The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About05-09-2017 POSTED IN CITY HALL MAY 5, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 9 , 2017 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Approval of Draft April 11, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 6. Public Hearing - Robin Johnson – Conditional Use Permit request for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and Accessory Structures in excess of 5,000 square feet at 1325 Tamarack Drive. 7. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Zoning Code related to regulations for Conservation Design. 8. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Zoning Code related to the R-4, Limited High-Density Residential Zoning District. 9. Council Meeting Schedule 10. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 May 2, 2017 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: April 27, 2017 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – May 2, 2017 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Elim Care Concept Plan – north of Highway 12, east of CR 29 – Elim Care has requested review of a concept plan for potential development of a 134-unit skilled nursing/assisted living/independent living facility in 2018. The applicant originally requested a Comp Plan amendment and rezoning to reguide the subject property to High Density Residential (HDR) and to rezone to the R4 zoning district. The City’s DRAFT 2040 Comp Plan identifies the property as HDR, to allow them to move ahead quicker than the Comp Plan Review. The applicant has since withdrawn the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning, but continues to request Concept Plan Review. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and provided comments at their April 11 meeting and the City Council is scheduled to review on May 2. B) 4035 Apache Drive Animal Structure Setback variance – Joe Molde has requested a variance to reduce the required animal structure setback of 150 feet for a small chicken coop. It appears that no location on the subject site could meet the 150 foot setback. The Planning Commission reviewed at their April 18 meeting and recommended approval. The City Council will hold a public hearing at the May 2 meeting. C) Johnson Accessory Dwelling Unit CUP – Robin Johnson has requested a CUP to allow an accessory dwelling unit in an accessory structure at 1325 Tamarack Drive. The application is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the May 9 Planning Commission meeting. D) Three Rivers Park/We Can Ride CUP – 4301 County Road 24 – Three Rivers Park District and We Can Ride have requested a conditional use permit amendment to allow We Can Ride, a nonprofit that provides programming to individuals with disabilities or special needs, to occupy the stable previously utilized by Three Rivers Park mounted patrol. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request at their March 20 meeting and recommended approval of the request. The Council adopted resolutions for approval on April 18. Staff will work with the applicant on meeting the conditions of approval. E) 1822 Homestead Solar Panel CUP and Text Amendment – Peter and Mindy Rechelbacher have requested a conditional use permit to construct a ground-mounted solar array with a footprint of 1500 s.f. The applicants have also requested that the City amend its zoning code to increase the allowed footprint of solar arrays from 1000 s.f. to 1500 s.f. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their April 11 meeting. Following review, the Commission recommended approval of the amendment to the zoning code. The City Council adopted the ordinance on April 18, which made the proposed array a permitted use, so a CUP will not be required. The project will now be closed. F) Woodridge Church, AutoMotorPlex, 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. G) Woods of Medina, Capital Knoll– These preliminary plats have been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat application Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 May 2, 2017 City Council Meeting H) Capital Knoll, Hamel Haven subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded Other Projects A) Comprehensive Plan – The draft Comprehensive Plan has been routed to affected jurisdictions for their review. Staff intends to send a follow-up after a few months in attempt to receive comments sooner in the 6-month period. B) Mediacom Analysis – staff has provided a proposal to Mediacom consistent with City Council direction from the March 21 work session and awaits their approval. C) Conservation Design-PUD Regulations – Staff intends to present the CD-PUD ordinance for review by the Planning Commission at the May 9 meeting, following direction of the City Council. D) Nursing Home/Memory Care/Assisted Living regulations; R-4 Zoning District Regulations – Staff intends to discuss regulations related to senior care facilities and regulations for the high density residential land use for Planning Commission review at the May 9 meeting. This discussion arises out of discussions with recent Concept Plan reviews and the pending update to the Comprehensive Plan. E) Predatory Offender Ordinance – Planning staff provided a geographical analysis of potential setbacks from different uses requested by the Police Department. F) Reserve of Medina Park Discussions – staff had discussions with Toll Brothers about potential amendments to their plat which provides opportunities for a small park area in the northwest corner of the site. Staff provided an update to the Park Commission on the matter. 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday April 11, 2017 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Chris Barry, Dino DesLauriers, Kim Murrin, 8 Robin Reid and Janet White. 9 10 Absent: Laurie Rengel. 11 12 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke. 13 14 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 15 16 No comments made. 17 18 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19 20 Anderson reported that the Council met the previous week to consider an application by LJP, 21 noting that it was a difficult decision because even though the Council supports the facility 22 that would be proposed for memory care, the Council did not feel the timing was right with 23 the draft Comprehensive Plan out for review. He stated that the Council feels that while the 24 draft Plan is out for review, the existing Comprehensive Plan should not be amended. He 25 stated that the Council encouraged LJP to come back with a similar or the same plans in one 26 year once the draft Comprehensive Plan has been through the review process. He stated that 27 the Council also considered the CUP amendment for Three Rivers Park for the We Can Ride 28 program. He stated that there were discussions regarding the horses, care for the horses and 29 facility, and size of the paddocks, with the Council ultimately supporting the request. 30 31 Murrin noted that the Commission discussed two memory care concept plans and asked the 32 direction the Council took on the other request. 33 34 Finke replied that both reviews were concept plans and therefore no formal action was taken, 35 noting that the second application has not moved further along in the process. 36 37 4. Planning Department Report 38 39 Finke provided an update. 40 41 5. Approval of the March 20, 2017 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 42 43 Motion by Murrin, seconded by Albers, to approve the March 20, 2017, Planning 44 Commission minutes with the noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 45 Rengel) 46 47 6. Public Hearing – Elim Care, Inc. – Concept Plan Review for Development of 48 an Approximately 134 Unit Assisted Living, Nursing Home, and 49 Independent Living Facility at the Northeast Corner of Highway 12 and 50 County Road 29 51 52 2 Finke presented the concept plan review for property located at the northeast corner of 53 Highway 12 and County Road 29, noting that formal action is not required and the 54 Commission is simply to provide input. He stated that the facility would contain a mixture of 55 assisted living nursing home and independent living units. He reviewed the size of the 56 property and the current guiding of the property in the existing land use and within the draft 57 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the zoning, while similar, would not be the right fit and 58 ultimately the subject property would need to be rezoned or the R-4 zoning district would 59 need to be amended. He stated that the City has nine months after the adoption of the 60 Comprehensive Plan in order to ensure the ordinances and zoning regulations are in 61 compliance with the newly adopted Plan. He reviewed the adjacent property uses. He stated 62 that the proposed building would be three stories in height, noting that the height would not 63 be consistent in each wing and some have less height. He stated that the applicant is 64 proposing to develop next year, noting that staff has discussed the timing with the adoption of 65 the draft Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the applicant and staff continue to have 66 conversations on what activities could take place before the draft Comprehensive Plan is 67 adopted and which items would not be allowed. He noted that staff has identified some 68 elements that would not be in compliance with the R-4 zoning district. He displayed the 69 concept plan, noting that the applicant proposed to cut the property in half. He noted that 70 access would be proposed to the north and west to County Road 29. He displayed conceptual 71 renderings provided by the applicant along with example photographs. He highlighted 72 comments that would need review to ensure consistency with the R-4 zoning district. He 73 noted that this area was identified for high density residential because of its location near 74 transit. He stated that staff believes that the use fits well in the land use, but this property 75 takes up the majority of the property identified for high density land use and there should be 76 discussion over whether the City would be okay with only this use on the property. He noted 77 that the footprint overall would not be the same as a typical high density housing because of 78 the decreased need for parking and the smaller size of the housing units and there should be 79 discussion whether a higher number of units would be allowed for this type of housing 80 product. 81 82 Reid asked how this housing products counts within the density requirements of the City. 83 84 Finke replied that the City needs to address the zoning regulations in conjunction with the 85 adoption of the draft Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the zoning district allows for the 86 use as a conditional use, but does not specify that a number of independent living units be 87 included to meet the minimum density requirements. 88 89 Reid stated that it appears only the independent living units would count towards density 90 requirements and asked how the Metropolitan Council defines living units. 91 92 Finke explained that the density requirement of the City is a requirement within the 93 Comprehensive Plan and further explained how the information interacts with the 94 Metropolitan Council requirements. 95 96 Andrew Centanni, the applicant, stated that everyone in the room is aware of the implications 97 the City of Medina is under with the Comprehensive Plan process. He stated that they do not 98 own the subject property and explained that they are in the process of working out details. 99 He stated that Elim is a faith based organization and they oversee properties in four different 100 states. He stated that the vision is to build a full continuum in Medina. He identified a 101 current property they acquired three years ago in Maple Plain where they are looking to 102 upgrade and noted that those residents would be moved to this facility. He stated that they 103 would like to provide all levels of care from independent living to memory care. He 104 acknowledged that many of those types of services do not count towards the unit count under 105 3 the Metropolitan Council, but noted that 60 of the total units would count towards the units. 106 He stated that many continuums provide services in separate buildings, requiring residents to 107 go into a new building when they escalate in the level of care needed, while the intent for this 108 facility would be to provide those products all in one building. He stated that phase one 109 would bring an additional 75 employees, with an additional 75 existing staff members 110 transferring from the Maple Plain site. He stated that they would like to break ground in 111 spring of 2018 and in order to do that they would need to start construction documents in 112 August of 2017. He stated that he did not see any conditions of concern from the engineering 113 comments, but would be apprehensive to making those changes without knowing first how to 114 best proceed. 115 116 Albers referenced lot two, with the proposed high density living, and asked if that would be a 117 series of apartment buildings or elderly residents. 118 119 Centanni replied that the site is very difficult because although the site is slightly over 14 120 acres, the wetland impacts take the buildable land to nine acres. He stated that they 121 schematically determined what could be done on the other portion of the site. He stated that 122 if the demand was there, they would bring in an independent living facility to that property. 123 124 Barry asked how many underground parking stalls would be included. 125 126 Centanni replied that they can fit 25 parking stalls under the building. He referenced the arm 127 on the east side noting that is the only section proposed for underground parking. He noted 128 that if additional stalls are needed, they could excavate under the other wings to create more 129 parking. 130 131 Barry asked for clarifications on the proposed parking. 132 133 Finke explained that there is flexibility in the code and noted that the parking requirement is 134 based on the mix of living units proposed by the applicant. 135 136 White asked what type of signage would be proposed with the application. 137 138 Centanni referenced an example photograph that was provided for a facility they own in 139 North Dakota. He stated that typically they have a monument sign at the curb, but they do 140 not have signage on the building as you would not typically put signage on a home and this is 141 intended to be home for the residents. 142 143 Chair White opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. 144 145 Larry Palm, Baker Park Road property owner, stated that they whole heartedly support the 146 use from a development perspective. He stated that mechanically he has concerns with a 147 setback and the access road that is maintained as a private drive. He asked how that road 148 would then be managed with this use as he would not want to be responsible for the damage 149 to the road that occurs from construction traffic. He stated that he would also like an 150 understanding on the loop that would be created and how the expense would be shared. He 151 stated that the sewer and water for his site will need to come from the retail site, across this 152 site to reach his property. 153 154 Chair White closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. 155 156 Finke referenced the timing, noting that the expectation is that the draft Comprehensive Plan 157 will be in place in early 2018 and the City will have nine months to bring the official controls 158 4 into compliance with the newly adopted Plan. He stated that he has spoken with the 159 applicants about starting some of the work this summer, as large expenditures would be 160 needed to initiate the project in order to begin construction next year. He stated that staff 161 believes it is appropriate to start making the necessary changes with the official controls early 162 to ensure that the applicants could then make the decision whether they would like to begin 163 their design plans. He stated that staff has recommended that the City not approve any land 164 use applications until the new controls are in place, but noted that the review process could 165 occur while the Comprehensive Plan is being reviewed and adopted. He noted that the City 166 will need to make a decision concerning whether nursing home units would be an appropriate 167 use in the high-density zoning district. 