HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-08-2014MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 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 March 11, 2014 Draft Planning Commission minutes.
6. Public Hearing - Rachel Contracting — East of CR 116, South of
Shawnee Woods Road - Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Concept Plan to develop 53 detached homes along the north and
west boundaries of the Medina Country .
7. Public Hearing - Dominium — 510 Clydesdale Trail —
Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD)
General Development Plan to develop 32 affordable rental
townhomes.
8. Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL APRIL 3. 2014
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Weir and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: March 27, 2014
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates April 1, 2014 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Reviews
A) 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 Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the March 11 meeting and
recommended approval. The application is scheduled to be presented to the Council on April 1.
B) 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 PUD Concept Plan is
incomplete at this time and will be scheduled for review when complete information is
submitted. The Comp Plan Amendment Public Hearing was delayed at the request of the
applicant, and is now scheduled for April 8.
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 April 8 Planning Commission meeting.
D) Dominium PUD General Plan and Plat — 510 Clydesdale Trail — Dominium has requested
approval of a PUD General Plan and a replat of the property for the development of 32
affordable rental townhomes on 4 acres at 510 Clydesdale Trail. The item is tentatively
scheduled for review at the April 8 Planning Commission meeting.
E) 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.
F) Enclave at Brockton 4rh Addn — Lennar has requested approval of the next phase of the Enclave
at Brockton, to include 18 single family homes. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and
the request will be presented to the City Council when complete.
G) 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.
H) 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
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 April 1, 2014
City Council Meeting
applicant requested that the Council delay review until they could work through some of the
conditions.
I) 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.
J) 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.
K) 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.
L) 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.
M) 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.
N) 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) Cable Build -out — staff worked with the City's liaison to Mediacom to create a priority map for
the build out of the cable system in Medina pursuant to the new franchise agreement.
B) Business Forum and Business Tours — staff attended the forum and tours on March 26.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 April 1, 2014
City Council Meeting
1 CITY OF MEDINA
2 PLANNING COMMISSION
3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
4 Tuesday, March 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 Mitchell,
9 Victoria Reid, Janet White, and Kent Williams.
10
11 Absent: None
12
13 Also Present: Mayor Liz Weir, Councilmember Kathleen Martin, City Planner Dusty Finke,
14 and 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 Weir updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City Council.
21
22 4. Planning Department Report
23 Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects.
24
25 5. Approval of the February 11, 2014 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes.
26
27 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by White, to approve the February 11, 2014, Planning
28 Commission minutes as written. Motion carries unanimously.
29
30
31 future land use from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential East of Homestead Trail,
32 Southwest of Deerhill Rd (PID 28 118 23 2'1 0001). Hearing postponed upon request of
33 applicant
34
35 7. Kristin Chapman — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to convert existing accessory
36 structure to an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
37
38 Finke presented the application explaining the property is located at 1910 Iroquois Drive and
39 that the request is for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and is the first application before the
40 Commission since the creation of the ordinance allowing ADU's in 2009.
41
42 Finke explained the surrounding properties are also zoned Rural Residential. The principal
43 structure is located further to the rear of the property with the ADU closer to the road. The
44 ADU has similar architectural elements as the principal structure, which is a requirement of
45 the CUP. The existing structure is non -conforming with regards to the side yard setback to
46 the east being 20 feet. The current requirement is 50 feet and the ADU proposed does not
47 meet that setback.
48
1
49 Finke explained the sewage treatment proposed for the ADU has holding tanks. Building
50 Official Loren Kohnen accepts the holding tanks only until the home is sold. Staff
51 recommends a septic system that meets all relevant state and local regulations, but to be
52 installed to serve the ADU within six months from approval of a sale.
53
54 R. Reid asked if the property (ADU) would have a separate address. Finke said no. Nolan
55 asked why the holding tanks are alright now, but once it sells it isn't acceptable. He
56 questioned why it's alright to wait, but then said maybe Kohnen's thought was that it was
57 temporary in nature. He questioned that if it never sold then they wouldn't have to install a
58 septic system and would that be alright. Finke said that allowing the holding tanks until sale
59 of the property was requested by the applicant to Kohnen. Finke noted Kohnen may be more
60 at ease because the current owner fully understands the requirements for pumping and so
61 forth, and that a future buyer may not know what they are signing on for. Nolan asked Finke
62 if the property never sold for 25 years, could the current system sustain that time period.
63 Nolan said he's assuming Kohnen looked at the system on that time frame rather than two
64 years. Finke stated that as long as the tanks were pumped appropriately, there is no reason it
65 wouldn't work longer into the future, but noted that it is not ideal to need to constantly pump.
66 Nolan asked if we would ever allow it as a solution for a new home. Finke said we would
67 not. Nolan asked then why would we be accepting it for this application. Finke stated he
68 would inquire of the building official.
69
70 V. Reid asked if there could be a condition that it be replaced within 5 years regardless.
71 Nolan asked if space was available for its own septic system. Finke said Kohnen had
72 indicated there was space to expand the current principal structure system to expand.
73
74 White asked if the ADU was approved with the current holding tanks what mechanism does
75 the City have to enforce pumping. Finke said we'd work with the City attorney to have it be
76 part of an annual inspection. The City would have the requirement recorded against the
77 property. Williams said the purchaser would see that requirement and would only have
78 themselves to blame if they received an enforcement action against them. Finke said one of
79 the requirements would be that the seller notifies the City of the sale. White asked if, after the
80 sale of the property, it would still be a requirement that the owner occupy one of the buildings
81 if they were renting. Finke said yes, the CUP goes with the property.
