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
" T r e e P r e s e r v a t i o n w a i v e r r e q u e s t e d f o r t r e e s p l a n t e d b y
f a m i l y
" T r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r i v a t e r o a d i n l o c a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y
" W e t l a n d / f l o o d p l a i n / s h o r e l a n d
" U t i l i t i e s
" G r a d i n g / s t o r m w a t e r
" P a r k d e d i c a t i o n
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
" S p e a k e r L i s t d e b r a . P e t e r s o n @ m e d i n a m n . g o v
" O p t i o n s :
" A d d n a m e t o s p e a k e r l i s t
" P r o v i d e c o m m e n t s t o b e r e a d a t h e a r i n g
" P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
" C h a i r R o b i n R e i d
" T h e r e s a C o u r i
" P e t e r G a l z k i
" R o n G r a j c z y k
" B e t h N i e l s e n
" C i n d y P i p e r
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
" S p e a k e r L i s t d e b r a . P e t e r s o n @ m e d i n a m n . g o v
" O p t i o n s :
" A d d n a m e t o s p e a k e r l i s t
" P r o v i d e c o m m e n t s t o b e r e a d a t h e a r i n g
" P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
" C h a i r R o b i n R e i d
" T h e r e s a C o u r i
" P e t e r G a l z k i
" R o n G r a j c z y k
" B e t h N i e l s e n
" C i n d y P i p e r
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.
" A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e q u i r e m e n t s
" G e n e r a l l a n g u a g e
" M o r e s p e c i f i c l a n g u a g e f o r l a r g e r s t r u c t u r e s >