory dwelling unit is located within a structure detached from the principal single-family dwelling, the architectural design and building materials shall be of the same or higher quality and shall complement the single-family dwelling. Additionally, the structure shall meet the setback requirements of the principal structure and shall count towards the maximum number and building size of accessory structures permitted on a property This is another condition that will need to be met upon approval Adequate utility services shall be available to serve the accessory dwelling unit. This shall include adequate capacity within individual sewage treatment systems for both the principal single-family dwelling and the accessory dwelling, where applicable. Both the existing house and the proposed house already have well and septic systems in place (xiii) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit above the first floor shall be located in a way to minimize visibility from the street and, to the extent possible, from neighboring property. Such stairway shall incorporate a deck a minimum of 27 square feet in area There are no exterior stairways that access anything above the first floor The city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the single-family residential character of the surrounding area. A copy of the resolution approving an accessory dwelling unit and describing the conditions, restrictions and limitations on the use shall be recorded against the property. Staff Recommendations for this are below Tim and Megan Elam Page 5 of 6 August 13, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP Planning Commission Meeting Variance The variance request concerns two of the criteria. The first is that the habitable space of ADU’s shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. The second is that an ADU shall not have more than 2 bedrooms. The current dwelling has 2,091 square feet of habitable space and 4 bedrooms. Section 825.45, Subd. 2 of the City Code outlines the criteria for granting variances. These criteria include the following, after which staff has provided potential findings: 1) The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance On its face, it seems difficult to argue that allowing the existing 4-bedroom home which exceeds 1000 habitable square feet to be used as an ADU is consistent with the intent of limiting the size of an ADU. On the other hand, the property is comparatively large, and could likely be subdivided to create two lots, one for each home. Since the ordinance would permit two homes if the property was subdivided, it could be argued that it is not inconsistent with the purposes. Additionally, the proportionality of the large size of the lot and proposed home compared to the amount the home exceeds the ordinance limitations could be considered. 2) The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan To the extent that the size of the accessory dwelling is relevant for the Comp Plan, it could be argued that allowing two homes on a property which could be subdivided into two lots is consistent with the Comp Plan. 3) The applicant establishes a practical difficulty in complying with the zoning ordinance. For a practical difficulty to be claimed, there are 3 sub-criteria: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality Staff believes the variance request largely boils down to whether the history of this property containing two large homes classifies as a “circumstance unique to the property not created by the landowner.” It could be argued that as the property stands today, its history alone does not change the fact that there is nothing physically unique about this lot which causes a difficulty. On the other hand, it could be reasoned that other factors, such as the history of this property, create a “unique circumstance.” Staff does not believe the variance would alter the character of the locality because it would allow the construction of a replacement principal home in the location one previously existed. The variance also essentially re-designates the current home as an ADU, which was how it was used in the past. Tim and Megan Elam Page 6 of 6 August 13, 2019 ADU Variance and CUP Planning Commission Meeting Staff Recommendations When reviewing both CUP requests, the Planning Commission and City Council should review the specific and general criteria described above. If the criteria are met, the CUP’s should be approved. As described in Section 825.41 of the City Code: “In permitting a new conditional use or the alteration of an existing conditional use, the City Council may impose, in addition to those standards and requirements expressly specified in this Ordinance, additional conditions which the City Council considers necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. These conditions may include, but are not limited, to the following: 1) Increasing the required lot size of yard dimensions 2) Limiting the height, size or location of buildings 3) Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points 4) Increasing the street width 5) Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces 6) Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs 7) Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or nearby property 8) Designating sites for open space Staff has provided potential findings for the criteria throughout the report. If the Planning Commission finds that the variance criteria have been met related to designating the existing home as accessory dwelling unit, staff would recommend approving both CUPs subject to the following conditions: 1) This conditional use permits shall be contingent upon construction of a new principal home on the Property. 2) The principal dwelling and accessory dwelling unit may not be conveyed separately and shall at all times be under common ownership. 3) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence. 4) The applicant shall reduce hardcover on the site as planned. 5) The applicant shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance, including provisions for recordation of easements, planting of appropriate vegetation and installation of required signs. 6) The property owner shall abide by all conditions of Medina City Code Section 826.98, Subd. 2(p). 7) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amAount sufficient to pay for all costs associated with the review of the application for Conditional Use Permit. Attachments 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Applicant Response to ADU Ordinance 3. Applicant Response to Variance Ordinance 4. Preliminary Copy of Plat 5. Sketch of plan for new house To Whom It May Concern: We are requesting a variance to the Accessory Dwelling Units section of the Medina City Code (section 826 Zoning – District Provisions, Part (p) Accessory Dwellings Units) for our property located at 1582 Homestead Trail in Medina. We purchased this 34-acre property in November 2018 with the intent of building a new home on the site of the previously-demolished main residence that used to reside on this property. That home was built in the mid-1990s by David and Barbara Koch and was approximately 18,000 square feet (see attachment 1). At the time of our purchase, the main residence had been demolished by the property sellers (Jude and Hannah Buckley) a few years prior, but the existing caretakers’ house, tennis court, gazebo, 2-car standalone garage and children’s play area with playhouse still remain (see attachment 2). When we purchased the property, we had not anticipated any issue with re-building a new home on the site of the old main residence. The home that we plan to build has a smaller footprint than the home that was demolished. We are still in the process of designing our home, but our preliminary plans are attached for your reference (see attachment 3). Our home will be approximately 10,000 square feet and will include a landscaped backyard with an in-ground pool and outdoor cabana area. We have come to learn that we cannot build our new home on the property as the existing caretakers’ house does not meet city code for an accessory dwelling and no prior variance can be found that would have allowed for this. The caretakers’ house is approximately 3,234 square feet and has 4 bedrooms. Our parents have moved into the caretakers’ home, and we plan to keep this home for that purpose. We ask for a variance to the code requiring that the habitable area of the accessory dwelling be less than 1,000 square feet and contain no more than two bedrooms. We also ask for a conditional use permit to allow for construction of our cabana as an additional accessory building. The cabana will be constructed simultaneously with our home and will be approximately 506 square feet. Ultimately, our desire is to keep this property intact as one 34-acre parcel. If staff, commission and council would prefer would like at an alternative approach to the requested variance, we are open to any recommendations. Thank you for your consideration! Tim and Megan Elam (p) Accessory Dwelling Units. (i) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a property. No accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a property on which a lodging room or a second residential dwelling is located; Response: Confirmed. We are seeking a variance to allow the existing home (previously caretaker’s house) to be classified