168 169 Barry noted that the north side seems a little tight and perhaps the development could be slid 170 down on the site slightly. He stated that he agrees with the staff comments as well, but was 171 concerned with the setback on the north side. 172 173 DesLauriers stated that he likes the plan and type of facility, but noted that his concern is how 174 this could be accounted for in the draft Comprehensive Plan. 175 176 Murrin stated that as long as the applicant works with staff on the details, such as parking, 177 that should be good. She noted that the application would most likely be delayed until the 178 new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. She stated that she would want to ensure that the 179 applicant is aware of the timing, but she supports the request. 180 181 DesLauriers stated that he would also like to have discussion on R-4 zoning districts and 182 whether the units would be appropriate during the official controls update. 183 184 Albers asked how a kitchen is defined by the Metropolitan Council. 185 186 Finke explained what details would be required for it to be considered a living unit. 187 188 White stated that while the Commission is supportive of the request, the Commission will 189 need to discuss whether they would like to allow this type of living unit to be within the R-4 190 zoning district. She noted that although the Commission would support this type of product, 191 she would just want to ensure that the Commission would be okay with this property being 192 developed in this manner. She noted that this property was chosen for high density housing 193 because of the proximity to the retail and transit. 194 195 Finke stated that this property and the property adjacent is the majority of the land identified 196 for high density housing. He noted that there are other opportunities for high density 197 housing, but this is a significant portion of the land identified for that land use. 198 199 Murrin stated that it is her understanding that the City must identify land that could be 200 developed in high density or affordable housing, but not need to ensure that development of 201 those options come to fruition. She asked then if the City has met those requirements with 202 this type of development as the opportunity was provided and the owner of the land has 203 chosen to do something else. 204 205 Albers noted that the City would ultimately not reach the number of high density housing 206 units. 207 208 Murrin stated that the City does not need to ultimately build those units, but simply provide 209 an opportunity for those units to be built. 210 211 5 Finke agreed, but noted that what is unknown is the impact it could have on future forecasts 212 from the Metropolitan Council. 213 214 Reid stated that she would prefer that this type of use be a conditional use, as each site would 215 need to be determined whether it is appropriate. 216 217 Finke stated that there would need to be a set list of criteria by which to review CUPs. 218 219 7. Public Hearing – Peter Rechelbacher – 1822 Homestead Trail – Ordinance Amendment 220 to City Zoning Code Related to Regulations for Solar Equipment and Conditional Use 221 Permit for Installation of Ground Mounted Solar Energy Array 222 223 Finke noted that there are two separate requests packaged together from the same applicant. 224 He noted that the first is to consider an amendment to the ordinance regarding solar 225 equipment and the second would be a request for a Conditional Use Permit to install solar 226 equipment. He noted that the existing zoning ordinance limits the use of ground mounted 227 solar panels to 1,000 square feet within the rural zoning districts. He stated that the applicant 228 is looking to construct a 2,800-kilowatt solar array on their property. He stated that the City 229 allows building mounted solar equipment within all zoning districts, while ground mounted 230 equipment is only permitted in the commercial and industrial zoning district at up to 20 231 percent of the property size or one acre. He noted that rural residential districts also allow 232 ground mounted arrays but in a much smaller array. He stated that the applicant is proposing 233 an array of 1,430 square feet. He noted that the solar equipment ordinance is a newer 234 ordinance that was developed within the past few years. He noted that the intent was for the 235 panels to be an accessory to the structure and not provide energy for sale. He stated that staff 236 recognizes that the average home size in Medina is larger than the average home in 237 Minnesota and therefore would use more energy. He stated that staff recommends approval 238 of the increased size for a solar array based on that information. He stated that the applicant 239 is stating that this array would supply 50 percent of the annual energy used by the home. He 240 noted that staff would suggest that these requests be reviewed on a case by case basis, but 241 noted that a maximum square footage should be identified. He reviewed some of the 242 parameters recommended by staff. He noted that staff would ultimately recommend a larger 243 maximum size allowed than what was being proposed by the applicant. 244 245 Albers asked how the array size is determined; whether that includes the cement pad or just 246 the solar equipment. 247 248 Finke stated that it would be determined using a two-dimensional overhead view of the array. 249 250 Murrin asked how 1,000 square feet would be compared to an acre. 251 252 Finke replied that it would be 1/40 of an acre. 253 254 Murrin asked if this change would apply to other residential districts or simply the rural 255 residential zoning district. She asked whether a CUP would be necessary. 256 257 Finke stated that this would only be proposed for the rural residential district. He stated that 258 if anyone would like to exceed 200 square feet that would require a CUP. He stated that his 259 recommendation would be that requests of this nature would not need to come before the 260 Commission and Council as a CUP and instead be allowed administratively if the restrictions 261 are met. 262 263 6 Murrin stated that if the language requirements are clear, this should not be something the 264 Commission and Council would need to review and therefore could be permitted 265 administratively. 266 267 Barry asked where the north property line lies. 268 269 Finke replied that the property line is identified in black, 100 feet to the north of the proposed 270 solar array. He provided clarification on the required setbacks for the different zoning 271 districts. 272 273 Chair White opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. 274 275 Mindy Rechelbacher, 1242 Hunter Drive, stated that she and her husband purchased this 276 property two years ago and are building their dream house in attempt to be as 277 environmentally friendly as possible. She noted that solar would be part of the litany 278 included in the home. She stated that they would like to have a ground mounted solar array 279 and currently the square footage allowed under the regulation is lower than their proposed 280 size. She noted that the proposed solar array would supply about 50 percent of the energy for 281 their home. 282 283 Nick Nelson, All Energy Solar, appreciated the time of the Commission in reviewing this in a 284 pragmatic matter. He stated that generally most residential homes that use solar energy, with 285 a size of one to three acres, would require a 15-20 kilowatt solar system which would be a 286 700 to 1,500 square foot solar system. He stated that this array would be very minimal on a 287 lot size of five acres and above and therefore it would be more pragmatic to allow a larger 288 system for a larger home. He stated that lots with five acres or more that have a large home 289 and other structures, such as a horse barn, use a lot of energy and therefore require a larger 290 solar array to have any impact on their energy use. He noted that some of the language used 291 in the proposed ordinance is very subjective. 292 293 Murrin asked if there is a reason the equipment is proposed for the ground rather than 294 mounted equipment. 295 296 Rechelbacher stated that they would prefer to not have the equipment attached to the roof for 297 maintenance purposes and they would like to avoid the risk of attaching things to the roof. 298 299 Chris Peterson, 4130 Feske Drive, stated that he lives on a small lot that would probably 300 never be allowed to have ground mounted solar. He stated that the Tesla stock is at the 301 highest price now because electric cars are becoming more popular. He stated that the 302 applicants are going to have a very big house. He noted that electric cars are going to drive 303 the nighttime use higher overall for homes and therefore the average peak times are going to 304 change. He stated that the City should attempt to lead the pack in environmental friendly 305 matters and should follow the path of the State. He stated that if people are willing to make 306 the financial commitment, even with the long payback time, that is a commitment that will 307 help to bring the cost of solar equipment down. 308 309 Mouli Vaidyanahau, solar company owner in Eagan, stated that they do have a system in 310 Greenfield. He stated that one reason people put solar on the ground is because the roof 311 orientation may not be appropriate to generate solar energy and because they do not want 312 holes on the roof. He noted that his company offers a product that goes onto a roof but does 313 not create holes. He stated that he is present to support solar energy and the ability for more 314 people to use solar energy. He stated that when a person generates solar energy on their 315 property there is zero transmission loss, noting that the solar garden in Monticello has a 30 to 316 7 40 percent transmission loss by the time it reaches Medina. He stated that net metering has 317 become a measurement of the past and explained the measurement that is commonly used 318 now, with 120 percent of the consumed energy for the property. 319 320 Reid asked for the implied limitation in size of a solar array. 321 322 Finke provided additional details. 323 324 Reid stated that there is a 100-foot setback for the 1,000-square setup and asked if a larger 325 setback should be required if the size of the array is being increased. 326 327 Barry noted that landscaping and screening would be required and if that cannot fit within the 328 setback, the array would then need to be moved back further. 329 330 Finke stated that the 100-foot setback is already double the usual setback required for an 331 accessory structure. 332 333 Chair White closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. 334 335 White confirmed the consensus of the Commission; that there should be a threshold identified 336 that would not require a CUP and the consensus agreement with the thresholds identified in 337 the staff report. 338 339 Barry stated that he would agree in increasing the maximum size allowed in order to support 340 the necessary size to provide benefit to an average home size in Medina. He stated that he 341 supports the ground mounted equipment as the lifespan of the roof is often not as long as the 342 lifespan of solar equipment and therefore when maintenance of the roof is needed you would 343 need to uninstall and reinstall the solar equipment. 344 345 Murrin noted that there have not been many applications that have come forward and 346 therefore she would prefer to start smaller in case additional tweaking of the ordinance is 347 needed. 348 349 Nelson stated that the cost of a CUP in Medina is expensive and therefore adds to the time 350 needed to obtain a return on the investment. He stated that these are rural parcels in Medina 351 that would be high energy users. He stated that increasing the administrative approval 352 threshold process to 1,500 square feet would be helpful for those homeowners. 353 354 DesLauriers stated that although he agreed with Murrin’s comments, after hearing that 355 argument he would support 1,500 square feet and confirmed the consensus of the 356 Commission. 357 358 Motion by Murrin, seconded by Reid, to recommend approval of the ordinance regarding 359 Solar Equipment Subdivision 2, B.11 changing 1,000 square feet to 1,500 square feet and 360 Subdivision 2, B.6 directing staff to add more structure to the landscaping language. Motion 361 carries unanimously. (Absent: Rengel) 362 363 Finke stated that the Commission should now review the CUP with the assumption that the 364 Council does not approve the ordinance amendment. 365 366 Chair White opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. 367 368 No comments made. 369 8 Chair White closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. 370 371 Motion by Reid, seconded by DesLauriers, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use 372 Permit based upon the findings and subject to the conditions described in the staff report. 373 Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Rengel) 374 375 Finke stated that he intends to present this to the City Council at their meeting the following 376 Tuesday. 377 378 8. Joseph Molde – 4035 Apache Drive – Variance from 150 Foot Animal Structure Setback 379 for a Proposed Chicken Coop 380 381 Finke presented a request for a variance to the 150-foot animal structure setback for a 382 proposed chicken coop. He stated that because of the shape and right-of-way included on the 383 property, there is no location on the site that would meet the required setback. He identified 384 the proposed chicken coop location. He reviewed the criteria that must be considered when 385 reviewing a variance criteria. He noted that this is a unique property because of the smaller 386 size, as the lot was created before the five-acre minimum for rural residential lots and because 387 of the wetland locations. He stated that staff does not oppose the variance and also had 388 discussion on whether this was an appropriate setback for a chicken coop. He provided 389 additional details on how the maximum number of chickens was calculated. 390 391 Murrin asked for clarification on how the maximum number of chickens would be calculated. 392 393 Finke provided additional details. 394 395 Reid stated that it certainly meets the variance criteria as the situation is unique to the 396 property. She noted that the property to the north is quite wooded and therefore there will not 397 be a visual impact. 398 399 Barry asked if there would be a pen or whether the chickens would be free range. 400 401 The applicant replied that the chickens would be free range, but there would be a pen around 402 the area. 403 404 Motion by Reid, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the variance based upon 405 the findings noted in the staff report and subject to the conditions recommended by staff. 406 Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Rengel) 407 408 9. Council Meeting Schedule 409 410 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday. 411 412 Murrin volunteered to attend the meeting in representation of the Planning Commission. 413 414 10. Adjourn 415 416 Motion by Murrin, seconded by Reid, to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 p.m. Motion carried 417 unanimously. 