82
83 Mitchell asked if under the ordinance an ADU could be rented. Finke said yes. William
84 asked as a condition that the owner has some sort of a contract. Finke said as a condition of
85 the CUP it could be required. Nolan said the City sends notices for pumping and Finke
86 confirmed. R. Reid asked if a contract was in place for pumping. Finke confirmed a letter
87 was received from a pumping contractor that the property owner is working with that they
88 would notify us if the property owner didn't pump the tanks per the agreement.
89
90 Finke explained the ADU ordinance discussion in 2009 and why rentals were allowed. He
91 said the Ordinance requires the property owner to live in either the principal structure or the
92 ADU, which would reduce the amount of rental ADU's. Also, if the ADU or principal
93 structure was rented, the property owner would have more of an interest in who they were
94 renting to if they were living on the same property. The Commission agreed that this
95 decision had been made back in 2009.
96
97 Mitchell said that when they originally built the building, if we would have known it was
98 going to be an occupied dwelling, would the setback still have only been 20 feet. Finke said
2
99 yes it would have been 20 feet, since that was the requirement at the time for the principal
100 structure also. Finke said lots less than five acres still have a 20 foot setback.
101
102 Kirsten Chapman of 1910 Iroquois Drive, the applicant, explained that before she built the
103 building she made sure to reserve space to build a mound system. She said she worked with
104 Rusty Olson to identify two septic locations on -site in addition to her existing drain field.
105 She said she has two alternative sites and Kohnen said she would only have to add the ADU
106 septic system to her existing system and not install a completely separate system. She said
107 she believes her septic system is designed for four bedrooms since she has four bedrooms in
108 her house. In addition to that, she had a mound system designed so it shows how that would
109 work to connect the ADU building to the house system. The design was done in April 2006
110 and she was very careful before she built the accessory building.
111
112 Chapman said she wouldn't normally address this, but she felt there had been some reckless
113 and inaccurate accusations that had been said in a memo that was sent to the City. She said
114 she does a lot of work on the internet and that's part of her business. She said she knows how
115 these documents are public documents because they reside out on the internet and some of
116 these things are inappropriate and don't belong in this discussion. In fact with them being
117 published out on the internet it is a very negative thing. She stated that the memorandum sent
118 by four neighbors accuses her of being deceiving and questionable in what she was doing.
119 When she built the building it was for a greenhouse, hobby, house and storage and since it's
120 been built it's been used for what was intended. It has stored lawn and gardening things,
121 window boxes she doesn't want to water. The greenhouse was used to raise seedlings. She
122 said you can't just plant the plants outside in the spring; they need to be weather hardened
123 since it can get very warm during the day and very cold at night which can actually kill your
124 seedlings. So she had the building insulated and had the building with windows facing south
125 and west and raised them in the greenhouse by allowing them to be weather hardened before
126 putting them into the ground. She said she specifically had the building insulated for that
127 purpose so in the spring she can put them in this building before planting them in the ground.
128 The specified use is exactly how it's been used and she was not part of any discussion of
129 using it as an additional dwelling unit or zoning laws back in 2009, or has an interest in it.
130 She saw in the Medina Newsletter back in 2009 that property owners can construct or convert
131 ADU's. She said the building looks like it does because she is very picky about architecture
132 and her own property. She said she has to drive by it every day and worked hard with the
133 contractor. She said it wasn't some conspiracy back in 2006 and 2007. The second thing is
134 that it states in the letter that the building didn't have a final inspection. She said she checked
135 with Finke and Metro West and it has a final inspection. Lastly, the memo from the
136 neighbors states that this could never have been classified as a greenhouse. The south and
137 west windows are very large and don't have UV protection and it's for a reason. She said for
138 her plants she needed as much light and doesn't want UV blockers. The building is also tilted
139 20 degrees to the west. She said for green houses you have to either tilt the building either
140 20 degrees to the east or west and she chose to the west. So she just wanted to point out what
141 and why she did what she did for construction of the building. She asked that all details
142 mentioned be part of the public record. The bigger point of the memo is that neighbors
143 weren't familiar with the 2009 ordinance allowing ADU's, which is a broader issue since
144 they are now permitted. She said she was happy to answer any questions.
145
146 Foote asked about the inspections for the two septic holding tanks. Chapman said the
147 building had a final inspection in 2009 and the holding tanks did not get a final inspection.
148 Foote asked if the tanks were part of the final inspection and Finke said it was a separate
149 permit which wasn't closed out.
3
150 Nolan asked about screening to the east and wondered if Chapman had talked with the
151 neighbors or if they've raised any concerns for a need for screening. Chapman said when she
152 built there wasn't any requirements. She said she asked the neighbor if he'd like screening
153 and he said "no". She said she planted shrubs that grew up to the roofline to cover the stucco.
154 On the rest of the building there are shrubs that go up to the bottom of the windows to soften
155 the stucco. Also in the larger area of stucco she planted a larger shrub next to the building to
156 break up the stucco and then planted six fruit trees. She said she offered the neighbor to help
157 himself any time to pick fruit. Other than that she hasn't heard anything stating they were
158 unhappy with this or that. She said since she built, she has not heard of any complaints. She
159 said if the neighbor would like something additional to be done she wouldn't find that
160 unacceptable.
