HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-11-2014MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2014
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 February 11, 2014 Draft Planning Commission
minutes
6. Property Resources Development Corporation Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to change future land use from Rural Residential
to Low Density Residential East of Homestead Trail, Southwest of
Deerhill Rd (PID 28 118 23 2/1 0001). Hearing postponed upon
request of applicant
7. Kristin Chapman — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to convert
existing accessory structure to an Accessory Dwelling Unit
8. Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL March 6, 2014
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Weir and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: February 27, 2014
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates March 4, 2014 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Reviews
A) Property Resources Development Co. (PRDC) Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan —
West of Willow Drive, southwest of Deerhill Road — PRDC has requested a Comp Plan
Amendment to reguide 90 acres from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential (2-3.49
units/acre) and also a PUD Concept Plan for a 99 lot subdivision. The Comp Plan Amendment
is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing at the March 11 Planning Commission meeting.
The PUD Concept Plan is incomplete at this time and will be scheduled for review when
complete information is submitted.
B) Kirsten Chapman Accessory Dwelling Unit CUP — 1910 Iroquois — the property owner has
requested approval of a CUP to convert an existing accessory structure into an accessory
dwelling unit. The request is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the March 11
Planning Commission meeting.
C) Villas at Medina Country Club — PUD Concept Plan — Rachel Development has requested
review of a PUD Concept Plan for the construction of 53 "villas" (detached townhomes) along
the northern and western perimeter of the Medina Golf and Country Club east of County Road
116 and south of Shawnee Woods Road. Staff is conducting a preliminary review of the
information submitted, and it will be scheduled for a public hearing if deemed complete,
potentially at the March 11 Planning Commission meeting.
D) Hamel Haven Final Plat — 805 Hamel Road — JJC Hamel LLC has requested final plat approval
for a proposed lot split. The Council granted preliminary approval back in 2011. Staff is
conducting a preliminary review and the request will be presented to the City Council when
complete.
E) Wakefield Subdivision — 3385 County Road 24 — The Wakefield Family Partnership has
requested approval of a rural subdivision of 74 acres at the southeast corner of Homestead Trail
and County Road 24. The applicant has submitted additional information for review, and a
Public Hearing will be scheduled when it is deemed complete.
F) St. Peter and Paul Cemetery CUP — St. Peter and Paul church intends to expand their cemetery
at the southeast corner of County Road 19 and Hamel Road. Improvements include new access
drives, landscaping, stormwater improvements and additional grave sites. The Planning
Commission held a Public Hearing at the July 9 meeting and recommended approval. The
applicant requested that the Council delay review until they could work through some of the
conditions.
G) Hartray Lot Combination — 4035 Apache Drive — the property owner has requested approval of
a lot combination of two lots which do not meet minimum lot size standards in order to create a
lot which is less non -conforming. The combination will also allow the construction of a new
septic system, because the only potential location lies across the common lot line. The request
is incomplete for review at this time, and will be presented to the Council when complete.
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 March 4, 2014
City Council Meeting
H) Dominium PUD Concept Plan — 510 Clydesdale Trail — Dominium has requested review of a
PUD Concept Plan for the development of 32 affordable rental townhomes on 4 acres at 510
Clydesdale Trail. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the February 11 meeting
and the City Council review at the February 18 meeting and provided comments which were
generally supportive. Staff will await an application for General Plan Development review.
I) Woods of Medina Preliminary Plat — Jeff Pederson has requested preliminary plat and rezoning
to subdivide 9.5 acres (8.8 net acres) at the intersection of CR116 and Shawnee Woods Road
into 16 R1 single family lots. The request includes a vacation of a portion of Shawnee Woods
Trail and a partial waiver from tree preservation requirements. The City Council adopted
documents approving the requests at the January 7 meeting. Staff will await a final plat
application.
J) Fawn Meadows subdivision — east of CR 116, north of Medina Lake Drive — Money Tree, LLC
has requested a preliminary plat and rezoning for the development of 11 lots on the 10 acres
(5.72 net acres) immediately north of the Toll Brothers Reserve of Medina project. The City
Council granted preliminary approval at the January 21 meeting. Staff will now await final plat
application.