418 5RELQ-RKQVRQ 3DJHRI 0D\ &83IRU$FFHVVRU\6WUXFWXUHDQG'ZHOOLQJ8QLW &LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ 0(025$1'80 72 3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ )520 'XVW\)LQNH&LW\3ODQQHU '$7( 0D\ 0((7,1* 0D\3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ 68%- 5RELQ-RKQVRQ±&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLWIRU$FFHVVRU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLWDQG /DUJHU$FFHVVRU\6WUXFWXUH±7DPDUDFN'ULYH±Public Hearing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¶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³FRQYHUWHG´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¶VGHVLJQVKDOOLQFOXGHDUFKLWHFWXUDOLQWHUHVWWKURXJKWKH DSSURSULDWHXVHRIWKHIROORZLQJHOHPHQWVFXSRODVGRUPHUVZLQGRZVSRUFKHV RYHUKDQJVYDULHGEXLOGLQJIRXQGDWLRQRURWKHUGHVLJQWUHDWPHQWVZKLFKWKHFLW\FRXQFLO GHWHUPLQHVFUHDWHDTXDOLW\DUFKLWHFWXUDOGHVLJQWKDWHQKDQFHVWKHDSSHDUDQFHRIWKH DFFHVVRU\EXLOGLQJDQGFRPSOHPHQWVWKHSULQFLSDOGZHOOLQJDQGWKHUXUDOUHVLGHQWLDO FKDUDFWHURUUHVLGHQWLDOQHLJKERUKRRGLQZKLFKWKHEXLOGLQJLVWREHFRQVWUXFWHG LL$WOHDVWWZRFRORUVRUWH[WXUHVVKDOOEHXVHGLQWKHDFFHVVRU\EXLOGLQJ¶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ity Code Section 826.986WDIIKDVSURYLGHGSRWHQWLDOILQGLQJVIRU HDFKLQitalics L1RPRUHWKDQRQHDFFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJXQLWVKDOOEHORFDWHGRQDSURSHUW\1RDFFHVVRU\ GZHOOLQJXQLWVKDOOEHSHUPLWWHGXSRQDSURSHUW\RQZKLFKDORGJLQJURRPRUDVHFRQG UHVLGHQWLDOGZHOOLQJLVORFDWHG The proposed ADU would be the only one on the property. LL$FFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJXQLWVZLWKLQWKH656XEXUEDQ5HVLGHQWLDO858UEDQ5HVLGHQWLDO5 6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDORU57ZR)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDO]RQLQJGLVWULFWVVKDOOEH DWWDFKHGWRWKHSULQFLSDOVLQJOHIDPLO\VWUXFWXUH The property is zoned Rural Residential, so an ADU is permitted in an accessory structure. LLL7KHORWVKDOOFRQWDLQDQH[LVWLQJVLQJOHIDPLO\GZHOOLQJXQLW The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family dwelling. In the meantime, the proposed ADU is actually serving as the principal single-family home. Staff recommends a condition that the ADU becomes effective upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the home. LY7KHKDELWDEOHDUHDRIWKHDFFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJXQLWVKDOOQRWH[FHHGWKHOHVVHURIWKHIROORZLQJ VTXDUHIHHWIRUDRQHEHGURRPXQLW VTXDUHIHHWIRUDWZREHGURRPXQLWRU SHUFHQWRIWKHKDELWDEOHDUHDRIWKHSULQFLSDOVLQJOHIDPLO\GZHOOLQJ The habitable area of the ADU is 468 square feet (of a total 720 square feet), meeting this threshold. 5RELQ-RKQVRQ 3DJHRI 0D\ &83IRU$FFHVVRU\6WUXFWXUHDQG'ZHOOLQJ8QLW &LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ Y7KHDFFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJXQLWVKDOOFRQWDLQDPLQLPXPRIVTXDUHIHHWRIKDELWDEOHVSDFH The habitable area of the ADU is 468 square feet. YL7KHDFFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJXQLWVKDOOFRQWDLQQRPRUHWKDQWZREHGURRPV The ADU contains one bedroom. YLL$PLQLPXPRIRQHRIIVWUHHWSDUNLQJVSDFHVKDOOEHSURYLGHGSHUEHGURRPIRUWKHDFFHVVRU\ GZHOOLQJXQLW6XFKSDUNLQJVSDFHVVKDOOQRWLQWHUIHUHZLWKDFFHVVLQJWKHUHTXLUHGJDUDJH VSDFHVIRUWKHSULQFLSDOVLQJOHIDPLO\GZHOOLQJ The ADU is proposed within a building that includes a large area for parking vehicles. There is also adequate space outside of the structure to park vehicles. YLLL1RVHSDUDWHGULYHZD\RUFXUEFXWVKDOOEHSHUPLWWHGWRVHUYHWKHDFFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJXQLW No separated curb cut is proposed. L[1RDFFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJXQLWVKDOOEHVROGRUFRQYH\HGVHSDUDWHO\IURPWKHSULQFLSDOVLQJOH IDPLO\GZHOOLQJ This is an on-going requirement, which staff recommends as a condition if approved. [7KHSURSHUW\RZQHUVKDOORFFXS\HLWKHUWKHSULQFLSDOVLQJOHIDPLO\GZHOOLQJRUWKHDFFHVVRU\ GZHOOLQJXQLWDVWKHLUSULPDU\UHVLGHQFH This is an on-going requirement, which staff recommends as a condition if approved. [L,IWKHDFFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJXQLWLVORFDWHGZLWKLQDVWUXFWXUHGHWDFKHGIURPWKHSULQFLSDO VLQJOHIDPLO\GZHOOLQJWKHDUFKLWHFWXUDOGHVLJQDQGEXLOGLQJPDWHULDOVVKDOOEHRIWKHVDPH RUKLJKHUTXDOLW\DQGVKDOOFRPSOHPHQWWKHVLQJOHIDPLO\GZHOOLQJ$GGLWLRQDOO\WKH VWUXFWXUHVKDOOPHHWWKHVHWEDFNUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKHSULQFLSDOVWUXFWXUHDQGVKDOOFRXQW WRZDUGVWKHPD[LPXPQXPEHUDQGEXLOGLQJVL]HRIDFFHVVRU\VWUXFWXUHVSHUPLWWHGRQD SURSHUW\ The structure containing the ADU includes shake siding and an asphalt roof. The new home on the property is proposed to include wood or fiber-cement lap siding. The materials will be generally similar. The structure is 150 feet from the northern property line. The applicant has also requested a CUP to maintain over 5000 square feet of accessory buildings, which was discussed previously. [LL$GHTXDWHXWLOLW\VHUYLFHVVKDOOEHDYDLODEOHWRVHUYHWKHDFFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJXQLW7KLVVKDOO LQFOXGHDGHTXDWHFDSDFLW\ZLWKLQLQGLYLGXDOVHZDJHWUHDWPHQWV\VWHPVIRUERWKWKH SULQFLSDOVLQJOHIDPLO\GZHOOLQJDQGWKHDFFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJZKHUHDSSOLFDEOH The existing structure has access to utilities and is served with an existing septic system. The system was found to conform to current regulations when the dwelling was built in 2016. [LLL$Q\H[WHULRUVWDLUZD\ZKLFKDFFHVVHVDQDFFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJXQLWDERYHWKHILUVWIORRUVKDOO EHORFDWHGLQDZD\WRPLQLPL]HYLVLELOLW\IURPWKHVWUHHWDQGWRWKHH[WHQWSRVVLEOHIURP QHLJKERULQJSURSHUW\6XFKVWDLUZD\VKDOOLQFRUSRUDWHDGHFNDPLQLPXPRIVTXDUHIHHW LQDUHD No exterior stairway is proposed. 5RELQ-RKQVRQ 3DJHRI 0D\ &83IRU$FFHVVRU\6WUXFWXUHDQG'ZHOOLQJ8QLW &LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ [LY7KH&LW\&RXQFLOPD\UHTXLUHFRPSOLDQFHZLWKDQ\RWKHUFRQGLWLRQVUHVWULFWLRQVRU OLPLWDWLRQVLWGHHPVWREHUHDVRQDEO\QHFHVVDU\WRSURWHFWWKHVLQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDO FKDUDFWHURIWKHVXUURXQGLQJDUHD$FRS\RIWKHUHVROXWLRQDSSURYLQJDQDFFHVVRU\ GZHOOLQJXQLWDQGGHVFULELQJWKHFRQGLWLRQVUHVWULFWLRQVDQGOLPLWDWLRQVRQWKHXVHVKDOOEH UHFRUGHGDJDLQVWWKHSURSHUW\ The Planning Commission and City Council may wish to discuss any additional limitations which are deemed appropriate. *HQHUDO&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLW6WDQGDUGV ,QDGGLWLRQWRWKHVSHFLILFVWDQGDUGVIRUERWKWKHDFFHVVRU\VWUXFWXUHVDQGWKHDFFHVVRU\GZHOOLQJ XQLWQRWHGDERYHWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQDQG&LW\&RXQFLODUHWRFRQVLGHUWKHIROORZLQJ JHQHUDOFULWHULDZKHQUHYLHZLQJDOO&83VCity Code Section 825.39 7KDWWKHFRQGLWLRQDOXVHZLOOQRWEHLQMXULRXVWRWKHXVHDQGHQMR\PHQWRIRWKHUSURSHUW\LQWKH LPPHGLDWHYLFLQLW\IRUWKHSXUSRVHVDOUHDG\SHUPLWWHGQRUVXEVWDQWLDOO\GLPLQLVKDQGLPSDLU SURSHUW\YDOXHVZLWKLQWKHLPPHGLDWHYLFLQLW\ Staff does not believe the aggregate size of the accessory structure or the ADU will be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property nor will the CUP impair property values. 7KDWWKHHVWDEOLVKPHQWRIWKHFRQGLWLRQDOXVHZLOOQRWLPSHGHWKHQRUPDODQGRUGHUO\ GHYHORSPHQWRIVXUURXQGLQJYDFDQWSURSHUW\IRUXVHVSUHGRPLQDQWLQWKHDUHD Staff does not believe the accessory structures or the accessory dwelling unit will impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property. 7KDWDGHTXDWHXWLOLWLHVDFFHVVURDGVGUDLQDJHDQGRWKHUQHFHVVDU\IDFLOLWLHVKDYHEHHQRUDUH EHLQJSURYLGHG Staff believes adequate utilities, roads and other facilities are provided. As noted above, the applicant will be required to provide stormwater management as a condition of approval. The CUP and the reconstruction of the home on the property also triggers the City’s wetland protection ordinance, and staff recommends a condition requiring appropriate easements, plantings, and signage. Staff also recommends a condition that the applicant implement a manure management plan to protect water quality. 7KDWDGHTXDWHPHDVXUHVKDYHEHHQRUZLOOEHWDNHQWRSURYLGHVXIILFLHQWRIIVWUHHWSDUNLQJDQG ORDGLQJVSDFHWRVHUYHWKHSURSRVHGXVH Staff believes adequate parking exists. 7KDWDGHTXDWHPHDVXUHVKDYHEHHQRUZLOOEHWDNHQWRSUHYHQWRUFRQWURORIIHQVLYHRGRU IXPHVGXVWQRLVHDQGYLEUDWLRQVRWKDWQRQHRIWKHVHZLOOFRQVWLWXWHDQXLVDQFHDQGWR FRQWUROOLJKWHGVLJQVDQGRWKHUOLJKWVLQVXFKDPDQQHUWKDWQRGLVWXUEDQFHWRQHLJKERULQJ SURSHUWLHVZLOOUHVXOW Staff does not believe an accessory dwelling structure would bring up these concerns, as they are more relevant for commercial uses. 5RELQ-RKQVRQ 3DJHRI 0D\ &83IRU$FFHVVRU\6WUXFWXUHDQG'ZHOOLQJ8QLW &LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ 7KHXVHLQWKHRSLQLRQRIWKH&LW\&RXQFLOLVUHDVRQDEO\UHODWHGWRWKHRYHUDOOQHHGVRIWKH &LW\DQGWRWKHH[LVWLQJODQGXVH The proposed uses are listed as allowed conditional uses. 7KHXVHLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKH]RQLQJFRGHDQGWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKH]RQLQJ GLVWULFWLQZKLFKWKHDSSOLFDQWLQWHQGVWRORFDWHWKHSURSRVHGXVH Staff believes accessory structures and accessory dwelling units are consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the RR zoning district. 7KHXVHLVQRWLQFRQIOLFWZLWKWKHSROLFLHVRIWKH&LW\ Staff does not believe the proposed use is in conflict with the policies of the City. 7KHXVHZLOOQRWFDXVHWUDIILFKD]DUGRUFRQJHVWLRQ Staff does not believe the CUP would cause traffic or congestion concerns. ([LVWLQJEXVLQHVVHVQHDUE\ZLOOQRWEHDGYHUVHO\DIIHFWHGE\LQWUXVLRQRIQRLVHJODUHRU JHQHUDOXQVLJKWOLQHVV Staff does not believe the use would cause these concerns. 7KHGHYHORSHUVKDOOVXEPLWDWLPHVFKHGXOHIRUFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHSURMHFW The applicant intends to construct the new home later this year. 7KHGHYHORSHUVKDOOSURYLGHSURRIRIRZQHUVKLSRIWKHSURSHUW\WRWKH=RQLQJ2IILFHU The City Attorney has not requested additional documentation with regards to ownership at this time. 6WDII5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ :KHQUHYLHZLQJDFRQGLWLRQDOXVHSHUPLWUHTXHVWWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQDQG&LW\&RXQFLO VKRXOGUHYLHZWKHVSHFLILFDQGJHQHUDOFULWHULDGHVFULEHGDERYH,IWKHFULWHULDDUHPHWWKH&83 VKRXOGEHDSSURYHG $VGHVFULEHGLQ6HFWLRQRIWKH&LW\&RGH³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´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ƌŽũĞĐƚ͗>ZͲϭϳͲϭϵϵʹ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶhWdŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐĐŽŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞƚŚĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƌĞĐŽƌĚŽĨƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ͕ĞǀĞŶŝĨƐŽŵĞĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞŶŽƚĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ͕ŽƌĂƌĞŽŶůǇĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚŝŶƉĂƌƚ͕ƚŽWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĂŶĚŝƚǇŽƵŶĐŝůƌĞƉŽƌƚƐ͘ůůĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌƌĞǀŝĞǁƵƉŽŶƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂƚŝƚǇ,Ăůů͘ŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ^ƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚďǇƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͗ŽĐƵŵĞŶƚ ZĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĂƚĞŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚĞηŽĨƉĂŐĞƐůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐ WĂƉĞƌŽƉǇ͍EŽƚĞƐƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ϬϰͬϬϱͬϮϬϭϳ ϬϰͬϬϱͬϮϬϭϳ ϯƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶz &ĞĞ ϬϰͬϬϱͬϮϬϭϳ ϬϰͬϬϱͬϮϬϭϳ ϭ ĞƉŽƐŝƚ z ΨϭϬϬϬEĂƌƌĂƚŝǀĞ ϬϰͬϬϱͬϮϬϭϳ Eͬ ϭEĂƌƌĂƚŝǀĞz >ĂďĞůƐ ϬϰͬϬϱͬϮϬϭϳ ϬϯͬϮϵͬϮϬϭϳ ϱ>ĂďĞůƐz ^ƵƌǀĞǇ ϬϰͬϬϱͬϮϬϭϳ ϴͬϭϵͬϮϬϭϲ ϭ^ƵƌǀĞǇz ^ƵƌǀĞǇʹhƉĚĂƚĞĚ ϰͬϲͬϮϬϭϳ ϴͬϭϵͬϮϬϭϲ ϭ^ƵƌǀĞǇͲhƉĚĂƚĞĚϬϰͲϬϲͲϮϬϭϳE ,ŽƵƐĞ>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĂĚĚĞĚWŚŽƚŽƐ ϱͬϭͬϮϬϭϳ E ϱ zĞƐ E tĂƌƌĂŶƚǇ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ϱͬϯͬϮϬϭϳ Eͬ ϭ ^ĞƉƚŝĐ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ϰͬϱͬϮϬϭϳ ϴͬϭϯͬϮϬϭϲ ϭ &ůŽŽƌWůĂŶ ϰͬϱͬϮϬϭϳ E ϭ&ůŽŽƌƉůĂŶŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐĨƌŽŵ^ƚĂĨĨͬŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚƐͬŐĞŶĐŝĞƐŽĐƵŵĞŶƚ ŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚĞηŽĨƉĂŐĞƐůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐ EŽƚĞƐ>ĞŐĂůŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ ϰͬϭϴͬϮϬϭϳ ϭ>ĞŐĂůŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ ϰͬϭϮͬϮϬϭϳ ϭŶŐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ>ĞŐĂůEŽƚŝĐĞ ϰͬϮϴͬϮϬϭϳ ϱ E ϭϴƉĂŐĞƐǁͬĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐ>ĞŐĂůEŽƚŝĐĞʹhƉĚĂƚĞĚ ϰͬϮϵͬϮϬϭϳ ϭ z WƵďůŝĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚĞ ůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐ EŽƚĞƐ Current Accessory Dwelling at 1325 Tamarack Drive Hello, we currently have a 3000 square foot building which we have converted 720 square feet to a one bedroom apartment. The apartment consists of a open living space with a kitchenette, one bedroom that will fit a full sized bed , a closet with a stacked washer and dryer, and a bathroom with a tub/shower. We will be using this apartment while we wait for our home to be built. After we move into our house, our plan is to just have this space for an occasional guest, or perhaps an aging parent. It is a beautiful building and apartment that we hope will add value to the neighboring homes. Thank you, Robin Johnson ,t; . I. .. ;"- p,�-;� 'w " a: m .X.0. .1 it So C4 50 �� Volicenant lnc. Established in 1968 1030 County Road 83 Maple - ='n, Minnesota 55359 August 13, 2016 We have been retained by Caldwell Banker Burnet Realty to do a conformance inspection on the property at 432kTamarackprin the city of Medina. There are two systems on this property but we were only asked to the system that services the Barn/Garage as it is called by the city. In obtaining a copy of the original design from the city they informed us that this system never had a final inspection by them, therefore they requested additional testing to be done along with the conformance inspection. The system that was installed consists of the following components. One 1000 -gallon septic tank. One 1000 -gallon pump tank with pump, float control and an alarm system A Mound type drainfieldd with a 6.5 foot by 21 foot rock bed A test through the inspection pipe of the mound indicated there is 1 foot 4 inches of sand under the middle of the mound. A boring was done 6 feet uphill from the toe of the mound and redox soils were encountered at a depth of 32 inches below the surface. We tested the pump and control switch, along with the alarm, and they are working properly. In referencing the original approved design it appears that this system was installed as per plan at that time. Mean can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me. Respectfully Bob Volli'enant 612-518-0745 /RFDWLRQ RI $'8 R-4 Zoning District Page 1 of 5 May 9, 2017 Ordinance Planning Commission MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: May 4, 2017 MEETING: May 9, 2017 Planning Commission SUBJ: R-4 Zoning District Ordinance – Public Hearing Background The City’s Comprehensive Plan update is currently being reviewed by affected jurisdictions and it anticipated to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council this fall. The City is required to review and make appropriate changes to its official controls, including zoning regulations, within nine months of the updated Plan being in effect. The City’s regulations are required to be consistent with and able to implement the Comprehensive Plan. As a result of changes made to the planned density range for the High Density Residential (HDR) land use in the Plan update, and also as a result of recent discussions in connection to concept plans within the future HDR land use, staff thought it was appropriate to begin discussions of the zoning ordinance related to the HDR land use this summer, even before the Comp Plan update is adopted (or even submitted). Beginning discussions on necessary ordinance amendments prior to the Plan update being in effect will make it easier for the City to have all changes made within nine months of adoption. High Density Residential Land Use Within the draft Comp Plan update, the High Density Residential land use is described as follows: “High Density Residential (HDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 12.0 and 15.0 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses will include town homes, apartment buildings and condominiums which should incorporate some open space or an active park.” The Plan also establishes policies and objectives which are meant to guide the City when creating the official controls. For the sake of the HDR land use, these policies and objectives are contained within the broader objectives of the Residential Land Uses in the City: 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. 3. Restrict urban development to properties within the sewer service boundary. 4. 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. 5. 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. R-4 Zoning District Page 2 of 5 May 9, 2017 Ordinance Planning Commission 6. Restrict commercial and business development to areas designated in this Plan. 7. Protect property within the City's MUSA boundary from development prior to the provision of urban services that will hinder future division. 