Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-12-2019 POSTED IN CITY HALL: February 7, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 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 – Ordinance Amendment – Related to the requirements of the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district 6. Rezoning of 35 properties in the City to make zoning consistent with City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 7. Public Hearing – Scott and Chantelle Theisen – 3325 County Road 24 – Conditional Use Permit for construction of four accessory structures with an aggregate footprint in excess of 5000 square feet 8. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Related to the minimum side setback requirements of the Rural Residential-1 (RR1) zoning district 9. Call Special Meeting – Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. 10. Approval of January 8, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes 11. Council Meeting Schedule 12. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 February 5, 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: January 30, 2019 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – February 5, 2019 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) RR1 side setback amendment – Brian and Christine Raskob, owners of 3240 Carriage Drive, have requested that the City consider reducing the minimum side yard setback in the RR1 zoning district for lots over 5 acres in size from 50 feet to 20 feet. Only three parcels in this district are larger than 5 acres, and the applicant proposes that they have the same setbacks as the remaining parcels. The owners previously applied for a variance from the 50-foot side yard setback to construct a detached garage on their property but withdrew the variance in order to request that the City reduce the setback instead. The request is scheduled for a hearing at the February 12 meeting. B) Theisen Riding Arena CUP – 3325 County Road 24 – Scott and Chantelle Theisen have requested a CUP for construction of a barn and indoor riding arena. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and the application will be presented to the Planning Commission when prepared, potentially at the February 12 meeting. C) 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. Staff will present to Council when ready. D) 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. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and the application will be presented to the Planning Commission when prepared, potentially at the March 12 meeting. E) School Lake Nature Preserve CD-PUD Amendment – Wally and Bridget Marx have requested an amendment to the CD-PUD to shift the location of one of the lots in the development. Staff has conducted a preliminary review and requested additional information. The item will be scheduled for a public hearing when complete, potentially at the March 12 Planning Commission meeting. 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) Ditter Concept Plan – Jim Ditter, Tom Ditter, and Ditter Properties have requested review of a concept plan related to the potential subdivision of four existing parcels totaling approximately 25 acres into six lots. Two of the existing parcels are served by City sewer and included within the urban service area but all the property is zoned rural residential. The applicants requested that the City consider rezoning the two parcels served by city sewer to Suburban Residential, allowing the parcels to be reduced in size to create additional rural lots. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the May 8 meeting and feedback was generally supportive of what was proposed. The Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 February 5, 2019 City Council Meeting Council reviewed on June 19 and raised questions whether designating the property as LDR was consistent with the objectives of the Comp Plan. The Council directed staff to continue discussions with the Ditters and staff has done so. The application will be left open in case the Ditters have additional information to provide in the coming months. H) Johnson ADU CUP, Maxxon, Dykhoff Septic Variance, 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. I) 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) Rezoning for consistency with 2040 Comp Plan – The Planning Commission held a public hearing on an ordinance rezoning 35 parcels of land which were identified by staff to be consistent with the updated Comprehensive Plan. At the hearing, many comments were received about the rezoning of two parcels at CR116 and Meander Road. The Commission tabled the ordinance and requested additional information from staff. Staff has been in discussions with several the persons who raised concerns at the hearing and it appears that most concerns on the County Road 116 matter have been addressed. Staff intends to present the ordinance and updated information to the Commission again at the February 12 meeting. B) Tolomatic Administrative Site Plan Review – Tolomatic has requested approval of a site plan review to expand its parking lot at 3800 CR 116. Review is underway. C) Three Rivers Park Administrative Site Plan Review – Three Rivers Park has proposed to demolish and reconstruct a number of buildings within the Baker Park campground. It appears that the total square footage of the structures would not increase within the campground. Review is underway. D) Uptown Hamel – a group of students at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs has agreed to research and make recommendations to support improvements and development in the Uptown Hamel area. An open house is scheduled for the evening of February 20 to kick-off the process. E) Brockton Lane improvement project – staff reviewed and provided comments to the project engineer on the project. The improvement hearing is scheduled for the February 19 Council meeting. F) Hickory Drive improvement project – Staff has continued discussions with the owner related to the agreement to the acquire an easement for the stormwater pond. Staff received favorable comments related to potential partial funding for the City’s grant application for the Hennepin County Natural Resources Opportunity Grant. Staff has also inquired if Elm Creek Watershed may be able to provide funding in 2018 (rather than 2019, when it has been scheduled). The City should have a good idea of potential funding in the middle of February. G) Stormwater Ordinance and Design Guide –staff met with Engineering staff to discuss the scope and workplan for reviewing the City’s stormwater regulations to conform with the City’s surface water management plan and current practices. The Planning Commission and City Council held a workshop on the regulations at the May 15 meeting. The Council adopted the ordinance at the August 8 meeting. Staff is working on the Design Manual. H) Arrowhead Railroad improvements – staff met with representatives from the County, State, and Federal Railway Administration related to the whistleless crossing at Arrowhead Drive. Feedback was fairly positive and staff is optimistic that the review process will be straight forward. Indications were that the review process would take 15+ months, so it appears that the City could be on track for construction in 2020. TO: City Council FROM: Edgar J. Belland, Director of Public Safety, Through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: January 31, 2019 RE: Police Department Update Body Cam Meeting On January 17th the Medina Police Department hosted a roundtable with 13 other police departments in Hennepin County and the Hennepin Justice Integration Program, (HJIP) to work on a body-cam solution for smaller departments. Each department recapped what equipment they currently had and what their plan was to move forward with body-cams. We all agreed to see if the County is interested in hosting a shared system for smaller departments which would be integrated with the Sheriff’s Department and the County Attorney’s Office. The HJIP group would lead the process. On January 28th I received an email from the HJIP group stating that they found a grant from Department of Justice that could fund part of the project. As this project moves forward, I will keep you abreast of developments. Capital Projects We have ordered the seven new squad laptops. We explored the possibility of leasing them but found that to enter the lease program with Hennepin County we would have to pay for the computers upfront and then pay a lease for the next seven years for the next computers. We see no benefit to a lease at this time. We have ordered two squads, one to replace the squad that was totaled in December, and one replacement for the oldest squad in the fleet. Arrival of the squads should be in February. They will need to be built up with the police equipment, they should be in service by the end of March. Staffing Investigator McKinley has started in his new position. He has attended outside training for criminal sexual assault investigations, cell phone forensics, data practices, criminal histories and general investigations. We have posted the part-time CSO position. The posting will close on February 8th. We will schedule interviews the next week and hopefully have someone appointed by mid-March. We continue to recruit volunteers for our reserve program. If you know of anyone who is interested in law enforcement, with strong customer skills, clean background and would like to be part of the Medina Police Department, please send them our way. MEMORANDUM Sergeant Update: Training: On January 28th and 29th, Officer McKinley attended investigator training about cell phone forensics. Patrol Activities: For the dates of January 9 to January 29, 2019, our officers issued 60 citations and 141 warnings for various traffic infractions. There was a total of 10 traffic accidents, 21 medicals, 20 alarms and 2 DWI’s. On 01-29-19, Officers Converse and McGill responded to welfare check of a possible suicidal party who was attempting to kill himself with his car running inside his garage. Upon arrival, they were able to make contact with the homeowner and found her son inside his running vehicle in the garage. The male had sent text messages to a friend in Iowa about harming himself. The party was placed on a health and welfare hold. On 01-27-19, Officer Scharf took a theft report from the Inn Kahoots. Reporting party indicated that someone had stolen her mink coat valued at $5000 while she was dancing. The case will be forwarded to investigations. On 01-27-19, Officer Gregory was dispatched to take a theft report from Casey’s. It was reported that a male had been into the store and attempted to purchase several items including lottery tickets but when the clerk advised that they could not accept a check, the male left taking the lottery tickets with him. Case forwarded to investigations. On 01-25-19, Officer Gregory and Scharf were dispatched to two intoxicated drivers leaving the Medina Entertainment Center one going east and one going west on Hwy 55. Within seconds they received a second call of a wrong way driver that was involved in a personal injury accident just east of the ballroom. The driver was found to be severely injured and intoxicated. Plymouth Police handled the call and we assisted as the accident occurred in their city. On 01-24-19, Officer Scharff stopped a vehicle for traffic violations. The driver and its two occupants were subsequently arrested for possession of marijuana and THC oils. They were all juveniles and turned over to their parents pending charges. On 01-23-19, Officer Gregory took a report of missing cash from a residence. The reporting party stated that someone had stolen $1500 in cash from a dresser drawer. The case was forwarded to investigations. On 01-22-19, Officer Converse and I responded to a one car roll over on County Road 116. Upon arrival, one occupant was found trapped inside the car. The car had left the roadway and struck a power pole snapping it in three, then jumped a driveway and landed on its top. We were able to remove the party, who was believed to be intoxicated, from the car. The party was transported to the hospital and a search warrant was drafted by Investigator McKinley for a blood sample. The results will be back in a few weeks. The driver was extremely lucky to be alive and was not believed to have been seatbelted. On 01-22-19, Officer Hall was dispatched to a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, there had been two adult brothers fighting and multiple people present. The residence was in disarray and multiple TV’s were broken. One male subject was transported to the hospital for stitches and was then subsequently arrested for domestic assault. On 01-20-19, Officer Boecker was dispatched to Target for a theft in progress. The suspect was apprehended by Officer Boecker after leaving the store. The subject was issued a citation for theft and released. On 01-20-19, Officer Scharf stopped a vehicle for traffic violations and found that the driver had been smoking THC oils which is a felony to be in possession. The juvenile male was turned over to his parents and charges will be requested. On 01-19-19, Officer Scharf was dispatched to a traffic complaint on Hwy 55. He was able to locate the suspect vehicle and stopped it for traffic violations. The driver was found to be intoxicated and was subsequently arrested for DWI. On 01-18-19, Officer Converse was dispatched to Target for a theft in progress. Officer Converse was able to apprehend the suspect while leaving the store. The female was released pending formal charges. On 01-15-19, Officer Boecker and I were dispatched to Target for a theft in progress. While en route, we were advised that the male had fled the store to the west towards Wells Fargo. The area was searched and after watching video surveillance Officer Boecker recognized who the suspect was. The case was forwarded to investigations for follow up. On 01-13-19, Officer Scharf was dispatched to a possible drug overdose. This is the second time that we have been to the residence in the past week for heroin overdoses. The male was conscious and North Memorial transported him to be evaluated. On 01-13-19, Officer Gregory took a theft report. Homeowner reported that someone had stolen two dirt bikes from an outbuilding. The case was forwarded to investigations. On 01-11-19, Officers Gregory and Scharf were dispatched to an auto theft in Loretto. It was discovered that someone had stolen the reporting party’s truck while he was at work. The case was forwarded to investigations. Investigations Update: Attended at two-day training through St. Paul Police Department. The training focused on how to obtain cell phone data for criminal investigations. Sent two burglary cases to the Hennepin County Attorney’s office for review for charging. Suspect is involved in multiple burglaries in the metro area. Officers took two theft from auto reports in October 2018. Credit cards were taken from the vehicles and used at a business in Plymouth. Suspects were eventually identified through contact with other law enforcement agencies. Suspects were involved with multiple theft from autos and fraudulent use of credit cards in the metro area. Report was sent to county attorney’s office for charging. Investigating a theft of money from a residence. I have identified a possible suspect. Continued attempts to make contact. Investigating an employee theft at a business. Employee is a suspect in a theft at a neighboring business in the same area. There are currently (6) active cases assigned to investigations. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: February 1, 2019 MEETING: February 5, 2019 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS x Public Works has been plowing and sanding throughout the city. The streets are in good condition for winter, with some compacted snow on the side streets. x Some spots of the streets have become rough due to the amount of moisture in the fall, which as it froze it moved sections of the street around. x We are finalizing construction plans on the Brockton Lane project with Plymouth. We plan to get our comments back to the engineering firm by the end of the week. Jim Stremel, from WSB, has been asked to look at the plans to see if he has any recommendations. x We will be sending out bid packets next week for our road materials which will be due at the end of February and on the agenda in March for approval. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER x There was a watermain break on Kilkenny Lane around 9 a.m. on Tuesday the 29th. Water was off for around 6 hours for the businesses in the cul-de-sac. Public works had Class 5 and other materials on hand and so they were able to repair bands and pipe sections, which was not possible prior to moving to the new Public Works location. x We have had a few power outage issues at Hamel Lift Station #1 in the past two weeks. The onsite backup generator makes it much easier to deal with the power outages, especially in subzero temps. x The Hughes agreement is in your packet for approval. Dusty and I have been working on this agreement for some time and have come to agreement on the terms. PARKS/TRAILS x The trails have become a routine part of our snow removal after the streets have been plowed and are in good condition. x The sliding hill looks great and is being used when temperatures permit. x We received the grant payment in the amount of $44,200 from Hennepin County for the Pinto Trail project that was completed in 2018. Page 2 of 2 MISCELLANEOUS x Public Works Foreman, Ivan Dingmann, has officially announced his retirement in July. We will begin looking for his replacement after council accepts his resignation at the next meeting. Since there appears to be interest from within the department, the plan is to post this position internally and promote within. The job description is in the process of being updated and a more detailed plan will be provided at the February 19th meeting. x The brush and compost site are slowly being chipped and hauled away. Weather has caused some delays, but it should be completed in the next week or so. x Joe Kittok, the custodian for the German Liberal Cemetery, has asked for an increase in compensation. We met with Joe to go over the terms and verify if any internal procedures need to be updated. An updated contract is provided for your review and approval. Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 2 February 12, 2019 Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: February 7, 2019 MEETING: February 12, 2019 Planning Commission SUBJ: Public Hearing – Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District Standards Background On December 11, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning of various parcels intended to make the zoning consistent with the updated Comprehensive Plan. During the hearing, concern was raised related to the rezoning of two parcels at the northwest of the intersection of County Road 116 and Meander Road to the Commercial-Highway (CH) zoning district. Concerns were raised related to potential impacts of more intensive commercial development on nearby residential property. One of the alternatives discussed was zoning the parcels as Commercial-Neighborhood (CN), which is generally a less intensive district. Currently, no property in the City is zoned as CN. In anticipation of applying the district to the property noted above, staff discussed potential amendments to the ordinance with interested parties. Potential Amendments The attached ordinance includes potential amendments to the CN district which were identified to address some of the concerns discussed at the public hearing in December. Removal of Auto Retail as Conditional Use One of the primary differences between the CN and CH districts is that CN excludes some more intensive uses, including various uses related to automobiles. However, Auto Repair is listed as an allowed Conditional Use. Staff believes this use is similar to some of the other uses which are not permitted, and that it may be advisable to remove it as well. The attached ordinance would delete the use at the bottom of page 1. Allowance for Existing Single-Family Homes One of the concerns raised at the hearing related to the rezoning of the properties at the northeast corner of CR116 and Meander was applying a commercial zoning designation to property that currently contains a home. Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 February 12, 2019 Commercial-Neighborhood Zoning District Planning Commission Meeting Nonconformity protections would allow any residential use to be continued, maintained, improved, and replaced. However, expanding a residential use (such as an addition) would not be allowed for a nonconforming use. Staff has suggested language which would provide additional protections for existing single family homes which would also allow for additions/expansions (lower portion of page 2). Buffer Yard Requirements The City has existing requirements related to buffer yards between developments and adjacent lower intensity land uses. A buffer yard is a combination of landscaping, berming, and/or increased setbacks intended to reduce impacts between different land uses. Staff has suggested adding bufferyard requirements between CN property and low density residential uses. This language is on pages 4-5 of the ordinance. Potential Action The Planning Commission should first hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment to receive feedback from interested parties. If the Planning Commission concurs with the proposed amendments, the following action would be appropriate: Move to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending the requirements of the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district. Attachment Draft Ordinance Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE CREATING REGULATIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL-NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 838.4 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 838.4 – COMMERCIAL-NEIGHBORHOOD (CN) DISTRICT Section 838.4.01 Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) - Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial- Neighborhood (CN) district is to provide a zoning district for a mix of lower intensity retail and service businesses within proximity of residential zoning districts which provide services primarily for local residents. Development shall include high quality and attractive building materials and architectural design as well as extensive landscaping in order to relate with the residential surroundings and limit impacts on surrounding land uses. Development shall be integrated and coordinated in a way to most efficiently utilize site improvements and to protect the natural environment. Section 838.4.02. (CN) Permitted Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the CN district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Essential services (2) Office Uses (3) Parks and open space (4) Public Services (5) Retail Uses, except the following are not permitted uses: pawn shops, pet stores, and adult establishments. (6) Service Uses, except for the following: hospitals; veterinarian clinics; adult establishments; services related to automobiles; and services delivered off-site, including but not limited to building/lawn contractors, electrical and other skills trades and pest control. Section 838.4.03. (CN) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted within the CN district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in Section 838.5.08, and other applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Automobile Repair, Oil Lubrication Service Shops, Auto Body Shops (2)(1) Indoor Recreational Uses, including but not limited to bowling alleys, dance halls, movie theaters, and live entertainment. Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE (3)(2) Retail and service uses which include the keeping of animals on-site such as pet stores, veterinarian clinics, animal day cares, animal boarding, commercial kennels and similar uses. Section 838.4.04. (CN) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within the CN district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use: (1) Off-street parking and loading (2) Outdoor dining and/or drinking areas, subject to the requirements established in Section 838.5.08. (3) Outdoor display of goods used in conjunction with and on the same site as the permitted use or conditional use, subject to the requirements established in Section 838.5.08. (4) Outdoor recreational sports courts, subject to a conditional use permit and the requirements established in Section 838.5.08. (5) Seasonal Flea Market or Farmers Market, subject to an administrative review of compliance with the requirements established in Section 838.5.08. (6) Signs, subject to the requirements of the sign ordinance (7) Temporary Outdoor Sales Events, subject to an administrative review of compliance with the requirements established in Section 838.5.08. (8) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code. Section 838.4.05. Interim Uses. Within the CN district, single family detached dwellings existing prior to [the effective date of this ordinance] shall be a permitted interim use. Such use shall be allowed without obtaining an interim use permit until such time as the property is redeveloped. Subd. 1. The interim use may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement until such time as the property is redeveloped. Subd. 2. An increase in the size of the interim use by 30 percent or less shall not be considered an expansion and shall not require an interim use permit. Expansion of the use or improvement of the property in an amount greater than 30 percent of its current size shall be permitted only by interim use permit. Subd. 3. If an interim use is damaged or destroyed by fire, storm, or other hazard, it may be reconstructed without obtaining an interim use permit if a building permit is applied for within 720 days of the event causing the damage. Section 838.4.0506. (CN) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. Minimum Lot Size: One acre. The minimum lot size may be reduced to 0.5 acre if the lot is part of an integrated development utilizing shared improvements such as parking and stormwater management, as approved by the City. Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE Subd. 2. Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet Subd. 3. Minimum Lot Depth: 120 feet Subd. 4. A lot of record, which existed on or before December 31, 1999, and has one or more of the following characteristics shall be considered buildable, without requiring a variance, provided all other relevant provisions of the ordinance are met: (a) Less than the required lot size (b) Less than the required lot width (c) Less than the required lot depth Subd. 5. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 30 feet Subd. 6. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 25 feet Subd. 7. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback: 15 feet 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: 30 feet (b) Minor Collector Roadway: 35 feet (c) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet Subd. 9. Minimum Residential Setback: Any setback adjacent to a residential zoning district shall be increased to 40 feet. Subd. 10. Minimum Railroad Setback: A required yard setback adjacent to a railroad right- of-way may be reduced to zero, except as necessary for safety, fire access, or utility purposes. Subd. 11. Minimum Parking Setbacks: Parking stalls, parking aisles and fire lanes may encroach within the yard setbacks required by this section, but shall be located the following distances from property lines: (a) Front Yard: 25 feet (b) Rear and Interior Side Yard: 5 feet, except to accommodate shared/joint parking across a common lot line. (c) Side Yard, if adjacent to street: 25 feet (d) Residential Zoning District: 40 feet Subd. 12. Maximum Impervious Surface: Impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 70 percent of the entire lot. Additionally, excluding wetlands and stormwater ponds, no more than 80 percent of the remaining lot shall be covered with impervious surfaces. Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE Section 838.4.0607. (CN) Design and Development Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. Maximum Building Size: No structure shall exceed 20,000 square feet of floor area. Subd. 2. Maximum Building Height: Building height shall not exceed 35 feet. In the case that a structure is not equipped with a compliant fire sprinkler system, the maximum building height shall be 30 feet. Subd. 3. Outdoor Lighting: Unless otherwise specified herein, outdoor lighting shall abide by the requirements specified in the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. (a) Lighting levels at property lines shall be limited to 0.0 foot-candle. (b) Parking and Walkway lighting fixtures shall utilize full cut-off luminaries with no more than 10 percent of light output above the horizontal plane through the light source. (c) Landscape and architectural lighting shall be aimed directly at the area of focus. Spill light shall be minimized through the use of narrow distribution luminaries and control devices such as louvers, refractors, barn doors, and glare shields. Subd. 3. Outdoor Storage Prohibited. Outdoor Storage shall be prohibited within the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district. Subd. 4. Buffer Yard. A buffer yard as described in Section 828.31 shall be required. Subd. 5. The commercial district standards, as required in Section 838.5, shall be observed. SECTION II. Section 828.31 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language as follows: Section 828.31. Buffer Yard Requirements. Subd. 1. Generally. A buffer yard is a combination of distance, plantings, berms, and fencing. The purpose of a buffer yard is to reduce the negative impacts that may result when land uses of different intensities abut each other or when residential uses abut primary roadways. Subd. 2. Buffer yards required. A buffer yard shall be required in the following situations: (a) Adjacent to less intensive zoning district. A buffer yard shall be required when a developing property is adjacent to or across a street from property of a less intensive zoning district, as summarized by the following table. (b) Adjacent to Collector or Arterial Roadways. A buffer yard shall be required along collector and arterial roadways if the property on the opposite side of the roadway is of the same or a more intensive zoning district, as summarized by the following table. Ordinance No. ### 5 DATE Required Bufferyard Opacity Zoning District of Proposed Development R-1 0.3 R-2 0.3 R-3 or MXR 0.4 R-4 0.4 R-5 0.4 CN 0.5 Zoning District of Property Adjacent to Proposed Development** Rural PUD-1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 SR 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 R-1 0.1* 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 UR 0.1* 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1* R-2 0.1* 0.1* 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1* R-3 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.2 0.3 0.1* Mixed Use Districts 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.2 0.3 0.1* R-4 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.2 0.1* R-5 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* Commercial, Uptown Hamel, General Business, and Industrial Districts 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* 0.1* None Ordinance No. ### 6 DATE SECTION III. 