K) Three Rivers Park/Reimer Lot Rearrangement — the property owners have requested a lot
rearrangement to allow a "land swap" of property which the Reimers own on the west side of
Homestead Trail and which Three Rivers owns on the east side of Homestead Trail. The City
Council reviewed at the August 7 meeting and adopted a resolution of approval at the August 20
meeting. Staff will work with the owners to finalize the conditions of approval.
L) Morrison Lot Split and Variance — Truxtun and Adrienne Morrison have requested to
subdivide their 18 acres at 1525 Hunter Drive into two lots. The City Council approved of the
division at the June 4 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize the terms and
conditions of the approval.
M) D.R. Horton Stage I Plan — D.R. Horton has requested Stage Plan I approval for development
of Mixed Use property west of Arrowhead, east of Mohawk and north of Highway 55. The
entire property is approximately 84 acres in area (approximately 59 acres upland) and the
applicant proposes 85 single family lots, a 54 unit apartment building and 5 acres of commercial
development. The City Council granted Stage I approval at the January 21 meeting.
Other Projects
A) City of Corcoran Comp Plan Amendments (County Road 50 and Larkin Road) — Corcoran has
submitted two comprehensive plan requests for comment. The first is a request to reguide 103
acres along County Road 50, west of County Road 116 from High Density Residential (10+
units per acre) to Low Density Residential (3-5 units per acre). The second request is to reguide
approximately 118 acres on Larkin Road to Agricultural Reserve. Staff does not intend to
provide comment unless the City Council directs us to do so at the March 4 meeting.
B) MSA Route Discussions — Staff is analyzing potential changes to the City's MSA routes
because of additional street mileage being constructed in the City and also because of changes in
how funding is calculated. Staff has had conversations with neighboring cities related to streets
along common boundaries. Staff intends to present this analysis to the City Council in March.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 March 4, 2014
City Council Meeting
1 CITY OF MEDINA
2 PLANNING COMMISSION
3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
4 Tuesday, February 11, 2014
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan, Robin Reid, Randy Foote, Robert
9 Mitchell, Victoria Reid, Janet White, and Kent Williams.
10
11 Absent: None
12
13 Also Present: City Councilmember Kathleen Martin, City Planner Dusty Finke, and
14 Planning Assistant Debra Peterson
15
16 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
17 No public comments.
18
19 3. Update from City Council proceedings
20 Martin updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City
21 Council.
22
23 4. Planning Department Report
24 Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects.
25
26 5. Approval of the December 10, 2013 Draft Planning Commission meeting
27 minutes.
28
29 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Foote, to approve the December 10, 2013 Planning
30 Commission minutes with changes. Motion carries unanimously.
31
32 6. Public Hearing - Dominium Requests Approval of a Planned Unit
33 Development (PUD) Concept Plan for development of 32 affordable
34 rental townhome units to be located at 510 Clydesdale Trail.
35
36 Finke presented. The property is Guided Mixed Use Business. The land use allows
37 commercial and residential uses. The density being proposed is 8.65 units/acre with
38 32 rental townhomes. The parcel is four acres in size and is located north of the
39 Medina Entertainment Center. The PUD is a multi -part process to review the
40 proposal. The main purpose of the Concept PUD is for the applicant to receive
41 feedback from the Commission and Council. The Concept Stage allows the applicant
42 to receive necessary information prior to going to the next stage and investing further
43 dollars towards the project. The project has received subsidies to assist in
44 development, subject to restrictions on rents that can be charged.
45
1
46 The project is proposed to have a Clubhouse and a playground. The remaining open
47 space would not be useable due to grades on the property beyond the patios and decks
48 for each unit. Seventeen guest parking spaces are required and are being proposed
49 conceptually. Staff does have concern with the use of the guest parking and asks that
50 it be privately policed so that parking is only used by guests and not renters.
51
52 A City well exists on the southeast corner of the property and the City may consider
53 conveyance of the well to the applicant for their use.
54
55 The facade facing a public or private street shall have 20% accent material. Finke
56 pointed out that trash and recycling was a concern, since it's required to be stored
57 internally and space would be limited. He said the garage spaces are small and the
58 concern is not enough space for placing the containers inside along with two vehicles.