161
162 Nolan said the size of the unit is 643 square feet. Finke said habitable square feet. Nolan
163 asked what habitable means. Finke explained what was excluded such as bathrooms, closets,
164 mechanical rooms, hallways, which he said is defined in the Code Book.
165
166 Williams said he wanted to follow up on the question Nolan didn't ask. It's the case
167 concerning an existing accessory structure and he had gone out to take a look at it and found
168 it to be compatible with the Principal structure with similar architecture. The outside is going
169 to stay the way it is and the remodel is all enclosed and the footprint is going to stay the same
170 as it is now. He asked if anyone had ever complained and Chapman said "no." Williams
171 asked if there was anything in the City address file and Finke said he didn't see any
172 complaints in the file.
173
174 Public Hearing opened at 7:42 p.m.
175
176 Nolan said he wanted to include two correspondents that came via email as part of the record,
177 but was not going to read them out loud. One of the emails came from a group of neighbors,
178 William & Patricia Velch, Thomas & Nancy Malik, Jay & Jo Anne Nelson, and Dennis &
179 Monica Lonergan. The second email was from an individual Kathy Taylor.
180
181 Freeman Wong, neighbor to the immediate east, said he has two concerns and one is a
182 question. The relationship between a renter and rentee is not all clear to him. It appears to be
183 undefined for a long period of time. The intention of the property owner is to rent the
184 Principal structure and live in the ADU. He requested clarification of what the property
185 owner can do as it relates to renting out the Principal structure and the ADU. He asked how
186 long he would have to live with rental uncertainty. He's heard the word subdivision used and
187 wants to make sure if the ADU is approved that they can't subdivide. With the addition of
188 rental property he would like an opinion with how it will impact his property values. He
189 asked if the other land owner could build similar ADU's. He said he doesn't care for the
190 additional density or septic systems in the rural area. He said the building went without
191 comment in the past because it was already there. He asked if he can put up a similar
192 building to increase density and a fundamental change with implications down the road
193 regarding property values and taxation.
194
195 Finke explained that other property owners can propose to build a new ADU, subject to
196 setback requirements. Nolan said there is also a long list of requirements required of the CUP.
197 The property can't be subdivided. The owner has to live on the property in one of the two
198 residences. Nolan said ADU's are subject to CUP's and the tighter the density the more
199 regulations are required. He said the use to allow ADU's has already been decided. Finke
200 said the values of properties are not part of the process when reviewing a CUP. He said
4
201 conceptually when the City was looking at zoning across the entire City it was discussed. He
202 said as to whether neighboring property owner's properties reduce in value, it is not his
203 authority to determine.
204
205 Nolan explained to the public that the issue of ADU's was discussed back in 2009 and rentals
206 were part of that discussion and decision made by the Commission and Council. All the
207 issues that Freeman asked were addressed at that time, such as property tax values, allowing
208 two residential structures on one lot, ability to rent and who can use it. He said the City
209 determined it was acceptable in Medina and is allowed in most zoning districts, though the
210 smaller the parcel the more restrictive it gets. In some zoning districts the secondary unit is
211 required to be within the Principal structure and not allowed to be detached. He explained the
212 issue of whether it's permitted or not permitted has already been decided. Now the City
213 looks at the CUP criteria to make sure the application meets the requirements.
214
215 Freeman said the effect on the land evaluation has not been answered. Nolan said when the
216 City passed an Ordinance to allow the use; the values and tax implications were considered at
217 that time. Williams said the issue of property values was considered and in some cases it
218 would go up and or down. So to avoid values reducing, the City placed conditions to reduce
219 any negative impacts such as requiring the property owner to live on the property, require
220 additional parking, and limiting the number of bedrooms and square footage of the ADU.
221 Williams said he can't say how his property values will be impacted, but Nolan incorporated
222 the fact that the use is a Conditional Use with restrictions and allows the Commission and
223 Council to examine each CUP requirement. By reviewing the list of requirements, each
224 application can be looked at individually and custom conditions can be placed on the
225 property. The owner will have to continue to abide by the conditions if they want to continue
226 the use. Freedman said the owner plans to move sometime in the near future and he is
227 concerned with new owners renting both out. Nolan said the CUP conditions would be
228 placed on the property and the new owners are required to follow the same requirements.
229 Nolan said it is possible that new owners could violate the requirements, but that is where
230 staff looks to the neighbors to inform us of any violations, along with having staff inspection
231 requirements. Williams said the regulations follow the property even when it is sold.
232
233 Jay Nelson lives to the east of Freeman Wong. He said he's had good relations with all his
234 neighbors. He wasn't happy to see the accessory building built, but didn't complain to
235 anyone. He said he knows Kirstin has had her home for sale in the past and that she intends
236 to sell, and he is opposed to the increased density. She may meet all the criteria, but that
237 means that Freeman can then build a house, and he could do the same thing, which would
238 increase density and that is not why he moved to his current residence. He said he has lived
239 in Medina for 30 years and has been happy and doesn't want to see more density. He said
240 other than that, he agrees with most everything else Freeman said.