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. Rezonings for Consistency with Page 1 of 3 February 12, 2019 2040 Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: February 7, 2019 MEETING: February 12, 2019 Planning Commission SUBJ: Rezoning for Consistency with 2040 Comprehensive Plan Background On December 11, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning of 35 parcels intended to make the zoning consistent with the updated Comprehensive Plan. Following the hearing and discussion, the Commission tabled the ordinance and requested staff to prepare some additional information for review. The staff report for the December 11 meeting described the background and context of the proposed rezonings and is available on the City’s website (https://medinamn.us/rezoning/) or upon request. Feedback at Public Hearing An excerpt from the December 11 minutes is attached for reference. Much of the discussion at the public hearing surrounded the rezoning of two parcels at the northwest of the intersection of County Road 116 and Meander Road to the Commercial-Neighborhood zoning district. Concerns were raised related to potential impacts of more intensive commercial development on nearby residential property. An owner of property in the northwest corner of the City (identified as #29 in the ordinance) requested that the Commission consider a zoning designation which would allow some business use on the property in the interim timeframe before the property can be developed. The parcel is designed for “Future Development Area” in the Comprehensive Plan, which means the City may consider it in future Comprehensive Plan for potential sewer/water development in the longer- term future. An owner of property in the southwest corner of the City (identified as #34 in the ordinance) stated that they were concerned that the size of the lot and the various requirements of the R4 district would make it impossible to develop their property at a density of 12-15 units per acre. The Commission requested that staff provide additional information and potential options to address these comments. Commercial Properties at NW of CR116/Meander Road As discussed at the December hearing, this property is guided Commercial within the Comprehensive Plan. The property had previously been guided Mixed Use, and could have been Rezonings for Consistency with Page 2 of 3 February 12, 2019 2040 Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Meeting developed with either commercial or higher density residential uses under the previous Comprehensive Plan. Property owners from the area expressed concerns of more intensive commercial development on this site. One of the owners of the property also expressed concern related to how being zoned Commercial may impact the value of their home on the property. One of the potential options discussed to address concerns related to the intensity of commercial development was to consider a rezoning to the Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) district. Staff reviewed the requirements of the CN district and suggested potential changes which are scheduled to be discussed at the February 12 meeting as well. Staff has updated the ordinance to propose that the parcels at the northwest of the CR116/Meander Road intersection to be zoned to Commercial-Neighborhood. Staff reached out to the residents who had expressed concern at the previous hearing to solicit feedback. No concerns were raised. Future Development Property in Northwest Corner of City Five properties in the northwest corner of the City (identified with number 26-29 & 33) were designated as “Future Development Area (FDA)” in the Comp Plan. The FDA indicates that the property may be considered for development during future comp plan processes. These properties were previously planned for Business development after 2025 and zoned Rural Business Holding (RBH), but were delayed for development in the updated Comprehensive Plan. The City has generally zoned potential future development property as RR-UR. If the Planning Commission and City Council were open to limited business development on some of these parcels, the City could consider leaving the RBH zoning district. The RBH district would permit smaller scale business uses on septic and well until such time as services are extended. The minimum lot size is the same for RBH and RR-UR (20 acres). The intensity of business development is limited to a projected 100 gallons per day per net acre of land. As an example, a site with 20 net acres would be equivalent to approximately 22,000 square foot retail, 17,500 square foot office, or about a combination 4,000 s.f. office/8,000 warehouse. If the Planning Commission and Council are open to businesses in some of the Future Development Area, staff would recommend limiting it to the properties which could directly access arterial roadways such as County Road 19. Staff would not recommend the RBH zoning district for properties which would need to access directly onto Highway 55 or more rural roadways such as Pioneer Trail or Town Line Road. The specific parcel discussed at the December public hearing (#29) is located at the corner of Highway 55 and Townline Road. As noted above, staff does not recommend a Rural Business Holding designation for this property because Townline Road is not ideal access for business uses. Rezonings for Consistency with Page 3 of 3 February 12, 2019 2040 Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Meeting High Density Residential Property (including # 34 in Southwest Medina) Parcel #34 is guided as High Density Residential (HDR) in the Comprehensive Plan, with a planned density of 12-15 units per acre. The proposed rezoning is to the R4 district, which allows for development of the same density range. The property is just over 2 acres in size. The property owner stated a concern that it would not be practical to develop 24 units on a 2-acre property. Staff sketched a few site plans based on the dimensions of a three-story condo building in a neighboring community, and it appeared that it could be done. The property owner also consulted with their architect, who confirmed that the buildable portion of the site could actually likely accommodate more units than permitted by the district. Staff met with the property owners, who raised concerns about being able to market the land because the zoning would constrain the development of the site to multi-family buildings. The owners expressed an interest in the flexibility to developer at lower densities. Staff noted that such a request pertains to the Comprehensive Plan density, not the zoning of the property. The Comprehensive Plan does include an objective that allows a bit of flexibility in density: “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.” Such flexibility could be explicitly described in the R4 zoning district, but did not appear to provide the amount of flexibility desired by the property owner. Staff recommends that property guided for HDR development in the Comp Plan be zoned R4 as proposed. Potential Action Once the Commission has completed its review, the following action would be appropriate: Move to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Attachments 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Excerpt from 12/11/2018 meeting minutes 3. Map identifying properties proposed to be rezoned Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE VARIOUS PROPERTIES FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE CITY COUNCIL OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following properties are hereby rezoned to the zoning district indicated for each within the table: Map ID PID #Address Street Name Zoning Prior to Rezoning New Zoning After Rezoning 1 1311823420005 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 2 1311823420008 242 MEDINA RD RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 3 1311823420006 2800 HUNTER DR RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 4 1311823410004 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 5 1311823410005 222 MEDINA RD RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 6 1211823410006 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MR - Multiple Family Residential R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 7 3011823220001 1542 CO RD NO 29 UR - Urban Residential PS - Public/Semi-Public 8 1211823410005 42 STATE HWY NO 55 MR - Multiple Family Residential R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 9 1211823410008 72 STATE HWY NO 55 MR - Multiple Family Residential R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 10 1211823140004 62 STATE HWY NO 55 MR - Multiple Family Residential R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 11 1311823140003 4125 BROCKTON LA RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 12 1311823140001 4175 BROCKTON LA RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 13 1311823130002 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RR - Rural Residential RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 14 1011823220011 2390 PIONEER TR RBH - Rural Business Holding RR -Rural Residential 15 0211823440053 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MU - Mixed Use CN - Commercial-Neighborhood 16 0411823420011 4315 WILLOW DR BP - Business Park B - Business 17 0411823340001 4125 APACHE DR BP - Business Park RBH - Rural Business Holding 18 1011823220002 2382 PIONEER TR RBH - Rural Business Holding RR -Rural Residential 19 0211823440003 812 MEANDER RD MU - Mixed Use CN - Commercial-Neighborhood 20 0311823410005 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MU - Mixed Use B_BP - Business & Busiess Park 21 0311823410001 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RR-UR - Rural Residentail-Urban Reserve RBH - Rural Business Holding 22 0411823320001 3212 PIONEER TR RR - Rural Residential RBH - Rural Business Holding (east 300 feet only) 23 0411823140005 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RR-UR - Rural Residentail-Urban Reserve RBH - Rural Business Holding 24 0411823220003 3102 STATE HWY NO 55 RBH - Rural Business Holding RR -Rural Residential 25 0411823220002 3082 STATE HWY NO 55 RBH - Rural Business Holding RR -Rural Residential 26 0611823240002 4455 CO RD NO 19 RCH&RR-UR - Rural Commercial Holding & Rural Residential-Urban Reserve RR_UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 27 0511823210011 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RBH - Rural Business Holding RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 28 0511823220005 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RBH&RR-UR - Rural Business Holing and Rural Residential-Urban Reserve RR_UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 29 0611823220001 4695 STATE HWY NO 55 RBH&RR-UR - Rural Business Holing and Rural Residential-Urban Reserve RR_UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 30 0311823420001 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RR-UR - Rural Residentail-Urban Reserve RBH - Rural Business Holding 31 3011823230001 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CH - Commercial Highway RR-UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 32 3011823220002 1472 CO RD NO 29 CH - Commercial Highway R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 33 0611823110001 4132 CHIPPEWA RD RBH&RR-UR - Rural Business Holing and Rural Residential-Urban Reserve RR_UR - Rural Residential-Urban Reserve 34 3011823220004 1432 CO RD NO 29 CH - Commercial Highway R4 - Residential-Multiple Family 35 1211823240031 80 ADDRESS PENDING MU - Mixed Use R3 - Mid-Density Residential Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE Section 2. The properties rezoned are displayed on Exhibits A-D, attached hereto. Section 3. A copy of this Ordinance and the updated map shall be kept on file at the Medina City Hall. Section 4. The City of Medina Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to make the appropriate changes to the official zoning map of the City of Medina to reflect the change in zoning classifications as set forth above. Section 5. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Adopted by the Medina City Council this __ day of ______________, 2019. CITY OF MEDINA By: Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: By: Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on this _____ day of _____________, 2019. Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE EXHIBIT A Map of Properties Rezoned in Northeast portion of City Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE EXHIBIT B Map of Properties Rezoned in Northcentral portion of City Ordinance No. ### 5 DATE EXHIBIT C Map of Properties Rezoned in Northwest portion of City Ordinance No. ### 6 DATE EXHIBIT D Map of Properties Rezoned in Southwest portion of City Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Ordinance Amending the Official Zoning Map to Rezone Various Properties for Consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Finke stated that there are 35 proposed rezonings of property in order to bring those properties into consistency with the adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the thorough Comprehensive Plan process, which included numerous public input opportunities, that the City undertook over a number of years. He stated that the plan identifies a primary goal of preserving the open space and natural resources of the City, which allowing some opportunities for the City to continue to grow while still maintaining the visions and goals of the City. He stated that through that process the anticipated uses for the next 20 years were reviewed and then a more thorough review was done to plan for infrastructure and amenities, such as parks. He stated that the plan identifies the future land use, identifying areas of the City that are anticipated for future commercial or residential development, and at what density. He stated that a staging plan was also identified to plan for future development and residential growth. He stated that the City’s plan is required to be in compliance with the regional systems and system statements from the Metropolitan Council. He stated that because the plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Council and has been adopted by Medina, the City now has nine months to update the internal controls of the City to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that staff reviewed the current zoning to identify areas where changes were made in use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and more broadly to identify any issues of inconsistency. He stated that a map and table were provided in the Commission packet detailing the 35 properties identified for rezoning. He provided additional details on the properties proposed for rezoning, broken down by areas of the City, reviewing the current zoning and proposed zoning. He noted that the use, such as residential, commercial, or rural, is determined by the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning implements this designation. Reid referenced parcels 15 and 19, which are proposed to be changed from mixed use business