59 He asked the applicant to consider alternative locations for the containers such as
60 outside, but screened.
61
62 Finke asked the Commission to review the use of a PUD. He said the use is
63 consistent with the zoning, with the exception of the variations proposed. No formal
64 action is required through the Concept Plan, but the Commission should provide
65 feedback to the applicant.
66
67 Williams asked why the use of a PUD. He felt what the applicant was asking for
68 could just be granted with Variances. He also asked about the rezoning of the
69 property. Finke explained the MU Business and the ability to average densities
70 across the entire land use. He further said the property is an outlier that is guided
71 similarly with all other properties in Uptown Hamel. In previous meetings it was
72 noted that the zoning densities can be averaged out and the density could be exceeded
73 with this property.
74
75 Finke said if we were to accept the density, we would have to rezone the property. A
76 Variance would require a hardship to be proven, whereas with the PUD it's not
77 required that a hardship be proven.
78
79 Mitchell said he had concern with parking in the development. He asked about
80 parking space sizes and if we had varying sizes. Finke said staff was concerned with
81 parking also. Mitchell asked what a reasonable rent would be in Medina. Finke said
82 there are goals for Medina from the Metropolitan Council which he believes is around
83 500 units with affordable rents, which he thought was around $1100.00.
84
85 V. Reid asked about the City Engineers comments. Finke explained the grading plan
86 had since been updated, addressing his concerns.
87
88 Nick Anderson of Dominium thanked the Commission for hearing their application
89 and he felt Finke thoroughly explained their proposal. Anderson said 100% of the
90 units would have rental limit restrictions. They would be very affordable and
91 reasonable. Also other restrictions with the State Housing Agency would be in place
2
92 in order for them to finance the project. He said he thinks the maximum household
93 income to live there would be $80,000.00 and would increase dependent on family
94 size.
95
96 V. Reid asked about tax credits. Anderson said they don't affect taxes paid to the
97 City.
98
99 Nolan said parking stands out to him and asked Anderson to explain how parking
100 would be addressed. Anderson said Dominium has a project in Albertville that is
101 similar in size. He said it is different in that it has 37 units with a similar number of
102 guest parking spaces. The project also has an apartment building next door and he
103 isn't sure about them having a problem with parking, or if parking from the apartment
104 building was being used for the townhomes.
105
106 Nolan asked if Anderson had experience with guest parking in other communities.
107 Anderson said they tend to go along with the City requirements and wasn't aware of
108 issues. Anderson said they did have some challenges with the proposed project to
109 add additional parking due to hardcover requirements. Nolan asked about the
110 driveways being 22 feet in depth. He said it seemed in a lot of locations there would
111 be opportunities to move the units back, which would increase the depth of the
112 driveways to 25 feet. He asked Anderson if there was a reason why they weren't
113 moved back in some locations. Tom Wasomen of BKV Group said they were trying
114 to stay out of the slice zone of the golf course and so the decks would be 35 feet from
115 that property line.
116
117 Anderson said a wetland delineation was done years ago and they can't complete a
118 new delineation until the upcoming growing season, so the plan is conceptual at this
119 time and may have more flexibility once a new delineation is completed as related to
120 setbacks.
121
122 Nolan brought up the front elevation and the garage doors. He asked if Dominium
123 could make some modifications to improve the appearance and challenged them to
124 modify the design. Anderson said the elevation drawing didn't give a good sense of
125 the actual design going from unit plan to unit plan. He said variation in depth occur
126 dependent on the unit size. He said the Albertville project shown on the projector had
127 varying roof designs dependent on the unit size also. Wasomen said the overhangs of
128 the roof at the front entrances add a shadow line which also plays with some depth.
129 He said the materials are varied with different ways they approach the windows and
130 rooflines. The use of bold colors in Albertville really detracts from the garage doors.
131 He said the garage door companies have come a long way over the years and it's
132 more affordable to make changes possible and be more appealing.
133
134 Mitchell asked if guest parking could be used for overnight parking and if parking
135 would be allowed overnight in the driveways. He said some developments prohibit
136 parking overnight in driveways. Anderson said he wasn't aware of not allowing
137 parking in individual driveways. Wasomen explained each unit would have two
3
138 inside stalls and two outside stalls for parking. He said they could have a family of
139 four cars and they would be accommodated. Mitchell said he was concerned with the
140 22 foot depth with snow plowing.
