HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-09-2011MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2011
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 July 12, 2011 draft Planning Commission minutes.
6. Public Hearing — Loram — Text Amendment to Chapter 8, Section
833 of the Medina City Code to increase the Maximum
Impervious Coverage in the Industrial Park District.
7. Public Hearing — Text Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina
City Code to modify the Parking regulations.
8. Public Hearing — Text Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina
City Code to add Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations within
residential zoned districts.
9. City Council Meeting Schedule
10. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY H
August 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through Interim City Administrator Reeder
DATE: July 27, 2011
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates August 3, 2011 City Council Meeting
General
A) Leave —I have been authorized for parental leave for a few weeks in August/September and
for four weeks in November/December. Associate Planner Cooney will be undertaking
most of my tasks during this time. Wish me luck!
Ordinance Updates
A) Stormwater/LID Ordinance — The City Council reviewed at the July 19 meeting and gave
general comments on the ordinance and directed staff to prepare the ordinance for
discussion in September.
B) Animal Regulations — the City Council approved of updated regulations at the July 19
meeting with a number of changes. Staff has integrated the changes and published the
ordinance, which will be effective on July 28.
C) Electrical Inspections — The City Council approved the ordinance allowing the City to
complete electrical inspections (when the state is not doing so) at the July 19 meeting. The
state has commenced inspections, and the City did not issue any permits.
D) Right-of-way Width — The City Council approved the ordinance at the July 19 meeting.
Staff has published the ordinance, which will be effective on July 28.
E) Parking Regulations — Planning staff is conducting research on parking regulations and will
be preparing a draft ordinance with a number of recommended changes. Staff has
tentatively scheduled the ordinance for a Public Hearing at the August Planning
Commission meeting.
F) Accessory Dwelling Regulations — Staff has been preparing regulations for accessory
dwelling units ("in-law apartments") in residential districts. The City Council expressed
support for this use when discussing the new residential districts last year. Staff is
scheduled to present the ordinance for a Public Hearing at the August Planning Commission
meeting.
Land Use Application Reviews
A) Pemtom Stage I Plan — N of Highway 55 and W of CR 116 — The City Council adopted a
resolution of approval for the Stage I plan at the May 17 City Council meeting. The
applicant has applied for Stage II and preliminary plat approval for the single-family portion
of the development. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at their July 12
meeting and unanimously recommended approval. Staff intends to present the application
to the City Council at the August 3 meeting.
B) Loram Parking Lot Site Plan Review/Text Amendment — 3900 Arrowhead Drive — The
City Council approved a resolution approving the site plan to expand their parking lot by 43
parking stalls on July 19, 2011. Staff is working with the applicant on permits to complete
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 August 3, 2011
City Council Meeting
the work. Loram also requested a text amendment to allow additional hardcover in the
Industrial Park zoning district. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a Public
Hearing on this matter at their August meeting.
C) Marx Conservation Design Subdivision — 2700 and 2900 Parkview Drive — Wally Marx
has requested review of a CD-PUD Concept Plan for a subdivision which would allow a
density bonus (10 lots) and flexibility to lot size and setback requirements and place a
portion of their property into Conservation Easements. The Planning Commission held a
Public Hearing at their July 12 meeting and unanimously recommended denial of the
request. The applicant has requested more time before City Council review and staff awaits
further information.
D) J. Cavanaugh Plat — 805 Hamel Road — Joe Cavanaugh has requested subdivision of his
property into three single-family lots at the southwest corner of Hamel Road and Pinto
Drive. The Planning Commission tabled the Public Hearing at their January 11 meeting,
requesting more information related to drainage and stormwater management. The
applicant has granted an extension through the end of the year and intends to provide
updated plans a number of months in the future.
E) Hunter Ridge Farm Plat — 1382 Hunter Drive — the Council approved the final plat at the
April 5 meeting, and staff will assist the property owner with finalizing the project.
F) Fortuna Farms Plat — 1425 Tamarack Drive — the Council approved the preliminary plat
resolution on November 22, 2010, and staff awaits an application for final plat approval.
G) Holy Name Cemetery — The City Council approved the Site Plan Review and CUP at the
April 19 meeting, and staff is working with the applicant on the conditions of approval.
H) Wrangler's Restaurant — 32 Hamel Road — the Council approved resolutions on July 21,
2009. The City Council granted until August 10, 2011 for the applicant to final the plat.
Staff made contact with the property owner to notify them that their time was elapsing.