as an accessory dwelling unit. This residence is an existing home of 3,324 SF containing four (4) bedrooms which was constructed in 1994. We plan to build a primary residence of approximately 10,000 SF to be constructed upon approval of this variance and issuance of applicable building permits. (ii) Accessory dwelling units within the SR (Suburban Residential), UR (Urban Residential), R1 (Single-Family Residential) or R2 (Two-Family Residential) zoning districts shall be attached to the principal single family structure; Response: Confirmed. The property is zoned RR: Rural Residential. The accessory dwelling unit (second residence) will not be attached and located approximately 400 lineal feet from the primary residence. (iii) The lot shall contain an existing single-family dwelling unit; Response: The previous primary residence of approximately 18,000 SF was demolished +/- 2 years ago. The existing single family dwelling of 3,324 SF remains on the property. (iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the lesser of the following: 1) 750 square feet for a one-bedroom unit; 2) 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit; or 3) 40 percent of the habitable area of the principal single-family dwelling; Response: We are requesting a variance to keep the existing single family home of 3,324 SF containing 4 bedrooms as-is. After construction of the new principal single family dwelling, the second residence will be less than 40% of the habitable area of the primary residence. (v) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of habitable space; Response: Confirmed. The existing single family dwelling is 3,324 square feet thus exceeding the 300 square foot minimum requirement. (vi) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms; Response: The variance is being requested to modify the permitted bedrooms to four (4) bedrooms in lieu of two (2) bedrooms. (vii) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per bedroom for the accessory dwelling unit. Such parking spaces shall not interfere with accessing the required garage spaces for the principal single-family dwelling; Response: Confirmed. The second residence has a two car attached garage and horseshoe driveway. There is approximately 4,000 square foot of parking area in front of the home not including the driveway. There is ample room to accommodate at least four (4) cars. (viii) No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory dwelling unit; Response: Confirmed. The lot contains a private driveway of approximately 1,100 lineal feet. The primary residence will be located at the end of the private drive. The driveway providing access to the second residence is approximately 550 lineal feet (halfway) up the private drive. No additional curb cuts are being requested. (ix) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the principal single-family dwelling; Response: Confirmed (x) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence; Response: Confirmed. The property owner’s will occupy the primary residence and family will occupy the second residence. (xi) If the accessory dwelling unit is located within a structure detached from the principal single-family dwelling, the architectural design and building materials shall be of the same or higher quality and shall complement the single-family dwelling. Additionally, the structure shall meet the setback requirements of the principal structure and shall count towards the maximum number and building size of accessory structures permitted on a property; Response: Confirmed. The second residence will remain as-is and be of the same or higher quality and complement the overall property. (xii) Adequate utility services shall be available to serve the accessory dwelling unit. This shall include adequate capacity within individual sewage treatment systems for both the principal single family dwelling and the accessory dwelling, where applicable. Response: Confirmed. Both the primary and secondary residence have their own well and septic systems. (xiii) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit above the first floor shall be located in a way to minimize visibility from the street and, to the extent possible, from neighboring property. Such stairway shall incorporate a deck a minimum of 27 square feet in area; and Response: Confirmed. There are no exterior stairways accessing anything above the first floor. (xiv) The city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the single-family residential character of the surrounding area. A copy of the resolution approving an accessory dwelling unit and describing the conditions, restrictions and limitations on the use shall be recorded against the property. Response: Confirmed. VARIANCES Section 825.45. Variances. Subd. 1. A variance from the provisions of the zoning ordinance may be granted by the board of appeals and adjustments consistent with this section, pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 462.357, subd. 6, as it may be amended from time to time. Subd. 2. Criteria for Granting Variances. a. A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. We believe the intent of the ordinance is to limit the size of an accessory dwelling unit/second residence on a land parcel under 40 acres. We believe ours to be a unique situation in that the residence in question already exists and has historically been a secondary home on the property. Based on the history of this land parcel and the homes that have existed on it, we believe that approval of a variance to classify this home as an accessory dwelling unit is in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. b. A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. We believe the requested variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan, as the property will remain rural residential and has previously had two homes on it. c. A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be established, all of the following criteria shall be met: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district; We plan to use this property in a manner consistent with surrounding area and its residents. We plan to build a new home on this property and keep the exiting home as an accessory dwelling as was the intent historically. After discussions with staff, we believe that the requested variance is the minimum variance required to allow for us to move forward with our desired plan. Other options would be to decrease the square footage and number of bedrooms of the existing house, or to subdivide the lot. It is our desire to keep this parcel together as one lot, and we don’t desire to demo any portion of a high quality home that was extensively renovated just a few years ago if there is an alternative option. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and We believe these circumstances are unique to the property. Generally a variance is requested and approved prior to building. This is unique in that we are requesting a variance for an existing home, which has historically been used as an accessory dwelling unit. When the Koch family constructed two residences on the lot in the early 1990s, a variance would have been required, but it is unclear if they were granted any variances at the time. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. We believe the variance will not alter the character of the locality. The surrounding area has many large land area parcels, many with accessory dwelling units and outbuildings. It’s our desire to keep this property intact as one 34-acre land parcel in lieu of subdividing. #LICENSE NO.DATES1MAY 2, 2019Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345Phone (952) 474-796417917 Highway 7Web: www.advsur.comSHEET 1 OF 1100500MAY 1, 2019MAY 2, 2019# 42379Thomas M. BloomLEGENDLEGAL DESCRIPTION:The Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, Township 118 North Range 23, West, except the West 460 feet of theSouth 570 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.Together with an easement for ingress, and egress and way for driveway purposes on, over and upon that partof the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of theFifth Principal Meridian, lying Northeast of the Northeasterly right of way line of County Road 201 and Westerlyof a line described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thenceEast along the North line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 483 feet to the point of beginning ofthe line being described; thence deflecting right 95 degrees to the Northeasterly right of way line and there ending.Parcel Contains: 34.14 AcresSCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:1. Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey.2. This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing easements or otherencumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to show anyeasements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon.3. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We have alsoprovided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relate only tothe benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey whendetermining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction.4. Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding and or stucco ofthe building.5. Note that this survey is limited in scope to showing topography in 2 locations from a survey originally prepared by JimParker in 2013. This survey is not meant to be an update of the boundary survey prepared by Jim Parker, rather showingtopography and physical changes in 2 locations of the Parker survey.PRELIMINARY COPY FOR REVIEW ONLY Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 4 August 13, 2019 Residential Setbacks and Encroachments Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: August 8, 2019 MEETING: August 13, 2019 Planning Commission SUBJ: Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Residential Setbacks and Encroachments Background At the July meeting, the Commission discussed a request from Matthew and Nikki Cole from 3375 Butternut Drive to reduce the required setback from Minor Collector Roadways in the R2 (Single- and Two-Family) Zoning District. The Commission was not comfortable changing the setbacks, but recommended staff to review other potential options to address the issue of homes being constructed without adequate space for decks. The City Council discussed at the July 16 meeting and directed staff to review. Much of the discussion surrounded the current trend of homes being built which often fill almost the entire allowed building envelope on a lot, and buyers being unaware of limited space to construct decks. The discussion began specific to lots which were adjacent to roadways, because the Cole’s request related specifically to minor collector roadways. However, staff’s impression was that that the Planning Commission’s discussion broadened to other setbacks. As such, staff reviewed the issue more broadly. For example, staff believed the issue was similar across other zoning districts and did not see a good reason to limit any changes to the R2 zoning district. Draft Ordinance The attached ordinance includes the flowing potential changes identified by staff during review. Allow decks to encroach into Collector/Arterial Setback The primary change in the ordinance would allow decks to encroach up to 10 feet into the required setback adjacent to collector and arterial roadways. This would require the house to be further back but allow the deck to bump-out closer to the roadway. Staff has included the language in essentially every single-family zoning district and also the R3 district as follows:  Suburban Residential (SR)  Urban Residential (UR)  Residential-Single Family (R1)  Residential-Single and Two Family (R2)  Residential-Mid Density (R3)  Mixed Residential (MXR) If the change is made, staff believed it made sense to do so in all similar districts. The Planning Commission and City Council may want to discuss whether to include the R3 zoning district. This district would be higher density, allowing townhomes and small multi-family structures. In Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 4 August 13, 2019 Residential Setbacks and Encroachments Planning Commission Meeting this case, decks would likely be anticipated with the initial construction of the buildings, so it may be less necessary to “reserve” space for future decks. However, the Planning Commission had indicated that they may be open to decks encroaching closer to adjacent roadways on single family home, so staff included for discussion. In staff’s research of requirements in other communities, many communities appear to allow decks to encroach into setbacks. This is the case not only adjacent to streets, but for setbacks more generally. Plymouth, Maple Grove, and Edina, for example, would permit decks within the setback area to within 5-10 feet of property lines. Orono, on the other hand, requires decks to meet setback requirements. While staff believes allowing decks to encroach in the increased setback adjacent to major roadways is reasonable, staff does not recommend allowing decks to encroach to the extent allowed in some other communities. As noted in the report last month, staff believes that larger setbacks (including for decks) serve the goal and objectives described in the Comp Plan to provide additional open space and more of a rural vista along a particular neighborhood. For this reason, it may not be surprising that other, more suburban, communities would not have increased setbacks along collector roadways. Increase setback from Minor Collectors in R1 and R2 districts The attached ordinance proposes to increase the required setback adjacent to Minor Collector Roadways from 35 feet to 40 feet. Decks would be allowed to encroach 10 feet into this setback as described above. Minor collectors include mostly 40 MPH local roadways such as Hunter Drive, Brockton Lane, Meander Road, Arrowhead Drive and Medina Road. Staff reviewed existing properties and it appears that this change would cause two properties to become non-conforming. A good example of the difference between 35 feet and 40 feet may be 3385 and 3375 Butternut Drive, at the north end of the Enclave along Hunter Drive. 3385 Butternut Drive is the grey house and is setback approximately 36 feet from the Hunter Drive right-of-way and the balcony extends to within approximately 32 feet. 3375 Butternut Drive is the red home to the south and is setback 43 feet from the Hunter Drive right-of-way. If the Planning Commission and Council decide to not increase the setback, staff would recommend that the allowed encroachment for decks be reduced to 5-feet rather than 10-feet. As the Coles noted in the information presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in July, it appears that an increased setback adjacent to collector roadways is not common in other cities. Increased Lot Depth adjacent to Collector/Arterial Roadways In the July staff report, staff noted a potential concern related to the interplay between required minimum lot depth and larger setbacks adjacent to major roadways. For example, the R2 zoning district requires a minimum lot depth of 90 feet. If a lot were platted at the minimum lot depth Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 4 August 13, 2019 Residential Setbacks and Encroachments Planning Commission Meeting and backing up to a minor collector roadway, it would require a 30 foot setback from the front street and a 35 foot setback from the collector. This would leave a buildable pad of 35 feet. In the same scenario backing up to an arterial roadway, the front setback would be 30 feet+50 feet from the arterial at the back, leaving only a buildable pad of 10 feet. While it would be reasonable to expect that the subdivider would recognize this issue and make the lots deeper, staff believes it would be worth considering an amendment to increase the depth adjacent to collector and arterial roadways. To address this issue, staff has recommended that the minimum lot depth for lots adjacent to collector and arterial roadways be increased to 115 feet. This would ensure a building pad of 35 feet adjacent to arterial roadways and 45 feet adjacent to minor collectors. Encroachments As part of its analysis, staff reviewed the section of zoning ordinance related to encroachments. As noted above, many communities include decks as an allowed encroachment into setbacks. This was one option staff considered, but ultimately recommended against. As noted above, staff believes maintaining larger setbacks for deck serves objectives described in the Comp Plan. If the Planning Commission and Council were interested in expanding the allowance for deck encroachments for all setbacks, it could be included in this section. During review of the encroachment section, staff noted a series of changes which would clarify the language and past practices of the City, even though the changes were not specifically related to the matter at hand. These changes are on page 1 of the ordinance and include:  Allowing bay windows to encroach in the front setback. Currently, bay windows are only allowed to encroach within the rear setback. Staff believes it makes sense to extend this to the front setback. The encroachment is limited to two-feet in width and 20 square feet.  Clarifying that window wells, air conditioner condensers, and generators are permitted to extend into setbacks Other Options Considered Allow Broader Deck Encroachments/Wetland Buffers As discussed above, many other communities allow a fairly broad exemption from setback requirements for decks. Staff discussed and did not include this as a recommendation, as larger setbacks for decks seems to better serve the City’s objectives. Staff discussed recent experience related to reviewing and issuing permits for decks. Deb noted that she had noticed cases in which decks were running up against street setbacks, but that it didn’t seem like it occurred as often for homes which back up on other homes. She did note that the more common limitation occurs in yards backing up onto wetlands. The City requires a 15- foot setback from wetland buffers, including decks. The Planning Commission discussed this issue specifically a few years ago, when a property owner in the Enclave requested a larger deck that could not fit between the home and the wetland Ordinance Amendment Page 4 of 4 August 13, 2019 Residential Setbacks and Encroachments Planning Commission Meeting buffer setback. The owner suggested that decks, but not homes, be allowed to encroach. The Planning Commission discussed and recommended against the change. Staff believes the purpose of the wetland buffer setback may differ from other setbacks. Part