141
142 Mitchell asked who would be responsible for plowing and Anderson said Dominium.
143 Mitchell said then they would have to deal with any issues if the driveway depths
144 were too narrow for plowing. Wasomen said during the Development Stage they
145 would add proof -of -parking. Mitchell said he looks at PUD's as contract zoning. He
146 said if the laws for PUD's hadn't changed, he didn't think the City should be afraid of
147 using it as a tool. He asked why townhomes instead of apartments. Anderson said
148 because of previous success in Albertville with townhomes. Mitchell asked why
149 rentals were better than ownership. Anderson said because of the lower rents they
150 offer.
151
152 V. Reid said she didn't like the percentage of garage doors on the front elevations.
153 She suggested the applicant implement additional green space to break up the huge
154 mass of asphalt in front of the units. Wasomen said they would be incorporating
155 variations along with a tree lined street. V. Reid said the use of shrubs between the
156 two garages would provide some break up/change to the front appearance. V. Reid
157 said she was pleased to see the layout.
158
159 Foote asked where the Albertville project was located. Finke said 19 North to 37.
160 Anderson said all impervious surfaces would be treated in rain gardens and would
161 utilize the natural ways into the storm system. He said the use was a good transition
162 from a golf course to a townhome development.
163
164 R. Reid said she saw handicap spaces on the east side of the project and suggested the
165 applicant also place handicap spaces on the north side of the project. She also said
166 she'd like to see screening from the building to the west (industrial). She didn't want
167 tenants to have to look at the industrial use to the west. She said she didn't have an
168 issue with the garage doors as presented. Wasomen said the garages are proposed to
169 face the private drive and it wouldn't be seen along Clydesdale Drive. In terms of
170 overall landscaping, they hadn't worked very much on that since the project was only
171 at Concept Stage. R. Reid said there is a requirement for more landscaping and she
172 suggested more focus be placed along the west. Nolan thought the center units
173 backing up to the playgrounds could use more landscaping or some sort of privacy.
174 He said it would be nice to do something to break up that area with some additional
175 landscaping. R. Reid said some landscaping along the sidewalk would be nice. Finke
176 said that area is the only area for kids. The open space would remain for an open
177 lawn.
178
179 Public Hearing opened at 8:13 p.m.
180
181 Public Hearing closed at 8:14 p.m.
182 Nolan asked the applicant if they had any questions for the Commission. Nolan said
183 the unit in the very NW corner was a possible concern with pulling a car out of the
4
184 driveway and if that could be looked at closer. He said overall the PUD was not an
185 issue with the Commission. The distance between units was also not an issue. He
186 said he was excited to have some variation in our housing product in Medina.
187 Parking was an issue, but he didn't feel we could dictate it as long as they meet City
188 minimum requirements. He thought proof -of -parking would also be a great solution
189 and that the City considers nature an important element with each development and
190 that is why they would like to see more landscaping during the Development Stage.
191
192 R. Reid asked if the City is working on getting bus service onto State Hwy 55.
193 Council member Martin said the City had to convince the Metropolitan Council that
194 there was a need for bus service in our City. She said a City survey would be going
195 out in the City Newsletter and City website. Finke said the need is in the NE corner
196 of the City, but all residents could complete the survey.
197
198 7. Council Meeting Schedule
199
200 Mitchell agreed to attend and present at the February 18, 2014 Council meeting.
201
202 8. Nominations of 2014 PC Chair: Williams nominated Nolan for Chair for 2014 PC.
203 Nolan accepted. There were no further nominations. Charles Nolan was elected as
204 the 2014 Planning Commission Chair by unanimous consent, being the only
205 nominee.
206
207 9. Nominations of 2014 PC Vice Chair: V. Reid nominated R. Reid for Vice Chair for
208 2014 PC. R. Reid accepted. There were no further nominations. Robin Reid was
209 elected as the 2014 Planning Commission Vice Chair by unanimous consent,
210 being the only nominee.
211
212 10. Adjourn
213 Motion by Foote, seconded by White, to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. Motion carried
214 unanimously.
