Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-12-2020 Planning Commission Packet POSTED AT CITY HALL August 7, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2020 7:00 P.M. Meeting to be held telephonically/electronically pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.021 Call-in Information: 612-517-3122 (Conference ID 211 305 502#) Electronic access (via Microsoft Teams): link available at https://medinamn.us/pc 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Public Hearing – Tom and Jim Ditter – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive – Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Interim Use permit to subdivide four existing lots into five 6. Public Hearing – Kayla Brugger – 1345 Elsinore Circle – Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation (in-home fitness instruction) 7. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code related to setback and other requirements for residential accessory structures 8. Approval of July 14, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes 9. Council Meeting Schedule 10. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 August 4, 2020 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Martin and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: July 30, 2020 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – August 4, 2020 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Meadow View Townhomes– north of Highway 55, west of CR116 – Lennar has applied for a preliminary plat to develop 125 townhomes on approximately 20 net acres. Staff has conducted a preliminary review and requested additional information. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the July 14 meeting and recommended approval, conditioned upon the plan incorporating the final Tamarack Drive study information. The item is tentatively scheduled to be presented to Council on August 18. B) Bartzen Septic Variance – 1075 Oak Circle – John and Mary Bartzen have requested a variance from the required 75-foot setback from wetlands to replace an existing noncompliant septic system. It appears the proposed site is the only location which can accommodate a system. A public hearing is scheduled for the August 18 City Council meeting. C) Ditter Subdivision – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive – Tom and Jim Ditter have requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Interim Use Permit to replat their existing four lots into five lots. A public hearing is scheduled for the August 12 Planning Commission meeting. D) Brugger Home Occupation CUP – 1345 Elsinore Circle – Kayla Brugger has requested a CUP to offer fitness instruction out of her home, in addition to sessions offered in client homes or virtually. A public hearing is scheduled for the August 12 Planning Commission meeting. E) Roehl Preliminary Plat – 1735 Medina Road – The Estate of Robert Roehl has requested a preliminary plat to subdivide 28 acres into two lots. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 12 and recommended approval. The City Council granted preliminary plat approval on June 16. Staff will await an application for final plat. F) Cates Ranch Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning – 2575 and 2590 Cates Ranch Drive – Robert Atkinson has requested a change of the future land use from Future Development Area to Business, a staging plan amendment to 2020, and a rezoning to Business Park. The application is incomplete for review, and the City has requested additional materials. G) OSI Expansion – Arrowhead Drive, north of Highway 55 – Arrowhead Holdings (real estate company for OSI) has requested final plat approval for Cavanaughs Meadowwoods Park 3rd Addn. The City Council granted final plat approval on June 16. The applicant has begun site work and applied for a building permit. Staff is working with the applicant on the conditions of approval to allow issuance of the permit. H) Mark of Excellence Comp Plan Amendment, PUD Concept Plan – east of Mohawk Drive, north of Highway 55 – Mark Smith (Mark of Excellence Homes) has requested a Comp Plan Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for development of 76 twinhomes, 41 single- family, and 32 townhomes on the Roy and Cavanaugh properties. The Council adopted a resolution granting conditional approval and authorizing submission to the Met Council. Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 August 4, 2020 City Council Meeting The Met Council has authorized the City to put the amendment into effect. Staff will await a preliminary plat application. I) Adam’s Pest Control Site Plan Review, Pre Plat, Rezoning – Jan-Har, LLP (dba Adam’s Pest Control) has requested various approvals for development of a 35,000 s.f. office building, restaurant, and 13,000 s.f. warehouse/repair shop north of Highway 55, west of Willow Drive (PIDs 04-118-23-21-0001 and 04-118-23-24-0001). The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the November 12 and March 10 meetings and recommended approval. The City Council adopted approval documents on March 17. J) Johnson ADU CUP, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. K) Hamel Haven subdivision – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plat is recorded. Other Projects A) Tamarack Drive study – The Council reviewed the report on July 21 and directed staff to meet with adjacent property owners to attempt to address concerns which were raised at the end of the process. Staff coordinated a meeting with the owners and believes it is possible to incorporate a number of changes to address the comments. Generally, the concept will be updated to slide the roundabout as far south as possible, providing the opportunity for a second access point further north. B) Long Lake Subwatershed Assessment – staff met with a representative from the DNR related to potential ravine stabilization project within Wolsfeld Woods SNA. Work within a SNA has a number of stringent requirements, even when the project is intended to improve stormwater. Minnehaha Creek is updating its assumptions to meet these requirements to see if a project may be viable. C) City Hall Septic – staff has requested quotes for the construction this fall. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Nelson, Director of Public Safety DATE: July 31, 2020 RE: Department Updates This past week we have had our first positive COVID-19 test of an employee with the police department. With this pandemic, we all knew that it was just a matter of time before one of us got the virus or was personally affected. The employee is resting at home and doing ok. We are following the guidelines from MDH for the employees return. The rest of us at the police department continue to be diligent on doing our best to clean before, during and after the shifts, as well as practicing good personal hygiene and social distancing skills. We have not had any issues to-date with the mandated mask order that went into effect on July 25. I have spoken with a few of our larger businesses about their corporate policies to ensure that we are on the same page as far as enforcement goes. Most are operating on the same page that they do not want police enforcement and will call if they have issues if education efforts fail. We continue to interview venders for our body/squad camera solutions. Sergeant Boecker and Officer Hall, along with our IT Specialist Mike Brocco, have been tasked with finding our most affordable solution. I will continue to update the Council on the progress of this important project. CSO Boeddeker has completed all the pre-employment hiring requirements and a memo is attached authorizing to give a conditional job offer to her. We are very excited to have CSO Boeddeker become our departments 11th police officer. Patrol: Patrol Updates 07/15/2020 through 07/27/2020 Patrol Activities – Between the dates of July 1, 2020 through July 14, 2020 our officers issued 33 citations and 62 warnings for various traffic violations. There were 4 property damage accidents reported, 2 personal injury accident, 6 medicals, 7 welfare checks/mental health calls, 6 business alarms, 5 residential alarms, 7 suspicious calls, and 13 assists to other agencies. MEMORANDUM On 07/15/2020 Officer took a forgery/fraud report. Victim reported someone had applied for unemployment using his name. There have been several similar reports made over the past few months. On 07/15/2020 around 2346 hours Officer stopped a vehicle for pulling out in front of the squad and nearly causing a collision, speeding, and driving out of the traffic lane. The driver showed signs of being impaired by a controlled substance and was placed under arrest for DWI. A blood sample was obtained by way of a search warrant and charges are pending the results. On 07/16/2020 Officers were dispatched to a reported personal injury accident in the intersection of Highway 55 and County Road 116. Witnesses reported a westbound vehicle ran a red light and struck a second vehicle that was northbound through the intersection on a green light. The driver of the westbound vehicle was cited for multiple offenses. Minor injuries were reported. On 07/17/2020 Officer took a financial transaction card fraud report. Resident reported a business credit card had been used fraudulently incurring nearly $21,000 in fraudulent charges in California. The credit card company reversed the charges and is investigating. On 07/20/2020 Officer was dispatched to a possible prowler in the parking lot of Medina Golf and Country Club. A male was seen getting out of a vehicle and entering parked vehicles in the lot before leaving. A license plate of the suspect vehicle was obtained. It was later learned that nothing was reported taken but a similar theft of wallet was reported from a golf course in Corcoran that may be related. On 07/23/2020 Officers were dispatched to 500 block of Clydesdale Trail on a report of an unconscious employee. Officers arrived to find the patient having a diabetic reaction and was nearly unconscious. North Paramedics arrived and was able to provide first aid to the patient who quickly regained consciousness. On 07/26/2020 Officer was dispatched to a reported personal injury accident in the 1500 block of Homestead Trail. Upon arrival the officer learned that a vehicle had pulled out of a driveway into the path of an oncoming bicyclist. The bicyclist was transported to the hospital with apparently non-life- threatening injuries. Over the past several weeks numerous political signs have been reported stolen or damaged in the southern part of the city (Tamarack, Hunter, Willow Drives). Investigations: It has been a busy month in investigations. Most of the cases assigned to investigations have required either a search warrant or an administrative subpoena. Since mid-June, I have done a total of eight search warrants and eight administrative subpoenas. Investigating a harassment complaint over an online gaming application. Both the victim and suspect are under the age of 10. Investigation is ongoing. Interviewed a suspect involved in an ongoing theft investigation from a business. I am still awaiting some additional documentation before submitting my report to the County Attorney’s office for charging. Completed a background check for City Employment. Covered a Patrol shift for an officer who was on vacation. There are currently (10) cases assigned to investigations. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, through City Administrator Scott Johnson FROM: Steve Scherer, Public Works Director DATE: July 30, 2020 MEETING: August 4, 2020 SUBJECT: Public Works Update STREETS • Public Works has been evaluating certain streets and finding innovative ways to move them out a few more years on the capital improvement plan (CIP). I will have an updated version for the next budget meeting. • The second sweeping of the Independence Beach neighborhood is complete along with a few other problem areas in the city. • Public Works has been cutting brush along Willow Drive south of County 24. • The gravel streets were graded this past week after we finally got some rain. WATER/SEWER/STORMWATER • Public Works and Badger State inspections are making the final inspections to address any warranty issues with the water tower rehab project. There are a few items on the list to be cleaned up. • Public Works has patched the blacktop over the new culvert on Hunter Drive. • Public Works replaced the Elm Creek culvert under Blackfoot Trail. The culvert was almost completely deteriorated on the bottom side. • Public Works plans to close Holy Name Drive to replace the culvert crossing the street on the south end. This will only be closed for a few hours. Signs are being installed this week to inform the residents of the closure. • Water meters were read this week and bills will be out soon. PARKS/TRAILS • The parks are in great shape and are being used a lot. • We are working on a second version of the Hunter Lions Park redesign. We have made recommendations to our consultant and continue to work towards the best layout. • The tunnel under the R/R bridge in the Town Line area has been delivered. I spoke to the people on site and the plan is to install it sometime in September. PERSONNEL • We received over 120 applications for the administrative assistant vacancy for planning and public works. Interviews were completed and our recommendation is in your packet. Ditter Properties Page 1 of 9 August 12, 2020 Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: August 6, 2020 MEETING: August 12, 2020 Planning Commission SUBJ: Public Hearing – Ditter Properties – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive – Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Pre Plat, Interim Use Permit Review Deadline Application Received: July 28, 2020 and August 3, 2020 60-day Review Deadline: September 26, 2020 120-day Review Deadline (preliminary plat): December 1, 2020 Summary of Request Jim and Tom Ditter (Ditter Properties) have submitted land use requests to allow subdivision of 4 parcels they own into 5 lots. The four existing parcels are a total of approximately 25 acres, and each range in size from 3-8.5 acres, located east of Holy Name Drive and north of Holy Name Cemetery. The applicant has requested approval of the following requests. Staff recommends they be considered in the following order, since each is contingent upon the previous. 