241
242 Weir said she was on the Council in 2009 and explained that during the time the ADU
243 ordinance was being created the economy was in a recession and adult children were moving
244 back in with their parents due to losing their jobs and not being able to find work. She said
245 there are also people that are aging who want to have mother-in-law units. She said we are
246 assuming in this case that the proposed ADU would be rented when it may not be the case.
247 She said these units are small based on the regulations, yet it would be nice to be able to
248 accommodate an elderly person or a child that comes home with a new wife with maybe one
249 baby and so the intention was to accommodate things that were already happening in the
250 community. The Commissioners adding "caretaker" and "nanny" accommodations are also
251 an option with the ADU. She said she didn't want them to only think in terms of rental and
5
252 profit and increasing density. She said very few of us would want another house on our
253 property.
254
255 Nancy Malik lives directly to the north of the property at 1925 County Road 24. She has
256 lived in Medina for 34 years and moved out to the area for the space and not to have a
257 subdivision or multiple dwellings. She asked for clarification of what was just discussed and
258 specifically asked if renting out an ADU was allowable as long as it met requirements and
259 criteria. She asked if it meant she could first build a greenhouse and then later convert it to
260 an ADU. She said the applicant started work without a permit and was caught, and that's
261 what started this application. She said her actual visual was that the builder was building on
262 the inside before it got shut down. The devaluation of hers and neighboring properties are a
263 concern with rental property next to them. She said "we" have the concern and no one else
264 does and that's why they were present at the meeting. She asked if there is a reason it is
265 needed. She said an ADU has to be affixed to the Principal structure. R. Reid explained it
266 depends on the zoning district and in some zoning districts it is required to be within the
267 Principal structure, but in this case it isn't.
268
269 Williams said all the issues that Malik is raising have really all been discussed, such as
270 renting. Williams explained that the "concern" of rentals was thought through by requiring
271 the owner to live on the property. He asked if there are any conditions that aren't being met.
272 Malik asked if the Watershed would want to know about more dwelling units. Nolan said
273 there is no reason the Watershed would need to be notified. He said septic systems are
274 enforced by the City and would be a condition of the CUP.
275
276 Ellie Crosby was present and spoke on behalf of Kirsten Chapman. Said she's Kirsten's
277 neighbor and from her perspective she had been following the process to obtain a CUP as
278 required. She said she supports the CUP for an ADU.
279
280 Public Hearing closed at 8:13 p.m.
281
282 Nolan explained that if the application was new, they would have the building moved further
283 away from the side property line to meet setbacks and look at screening.
284
285 R. Reid said screening and the holding tanks are the two issues she has with the application.
286 The Commission agreed. White said she'd be more interested on a time frame than a point of
287 sale on a septic system. Foote said the building is already screened. R. Reid said with a row
288 of arborvitae. Williams said the big issue is the holding tanks. Foote said he wasn't sure how
289 we really enforce the installation of the septic system. Nolan asked Finke if CUPs are
290 inspected annually. Finke explained some of the CUP's are inspected annually.
291
292 Mitchell said the applicant should work on a landscape plan to develop screening. We have
293 to have an understanding that it will be sold someday. The second reason for screening is the
294 setback rule. If you have a nonconforming use you can't increase the nonconformity. He
295 asked if the applicant was entitled to add a new use in a nonconforming building/location. He
296 said the septic should be designed to meet minimum requirements and should be brought into
297 2014 standards. The condition should say the applicant must have the appropriate system
298 installed by the summer of 2014 or 2015. He said, as an example, a family of three could buy
299 the property and then if they aren't able to afford the septic system it would be difficult to
300 enforce. He said he isn't opposed to temporary use of tanks as long as a date is established to
301 install new system. He also said he feels sympathetic to neighbors and the Council dealing
302 with it. It is regrettable that the building was built at a time the building only had to be at 20
6
303 feet, rather than 50 feet from the side property line. Foote asked Mitchell why there was the
304 need for a landscape plan. Mitchell said it could be minor, but a plan should be completed.
305 Nolan said the building already looks like a residence and he was pleasantly surprised.
306 Rather than making it a requirement by the Commission, he suggested the applicant work
307 with the neighbors to satisfy them. V. Reid said she thinks screening is maybe needed
308 because of the reduced setback.
309
310 R. Reid said what the applicant is proposing to do is how it's written now and the conditions
311 have been dealt with. She felt the sewer was acceptable and that it met all the criteria.
312 Williams agrees with R. Reid that the replacement of the septic be triggered by the point of
313 sale or within five years. The applicant shall show that a septic system could be expanded at
314 an alternate site prior to the use of the ADU.
315
316 Nolan said the item will be heard April 1, 2014, before the City Council.
317
318 Motion by Mitchell, Seconded by R. Reid, to recommend approval of the CUP for an ADU
319 conditioned on 1) The single-family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit may not be
320 conveyed separately and shall at all times be under common ownership; 2) A septic system
321 including an alternate site meeting all relevant state and local regulations be installed to serve
322 the accessory dwelling unit at point of sale or no later than within five years, or a lesser time
323 period if determined by the Building Official to be more acceptable; 3) The property owner
324 shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or accessory dwelling unit as their
325 primary residence; 4) the property owner shall abide by all conditions of Medina City Code
326 Section 826.98, Subd. 2(p); 5) The applicant shall meet with the neighbors to determine if
327 additional landscaping is necessary; and 6) All existing and newly installed landscaping shall
328 be maintained as part of the CUP requirements. Motion carries unanimously (Absent:
329 None).
330
331 8. Council Meeting Schedule
332 White agreed to attend and present at the March 18, 2014 Council meeting.
333
334 Mitchell said a couple of months ago the following question was raised to him: If a small
335 home was torn down, could a very large home be built to replace it? He wanted to provide
336 the Commission and Council a summary of the ordinance. R. Reid said it's worth looking at.