5
AGENDA ITEM: 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: March 4, 2014
MEETING: March 11, 2014 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Kirsten Chapman — Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Dwelling Unit
1910 Iroquois Drive — Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Application Received: February 14, 2014
60 -day Review Deadline: April 15, 2014
Summary of Request
Kirsten Chapman has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to convert an
existing accessory structure on her property to an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The subject
property is located on the end of the cul-de-sac of Iroquois Drive and is approximately 5.9 acres
in size. The structure in which the ADU is proposed is located in the northeastern -most corner of
the site and is non -conforming with regards to the setback from the eastern property line because
it was constructed prior to the City increasing setbacks in 2006. An aerial of the site can be
found below:
Location of structure in
which ADU is proposed
Kir.
CU
Analysis
CUP Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units
An ADU is an allowed conditional use within the Rural Residential zoning district, subject to the
following review criteria (City Code Section 826.98). Staff has provided potential findings for
each in italics.
(i) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a property. No accessory
dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a property on which a lodging room or a second
residential dwelling is located;
The proposed ADU would be the only one on the property.
(ii) Accessory dwelling units within the SR (Suburban Residential), UR (Urban Residential), Rl
(Single -Family Residential) or R2 (Two -Family Residential) zoning districts shall be
attached to the principal single family structure;
The property is zoned Rural Residential, so an ADU is permitted in an accessory structure.
(iii) The lot shall contain an existing single-family dwelling unit;
The property contains an existing single-family dwelling unit.
(iv) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the lesser of the following:
1) 750 square feet for a one -bedroom unit;
2) 1,000 square feet for a two -bedroom unit; or
3) 40 percent of the habitable area of the principal single-family dwelling;
The habitable area of the ADU is 643 square feet, meeting this threshold.
(v) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of habitable space;
The habitable area of the ADU is 643 square feet.
(vi) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms;
The ADU contains two bedrooms.
(vii) A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per bedroom for the accessory
dwelling unit. Such parking spaces shall not interfere with accessing the required garage
spaces for the principal single-family dwelling;
The ADU includes a single garage space and adequate space for parking multiple vehicles.
There is additional parking off of the main driveway as well. Construction of the driveway will
necessitate removal of a couple of the trees, but would either be exempt from the tree
preservation ordinance (allowed 2 per year), or fall well below the amount of removal permitted
without replacement.
(viii) No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory dwelling unit;
No separated curb cut is proposed.
(ix) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the principal single-
family dwelling;
This is an on -going requirement, which staff recommends as a condition if approved.
Kirsten Chapman Page 2 of 6 March 11, 2014
CUP for Accessory Dwelling Unit Planning Commissi6n Meeting
(x) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the accessory
dwelling unit as their primary residence;
This is an on -going requirement, which staff recommends as a condition if approved.
(xi) If the accessory dwelling unit is located within a structure detached from the principal
single-family dwelling, the architectural design and building materials shall be of the same
or higher quality and shall complement the single-family dwelling. Additionally, the
structure shall meet the setback requirements of the principal structure and shall count
towards the maximum number and building size of accessory structures permitted on a
property;
It appears that the architecture of the existing structure is similar and complementary to the
single-family dwelling on the property. Two accessory structures with a footprint of
approximately 3000 square feet are currently located on the property, which is within the
number and size permitted.
Staff believes that the primary question on the proposed application relates to the location of the
structure. On rural residential lots five acres in size or larger, current regulations require
structures to be located a minimum of 50 feet away from all property lines. The structure
proposed to be converted was constructed when setback requirements from the side property line
were lower (20 feet) and is currently nonconforming. The eastern side of the structure is also
more visible than the north and west sides because of existing landscaping and topography.
Generally, the City does not prohibit a change of use within a structure which is nonconforming
with regards to setbacks, unless the proposed use requires a more restrictive setback. For
example, staff would not recommend allowing the conversion of a structure to an animal barn,
because the animal barn requires a larger setback than all other uses (150 feet). Conditional
uses do allow the City to determine if the location of the proposed use is appropriate and to
impose additional limitations on the location of structures and the required yard setbacks. If the
Planning Commission and City Council believe the location of the structure proposed to be
converted to an ADU (less than 50 feet from the side property line) has the potential to
negatively impact neighboring property owners, staff believes it would be appropriate to either
require additional mitigative measures (additional screening, restrictions on rentals, etc.) or to
deny the CUP to convert the building.