1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This amendment would change the future land use of proposed Lots 1 and 4 from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential and reduce the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to match reduced size of the sewered lots. 2) Rezoning of Lots 1 and 4 from Rural Residential to Suburban Residential 3) Preliminary Plat for the subdivision 4) Interim use permit to allow two homes on Lot 1 through life estate (no construction on Lot 4 until 2nd home is demolished). Three existing homes along with a number of outbuildings exist on the four parcels today and the parcels share a driveway off Holy Name Drive. Much of the remaining property is wooded. Holy Name Cemetery is located to the south, the Churchill Farms neighborhood in Plymouth is immediately to the east, and Holy Name Lake is located to the west of Holy Name Drive. An aerial of the site can be found at the top of the following page. Although all of the lots are zoned rural residential (RR), two of the existing four lots are connected to municipal sanitary sewer, having been connected when sewer was extended to Lakeview Drive to bail-out failing septic systems along Holy Name Lake around 2000. These lots are approximately 4.3 and 3.2 acres in size and are guided and zoned Rural Residential. Essentially, the applicants propose to rezone two sewered lots to Suburban Residential and shrink the lots. This additional land would allow an additional rural lot to be created. The applicants submitted a concept plan review for comments over a year ago. The Planning Commission and Council did not raise concerns with the request. Minutes from those meetings are attached for reference. Ditter Properties Page 2 of 9 August 12, 2020 Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP Planning Commission Meeting Comprehensive Plan Amendment The subject properties are all guided Rural Residential in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, but the two parcels connected to sewer are shown within the metropolitan urban service area. The City has no watermains in the area and the properties are all served by individual wells. Although the two properties were connected to the sanitary sewer, the land use and zoning of the parcels remained rural residential. After the sewer was extended, parcels along Lakeview Drive and one parcel east of Holy Name Drive were rezoned to Suburban Residential and ultimately guided as Low Density Residential (LDR). On the other hand, the larger rural properties east of Holy Name Lake that were connected at the same time (including two of the subject parcels) remained zoned and guided rural residential. Staff believes the reason the larger properties were not rezoned was because they exceeded 60,000 square feet. Because the minimum lot size of the SR district is 30,000 square feet, it would have potentially allowed the lots to be further subdivided. However, the sewer was not intended to encourage more sewered development in the area. Ditter Properties Page 3 of 9 August 12, 2020 Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP Planning Commission Meeting The applicants do not propose to add additional sewered lots to the system. The request is to rezone the two sewered lots to Suburban Residential (SR) and to reduce their size and use reduced land to create an additional rural lot. The resulting two sewered lots would each be less than twice the minimum lot size of the SR district (30,000 square feet). The Land Use Principles, Policies, and Objectives of the relevant land uses from the Plan should provide guidance as the Planning Commission and City Council consider requests to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has attached excerpts from the land use chapter of the 2020-2040 Comp Plan update for reference. The City has the highest level of discretion when considering the Comprehensive Plan and proposed amendments. The definition of RR states that the area is not intended to be served by urban services, while the LDR land use is intended to be served. On its face, it would appear logical that the properties which are connected to the sewer be designated LDR, to be similar to the other parcels which were connected along Lakeview Drive. On the other hand, staff believes it could also be reasonably argued that the sewer was extended as a “bail-out” rather than to change the land use so that the RR guiding better serves objectives of the plan, despite the peculiar situation of having rural property connected to sewer. Staff believes the primary reason these lots were guided Rural Residential is because they are large compared to other sewered lots. It should be noted that there is one additional similarly situated property to the northwest which is just over 6 acres in size and connected to the sewer system. This property owner may have similar arguments to reduce the size of the lot served by sewer and have enough land to meet the RR standard on a second lot. Staff believes it is reasonable to argue that an LDR designation is appropriate for the areas served by City sewer is consistent with the objectives of the Comp Plan. This is especially true when the change of land use is proposed in connection with a plat which reduces the size of the lots so that they are more similar to other LDR lots. Staff would not recommend the change of land use if the lots were not being reduced in size. Rezoning As previously noted, the applicants propose to zone the two lots which are served by municipal sewer to the Suburban Residential (SR) zoning district. The circumstances surrounding this proposed zoning are essentially the same as discussed above related to the Comprehensive Plan. The City has a high level of discretion when reviewing requests for zoning amendments. Section 825.35 of the City Code provides criteria for rezoning requests: “The City Council may adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map. Such amendments shall not be issued indiscriminately but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City.” In this case, if the two sewered lots are guided as LDR, it would be appropriate to rezone the property out of the RR zoning district. A number of zoning districts are applied to LDR property within the City, included SR, UR (Urban Residential), R1 (Single-Family Residential), and R2 Ditter Properties Page 4 of 9 August 12, 2020 Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP Planning Commission Meeting (Single- and Two-Family Residential). The SR zoning district has the largest lot size requirement and is consistent with the property to the northwest along Lakeview Drive. If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved, staff recommends approval of the rezoning of proposed Lots 1 and 4 to the Suburban Residential zoning district. Similar to the discussion surrounding the Comp Plan Amendment, staff would not recommend the rezoning for lots which exceed 60,000 square feet, because it would inadvertently create an opportunity for further subdivision. Preliminary Plat The applicant proposes a total of 5 lots, two of which are proposed to be zoned SR and served by City sewer, and three lots which would be zoned RR. The lots are proposed to be served by a private road in the location of the existing shared driveway. The following table summarizes the proposed SR lots compared to the requirements of the district. SR Requirement Lot 1 Lot 4 Minimum Lot Size 30,000 s.f. 57,376 s.f. 55,310 s.f. Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 139 feet 125 feet Minimum Lot Depth 125 feet 408 feet 275 feet Front Yard Setback 35 feet 1 foot (existing home from ROW) 35 feet Side Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Rear Yard Setback 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet Max. Hardcover 60% 15% The following table summarizes the proposed RR lots compared to the requirements of the district. RR Requirement Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 5 Minimum Lot Size 5 acres contiguous suitable soils 7.07 acre 5.65 acre 5.03 acre Gross Area None 9.38 acre 6.7 acre 5.03 acre Minimum Lot Width 300 feet 300 feet 300 feet 300 feet Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet 1180 feet 900 feet 630 feet Front Yard Setback 50 feet 360 feet Side Yard Setback 50 feet 70 feet Rear Yard Setback 50 feet 600 feet Max. Hardcover 40% It appears that the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size standards of the SR and RR zoning district as applicable. The existing home on Lot 1 does not meet the minimum front setback from Holy Name Drive right-of-way (existing 1-foot setback) or the side setback from the north (existing 10 foot Ditter Properties Page 5 of 9 August 12, 2020 Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP Planning Commission Meeting setback), but the subdivision does not affect this situation because these are existing exterior property lines. Two existing outbuildings on site are located where a proposed property line bisects the structures and another outbuilding is located too close to proposed property lines. These structures will ultimately need to be relocated or demolished. Two of the existing homes are located on what is proposed to be platted as Lot 1. The applicants’ mother lives in the eastern house and the applicants request to allow both homes to remain on Lot 1 while their mother lives in the home. The property is subject to a life estate. After the life estate is no longer in effect, the applicants propose to demolish the home. Until that is completed, Lot 4 would not be buildable. The applicants have requested that the City allow them to delay demolition of the second home and outbuilding through an Interim Use Permit, which is described later in this report. The private road is proposed to be constructed in Outlot B, along the south of the property. The road will be in the location of the existing driveway - but will be widened. Tree Preservation/Landscaping An extensive grove of trees covers much of the subject property. The applicants’ families have planted most of these trees in recent decades. Aerial photos show these plantings over time. It appears that the installation of improvements is likely to require the removal of a number of these existing trees. The tree preservation ordinance would permit the removal of 10% of the trees upon initial site development (installation of street, storm water, etc.) and an additional 15% of trees for the construction on each lot. The tree preservation ordinance allows credit for planted trees, which will significantly reduce or potentially eliminate the need for replacement. Staff recommends that no replacement be required since the trees removed were planted by the owners. Rural residential subdivisions do not include specific buffer yard or landscaping requirements. Even if such requirements did exist, the site include far more trees than would be required. Wetlands/Floodplain/Shoreland A large wetland is partially located along the northeastern portion of the site, and a separate small wetland is located within the woods in the same area. Staff recommends a condition that upland buffers be applied as required by the City’s, including easements, vegetation, and signage. The subject property extends west of Holy Name Drive. The applicant proposes to plat this portion of the property into a separate outlot. Most of this outlot is located within the floodplain adjacent to Holy Name Lake and is subject to relevant regulations. Lots 1 and 4, and much of lots 3 and 5 are located within 1000 feet of Holy Name Lake and subject to the Shoreland Overlay District regulations. These lots will be limited to 25% hardcover. The required front setback exceeds required setbacks from Holy Name Lake, and the lot width and size requirements of the SR district exceed the requirements of the shoreland overlay district. Ditter Properties Page 6 of 9 August 12, 2020 Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP Planning Commission Meeting Transportation The applicants propose to construct a private road in the location of the existing shared driveway to serve the subdivision, shown as Outlot B on the plat. The private road would extend approximately 350 feet and terminate in a hammerhead. Lots 2 and 3 would then share a driveway to the north of the hammerhead. The City Engineer has not raised concerns regarding the impact of the subdivision on the broader transportation network. Sewer/Water/Easements As noted above, Lots 1 and 4 are proposed to be connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system, but would be served with individual wells. Lots 2, 3, and 5 are proposed to be served by septic and wells. The applicants have submitted soils and percolation information for potential primary and secondary septic location for each proposed rural lot. Staff recommends a condition requiring typical drainage and utility easements over all utilities, wetland locations, stormwater improvements, drainageways and around the perimeter of the lots. Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review The proposed improvements will be subject to the City’s stormwater management ordinance. The applicant proposes a filtration basin in the eastern portion of the site to meet these requirements. The applicant proposes to grade the site to direct stormwater from the new hardcover on lots 3, 4, and 5 to these improvements. Much of the new private road and all of the new driveways will drain to this basin as well. Park Dedication The subdivision is subject to park dedication according to the subdivision ordinance. The City’s subdivision regulations allow the City to require park dedication as follows: 1) Land – Up to 10% of the buildable property to be dedicated for park purposes – estimated to be approximately 2.4 acres in this case. 2) Cash-in-lieu – The City may also choose to accept cash in-lieu of all or a portion of this land dedication in an amount equal to 8% of the pre-developed market value, with a minimum of $3500 and a maximum of $8000 per home. This would likely be $8,000 in this case (for the new lot). 3) Combination of the above. The City’s decision on required park dedication is guided by its Comprehensive Park, Trail, and open space plan as well as the Master Plan. Map 6-1 from the Park, Trail, and Open Space Plan is attached for reference. These documents do not identify any need for park land in this area of the City. The documents also do not identify future trails specifically on the subject properties. The plans do identify a north-south trail between Medina Road and County Road 24 to the east of Holy Name Lake. The Plan does not identify the precise location of off-street trail corridors. The subject property may provide an alternative north-south location. A large wetland on the property to the north Ditter Properties Page 7 of 9 August 12, 2020 Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP Planning Commission Meeting would prevent connecting to Medina Road. As such, it appears this alternative may not be preferred to the connection west of Holy Name Lake. As a result, staff recommends that park dedication fee of $8000 be required in-lieu of land dedication for parks or trails. The Park Commission is scheduled to review at their August 19 meeting. Interim Use Permit There are currently homes located on three of the existing lots. The two homes nearest to Holy Name Drive are close together. The proposed plat would result in these two homes both being located on Lot 1. The applicants’ mother lives in the second home off of Holy Name Drive, and the property is subject to a life estate. The applicants have requested an interim use permit to allow the two homes on Lot 1 while the life estate is in effect. The applicants propose to not construct a home on Lot 4 until the life estate is no longer in effect, and the second home on Lot 1 is demolished. The applicants have also requested that the three outbuildings which are either located on property lines or do not meet setbacks be allowed to remain while the life estate is in effect. Section 825.73 of the City Code establishes criteria for the City to permit Interim Uses to “allow the establishment or continuation of interim uses under specific and regulated conditions. Interim uses may be allowed by permit if the following conditions are met: (a) the use conforms to the zoning regulations; (b) the date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty; (c) permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future; and (d) the user agrees to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for permission of the use.” Staff believes the City has a higher level of discretion in determining whether this Interim Use should be allowed. The City could require that only one home be located on each lot. This would require the applicant to consider one of the following options: 1) the subdivision would need to be delayed; or 2) the lots would need to be realigned so that each house is on a separate lot. Staff believes it is possible to plat the property in a way such that each house would be on a separate lot, but doing so would result in smaller and less usable lots. Staff believes the Interim Use Permit (IUP) is appropriate in this case and recommends approval. Lot 1 is just under the required size for two lots in the SR district and both homes are connected to the municipal sewer system. The event which will terminate the use can be identified and continuation of the two homes will not impose additional costs on the public. Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation The review criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning were described on pages 3-4 of the report. Staff recommends approval of the requests to re-guide Lots 1 and 4 to the LDR land use and rezone to the SR zoning district if the lots are reduced in size so that they could not be subdivided further in the future. Ditter Properties Page 8 of 9 August 12, 2020 Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP Planning Commission Meeting The preliminary plat would be contingent upon approval of the Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning, because Lots 1 and 4 could not be reduced in size without the rezoning. Section 820.21, Subd. 10 establishes the following criteria for the review of subdivisions: “In the case of all subdivisions, the City shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat if one or a combination of the following finding are made: (a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city, or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28. (b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not meet minimum lot size standards. (d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or private streets, easements or right-of-way.” Subject to the conditions recommended below, staff does not believe the subdivision would meet these criteria for denial. The criteria for an Interim Use Permit are described above, and staff believes the IUP would be appropriate in this case. Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Interim Use Permit, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1) The Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall not become effective until reviewed and authorized by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota Statues 462 and 473 and the final plat is approved. 2) Approval of the plat shall be contingent upon the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning of proposed Lots 1 and 4 to the Suburban Residential zoning district. If such rezoning is approved, it shall become effective upon the recording of the plat. 3) The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the conditions described below as well as other requirements by City ordinance or policy. 4) The Applicant shall submit a letter of credit for 150% of the estimated cost of improvements and demolition of the home and outbuildings to ensure completion of the work. 5) No building shall occur on Lot 4 until the Interim Use Permit has terminated and the second home on Lot 1 and the three outbuildings regulated by the IUP have been demolished. The Applicant shall enter into an agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure compliance with these requirements. 6) The Applicant shall provide the private road easement/agreement and shared driveway easement/agreement for review and approval by the City attorney prior to final plat. Ditter Properties Page 9 of 9 August 12, 2020 Comp Plan Amend., Rezoning, Pre Plat, IUP Planning Commission Meeting 7) The Applicant shall execute a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement to describe the responsibility of the property owners to maintain the stormwater improvements. 8) The Applicant shall submit soil and percolation information to identify a potential primary and secondary septic site on each rural lot. 9) The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance, including provision of easements, planting of vegetation and installation of signage. 10) The Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of $8,000 at the time the plat is executed by the City. 11) The Applicant shall address the comments of the City Engineer. Final construction plans shall be submitted along with final plat application and be subject to review and approval. 12) The Applicant shall provide title documentation at the time of final plat application and abide by the recommendation of the City Attorney, with regard to title matters and recording instructions. 13) The request shall be subject to review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and any other relevant agency. 14) The final plat applicant shall be filed within 180 days of the date of the resolution granting preliminary approval or the approval shall be considered void, unless a written request for time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council. 15) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents. Potential Action The Planning Commission should first hold a public hearing on the proposed applications. Following review, if the Planning Commission finds the requests consistent with relevant objectives and criteria, the following motion could be made: Move to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Interim Use Permit subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Attachments 1. Document List 2. Comprehensive Plan Information 3. Excerpt from 6/11/2019 Planning Commission minutes 4. Excerpt from 6/18/2019 City Council minutes 5. Narrative 6. Preliminary Plat/Plans   8/7/2020 Project:  LR‐20‐271 – Ditter CPA, Rezone, Pre‐Plat, Interim Use Permit 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 Document Date Pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 7/1/2020 7/1/2020 3 Yes Yes  Application‐Updated 7/27/2020 7/1/2020 3 Yes Yes  Deposit 7/1/2020 7/1/2020 1 Yes Yes $5000 Plans and PrePlat 7/10/2020 7/9/2020 4 Yes Yes  Plans and PrePlat 8/3/2020 7/31/2020 5 Yes Yes  Narrative 5/11/2020 5/11/2020 1 Yes Yes  Narrative 8/5/2020 8/5/2020 2 Yes Yes  Life Estate 7/27/2020 3/30/2000 1 Yes Yes  Septic Information 5/15/2020 10/31/2019 46 Yes Yes  Stormwater Calcs 7/10/2020 7/9/2020 48 Yes Yes  Volume Control Calcs 8/3/2020 7/31/2020 1 Yes Yes   <OVER>          8/7/2020 Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes City Engineer comments 7/24/2020 3 Y 4 pages w/ plan notes City Engineer comments      Fire/Building comments 7/22/2020 1 Y  Legal comments 7/21/2020 2 Y  Notice 7/31/2020 4 Y 17 pages w/ affidavit, list and map Preliminary Comments 7/23/2020 3 Y 10 pages w/ attachment Planning Commission Report 8/7/2020 9 Y   Public Comments  Document Date Electronic Notes                           LLaanndd UUssee PPrriinncciipplleess,, DDeessccrriippttiioonnss,, PPoolliicciieess aanndd OObbjjeeccttiivveess 22002200--22004400 CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee PPllaann FFuuttuurree GGeenneerraall LLaanndd UUssee PPoolliiccyy DDiirreeccttiioonn As described in the Vision Statement, the City of Medina strives to promote and protect its open spaces and natural environment. The City has historically been, and intends to continue to be, primarily a rural community. The City has planned for a limited amount of future development consistent with regional forecast and consistent with Community Goals. FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee PPllaann PPrriinncciipplleess TThhee FFuuttuurree LLaanndd UUssee PPllaann gguuiiddeess tthhee ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff MMeeddiinnaa tthhrroouugghh 22004400,, aanndd wwiillll bbee uusseedd ttoo iimmpplleemmeenntt tthhee CCiittyy’’ss ggooaallss,, ssttrraatteeggiieess aanndd ppoolliicciieess.. TThhee PPllaann iiss gguuiiddeedd bbyy tthhee VViissiioonn aanndd CCoommmmuunniittyy GGooaallss aass ffuurrtthheerreedd bbyy tthhee ffoolllloowwiinngg pprriinncciipplleess:: DDeevveellooppmmeenntt PPaatttteerrnnss aanndd NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd FFoorrmm  EEnnccoouurraaggee ooppeenn ssppaacceess,, ppaarrkkss aanndd ttrraaiillss iinn aallll nneeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd ddeevveellooppmmeennttss.. SSuurrvveeyyss iinnddiiccaattee tthhaatt aa hhiigghh qquuaalliittyy ooff lliiffee iiss ffoouunndd wwhheenn rreessiiddeennttss hhaavvee vviissuuaall aacccceessss ttoo ggrreeeenn ssppaacceess..  CCrreeaattee nneeiigghhbboorrhhooooddss wwiitthh aa vvaarriieettyy ooff hhoouussiinngg ttyyppeess tthhaatt aarree wweellll ccoonnnneecctteedd wwiitthh rrooaaddss,, ttrraaiillss oorr ssiiddeewwaallkkss..  MMaaiinnttaaiinn tthhee iinntteeggrriittyy ooff rruurraall nneeiigghhbboorrhhooooddss aanndd pprroommoottee ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ppaatttteerrnnss ccoonnssiisstteenntt wwiitthh eexxiissttiinngg rruurraall rreessiiddeennttiiaall ddeevveellooppmmeenntt..  RReeccooggnniizzee nneeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd cchhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss aanndd pprroommoottee nneeww ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ccoommppaattiibbllee iinn ssccaallee,, aarrcchhiitteeccttuurraall qquuaalliittyy aanndd ssttyyllee wwiitthh eexxiissttiinngg nneeiigghhbboorrhhooooddss..  SSttaaggee rreessiiddeennttiiaall ggrroowwtthh ttoo mmiinniimmiizzee tthhee aammoouunntt ooff aaddjjaacceenntt ddeevveellooppmmeennttss wwhhiicchh ooccccuurr wwiitthhiinn tthhee ssaammee ttiimmee ppeerriioodd..  GGuuiiddee ddeennssiittyy ttoo aarreeaass wwiitthh pprrooxxiimmiittyy ttoo eexxiissttiinngg iinnffrraassttrruuccttuurree aanndd ffuuttuurree iinnffrraassttrruuccttuurree aavvaaiillaabbiilliittyy..  CCoonncceennttrraattee hhiigghheerr ddeennssiittyy ddeevveellooppmmeenntt nneeaarr sseerrvviiccee oorriieenntteedd bbuussiinneesssseess ttoo hheellpp pprroommoottee wwaallkkaabbiilliittyy..  CCoonnssiiddeerr ppllaannnneedd ddeevveellooppmmeenntt iinn ssuurrrroouunnddiinngg ccoommmmuunniittiieess wwhheenn mmaakkiinngg llaanndd uussee ddeecciissiioonnss iinn tthhee CCiittyy.. RRooaadd PPaatttteerrnnss  RReeccooggnniizzee rreeggiioonnaall hhiigghhwwaayy ccaappaacciittyy aanndd ppllaannnneedd iimmpprroovveemmeennttss,, aalloonngg wwiitthh uussee ffoorreeccaassttss,, aass mmaajjoorr ffaaccttoorrss iinn ppllaannnniinngg ffoorr ggrroowwtthh aanndd llaanndd uussee cchhaannggeess..  EEssttaabblliisshh ccoolllleeccttoorr ssttrreeeettss wwiitthh ggoooodd ccoonnnneeccttiioonnss tthhrroouugghh tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy’’ss ggrroowwtthh aarreeaass..  PPrroommoottee ttrraaiillss aanndd ssiiddeewwaallkk aacccceessss nneeaarr rrooaaddss aanndd tthhoorroouugghhffaarreess ttoo eennccoouurraaggee mmuullttii-- mmooddaall ttrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn cchhooiicceess..  CCoonnssiiddeerr ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess ttoo iimmpprroovvee nnoorrtthh--ssoouutthh ttrraavveell wwiitthhiinn tthhee CCiittyy.. OOppeenn SSppaacceess aanndd NNaattuurraall RReessoouurrcceess  PPrreesseerrvvee nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess tthhrroouugghhoouutt tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy aanndd pprroovviiddee eedduuccaattiioonnaall ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess ttoo rreessiiddeennttss ttoo hheellpp tthheemm uunnddeerrssttaanndd tthhee vvaalluuee ooff nnaattuurraall aarreeaass..  PPrreesseerrvvee ooppeenn ssppaacceess aanndd nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess..  PPrrootteecctt wwooooddeedd aarreeaass aanndd eennccoouurraaggee iimmpprroovveemmeenntt ooff eexxiissttiinngg rreessoouurrcceess aanndd rreeffoorreessttaattiioonn.. EEvvaalluuaattee eexxiissttiinngg wwooooddllaanndd pprrootteeccttiioonnss aanndd ssuupppplleemmeenntt aass nneecceessssaarryy..  SSuuppppoorrtt tthhee gguuiiddeelliinneess iiddeennttiiffiieedd iinn tthhee OOppeenn SSppaaccee RReeppoorrtt ttoo pprreesseerrvvee tthhee CCiittyy’’ss nnaattuurraall ssyysstteemmss.. BBuussiinneessss DDiissttrriiccttss aanndd CCoommmmeerrcciiaall AArreeaass  FFooccuuss sseerrvviiccee bbuussiinneesssseess aanndd ddeevveellooppmmeenntt nneeaarr uurrbbaann rreessiiddeennttiiaall ddeennssiittiieess aanndd aalloonngg pprriimmaarryy ttrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn ccoorrrriiddoorrss..  PPrroovviiddee ccoonnnneeccttiioonnss bbeettwweeeenn rreessiiddeennttss aanndd ccoommmmeerrcciiaall aarreeaass aanndd pprroommoottee bbuussiinneesssseess wwiitthhiinn mmiixxeedd--uussee aarreeaass..  WWoorrkk ttoo ccrreeaattee jjoobb ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess iinn tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy ffoorr MMeeddiinnaa rreessiiddeennttss ttoo rreedduuccee ttrraaffffiicc aanndd ccoommmmuuttiinngg ddeemmaannddss..  EEmmpphhaassiizzee sseerrvviiccee aanndd rreettaaiill uusseess wwhhiicchh sseerrvvee tthhee nneeeeddss ooff tthhee llooccaall ccoommmmuunniittyy aanndd pprroovviiddee ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess ffoorr tthhee ccoommmmuunniittyy ttoo ggaatthheerr..  SSuuppppoorrtt bbuussiinneessss ddeevveellooppmmeenntt wwiitthh aa ccoorrppoorraattee ccaammppuuss ssttyyllee wwhhiicchh pprroovviiddeess ooppeenn ssppaacceess aanndd pprrootteeccttss nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess.. Future Land Use Designations Rural Residential (RR) identifies areas for low-intensity uses, such as rural residential, hobby farms, agricultural, horticulture, conservation of ecologically significant natural resources and passive recreation. Density within the RR land use shall be no more than one lot per 10 acres and the area is not planned to be served by urban services during the timeframe covered by this Plan. Low Density Residential (LDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 2.0 units per acre and 3.0.units per acre which are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary use in this area is single- and two-family residential development. Land Use Policies by Area 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. Rural Designations 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 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. 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 (see 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. Urban Service Designations The Urban Service Area includes the residential and commercial areas of the City that are currently or will be served by municipal water and sewer services. Residential Uses Objectives: 1. Require preservation of natural slopes, wetlands, woodlands, and other significant natural characteristics of the property. 2. 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. 3. Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary. 4. Regulate land within the Mixed Residential land use to provide opportunities for residential development with a density in excess of 8 units/acre. Flexibility is purposefully provided within the land use to support opportunities for a single project to provide both low- and high- density housing or for multiple developers to partner on independent projects within a Mixed Residential area. 5. Encourage green building practices such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles in neighborhood planning and residential building and low impact development design standards. 6. Regulate the rate and location of development in keeping with availability of public facilities and the City's stated goals, including the undesignated MUSA and growth strategies. 7. Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan. 8. Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the provision of urban services that will hinder future division. 9. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for innovative arrangements of homes, conservation easements, or other creative land use concepts that preserve the City's open space and natural features. 10. Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with adequate facilities and open space. 11. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety. 12. Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land use, market demands, and development standards. 13. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of ecologically significant natural resources. 14. Establish standards for higher density residential development so that such development is compatible with surrounding uses. Such standards may include enclosed parking, green space, landscape buffering and height limitations. 15. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 16. Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required. 17. Require planning of trails and walkway systems in the early design stages of all new development so that residential areas are provided safe access to parks and open space. 18. In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD’s in exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi-family units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources. 19. Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood. 20. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods and to maintain public health and safety. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 6/11/2019 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing – 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive – Tom and Jim Ditter – Concept Plan Review for Subdivision of 4 Lots into 5 Lots Finke stated that the Commission and Council reviewed a concept the previous summer for six lots but following the wetland delineation it was determined that there was not sufficient acreage for six lots and therefore the concept has been amended to five lots. He stated that the concept plan is coming forward as there is a unique set of requirements under the Comprehensive Plan and zoning which would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning. He stated that there are four existing lots with a total of 25 acres on the subject site, which are zoned rural residential. He noted that two of the properties already have sewer connections allocated. He stated that currently the lots have an odd layout, which is how this process arose. He displayed the proposed subdivision, noting that lots one and four have connections to the sewer system and the applicant would propose to shrink those lots to a suburban lot size. He noted that the extra land would then create an additional rural lot. He stated that a private road would be needed off Holy Name Drive to access the five lots. He stated that the property is guided rural residential but two lots are currently included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). He stated that general feedback is requested tonight prior to the applicant determining whether to submit a formal application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning request. Nielsen stated that she has a house on the lake connected to the sewer. She asked if this would add two additional homes to the sewer. Finke stated that two homes are already connected to the sewer and this would not add to that, no additional homes would be connected to the sewer. He explained that one of the lots is in a life estate and therefore that connection may be delayed until the life estate expires. He stated that even though the lots would not have municipal water, they would have municipal sewer. He provided background information on the previous rezoning that occurred with the lots along the lake that were rezoned suburban residential after the sewer connections occurred. He stated that this request would actually reduce the MUSA because the two lot sizes would be shrunk to two acres rather than the existing seven acres. Amic asked if this would be applicable to other properties. Finke stated that there are some properties zoned rural residential that exceed 30,000 square feet. He noted that there is one property that has the 30,000 square feet plus an additional five acres, which would be a similar situation. He noted that each application would need to stand on its own merit and no additional sewer entitlements would be given. Nielsen asked how many lots are similarly situated. Finke replied that there is one other property that would be similar. Reid stated that property would need to justify their request, should that be desired in the future. Jim Ditter, 2052 Holy Name Drive, stated that he, his mother and his brother live in three of the lots on the property. He stated that property has been in his family for many years and is served by one driveway. He noted that this request would replat to provide separate driveways for each of the lots. He explained that it is difficult to sell or market a lot with a shared driveway for all the properties. He stated that they brought a concept forward the previous summer but there was not enough property to create six lots following the delineation. He noted that this would add one additional lot to the four existing lots. He noted that the adjacent property has been rezoned suburban residential and therefore Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 6/11/2019 Meeting Minutes 2 their two sewer lots would not be an island and would be similarly zoned to adjacent property. He appreciated the input from the Commission. Reid opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. Tom Ditter stated that they have already been through the concept plan process previously but stalled out with the delineation. He stated that they have been working with staff since that time in an attempt to make the request work. He stated that the Ditters are longtime Medina residents and are not trying to make a killing off this request. He stated that they will still remain in Medina. Suzie Sween, 2112 Holy Name Drive, stated that she has lived on the same street as the Ditters for her entire life. She stated that the Ditters have been in Medina for their entire lives and have relatives that date back 100 years. She stated that she enjoys having them as her neighbors and supports their application to divide their property. She noted that she would have even approved six lots. She stated that she is not concerned with the number of lots, she simply wants them to remain her neighbors. She noted that there is a considerable amount of runoff that comes to her property from a culvert on the Ditter property. She asked that the issue be mitigated during this process as there have been issues on her property. Finke confirmed that stormwater management would be triggered during the subdivision process. Reid closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Nielsen stated that she supports the request. Amic stated that he also supports the request. He noted that once the lots would be developed the stormwater concerns would be addressed as well. Nester asked how the lots would need to change to meet the width requirements. Finke explained that there are multiple options that could be utilized to provide the necessary width. Galzki stated that as long as the lot size standards are met, he would support the request. Reid stated that there is adjacent low density residential and therefore it would make sense to rezone those lots. She stated that she would also be happy to see lots two, three and five preserved as rural residential. She stated that they are beautiful lots, and this would preserve that. Medina City Council Excerpt from 6/18/2019 Meeting Minutes 1 Ditter Properties – 2032 to 2052 Holy Name Drive – Concept Plan Review (7:40 p.m.) Finke stated that this proposal was reviewed one year ago as a concept noting that this concept reduces the previous request to subdivide four lots into five lots, rather than the previous request for six lots. He noted that two of the four existing lots are proposed to be smaller lots and proposed to be rezoned to suburban residential and reguided as low density residential under the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that those two properties are connected to the City sewer system and the applicant would propose to shrink those lots to better match the proposed rezoning standards, noting that the excess land would be used to create the additional fifth lot. He provided additional information on the Comprehensive Plan amendment that would be necessary and whether it would be appropriate to reguide and rezone the two properties connected to municipal sewer. He reported that the Planning Commission held a public hearing the previous week where one resident spoke in favor of the requests and raised concern about drainage between the properties which could be addressed through the subdivision. He noted that the Planning Commission was supportive of the reguiding of the two properties to low density residential and the creation of the additional lot. He provided background information on the sewer bailout which occurred in the early 2000’s for the properties along Holy Name Lake. He stated that the other properties that were connected to City sewer were rezoned to suburban residential, with the exception of four properties. He explained that perhaps the thought behind excluding those four properties is that they exceeded 60,000 square feet and the intent was to prevent those lots from being subdivided into additional suburban residential lots. He explained that this request would not create additional sewered lots but would shrink the two lots connected to City sewer and create an additional rural residential lot. Albers asked if there would be septic concerns for the new lots. Finke explained that two septic sites would be required, similar to any other rural residential lot. He noted that practically speaking, the two properties connected to sewer could have probably installed new septic systems, but the cost would have been similar to simply connect to the sewer that was made available. Martin stated that both of the proposed suburban lots would be under 60,000 square feet and therefore could not be subdivided further. She noted that the family has already paid for the two sewer connections and should be able to utilize those connections. She stated that this is a beautiful property and the ability to keep the two lots in front and create three beautiful residential lots would fit with the intent of the City to preserve rural residential areas when possible. She stated that she is comfortable with the requests. Pederson stated that he also agrees with this request. He noted that this is adjacent to the cemetery and this would create a great atmosphere in that area. Aug-5-2020 Ditter Preliminary Plan Lot Proposal Ditter Properties and Jim & Tom are submitting a preliminary plan proposing to subdivide our existing property of 4 lots that we own into 5 lots. The 4 lots total approximately 25 acres located east of Holy Name Drive and North of Holy Name Cemetery. At present there are 3 homes located on 3 of the lots- 2052 Holy Name Drive (Jim & Pam Ditter), 2042 Holy Name Drive (John & Anyce Ditter), and 2032 Holy Name Drive (Tom & Mimi Ditter). The 4th lot is a vacant 8 acre lot in about the center of the 4 existing lots. The 1st and 2nd homes (2052 & 2042) are now connected to the existing city sewer system. We are asking the city to consider rezoning these 2 parcels with city sewer to Suburban Residential, which are now zoned Rural Residential. This would allow us to reduce the size of the first 2 parcels and allow us to divide the rest of the existing property into 3 Rural Residential lots. Most of the land is wooded, which we hand planted a variety of trees over the course of the last 30 years. The back 3 lots are zoned Rural Residential and they would all be on their own septic systems and separate wells. We would also like to ask the city to consider giving us a tree waiver for these lots. All the trees that will be affected are trees that we personally planted back in the late 80’s and early 90’s. We purchased the land in 1980 and immediately started planting trees on the property. Originally we farmed the land and planted corn and beans. We basically then turned our farm land into a tree farm. The original woods (the area with the mature oaks, and maples) are on the far north lot where Tom & Mimi live, and that area will not be affected by any of these changes in the new lots. The preliminary plan shows the first house (Jim & Pam Ditter) and the 2nd house (John & Anyce Ditter) on the first lot. The reason for this is that I – Jim Ditter, own both property’s and our mother has Life Estate. We will not remove her home off of the property till she is unable to stay living there on her own. At that time, when she is not living there any longer, we would remove the home so there would only be one home on the lot ( lot 1). The rest of the out buildings on lot 4 would also be removed at this time. We also would not sell lot 4 until our Mother is not living there anymore and all the buildings are removed. We are doing our best to come up with a plan that will work well for us and the City of Medina. We, Jim and Tom Ditter, have lived here our entire lives and plan to stay in Medina long into the future. We also want to keep the 1st home (2052) which is the original Ditter Homestead built in the 1880’s. We would like to preserve this home as long as possible. Thank you. Sincerely Jim & Tom Ditter 1345 Elsinore Circle Page 1 of 6 August 12, 2020 Home Occupation CUP Planning Commission MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: August 5, 2020 MEETING: August 12, 2020 Planning Commission SUBJ: Public Hearing – Kayla Brugger – 1345 Elsinore Circle – Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation (fitness instruction) Review Deadline Application received: July 2, 2020 120-day review deadline: October 30, 2020 Summary of Request Kayla Brugger has requested a conditional use permit (CUP) to provide fitness instruction out of her home at 1345 Elsinore Circle. The subject property is located within the Medina Morningside neighborhood at the southwest corner of Elsinore Circle and Bobolink Road. The applicant proposes to provide the instruction in a tuck-under garage which will be finished for the use. An aerial of the subject site and surrounding property can be found below. 1345 Elsinore Circle Page 2 of 6 August 12, 2020 Home Occupation CUP Planning Commission The subject property and all surrounding lots are zoned Urban Residential (UR). “Home occupations in compliance with the requirements of section 826.98 subd. 2(c)” is an allowed conditional use in the UR district. The applicant has indicated that no more than three clients would be expected on a given day, and no more than 6-10 per week. The clients would park in the driveway off Elsinore Circle. CUP Standards for Home Occupations The following standards are required for Home Occupations as described in Section 826.98. The applicant has indicated how they believe each requirement will be met within their narrative. Staff has described compliance with each standard below each in italics: (i) not more than one person not residing in the dwelling may be employed on-site in the home occupation, regardless of the number of hours worked by the individual; The applicant has indicated that only Kayla, the property owner will be working on-site. (ii) no over-the-counter retail sales; The applicant has indicated that there will be no retail sales. (iii) only such signs as are permitted under section 815.09 of this ordinance; At this time, no signs are proposed. Any future sign will need to meet the requirements of the sign ordinance. (iv) no outside storage; No items related to the business will be stored outside. (v) the home occupation must be conducted solely within the principal structure; Training is proposed within the tuck-under garage, which is within the principal structure. Staff recommends a condition that prohibits training from extending outside. (vi) limited customer, client, patient or student visits to the site in connection with the home occupation; Staff believes this the most important question for this request. The applicant proposes 6-10 clients per week, no more than 3 per day. The Planning Commission and City Council should discuss and determine if this is consistent with “limited client visits.” Staff believes it is reasonable to determine that this is ‘limited’ and if the Planning Commission and Council agree, would recommend that these limitations be included as a condition of approval. (vii) there must be adequate off-street parking for the anticipated number of persons on the site at any one time and the parking area must be screened from view from adjacent properties or rights-of-way; There is sufficient parking on the existing driveway to accommodate more than the maximum number of clients per day. Staff does not believe it would be possible to full screen the parking area from all property and the street right-of-way. The Planning Commission and 1345 Elsinore Circle Page 3 of 6 August 12, 2020 Home Occupation CUP Planning Commission Council can discuss whether it is appropriate to require additional landscaping or screening along the south of the driveway. (viii) limited deliveries associated with the home occupation in commercial vehicles over one ton; The applicant has indicated that they expect very few deliveries. (ix) no equipment or devices not customarily used in residential dwellings may be used in connection with the home occupation; The applicant has indicated that the equipment proposed for the use would be the same as one would expect for a private home gym, which are described in the narrative. (x) entrance to the space used for the home occupation must be within the dwelling; The entrance to the space would be through the garage and through a portion of the dwelling. (xi) no interior or exterior alterations may be made to the dwelling to accommodate the home occupation except as may be customarily found in a dwelling; The applicant has indicated that the space which will be used is similar to what one would expect for a private home gym. (xii) any vehicle displaying the name of the home occupation must be parked in an enclosed garage or in an area screened from view from adjacent properties or rights-of-way; Staff recommends this as a condition. (xiii) the home occupation may not produce any light, glare, noise or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the property which is not customarily associated with residential use; The applicant has indicated that the use will not produce light, glare, or vibration. Any noise would be similar to expected for any home gym. Staff recommends a condition requiring that the use be limited to the inside space and that the garage door to the tuck-under garage remain closed during business use. (xiv) hours of business activity may be limited by the city council to protect the public health, safety and welfare; The applicant has indicated that they are open to discussing business hours, but suggested 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. (xv) the home occupation must be operated in compliance with all other applicable federal, state and local statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations; and General condition to be included with the CUP. (xvi) the city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission and Council can discuss whether any additional conditions are appropriate. 