to commercial highway and asked for details. Finke replied that the mixed used business designation in the old plan allowed for a combination of commercial and high-density residential. The rezoning was proposed because the City guided the property for commercial use in the updated Comp Plan, and residential uses would not be anticipated within a commercial land use. Reid asked for the previous zoning of those parcels prior to 2010. Finke stated that those parcels were zoned for business development going back to 2000. Williams asked the desired action from the Commission tonight. Finke explained that staff is looking for a recommendation on the proposed rezonings, using the Comprehensive Plan as a guide. Albers asked for additional details on the commercial highway and mixed-use business. Finke clarified that one is a zoning district while the other is a land use. Nester asked if the zoning could be changed to commercial neighborhood and still remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finke stated that is the less intensive district and could be an option. Albers opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 2 Finke noted that staff received comments electronically which were provided to the Commission and will be entered as a part of the record. Amic stated that they are on the Planning Commission because they love the City, just like everyone else, and are serving as volunteers to do the best they can for the future of the City. Jennifer Palm, 1432 County Road 29, stated that she would like to request additional discussion regarding the zoning on their property. She stated that they have been attempting to develop on this property for 2.5 years for a senior care facility and now Elim Care is developing across the street as they were able to gain approval from Maple Plain. She stated that in order to build the number of units specified for their parcel, with the required parking, they would need five stories. She stated that due to the market changes, developing 24 units on two acres would be extremely difficult. She stated that she has correspondence from the City and Metropolitan Council which suggested seven to 12 units per acre, which she believed would be more developable. Larry Palm stated that they also own 1400 Baker Park Road and developed the retail center. He stated that they paid for the utilities to be brought to the property which will then be used for the property at 1472 Baker Park Road. He stated that he and that that property owner came forward within the last year or two with development proposals. He stated that he spends the money bringing the utilities services to an area that City is not approving for development and is not designating appropriate zoning which would allow for development. He stated that he continues to pay taxes on property that cannot be developed. Mrs. Palm noted that they own additional properties in Medina that they pay taxes on and maintain. Reid stated that perhaps it would make sense to review the proposed zoning for those parcels. Finke stated that the density requirements were identified in the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed zoning mirrors that density. He stated that if the question is density, that would be a question of the Comprehensive Plan and not the zoning. He stated that the City can look at amending the Comprehensive Plan, perhaps to eight units per acre. He noted that on a two-acre site, that would not have a large impact on the City’s density requirements, however, changing the density for all high density sites would likely cause problems. He stated that perhaps the City could carve out a lower high-density range. Amic asked the perfect use for the land owned by the Palms, as the memory care unit is no longer an option. Mr. Palm replied that it would depend upon what the market will allow. He stated that he has previous attempted retail/commercial and townhomes and there was not interest. He stated that to place a 12 unit per acre minimum on a two-acre parcel does not mechanically work. He stated that a comment was made in the past that their parcel would be tied to the neighboring parcel to allow a larger project. He stated that if a developer has to go through an additional step of rezoning, the developer moves on. Mrs. Palm stated that happened on this site as they had previous brought forward a request for a memory care facility on this site which the Council did not approve because of the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan, and Elim Care went right across the street and built in Maple Plain. Greg Hoglund, 19220 Hackamore Road, asked for clarification on the process. He stated that he has been a part of many of the Comprehensive Plan discussions and asked the purpose of the meeting tonight. Finke stated that the Metropolitan Council and City Council have approved and adopted the plan and now staff is going through the process of identifying inconsistencies between the existing zoning and the Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 3 adopted Comprehensive Plan to bring those properties into compliance prior to the nine-month deadline specified by the Metropolitan Council. He stated that there were land use changes under the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning needs to be updated. Mr. Hoglund asked if some or all of the 35 could be approved or eliminated from this request. Finke stated that while some properties could be eliminated from the discussion tonight, there would still need to be a different rezoning considered and applied prior to the nine-month deadline. Mr. Hoglund asked if additional property could be rezoned that is not included on the list. Finke confirmed that additional properties that are identified as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan could be added and rezoned. He stated that a property owner can always request a rezoning of their property at any time. Mr. Hoglund stated that he owns land on Brockton Lane which abuts the City of Plymouth and would think the nature of progress would allow for that land to continue to develop in a similar way to the property in Plymouth. He stated that his property is not even included for development in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Finke stated that the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed, and updates are made every ten years. Albers stated that he was part of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and the comment was made that residents wanted to ensure that residential development is shared across the community rather than focusing that development in one area. He stated that the property referenced by Mr. Hoglund is not included in the MUSA, even though there are municipal utilities in Plymouth. He explained that the City planned for the minimum number of units required by the Metropolitan Council system statements. Mr. Hoglund asked if a developer wished to develop the parcel, the development would then require five- acre+ homes sites, rather than a denser suburban style development. He asked that someone look at that parcel again as it would logically develop in a similar manner to the property in Plymouth. He noted that the utilities are available on the neighboring parcel and is astounded that development is not planned for the next 20 years. Finke confirmed that the property could be developed with rural lots. James Peterson, 812 Meander Road, stated that he has lived happily in Medina for 33 years. He stated that the plan as proposed would change the zoning of his property to make his property unsaleable. He stated that his health is not in the best condition and he is worried about the prospect of his home if his wife is left alone as she would be stuck. He stated that if the property remains as currently zoned, the property could always be developed in some area and his property could be developed. He believed that the proposed rezoning would take away the value of his property. He stated that over the years his property has been chipped into by roadway, his neighbors across the road have been taken away and he would like the City to stop and just leave his property as it is. Susan Nordstrom, 4200 Foxberry Court, stated that she is adjacent to parcel 15, which abuts Mr. Peterson’s property. She stated that she received the notification because of the proximity to their property. She stated that went she went to the City website to find more information, six months of meeting notes were missing, that have since been posted. She stated that she attempted to learn the difference between mixed use and commercial highway. She stated that the takeaway for her would be that mixed use would have a maximum height of two stories while commercial highway would have 3.5 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 4 units. She stated that she also believed that commercial highway property was all adjacent to Highway 55, whereas this parcel is not along Highway 55. She stated that she never thought she would have commercial property right behind her home. She stated that she works from home and all her windows face parcel 15. She asked where the traffic from a commercial development would go in that area. She stated that she has met a lot of great neighbors through this process and appreciated the ability for the public to provide input tonight. She asked the Commission to think about what they would want in their own backyards. Tom Rocco, 4235 Foxberry Court, stated that he moved to his property in May of 2018 and was pretty stunned to receive a letter that commercial highway development would be going in behind his home. He stated that he began to do research and all of the other commercial highway property is located on Highway 55. He stated that this parcel proposed for commercial highway is in the middle of residential properties and was unsure why commercial highway zoning would be appropriate for that property. He stated that he reached out to land development experts who stated that this was an example of extremely poor land management. He stated that he was disappointed that while he only had ten days to prepare for this meeting, he went to the Planning Commission website and was not able to find minutes from any time after he moved to Medina in May. He recognized that Finke was able to post those minutes once alerted to the issue. He asked if the Planning Commission would want commercial development behind their homes. Bill Ciora, 915 Sunset Court, stated that his property is north of the Peterson property and his property extends into the wetlands. He stated that he moved to his property in 1997 and was involved in the development of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan, attending every meeting as a resident to provide input. He stated that at that time the desire was to keep the area rural and low density but noted that over time changes were made. He stated that a few years ago the City Council was pushing for townhomes on Clydesdale, and even with objections from residents, the City Council allowed that development to go in. He stated that now the City wants to take property surrounded by residential properties and push in a gas station or similar commercial development. He noted that the site is also surrounded by wetland and asked the amount of buildable area that would be available on that property. He stated that filling in wetlands to allow commercial development would ruin the character of the area. He stated that every public hearing he has attended has been a public hearing where it has been said that things have already been done. He was unsure the point of a public hearing at that point. He stated that some of these changes will devalue properties, using the example of the Peterson property. He asked the Commission to rethink this plan. Eric Dahmer, 4470 Shorewood Trail, stated that he sits on the HOA Board for Foxberry Farms and noted that he is speaking tonight on his own behalf. He stated that he is hearing concern with the proposed zoning of commercial highway for lots 19 and 15. He stated that within his neighborhood is 138 homes, representing up to 800 residents. He stated that if you add the other two neighborhoods that would be about one fifth of the population of the City of Medina. He stated that the people are concerned because of the nature, feel and density of the proposed zoning compared to the zoning that surrounds the properties. He stated that the commercial development that exists is similar to a home office that has minimal traffic during the daytime. He stated that the concern is with the activity that is allowed within the commercial highway zoning district, such as a gas station or fast food restaurant. He stated that there are lower intensity zoning districts that would ease the minds of some residents. He stated that he would feel a little better with the neighborhood commercial zoning, as that will keep the intensity of the parcel to a much more manageable level. Craig Theis, 900 Fox Path Court, stated that his family moved to Medina four years ago to a family friendly neighborhood. He stated that they bike around the neighborhood and the thought of a 3.5 story building on that property seems totally out of place. He stated that he also sits on the HOA Board for Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 5 Foxberry Farms and there is a lot of concern from the residents in that neighborhood. He asked the Commission to think of a different zoning for that parcel. He stated that commercial highway zoning off the highway does not make sense. Kristin Toste, 4650 Foxberry Drive, stated that 20 years ago she and her husband built a home in an open area. She stated that seven years ago her child was involved in an accident at Hackamore and she campaigned to get the stoplight put in. She referenced the high number of accidents at that intersection. She stated that her concern is CR 116 and the additional traffic that a commercial highway development would bring to the area. She believed that the traffic counts are already maxed out and the City does not have any control because it is a County road. She believed that the plan should be amended to move that commercial highway parcel because 116 cannot handle that additional traffic. David Wain, 4442 Bluebell Trail S, referenced parcel 20 and asked for details on the purple area below that parcel. Finke clarified that parcel 20 was subject to a subdivision a few months prior and there has been preliminary approval to divide the property as shown. He stated that the business park designation is a lower intensity designation and therefore would apply to the north parcel. He reviewed the permitted uses within the business park designation. Joe Cavanaugh stated that his family has been farming the land for over 60 years and owns parcel 29, which is a big investment on their part. He stated that when they purchased the property it was zoned for development in 2025. He acknowledged that development has been pushed out. He stated that if the property remained as rural commercial holding it would allow for something in the mean time before the property could be developed with utilities, rather than changing the property to rural residential. He requested to keep the property as rural commercial holding which would allow, they to do something in the interim. Mary Beth Demott, 3075 Wild Flower Trail, stated that her concern is with the properties within the eastern portion of the City. She stated that her concern is with the congestion in that part of Medina. She stated that Plymouth has also developed a large number of homes on that border and asked that those properties not be rezoned to rural residential. She stated that perhaps those properties to moved across Medina Road along Holy Name Road. She asked that the property be left as farmland. Albers closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. Albers reviewed the options for the Planning Commission, noting that a recommendation could be made to the City Council or the Commission could ask staff to review the comments made tonight to determine if there are changes that should be made. Williams asked how the overall planning would be impacted if some parcels are removed tonight. Finke explained that the City has until May to determine the official zoning controls that bring the properties into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore action does not have to occur tonight. He stated that there are properties in the City that are already zoned within these specific zoning districts and therefore adjusting the zoning districts themselves would have ramifications on those other properties. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and if a change is proposed to that plan, an amendment would need to be made to the plan. He stated that the Metropolitan Council would review the amendment based on their system statement and mandates for the City. He stated that there could be implications depending upon the changes that are made. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 6 Nester stated that she would like to have more discussion related to the commercial highway parcels and the parcel requiring 24 units on two acres providing the parcel numbers 15, 19, 32, and 34. Reid agreed with the comments made by Nester. She referenced parcels 15 and 19 which has an office building across the street. She asked the zoning of that parcel. Finke replied that parcel was developed under a PUD with business park as the underlying designation. Reid stated that perhaps parcels 15 and 19 are zoned to business park which would have a lower intensity use. Finke stated that business and commercial are separate designations within the Comprehensive Plan, with different objectives for each. He reviewed the types of uses that would be allowed under a business use compared to commercial use. Reid asked if there has been communication with the owners of parcel. Finke stated that the property owner called with questions but not with interest in construction. Reid stated that business park seems like it may be a better fit because of the adjacent uses and asked if an amendment would be needed to the Comprehensive Plan. Finke agreed that an amendment would be needed but noted that would be straightforward and would not impact the system statements and projections of the City. He stated that business would allow warehouse and industrial. He stated that another option would be neighborhood commercial which would lower the intensity of the use. Reid stated that she is also concerned with the properties on Baker Park Road as there needs to be practical guidance as to what can be done on the property. She believed that the City owes the property owners some discussion of what could be done and what would need to change. Amic stated that the discussion tonight has focused on parcels 15, 19, 32, 34, and 29 and the parcels off Medina Road. He stated that the parcels on Medina Road were previously discussed and believed that removing that would have major implications. He stated that there were stipulations on buffers and development requirements and therefore he feels confident with the parcels on Medina Road remaining as designated. He referenced parcel 29 and was unsure if there are implications that would result from the request. Finke replied that he did not think there would be implications to the overall Comprehensive Plan if the City considered commercial uses in the Future Development Area as requested by the property owner of parcel 29. He stated that the future development area does not designate a use and those properties have continued to remain as rural until the MUSA extends to that area. He stated that there have not been a lot of businesses on septic and wells. He stated that if the Commission or Council are interested in looking at properties in the long-range plan to open certain properties up for business, he did not believe it would not be inconsistent with the future development area. He commented that the individual property should be reviewed to ensure that the property would be able to support commercial traffic. He stated that there have been failures for businesses that have used septic and well in the past. Amic echoed the comments that he wants to understand if the City is giving a property owner math they cannot work with. He stated that he would ask to pull property 29 for further review. He stated that Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 7 parcels 15 and 19 are difficult because of how they are currently zoned. He asked what would happen if the parcels were left as designated as mixed use. Finke stated that the current mixed-use district would not match the commercial designation and therefore one of those would need to change. He stated that when the property was designated as mixed use back in 2010, there were surrounding properties also designated mixed use. Collectively, these parcels could be viewed as having provided a mix of uses. The other parcels all developed with residential uses. The remaining parcels may prove difficult to plan a mix of uses on one acre. He stated that an existing lot can continue to be used as such, the zoning only impacts the redevelopment should the property owner be interested in selling for the purpose of redevelopment rather than the continued use. Amic stated that he would support the comment that perhaps an office park would be more appropriate for those parcels. Albers stated that the comments have all stated that they would like the property to remain as currently zoned. He stated that under the current zoning, there would be a commercial use on the property because of the residential property that was already developed on the broader portion of the overall mixed-use site. Williams asked if there are things that can be done with approvals that would specify buffering and lighting requirements to minimize the impacts on the adjacent residential properties. Finke stated that he believes the City does a good job of enacting such requirements. He stated that there are different requirements in the different zoning districts, providing examples from neighborhood commercial. Williams agreed with the comments that have been made regarding 29, 32, and 34. She stated that in regard to parcels 15 and 19, she understands the concerns with traffic in that area. She asked if there is a way to work with the HOA to limit what could be built on that property or to allow additional input from the HOA. Finke agreed that is part of the reason the Commission holds a public hearing. He stated that staff can continue to have conversations with individuals, but the zoning would have the tools to limit what could be constructed. Williams stated that she would be leaning more towards neighborhood commercial, as that would seem less intensive and match the comments that were made by a resident regarding the hours of operation and low traffic. Finke stated that if the parcels are not to be planned for commercial development, one would need to decide what use the parcel would be planned for. If residential, what density would be developed, recognizing it is at the intersection of an arterial and collector roadway, adjacent to office uses. Nester stated that it seems that the parcel is a continuation of the business across the road because of the separation of the wetland between the residential and the busy road. Amic agreed that a continuation of a low intensity commercial use would be appropriate. Finke stated that the commercial neighborhood district is not applied to any other properties in the City, and therefore making changes to the zoning district would not have impacts on any other properties in the City, therefore additional restrictions could be made to that zoning district if desired. He stated that there may be additional opportunities to use commercial neighborhood in the future. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 8 Albers thanked everyone for attending the meeting and providing input tonight. He stated that the job of the Commission is to make a recommendation for the City Council to consider. He stated that he is leaning towards approving the amendment removing parcels 15, 19, 32 and 29 to have further discussion at a future meeting. Nester asked if commercial neighborhood could be recommended for 15 and 19 as that zoning district could be tweaked in the future. Reid stated that she does not feel that she knows enough at this time to make that recommendation and therefore would support removing the parcels mentioned for further discussion. Albers noted that another option would be to table the amendment entirely to continue the discussion while the other option would be to recommend adoption of the amendment except for the parcels mentioned (15, 19, 29, 32, and 34). He stated that he would prefer recommending the parcels as proposed, holding back parcels 15, 19, 29, 32, and 34. Finke stated that if the City is going to review 32 and 34, those are similar to two other properties that are proposed to be similarly zoned, noting parcels 6, 8, 9, and 10. He stated that while those property owners did not make comment, it would be a similar issue and logic. Amic asked if the request from the property owner of parcel 29 could be approved without implications. Albers stated that could probably be done for the entire strip. There was a comment from a resident that stated that he is happy with the designation of rural residential for the properties near him, parcels 27 and 28. He stated that he does not oppose the change for parcel 29. Finke stated that because there are similar circumstances, he would advocate looking at all the parcels and not just the property owners that spoke. He stated that the Commission can continue discussion on the entire ordinance, with the discussion focused on the input received tonight, as there is not a rushed need for a decision. He stated that it seemed that the Planning Commission is open to a neighborhood commercial zoning for parcels 15 and 19. He stated that it might be helpful if the public is interested in providing input on a possible designation of neighborhood commercial. There was a comment that Mr. Peterson could sell his home and the property could remain as a home. He was unsure if a buyer would be able to purchase the property and remain in the home. He asked what could be built on that pad without the properties developing in conjunction, noting that it would need to be a small business as the buildable area of the site is limited. Amic agreed that whatever commercial use would need to be a smaller less intensive use. Finke stated that there are interim uses allowed for uses that exist prior to the change in zoning. He stated that the home could remain and continue as the use, regardless of the zoning. He stated that protections are built in for transitional zoning changes, he stated that the home would be a permitted use and would not become nonconforming. The resident asked if Mr. Peterson sold his home, could the buyer then remodel and change the home. Finke confirmed that those protections are built into the transitional zoning district. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 12/11/2018 Meeting Minutes 9 Another resident commented that parcel 19 is owned by an LLC and is unsure of the buildable space on parcel 19. He stated that normally someone would fill the wetland, but it has been stated that cannot be done and perhaps the LLC is waiting for Mr. Peterson to sell his property in order to construct a project in conjunction. Finke agreed that it would be a reasonable assumption that the properties would be developed together. The resident stated that while people have made comments that the property could be developed as a gas station or fast food restaurant, that is unlikely because of the site layout and buildable area. It was asked and confirmed that the City would not allow an access to that property from CR 116, the access would need to be provided from Meander. A comment was made that commercial highway would not make sense as Medina’s definition of commercial highway is property along Highway 55. Williams stated that it would be helpful to know the amount of buildable land to determine what could potentially be built on the commercial property. Motion by Amic, seconded by Williams, to table the ordinance amending the official zoning map to rezone various properties for consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, requesting additional information on the parcels discussed in detail 15, 19, 29, 32, 34 and other similar properties. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Piper and White) HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D IN A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DRWILLOW DRHACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DRH O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DRPARKVIEW DRBROCKTON LN NMEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN NCHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DRWILLOW DRHUNTER DR")55 29 26 30 33 28 5 2022 11 1 17 4 15 3 18 31 14 2 13 21 12 23 16 27 35 34 7 6 24 9 19 25 32 810 Katrina Independence Medina Spurzem Peter School Lake Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Mooney Winterhalter Krieg Miller Thies Ardmore Hidden Lake HAMEL PIO N EE R HOMESTEADTOMAHAWKCHIPPEWA WILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19COUNTY ROAD 116MEDINAMOHAWKNAVAJO HIGHWAY 55 TOWNLINETAMARACKCHESTNUT ARROWHEADCHEYENNE CLYDESDALE HOL Y NAMEH O L L Y B U S H MORNINGSIDECOUNTY ROAD 19HIGHWAY 55HAMEL M E D I N AWILLOWPIONEER HAMEL HIGHWAY 55 Proposed Rezonings2040 Comp Plan Map Date: December 27, 2018 Legend Business (B) Business Park (BP) Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) Mid-Density Residential (R3) Residential-Multiple Family (R4) Rural Business Holding (RBH) Rural Residential (RR) Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) Public/Semi-Public (PS) MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Debra Peterson, Associate Planner through Planning Director Dusty Finke DATE: February 6, 2019 MEETING: February 12, 2019 Planning Commission SUBJ: Theisen – 3325 County Road 24 - Conditional Use Permit for construction of Accessory Structures exceeding 5,000 square feet. Application Deadline Complete Application Received: December 7, 2018 120 - Day Review Deadline: April 5, 2019 Overview of Request Scott and Chantelle Theisen request a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a horse barn with an indoor riding arena, future building, and two lean-tos on their property at 3325 County Road 24. Section 825.19 states that on residential properties more than 5 acres in area, a conditional use permit is required for more than two accessory buildings or for accessory buildings which exceed an aggregate of 5,000 square feet in size. The purpose of a CUP is to allow the City Council to impose conditions on the use which it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The subject property is currently vacant and does not have an existing conditional use permit. The subject property is zoned RR, Rural Residential with properties to the north, southeast, east and west also zoned RR. The Alpine Farms commercial