(xii) Adequate utility services shall be available to serve the accessory dwelling unit. This shall
include adequate capacity within individual sewage treatment systems for both the
principal single family dwelling and the accessory dwelling, where applicable.
The existing structure has access to utilities and is served by two holding tanks. Generally,
holding tanks are not recommended for residential dwellings. The applicant has stated that they
intend to use the ADU for "a couple of years" and requested that the holding tanks be permitted.
Upon sale of the property, the new owner could decide to either install a drainfield, or rescind
the CUP for the accessory dwelling unit. The building official has indicated support for this
proposal. Staff recommends a condition formalizing this requirement if the City approves the
CUP.
Kirsten Chapman
Page 3 of 6 March 11, 2014
CUP for Accessory Dwelling Unit Planning Commission Meeting
(xiii) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit above the first floor shall
be located in a way to minimize visibility from the street and, to the extent possible, from
neighboring property. Such stairway shall incorporate a deck a minimum of 27 square feet
in area;
No exterior stairway is proposed.
(xiv) The City Council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or
limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the single-family residential
character of the surrounding area. A copy of the resolution approving an accessory
dwelling unit and describing the conditions, restrictions and limitations on the use shall be
recorded against the property.
The Planning Commission and City Council may wish to discuss any additional limitations
which are deemed appropriate.
General Conditional Use Permit Standards
In addition to the specific standards noted above, the Planning Commission and City Council are
to consider the following general criteria when reviewing all CUPs (City Code Section 825.39):
1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the immediate vicinity.
As noted above, the primary matter for discussion is related to the setback of the existing
structure from the side property line. The Planning Commission and City Council can discuss if
the location of the structure would cause the use to be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property.
2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
Staff does not believe an accessory dwelling unit will impede the normal and orderly
development of surrounding vacant property.
3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are
being provided.
As noted above, staff recommends a condition related to the temporary use of the holding tanks.
4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and
loading space to serve the proposed use.
Staff believes adequate parking exists.
5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor,
fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to
control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring
properties will result.
Staff does not believe an accessory dwelling structure would bring up these concerns, as they are
more relevant for commercial uses.
Kirsten Chapman Page 4 of 6 March 11, 2014
CUP for Accessory Dwelling Unit Planning Commission Meeting
6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the
City and to the existing land use.
The City Council added accessory dwelling units as an allowed conditional use to serve the
needs of the City.
7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning
district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
Staff believes accessory dwelling units are consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and
the RR zoning district.
8. The use is not in conflict with the policies of the City.
Staff does not believe the proposed use is in conflict with the policies of the City.
9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
Staff does not believe the use would cause traffic or congestion concerns.
10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or
general unsightliness.
Staff does not believe the use would cause these concerns.
11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
If the City approves the CUP, the applicant seeks to begin construction immediately.
12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer.
The City Attorney has not requested additional documentation with regards to ownership at this
time.
Conclusion
When reviewing a conditional use permit request, the Planning Commission and City Council
should review the specific and general criteria described above. If the criteria are met, the CUP
should be approved.
As described in Section 825.41 of the City Code: "In permitting a new conditional use or the
alteration of an existing conditional use, the City Council may impose, in addition to those
standards and requirements expressly specified in this Ordinance, additional conditions which
the City Council considers necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding area or the
community as a whole. These conditions may include, but are not limited, to the following:
1. Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions.
2. Limiting the height, size or location of buildings.
3. Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points.
4. Increasing the street width.
5. Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces.
6. Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs.
7. Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or
nearby property.
8. Designating sites for open space."
Kirsten Chapman
Page 5 of 6 March 11, 2014
CUP for Accessory Dwelling Unit Planning Commission Meeting
If the Planning Commission and City Council believe the criteria have been met, staff
recommends that approval be subject to the following conditions:
1) The single-family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit may not be conveyed separately
and shall at all times be under common ownership.
2) A septic system meeting all relevant state and local regulations shall be installed to serve
the accessory dwelling unit within six months of any conveyance of the subject property.