1345 Elsinore Circle Page 4 of 6 August 12, 2020 Home Occupation CUP Planning Commission General Conditional Use Permit Standards In addition to the requirements specific to home occupations, Section 825.39 of the City Code includes more general standards for reviewing any conditional use permit. 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. Staff does not believe the use will be injurious to nearby property nor impair property values. 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. There is no vacant property in the vicinity, and staff does not believe this use will impede the normal and orderly development. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Staff does not believe the amount of client contact proposed will impact infrastructure. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. The existing driveway provides sufficient parking for the maximum number of clients. 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 the use will cause these issues if contained entirely within the building. 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. Home occupations are allowed as a conditional use subject to the limitations noted. 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. Home occupations are allowed as a conditional use subject to the limitations noted. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies of the City. Staff does not believe the proposed use is in conflict with the policies of the City. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. Staff does not believe the CUP would cause traffic or congestion concerns. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Staff does not believe the use would cause these concerns. 1345 Elsinore Circle Page 5 of 6 August 12, 2020 Home Occupation CUP Planning Commission 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The applicant proposes to begin soon after approval. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. The owners are listed within County records. Staff Recommendation When reviewing a conditional use permit request, the Planning Commission and City Council should review the specific and general criteria described above. If the criteria are met, the CUP should be approved. As described in Section 825.41 of the City Code: “In permitting a new conditional use or the alteration of an existing conditional use, the City Council may impose, in addition to those standards and requirements expressly specified in this Ordinance, additional conditions which the City Council considers necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. These conditions may include, but are not limited, to the following: 1. Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions. 2. Limiting the height, size or location of buildings. 3. Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points. 4. Increasing the street width. 5. Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces. 6. Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs. 7. Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or nearby property. 8. Designating sites for open space.” As noted, the two primary questions appear to be: 1) Is a maximum of 3 clients per day, 10 clients per week consistent with the requirement for “limited client visits?” 2) Should additional screening be required along the south of the driveway? Staff does not believe fully screening the parking on a typical UR lot is ever going to be possible. This condition is likely more directed towards rural lots. Nonetheless, the City can require additional screening if the Planning Commission and Council determine that is appropriate to do so. Staff believes that this CUP request overall meets the criteria presented in this report. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Client visits to the site shall be limited to 10 per week, with no more than three per day. The Applicant shall keep records to verify compliance with this condition. 2. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. 3. Client parking shall be on the driveway and not occur on-street. 4. The home occupation shall be conducted entirely within the building. 5. The garage door shall remain closed during use related to the home occupation. 6. All clients shall enter the studio through the home. 7. The conditional use permit shall expire and thereafter be null and void if the use ceases for a calendar year. 1345 Elsinore Circle Page 6 of 6 August 12, 2020 Home Occupation CUP Planning Commission 8. Any signs shall be subject to the requirements of the sign ordinance. Any vehicle displaying the business name shall be parked within a structure or shall otherwise not be visible for neighboring properties. 9. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs associated with the review of the application for the conditional use permit Attachments 1. List of Documents 2. Applicant Narrative 8/7/2020 Project: LR-20-272 – Brugger 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 Document Date Pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 7/2/2020 7/2/2020 3 Yes Yes Deposit 7/2/2020 7/1/2020 1 Yes Yes $1000 Narrative and Layout 7/2/2020 5 Yes Yes Narrative and Site-updated 7/27/2020 4 Yes Yes Inside layout not updated Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Building comments 7/7/2020 1 Y Police comments 7/6/2020 1 Y Notice 7/31/2020 5 Y 9 pages w/ affidavit, map, labels Preliminary Comments 7/23/2020 2 Y Planning Commission Report 8/5/2020 6 Y Public Comments Document Date Electronic Notes Conditional Use Permit: Use portion of 1345 Elsinore Cir, Medina MN 55356 as location for small business Business Name: Kayla’s Fitness & Pilates Description of Business: Fitness and Pilates instruction services done either virtually, at client’s home, or at 1345 Elsinore Cir, Medina MN 55356. Conditions required by 825 Subd. 49. 1 Home Occupation (Conditional) (a)The only employee of the business will be the owner of the business, Kayla Brugger, who is also the owner of the dwelling, this is within this condition of use regulation which allows one other employee. (b)There will be no over the counter retail sales, thus falls within this condition of use regulation. (c)We do not have any plans for signage for the business, but if we do we will ensure to get approval and ensure it falls under 815.09 code. (d)We will not be storing any business items outside thus falling within this condition of use regulation. (e)The home occupation will be conducted in an interior dedicated space within the principal structure thus falling within this condition of use regulation. See attached for layout of the space within the property/dwelling. (f)We plan on having limited client visits to the home space as a large chunk of the business is expected to be virtual and client home based services. Though we do expect some visits by clients to the dwelling, we don’t expect to have more than three clients coming to the dwelling on any given day and certainly this would not be every day. We would estimate no more than 6- 10 per week at the dwelling. This would be very limited additional car traffic and disruption to our amazing neighborhood. We feel this falls within this condition of use regulation. (g)I have attached a map of our property indicating the vast off street parking options of the property. While we do not believe there to be any more than 2-3 clients coming at any given time, we could accommodate 8+cars on our property before using street parking. We plan to have designated parking spots on the main driveway by the southeast entrance door. This driveway is large enough to hold 8+ vehicles so we feel this falls within this conditional use regulation. (h)We plan on having very limited deliveries related to the home occupation. There may be occasional new purchases of fitness equipment, but that would be few and far between. We feel this falls within this conditional use regulation (i)The equipment used for the home occupation would be standard home gym or fitness equipment you would find in many home gym setups and equipment we have already had, just now being put into use for business purposes. See a list of expected equipment being used. We feel this falls within this conditional use regulation. (j)The entrance to the space being used is through our main garage entry on the southeast end of the property and is on the same level as the business use room but is not a direct entry from the outside to the space. We feel this falls within this conditional use regulation. (k)We are doing no interior or exterior changes to the dwelling which you would not normally find in a home as we are simply using an existing space to be a home gym and now using it for business use. We feel this falls within this conditional use regulation. (l)We do not plan to have any vehicles with signage of the home occupation parked anywhere other than in our own garage space. We feel this falls within this conditional use regulation. (m)The space being used as the home gym will not be producing any abnormal lighting, glares, sounds, noise, or vibrations beyond the customary everyday use of the space that is not for business use. We feel this falls within this conditional use regulation. (n)We are open to any discussions on limited times that the counsel feels is to protect the public health, safety and welfare. We do not plan on any times that would be disruptive to the neighborhood. We plan on hours at earliest 6am to latest 8pm, possibly 7 days a week but most business will be done during the work week. No late night hours. (o)We will not be violating any other federal, state and local statues, ordinances, codes and regulations. (p)We are happy to comply with any other conditions, restrictions, or limitations the counsel deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. Equipment planned on being used for the home occupation is below. As you can see, none of the equipment being used would cause any noise or vibrations perceivable beyond the dwelling. 1)Dumbbell free weights and kettle bells with rubber mats to eliminate any dropping sound issues 2)Exercise elastic bands. 3)Jump ropes 4)Medicine ball 5)Pilates reformer (already owned and used-no noise, uses spring and pulleys and body weight) 6)Pilates chair (already owned and used-no noise, uses spring and pulleys and body weight) 7)Pilates Barrel-no noise or vibrations 8)TX strap-body weight training system-no noise or vibrations 9)Stability Ball 10)Wind Bike-stationary type workout spin bike. No noise or vibrations 11)Yoga mats Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 4 August 12, 2020 Shed Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Planning Director DATE: August 7, 2020 MEETING: August 12, 2020 Planning Commission SUBJ: Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Shed setbacks Background The Planning Commission reviewed regulations pertaining to accessory structures and sheds back in May. Current regulations exempt sheds 120 square feet or smaller from the general setback requirements of each district, instead requiring a reduced setback of 5 feet from rear and side lot lines. The amendment recommended by the Planning Commission would have changed this exception to apply to sheds 200 square feet and less. The City Council discussed at their June 2 meeting. The Council raised general concerns about the impacts of accessory structures on views and discussed potential architectural requirements. The Planning Commission again discussed at the July meeting and requested that staff update the requirements for shed size and setbacks to be more of a “sliding scale” based on the size of the property. Number and Size of Accessory Structures Current City regulations allow varying sizes of accessory buildings on residential lots based upon the size of the lot based upon the following table: Lot Size Bldg. Size* No. Permitted 10,000 sq. ft. or less 1,000 sq. ft. one 10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. one 20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. one more than one and up to three acres 2,000 sq. ft. one more than three and up to five acres 4,000 sq. ft. two more than 5 acres 5,000 sq. ft. Two In addition, all lots are permitted an additional shed up to 120 square feet (12’x10’). Staff is not aware of complaints related to number or size of accessory structures on properties. It is important to note that detached garages, although not overly common in Medina, would be Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 4 August 12, 2020 Shed Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting considered accessory structures. If the Planning Commission and City Council were to discuss any reduction in allowed size, this fact should be remembered. Architectural Requirements The code includes general architectural language as follows: “All accessory buildings in residential and agricultural districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with other buildings on the property. Accessory buildings should be designed to reflect the rural design and character of the city. The visual impact of the accessory building upon neighboring properties shall be minimized by the building’s design and siting and by providing screening or additional landscaping, which shall be approved by the zoning administrator.” Staff believes architectural requirements are appropriate as part of review of larger accessory structures, but does not recommend more specific architectural language for smaller accessory structures. Setback for Smaller Accessory Structures Accessory structures are currently required to meet the same setbacks as the home on the lot, with the exception of sheds under 120 square feet, which are only required to be set back 5 feet from side and rear lot lines. The discussion related to accessory structures originally arose because a property owner in Foxberry Farms recently inquired about building a 14’x12’ (168 square feet) shed. To meet the full setbacks of the Suburban Residential district, the shed would need to be located 15 feet from side lot lines and 40 feet from the rear lot line. This would place the shed in the middle of the back yard on this owner’s lot, as would be the case in most residential lots served by sewer and water. Many smaller lots do not have sufficient room in the rear yard to construct any size accessory structure which would be able to meet structure setback requirements. This means that sewered lots are mostly limited to sheds under 120 square feet. The Building Code exempts sheds 200 square feet and less from needing a building permit. This exception was previously 120 square feet, and staff believes is probably part of the reason the shed exceptions were for 120 square feet and under. Staff believed it was appropriate to review the requirements for small accessory structures following the discussions with the property owner and the fact that sheds 200 square feet and under are exempt from building code. Staff reviewed the regulations of a number of nearby and similar communities for context. Most communities, except Minnetrista, allow Accessory Structure Setback (rear and side) Full Principal Setback Req. Medina (existing)5 ft 120 s.f. Victoria 5 ft 100 s.f. Maple Grove 5 ft None Brooklyn Park 5 ft None Plymouth 6 ft None Eagan 5 or 10 ft None Corcoran (sewered lots)10 ft None Corcoran (rural lots)20 ft None Orono (1 acre)10 ft 1000 s.f. Orono (rural)20 ft 1000 s.f. Minnetrista Same as Principal All Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 4 August 12, 2020 Shed Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting reductions of side and rear setbacks for accessory structures. Most communities require setbacks of 5-10 feet, regardless of size. Proposed Amendments Size of Accessory Structures Allowed Reduced Setbacks Staff has incorporated a “sliding scale” of reduced setbacks for smaller sheds based upon both lot size and the size of the shed. The following table describes the setbacks: Lot Size Accessory Structure Size Minimum Rear and Side Setback 10,000 sq. ft. or less 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet > 120 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks 10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet > 120 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks 20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet > 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 10 feet > 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks more than one and up to three acres 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet > 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 20 feet > 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks more than three and up to five acres 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet > 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 20 feet > 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks more than 5 acres 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet > 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 20 feet > 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks Add height limitation for sheds at reduced setback The Planning Commission had recommended that any accessory structure which is allowed a reduced setback should be limited to 12 feet in height. This language is included within the attached ordinance. Ordinance Amendment Page 4 of 4 August 12, 2020 Shed Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting Limitation of one accessory structure with reduced setback Current regulations would allow any accessory structures 120 square feet or less to be located within 5 feet of the rear and side property line. Staff has suggested language that limits this reduced setback to a single small structure. Increase Size for “additional shed” The ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission also increased the size of the “additional shed” which is allowed on any lot above and beyond those described in the table. This language is in Subd. 5 of the ordinance. The amendment would have increased this additional shed from 120 square feet to 200 square feet. The City Council had raised concerns with the total footage of accessory structures allowed on smaller lots. Staff again has suggested a “sliding scale” which would allow the “additional sheds” to be larger on larger lots: Lot Size Maximum Footprint Size 10,000 sq. ft. or less 120 sq. ft. 10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. 