of the purpose is to maintain 15-feet of yard space to reduce the likelihood a property owner will seek to push into the adjacent buffer. Pools/accessory structures as encroachment Staff also discussed the potential of allowing other improvements to encroach into the setback adjacent to collector/arterial roadways. This is especially the case if the Planning Commission and Council decide to increase the setback from 35 to 40 feet. Staff believes it is reasonable to view a swimming pool or a shed similar to a deck, and to allow it to encroach in the same way. At this time, these items are not included within the draft ordinance but should be discussed. Small sheds, under 120 square feet (10’x12’), are currently allowed to encroach within the side and rear setbacks and are only required to be 5 feet from property lines. Potential Action The Planning Commission should first hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment to receive feedback from interested parties. After the Planning Commission has reviewed and determined what changes to recommend, the following action would be appropriate: Move to recommend adoption of the ordinance regarding residential setbacks and encroachments, with the changes noted by the Commission. Attachment 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Comp Plan Information CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS AND ENCROACHMENTS; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 825.21 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 825.21. Required Yards and Open Space. Subd. 1. No yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimension so as to make such yard or other open space less than the minimum required by this ordinance, and if the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. Subd. 2. No required yard or other open space allocated to a building or dwelling group shall be used to satisfy yard, other open space, or minimum lot area requirements for any other building. Subd. 3. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements. (a) Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than two feet into a yard. (b) Yard lights and name plate signs as regulated herein. (c) Terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures which do not extend in elevation above the height of the ground floor elevation of the principal building and do not extend to a distance of less than five feet from any lot line. (d) In rear yard: bays not to exceed a depth of two feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square feet; fire escapes not to exceed a width of three feet; balconies which extend no more than three feet into a yard, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters and recreational equipment, and off-street parking except as regulated in Section 11.05, Subd. 3. (e) In front or rear yards: bays not to exceed a depth of two feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square feet. (f) Window wells and their associated covers, air conditioning equipment and generators which do not extend into drainage or utility easements. Subd. 4. Buildings may be excluded from side yard requirements if party walls are utilized or if the adjacent buildings are planned to be constructed as an integral structure and a conditional use permit is secured. Subd. 5. Lots which abut on more than one street shall provide the required front yards along every street. Subd. 6. Where adjoining structures existing on the effective date of this Chapter have a different setback from that required, the front setback of a new structure shall conform to the average prevailing setback in the immediate vicinity. On undeveloped lots in the shoreland overlay district which have two (2) adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent lots, any new principal structure may be set back the average setback of the adjacent structures from the ordinary high water level but not within the shore impact zone, provided all dimensional and sanitary provisions of this ordinance are met. Subd. 7. In areas served by private wells or private sewage disposal systems, the Zoning Administrator may require larger lots than required by the zoning districts if soil tests indicate that a larger lot is necessary to insure the sanitary function of such system. Subd. 8. Structures utilizing an individual sewage treatment system shall be set back from the ordinary high water level of all public waters designated in section 827.03 of this ordinance the distance required by section 827.06 of this ordinance or such greater distance as may be required by any other applicable ordinance or regulation. No structure, except boat houses, piers, and docks, shall be placed at an elevation such that the lowest level, including basement floors, is less than three feet above the ordinary high water level or the highest known water level, whichever is greater. All structures shall also be constructed in compliance with section 826.75 et seq. of this ordinance. Subd. 9. No building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which does not abut a dedicated street, or a private roadway in conformance with City regulations. Subd. 10. No lot area shall be developed with impervious cover such as parking lot or driveway or buildings covering 60% or more of the lot area. Subd. 11. No antenna exceeding a height of l-1/2 times the principal structure's height or twice the distance of a structure's side yard setback, whichever is less, shall be permitted. All antennas in height five feet above the principal structure shall require a conditional use permit. SECTION II. Section 826.26.6 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 826.26.6. (SR) Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. Subd. 1. No building shall exceed two and one-half (2-1/2) stories or thirty (30) feet in height, as defined in section 825.07, subd. 12, except as regulated by Subd. 3 of this section. Subd. 2. The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in other sections of this ordinance: (a) Minimum lot size: 30,000 sq. ft. (b) Minimum lot width: 100 feet (c) Minimum lot depth: 125 feet (d) Front yard setback: 35 feet (e) Side yard setback: 15 feet (f) Rear yard setback: 40 feet (g) Increased setback adjacent to Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: Notwithstanding the setback requirements above, the required yard setback from a property line adjacent to a Major Collector or Arterial Roadway shall be to 50 feet. An uncovered deck which does not extend above the height of the main living level of the structure may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Major Collector or Arterial Roadway. Subd. 3. The height of single family detached residences may exceed 30 feet, but may not exceed 40 feet or two and one-half (2 1/2) stories, if the following standards are met: (a) Accurate building plans and elevation drawings shall be submitted to the City; (b) The residence shall be constructed with side and rear yard setbacks at least twice as great as those specified in Subd. 2 of this section; (c) Those portions of the residence greater than 30 feet in height shall be uninhabited and not planned for storage; (d) Those portions of the residence greater than 30 feet in height shall be no larger than 500 sq. ft. or shall be divided into spaces no greater than 500 sq. ft. and separated by an approved draft stop. (e) The height from the lowest ground level (and 8 feet out) to the eave shall be no greater than 30 feet; and (f) There shall be a two (2) story height limitation at the driveway or point of access to the residence. SECTION III. Section 826.35 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 826.35. (UR) Lot Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements. Subd. 1. No buildings hereafter erected shall exceed two and one half (2 l/2) stories or thirty (30) feet in height. Subd. 2. The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in other sections of this Ordinance. Minimum Lot Area (Single-family detached) 9,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width (Single-family detached) 60 feet Front Yard 30 feet Side Yard 10 feet Rear Yard 30 feet Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet Subd. 3. (a) Where adjoining structures existing on the effective date of this Ordinance have a shorter front setback from that required, the front setback of a new structure shall conform to the average of the front setback observed by the adjoining houses on either side, but not less than 20 feet. (b) Notwithstanding the standards set forth in Subd. 2. of this Section, the required yard setback from a property line adjacent to a public or private street shall be based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: (1) Minor Collector Roadway: 35 feet (2) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet (3) Notwithstanding the requirements above, an uncovered deck which does not extend above the height of the main living level of the structure may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Collector or Arterial Roadway. SECTION IV. Section 840.1.05 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 840.1.05. (R1) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. Density of Development: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Minimum Lot Size: 11,000 square feet Subd. 3. Minimum Lot Width: 90 feet. The minimum lot width shall be increased to 110 feet for a lot with a side yard adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. Subd. 4. Minimum Lot Depth: 100 feet. The minimum lot depth shall be increased to 115 feet for a lot adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. Subd. 5. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 25 feet, except as follows: (a) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. (b) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 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. Subd. 6. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 30 feet. The rear yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area, but may not be reduced if abutting public park property. Subd. 7. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback: 25 feet combined total for both side yards, with neither side less than 10 feet. The combined interior side yard setback shall be reduced to 20 feet if garage doors do not face the street. Subd. 8. Street Setbacks: A required yard setback adjacent to a public or private street shall be increased based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: (a) Local Roadway or Private Street: 25 feet, except as follows: (i) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. (ii) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 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) Minor Collector Roadway: 35 40 feet (c) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet (d) Notwithstanding the requirements above, an uncovered deck which does not extend above the height of the main living level of the structure may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Collector or Arterial Roadway. Subd. 9. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: 40 percent of the total lot area. Impervious surface coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices are implemented on the lot which, according to the City Engineer, reduce runoff below that which would occur if abiding by the maximum impervious surface regulation. However, in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 60 percent of the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded. SECTION V. Section 840.2.05 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 840.2.05. (R2) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. Density of Development: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Minimum Lot Size (Single Family Detached): 8,000 square feet Subd. 3. Minimum Lot Size (Two Family Dwelling): 5,000 square feet per unit Subd. 4. Minimum Lot Width (Single Family Detached): 60 feet. The minimum lot width shall be increased to 90 feet for lots with a side yard adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. Subd. 5. Minimum Lot Width (Two Family Dwelling): 50 feet per unit. The minimum lot width shall be increased to 70 feet for a unit with a side yard adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. Subd. 6. Minimum Lot Depth: 90 feet. The minimum lot depth shall be increased to 115 feet for a lot adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. Subd. 7. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 25 feet, except as follows: (a) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. (b) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 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. Subd. 8. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 25 feet. The rear yard setback may be reduced to 15 feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area, but may not be reduced if abutting public park property. Subd. 9. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (Single Family Detached): (a) The combined total of both side yards shall be a minimum of 15 feet (b) Neither side yard shall be less than 5 feet (c) One of the side yards shall be 10 feet or greater Subd. 10. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (Two Family Dwelling): 10 feet, except the side yard setback shall be reduced to zero for the common wall between two dwelling units. Subd. 11. Street Setbacks: A required yard setback adjacent to a public or private street shall be increased based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: (a) Local Roadway or Private Street: 25 feet, except as follows: (i) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. (ii) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 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) Minor Collector Roadway: 35 40 feet (c) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet (d) Notwithstanding the requirements above, an uncovered deck which does not extend above the height of the main living level of the structure may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Collector or Arterial Roadway. Subd. 12. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. Impervious surface coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices are implemented on the lot which, according to the City Engineer, reduce runoff below that which would occur if abiding by the maximum impervious surface regulation. However, in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 60 percent of the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded. SECTION VI. 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 the full bonus available if at least one underground space is provided per dwelling unit. (e) 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 Building Code. (f) Oversized garages or lockable storage units (max. reduction = 350 square feet of Net Lot Area per Unit). Additional storage must be at least 60 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 (c)(d) Notwithstanding the requirements above, an uncovered deck may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Collector or Arterial Roadway. 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 VII. Section 843.04 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 843.04. (MXR-1 and MXR-2) Single Family and Two Family Residential Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed for all single-family and two-family residential uses, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the City Code. Subd. 1. Density of Development and Number of Units: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with density and number of unit requirements in the Comprehensive Plan, the approved Mixed Residential Master Plan and Section 843 of the City Code. Subd. 2. MXR-1 Subdistrict Lot Standards. (a) Minimum Lot Width: 90 feet (b) Minimum Lot Depth: 90 feet. The minimum lot depth shall be increased to 115 feet for a lot adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway (c) Minimum Front Yard Setback: 25 feet, except as follows: (a) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. (b) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet if no garage doors face a street and if garage walls facing the street include a window or architectural elements to give the appearance of living space. (d) Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 30 feet. The rear yard setback may be reduced to 15 feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area, but may not be reduced if abutting public park property. (e) Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback: 10 feet (f) 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: 25 feet. (c) Collector or Arterial Roadways: 50 feet. (c)(d) Notwithstanding the requirements above, an uncovered deck which does not extend above the height of the main living level of the structure may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Collector or Arterial Roadway. (g) Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: 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 60 percent of the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded. (h) Maximum Building Height: All buildings shall meet all of the following requirements: (i) Building height shall not exceed 32 feet, but the maximum building height shall be increased to 35 feet if the structure is equipped with a compliant fire suppression system or if interior side yard setbacks are increased by 50 percent. (ii) No building shall exceed two and one-half stories in height, with a limitation of two stories facing a street. (iii) Maximum distance from ground to eave. In no case shall the vertical distance from the lowest ground level (at the footprint of the building and eight feet out) to the eave be greater than 32 feet. (i) The standards described in Section 843.04 Subd. 4 shall apply. Subd. 3. MXR-2 Subdistrict Lot Standards. (a) Density of Development and Number of Units: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with density and number of unit requirements in the Comprehensive Plan and the approved Mixed Residential Master Plan. (b) Minimum Lot Width (Single Family Detached): 50 feet, except as noted below: (i) The minimum lot width shall be increased to 60 feet for corner lots with a side yard adjacent to a street. (ii) The minimum lot width shall be increased to 70 feet for lots with a side yard adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. (c) Minimum Lot Width (Two Family Dwelling): 50 feet per unit. except as noted below: (i) The minimum lot width shall be increased to 60 feet for corner lots with a side yard adjacent to a street. (ii) The minimum lot width shall be increased to 70 feet for lots with a side yard adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway. (d) Minimum Lot Depth: 90 feet. The minimum lot depth shall be increased to 115 feet for a lot adjacent to a collector or arterial roadway (e) Minimum Front Yard Setback: 25 feet, except as follows: (i) Additional setback for garage doors facing streets: Garage doors which face a street shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet. (ii) Reduced setback for side-load garage: The front yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet if no garage doors face a street and if garage walls facing the street include a window or architectural elements to give the appearance of living space. (f) Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 25 feet. The rear yard setback may be reduced to 15 feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area, but may not be reduced if abutting public park property. (g) Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (Single Family Detached): 7.5 feet (h) Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback (Two Family Dwelling): 10 feet, except the side yard setback shall be reduced to zero for the common wall between two dwelling units. (i) 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: (i) Private Street: 25 feet. Parking areas and recreational areas shall be exempt from this requirement. (ii) Local Roadway: 25 feet. (iii)Collector or Arterial Roadways: 50 feet. (iii)(iv) Notwithstanding the requirements above, an uncovered deck which does not extend above the height of the main living level of the structure may encroach up to 10 feet into the increased yard setback adjacent to a Collector or Arterial Roadway. (j) Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: 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 60 percent of the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded. (k) Maximum Building Height: All buildings shall meet the following requirements: (i) Building height shall not exceed 32 feet, but the maximum building height shall be increased to 35 feet if the structure is equipped with a compliant fire suppression system or if interior side yard setbacks are increased by 50 percent. (ii) No building shall exceed two and one-half stories in height, with a limitation of two stories facing a street. (iii)Maximum distance from ground to eave. In no case shall the vertical distance from the lowest ground level (at the footprint of the building and eight feet out) to the eave be greater than 32 feet. (l) The standards described in Section 843.04 Subd. 4 shall apply. SECTION VIII. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this _____ day of _________, 2019. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of _________, 2019. Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan Community Vision The following statement provides a vision of the community for the future and the resultant goals and strategies. Medina is a community united by a common goal: to sustain and enhance the quality of life of its residents. Medina will protect its significant natural resources and open space throughout the City, while honoring its rural heritage and fostering safe and well-designed neighborhoods, places of recreation and destinations for citizens to gather. Development within the ensurate with available transportation systems, municipal services and school capacity. Community Goals The following Community Goals are derived from the Vision Statement and inform objectives and strategies throughout the various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.  Preserve rural vistas, open spaces, and wetlands in all parts of the community to promote the rural character of Medina.  Protect and enhance the environment and natural resources throughout the community.  Encourage and incent innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to planning, engineering and development.  Expand urban services only as necessary to accommodate regionally forecasted residential growth, desired business opportunities and achievement of other Community Goals. Such development and growth shall be at a sustainable pace proportionate with capacity of schools and transportation, water supply and wastewater infrastructure available to the City.  Spread development so that it is not geographically concentrated during particular timeframes.  Promote public and private gathering places and civic events that serve the entire community.  Preserve and expand trails and parks to provide community recreational facilities, connect neighborhoods, and encourage healthy lifestyles of its residents.  Provide opportunities for a diversity of housing at a range of costs to support residents at all stages of their lives.  Encourage an attractive, vibrant business community that complements the residential areas of the City.  Maintain its commitment to public safety through support of the City’s police department and coordinate with its contracted volunteer fire departments.  Manage the City through prudent budgeting processes, retaining a skilled and efficient staff and long-range planning and financial management. Future General Land Use Policy Direction As described in the Vision Statement, the City of Medina strives to promote and protect its open spaces and natural environment. The City has historically been, and intends to continue to be, primarily a rural community. The City has planned for a limited amount of future development consistent with regional forecast and consistent with Community Goals. Future Land Use Plan Principles The Future Land Use Plan guides the development of Medina through 2040, and will be used to implement the City’s goals, strategies and policies. The Plan is guided by the Vision and Community Goals as furthered by the following principles: Development Patterns and Neighborhood Form  Encourage open spaces, parks and trails in all neighborhood developments. Surveys indicate that a high quality of life is found when residents have visual access to green spaces.  Create neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are well connected with roads, trails or sidewalks.  Maintain the integrity of rural neighborhoods and promote development patterns consistent with existing rural residential development.  Recognize neighborhood characteristics and promote new development compatible in scale, architectural quality and style with existing neighborhoods.  Stage residential growth to minimize the amount of adjacent developments which occur within the same time period.  Guide density to areas with proximity to existing infrastructure and future infrastructure availability.  Concentrate higher density development near service oriented businesses to help promote walkability.  Consider planned development in surrounding communities when making land use decisions in the City. Road Patterns  Recognize regional highway capacity and planned improvements, along with use forecasts, as major factors in planning for growth and land use changes.  Establish collector streets with good connections through the community’s growth areas.  Promote trails and sidewalk access near roads and thoroughfares to encourage multi- modal transportation choices.  Consider opportunities to improve north-south travel within the City. Open Spaces and Natural Resources  Preserve natural resources throughout the community and provide educational opportunities to residents to help them understand the value of natural areas.  Preserve open spaces and natural resources.  Protect wooded areas and encourage improvement of existing resources and reforestation. Evaluate existing woodland protections and supplement as necessary.  Support the guidelines identified in the Open Space Report to preserve the City’s natural systems. Business Districts and Commercial Areas  Focus service businesses and development near urban residential densities and along primary transportation corridors.  Provide connections between residents and commercial areas and promote businesses within mixed-use areas.  Work to create job opportunities in the community for Medina residents to reduce traffic and commuting demands.  Emphasize service and retail uses which serve the needs of the local community and provide opportunities for the community to gather.  Support business development with a corporate campus style which provides open and protects natural resources. Urban Service Designations The Urban Service Area includes the residential and commercial areas of the City that are currently or will be served by municipal water and sewer services. Residential Uses Objectives:  Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property.  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.  Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary.  Regulate land within the Mixed Residential land use to provide opportunities for residential development with a density in excess of 8 units/acre. Flexibility is purposefully provided within the land use to support opportunities for a single project to provide both low- and high- density housing or for multiple developers to partner on independent projects within a Mixed Residential area.  Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low impact development design standards.  Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth strategies.  Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan.  Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the provision of urban services that will hinder future division.  Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes, conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open space and natural features.  Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with adequate facilities and open space.  Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety.  Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land use, market demands, and development standards.  Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of ecologically significant natural resources.  Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking, green space, landscape buffering and height limitations.  Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety.  Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required.  Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space.  In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD’s in exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi- family units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources.  Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood.  Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods and to maintain public health and safety. 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday July 9, 2019 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Aaron Amic, Peter Galzki, Beth Nielsen, Kerby Nester, 8 Cindy Piper, Robin Reid, and Rashmi Williams. 9 10 Absent: None. 11 12 Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke and Planning Intern Ben Schneider. 13 14 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 15 16 No comments made. 17 18 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19 20 Albers reported that the Council met on June 18th and approved the lot line rearrangement for 21 two properties on Medina Road, approved the vacation of easements for 1495 Medina Road, 22 and approved the wetland setback variance for a sewer system for 485 Medina Road. He 23 noted that the Council also reviewed the Charlie’s concept once again and provided 24 comments along with the Ditter concept plan, noting that the Council had no concerns with 25 that plan. He noted that at the July 2nd meeting the Council reviewed a wetland buffer 26 vacation request and approved that request for 3157 Wild Flower Trail. He noted that the 27 Council also adopted the ordinances related to Uptown Hamel that the Planning Commission 28 previously recommended for approval. 29 30 4. Planning Department Report 31 32 Finke provided an update. 33 34 5. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to 35 Setbacks From Streets Within the Single and Two Family Residential (R-2) Districts 36 37 Finke presented a request from property owners in the Enclave neighborhood to reduce the 38 setback from minor collector roadways from 35 feet to 30 feet. He stated that currently the 39 R-2 zoning district mainly applies to the north end of the Enclave neighborhood and in the 40 Fields of Medina neighborhood along Meander Road. He noted that staff reviewed the 41 existing properties and the setbacks currently exceed the setback by a fair amount, with the 42 exception of two properties in the northern end of the Enclave which were constructed with 43 setbacks of 36-feet and 43-feet. He stated that the applicant provided research related to 44 setbacks from other communities which was included in the staff report. He noted that none 45 of the other communities required a larger setback along minor collector roadways, but most 46 communities require a front setback when the backyard is adjacent to a roadway. He stated 47 that the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan were included in the report, highlighting 48 the rural character, desire for open space and preservation of rural vistas. He stated that the 49 request would reduce the rear setback to be equal to the front setback when adjacent a minor 50 collector road. He stated that staff did not see a good reason to limit the discussion to the R-2 51 2 zoning district as many districts are similar. He stated that if it would make sense to reduce 52 the setback in this case it would make sense to discuss a similar reduction in other similar 53 residential districts. He stated that if the larger setback stays in place staff identified some 54 potential issues related to lot depth and lot size. 55 56 Reid asked whether this change would impact all existing R-2 properties and future 57 development in the R-2 district. Finke confirmed that it would. 58 59 Amic noted that this would only apply to properties that abut a minor collector roadway 60 within that district. 61 62 Nester referenced the information provided from other communities, noting that Corcoran 63 requires 100 feet for a rear setback for a arterial roadways. 64 65 Galzki stated that the report mentioned that a variance had been considered but staff did not 66 believe a unique situation existed. He did not see the purpose in rewriting the ordinance for 67 one or two requests and believed that a variance would be a better route. 68 69 Finke stated that because the lot depth exceeds the minimum but such an amount, he was 70 unsure the context that could be used to provide practical difficulty other than the chosen 71 depth of the house when constructed, which is did not seem like a unique circumstance. 72 73 Galzki asked if the lot depth is the choice of the homeowner or the builder. 74 75 Finke stated that the builder/developer is the owner of the property when making the decision 76 on lot depth. He stated that if the lot was created at the minimum standards and did not leave 77 a sufficient building pad, that may be a difficulty, but that is not the case here. 78 79 Williams asked if there is any other way to have this approved without a change to the 80 ordinance. 81 82 Finke stated that the applicant could apply for a variance, but a unique situation/practical 83 difficulty would need to be identified that would support the request. 84 85 Galzki stated that he would see a variance as more appropriate than a zoning change. 86 87 Nester noted that the homeowner still knowingly purchased the home knowing the size of the 88 lot and placement of the home. 89 90 Matthew Cole, applicant, stated that he moved into his home five years ago noting that the 91 home was previously built. He stated that he was made aware of the setback issue when 92 purchasing the home but noted that they had been told that their neighbors were able to obtain 93 a variance to construct their deck. He noted that he later learned that information was 94 incorrect. He stated that he came to Finke a few months ago to discuss the ability to obtain a 95 variance for a deck. He stated that he did obtain signatures from those in his neighborhood 96 supporting his request for a deck. He noted that after discussions with staff it was determined 97 that his variance may be difficult to justify and a change in code would be another option to 98 pursue. He stated that the request would impact very few properties in the communities, 99 those within R-2 that abut minor collector roadways. He stated that the reduced setback 100 would allow him to construct a deck large enough to support a table for his family. He noted 101 that if this is not approved, they would not be able to construct a deck with sufficient space 102 and their alternate option would be hardscape. He noted that he could not find anyone else 103 that this would impact and that is why no one is here tonight. 104 3 105 Reid opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. 106 107 No comments made. 108 109 Reid closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. 110 111 Williams stated that this seems excessive to change the ordinance for this purpose. She 112 acknowledged that the developers are not always sharing the right information. She stated 113 that while she would like the property owner to be allowed to enjoy dinner on their deck, she 114 also understands the desire to keep the rural character of Medina. 115 116 Galzki stated that either way he would like the property owner to be able to construct a deck 117 on their property but would like to do that in the best way that makes sense for the City. He 118 stated that he has worked with residential developers in the past and their largest concern is 119 getting the largest number of lots out of a development while meeting the minimum lot 120 standards. He noted that there are always a few lots in a development that will be challenged 121 by setbacks or wetland location. He stated that he would have a hard time reducing the 122 setback and changing the ordinance to accommodate this request. He believed that a variance 123 would be the better choice. 124 125 Nielsen stated that she also struggles with the issue. She applauded the property owner for all 126 his research and hard work on the topic. She noted that the owner can do an 8-foot wide deck 127 across much of the home, which some people may find sufficient. 128 129 Nester stated that she does not believe amending the ordinance would be the best choice. 130 131 Amic asked for details on the requirement for a variance. 