337 Mitchell said Minnetonka Beach has a lot of old small cottages and with the cottages and
338 large homes side by side, the appearance is extremely different. He asked if this could be
339 done in Medina. Finke said Independence Beach was the only area we'd have a concern with
340 and the lots are limited hardcover requirements. He also added that building height
341 regulations are in place. The Commission suggested staff review the existing rules.
342
343 9. Adjourn
344 Motion by Willliams, seconded by V. Reid, to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. Motion carried
345 unanimously.
7
AGENDA ITEM: 6
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
To:
From:
Medina Planning Commission
Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner
Date: April 2, 2014
Meeting Date: April 8, 2014
Re: Villas at Medina Country Club PUD Concept Plan
Application Date: March 17, 2014
BACKGROUND / GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Rachel Contracting LLC and the Medina Golf and Country Club have made an application for a Planned
Unit Development to develop detached townhomes along the northern and western edges of the course.
The applicant proposes 54 total detached townhomes, 35 of which are to access off of a new road that
would access from County Road 116 and then run parallel to the County Road 116 to Shawnee Woods
Road. Another 19 units are proposed to access directly off of Shawnee Woods Road, which the applicant
proposes to reconstruct easterly from the point their southern access road connects. The units are
intended to be villa style with side loaded garages.
SUBJECT SITE
The subject site is the Medina Golf and Country Club on County Road 116 north of Highway 55 and
south of Shawnee Woods Road. The golf course consists of four separate parcels in Hennepin County
records. The entirety of the golf course property totals about 226 acres. The proposal would require the
platting of the two northern parcels which total about 159 acres. The residential development portion of
the site would total about 37 acres including outlots.
The project itself is bounded by the golf course to the south and east. A bermed outlot is proposed
adjacent to County Road 116. The Foxberry Farms neighborhood is located across County Road 116.
Across Shawnee Woods road is property guided for a Low Density Residential land use, but currently
developed with rural lots approximately 5 acres in size.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ ZONING
The four parcels of the golf course are guided for Private Recreation in the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan states that "limited numbers of residential uses" may be included in areas designated
as such. Three of the four parcels are zoned Public/Semi-Public. The southeastern parcel is partially
zoned Public/Semi-Public and partially zoned Multiple Family Residential.
For this project, all four parcels of the golf course would be required to be rezoned as a Planned Unit
Development. Staff believes that it is the City's intent that any residential development along the west or
north of the property fully fulfill the "limited numbers of residential uses" permitted over the entire site.
As a result, the residential zoning for the southeastern parcel would be transferred to the northern parcels
for this development. The remainder of the PUD would allow for the continuation of the golf course and
related uses.
The applicant will need to provide details with future submittals to base density calculations on. This
includes individual wetland areas, wetland buffer areas, right-of-way for the County Road, right-of-way
for the local street, and other such information.
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW
Conceptual Lots
The proposed lots within the majority of the development (Blocks 1 and 4) are generally consistent with
the City's R2 standards of 60 feet in width, 90 feet in depth, and 8000 square feet in area. The proposed
plan deviates from the R2 standards by having side loaded garages that are, on many parcels, reduced to
only14 feet from the right-of-way. This would result in the building being approximately 24 feet from the
actual roadway. The typical R2 standard requires a 20 foot setback for side loaded garages. Lots in
Block 3 are also generally of this size but are deeper and have the buildings set back further at about 30
feet.
The parcels in Block 2 are proposed to be wider (between 75 and 100 feet) and about 100 feet in depth or
more. This is more like the City's standard R1 lots that are required to be 90 feet wide, 100 feet deep, and
11,000 in size. It is unclear what building types are proposed for the lots in Block 2, as it is a different
building pad.
The proposed lots in Block 3 and 4 will be across Shawnee Woods Road from property that will likely
redevelop with wider R1 parcels. This would result in a more intense land use type along the golf course
than is expected those across the street. Buffer yard plantings as required by Section 828.31 would need
to be placed in between the houses and the right-of-way in this configuration. It may be advisable to have
the houses accessing off of Shawnee Woods Road of a similar width as standard R-1 Single Family lots.
The applicant is proposing a berm in an outlot adjacent to County Road 116. No berms should be within
10 feet from the back of the curb of the road parallel with County Road 116 with vegetation further
beyond.
The road parallel to County Road 116 may carry a significant amount of traffic to the Meander
intersection. As mentioned, the houses are proposed to be built 14 feet from the right-of-way. It may be
preferable in this situation to have the houses meeting the R2 standard of 20 feet.
Transportation System
The site is proposed to be accessed off of a new road accessing the site at the Meander Road and County
Road 116 intersection. This road is proposed to turn northward and run parallel to the County Road.