The Seller shall ensure that an escrow adequate to cover the cost of installation is secured
and that the City is notified of the sale.
3) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the
accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence.
4) The property owner shall abide by all conditions of Medina City Code Section 826.98,
Subd. 2(p).
Attachments
1. Building official comments dated 2/12/2014 and 2/21/2014
2. Applicant narrative
3. Photo of existing structure (from applicant)
4. Map showing improvements on surrounding property (from applicant)
5. Proposed Floorplan
6. Site Plan
Kirsten Chapman Page 6 of 6 March 11, 2014
CUP for Accessory Dwelling Unit Planning Commission Meeting
February 12, 2014
TO: Medina City Council
Medina Planning Commission
FROM: Loren Kohnen
Building Official
RE: 1910 Iroquois Drive
Medina, Minnesota
C.U.P. APPLICATION
METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.
Loren Kohnen, Pres. (763) 479-1720
FAX (763) 479-3090
Mtrowst76@aol.com
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014, I met with Ms. Kirsten Chapman and
Adam Johnson, building contractor. Ms.Chapman is owner of the said
property located at the above -captioned address. She is applying
for a C.U.P. for the smaller existing building on her property.
In this meeting we discussed building code requirements and said
requirements are all going to be met. The said building will be
constructed with two (2) bedrooms.
The septic holding tanks at this structure are 2 - 1500 gallon existing
tanks with proper alarm provided. Ms. Chapman has a contract with
Duane's Septic Service from St. Michael, MN.
A condition proposed for when the property is sold, a new septic
system be installed that will be compliant with the current M.P.C.A.
Rules.
NOTE: Ms. Chapman currently has a design that will more than take
care of both buildings on the property. This is a reasonable
request and condition. The City of Medina has other systems
that require monitoring.
LK:jg
Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357
METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.
Loren Kohnen, Pres. (763) 479-1720
FAX (763) 479-3090
Mtrowst76@aol.co►n
February 21, 2014
TO: Debra Peterson
Planning Assistant
FROM: Loren Kohnen
RE: 1910 Iroquois Drive
Medina, Minnesota
CUP/ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Met with building contractor at the site to review building code
requirements and it appears there should be no problems.
LK:jg
Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357
DATE: 14 February 2014
TO: Dusty Finke
City of Medina Planning & Zoning Department
FROM: Kirsten Chapman
Resident
RE: Conditional Use Permit Application
2 -Bedroom Accessory Dwelling Unit
Dear Mr. Finke:
I'm submitting a Conditional Use Permit application to convert an accessory building into
a 2 -Bedroom Accessory Dwelling Unit.
The reason that I'd like to convert the building into a dwelling is so that it can be lived-in
by persons associated with the property. For the next couple of years, I'm planning to
live in the proposed building and rent -out the primary residence while I build a new
residence elsewhere. I suspect that future property owners might use the building as a
guest or caretaker house or perhaps as a place to live for adult children returning home
or for aging parents to be close -by, as well as for other conveniences that require a
dwelling.
The proposed project meets the criteria for granting Conditional Use Permits, including:
1. It will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish
and impair property values with the immediate vicinity.
2. It will have adequate utilities, access, drainage andother necessary facilities.
3. It will have sufficient off-street parking.
4. It is reasonably related to existing land use.
5. It is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the
zoning district.
6. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City.
7. The use will not cause a traffic hazard or congestion.
8. Existing residences will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or
general unsightliness.
In addition, the project meets all zoning requirements specific to a 2 -Bedroom Accessory
building, including:
1. A habitable area of more than 300 square feet and less than 1,000 square feet.
2. Two off-street parking spaces.
3. The gravel driveway serving the building will branch -off from the property's
driveway.
4. Adherence to architectural design, building materials and setback requirements.
5. Being within the permitted maximum number of structures and building size.
6. Meeting adequate capacity for sewage treatment/handling systems.
1
I'm fully aware that a resolution describing conditions, restrictions and limitations will be
recorded against the property and that the building cannot be sold or conveyed
separately from the principal dwelling.
I look forward to working through the application process and welcome any questions.