horse facility is located to the southwest and is zoned RR-2, Rural Residential 2. The applicants have stated that they will construct both the horse barn/indoor riding arena and their home at the same time, but the home is not subject to the CUP process. The applicants have submitted a narrative and is attached for your review. Site Description/Setbacks/Hardcover The subject property is 19.05 acres (829,708 sq. ft.) and currently shares access off County Road 24 with the neighboring property to the west. Their existing driveway is gravel and they propose to extend it further to the south and east where the home and accessory buildings are proposed. Pasture areas are proposed along the eastern boundary of the property leading up to the barn/indoor arena. The property will also have a 100’ x 200’ outdoor riding arena between the barn and home. The “future” building is between the barn and outdoor riding arena. The applicants propose a 16,188 square foot barn with an indoor riding arena and two 288 square foot lean-tos for their pasture areas. The storage building noted on the site plan as “future” is 2,560 square feet. The barn/indoor riding arena and “future building” meet the 150’ setback requirement from all property lines, but the proposed lean-tos do not based on the current layout. Staff recommends a condition requiring the lean-tos to be located to meet the 150’ setback requirement. Agenda Item: 7 2 The proposed lean-tos are 12’ x 24’ (288 sf) each and do not count towards the 5,000 square foot maximum aggregate total of building square footage for accessory buildings. They do not count towards the aggregate total due to their size being under 300 square feet (exemption) however, the number of buildings is counted as part of the CUP. Below is a location map of the site. 3 SITE SUMMARY Square footage being requested Barn/Indoor Riding Arena 16,188 SF Future Building 2,560 SF Total Building Area: 18,748 SF Building Details The proposed exterior building material for the horse barn/riding arena is metal. The color of the roof is proposed to be an Ash Gray and the side walls Gallery Blue. The paint is Sherwin- Williams Weather XL and has a warranty of 45 years. The windows and doors are proposed to be white. The front entrance of the barn protrudes outward with an overhang. Accent stone wainscot is proposed at the entrance and wraps around the building to the west. Two 48” cupolas and one 36” cupola is proposed to break up the appearance of the large wall span of the building. Building material samples will be brought to the meeting. The zoning code requires the building have two exterior colors (Section 826.98. Subd.2. (m). Staff is acceptant of the colors proposed, and metal exterior. Building Height Required Setbacks Proposed Setbacks Hardcover Maximum Proposed Hardcover Building Size Barn 150’ 150’ minimum 16,188 sf Future building 150’ 260’ minimum 2,560 sf Lean-to A 150’ 55’ to be relocated to 150’ 288 sf Lean-to B 150’ 80’ to be relocated to 150’ 288 sf Site Layout 40% 10.6% 4 The RR zoning district restricts building height to a maximum of 30’ measured from the average grade to mid roof. The barn side walls are proposed to be 12’-6” and the indoor riding arena is proposed to have 16’-8” side walls. The overall height of the building is 28’-8” when measured from grade to the peak of the roof. The mean height is 22’-6”. Manure Management The applicants propose a concrete manure bunker at the southeast corner of the barn/indoor riding arena. The manure is proposed to be hauled off-site a minimum of once every three months. Septic The primary and alternate septic system will be located on the far south side of the property. The septic system in the barn will be connected from the house. The wash stall will have its own separate 2,000 gallon holding tank which is proposed to be just south of the barn and accessible by their driveway. Minnehaha Creek Watershed The Watershed does not have any concerns with the CUP request at this time, however the applicants will be required to obtain required permits from the Watershed prior to building permits being issued. Stormwater The hardcover from the proposed construction of the house, driveways, barn, paddocks, lean-tos, and future building triggers the City stormwater management ordinance requirements and Minnehaha Watershed requirements. Engineering The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed CUP and has a number of additional grading and stormwater management items yet to complete prior to the issuance of a building permit. The items have been placed as conditions of approval. Grazable Acres/Number of Horses The applicants intend to have no more than eight horses at any one time, but their property allows for up to 14 horses without any special approvals. The applicants are satisfied with having a maximum of 14 horses in case they decide to expand their number of horses in the future. Conditional Use Permit Standards for Rural Residential and Residential Districts In addition to the general standards specified in Section 825.39 of the ordinance, no conditional use permit shall be granted unless the city council determines that all of the specific standards contained in the subdivision below will be met under Section 826.98. Subd. 2 (m): (m) Accessory building standards for residential properties greater than five acres in area: (i) 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 accessory building 5 and complements the principal dwelling and the rural residential character or residential neighborhood in which the building is to be constructed. The applicants are proposing two exterior colors of metal, one stone wainscot color, windows, cupolas, overhangs, and more than one roofline. The horse barn/indoor riding arena is set back over 900 feet from County Road 24 and will have some tree plantings along the driveway. (ii) At least two colors or textures shall be used in the accessory building’s exterior design, including contrasting trim or fascia. The applicants propose to use three colors. The side walls will be gallery blue in color, the roof ash gray, and the windows, doors white in color. (iii) Any metal exterior materials on the accessory building shall be warranted to resist fading for a period of at least 15 years; and The proposed metal exterior has a paint warranty of 45 years. (iv) 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. A rain garden is being proposed just northwest of the barn/indoor riding arena. Ordinance Compliance Section 825.39 states that when considering a CUP, the City shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of occupants or surrounding lands. Among other things, the City shall consider the following: 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. The construction of the proposed buildings and use on the large acreage parcel is consistent with the RR, Rural Residential zoning district and will not diminish or impair neighboring properties. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. Staff does not believe the increased building square footage on the large 19+ acre lot would impede normal and orderly development. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The subject property will be on private septic and private well so it will not have an impact to city or private utilities. The applicants have proposed to install a rain garden and erosion control where necessary prior to building permit issuance. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. Staff believes the proposed internal drives and access to the new buildings are sufficient for parking and on-site circulation. 6 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. Staff does not believe odors, fumes, dust, noise or vibration will be increased by the development of the property. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. Staff believes the proposed accessory buildings are reasonably related to the existing property size and needs for the parcel size. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. Staff believes the proposed barn/indoor riding arena is an acceptable use of the property and zoning district. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. Staff does not believe constructing a barn/indoor riding arena and a secondary building in the future on the property would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan policies. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. Staff does not believe the proposed buildings would cause a traffic hazard or congestion above what is already present. The traffic from the property should not be any different than any other Rural Residential property in Medina. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Staff does not believe the proposed buildings will significantly increase noise or glare to nearby properties. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The applicants plan to start construction of the barn/indoor arena and house at the same time this spring. The completion of the project is expected before January 1, 2020. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. The applicant has signed the land use application as the property owner and is listed as the owner with Hennepin County. City Discretion The City has relatively limited discretion to deny a Conditional Use Permit. If the application meets City ordinances, the CUP should be approved. However, the City has discretion to impose conditions on the approval that protect the best interests of the surrounding community and the city as a whole. Section 825.41 states that these conditions could include, but are not limited to:  Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions.  Limiting the height, size or location of buildings.  Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points.  Increasing the street width. 7  Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces.  Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs.  Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or nearby property.  Designating sites for open space. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1) The applicants shall warrant that the barn/indoor riding arena is for private use only, and that no commercial and/or fee-based activities shall occur. 2) The lean-tos shall be located to meet the 150’ setback requirement. 3) The applicants shall satisfy all outstanding grading and stormwater items as noted in WSB memo dated 2/6/19. 4) The applicants shall construct stormwater improvements meeting the requirements of the City’s Stormwater Management requirements. 5) The applicants shall abide by all permitting requirements of the City and other agencies such as Minnehaha Creek prior to the start of construction. 6) The barn/indoor riding arena shall not be occupied prior to a Certificate of Occupancy for the principal structure. 7) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs associated with the review of the Conditional Use Permit application. Attachments 1. List of Documents 2. Applicant narrative 3. Ram Builders narrative 4. WSB Engineering memo dated February 6, 2019 5. Plans (Site Plan, Grading, Landscaping, Floor Plan, Elevations) Project: LR-18-240 – Theisen Accessory Structure CUP The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 4 Application Y Deposit 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 1 Deposit Y $1000 Plan Set 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 9 Plans-12-7-2018 Y Landscaping Plan 1/10/2019 1/10/2019 3 Landscaping Y Plan Sheets – Updated 1/10/2019 1/10/2019 3 Update Plans – 1-10-2019 Y Updated elevation, grading plan Narrative 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 1 Narrative Y Response to comments 1/10/2019 1/10/2019 1 Response Y Paint Specifications 1/10/2019 NA 2 PaintSpecs Y Ownership Information 12/7/2018 11/1/2018 2 Deed Y Manure Hauling Agreement 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 1 ManurePlan Y Lighting Specifications 12/7/2018 NA 4 Lighting Y Building Perspective 12/7/2018 NA 1 Perspective Y Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineering Comments 12/21/2018 2 Engineer-12-21-2018 Engineering Comments 2/6/2019 2 Engineering-2-6-2019 Minnehaha Creek Comments 12/19/2018 1 Minnehaha-12-19-2019 Minnehaha Creek Comments 1/16/2019 1 Minnehaha-1-16-2019 Building Official Comments 12/21/2018 1 Building Legal Comments 12/23/2018 1 Legal Hennepin County Comments 12/27/2018 8 County Prelim Comments and 120-day letter 12/21/2018 3 PrelimComments-12-21-2018 Legal Notice 2/1/2019 3 Notice 5 pages w/ affidavit and address list Planning Commission Report 2/6/2019 7 Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Narrative of Property Use at 3325 County Road 24, Medina    December 7, 2018    To Whom It May Concern:  We have been Medina residents for the past 11 years.  We have purchased the 19 acres at 3325 County  Road 24 with the intention of building a new home and horse barn/indoor riding arena.  It is intended  for personal use and includes 8 horse stalls.  The number of horses on the property will not exceed 14  horses at any given time.  We have owned horses for many years and are familiar with routine care.   Pastures will be used on a rotational basis with cut hay as supplemental feed to avoid overgrazing.  All  manure will be stored in the 16’ x 24’ concrete storage bin on the back of the property and removal of  manure will be contracted with RAM Excavating to haul and dispose of manure properly.    ‐ Scott & Chantelle Theisen  Page 1 of 1 P.O. Box 660 • Winsted, MN 55395 Office: (320) 485- 2844 • Fax: (320-485-3625) January 10, 2019 Notes for Conditional Use Permit 3325 County Road 24 Medina, MN Septic System Information  The septic system in the barn will be connected from the house. There will be a separate 2,000 gallon holding tank for the wash stall. Manure Hauling Contract  In clarification to the manure hauling contract between the Owner and RAM (Contractor) dated December 7, 2018, the manure will be hauled off site at a minimum of once every 3 months. K:\013342-000\Admin\Docs\2019-01-11 Submittal\_2019-01-17 Theisen CUP - WSB Comments - Final for Planning.docx 701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COM February 6, 2019 Mr. Dusty Finke Director of Planning City of Medina 2052 County Rd 24 Medina, MN 55340 Re: Theisen CUP Application – WSB Engineering Site Plan Review City Project No. LR-19-240 WSB Project No. 13342-000 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed the Theisen CUP application and plans dated January 10, 2019. The applicant proposes to construct a single-family home, a barn, and fenced horse riding areas. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Grading Plan: 1. Show erosion/sediment control BMP’s on the grading or other plan. Additional BMP’s will be required (bio-roll within swales, erosion control blanket on other steeper slopes, etc.) along with a SWPPP to meet NPDES permitting requirements (over one acre of disturbance and over one acre of impervious surface increase). 2. Include the City’s standard details on the plan where applicable. Details will be needed for the erosion/sediment control items and the permanent stormwater treatment improvements. 3. Provide more information of the proposed culvert/pipes on the project, include notes for size, type, and invert elevation of the pipes. 4. One of the grading notes references retaining wall design, but not retaining walls are shown on the plan. Either correct the note or show the retaining walls on the plan. Stormwater Management 5. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards and permitting requirements. Please provide permitting documents to the City if applicable. 