The road extends to the northern edge of the subject site and then curves east and runs along the southern
edge of the property preliminarily platted as "Woods of Medina". The road then makes a turn northward
to join Shawnee Woods Road. Further heading eastward the road then dips slightly southward before
ending in a temporary cul-de-sac. The property owner to the north of the proposed cul-de-sac has
requested that it be shifted to the south to avoid trees within the existing right-of-way on their property,
and staff believes there is adequate space to accomplish this. The applicant must also demonstrate that a
fire ladder truck can maneuver adequately through the proposed turns.
As part of this development, the applicant will be reconstructing Shawnee Woods Road as a full urban
section with curb and storm sewer. A sidewalk to match the sidewalk from the Woods of Medina should
be provided, as well.
2
The proposed layout creates double frontage lots within the preliminary plat recently approved on the
property to the north. Section 820.29 Subd. 4 (f) of the Subdivision Ordinance prohibits double frontage
lots except when one frontage is an arterial road or when topographic or other conditions render
subdividing otherwise unreasonable. This situation could be avoided by placing a buffer outlot between
the road right-of-way and the north property line or by having the units in Block 2 on the north side of the
street.
The street proposed parallel to County Road 116 will have large number of driveways directly accessing
it in close proximity and is proposed to have reduced front yard setbacks. Therefore, Public Works
recommended that the street surface be 30 feet in width with parking limited to the western side, which is
depicted on the submittal. To limit the number of individual access points, it may be also be preferable to
have the units share driveways.
Hennepin County has made comments requesting additional right-of-way to be dedicated for County
Road 116. Staff believes this right-of-way is extremely important for future improvements.
Utilities
The applicant is proposing to bring sewer in from both the south and the north. Staff recommends that
alternative plans be developed which can provide sewer service for the entire site from the south, because
the northern sewer route would create an additional crossing under CR116. Water is proposed to connect
with the Wild Meadows development to the east, at Meander Road, and at the Woods of Medina which
will result in the preferred looping arrangement.
Water Resources
There are several wetlands on the site. The buffers and plantings will need to be provided as required by
Section 828.43 of the Zoning Ordinance. One wetland is proposed to be used as a storm pond in the
northwest corner of the site. Staff recommends that alternative arrangements be made for this pond.
There is some ponding being proposed on the golf course. There will need to be the proper rights of
access and easements to ensure proper maintenance.
In previous development proposals for this site, it was stated that there was a high water table in this area.
The applicant is proposing full basements for each unit. A geotechnical report with borings should be
provided to the City Engineer for review to ensure this plan is feasible.
Tree Preservation
A tree preservation and replacement plan will need to be provided pursuant to Section 828.41. There are
portions of the site that are heavily wooded and there will be large amounts of tree removal.
Approximately 5 wooded acres in the north and northeastern portion of the site is proposed to be clear-cut
to be developed in villa lots. The applicant does propose a 8.5 acre outlot on the eastern edge of the golf
course, labeled as Outlot J on the plans, that is proposed as part of this development where trees will not
be disturbed. It is recommended that the preservation be considered for only the property being included
within the development and not the property to remain as golf course.
Park Dedication
City Council members and Planning Commissioners has expressed a desire for consideration of a park in
this general vicinity, although such a park is not included in the City's park and trail master plan. There
may also be opportunities for trails connections on the eastern side of the property. The park dedication is
recommended to exclude the property intended to remain as part of the golf course.
3
Building Plans
The applicant has provided some demonstration housing types. As noted previously, they are detached
townhomes with a consistent appearance and side loaded garages. Documents reflecting the maintenance
requirements of the home owner's association will need to be reviewed by the City. Conceptual floor
plans and exterior elevations for all proposed housing types will need to be provided as part of the
development stage PUD.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
In Section 827.25, the City states the purpose of a planned unit development. It states that the PUD
process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width
and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage:
1) Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic
expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the
conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments.
2) Higher standards of site and building design.
3) The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality
natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the
prevention of soil erosion.
4) Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low -impact development practices which
result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of
the City.
5) Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding
open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses.
6) A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly
development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and
service facilities.
7) An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower
development costs and public investments.
8) A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. PUDs
are not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.
9) A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application
on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.
The purpose of the concept plan review for a PUD is for the applicant to explain the general intent of the
plan, for the Planning Commission and City Council to provide advisory comments to the applicant, and
for the public to give input. No comments from the Planning Commission or Council imply any future
approvals or commitments from the City. If the Planning Commissioners do not feel the proposed plan
meets the purpose of a PUD, comments on how to improve the plan should be provided.
4
STAFF REVIEW
If the Planning Commission and City Council find that the proposed concept plan is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the criteria above, staff recommends various comments which can address the
adequate preservation of trees, wetlands, and other natural resources while mitigating impacts to adjacent
lower density neighborhoods.
1. The four parcels of the golf course will need to be zoned PUD. Residential development along
the north and west perimeter of the golf course shall constitute the entirety of the limited
residential uses permitted by the City's Comprehensive Plan.
2. The plan should not create double frontage lots within the Woods of Medina preliminary plat.
3. Lots in Block 2 should meet R2 standards.
4. Planning Commission and Council should discuss if Lots in Block 3 and 4 should be based on
R1 zoning and meet R1 standards.
5. The applicant must demonstrate adequate turning motions for trucks.
6. Sidewalks should be provided to match the Woods of Medina preliminary plat.
7. Shared driveways should be considered to cut down on the number of access points on the street
parallel with County Road 116.