20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. more than one and up to three acres 200 sq. ft. more than three and up to five acres 400 sq. ft. more than 5 acres 400 sq. ft. Potential Action The Planning Commission should first hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. After the Commission completes review, it could consider the following action: Move to recommend approval of the ordinance amending regulations pertaining to accessory structures. Attachments 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Excerpt from 5/12/2020 Planning Commission 3. Excerpt from 6/2/2020 City Council Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 825.19 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: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Section 825.19. Accessory Buildings. Subd. 1. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any residential lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. Subd. 2. No accessory building shall exceed 30 feet in height, with the exception of buildings where agricultural use or farming is at the discretion of the City the primary use of the property. Building projections or features, such as chimneys, cupolas, and similar decorations that do not exceed 35 feet in height are permitted in residential districts. Accessory building height shall be measured as set forth in section 825.07, subdivision 12 of the city code. Subd. 3. (a) In residential districts, accessory buildings shall not be attached to, or erected, altered, or moved within 10 feet of the principal building. Accessory buildings in residential districts shall be governed by the following regulations: Lot Size Maximum Bldg. Size* No. Permitted 10,000 sq. ft. or less 1,000 sq. ft. one 10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. one 20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. one more than one and up to three acres 2,000 sq. ft. one more than three and up to five acres 4,000 sq. ft. two more than 5 acres 5,000 sq. ft. two * Building size shall be calculated by determining the aggregate footprint of the buildings. (b) In addition to the accessory building(s) permitted in Subd. 3(a), one additional accessory structure such as a shed or similar type of building shall is permitted as follows: Lot Size Maximum Footprint Size Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE 10,000 sq. ft. or less 120 sq. ft. 10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. 20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. more than one and up to three acres 200 sq. ft. more than three and up to five acres 400 sq. ft. more than 5 acres 400 sq. ft. Subd. 4. On residential properties more than five acres in area, the city council may grant a conditional use permit to allow accessory buildings which exceed an aggregate of 5,000 square feet in size or two in number. Conditional use permits shall be reviewed in accordance with the requirements of sections 825.39, et seq. of the city code and shall be subject to the additional accessory building standards set forth in section 826.98, subdivision 2 (o) of the city code. Subd. 5. (a) Accessory structures shall meet the setbacks required for principal structures in the district in which it is located, except one smaller accessory structure on a property may be located closer to the rear and side lot lines as follows: Lot Size Accessory Structure Size Minimum Rear and Side Setback 10,000 sq. ft. or less 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet > 120 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE 10,001 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet > 120 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks 20,001 sq. ft. to 43,560 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet > 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 10 feet > 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks more than one and up to three acres 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet > 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 20 feet > 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks more than three and up to five acres 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet > 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 20 feet > 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks more than 5 acres 120 sq. ft. or less 5 feet > 120 sq. ft. to 200 sq. ft. 20 feet > 200 sq. ft. Principal structure setbacks (b) Any accessory structure greater than 12 feet in height shall meet the setback required for principal structures in the district in which it is located. (c) Any animal structure and chicken coop shall abide by the specific setback requirement in the district in which it is located. Subd. 6 In commercial and industrial districts, all accessory buildings shall meet the same front, side, and rear yard setback requirements as the principal building. Subd. 7. The exterior materials and design features of accessory buildings in commercial or industrial districts must be compatible with the materials and features of the principal building. Subd. 8. All accessory buildings in residential and agricultural districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with other buildings on the property. Accessory buildings should be designed to reflect the rural design and character of the city. The visual impact of the accessory building upon neighboring properties shall be minimized by the building’s design and siting and by providing screening or additional landscaping, which shall be approved by the zoning administrator. Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE Subd. 9. The following residential improvements shall be excluded from the maximum allowed building sizes noted under Subd. 3 of this section: (a) unenclosed playhouses; (b) gazebos up to 120 sq. ft. in size and a maximum 12 feet in overall height; (c) outdoor swimming pools; (d) detached decks up to 120 sq. ft. in size; (e) patios; (f) tennis courts; and (g) loafing sheds used exclusively for horses and which are up to 300 square feet in size and meet setbacks for structures used to house, exercise or accommodate animals for the zoning district in which they are located. SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this th day of , 2020. ______________________________ Kathleen Martin, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the _____day of __________, 2020. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 5/12/2020 Meeting Minutes 1 Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to Setback and Other Requirements for Residential Accessory Structures Finke explained that this arose from discussions with a property owner within the Foxberry Farms development. He explained that the current regulations require accessory structures to meet the same setback as the primary structure. He stated that there is an exception for sheds of 120 square feet or less. He stated that for smaller lots, the only allowed placement would be in the middle of the backyard near the rear of the home. He stated that staff reviewed the regulations of other cities and it is common to have reduced setbacks for accessory structures. He stated that State building code has also changed and any accessory structure under 200 square feet does not require a building permit. He explained that staff believes that perhaps it would make sense to use that same standard in Medina. He stated that a draft ordinance was included in the Commission packet with the proposed amended language. He stated that currently the ordinance is set to require a CUP for an accessory structure over 5,000 square feet. He noted that there are additional standards for buildings of that size and the review could be done in that manner by staff or could continue to go through the CUP process. Reid asked the height recommendation. Finke stated that he suggested 12 feet, but the language could go to 15 feet. He explained that the height is measured at the middle of the roof rather than the peak. Reid opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. No comments made. Reid closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Amic stated that he is in favor of increasing the regulation to 200 square feet. He stated that he does not have a preference on the height as most sheds would be under 12 or 15 feet in height. He did not have an opinion on the CUP issue. Nester commented that she believes that there should at minimum be a height restriction as she did not like allowing bigger structures closer to the property lines. She stated that she would not be in favor of loosening the restrictions. She did not feel strongly on the CUP discussion. Nielsen stated that she is fine with increasing the limitation to 200 square feet. She believed that there should be a height limitation. Galzki agreed with the comments thus far. He stated that his only concern would be with the different sizes of properties. He stated that a 120 square foot shed would be sufficient on a quarter acre lot, but a larger shed on a larger property would make sense. He agreed that a height limitation should be placed on the structure. He stated that for the CUP issue, the Commission typically reviewed maid quarters or beautiful barns. He commented that it is nice to have the public hearing to allow adjacent landowners to provide comments. He noted that perhaps specific uses do not need to go through the CUP process, as that process adds cost and time to a project. Piper asked if these kinds of structure could be used to house animals or horses. Finke replied that the animal structure setbacks would explicitly still apply. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from DRAFT 5/12/2020 Meeting Minutes 2 Piper stated that she would assume that most of these structures have a floor but cannot be mounted on a footing. Finke replied that they could be in theory, but that would be rare. He stated that the structure could be a pole structure without a floor. Grajczyk stated that he agrees with the staff recommendations. He stated that he would agree that a height restriction should be included. He stated that related to the CUP, he would not have any opinions to add. Reid stated that she would favor a height limitation and asked the desired height limit. Finke stated that he would believe that 12 feet would be sufficient. Amic agreed that 12 foot would be plenty. Reid stated that she would prefer to keep the CUP in place for now as there have been some odd requests in the past and would not want to see something the City is not expecting. She stated that perhaps that could be discussed in the future in an attempt to reduce the time and/or cost for that process. Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Galzki, to recommend adoption of the ordinance amendment related to residential accessory structures with the height limitation of 12 feet. A roll call vote was performed: Amic aye Nester aye Nielsen aye Galzki aye Piper aye Grajcyk aye Reid aye Motion carries unanimously. Medina City Council Excerpt from 6/2/2020 Meeting Minutes 1 Ordinance Amending Regulations Pertaining to Accessory Structures; Amending Chapter 8 of the City Code (7:36 p.m.) Finke stated that the proposed amendment would increase the allowed size of sheds that are allowed as exemptions to the full structure setback. He stated that currently the size is 120 square feet in Medina and the amendment would increase that size to 200 square feet. He stated that the Planning Commission discussed adding a height limitation for the structures allowed exempt from the full setback and recommended a height limitation. He referenced the current requirement that requires a rural residential property to request a CUP for accessory structures over 5,000 square feet. He noted that process adds cost and length to the project, and typically little or no feedback is provided during the process. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended leaving that requirement in place. He stated that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance amendment as proposed. Pederson asked if the façade is required to match the home. Finke replied that the ordinance includes general language about complimenting the principle structure on the property for any accessory structure, noting that is fairly subjective language. He stated that structures over 5,000 square feet have more explicit architectural details. He stated that the ordinance amendment as proposed would not change the requirements in terms of architecture for any sheds or outbuildings. DesLauriers stated that he supports the four measures as identified by staff including the height limitation. Albers confirmed his consensus of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Martin stated that she is a little concerned with the size of the sheds, noting that on some of the smaller lots it could be obtrusive to have a structure of that size in that proximity to the property line. She stated that she also recognizes that many of the neighborhoods have HOA’s which have their own covenants that would protect against those measures. She stated that her concern would be that the City is permitting these types of structures close to neighboring property lines. She recognized that there were no public comments at the public hearing held by the Planning Commission. She noted that she would be willing to support the recommendation of the Commission if the other Council members support the action as well. Albers stated that Martin makes a persuasive argument to not approving the amendment. He asked if the language related to the structure being compatible to the principle structure should be strengthened. Martin provided some grammatical suggestions that could be added to strengthen the language but noted that those elements could make it cost prohibitive to have these structures. She stated that she is in the rural area of Medina and would still not want to see a prefabricated shed on her neighbor’s property. DesLauriers stated that he would rather have the items stored in a shed rather than outdoors. He noted that some garage sizes are smaller, and residents need additional storage space. Martin stated that a shed of this size could store a snowmobile or boat and believes that residents should pay for offsite storage of those items if needed. She read aloud language from the staff report related to small residential lots and asked if she interpreted the language correct Medina City Council Excerpt from 6/2/2020 Meeting Minutes 2 to allow an outbuilding of up to 1,000 square feet in addition to the small shed being discussed tonight. Finke confirmed that language to be true but noted that it would be unlikely that the smallest lots in Medina could accommodate an accessory structure of any size because of the required setbacks, which was the reason the exempt allowance came about. He explained that the exemption allows the smaller lots to have a small shed. He stated that the Council could still make the change from 120 square feet to 200 square feet for exempt sheds, without changing the size of the shed allowed as additional to the accessory structure language. Martin stated that she would support this item going back to the Planning Commission for additional discussion. Pederson stated that the points brought forward by Martin are valid, noting that he would not want to see the sheds destroying the views of others. Albers and DesLauriers agreed that this should go back to the Planning Commission. Moved by Anderson, seconded by Martin, to direct the Planning Commission to again review the proposed ordinance amending regulations pertaining to accessory structures as discussed by the Council. Further discussion: Martin suggested that the City Attorney provide a memorandum to the Planning Commission related to the expiration of HOA covenants after 30 years. A roll call vote was performed: Pederson aye Anderson aye DesLauriers aye Albers aye Martin aye Motion passed unanimously. 