6. The level of disturbance is over one acre. Provide a NPDES permit and SWPPP meeting the MPCA requirements to be implemented during construction and interim and/or permanent turf establishment information. 7. A Stormwater Management Plan is required to be submitted that meets the City’s Design Guidelines. The Plan must include a BMP to meet volume control of 1.1 inches from new impervious surfaces. See approved volume control credit BMPs in the City’s design manual. Water quality is considered met if volume control is met. Theisen CUP Application – WSB Engineering Review February 6, 2019 Page 2 K:\013342-000\Admin\Docs\2019-01-11 Submittal\_2019-01-17 Theisen CUP - WSB Comments - Final for Planning.docx 8. Proposed discharge rates must be less than existing for the Atlas 14, 1-year, 10-year, and 100-year 24-hour rainfall events. MSE 3 rainfall distribution shall be used, please provide modelling information. 9. Soil borings shall be submitted and must be located within the proposed BMP location. A note was provided on the plan, but no report was provided. 10. Confirm freeboard from new structures; 2 feet of vertical separation from any emergency overflow to the lowest opening. Show all EOFs and HWLs on the plans. The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The owner, developer, and engineer are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300Minnetonka, MN 55343PHONE 952-937-5150FAX 952-937-58221-888-937-5150xxxxx 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300Minnetonka, MN 55343PHONE 952-937-5150FAX 952-937-58221-888-937-5150 7XOLHV //&6WDUOLJKW'ULYH:DFRQLD013URMHFW7+(,6(1(48675,$10(',1$01 DATE:DRAWN BY:SHEETOF12/7/2018PROJECT NAME:BUILDING DESCRIPTION:,QGXVWULDO'ULYH32%R[:LQVWHG0LQQHVRWDJEREMY B.DESIGN NUMBER: P1826222PROJECT NUMBER: (18-___)68'-0" X 174'-0" X 16'-0" ARENAW/ 64'-0" X 24'-0" X 16'-0" HAY STORAGEW/ 38'-0" X 72'-0" X 12'-0" STALL BARN© All drawings and content copyright RAM Buildings Inc.Call RAM Buildings Inc. to obtain copies of this plan.Unauthorized reproduction of these plans is a violation of federal law.THEISEN HORSE BARNOPTION #1$0%XLOGLQJV,QF5)D[ZZZUDPEXLOGLQJVFRP&RQWUDFWRU/LFHQVH1XPEHU%&6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0"14'-0" 10'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" 6'-0"6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0"20' PURLINS 10' PUR. 20' PURLINS 20' PURLINS 18' PURLINS72'-0"10'-0" 10'-0" 7'-0" 10'-0" 7'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"6'-0" 12'-0" 6'-0"24'-0"6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0"6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 2' 10'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0"6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 2' 14'-0" 2' 6'-0"10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0"6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0"18' PURLINS 20' PURLINS 20' PURLINS 20' PURLINS 20' PURLINS 10' PUR. 20' PURLINS 20' PURLINS 20' PURLINS 20' PURLINS 18' PURLINS10'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0"68'-0"174'-0"13'-0" 38'-0" 13'-0"64'-0"6'-0" 12'-0" 6'-0"24'-0"6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0"24" SIDE & ENDWALLOVERHANGS3 PLY 2X6-__'SIDEWALL COLUMNSCONTINUOUS PROFILEVENTABC3 PLY 2X8-__'SIDEWALL COLUMNS3 PLY 2X6-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'S2E1E2S1FLOOR PLANCL2X6 X-BRACINGLINED UP W/ BOTTOMCHORD BRACING(__ PLY __" LVL HEADER)4'0" X 6'8" SOLID WALKDOORR.O.= 51 5/8" X 81 1/8"KNOB/KNOB KEYED LATCH3'0" X 6'8" 9-LITE WALKDOORR.O.= 40 5/16" X 81 1/8"KNOB/KNOB KEYED LATCH4030 VINYL SLIDING WINDOWR.O.= 48" X 36"4020 VINYL FIXED WINDOWR.O.= 48" X 36"5060 VINYL SLIDING WINDOWR.O.= 60" X 72"(TOP OF WINDOWS AT 14'-0")4040 VINYL SLIDING WINDOWR.O.= 48" X 48"NOTE: TOP OF WINDOWS TOMATCH TOP OF WALKDOORSUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED14' X 14'OVERHEAD DOORCONTINUOUSPROFILEVENTCONTINUOUS PROFILEVENT3 PLY 2X6-__'3 PLY 2X6-__'3 PLY 2X6-__'3 PLY 2X6-__'3 PLY 2X6-__'(__ PLY __" LVL HEADER)3 PLY 2X8-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'3 PLY 2X8-__'CLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCL12' X 14'OVERHEAD DOOR10' X 10'OVERHEAD DOOR10' X 10'OVERHEAD DOOR10' X 10'OVERHEAD DOOREDGE EDGEEDGE EDGEEDGE EDGESTALL#1STALL#2STALL#3STALL#4STALL#5STALL#6STALL#8STALL#7WASHSTALLMECH.OFFICE/TACK ROOMDAAABEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDCCCCCCCCC38' X 72' X 12'STALL BARN64' X 24' X 16'STORAGE68' X 174' X 16'INDOOR ARENAF32" STONEWAINSCOT32" STONEWAINSCOTCL12' X 14'OVERHEAD DOORAFOPTIONAFEED ROOMBF1" = 20'SCALE 68-0 X 174-0 X 16-0 ARENA,64-0 X 24-0 X 16-0 HAY STORAGE,& 38-0 X 72-0 X 12-0 STALL BARN2OF© ALL DRAWINGS AND CONTENT COPYRIGHT RAM GENERAL CONTRACTING INC.CALL RAM GENERAL CONTRACTING INC. TO OBTAIN COPIES OF THIS PLAN.UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF THESE PLANS IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.ARMGeneral Contracting, Inc.CONSTRUCTIONSERVICESR.S.DRAWN BY:THEISEN HORSE BARN3325 COUNTY ROAD 24592 Industrial DriveP.O. Box 660Winsted, Minnesota 55395320-485-2844 800-710-4726Fax 320-485-3625www.rambuildings.comContractor License Number 20171976PROJECT NAME:BUILDING DESCRIPTION:PROJECT NUMBER:DESIGN NUMBER: GC P182121DATE:SHEET1/9/201904'8' 16'04'8' 16'04'8' 16'0 4' 8' 16'28'-8" (+/-)16'-8" (+/-)8'-6"12'-6" (+/-)12'-6" (+/-)22'-6" (+/-)28'-8" (+/-)SOUTH ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONHEIGHT ATRIDGEFINISHFLOORTOP OFFASCIAFINISHFLOORTOP OF FASCIAFINISHFLOORSTONE WAINSCOTSTONE WAINSCOTWHITE WINDOWS, DOORS, FASCIA / SOFFITASH GRAY 29 GAUGEMETAL ROOF PANELS36" SQUARE CUPOLA48" SQUARE CUPOLAWHITE WINDOWS, DOORS, FASCIA / SOFFIT36" SQUARE CUPOLA48" SQUARE CUPOLAGALLERY BLUE 29 GAUGEMETAL WALL PANELSGALLERY BLUE 29 GAUGEMETAL WALL PANELSGALLERY BLUE 29 GAUGEMETAL WALL PANELS(2) 48" SQUARE CUPOLASASH GRAY 29 GAUGEMETAL ROOF PANELSASH GRAY 29 GAUGEMETAL ROOF PANELSASH GRAY 29 GAUGEMETAL ROOF PANELS(2) 48" SQUARE CUPOLASTOP OFFASCIAFINISHFLOORHEIGHT AT RIDGEHEIGHT AT RIDGE1/9/2019 1:21 PM Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 2 February 12, 2019 RR1 Side Setback Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: February 6, 2019 MEETING: February 12, 2019 Planning Commission SUBJ: Public Hearing – RR1 Side Setback Req. – Brian and Christine Raskob Background Brian and Christine Raskob, 3240 Carriage Drive, have requested that the City consider reducing the minimum side yard setback for lots over 5 acres in size within the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) zoning district from 50 feet to 20 feet. Currently, lots over 5-acres in size require a minimum side yard setback of 50 feet, while lots under 5-acres require a smaller minimum side yard setback of 20 feet. The request is for all lots in the RR1 zoning district to require 20-feet. The RR1 zoning district applies only to the 39 properties within the Hunter Farms development, located west of Hunter Drive and north of Navajo Road and south of Hamel Road. The neighborhood includes 30 properties along Carriage Drive, Bridal Path Trail, Red Fox Drive, and six parcels on the south end of Elm Creek Drive, and three parcels on Hunter Drive. Of these 39 parcels, only three are over 5 acres in size. The map to the right shows the location of the RR1 parcels: The RR1 zoning district has the same requirements as the Rural Residential (RR) district, except the RR1 district requires smaller setbacks for horse barns. When the neighborhood was constructed, the minimum side yard setback was 20-feet. In 2006, the City increased the minimum lot width and side yard setback requirements for lots over 5 acres in the RR district. Because the RR1 district directly references the RR requirements, the setback was changed in RR1 as well. Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 February 12, 2019 RR1 Side Setback Planning Commission Meeting Analysis Staff believes that the 2006 change was focused on the larger lots within the RR district. When originally adopted, the 50-foot setback applied to all RR (and RR1) lots. Soon after adoption, several property owners on smaller RR lots, created in the past when the RR district allowed lots under 5-acres, raised concerns related to the increased setbacks. These lots were originally built with a 20-foot setback so were often closer than 50 feet (or very near 50 feet) from the side lot lines. This prevented several owners from being able to add on to one side of their home or from being able to construct an accessory structure. To address these concerns, the City Council amended the ordinance to reinstitute the 20-foot setback for lots under 5-acres. As noted above, of the 39 lots within the Hunter Farms Addition, only three are over 5-acres in size, and none are over 6-acres. Two of these three lots, including the Raskobs’ property, are mostly wetlands with a reduced buildable area less than 2.5 acres. The applicant had originally considered requesting a variance, noting that only a few lots were over 5-acres in this neighborhood and that their lot contains just over 2-acres of buildable land. Staff identified the possibility of addressing this issue through an amendment to the RR1 zoning district rather than requiring the three owners to prove a practical difficulty in each case. Because the RR1 zoning district applies only to the Hunter Farms Addition, staff believes it is reasonable for all of the lots to share the same setback requirements, even if some of the lots are over 5-acres because they contain larger wetland areas. For these reasons, staff supports the proposed amendment to a minimum 20-foot side yard setback. When considering amendments to the zoning ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan should provide guidance. Staff has attached the description and objectives of the Rural Residential land use from the Plan. Beyond general language related to low intensity and preservation of open spaces, the language does not provide specific guidance related to setbacks, especially for smaller rural lots which were developed prior to the current 1 unit per 10 acre density standard. Potential Action The Planning Commission should first hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment to receive feedback from interested parties. If the Planning Commission concurs with the requested amendment, the following action would be appropriate: Move to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending the side setback requirement of the Rural Residential 1 zoning district. Attachment 1. Draft Ordinance 2. List of Documents 3. Rural Residential Comp Plan Information 4. Applicant Narrative Ordinance No. ### 1 v2 DATE 2/5/2019 CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE   The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 826.26 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: RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONING DISTRICT (RR 1) Section 826.26. Rural Residential 1 (RR 1). Subd. 1. The purpose of the RR 1 district is to provide a district which is similar to the RR - Rural Residential district but which allows differences in development standards in recognition of the proximity of the district to areas which are densely developed or zoned for dense development and to major transportation corridors. Subd. 2. All development standards applicable to the RR district contained in sections 826.17 through Section 826.25, inclusive, shall apply to the RR 1 district, except for as modified by the provisions contained described in section 826.2526, subd. 3 below. Subd. 3. The following provisions shall apply to the RR 1 district: (a) The minimum Side Yard Setback shall be 20 feet, except for structures or buildings used to house, exercise, or accommodate animals as described in clause (b) below. (a)(b) Structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals in the RR 1 district shall be subject to the following: (a) (i) All structures shall be set back at least 75 feet from all property lines and at least 150 feet from any street or right-of-way; (iib) No structure shall exceed 1,000 square feet of gross floor area; (ciii) All structures shall be of a design which is compatible with the principal structure; (div) No structure shall be erected prior to construction of a principal building; (ev) No structure shall be used to house any type of livestock except horses; (fvi) No structure shall be used to house more than two horses, except that a third horse Ordinance No. ### 2 v2 DATE 2/5/2019 which is the foal of one of said two horses may be kept on the premises for a period not to exceed six months during any 12 month period; and (gvii) The owners of structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals approved pursuant to this section shall comply with the requirements of section 330 of the city code regarding removal of manure. (h) (viii) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a structure or building to house chickens (“chicken coop”) may be erected within 75 feet of any lot line, but may not be erected within 50 feet of any lot line, provided the following standards are met: (i) (1) No person shall keep a rooster or crowing hen unless the chicken coop is located 150 feet or more from lot lines. (ii) (2) No person shall keep more than eight chickens unless the chicken coop is located 150 feet or more from lot lines. (iii) (3) Chicken coops and/or runs shall be kept clean and in good repair so as to not constitute a nuisance. (iv) (4) A chicken coop located less than 150 feet from a lot line shall not exceed 200 square feet in area. (v) (5) Permit required. No chicken coop of any size may be erected less than 150 feet from a lot line until the owner has received a chicken coop permit. Subd. 4. No RR 1 district shall be created unless it shall be in compliance with all of the following: (a) minimum of 100 contiguous acres; (b) minimum of 30 lots; (c) located wholly or partially within 2,640 feet of an area containing at least 50 lots which do not meet current city standards for lot size or dimensions; (d) located wholly or partially within 2,640 feet of an area zoned UR Urban Residential or MR Multi Family Residential; and (e) located wholly or partially within 2,640 feet of a principal or intermediate arterial roadway, as designated in the city's comprehensive plan. Subd. 5. Structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals which exceed 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or are used to house more than two horses may be constructed on any lot so long as they are located at least 150 feet from any property line. Ordinance No. ### 3 v2 DATE 2/5/2019 SECTION II. 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.   Project: LR-19-241 – RR1 Side Setback Amendment The following documents are all part of the official record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports. All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 1/7/2019 1/7/2019 3 Application Y Deposit Transfer Transfer NA $1000–transferred from LR-18-239 Narrative 1/27/2019 1/27/2019 1 Narrative Y Proposed Text 1/15/2019 1/15/2019 3 Ordinance-1/15/2019 Y Proposed Text - Updated 2/5/2019 2/5/2019 3 Ordinance-2/5/2019 Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Planning Commission report 2/6/2019 2 10 pages w/ attachments Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 10 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 10 LLaanndd UUssee PPoolliicciieess bbyy AArreeaa The following section provides policies for land use designations and is categorized into generalized subsections. The policies for each category as provided below directly support the Community Goals and Land Use Principles. These designations are generalized land uses and are not specific zoning districts. The City will update the zoning ordinance and applicable codes to be consistent with the land use plan and designations identified in this section. The planning process revealed a strong interest in promoting high quality, sustainable development in the City. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for large scale or master plan types of development, regardless of whether they are residential, commercial or mixed-uses will be available and will be supported through zoning. RRuurraall DDeessiiggnnaattiioonnss The rural designations include Agricultural, Rural Residential and Future Development Area. A large percentage of the community falls into these categories. The purpose of these designations is to provide low-intensity land uses, such as rural residential, farming, hobby farms, horticulture, conservation of natural and ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. This area will not be provided with water or sewer service during the timeframe covered by this Plan. A significant segment of this area consists of large, rural parcels with single-family homes. The City recognizes that such low-density, development will continue to be a desired housing alternative. The City's goal is to maintain the rural character of this area. The Metropolitan Council System Statement shows the majority of this area as Diversified Rural, and the City utilizes the Rural Residential designation to be consistent with the System Statement. The Metropolitan Council has identified a significant portion of Medina’s rural area in the Long-term Sewer Service Area (LTSSA) for the Blue Lake wastewater facility. The Metropolitan Council designates the LTSSA for the possibility of extension of urban services in the long-term, beyond 25 years in the future. Medina is required to identify the LTSSA in its Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council’s LTSSA is identified in Map 5-5. The Metropolitan Council states that the LTSSA is intended to provide opportunities to efficiently extend urban services to accommodate long-term growth. The City believes that much of this area does not support efficient extension of urban services and the City seeks opportunities to remove property from the LTSSA. The following factors affect the efficiency of providing future urban services and are displayed on Map 5-6: • Wetlands, Topography, Regional Parks and Scientific Areas Wetlands occupy a significant portion of the area identified by the Metropolitan Council within the LTSSA, accounting for approximately 40% of the area. This fact, along with topographical conditions, would make the provision of wastewater service inefficient. In Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 11 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 11 addition, Baker Park and the Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area occupy large portions of Medina’s rural area, further separating any developable areas. • Historical development patterns Much of the LTSSA was developed with large-lot residential neighborhoods prior to the Metropolitan Council’s LTSSA designation. These properties tend to include large homes with comparatively high home values, making the likelihood of redevelopment with urban services costly. The Metropolitan Council seeks density lower than 1 unit per 10 acres for efficient extension of wastewater service. As evidenced on Map 5-6, the vast majority of the LTSSA within Medina has been previously developed in a pattern that is denser than 1 unit per 10 buildable acres. As a result, much of the LTSSA does not provide opportunity for efficient extension of wastewater service by the Metropolitan Council’s policy. • Distance between regional infrastructure and City infrastructure The Metropolitan Council would need to extend wastewater service into the southern area of Medina if development were to occur in the future. The City’s primary municipal water system is in the northern portion of Medina. One of these services would need to be extended a great distance in order to be provided in connection with the other, or the City would need to establish a separate water system. Either alternative would be costly and would not be efficient. In discussions with Metropolitan Council staff, the City has identified approximately 730 acres to be removed from the LTSSA in the southern portion of the City, because a similar acreage in the northwest corner of the City was added to the Blue Lake wastewater facility service area. The City will continue to seek opportunities to remove property from the LTSSA because of the factors noted above. The City’s Open Space Report proposes several different implementation techniques for allowing open space development and planning to maintain rural character and simultaneously preserve significant natural resources. This result may take the form of innovative developments that clusters smaller lots on larger parcels with permanently conserved open space. Such innovative arrangements can help preserve the City’s natural resources, open space and rural character, while still maintaining an average overall density of ten acres per unit. Medina’s wetlands, lakes, scattered woodlands and soil conditions prevent smaller, unsewered lot development, but are ideal for low-density rural housing. Medina's policy in the permanent rural area is to keep strict soil requirements for septic sites, but allow flexibility for Open Space design developments and to ensure that the permanent rural area will remain rural by eliminating the need for future extension of a sanitary sewer service to replace failing systems. Objectives: 1. Allow low-density development in the Rural Residential Area including innovative arrangements of homes that preserve open space and natural resources. 2. Encourage conservation of open space, farms and ecologically significant natural resources in the rural areas. Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 12 Adopted October 2, 2018 Page 5- 12 3. Enforce stringent standards for the installation and maintenance of permanent, on-site sewage disposal systems. 4. Allow public facilities and services, such as parks and trail systems, if compatible with rural service area development. 5. Allow land uses, such as home-based businesses, hobby farms, horse stables, nurseries and other smaller-scale rural activities, which will not conflict with adjoining residential development. 6. Regulate noise, illumination, animals, and odors as needed to maintain public health and safety. 7. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per forty acres for property in the Agricultural land use. 8. Maintain a maximum density of one unit per ten acres for new development in the Rural Residential and Future Development Area land use. 9. Consider exceptions to maximum density standards for open space developments that protect natural features and put land into permanent conservation. Within the Metropolitan Council’s long term sewer service area (reference Map 5-5), these exceptions will be allowed to result in development with a density in excess of one unit per ten gross acres if consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s Flexible Residential Development Guidelines. 10. Urban services will not be provided to the Agricultural, Rural Residential, or Future Development Area land uses during this planning cycle. 11. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands and other significant natural characteristics. 12. Require that lots contain adequate soil types and conditions as defined in the City's on-site septic system requirements. 13. Protect property within the Future Development Area designation from subdivision and development by requiring ghost plats for subdivisions so that future urban expansion is not compromised. 14. Reduce impervious surfaces where possible by applying low impact design standards and encourage innovative materials and plans that reduce runoff. 15. Encourage and incentivize landowners to participate in the protection and conservation of significant natural resources. Hello Neighbors, We moved from 365 Lakeview Drive, Medina to 3240 Carriage Drive, Medina at the end of May 2018. We absolutely love our neighborhood, new neighbors, our property, and our home, and are for the most part, settled in. The week after we closed on the sale of our home, we called the city of Medina to find out what the setbacks for building on our property were. We drove to our new house, do measured the yard, and unfortunately realized that if we built a non-attached, new garage within code of zone RR1, we would “get” an eight to ten foot-wide garage. We felt disappointed. Although we do not own more than two vehicles, we do own a UTV (side- by-side), an aluminum trailer, and a riding lawn mower, and because of the size and structure of our existing attached garage, we realized some of these items would have to stay in the yard for a while until we found a new plan. Although we have a sizeable yard to manage and enjoy, the majority of our acreage is wetlands and woodlands, so although we do have a property that is larger than 5 acres, we estimate about 1 acre is “usable,” or does not contain wetlands or is thickly wooded. We also have a mound system on this “usable” portion of our yard, which makes selecting a building space for the garage even more limiting. These facts, combined with the 50-foot setbacks of our property led us to meet with Dusty at the City of Medina. After finding out that our property is only one of three properties of all the homes on Carriage Drive, Bridal Path, and a few on Elm Creek that is larger than 5 acres, we are asking that the setbacks for properties of over 5 acres in zone RR1 change to 20 feet from 50 feet. We are not asking that the setbacks of any other homes’ properties in Medina outside of zone RR1 change; because changing the setback zoning from 50 feet to 20 feet would only pertain to/affect two properties besides ours, we thought this seems a reasonable request for the neighborhood we live in. Most of the homes in our zone (RR1) have additional garages and/or outbuildings already, and we have also seen two of our neighbors build garages within less than a year that are larger than what we would like to build. Having a second garage on our property makes sense in our neighborhood, would not look out of place, and would allow us to store items that we would ultimately use to keep our property looking nice, and allow us to enjoy it more. Thank you for your consideration! Christine and Brian Raskob     1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday January 8, 2019 4 5 1. Call to Order: Acting 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 Associate Planner Deb Peterson. 13 14 15 2. Introduction of Planning Commission Members 16 17 The Commission members introduced themselves. 18 19 20 3. Election of 2019 Planning Commission Chair 21 22 Finke provided details on the process for the Commission to nominate the Chair position. He 23 opened the floor for nominations. 24 25 Nielsen nominated Rashmi Williams. 26 27 Nester asked if anyone else is interested in the Chair position. 28 29 Reid noted that she does have a lot of experience and is interested. 30 31 Amic nominated Robin Reid. 32 33 Finke confirmed that both Williams and Reid accept the nominations. He asked if the 34 nominees wanted to say anything before election. 35 36 Reid stated that she did hold the position of Vice-Chair and therefore has experience running 37 meetings. 38 39 Finke asked Commissioners to vote for the Chair position and the results were: 40 Reid – 4 (Amic, Reid, Williams, and Nester) 41 Williams – 1(Nielsen) 42 Abstain – 2 (Piper and Galzki) 43 44 Finke reported that Reid was elected for the Chair position for 2019. 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 2 4. Election of 2019 Planning Commission Vice-Chair 52 53 Finke opened nominations for the Vice-Chair position. 54 55 Amic nominated Rashmi Williams. 56 57 Williams accepted the nomination. 58 59 There were no other nominations. 60 61 Finke asked Commissioners to vote for the Vice Chair position and results were: 62 Williams – 6 (Amic, Reid, Williams, Nester, Nielsen, Galzki) 63 Abstain – 1 (Piper) 64 65 Finke reported that Williams was elected for the Vice-Chair position for 2019. 66 67 68 5. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 69 70 No comments made. 71 72 73 6. Update from City Council Proceedings 74 75 Finke reported that the Council met the previous week to adopt the 2019 meeting calendar 76 and to adopt the Council organization, which identifies various Council and staff 77 appointments. 78 79 80 7. Planning Department Report 81 82 Finke provided an update. 83 84 85 8. Planning Commission Operational Procedures 86 87 Finke stated that these procedures have not been updated for ten years and he noticed 88 inconsistencies during the orientation for new members. He stated that the proposed changes 89 have been identified within the staff report and provided a brief summary of the proposed 90 changes. 91 92 Nielsen proposed a grammatical change on page four suggested capitalization of chair. 93 94 The Commission discussed the use of request versus require for limiting the amount of time 95 for speakers and asking for the name and address of the speaker. It was the consensus of the 96 Commission to leave the language as proposed using the term request. 97 98 Reid commended staff for the revisions as proposed, noting that the document is substantially 99 improved. 100 101 Motion by Piper, seconded by Williams, to approve the amendments to the Operational 102 Procedures as presented within the Planning Commission packet with one noted correction. 103 Motion carries unanimously. 104 3 105 9. Planning Commission Orientation Manual Updates 106 107 Finke stated that this was included for informational purposes. He noted that some 108 information was added to the manual. He welcomed any additional suggestions. 109 110 Reid asked and confirmed consensus that the information in the manual was helpful for new 111 members. 112 113 114 115 10. Discussion of 2019 Planning Department Goals 116 117 Finke stated that these were also included for informational purposes, noted that the 118 Commission and staff will work together on these items over the next year and will be 119 presented to the City Council the next week. He provided a brief summary of the proposed 120 department goals and welcomed additional input. 121 122 Williams asked if there is up to date demographics of the city, noting that information could 123 be helpful to have for planning purposes. 124 125 Finke stated that there are demographics included in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, noting 126 that information is based on the census data. He stated that the City will start a Complete 127 Count Committee in conjunction with the 2020 census. 128 129 130 11. Approval of the December 11, 2018, Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 131 132 Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the December 11, 2018 Planning 133 Commission minutes with the noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. 134 135 136 12. Council Meeting Schedule 137 138 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Reid volunteered 139 to attend in representation of the Commission. 140 141 142 13. Adjourn 143 144 Motion by Amic, seconded by Galzki, to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Motion carried 145 unanimously. 146