8. 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. 9. Promote attractive, well-maintained dwellings on functional, clearly marked roads, with adequate facilities and open space. 10. Emphasize resident and pedestrian safety. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Require utilities to be placed underground wherever possible for reasons of aesthetic enhancement and safety. 15. Plan interconnections between separate developments to encourage shared road use to reduce costs and minimize the amount of road surface required. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. Implement standards for lot sizes and setbacks which recognize the development characteristics and natural resources of each existing neighborhood. 19. Regulate noise, illumination, and odors as needed to protect residential neighborhoods and to maintain public health and safety. Most of the planned HDR land use within the City is located within the southwest corner of the City, north of Highway 12 and east of County Road 29. This area of the City was identified during the process as a good opportunity because it is the only location in the City which is likely to have transit access with the park and ride across County Road 29 in Maple Plain. A copy of the land use map is attached for reference. Ordinance Description The attached ordinance is intended to amend the R4 zoning district to be consistent with the policies and objectives of the HDR land use in the City’s draft Comp Plan update. Currently, no property in the City is zoned either R4 or R5, so it will not affect existing sites. Under the current Comprehensive Plan, the HDR land use allowed a broader density range of 7-30 units per acre. As a result, the City had intended to utilize two districts to implement the HDR land use. The R4 zoning district (Limited-Multiple Family) limited development to the lower end of the range and the R5 district permitted the high end. R-4 Zoning District Page 3 of 5 May 9, 2017 Ordinance Planning Commission Under the draft Comp Plan update, the density range is much narrower, from 12-15 units per acre. As a result, staff does not believe two districts are necessary. As such, staff is recommending deleting the R5 district and applying the R4 district to the HDR property. This deletion is on pages 4-6 of the attached ordinance. Staff also recommends removing the “limited” from the name of the R4 zoning district. Density of Development The changes on pages 2-3 of the attached ordinance intend to align the R4 zoning district with the density range of the HDR land use in the draft Comp Plan update. The ordinance requires a maximum net area per unit of 3,650 square feet, which relates to the minimum density of 12 units per acre. The ordinance requires a base minimum net area per unit of 3,400 square feet, which relates to a maximum density of 12.75 units per acre. However, the ordinance allows density to be increased to the maximum permitted in the Comp Plan (15 units/acre in the draft plan) if the development incorporates “certain design and construction features serve to reduce the real and perceived impacts of crowding prevalent in multiple-residential dwelling units and building complexes.” These bonuses are described in the ordinance as a reduction of the area required for each unit. Following are the bonuses listed in the ordinance and the corresponding bonus density: (a) Affordable Housing (max. bonus = 2.25 unit/acre) (b) LEED Certification or similar (max. bonus = 1.0 unit/acre) (c) Low impact development (max. bonus = 1.0 unit/acre) (d) Exceeding building design, landscaping or buffer yard requirements (max. bonus = 1.0 unit/acre). (e) Sound suppression (max. bonus = 1.0 unit/acre). (f) Underground Parking (max. bonus = 1.5 unit/acre) (g) Oversized garages or lockable storage units (max. bonus = 0.5 unit/acre) (h) Common open space and shared recreational facilities (max. bonus = 1.0 unit/acre) (i) Dwelling unit amenities (max. bonus = 0.5 unit/acre) Nursing Home and Memory Care As discussed during recent Concept Plan discussions, the R4 zoning district does not specifically provide an allowance for nursing homes and memory care facilities to exceed the maximum density of the district. Staff believes it may appropriate to consider permitting more nursing home and memory care per acre than would be permitted for apartment units or townhomes. These units are generally smaller than apartment units and parking needs are lower, even after accounting for staff and visitors. Staff has suggested reducing the required area per unit by 50% for nursing home and memory care units. This would allow essentially twice as many of these units compared to apartments. Development Standards The ordinance includes development standards relating to matters such as architecture and landscaping. The landscaping requirements are similar to the requirements of commercial and business districts, although slightly lower in terms of planting per foot of site. R-4 Zoning District Page 4 of 5 May 9, 2017 Ordinance Planning Commission The ordinance requires a minimum of 20% of any street facing façade to be accent materials such as shakes, brick, stone, face brick, decorative concrete, or others approved by the city. In addition, multiple family structures are required to be a minimum of 50% non-combustible material such as brick, face brick, decorative concrete. Certain conditional uses include additional requirements related to building materials. Senior Housing/Nursing Home/Assisted Living Discussion During review of the concept plans earlier in recent months, there was also discussion related to whether the Planning Commission and City Council thought nursing homes, memory care facilities, and assisted living facilities were appropriate uses within the HDR land use area of the City. In addition, Council members have expressed an interest in having a broader discussion of senior housing and senior care facilities in the City. Currently, nursing homes and assisted living facilities are permitted in the Mid- and High- Density residential zoning districts, the Uptown Hamel districts, and the Business zoning districts. The Business districts also permit independent living housing to be developed if accessory to a nursing home or assisted living facility. The net acreage planned for development in each of these land uses in the draft Comp Plan update is summarized below: Land Use Planned Developable Acres Medium Density Residential (5-7 units/acre) 21.3 net acres High Density Residential (12-15 units/acre) 12.1 net acres Uptown Hamel 7 net acres vacant; redevelopment opportunities Business 257 net acres The land available within the Medium-Density, High-Density, and Uptown Hamel land uses is fairly limited. The Business land use includes substantially more acreage, but is also available for a much broader list of potential uses. The other opportunity for senior housing or care facilities may be within the Mixed Residential land use. The regulations for this district have not yet been established, but will likely be similar to the R3 or R4 regulations, which permit nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Although 97 acres are guided Mixed Residential in the draft Plan update, only approximately 1/3 of this acreage is anticipated to include higher-density development. This broader context may affect whether Planning Commission and City Council members believe that nursing home and assisted living uses should be permitted in the R4 zoning district. R-4 Zoning District Page 5 of 5 May 9, 2017 Ordinance Planning Commission Potential Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing on the attached ordinance. Following the hearing, the Commission can review, discuss and recommend any changes to the ordinance. Following review, the following motion would be in order: Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance related to the R-3, R-4, and R-5 Zoning Districts. Attachment 1. DRAFT Ordinance 2. DRAFT Future Land Use Map Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE RESIDENTIAL- MID DENSITY (R3), RESIDENTIAL-LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY (R4), AND RESIDENTIAL–MULTIPLE FAMILY (R5) ZONING DISTRICTS; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 841.2 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: SECTION 841.2 RESIDENTIAL-LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY (R4) DISTRICT Section 841.2.01. Residential-Limited Multiple Family (R4) - Purpose. The purpose of the Residential-Limited Multiple Family (R4) district is to provide a zoning district for a mix of townhome and multi-family residential development, designed in a way to protect the natural environment, to be well buffered from adjacent lower density land uses and to implement the objectives of the High Density Residential land use in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Section 841.2.02. (R4) Permitted Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the R4 district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Townhouse Dwellings, provided no structure contains more than twelve dwelling units (2) Multiple Family Structures, provided that a development with one or more structures containing more than 20 dwelling units shall install a buffer yard with an opacity at least 0.1 greater than the district requirements described by Section 828.31. (3) Parks and Open Space (4) Essential services Section 841.2.03. (R4) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted within the R4 district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in Section 841.4.05, and other applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Religious Institutions (2) Educational Facilities (3) Assisted Living Facilities and Nursing Homes (4) Day Care Facilities serving 16 or fewer persons (5) State Licensed Residential Facility, serving 16 or fewer persons Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE Section 841.2.04. (R4) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within the R4 district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use: (1) Garages or detached private structures, except no such structure shall contain components to constitute a separate complete dwelling unit (2) Off-street parking (3) Private swimming pools, sport courts, and other common recreational facilities (4) Signs, subject to the requirements of the sign ordinance (5) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code. Section 841.2.05. (R4) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code. Many of these standards may be applied across a coordinated development so that individual lots may not meet all requirements (lot area and impervious surface coverage, for example) but the development as a whole is consistent with the standards. In these situations, the city shall require documentation which describes the property which is subject to the coordinated development. Subd. 1. Density of Development: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Minimum Net Area per Unit: 3,6003,400 square feet per unit Subd. 3. Maximum Net Area per Unit: 6,2003,650 square feet per unit, excluding wetlands. Subd. 4. Density Bonuses: Certain design and construction features serve to reduce the real and perceived impacts of crowding prevalent in multiple-residential dwelling units and building complexes. The Minimum Area per Unit requirement above may be reduced in accordance to the following, except that the density after the bonus(es) must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (a) Affordable Housing (max. bonus reduction = 4.0 unit/acre500 square feet per unit). The density bonus shall be based on the proportion of units which will be preserved as affordable housing and the nature of the restriction utilized to maintain affordability. (b) LEED Certification or similar (max. reduction bonus = 2.0 unit/acre 230 square feet per unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the level of certification, with the full bonus available for the highest level of certification. (c) Low impact development (max. reduction bonus = 2.0 unit/acre230 square feet per unit). The density bonus shall be based on the water quality improvements above those required by the city. (d) Exceeding building design, landscaping or buffer yard requirements (max. reduction bonus = 2.0 unit/acre230 square feet per unit). (e) Sound suppression (max. reduction bonus = 2.0 unit/acre230 square feet per unit). In order to be eligible, the STC rating must be increased by ten from that specified as the minimum in the Minnesota State Building Code. Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE (f) Underground Parking (max. reduction bonus = 2.0 unit/acre340 square feet per unit). The density bonus shall be based upon the number of parking stalls provided, with the full bonus available if at least one underground space is provided per dwelling unit. (g) Oversized garages or lockable storage units (max. reduction bonus = 1.0 unit/acre110 square feet per unit). Additional storage must be 100 square feet for townhomes or 50 square feet or greater for other uses. (h) Common open space and shared recreational facilities (max. reduction bonus = 1.0 unit/acre230 square feet per unit) (i) Dwelling unit amenities (max. reduction bonus = 1.0 unit/acre110 square feet per unit). Amenities such as additional bathrooms, fireplaces, etc. Subd. 5. Minimum Setback from Perimeter of Site: 20 feet, except as modified below. This setback shall apply to structures, parking, and recreational areas. (a) Increased setback for three-story buildings. The required structure setback shall be increased to 40 feet if the building exceeds two and one-half stories. (b) Increased setback adjacent to less intensive zoning district. The setback adjacent to or across a street from property of a less intensive zoning district shall be increased to 40 feet. (c) Increased setback for required buffer yard. The required setback shall be increased when necessary to abide by buffer yard requirements. Subd. 6. Street Setbacks: The following yard setback shall be required adjacent to public or private streets. Structures, parking areas, and active recreational areas shall not be located within this setback area. The required yard setback shall be based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: (a) Private Street: 25 feet. Parking areas and recreational areas shall be exempt from this requirement. (b) Local Roadway: 40 feet (c) Minor Collector Roadway: 50 feet (d) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet Subd. 7. Minimum Setbacks between buildings within a development: 30 feet or the average height of the two structures, whichever is greater Subd. 8. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: 60 percent of the total lot area. Impervious surface coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices are implemented which, according to the City Engineer, exceed stormwater retention and treatment regulations. However, in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 70 percent of the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded. Section 841.2.06. (R4) Design and Development Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE Subd. 1. The design and development standards of Section 841.4 shall be observed. Subd. 2. Maximum Building Height: Building height shall not exceed 45 feet or three stories, whichever is greater. In the case that a structure is not equipped with a compliant fire sprinkler system, the maximum building height shall be 30 feet. SECTION II. Section 841.3 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is hereby deleted in its entirety as follows: SECTION 841.3 RESERVED RESIDENTIAL-MULTIPLE FAMILY (R5) DISTRICT Section 841.3.01 Residential-Multiple Family (R5) - Purpose. The purpose of the Residential-Multiple Family (R5) district is to provide a zoning district for a mix of multi-family residential development, designed in a way to protect the natural environment, to be well buffered from adjacent lower density land uses and to implement the objectives of the High Density Residential land use in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Section 841.3.02. (R5) Permitted Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the R5 district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Townhouse Dwellings, provided no structure contains more than 12 dwelling units (2) Multiple Family Structures, provided that a development with one or more structures containing more than 20 dwelling units shall install a buffer yard with an opacity at least 0.1 greater than the district requirements described by Section 828.31. (3) Parks and Open Space (4) Essential services Section 841.3.03. (R5) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted within the R5 district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in Section 841.4.05, and other applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Religious Institutions (2) Educational Facilities (3) Assisted Living Facilities and Nursing Homes (4) Day Care Facilities serving 16 or fewer persons (5) State Licensed Residential Facility, serving 16 or fewer persons Ordinance No. ### 5 DATE Section 841.3.04. (R5) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted within the R5 district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use: (1) Garages or detached private structures, except no such structure shall contain components to constitute a separate complete dwelling unit (2) Off-street parking (3) Private swimming pools, sport courts, and other common recreational facilities (4) Signs, subject to the requirements of the sign ordinance (5) Solar Equipment, if affixed to a structure, and in compliance with Section 828.09 subd. 1 of the City Code. Section 841.3.05. (R5) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code. Many of these standards may be applied across a coordinated development so that individual lots may not meet all requirements (lot area and impervious surface coverage, for example) but the development as a whole is consistent with the standards. In these situations, the city shall require documentation which describes the property which is subject to the coordinated development. Subd. 1. Density of Development: Development or redevelopment shall be consistent with the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Minimum Area per Unit: 2,200 square feet per unit Subd. 3. Maximum Area per Unit: 4,350 square feet per unit, excluding wetlands. Subd. 4. Density Bonuses: Certain design and construction features serve to reduce the real and perceived impacts of crowding prevalent in multiple-residential dwelling units and building complexes. The Minimum Area per Unit requirement above may be reduced in accordance to the following, except that the density after the bonus(es) must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (a) Affordable Housing (max. bonus = 4.0 unit/acre). The density bonus shall be based on the proportion of units which will be preserved as affordable housing and the nature of the restriction utilized to maintain affordability. (b) LEED Certification or similar (max. bonus = 2.0 unit/acre). The density bonus shall be based upon the level of certification, with the full bonus available for the highest level of certification. (c) Low impact development (max. bonus = 2.0 unit/acre). The density bonus shall be based on the water quality improvements above those required by the city. (d) Exceeding building design, landscaping or buffer yard requirements (max. bonus = 2.0 unit/acre). (e) Sound suppression (max. bonus = 2.0 unit/acre). In order to be eligible, the STC rating must be increased by ten from that specified as the minimum in the Minnesota State Building Code. Ordinance No. ### 6 DATE (f) Underground Parking (max. bonus = 2.0 unit/acre). The density bonus shall be based upon the number of parking stalls provided, with the full bonus available if at least one underground space is provided per dwelling unit. (g) Oversized garages or lockable storage units (max. bonus = 1.0 unit/acre). Additional storage must be 100 square feet for townhomes or 50 square feet or greater for other uses. (h) Common open space and shared recreational facilities (max. bonus = 1.0 unit/acre) (i) Dwelling unit amenities (max. bonus = 1.0 unit/acre). Amenities such as additional bathrooms, fireplaces, etc. Subd. 4. Minimum Structure Setback from Perimeter of Site: 40 feet, or larger if required to install required buffer yard. Subd. 5. Street Setbacks: The following yard setback shall be required adjacent to public or private streets. Structures, parking areas, and active recreational areas shall not be located within this setback area. The required yard setback shall be based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: (a) Private Street: 25 feet. Parking areas and recreational areas shall be exempt from this requirement. (b) Local Roadway: 40 feet (c) Minor Collector Roadway: 50 feet (d) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet Subd. 6. Minimum Setbacks between buildings within a development: 30 feet or the average height of the two structures, whichever is greater Subd. 7. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage: 60 percent of the total lot area. Impervious surface coverage may exceed this amount if stormwater management practices are implemented which, according to the City Engineer, exceed stormwater retention and treatment regulations. However, in no case shall impervious surface coverage exceed 70 percent of the lot area remaining after wetlands and stormwater ponds have been excluded. Section 841.3.06. (R5) Design and Development Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. The design and development standards of Section 841.4 shall be observed. Subd. 2. Maximum Building Height: Building height shall not exceed 45 feet or three stories, whichever is greater. In the case that a structure is not equipped with a compliant fire sprinkler system, the maximum building height shall be 30 feet. Ordinance No. ### 7 DATE SECTION III. Section 841.4 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: SECTION 841.4 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MID DENSITY, LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY, AND MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Section 841.4.01. Generally. The standards of this Section shall apply to the R3, and R4, and R5 zoning districts, subject to requirements set forth in other sections of this ordinance. These standards are established to achieve a high standard of development, to create vibrant and high quality neighborhoods, and to protect the natural environment. Section 841.4.02. Building Materials and Design. Subd. 1. Building Materials. (a) Generally. All exterior building materials shall be durable and consistent with relevant codes, regulations, and other industry standards. (b) Accent materials. No less than 20 percent of any façade facing a public or private street shall be an accent material. These materials may include shakes, brick, stone, face brick, decorative concrete, or others approved by the city. (c) Multiple Family Structures. No less than 50 percent of the vertical exterior building materials shall be non-combustible material such as brick, face brick, decorative concrete or others approved by the city. Subd. 2. Garage Doors. In the case that garage doors occupy more than half of the horizontal building façade facing a street, architectural elements shall be provided to reduce the monotonous appearance of garage doors. These elements may include varying the setback of the garage doors, differentiating roof designs, constructing dormers, and installing garage doors with windows or other design elements. Subd. 3. Building Modulation and Articulation. Buildings shall be modulated a minimum of once per 50 feet of building perimeter to avoid long, monotonous building walls. This may include varying building height, building setback, building orientation, roof pitch, roof design, or significant differences in building materials/design. Subd. 4. Enclosed Parking. Townhomes shall include garage space with a minimum capacity of two vehicles, and multiple family structures shall include a minimum of one enclosed or underground parking stall per dwelling unit. Subd. 5. Utilities and Mechanical Equipment. All utilities shall be placed underground. Mechanical and HVAC equipment serving individual dwellings shall be screened, to the extent possible, from all public or private streets as well as from adjacent structures. Equipment which serves more than dwelling unit shall be screened as follows: Ordinance No. ### 8 DATE (a) Rooftop Equipment. Equipment shall be screened through the use of architectural elements and materials which are compatible with the overall design of the building. Wood fencing or chain link fencing with slats shall not be permitted. (b) Ground Equipment. Equipment shall be screened with walls which are constructed of materials which are compatible with the building or with landscaping which is opaque during the entire year. Subd. 6. Trash and Recycling Facilities. (a) Trash and recycling bins for individual dwelling units shall be stored so not to be prominently visible from streets or neighboring units. (b) For other uses, all trash and recycling shall be stored within the principal building, within an accessory structure, or within an enclosed outdoor area easily accessible from the principal structure. The accessory structure or enclosed area shall be constructed of similar materials and have compatible architecture as the principal structure and shall abide by yard setback requirements. Section 841.4.03. Landscaping Requirements. Subd. 1. Generally. All areas within a development site shall be landscaped, except for areas occupied by streets, sidewalks, trails, buildings, parking lots, driveways, walks, recreational areas, plaza space, wetlands, wetland buffers, and woodlands. Landscaping shall include trees, shrubs, plantings, and turf grass. Water conserving alternatives to traditional Kentucky-Bluegrass are encouraged. Properly maintained prairie or natural vegetation is encouraged within common open space and buffer yards. Species with known vulnerability to disease or infestation shall not be permitted. Integrated stormwater management practices, such as vegetative swales, vegetated filter strips, bioretention, and raingardens, shall be considered landscaping and shall be included in the gross acreage of the parcel when calculating impervious surface coverage. Subd. 2. Building Setting. At least 10 feet of landscaped area shall be provided adjacent to all buildings except for walks, driveways, and plaza/patio space. Walks within this landscaped area shall be limited to where practically necessary to serve access points of buildings. Subd. 3. Buffer Yards. Buffer yards shall be required adjacent to less intensive zoning districts and adjacent to collector and arterial roadways. The buffer yard requirements are described in Section 828.31 of the City Code. Subd. 4. Overstory Deciduous Shade Trees and Coniferous Trees. A minimum of one tree per 60 feet, or fraction thereof, of lot perimeter shall be required. Any lot perimeter for which a buffer yard is required shall be excluded from this calculation. (a) Size. Deciduous trees shall not be less than two caliper inches measured four feet off ground, and coniferous trees shall not be less than five feet in height. (b) Location. Tree location shall be approved by the city prior to planting. Ordinance No. ### 9 DATE (c) Type. Trees shall be suitable for the soil and site conditions and compliment others in the area. Native species, as listed within the tree preservation ordinance are required unless otherwise necessary. No more than 25 percent of trees may be of a single species. (d) Credit for Preserved Trees. The city may reduce the required number of overstory trees if an applicant preserves more existing trees than required by the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Section 828.41. The city shall determine the amount of credit granted for such existing trees. Subd. 5. Ornamental Trees. A minimum of one tree per 120 feet, or fraction thereof, of lot perimeter shall be required. Any lot perimeter for which a buffer yard is required shall be excluded from this calculation. One tree per 150 feet shall be required if a water conserving alternative is utilized for the lawn or if bioretention or other low impact development practices are implemented. (a) Size. Trees shall not be less than one and one-half caliper inches measured four feet off ground. (b) Location. Tree location shall be approved by the city prior to planting. (c) Type. Trees shall be suitable for the soil and site conditions and compliment others in the area. Native species are required unless otherwise necessary. No more than 25 percent of trees may be of a single species. Subd. 6. Understory Shrubs. In addition to trees, a full complimentcomplement of understory shrubs shall be provided to complete a quality landscape treatment of the lot. Shrubs shall be potted and a minimum of 24 inches. In no instances shall the number of shrubs be less than one per 40 feet, or fraction thereof, of lot perimeter. Any lot perimeter for which a buffer yard is required shall be excluded from this calculation. One shrub per 50 feet shall be required if a water conserving alternative is utilized for the lawn or if bioretention or other low impact development practices are implemented. Subd. 7. Parking Lot Landscaping. A minimum of eight percent of the total land area within parking areas shall be landscaped. Parking lots with fewer than 10 stalls shall be exempt from these requirements. (a) Landscaping at least 12 feet in width shall separate parking lots into cells of no more than 120 stalls. (b) Landscaping shall break up rows of parking approximately every 20 spaces. (c) Species selection shall be guided by soils conditions and plantings shall be designed in a way which increases the likelihood of long-term survival. (d) Where practical, the landscaping areas shall be designed to receive stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area. Subd. 8. Maintenance. The developer shall be responsible for establishing a long-term maintenance plan to see that common space and buffer yard landscaping and fencing is maintained in an attractive and well-kept condition and to replace any landscaping that does not survive. Landscape irrigation, where necessary, shall be consistent with water usage regulations. Ordinance No. ### 10 DATE Subd. 9. Landscaping Guarantee. The developer shall guarantee the growth and maintenance of all plants for a minimum of two growing seasons following an inspection of all completed plantings. (a) The developer shall submit a financial guarantee and provide access to the property, in forms acceptable to the city, prior to issuance of any building permit to ensure the planting and survival of the plantings. The developer may transfer responsibility of financial guarantee to another willing entity. (b) Any plant which does not survive or has severely declined (for example, 25% of the crown has died in the case of trees) shall be replaced, and the replacement will be guaranteed for an additional two growing seasons. After the additional growing seasons, any new plants which do not survive or have severely declined shall be replaced. After provisions have been made for maintenance of these new plants, the city shall release any remaining financial guarantee. Subd. 10. Tree Preservation. Removal of significant trees and any construction activity within residential districts shall be subject to the requirements set forth by the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance Section 828.41. Section 841.4.05. Supplemental Requirements for Specific Uses within the R-3 and , R-4, and R-5 Residential Zoning Districts. In addition to the general standards specified for conditional uses in section 825.39 of the City Code and other requirements of this ordinance, the following uses shall not be permitted unless the city council determines that all of the specific standards contained in this subdivision will be met: Subd. 1. Religious Institutions. (a) the minimum lot size shall be increased to 4 acres; (b) the minimum lot width and depth shall be increased to 300 feet; (c) shall abut an arterial roadway or abut a collector roadway no more