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday July 14, 2020 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Theresa Couri, Peter Galzki, Ron Grajczyk, Beth Nielsen, 8 Kerby Nester, Cindy Piper, and Robin Reid. 9 10 Absent: None. 11 12 Also Present: City Planning Director Dusty Finke and City Planner Deb Dion. 13 14 Reid stated that this is the last meeting for Nester and the Commission will miss her 15 contributions. She introduced new member Couri. 16 17 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 18 19 No comments made. 20 21 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 22 23 Albers thanked Nester for her dedication and contributions to the Planning Commission over 24 the past several years. He also welcomed Couri to the Commission. He reported that the 25 Council met the previous week to consider an ordinance amendment related to building 26 materials in the commercial, business, and industrial districts. He advised that the Council 27 approved the ordinance amendment with a unanimous vote. 28 29 4. Planning Department Report 30 31 Finke provided an update. 32 33 5. Public Hearing - Lennar (US Home Corporation) – North of Hwy 55, South 34 of Meander Road, ¼ mile West of CR 116 (11-118-23-12-0004) - Preliminary 35 Plat and Rezoning for Development of 125 Townhomes on Approximately 20 36 Net Acres 37 38 Finke presented a request from Lennar for a 125-unit townhome development on the subject 39 property. He stated that the development proposes 27 buildings on 20 net acres with a 40 density of 6.25 units per acre. He stated that the land use requests include a rezoning and 41 preliminary plat. He identified the subject site and adjacent uses. He stated that the proposed 42 density falls within the range identified within the Comprehensive Plan and is allotted for 43 development within the current staging period. He provided details on the proposed access 44 for the development. He stated that this parcel was planned for townhome development, 45 noting that the medium density land use within the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the 46 City received and reviewed a concept plan a few months prior that included a PUD and 47 following the direction of the Commission and Council, the applicant has returned with a plan 48 that meets the guidelines of the zoning district rather than requesting flexibility under a PUD. 49 He suggested that the Commission review the rezoning request, as the plat would be 50 contingent upon the rezoning of the property. He provided details on the requested rezoning 51 2 from RRUR to R3 and stated that staff recommends approval as the zoning district was 52 anticipated to be used for medium density residential. He provided details on the preliminary 53 plat and site plan for the 125-unit row townhome development noting that the proposed plan 54 meets the required dimensional standards of the R3 zoning district. He reviewed details 55 related to density, architectural design, proposed private roads within the development, 56 transportation, and the related Tamarack Drive Study. He stated that staff recommends 57 approval of both requests subject to the conditions noted within the staff report. 58 59 Nielsen asked for details related to the roundabout on Tamarack Drive. 60 61 Finke provided additional details on the Tamarack Drive Study and noted that at this time, the 62 roundabout is the preferred intersection control. 63 64 Nielsen asked if shifting the roundabout east would impact the number of townhomes able to 65 be built on the site. 66 67 Paul Tibon, Lennar, stated that they previously presented a concept to staff with 157 68 townhomes, which was reduced to 138 when previously presented to the Commission. He 69 stated that following the input received related to buffering and noise, additional revisions 70 were made to the concept. He stated that they worked with engineering and believe that the 71 comments expressed by the Commission and Council during the concept review have been 72 addressed. He stated that there was discussion related to making the trail public along the 73 right-of-way, but a change was made to make that more interior and maintained by the HOA. 74 He stated that the biggest unanswered question they have is what Tamarack Drive will 75 ultimately look like and what the City’s goals will be to have that constructed. He noted that 76 they will continue to work with staff throughout that process. 77 78 Nielsen referenced the center of the development and commented that it seems one unit really 79 sticks out and looks into another unit. 80 81 Tibon stated that the overall footprint is shown inside the plat line. He noted that the view 82 looks into the open space rather than into the next building. 83 84 Nielsen stated that she has some reservations related to Tamarack and asked if the developer 85 has any concerns, specifically whether it would impact the development if the roundabout 86 were shifted to the east. 87 88 Tibon replied that the grades in that area could cause problems. He stated that they are 89 already dedicating half of the right-of-way for that area. He explained that they are 90 incorporating screening, a trail, and some space for water runoff in that area and therefore 91 shifting the road would impact those elements. He stated that they have been in contact with 92 staff and will continue to work with staff as the study continues to go forward. 93 94 Reid asked why Nielsen has concern with the roundabout placement. 95 96 Nielsen commented that as proposed she interprets it as the City providing more space for 97 Lennar to build townhomes and taking more land from the property owners to the west. 98 99 Piper asked if there is access off Highway 55 currently to go north on Tamarack. 100 101 Finke replied that Tamarack does not existing in that location currently. He stated the section 102 shown in green would occur over time. 103 104 3 Piper asked if all access for this development would be provided from 116 and Meander 105 Road. 106 107 Finke confirmed that to be true. 108 109 Piper stated that is a lot of construction traffic to occur on those roads that already are busy. 110 111 Tibon commented that they could also take Arrowhead to Meander. 112 113 Piper asked if the sewer connection would come down Meander from 116. 114 115 Finke stated that sewer connection exists on the northeast corner of the site and water to the 116 northwest corner. 117 118 Piper asked if Meander is adequate as it exists or whether improvements would be needed to 119 add this volume. 120 121 Finke replied that part of the Tamarack Drive Study was attempting to thread the needle 122 between when it would be likely that the City would be able to receive approval for that 123 connection without impacting surrounding roadways. 124 125 Piper asked the anticipation as to when Tamarack might move forward. 126 127 Finke stated that the construction of Tamarack will be largely based on when development in 128 that area occurs, specifically when the 3,100 trips would be triggered, and the connection 129 would be warranted by MnDOT. 130 131 Grajczyk stated that since the last review, the applicant reduced the number of units proposed 132 and made changes to the layout based on the comments from the residents, Commission, and 133 Council. He asked for clarification on the trail alignment. 134 135 Tibon stated that the trail was right-of-way adjacent in the concept review and in this 136 configuration, they pulled the trail back from the right-of-way to accommodate for a berm, 137 swale, and landscaping. 138 139 Reid opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. 140 141 Eric Miller, representing the Cavanaughs, stated that they understand there is a lot of 142 coordination in the Tamarack Drive Study and they are seeking additional time to refine and 143 better define the road improvements. He stated that they are looking for a solution that would 144 provide a more equal allocation to all property owners related to the road alignment. He 145 stated that they would like to see the cul-de-sac shift slightly to the east and north, to create 146 greater separation from Highway 55. He stated that they have land boundaries in play and 147 would like better alignment with those boundaries. He stated that they would like to work 148 with the applicant to consolidate the two access points onto Tamarack into one access point. 149 He stated that the Cavanaughs would like to understand the scope of the improvements and 150 how the costs will be addressed. He stated that they would like additional time to work 151 through these issues and come to consensus that could be supported by all the parties 152 involved. 153 154 Reid commented that it seems those concerns are more reflective of the Tamarack Drive 155 Study and hopefully will be addressed through that process. 156 157 4 Dion read aloud a letter submitted via email from Chris Larson at 1125 Jubert Trail; the letter 158 will become part of the record for the meeting. 159 160 Finke provided details on the traffic study that was completed as a part of the Tamarack 161 Drive Study, noting that because the City completed that study, an additional study was not 162 required of the applicant. 163 164 Chris Larson, 1125 Jubert Trail, asked whether the Tamarack Drive segment would be 165 constructed before or after the construction of the townhomes. 166 167 Finke stated that Tamarack would not be construction before or in conjunction with the 168 townhome project because the warrants for the intersection would not yet be met. He stated 169 that adding the townhomes will increase traffic on Meander until Tamarack can be 170 constructed, but the system should still function with that additional traffic until Tamarack 171 can be constructed. 172 173 Mr. Larson commented that he does not believe the traffic currently functions well and is 174 concerned with the additional impact that this would have on traffic. 175 176 Joe Cavanaugh, 275 Lakeview, stated that any changes to Tamarack would impact the 177 southwestern portion of this plat. He stated that he believes it can be done with minimal 178 impacts to the plat. He stated that they are concerned with the alignment of Tamarack and 179 therefore are asking the Commission to table this decision until additional discussion can 180 occur. 181 182 Carol __, member of the Jubert family, stated that if the City moves forward with Tamarack 183 Drive as proposed, the alignment should be moved to be more equal for all property owners. 184 185 Grajczyk or Mr. Cavanaugh asked and received confirmation that there is currently not an 186 intersection control at 116 and Meander. He asked if the concern of the resident was that 187 intersection control or whether the resident was simply concerned with an increased number 188 of vehicles on the road. 189 190 Mr. Larson stated that he is concerned that there is not intersection control at Meander and 191 116, which he believes is a safety concern for both vehicles and pedestrians. 192 193 Reid asked if Public Works could follow up on the concerns with visibility. 194 195 Finke confirmed that could be done. 196 197 Grajczyk or Mr. Cavanaugh asked how long Lennar would project that it would take to build 198 this area out, whether that would be done in phases. 199 200 Tibon replied that they would most likely look at two phases. He stated that they would still 201 need to come back for final approvals, after securing preliminary approvals. He estimated 202 that it would take about three phases to build the entire development out. He stated that if 203 they were able to start grading this fall, they would look to perhaps start with a model, but the 204 majority of the homes would not come in until next year. 205 206 Reid closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. 207 208 Galzki stated that aside of the Tamarack Drive discussion he felt that both the rezoning and 209 preliminary plat were fairly straightforward. He stated that it sounds like there are still 210 5 undecided items related to Tamarack Drive, which would be his only concern with this 211 moving forward. He stated that he would not want this to lock in if Tamarack Drive is not 212 locked in. He stated that he appreciates the effort from Lennar to incorporate the changes 213 brought forward in the concept review. He asked for input from staff as to whether changes 214 to the Tamarack Drive alignment would be substantial enough to impact this plat. 215 216 Finke commented that the difference would be feet, not hundreds of feet. He stated that in 217 terms of equalizing the right-of-way, that could be relatively straight forward as most of the 218 right-of-way is at the Highway 55 intersection. He stated that there could be more impacts if 219 the roundabout were moved. He stated that the intent would be to have the Tamarack Drive 220 Study finalized prior to acting on the preliminary plat. 221 222 Galzki stated that he then does not see any issues with the rezoning of approval of the 223 preliminary plat. 224 225 Nielsen stated that she appreciates the changes that Lennar has made since the last 226 discussions. She stated that there are concerns with traffic on Meander and is not thrilled 227 with the Tamarack Drive alignment, noting that she would prefer a more equal alignment. 228 She stated that more time should be allowed for the property owners to work together and 229 develop a more equitable solution. 230 231 Nester echoed the concern related to traffic from Meander turning northbound on 116. She 232 stated that she would support any way the Tamarack project could be coordinated with this 233 effort. She stated that she would support a more equitable split of the right-of-way but also 234 recognized that the alignment may have been chosen to avoid wetland impacts. 235 236 Piper asked if staff stated that the Tamarack issues would be worked out before preliminary 237 approval is given to Lennar. 238 239 Finke confirmed that the intent is to finalize the discussions on the Tamarack alignment so 240 that could be incorporated into the preliminary plat. He stated that if that is the outstanding 241 issue, the Commission could move this ahead to the City Council and the project can 242 continue to move forward to meet the statutory review timelines. 243 244 Reid commented that the recommendation of the Commission tonight would be related to the 245 plat and not the Tamarack Drive Study. 246 247 Finke stated that the alignment could impact the plat if the road alignment were moved 248 significantly to the east. He noted that there is a condition that states the applicant shall 249 provide the right-of-way for Tamarack Drive. He anticipated that the issues related to the 250 Tamarack Drive alignment would be worked out prior to the City Council review. 251 252 Piper asked if the Commission could include language in its motion that the Commission 253 wants to be apprised of that intent and timing. She stated that she is concerned that coming to 254 a solution on the road alignment could take longer than Lennar would like. 255 256 Finke commented that the conditions will handle that, given that the Tamarack Drive Study is 257 in place at the time the preliminary plat is reviewed by the Council. He stated that if the 258 Tamarack Drive Study is delayed, the language could be adjusted, depending on the feedback 259 of the City Council. He stated that Lennar could provide input on their timeline and whether 260 they would be open to an extension. 