8. Wetland buffers and planting plans shall be provided.
9. Ponds in the golf course will require access easements and maintenance agreements.
10. A geotechnical report and boring should be provided to the City Engineer for review to ensure
that constructing homes with basements will not create flooding concerns
11. A tree preservation and replacement plan meeting the standards of Section 828.41 will need to
be provided. Options for off -site replacement may need to be considered in order to replace the
number of trees required.
12. For the purposes of park dedication and tree preservation the property to be platted but remain as
part of the golf course should not be included.
13. All comments from the City Engineer and Hennepin County should be addressed.
Attached Exhibits:
A — Aerial Photo
B — City Engineer's Comments
C — Hennepin County Comments
D — Applicant's Narrative
E — Applicant's Plan Set Dated March 13, 2014
F — Building Elevations
Exhibit A — Aerial Photo
Development
Golf Course
Gels
6
WSB
4111111111111111111.
engineering. planning. environmental. construction
March 27, 2014
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: City Project: Rachel Contracting PUD Concept Plan
WSB Project No. 2065-880
Dear Dusty:
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
We have reviewed the PUD concept plans submitted March 13, 2014, for the Rachel Contracting
Villas at Medina Country Club site. The plans propose to construct street and utility improvements to
serve a 54 unit detached townhome development along the north and west perimeters of the Medina
Country Club. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters.
1. A hydrant should be added along Shawnee Woods Road so that hydrant spacing does not
exceed the 300' maximum.
2. Public works does not want the proposed entrance monument and the plans should be revised
to remove the monument from the entrance to the site.
3. In accordance with City design standards the sanitary sewer manholes should be located off
the roadway in the boulevards.
4. In the letter dated March 4, 2014 from Nate Sparks to Charles Alcon item number 2 on the
second page in part states that parking shall be limited to the east side of the street shown
parallel to County Road 116. In the applicant's response narrative they state the east side of
this street will be signed "No Parking". The City and the applicant should decide what side of
the street parking will be allowed.
5. The plans are missing sump collection systems for Blocks 2, 3 and 4 and should be added.
6. The pond shown on Outlot A has no outlet shown and should be included in the plan set.
7. The plans should clarify where the extension of the existing culvert shown north of the
entrance from County Road 116 will discharge to.
8. The plans should clarify how the existing 30" CMP shown on the east side of Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1 will function.
St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
ti: `07065-880',Arhnin Dac.s Rachel Contracting PLO Concept Plan Review 032714.4c
Villas at Medina PUD Concept
March 27, 2014
Page 2
9. It appears the proposed sanitary sewer connection shown north of the site is not necessary.
Based on the invert elevations provided all sanitary sewer to serve all Blocks can flow
southerly to the connection on Meander Road. The plans should be revised to eliminate the
sanitary sewer connection to the existing manhole north of the site.
10. The pipe shown easterly of Lots 8 and 9, Block 1 will require an easement across the golf
course property.
11. Drainage easements will be required over all ponding areas including ponds off site on the
golf course property.
12. The plans propose to construct a storm water pond within the footprint of an existing wetland
in Outlot C. The applicant should relocate the pond outside of the wetland or provide
evidence they have WCA approval to construct the pond in the wetland.
13. Proposed contours should be labeled.
14. Street grades should be revised to meet the City minimum street grade standard of 1 %.
15. A turning template analysis showing that a semi with a 53' trailer and a fire department
ladder truck can pass safely through the proposed curves.
16. A previous and similar application for this site was submitted several years ago and never
moved forward. That application proposed slab on grade townhomes due to the high
groundwater levels in this area. For most lots the current application proposes full basements.
Full basements are likely to encounter water problems and are not advisable for this site. A
geotechnical report with borings that establish the groundwater elevations and building
recommendations should be completed and submitted to determine whether or not full
basements are feasible.
17. The proposed grading plan shows the center of the side yard swales going through the
window wells in many cases. The grading plan should be revised to direct water around the
window wells within the drainage and utility easement.
18. Future grading plans should include pond HWL information to verify the minimum 2' of
freeboard to the lowest exposed opening requirement is met.
19. No grading shall be steeper than 3:1.
20. Proposed house types should be shown for all buildings.
21. The plans should be revised to meeting the requirements outlined in the March 21, 2014
email from Carla Stueve with Hennepin County.
22. The plans at the scale provided are very difficult to read. Future submittals should be at 50
scale.
K:102065-880AdmimDocslRachel Contracting PUD Concept Plan Review 03271J.doc
Villas at Medina PUD Concept
March 27, 2014
Page 3
Please contact me at 612-209-5113 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
7;1 6+ —
Tom Kellogg
Cc Nate Sparks (email)
K. 101065-880UIdnin DocsRacitel Contracting PUD Concept Plan Review 032714.doc
Dusty Finke
From: Debra Peterson
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 3:21 PM
To: Dusty Finke; Nate Sparks (nsparks@nacplanning.com); tkellogg@wsbeng.com
Subject: FW: PUD Concept Plan - Villas at the Medina Country Club
Attachments: Carla Stueve P E PTOE.vcf
See Hennepin County Comments below.