132 133 Finke stated that staff spent a fair amount of time reviewing this request and the different 134 methods that could be used. He stated that the problem with blaming the person that owned 135 before you would not be unique and could be applied to everyone in the community. He 136 noted the three point test for a variance: 1) consistent with purpose and intent of the 137 ordinance; 2) consistent with Comp Plan; 3) practical difficulties. In determining if there are 138 practical difficulties: 1) use of property must be reasonable (including minimizing the 139 variance as much as possible); 2) circumstance unique to property, not caused by owner; 3) 140 will not impact character of the locality. 141 142 Amic stated that it appears that in terms of a variance it would depend how liberally the 143 Commission would want to interpret the criteria. He stated that he also believes that it does 144 matter if there are less stringent setbacks in other rural communities. He stated that this issue 145 would only impact a small number of properties and he does not see a large difference 146 between 35 and 30 feet. 147 148 Piper stated that it seems there is agreement that the Commission would like to be able to 149 allow the resident to construct a deck but is struggling between whether a variance or zoning 150 change would be appropriate. She asked if there is an option in between. 151 152 Finke stated that you would either follow the rules or change the rules. He noted that 153 Plymouth allowed an exception for decks to encroach into the setback. He stated that the 154 problem is that builders want to maximize the buildable space on the lot which does not leave 155 a lot of room for other structures, such as decks. He stated that the builder is going to fill the 156 building envelope, whatever that envelope is, and will still leave the issue of decks. 157 4 158 Reid stated that she would have a problem changing an ordinance that would impact the 159 entire City and future development but would like to find a way to allow this deck to be 160 constructed. She did not believe it appropriate to make an ordinance change to accommodate 161 one homeowner. She stated that the City has always been tight in its review of variances and 162 if staff could not find something that would qualify for the criteria, she was unsure that would 163 be approved. 164 165 Piper stated that there has to be a way to do this using a variance. 166 167 Cole stated that he and his wife believed that they could meet the variance criteria. He noted 168 that there are a number of things Lennar promised the neighborhood that did not come to 169 fruition. 170 171 Reid stated that the hardship for this request could be the kitchen bump-up that the home has, 172 as that is unique to the home and makes the smaller deck less practical. 173 174 Finke stated that the unique situation would be that the home is located on a cul-de-sac and 175 the home is oddly situated on the lot. He noted that if the home were orientated in a different 176 manner there would have been space for a deck. 177 178 Nielsen asked if an exception to the setback could be made for the deck. 179 180 Finke noted that could be an option. He noted that Plymouth has done a similar exception 181 because they too were having a lot of similar issues. 182 183 Reid agreed that perhaps the better option would be to allow decks to encroach into the 184 setback a certain number of feet, using a suggestion of five feet. 185 186 Finke stated that he would believe it appropriate to then apply the encroachment to other 187 similar districts, but adding additional regulations using the example of only those lots 188 abutting minor collector roadways. 189 190 Reid agreed that this could be allowed making a minor change to the ordinance but noted that 191 this would not be the right ordinance amendment. 192 193 Finke noted that builders will take advantage of the encroachment option and make the home 194 larger. 195 196 Galzki stated that he believes that the entire ordinance should be reviewed, noting that 197 perhaps a larger setback be required and then allowing a deck encroachment. 198 199 Williams stated that the landscape of Medina is changing, the developments being 200 constructed are changing and therefore agreed that the ordinance as a whole should be 201 reviewed in attempt to eliminate this issue in the future. 202 203 Nester agreed that perhaps the setback should be reviewed, but noted that she probably 204 wouldn’t support a reduction to 30 feet for decks. 205 206 Finke asked if the Commission would be in agreement with having decks extending five feet 207 into the rear setback for homes along minor collector roads. He stated that if that is the 208 direction, he can review the ordinance in more detail to review setbacks and lot depth. 209 210 5 Galzki asked if the ordinance could state a time period, using the example of every home 211 constructed prior to July 1, 2019 could encroach and then setting new standards for homes 212 constructed after that time to protect the building envelope. 213 214 Finke replied that could be done but that would add another level of complexity. Existing 215 homes which did not meet the new standard would receive nonconformity protections. 216 217 Motion by Galzki, seconded by Williams, to recommend denial of the ordinance 218 amendment related to setbacks from streets within the single- and two-family residential 219 districts. Motion carries unanimously. 220 221 Amic stated that this issue has brought up some larger issues to review in the ordinance and 222 believed that this would be a good time for the City to review the ordinance. 223 224 Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen, to recommend that the City review setbacks and lot 225 depth in relation to major roadways. 226 227 6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Sign 228 Illumination 229 230 Finke stated that this language was brought to the attention of the City following a recent sign 231 request. He noted that commercial highway and business allow for an internally lighted sign 232 along any roadway while the other districts would prohibit internal lighting and would only 233 allow external lighting unless adjacent Highway 55. He stated that CR 116 is a major 234 roadway and perhaps it would make sense to allow internally lit signs along that roadway as 235 well. He noted that another option would be to consider arterial roadways but noted that 236 there are no applicable properties in those districts. He stated that another consideration was 237 to prohibit internally lit signs within 200 feet of residential, while the last consideration 238 would permit internally lit signs and rely on the illumination regulations. He stated that the 239 proposal in front of the Commission would allow internally lit signs on any arterial roadway 240 and all other roadways except within 200 feet of residential properties. 241 242 Piper asked if there is an urgency on this topic. 243 244 Finke stated that there is a property owner on CR 116 interested in a sign, but an application 245 has not yet been submitted. 246 247 Reid stated that the only problem she would see on CR 116 is the proximity of residential to 248 the AutoMotorPlex and Loram. 249 250 Nielsen noted that the signs would still need to stay within the requirement for lumens. 251 252 Williams asked if the previously mentioned study has been completed. 253 254 Piper noted that she could follow up with that resident, although it was noted that resident 255 was interested in street lighting. 256 257 Reid opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. 258 259 No comments made. 260 261 Reid closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. 262 263 6 Galzki asked the lumens of the Medina Ballroom sign. 264 265 Finke stated that some of the colors exceed 500 nits but confirmed that some elements are 266 grandfathered in. 267 268 Galzki stated that they are about 1,000 feet from that sign and still have a soft glow from the 269 sign at night. He believed that 200 feet would be too close. 270 271 The Commission stated that they would like to see additional information on this topic. 272 273 Reid suggested that the application be limited to a certain distance from Highway 55 as that 274 would help to contain the internally luminated signs. 275 276 Finke stated that there would be two issues, whether the signs will be allowed and then the 277 allowed lumens for those signs. 278 279 Amic stated that he does not prefer internally lit signs. 280 281 Williams stated that she sees the needs for an internally lit sign for a gas station that is open at 282 night but does not see the reason for a business that is not open at night. 283 284 Galzki noted that it appears that there would need to be further discussion on the topic 285 because a change is considered. 286 287 Motion by Williams, seconded by Amic, to recommend denial of the ordinance amendment 288 related to sign illumination. Motion carries unanimously. 289 290 7. Approval of the June 11, 2019 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 291 292 Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Amic, to approve the June 11, 2019, Planning Commission 293 minutes as amended. Motion carries unanimously. 294 295 8. Council Meeting Schedule 296 297 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Williams 298 volunteered to attend in representation of the Commission. 299 300 9. Adjourn 301 302 Motion by Galzki, seconded by Piper, to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m. Motion carried 303 unanimously. 304