261 262 6 Tibon stated that conditions five through seven address Tamarack Drive. He stated that they 263 certainly want to know the final alignment for Tamarack Drive prior to the approval of their 264 preliminary plat. He stated that they would also want to be clear on the obligations of the 265 improvements. He stated that they are comfortable moving forward with the intention that 266 they will continue to work with staff and will receive a final copy of the Tamarack Drive 267 Study prior to the City Council review. He stated that they would still have to come back for 268 final plat approval and any necessary changes would need to be incorporated prior to that 269 time. He stated that they are aware that there will continue to be opportunities to work with 270 staff and the City Council. 271 272 Reid asked when this case would move forward to the City Council. 273 274 Finke replied that the plat is tentatively planned to move to the City Council at its first 275 meeting in August. He stated that the Tamarack Drive Study is being presented to the 276 Council at its meeting next Tuesday. He stated that the issue therefore may be settled before 277 the Council reviews the plat. He stated that there is some ability to push back the plat review 278 at the Council level and explained that because the Commission only meets once per month 279 there is a lack of flexibility in the Commission reviewing this again. 280 281 Grajczyk stated that he does not have an issue with the proposed rezoning or preliminary plat 282 as proposed. He stated that he would be comfortable moving forward because of the 283 conditions listed related to Tamarack Drive and the other checks and balances in place at the 284 staff and Council level. 285 286 Couri stated that she does not have an issue with the rezoning or preliminary plat. She noted 287 that the approval of the Council could be withheld if the Tamarack Drive Study does not 288 resolve the concerns. 289 290 Reid stated that she appreciates that Lennar incorporated the comments from the concept 291 review related to screening. She stated that the rezoning makes sense and she would be 292 comfortable moving the preliminary plat forward because of the actions that will take place at 293 the Council level. She stated that it is in the best interest of Lennar to ensure the Tamarack 294 Drive Study is finalized prior to Council review of their plan. 295 296 Motion by Galzki, seconded by Grajcyk, to recommend approval of the rezoning and 297 preliminary plat subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. 298 299 A roll call vote was performed: 300 301 Nester aye 302 Nielsen aye 303 Galzki aye 304 Piper aye 305 Grajcyk aye 306 Couri aye 307 Reid aye 308 309 Motion carries unanimously. 310 311 Finke noted that this is tentatively scheduled to move forward for City Council review at the 312 August 4, 2020 meeting, dependent upon the results of the Tamarack Drive Study. 313 314 7 6. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code Related to 315 Setback and Other Requirements for Residential Accessory Structures 316 317 Finke stated that the Commission previously discussed and recommended approval related to 318 this at its May meeting. He provided a brief summary of the previous discussion of the 319 Commission and following by the City Council. He stated that there are a number of 320 neighborhoods in Medina that have limitations on any property having accessory structures, 321 through the use of HOA covenants. He stated that Martin pointed out that covenants of that 322 nature expire after 30 years, if there is not activity to keep it active, therefore the City could 323 not rely on neighborhoods prohibiting those structures. 324 325 Reid stated that she is not the best with visualizing the size of things and therefore was not 326 too concerned during the previous discussion. She stated that since that time she reviewed 327 the size of her shed, which is 80 square feet (8 feet by 10 feet) and she considers that large. 328 She stated that she is no longer comfortable increasing the size to 200 square feet for those 329 structures allowed to be five feet from the property line. 330 331 Grajczyk asked if the main concern of the Council was the square footage of the structures. 332 333 Finke stated that the discussion was wider ranging and not focused, specifically on size. He 334 stated that increasing the size of a shed permitted to be five feet from the property lines was 335 inline with the broader concerns that were raised by the Council. 336 337 Grajczyk stated that 200 square feet could be called a detached garage and could turn into 338 something other than a shed or accessory building for storage. He stated that he likes the idea 339 of looking at things in a broader range to take into account square footage, height, and 340 setbacks. He commented that he liked the idea of using a sliding scale related to those 341 elements. 342 343 Galzki stated he has a smaller property at a quarter acre size. He commented that a 200 344 square foot shed on that size property would be quite large and therefore the idea of a sliding 345 scale seems to make sense. He stated that perhaps the size of the allowed accessory building 346 would be related to the size of the lot, providing examples of different sized lots that could 347 support different sized accessory buildings. He stated that he would want to ensure that 348 everything is kept to scale to the lot size. 349 350 Reid opened the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. 351 352 No comments made. 353 354 Reid closed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. 355 356 Nester stated that she was okay in the previous discussion increasing the size of the allowable 357 accessory structure to 200 feet as long as the structure did not seem looming on the property 358 line. She stated that now that she knows that the HOA covenants expire after 30 years, she 359 does have more concern, as the HOA covenants restrict the activity on the smaller lots. She 360 stated that with that knowledge she would not support the increase to 200 square feet. 361 362 Nielsen stated that the HOA covenants expire but asked if those associations could renew 363 their covenants prior to the 30-year expiration. 364 365 Finke stated that provisions can be enacted to rebuild those covenants. 366 367 8 Grajczyk stated that he is an HOA President and they are currently working to update their 368 covenants as they are reaching the 30-year date. He stated that it is a more complicated 369 process and they did have to hire a lawyer to assist. 370 371 Nielsen stated that she would think that most of the HOAs in Medina would work to reup 372 their covenants. She stated that people with smaller lots will most likely not want to build a 373 large accessory structure because it would not look good on their property and therefore 374 would support 200 square feet. 375 376 Galzki stated that his neighborhood does not have an HOA and therefore there is not a 377 covenant governing those actions. He stated that if allowed by Code, people in his 378 neighborhood could build accessory structures of that size if desired. 379 380 Reid stated that while she agrees that most people would not choose to do that, someone 381 could. 382 383 Couri stated that she favors the earlier recommendation related to the sliding scale. She 384 stated that the rules are in place not just to protect property owner rights but also the rights of 385 the neighbors. She stated that the sliding scale would seem to protect property owners with 386 both small and large lots. 387 388 Piper asked if the discussion began because a resident wanted to build a bigger accessory 389 structure than allowed. 390 391 Finke stated that the discussion is not necessarily related to the specific request but that the 392 point was brought forward that many suburban lots could not meet the required setbacks to 393 support an accessory structure larger than 120 square feet. 394 395 Reid stated that perhaps those smaller lots should not be building anything larger than 120 396 square feet. She stated that she also likes the sliding scale idea. 397 398 Piper stated that if someone has a reason to store a shed, you will try to build it large enough 399 to accommodate the materials that you would like to store. She stated that she also supports 400 the idea of a sliding scale. She asked if staff would prepare that concept for the Commission 401 to review at the next meeting. 402 403 Finke confirmed that if the Commission wants to look at a sliding scale rather than a 404 straightforward requirement, that would not have to be developed tonight and could come 405 back for review at a future meeting. He asked if the lot size should be the controlling factor, 406 or whether the link would be between the size of the accessory structure and the setbacks. 407 408 Grajczyk commented that there could be four links between square footage of the accessory 409 building, height, setback, and lot size. 410 411 Nielsen stated that most of the Commissioners supported the previous increase to 200 square 412 feet and asked whether the sliding scale would only go to 200 square feet, or whether larger 413 lots could have a structure of a larger size. She stated that if the top limit is still 200 square 414 feet, the height limit of 12 feet could remain for all lot sizes. 415 416 Galzki stated that seems to make sense. He noted that there are large sized properties that 417 build barns as accessory structures. He stated that it would make sense to leave the limit at 418 200 square feet with a maximum height of 12 feet for the structures that do not require a 419 building permit. 420 9 421 Grajczyk asked the size of an accessory structure that would trigger a building permit. 422 423 Finke replied that a structure under 200 square feet would not require a building permit but 424 would still need to meet the zoning requirements. 425 426 Nielsen asked how staff would review structures that they do not know exist, as a building 427 permit is not required. 428 429 Finke confirmed that is why the limit was set at 200 square feet. 430 431 The consensus of the Commission was to table the matter to the August meeting. 432 433 7. Approval of the June 9, 2020 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 434 435 Motion by Piper, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the June 9, 2020, Planning Commission 436 minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. 437 438 8. Council Meeting Schedule 439 440 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Galzki volunteered 441 to attend in representation of the Commission. 442 443 9. Adjourn 444 445 Motion by Nielsen, seconded by Piper, to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. Motion carried 446 unanimously. 447 August 12,2020 Planning Commission Welcome! •Speaker List –debra.Peterson@medinamn.gov •Please state which hearing you would like to address •2 –Comments on Items Not on the Agenda •5 –Tom and Jim Ditter Subdivision –2032-2052 Holy Name Drive •6 –Kayla Brugger CUP –1345 Elsinore Circle •7 –Shed/Accessory structure ordinance •Options: •Add name to speaker list •Provide comments to be read at hearing •Planning Commission •Chair Robin Reid •Theresa Couri •Peter Galzki •Ron Grajczyk •Beth Nielsen •Cindy Piper Jim and Tom Ditter 2032-2052 Holy Name Drive Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Pre Plat, Interim Use Permit Dusty Finke, AICP Planning Director Planning Commission –August 12,2020 Summary of Request •Subdivide 4 lots into 5 lots •25 acres •3-8.5 acres •Guided/zoned RR •2 lots sewered •Land use requests •Comp Plan Amendment •Rezoning •Preliminary Plat •Interim Use Permit EXISTING PARCEL LINES, GUIDING, AND ZONING Existing parcels connected to sanitary sewer, included in Metropolitan Urban Service Area, zoned and guided Rural. Residential Existing parcels guided and zoned Rural Residential, nit served by sanitary sewer, not included within MUSA PROPOSED PARCEL LINES, GUIDING AND ZONING Lsee back of page for existing) Property proposed to be guided Low Density Residential, Zoned Suburban Residential, and included within Metropolitan Urban Service Area Property proposed to be guided and zoned Rural Residential Comp Plan Amendment/Rezoning •Existing •Two lots included in MUSA •All lots guided and zoned Rural Residential •Proposed •Two lots included in MUSA (smaller lots) •Two lots guided Low Density Residential, zoned Suburban Residential •Remaining property guided and zoned Rural Residential •Lots were part of Holy Name Lake bail-out •Likely remained Rural Residential to prevent further subdivision Preliminary Plat •5 lots –2 Suburban Residential and 3 Rural Residential •Lots appear to meet the dimension standards of relevant district •Existing home does not meet setbacks (unchanged) •Two accessory buildings on proposed property lines; third does not meet setback " Tree Preservation  waiver requested for trees planted by family " Transportation  private road in location of existing driveway " Wetland/floodplain/shoreland " Utilities " Grading/stormwater " Park dedication Interim Use Permit •Two homes on proposed Lot 1 •Three accessory structures on or too close to property lines •2nd home subject to life estate •City has a high level of discretion •Staff believes the IUP through the time of the life estate is acceptable in this case Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation •Comp Plan Amendment •Rezoning •Preliminary Plat •Interim Use Permit •Staff recommends approval with conditions noted in staff report " Speaker List  debra.Peterson@medinamn.gov " Options: " Add name to speaker list " Provide comments to be read at hearing " Planning Commission " Chair Robin Reid " Theresa Couri " Peter Galzki " Ron Grajczyk " Beth Nielsen " Cindy Piper Kayla Brugger 1345 Elsinore Circle Conditional Use Permit for Home Occupation Dusty Finke, AICP Planning Director Planning Commission –August 12,2020 Summary of Request •Conditional Use Permit –Home Occupation •Fitness Instruction •Proposed in tuck-under garage •Zoned Urban Residential •Max 3 clients per day •6-10 clients per week Analysis/Review Criteria •General CUP standards •Specific standards for Home Occupation •Limited customer, client….visits to the site in connection with the home occupation •There must be adequate off-street parking….and the parking area must be screened from view from adjacent properties or rights-of-way. •Potential Action:Motion to recommend approval of the CUP subject to the conditions noted by staff " Speaker List  debra.Peterson@medinamn.gov " Options: " Add name to speaker list " Provide comments to be read at hearing " Planning Commission " Chair Robin Reid " Theresa Couri " Peter Galzki " Ron Grajczyk " Beth Nielsen " Cindy Piper Ordinance Amendment Residential Accessory Structures Dusty Finke, AICP Planning Director Planning Commission –August 12,2020 Background •Previously discussed in May and July •Planning Commission recommended approval •Reduced setbacks for sheds <=200 s.f. •Current ordinance <=120 s.f. •Council reviewed June 2 •General concern about impacts of accessory structures •Discussion of timeframe for covenants Number and Size •No changes proposed •Current ordinance allows “additional shed” of 120 s.f. " Architectural Requirements " General language " More specific language for larger structures >5000 s.f. " Staff does not recommend specific architectural requirements " Setbacks for smaller sheds " Current  120 s.f.= 5 feet " Larger structures required to meet full setback " Communities commonly require reduced setbacks " Sliding scale for one shed �� " Height over 12 meet full setbacks Size Info •120 s.f.= 10’x 12’ or 15’ x 8’ •200 s.f.= 10’x20’ or 12’ x 16’ Potential Action •Planning Commission should first hold hearing •Potential action: –Move to recommend adoption of the ordinance amending regulations pertaining to accessory structures. " Speaker List  debra.Peterson@medinamn.gov " Please state which hearing you would like to address " 3  Comments on Items Not on the Agenda " 5  Meadow View Townhomes " 6  Accessory Structure Regulations " Options: " Add name to speaker list " Provide comments to be read at hearing " Planning Commission " Chair Robin Reid " Theresa Couri " Peter Galzki " Ron Grajczyk " Kerby Nester " Beth Nielsen " Cindy Piper