From: Carla J Stueve [mailto:Carla.Stueve@hennepin.us]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:25 PM
To: Debra Peterson
Cc: Carla J Stueve; Chad Eilos; Eric M Drager; Jason W Staebell; John D Ekola; Jonathan J Krieg; Kelley R Yemen; Kelly S
Agosto; Maury J Hooper; Robert H. Byers; Steven 3 Groen
Subject: PUD Concept Plan - Villas at the Medina Country Club
Debra,
Thank you for sending us the PUD Concept Plan for the Villas at the Medina Country Club proposed in the southeast
quadrant of CR 116 and Shawnee Woods Road in the City of Medina. The county plat review committee discussed this
site plan at our meeting on February 25, 2014. The Villas at the Medina Country Club development was included in the
traffic analysis that was completed by WSB & Associates in April 2013. A letter with the county's comments for the
Reserve of Medina and area developments was provided to the city on April 24, 2013. The comments provided in that
letter remain valid for the Villas at the Medina Country Club concept plan review. In addition, the following comments
are provided:
Access - As shown on the concept plan, two new access roadways are proposed. One access is proposed on CR 116,
directly across from Meander Road. This access meets the county spacing guidelines of mile to Foxberry Farms Road,
immediately to the north. The county supports the proposed alignment of this access (directly across from Meander
Road). The current daily traffic on CR 116 is 8,400 vehicles per day with a posted speed of 55 mph. With the proposed
full access at CR 116/Meander Road, the county recommends installation of full left and right -turn lanes on CR 116 for
traffic operations and safety purposes. With the proposed turn lanes, the northbound and southbound left -turn lanes
should align to provide safe sight distance for turning vehicles.
The second access is proposed on the north side of the property to Shawnee Woods Road. Consistent with Woods of
Medina plat, it is our understanding that the existing access to CR 116 from Shawnee Woods Road will be vacated.
Right -of -Way
The current ROW for CR 116 along the property is 40 feet (centerline to property line). Consistent with the Woods of
Medina and the Reserve of Medina plats, we recommend an additional right of way for future roadway and
pedestrian/bicycle needs. We request 25 additional feet from the CR 116 centerline to the property line to provide a
total J4 right of way of 65 feet. A portion of this space could be dedicated as a highway or trail/utility easement. This will
provide space for a 4 -lane section in the future, with left and right -turn lanes and a multi -use trail. In addition, the
northbound right -turn lane that is recommended for this development should accommodate a northbound through lane
in the future.
In the near -term, we recommend installation of a multi -use path on the east side of CR 116 to provide a
pedestrian/bike connection from this development to cross CR 116 at the Hackamore Road signalized intersection to
access the trail on the west side of the roadway. The installation of a trail would be beneficial due to anticipated safety
concerns for pedestrians and bicyclists that may wish to cross CR 116 at Meander Road with the current high traffic
1
"
s p e e d s a n d v o l u m e s . T h e c o u n t y w o u l d n o t s u p p o r t a c r o s s w a l k a t t h i s u n c o n t r o l l e d i n t e r s e c t i o n d u e t o t h e s e s a f e t y
c o n c e r n s .
T r a f f i c I m p a c t s
T h e t r a f f i c s t u d y c o m p l e t e d f o r t h e R e s e r v e o f M e d i n a i d e n t i f i e d n u m e r o u s r o a d w a y i m p r o v e m e n t s a l o n g C R 1 1 6 ,
i n c l u d i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g :
" R e c o n s t r u c t C R 1 1 6 t o p r o v i d e t w o t h r o u g h l a n e s i n e a c h d i r e c t i o n a t H a c k a m o r e R o a d
" I n s t a l l l e f t a n d r i g h t - t u r n l a n e s o n C R 1 1 6 f o r i n t e r s e c t i o n s b e t w e e n , a n d i n c l u d i n g M e a n d e r R o a d t o H a c k a m o r e
R o a d ( E a s t b o u n d r i g h t - t u r n l a n e a t M e a n d e r R o a d i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e y e a r 2 0 2 0 )
T h e c o u n t y c u r r e n t l y h a s n o p r o j e c t s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e a p p r o v e d C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( C I P ) o r m a i n t e n a n c e
p r o j e c t s p l a n n e d i n t h i s a r e a . T h e r e f o r e , t h e c i t y a n d / o r d e v e l o p e r ( s ) w o u l d n e e d t o p r o v i d e f u n d i n g f o r t h e n e c e s s a r y
i m p r o v e m e n t s .
P l e a s e i n f o r m t h e d e v e l o p e r t h a t a l l p r o p o s e d c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h i n c o u n t y r i g h t - o f - w a y r e q u i r e s a n a p p r o v e d H e n n e p i n
C o u n t y p e r m i t p r i o r t o b e g i n n i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s i n c l u d e s , b u t i s n o t l i m i t e d t o d r i v e w a y a n d s t r e e t a c c e s s , d r a i n a g e
a n d u t i l i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n , t r a i l d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d l a n d s c a p i n g . P e r m i t q u e s t i o n s c a n b e d i r e c t e d t o S t e v e G r o e n a t ( 6 1 2 )
5 9 6 - 0 3 3 7 o r s t e v e . c i r o e n @ h e n n e p i n . u s .
P l e a s e l e t m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h i s r e v i e w .
T h a n k s !
C a r l a
C a r l a S t u e v e , P . E . , P T O E
H e n n e p i n C o u n t y P u b l i c W o r k s
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g
1 6 0 0 P r a i r i e D r i v e
M e d i n a , M N 5 5 3 4 0
( 6 1 2 ) 5 9 6 - 0 3 5 6 '