than 1,500 feet from an intersection with an arterial roadway; (d) no exterior bells or loudspeakers; (e) buffer yard requirements adjacent to or across a street from property of a less intensive zoning district or the same zoning district shall be increased to an opacity measurement of 0.5. Buffer yard requirements are described in Section 828.31 of the City Code. (f) structures shall cover no more than 20 percent of the lot, and the maximum combined floor area of all structures on a property shall not exceed 40,000 square feet; (g) sanctuary seating capacity shall not exceed 500 persons; (h) the number of persons on-site at any given time shall not exceed two times the capacity of the sanctuary, with the exception of larger events no more than four Ordinance No. ### 11 DATE times per year. The city may place further limitations on the number of persons on-site based on the number of parking stalls provided; (i) residential uses shall not be permitted, with the following exceptions: a. housing for clergy employed at the property, as an accessory use. Such housing shall not exceed 4,000 square feet in floor area of habitable space, which shall be counted against the total floor area allowed on a site; or b.continuation of a residential use existing on the property prior to the religious institution being established. Continuation of a residential use shall be limited in term and be subject to Interim Use Permit approval; (j) the property shall not be utilized for for-profit purposes, or regularly utilized by for- profit entities; (k) playgrounds and outdoor recreational areas shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from residential property with adequate screening to protect neighboring properties from noise and adverse visual impacts; (l) exterior building materials shall consist of the following materials: brick, natural stone, stucco, Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, copper, glass, decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative block, and/or decorative pre-cast concrete panels. A maximum of 20 percent of the vertical building exterior may be metal or fiber cement lap siding or other materials approved by the city, if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall building design. (m) 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 surrounding area. Subd. 2. Educational Facilities. (a) the minimum lot size shall be increased to 4 acres; (b) the minimum lot width and depth shall be increased to 300 feet; (c) shall abut an arterial roadway or abut a collector roadway no more than 1,500 feet from an intersection with an arterial roadway; (d) no exterior bells or loudspeakers; (e) buffer yard requirements adjacent to or across a street from property of a less intensive zoning district or the same zoning district shall be increased to an opacity measurement of 0.5. Buffer yard requirements are described in Section 828.31 of the City Code. (f) structures shall cover no more than 20 percent of the lot, and the maximum combined floor area of all structures on a property shall not exceed 40,000 square feet;; Ordinance No. ### 12 DATE (h) the number of persons on-site at any given time shall not exceed 700, with the exception of larger events no more than four times per year. The city may place further limitations on the number of persons on-site based on the number of parking stalls provided; (j) the property shall not be utilized for for-profit purposes, or regularly utilized by for- profit entities; (k) playgrounds and outdoor recreational areas shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from residential property with adequate screening to protect neighboring properties from noise and adverse visual impacts; (l) exterior building materials shall consist of the following materials: brick, natural stone, stucco, Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, copper, glass, decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative block, and/or decorative pre-cast concrete panels. A maximum of 20 percent of the vertical building exterior may be metal or fiber cement lap siding or other materials approved by the city, if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall building design. (m) 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 surrounding area. Subd. 3. Assisted Living Facilities and Nursing Homes. (a) shall abut an arterial or a collector roadway; (b) parking requirements shall be based on the number of employees of the facility, expected guest visitation and the likelihood of residents owning vehicles. Parking for residents of the facility shall be enclosed or underground, consistent with the requirements of the zoning district; (c) sufficient outdoor plaza and recreational areas shall be provided; (d) exterior building materials shall consist of the following materials: brick, natural stone, stucco, Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product, copper, glass, decorative concrete, split face (rock face) decorative block, and/or decorative pre-cast concrete panels. A maximum of 20 percent of the vertical building exterior may be metal or fiber cement lap siding or other materials approved by the city, if used as accent materials which are integrated into the overall building design. (e) (e) the minimum required lot area per unit shall be reduced by 50% for nursing home or memory care units. In order to reduce the required lot area in this way, an agreement is required to be recorded against the property ensuring that the units will remain nursing home or memory care units. Ordinance No. ### 13 DATE (e)(f) 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 surrounding area. Subd. 4. Day Care Facilities serving 16 or fewer persons (a) shall abut an arterial roadway or abut a collector roadway no more than 1,500 feet from an intersection with an arterial roadway; (b) shall not be operated within a townhome or multiple family structuredwelling; (c) parking requirements shall be based on the number of employees of the facility and the number of clients to be served. Circulation shall be sufficient so drop-off and pick-up of clientele does not interfere with the right-of-way; (d) sufficient outdoor recreational areas shall be provided; (e) the facility shall meet licensing requirements as required by law; (f) 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 surrounding area. Subd. 5. State Licensed Residential Facility or housing with services establishment registered under chapter 144D, serving 16 or fewer persons (a) shall abut an arterial roadway or abut a collector roadway no more than 1,500 feet from an intersection with an arterial roadway; (b) shall not be operated within a townhome or multiple family structuredwelling; (c) parking requirements shall be based on the number or residents at the facility as well as the number of employees. Parking for residents of the facility shall be enclosed or underground, consistent with the requirements of the zoning district; (d) the facility shall meet licensing requirements as required by law; (e) 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 surrounding area. Ordinance No. ### 14 DATE SECTION IV. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this ______ day of __________, 2017. ______________________________ Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of ______, 2017. HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D IN A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DRWILLOW DRHACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DRH O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DRPARKVIEW DRBROCKTON LN NMEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN NCHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DRWILLOW DRHUNTER DR")55 Map 5-2Future Land Use PlanDRAFT 1/31/2017 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: January 31, 2017 Legend Future Land Use Rural Residential Agricultural Future Development Area Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Rural Commercial Institutional Private Recreational Park, Recreational, and Open Space Closed Sanitary Landfill HIGHWAY 55 ")55 ")24 ")19 ")101 ")116 ")11 ")24 ")19 £¤12 H A M E L R D M E D IN A R D PIONEER TRL TAMARACK DRWILLOW DRHACKAMORE RD ARROWHEAD DRH O M E S T E A D T R L CHIPPEWA RD HUNTER DRPARKVIEW DRBROCKTON LN NMEANDER RD EVERGREEN RD BROCKTON LN NCHIPPEWA RD WILLOW DRWILLOW DRHUNTER DR")55 Katrina Independence Mooney Peter Unnamed Spurzem Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Medina Unnamed Unnamed Winterhalter Thies School Ardmore Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Lost Horse Unnamed Academy Marsh Map 5-3Development and Growth PlanDRAFT 12/8/2016 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Map Date: January 20, 2016 Legend Future Land Use Rural Residential Agricultural Future Development Area Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed Residential Uptown Hamel Commercial Business Rural Commercial Institutional Private Recreational Park, Recreational, and Open Space Closed Sanitary Landfill Wetland Locations Wetland Locations Conservation Design-PUD Page 1 of 2 May 9, 2017 Ordinance Planning Commission MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: May 4, 2017 MEETING: May 9, 2017 Planning Commission SUBJ: Conservation Design-PUD Ordinance – Public Hearing Background In 2010, the City adopted an ordinance establishing regulations for a Conservation Design Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) process as an alternative to conventional development practices. The CD-PUD is intended to encourage conservation and protection of natural resource areas and open space by offering flexibility to developers in exchange for the applicant placing portions of the property into permanent conservation. The primary flexibility offered for residential development is an increase in the base density. For a rural CD-PUD, the ordinance permits the City Council to grant up to a maximum of double the base density. The City maintains full discretion to determine how much flexibility, including bonus density, is justifiable based upon the extent to which the proposal meets conservation objectives. Since the ordinance was adopted, the City has reviewed three requests for CD-PUD developments. All three requests were for rural CD-PUD projects, and all three requested the maximum bonus density. The requests were the Marx CD-PUD (east of Parkview Drive and north of CR24), the Deerhill Preserve (aka Stonegate) CD-PUD (east of Homestead Trail and west of Deerhill Road), and a portion of the Dellcroft CD-PUD (west of Arrowhead, south of Hamel Road). The Dellcroft CD-PUD did not move ahead following a concept plan review after it appeared that the Planning Commission and City Council were not going to support the requested density bonus. Deerhill Preserve was approved by the City with a density bonus which was just under the maximum allowed. In the case of Deerhill Preserve, over 90 acres of property was placed into permanent conservation (of which over 30 acres was buildable). The developer received approval for 41 lots, where conventional development would have been limited to 22 lots. A proposal for the Marx CD-PUD was reviewed in 2011-2012 and an amended concept earlier in 2017 After the review of Stonegate/Deerhill Preserve and the Dellcroft requests last year, a number of Council members expressed an interest in reviewing the CD-PUD ordinance. The City Council discussed at the December 20, 2016 and the February 7, 2017 City Council meeting. Some members of the Council expressed an interest in reviewing and potentially reducing the maximum bonus density permitted in rural CD-PUD, but there was not a consensus at the time to do so. The Council did direct staff to review the ordinance and to make amendments which Conservation Design-PUD Page 2 of 2 May 9, 2017 Ordinance Planning Commission would better tie the amount of flexibility and bonus density (if any) to the requirements of a proposed CD-PUD meeting the conservation objectives of the City. Excerpts from the minutes are attached for reference. Ordinance Description The CD-PUD ordinance is attached, and staff has recommended changes to emphasize the fact that the amount (if any) of flexibility the City will grant, including bonus density, is dependent on the amount and quality of the conservation area and how well the proposal meets the conservation objectives described. Staff did not incorporate any policy changes to the ordinance at this time. The only other change made was to move the location of the requirement that setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision should not be reduced. Although the primary incentive contained in the ordinance is density bonuses, it should be noted that the ordinance also allows flexibility for setbacks and park dedication fees. The CD-PUD ordinance requires a minimum of 30% of the buildable area of property to be included in the conservation area. The CD-PUD ordinance is intended to offer incentives to developers in order to encourage conservation. The incentives need to be substantial enough to offer such encouragement if the ordinance is to serve its purpose. However, it is important to remember that the City ultimately has the discretion to determine whether the amount of flexibility requested is justified by the extent to which the proposed CD- PUD meets the City’s conservation objectives better than would be achieved through conventional development. Potential Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing on the Conservation Design-PUD ordinance. Following the hearing, the Commission can review, discuss and recommend any changes to the ordinance. Following review, the following motion would be in order: Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance related to Conservation Design. Attachment 1. DRAFT Ordinance 2. Excerpt from December 20, 2016 City Council worksession minutes 3. Excerpt from February 7, 2017 City Council minutes Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING CONSERVATION DESIGN; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 827.51 eq. seq. of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: CONSERVATION DESIGN DISTRICT (CD) Section 827.51. Conservation Design (CD) – Purpose. The purpose of this district is to preserve the City’s ecological resources, wildlife corridors, scenic views, and rural character while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as updated from time to time. The specific conservation objectives of this district are to: 1. Protect the ecological function of native hardwood forests, lakes, streams, and wetlands. 2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas. 3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas. 4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments. 5. Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. 6. Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. Section 827.53 Applicability. Subd. 1. Conservation design is an option that a property owner is encouraged to consider as an alternative to Conventional Development, as defined herein. The City will give heightened consideration to such requests where the opportunities to achieve conservation objectives are significantly higher than that available through conventional development. Conservation design may be considered on qualifying parcels lying in the Rural Residential District and all sewered residential districts. Section 827.55 Intent. Subd. 1. It is the intent of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by approving a Planned Unit Development. In exchange for achieving the conservation objectives, it is the intent of the City to provide density and design flexibility and to encourage development review through a Collaborative Process. Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE Subd. 2. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses and other regulations set forth in the existing zoning districts shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District, the PUD District, or if determined by the City Council to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this District as part of the final PUD documents. Subd. 3. The procedures and regulations set forth in the PUD District shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District. If a final PUD plan is approved by the City, the subject property shall be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District (CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall then be those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and agreements. The following subsections are requirements for all CD-PUDs unless exceptions, as part of a PUD, are otherwise approved by the City Council. Section 827.57. Definitions. Subd. 1. Base Density. The maximum number of units or lots that are allowed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Subd. 2. Buildable Land Area. The total land area in a proposed Conservation Design Subdivision less the amount of land that includes: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, required wetland buffers, lakes, and land contained within the 100 year floodplain. Subd. 3. Collaborative Process. A development review process that results in a development plan in which clearly defined conservation objectives are achieved in exchange for greater flexibility from the requirements of the base zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Subd. 4. Conventional Development. Development that meets the standard minimum requirements of the City’s ordinances regulating development. Subd. 5. Conservation Easement. As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open- space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open-space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real property. Subd. 6. Conservation Design Subdivision. Any development of land that incorporates the concepts of designated Conservation Areas and clustering of dwelling units. Subd. 7. Conservation Area. Designated land within a Conservation Design Subdivision that contributes towards achievement of one or more of the conservation objectives. A Conservation Easement is placed on Conservation Areas to permanently restrict the Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE Conservation Area from future development. Conservation Areas may be used for preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, passive recreation, and for pasture, hay cropping and other low impact agricultural uses. Subd. 8. Homeowners Association. A formally constituted non-profit association or corporation made up of the property owners and/or residents of a development for the purpose of owning, operating and maintaining common Conservation Areas and/or other commonly owned facilities and Open Space. Subd. 9. Open Space. Land that is not designated as a Conservation Area that is used for parks, trails or other uses. Open Space may be owned and managed by the City, homeowner’s association or other entity. Subd. 10. Viewshed. The landscape or topography visible from a geographic point, especially that having aesthetic value. Subd. 11. Yield Plan. A conceptual layout that shows the maximum number of lots that could be placed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. The Yield Plan shows proposed lots, streets, rights-of-way, and other pertinent features. Yield Plans shall be drawn to scale. The layout shall be realistic and reflect a development pattern that could reasonably be expected to be implemented, taking into account the presence of wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and existing easements. Section 827.59. General Performance Standards. Subd. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision. (a) The minimum land area required for development shall be: (1) 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District (2) 20 contiguous acres in sewered residential districts (b) A subdivision in the Rural Residential District of over 20 contiguous acres but less than 40 contiguous acres may apply for approval if they meet all the requirements for CD, and the visual impact of the subdivision from existing adjacent roadways is mitigated by existing topography, existing vegetation, and/or acceptable vegetative buffers. Subd 2. Required Conservation Area. The minimum required Conservation Area within the CD development shall be: (a) At least 30% of the total Buildable Land Area in the Rural Residential District, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City’s conservation objectives. (b) At least 20% of the total Buildable Land Area in sewered residential districts, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City’s conservation objectives. Subd. 3. Designating Conservation Areas. (a) The required amount of Conservation Area shall be designated and located to Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE maximize achievement of the City’s conservation objectives. Opportunities for achieving these objectives will vary depending on the location, size and specific qualities of the subject parcel. Each parcel will be evaluated for opportunities to achieve the following primary and secondary conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development: (1) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following primary conservation objectives will be given higher consideration for flexibility from performance standards. (1) The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood forests (e.g. Maple-Basswood Forest), lakes, streams and wetlands. (2) The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. (3) The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement corridors. (2) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following secondary conservation objectives may be given consideration for flexibility from performance standards: i. The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as “Scenic Roads” on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. ii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. iii.i. The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 4. Perimeter Setbacks. Structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be the same as the existing zoning district. Section 827.60 Open Space Report Composite Map Appeal Process. In the event that an applicant is not in agreement with the Composite Map of the Open Space Report or the data contained within a report on which the Composite Map is based upon, the applicant may present an appeal to the city. Subd. 1. The applicant shall put the appeal in writing, accompanied by the fee as described by the City’s Fee Schedule, and is responsible to provide documentation supporting their appeal. Subd. 2. The appeal shall be reviewed by city staff, with the assistance of any technical consultants which city staff shall determine are appropriate. Such consultants may include, but are not limited to, environmental engineers, wetland scientists, arborists and other similar experts. City staff shall make a determination on the appeal within sixty Ordinance No. ### 5 DATE days of receipt of a complete appeal application. Subd 3. The applicant may appeal city staff’s decision to the city council. The appeal must be filed within thirty days of staff’s determination. Subd. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs accrued by the City in review of the appeals described above, including the costs of technical consultants hired by the City. Section 827.61. Density and Design Flexibility. Flexibility from the requirements of the existing zoning district or other requirements of this code may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. In considering the amount, if any, of such flexibility, the City will evaluate the amount and quality of Conservation Area protected and how well the project achieves the following conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development and the amount and quality of conservation area protected. Subd. 1. Conservation Objectives and Determining Flexibility. Conservation Area(s) shall be designated and located to maximize achievement of the City’s conservation objectives. Opportunities for achieving these objectives will vary depending on the location, size and specific qualities of the subject parcel. Each parcel will be evaluated for opportunities to achieve the following primary and secondary conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development. (a) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following primary conservation objectives will be given higher consideration for flexibility from performance standards. (1) The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood forests (e.g. Maple-Basswood Forest), lakes, streams and wetlands. (2) The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. (3) The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement corridors. Ordinance No. ### 6 DATE (b) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following secondary conservation objectives may be given consideration for flexibility from performance standards: (1) The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as “Scenic Roads” on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. (2) The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. (1)(3) The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 12. Additional Density. (a) Density, in addition to the Base Density, may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. Any additional density or additional number of dwelling units shall be calculated as a percentage of Base Density. The Base Density shall be that established by regulations in the relevant existing zoning district. The granting of additional density shall be at the full and complete discretion of the City based upon the amount and quality of the Conservation Area protected and extent to which the proposal meets the objectives over and above that achievable through Conventional Development. (1) In the Rural Residential District, Base Density shall be determined by calculating the number of 5-acre areas of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system that are located on the subject property. (2) In sewered residential districts, a Yield Plan shall be developed to determine Base Density. Regulations of the base district and all other relevant land use regulations of this Code shall be used for completing the Yield Plan. (b) The total number of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and may be: (1) Up to 200% of the calculated Base Density in the Rural Residential District. (2) Up to 120% of calculated Base Density in all sewered residential districts. Subd. 23. Other areas of flexibility (a) In the Rural Residential District, flexibility may include: (1) Lot size, lot width and structure setbacks provided setbacks comply with the following minimums: i. Setback from local streets: 35 feet. ii. Setback from Arterial and Collector Streets: 100 feet. iii. Interior structure setbacks: 30 feet. iii.iv. Perimeter setbacks: Minimum structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be 50 feet. (2) Housing type. (3) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (4) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating park dedication requirements. (5) Variations to City regulations regarding septic systems. Ordinance No. ### 7 DATE (b) In all sewered residential districts, flexibility may include: (1) Lot size, lot width, and structure setbacks, except that setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be equal to or greater than that required in the underlying zoning district. (2) Housing type. (3) Landscaping. (4) Screening. (5) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (6) Buffer yard. (7) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating park dedication requirements. Section 827.63. Conservation Area Protection and Ownership. Subd. 1. Land and improvements in areas designated as Conservation Areas in a CD-PUD shall be established, protected and owned in accordance with the following guidelines: (a) Designated Conservation Areas shall be surveyed and subdivided as separate outlots. (b) Designated Conservation Areas must be restricted from further development by a permanent Conservation Easement (in accordance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C.01-05) running with the land. The Conservation Easement must be submitted with the General Plan of Development and approved by the City Attorney. (1) The permanent Conservation Easement may be held by any combination of the entities defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C, but in no case may the holder of the Conservation Easement be the same as the owner of the underlying fee. (2) The permanent Conservation Easement shall be recorded with Hennepin County and must specify: i. The entity that will maintain the designated Conservation Area. ii. The purposes of the Conservation Easement, that the easement is permanent, and the conservation values of the property. iii. The legal description of the land under the easement. iv. The restrictions on the use of the land and from future development. v. To what standards the Conservation Areas will be maintained through reference to an approved land stewardship plan. vi. Who will have access to the Conservation Area. (3) Ownership of the underlying fee of each designated Conservation Area parcel, may be held by any combination of the following entities: i. A common ownership association, subject to the provisions in the PUD District. ii. An individual who will use the land in accordance with the permanent Conservation Easement. iii. A private nonprofit organization, specializing in land conservation and stewardship, that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Ordinance No. ### 8 DATE iv. A government agency (e.g. park and/or natural resource agency or division). v. The City of Medina, in rare situations when there are no other viable options. (c) Open Space areas that do not achieve the City’s conservation objectives may be established under a homeowner’s association without protection by a Conservation Easement. Such areas shall be regulated according to provisions of the PUD District. Section 827.65. Land Stewardship Plan. Subd. 1. Plan Objectives. Where a CD-PUD has designated Conservation Areas, a plan for the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all Conservation Areas, may be required. The plan shall: (a) Define ownership and methods of land protection. (b) Establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities. (c) Estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated with plan implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on-going basis. This shall include land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and management of the Conservation Easement by the easement holder. The fees shall be estimated and validated by the proposed easement holder. (d) Meet the requirements of the future conservation easement holder. Subd. 2. Plan Submittal Requirements. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of Development. A Final Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan Stage of PUD development. The plan shall contain a narrative describing: (a) Existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the landscape; (b) Objectives for each Conservation Area, including: (1) The proposed permanent or maintained landscape condition for each area. (2) Any restoration measures needed to achieve the proposed permanent condition, including: i. Measures for correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as erosion and intrusion of invasive plant species. ii. Measures for restoring historic features (if applicable). iii. Measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types. (3) A maintenance plan, including: i. Activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including mowing and burning schedules, weed control measures, planting schedules, and clearing and cleanup measures and schedules. ii. An estimate of the annual on-going (post restoration) operating and maintenance costs. Subd. 3. Funding of Operation and Maintenance. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation costs of Conservation Areas for up to four years depending on restoration measures. Ordinance No. ### 9 DATE Subd. 4. Enforcement. In the event that the fee holder of the Conservation Areas, common areas and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly maintain all or any portion of the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City in coordination with the holder of the easement, may serve written notice upon such fee holder setting forth the manner in which the fee holder has failed to maintain the aforesaid common areas and facilities. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the fee holder , or any successor organization, shall be considered in violation of this Ordinance, in which case the City shall have the right to enter the premises and take the needed corrective actions. The costs of corrective actions by the City shall be assessed against the properties that have the right of enjoyment of the common areas and facilities. Section 827.67. Conservation Area Design Standards. The following Conservation Area design standards shall also be considered in designing the CD-PUD: Subd. 1. Conservation Areas should be interconnected wherever possible to provide a continuous network of Open Space within the PUD and throughout the City. It should coordinate and maximize boundaries with Conservation Areas and Open Space on adjacent tracts. Subd. 2. Incorporate public and private trails with connections to existing or planned regional trails as identified in the most recent Park, Trail and Open Space Plan. Subd. 3. Designated public access trails shall be protected by an access easement owned by the City. Subd. 4. Incorporate public and/or private Open Space as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 5. Views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be minimized by the use of existing topography, existing vegetation, or additional landscaping. Ridge and hilltops should be contained within designated Conservation Areas wherever possible. Trees should not be removed from ridges and hilltops. Subd. 6. The boundaries of designated conservation areas shall be clearly delineated and labeled on CD-PUD plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or other measures approved by the city. Subd. 7. Stormwater management facilities may be located in designated conservation areas. Ordinance No. ### 10 DATE Subd. 8. Existing land in row-cropping use shall be converted to a use that supports the achievement of the City’s conservation objectives. Section 827.69. Landscape Design Standards. Subd. 1. Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing through common Conservation Areas or Open Space. Subd. 2. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance that regular spacing may invoke. Subd. 3. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types identified in the City’s 2008 Natural Resources Inventory. Subd. 4. Planted buffers between clusters of residential lots are encouraged to enhance privacy and a rural appearance between lots. Subd. 5. Buffers consisting of an informal arrangement of native plant species combined with infrequent mowing are strongly encouraged, to create a low-maintenance, natural landscape. Subd. 6. Planted buffers are also encouraged along natural drainage areas to minimize erosion. Subd. 7. Grading for Conservation Areas and other common landscaped areas and stormwater management areas shall be avoided to reduce compaction and impacting water infiltration rates. Soil testing and decompaction may be required if site construction activities negatively impact soil permeability. Subd. 8. Better Site Design/Low Impact Development practices as identified in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall be used to design sites and meet the performance standards. Section 827.71. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Facilities. Subd. 1. Where city services are not available, CD-PUD developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and all required drainfields/mound systems located on the lot, or individual septic tanks and primary drainfield/mount system located on the lot and secondary drainfields/mound system located in the designated Conservation Area or other Open Space. Subd. 2. All septic systems shall conform to the current performance standards of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and its appendices, or the amended Rules in effect at the time of installation. Except in instances where flexibility has been explicitly granted by the City, septic systems shall also conform to relevant City regulations, including the requirement to identify a primary and secondary drainfield site. Ordinance No. ### 11 DATE Subd. 3. The City may consider shared sewage treatment systems which are consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations and relevant City ordinances, provided adequate agreements are in place related to monitoring and maintenance procedures and replacement of the system in case of a failure. Subd. 4. Secondary drainfields/mound systems may be located in designated Conservation Areas and other Open Space provided that: (a) They are located within a limited distance of the lots they serve. (b) Construction of drainfields/mound systems do not result in the destruction of ecological resources. (c) The Conservation Area or Open Space parcel containing the drainfield/mound system is owned in fee by a common ownership association which owns non-Conservation Area land within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision is mandatory. (d) The individual lot owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the drainfield/mound system. (e) The ground cover over the drainfield/mound system is maintained according to the Land Stewardship Plan. (f) Recreational uses are prohibited within 50 feet of the drainfields/mound systems. (g) The Conservation Easement for the dedicated Conservation Area parcel describes the location of individual drainfields/mound systems. Section 827.73. Site Design Process. At the time of PUD Concept Plan development and review, applicants shall demonstrate that the following design process was performed and influenced the design of the concept site plan. Subd. 1. Step 1—Identify Conservation Areas. Identify preservation land in two steps. First identify “unbuildable” areas which include: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Next, identify Conservation Areas which include those areas designated as Conservation Areas (Section 827.59 Subd. 3.) The remaining land shall be identified as the potentially Buildable Land Area. The applicant shall identify the quantity of land designated as unbuildable, Conservation Area, and potentially Buildable Land Area. Subd. 2. Step 2—Locate Housing Sites. Locate the approximate sites of individual houses in regard to protected views and the potentially buildable land areas. Subd. 3. Step 3—Align Streets and Trails. Align streets in order to access the lots. New trails and connections to regional trail systems, if any, should be laid out to create internal and external connections to existing and/or potential future streets, sidewalks, and trails. Subd. 4. Step 4—Lot Lines. Draw in the lot lines. Ordinance No. ### 12 DATE Section 827.75. CD-PUD Application Processing. The review and approval procedures of the PUD District shall be used to review and approve CD-PUDs. Prior to the Concept Plan Stage PUD application, the City encourages applicants to engage in an informal collaborative project goal setting process with the City. The purpose of this process is to jointly develop site design and conservation objectives and assess areas of regulatory flexibility for achieving developer and City objectives for the specific parcel of land. The Collaborative Process may include council members, city commission members, land owners, developers, city staff, other governmental jurisdiction staff, the potential future Conservation Easement holder, and other participants as appropriate. The outcome of the process is a Project Guidance Report prepared by city staff. The report will summarize the project concept, project objectives, and preliminary understanding of regulatory flexibility needed to achieve the objectives. SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this _____ day of _____, 2017. ______________________________ Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of ______, 2017. Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 1 December 20, 2016 MEDINA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20, 2016 The City Council of Medina, Minnesota met in special session on December 20, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. at the Medina City Hall, 2052 County Road 24, Medina, MN. I. Call to Order Members present: Anderson, Cousineau, Martin, Mitchell and Pederson Members absent: Also present: City Administrator Scott Johnson, City Attorney Ron Batty, City Engineer Jim Stremel, Public Works Director Steve Scherer, Public Safety Director Ed Belland, and City Planner Dusty Finke II. Water Tower Rehabilitation Project Public Works Director Steve Scherer provided information on the water tower rehabilitation project with City Engineering firm WSB. Scherer also provided back ground information on the color options, logo options, technical issues that may occur when the tower is down and timing on the project. The City Council directed Staff to paint the tower light blue (current color) and not include the name or logo. The project will be scheduled for the fall of 2017 and is estimated to cost $400,000. III. Conservation Design – PUD Discussion City Planner Dusty Finke provided the City Council with background information and preservation goals for the ordinance. The City Council discussed the Metropolitan Council’s lot requirements, protecting ecologically significant areas, Council discretion under the current ordinance, bonus density concerns, minimum lot sizes, preserving buildable areas, public access to preserved areas and view sheds, the quality of the resources protected, and encouraging innovative home design. Staff was directed to cross reference the objectives of the ordinance and make adjustments to the ordinance language. Adjournment Mitchell closed the meeting at 6:58 p.m. _________________________ Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: ____________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Medina City Council Special Meeting Minutes 2 December 20, 2016 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Medina City Council Excerpt from 2/7/2017 Meeting Minutes 1 Conservation Design-PUD Ordinance Discussion (7:07 p.m.) Johnson noted that at a previous Council meeting the Council requested background information on how the ordinance was developed which has been provided in the packet for the review of the Council. He noted that this is open for discussion as requested by the City Council. Sparks provided a brief summary of the background information. He noted that the ordinance could continue as written or the Council could choose to further discuss the topic. Mitchell stated that the City is in the middle of the Comprehensive Plan process and this is an important part of that. He stated that the object is to discuss the packet information tonight and then obtain input from Finke when he is available. Cousineau commented that there was a lot of work and comparative analysis done to develop this ordinance. She stated that in her opinion this is a good ordinance that keeps the control in the hands of the City. She stated that how the City implements the ordinance is what matters, noting that the City has the discretion whether or not to award the density bonus and therefore she is comfortable with the ordinance. Martin echoed the comments of Cousineau. She stated that she was a part of the process when the ordinance was developed and felt that it was a comprehensive process and was well studied. She stated that if the ordinance were to be reviewed again, she would strengthen it a bit not by decreasing the density bonus but enhancing language regarding discretion and tree preservation. She stated that any type of maximum density should call for some type of public access. She stated that she would like to keep the density bonus but it should be made clear that it is only earned through an absolute homerun and providing access to residents. She stated that this ordinance allows the City to protect elements that they would not normally be able to protect as the land develops. She stated that the preservation not only has an impact today but also for residents of Medina in the future. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan speaks of preserving the rural character of Medina and this is one way to do it. Pederson agreed with the comments thus far noting that discretion is a big element. He explained that in order for someone to earn the maximum density bonus, someone would really have to present something special. Martin asked staff to look at the ordinance with that in mind, keeping in mind the discretion element and the public access towards the front of the discussion. Batty stated that the Council did discuss that on December 20th and directed staff to prepare some ordinance amendments to more closely link the conservation goals with the incentives. He noted that Finke is attempting to do that, but on January 3rd, the discussion was related to how the City got to the 200 percent density bonus and therefore the information in the packet is in response to that question. He stated that staff intends to address those questions and bring back an amended ordinance. Anderson asked if there is interest from the Council in tying density bonus incentives to the number of homes proposed by the applicant, noting that perhaps the 200 percent density bonus be linked to a lesser number of homes. Cousineau stated the ordinance might be better suited for larger parcels rather than the smaller ones in the ordinance, i.e. 40 acres as currently defined. Medina City Council Excerpt from 2/7/2017 Meeting Minutes 2 Martin stated that the concept of discussing the impact of the homes being developed and the surrounding neighborhood is good, but noted that she would not want to see that tied to a number of homes. She stated that there should be flexibility. She stated that a lot of these things are in the ordinance but could be made more clear. Mitchell stated that 30 years ago, there was not a conservation design subdivision ordinance. He stated that he lives on Willow Drive near Medina Morningside, which is a suburban neighborhood with smaller lots. He stated that he is aware of the difference between rural development and suburban development. He stated that his concern is that in the middle of a rural area you would create a more dense/suburban neighborhood. He referenced an agreement with the Metropolitan Council that brought sewer to Hamel and stated that he is concerned that this additional density could have an impact on that. Martin noted that this ordinance provides the conservation of the rural Medina elements and providing a great trail system that can be enjoyed by all the residents, those that live in the rural areas and those that live in the suburban areas. She stated that a density drive will come back again from the Metropolitan Council sometime in the future and this will allow the City to preserve tracts of land from falling into regular suburban development. Mitchell stated that he would like to see the density bonus lower than 200 percent or at least strengthening of what is being protected. Martin stated that she would not want to narrow the latitude of future Council’s to give the right incentive to the right project. Batty stated that the ordinance allows discretion, which is key. He stated that the other thing that arose is that it is probably a mistake to only focus on the percentage and instead look at the absolute number of lots. He used the example of doubling two or three compared to doubling 20 or 30 lots. He noted that if there is going to be a large doubling of lots, then the City should be getting more in terms of conservation. Johnson noted that staff can review the language and bring the topic back for further discussion. Martin noted that it is the discretion of the Council and therefore she would not want to see the bargaining ability of the City reduced. Cousineau stated that her fear is that the City is not using their discretion and should be using that more. She wanted to ensure that the Council knows they are empowered. Martin stated that the Council has said no twice and the one that was approved was under the settlement agreement.