Sincerely,
ten CW'apman
1910 Iroquois Drive
Medina, MN 55356
763.475.9150
2
sailing Label Map
ices Department
Print Date: 2/7/2014
Map Scale: 1" = 378'
Buffer Size: 1000 feet
Map Legend:
Water
1-J 14006 e -
Q= Icram
r,O1/42rtct Arron
Major Roads
et 4e, i'Ylc l /'9 fo 2
i
co
N
co
co
N 00° 39' 15" E
S 88 ° 18' 00" E 330.07
PROPERTY ADDRESS : 1910 IROQUOIS DRIVE
(n 60
O L1J
0 >
O a
0
390. 00
' \.NORTH L NE OF SE 1/4
OF SEC. 22-118-23
COUNTY STATE AID ?` KIRSTEN D. CHAP MAN
HIGH WAY NO . 24 a IN THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 22-118-23
N
co
ui
CO
S 00°39'15" W
594 .00
a
O
.k V
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
\ \\
\ \
\ �N \\ \\ i
\ \
�\ \ N
-50 0 50 100 150
N \ \ \
1� \ \
\ t
FaE O
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
60
IROQUOIS
DRIVE
0
SCALE 1N FEET \ \ \ \,te a \y �tP;
N
// / _(1024 .15) N \\ \\ �. \
/
/
N
N
N
o
N.
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS / \ \\ \ `j \ `\ \ \\\
N
N
N
N.
N.
EAST LINE OF NW 1/4 OF I / /--R`� \ `\ \ \ N
N
N
SE 1/4 OF SEC. 22-118-23-... .,�1 1) Floor level 1044.01 / 4 ., N \\ 'C1fp ` `\ \\ \\N
\\ \\
2) Roof peak 11061 .171 �/ �f� \\\ \\ \ N\\ ` \`
/
/
/
N
N
/ i^1 \ \ \ N N \ \
3) Roof cave 11052 .01 /// `\ �\ \ \ \ \\ \\ N
I \N
At.
Pr oposed elevations around the 1 \\ N.
\ S LT
984.00 �I new building are all 11043.51 /ice- NN.
\ N
\ \ \ \\\ N\\ FENCE\
so averag e ground el evations =11043 .51 /// \\\ �N \N . \ \ \\ \ \\ `\ \
N
N
Pr oposed e xcav ation = 150 c .y. ` \�Y+tI� \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \
\\\�\
,\ \\ ` ` \ N\ \ \\
`\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \\
_ , �4{�}g� \ \ \ \
\\\ `C\ \ \ `\ `\ \ \\
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : \ \ \ `\ `\
\ \ \
i That part of the West 390 feet of the East 984 feet of the N orthwest quarter \ \\ \\ \
SOUTH LINE OF NW 1/4 OF l of the Southeast Qu art er lying South of the North 660 feet th ere of, Secti on 22, \ \ \
'SE 1/4 OF SEC. 22-112-23 ( Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, EXCEPT that \
part thereof included within the circumference of a circle having a radius of ,130 \
N 88° 14' 30" W ---'— I 40 feet, the center of said circle being a point described as follo ws: Commencing \
390.07 — ----- c,5,4.5)
..__.' at the intersection of the West line of the East 594 feet of said North west a1
Quarter of the Southeast Quart er with the South line of the North 660 feet 4�s1
of said Northwest quarter of the S outheast Quarter; thence West al ong said
South line of the North 660 feet a distance of 30 feet; thence deflecting
left 90 degrees a distance of 26.46 feet to said point.
o : denotes iron marker
(908. 3): denotes existing spot el evation, mean sea level datum
denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum
--- 917---: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum
-- 9041 : denotes proposed contour line, mean sea level datum
Bearings shown are based upon on assumed datum .
This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property, the pr oposed
location of a propo sed building, and the topography around said proposed building.
It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments .
910.8
544.5
TOPOGRAPHIC DETAIL
1"=20' SCALE
1045A)
U M
Zz 0
1H Z
M
A to
C/1 a .' "1
O Z
Ey Z
.<4 J Y
U �
i+
co
C .I^) a
V{
Ai
(2 *
o
J
0.1
0
0
445 NORTH
I -
U
LJ
0
0
Mark S. Gronherg
14-068