Additional Projects
A) Private Dog Kennels — staff has been assisting with the coordination of two requests for
private dog kennel licenses. One is a request for 7 dogs in a home at 1822 Morgan Road
and the other is a request for 12 small dogs in a home at 25 Hamel Road. Staff has informed
the applicants of the updated regulations and awaits a response of how they wish to proceed.
B) Housing Policy — Staff met with CommonBond Communities on July 12 to discuss the most
common grant opportunities related to workforce housing. Upon staff's request,
CommonBond provided information on how the City could partner with a developer in
order to increase chances to receive grant financing on a residential project.
C) Zoning Enforcement (Hamel Station tree removal) — The developer and their landscape
contractor have responded to the inspection notice and staff is working on setting up a
meeting with the City's ecologist to discuss the replacement and maintenance.
D) Zoning Enforcement (manure management inspections) — Staff has completed inspections
of both commercial horse facilities and private horse facilities currently under a CUP
requiring manure management. There were no major concerns noted during the inspections,
although a few suggestions were made for improvement. Most sites contract to have
manure hauled by companies outside of the City. A report of these inspections is available
upon request.
E) Mapping — Staff has been assisting the Police two small mapping projects.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 August 3, 2011
City Council Meeting
1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
2 Draft Meeting Minutes
3 Tuesday, July 12, 2011
4
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners John Anderson, Kathleen Martin, Victoria Reid,
9 Kent Williams, Charles Nolan and Robin Reid
10
11 Absent: Beth Nielsen
12
13 Also Present: City Council member Elizabeth Weir, City Planner Dusty Finke, and
14 Associate Planner Dale Cooney
15
16
17 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
18
19 No public comments.
20
21
22 3. Update from City Council proceedings
23
24 Council member Elizabeth Weir presented a report of recent activities and decisions
25 by the City Council.
26
27 4. Planning Department Report
28
29 Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects. Finke also noted that the
30 City Council agreed that a Planning Commission report was needed at only one City
31 Council meeting a month.
32
33 5. Approval of the June 14, 2011 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes.
34
35 Motion by Anderson, seconded by Williams, to approve the June 14, 2011 minutes
36 with the recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen)
37
38 At the request of Wallace Marx in order to allow for one of his associates time to
39 arrive, Commissioner Nolan asked if there would be any objections to reorganizing
40 the order of the agenda items. There were no objections.
41
42 6. Right-of-way Width Regulations within Subdivision Ordinance
43
44 City Planner Dusty Finke presented a staff report and an ordinance that would allow
45 flexibility in determining required right-of-way widths for city streets. Finke noted
1
1 that no public hearing was needed, but that he would like to hear the Planning
2 Commission's thoughts on the matter.
3
4 Current regulations require a 60 -foot right-of-way and do not allow for flexibility.
5 However, several recent projects have requested variances to reduce the required
6 right-of-way to 50 feet. Recent projects requesting variances include the Enclave
7 development which requested a 50 -foot right-of-way in order to limit hardcover and
8 meet density requirements due to wetlands. Other recent projects requesting and
9 receiving variances to right-of-way standards were the Hamel Station and
10 Bridgewater developments. Finke suggested that the approval of these variances
11 reflects more of a policy issue to limit hardcover rather than the hardship standards
12 required to be met through a variance. Finke also noted that the Pemtom variance
13 request on tonight's meeting agenda would likely not meet the hardship standard.
14
15 Commissioner Nolan pointed out that pavement is typically 24 feet. Reduction of the
16 right-of-way width is really a function of boulevards where there is the potential for
17 utilities to get squeezed. Finke pointed out that 50 feet is the minimum. The city can
18 use a greater width if utilities are a problem. The language proposed is intended to be
19 flexible.
20
21 Commissioner Anderson asked about public safety's thoughts on the matter. Finke
22 replied that public safety has less of an interest in this and he noted that the language
23 allows accommodation for wider streets.
24
25 Commissioner Williams commended Finke for his proactive nature on this matter.
26
27 Motion by Martin, seconded by V. Reid, to recommend approval of an ordinance
28 amending Section 820.29 of the Code of Ordinances regarding Right -of -Way Width
29 and Roadway Width. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen)
30
31 7. Public Hearing - Pemtom Land Company — Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and
32 Mixed Use Stage II Plan to subdivide 65 single family home sites on 32.2 acres, to
33 be known as "Fields of Medina" (PM #02-118-23-43-0002 & #02-118-23-44-
34 0054) and Variance to the right-of-way width.
35
36 Finke presented the staff report. The proposal is for 65 single family homes on 26
37 acres, for a net density of 3.3 units/acres. Finke noted the applicant proposes to
38 dedicate 6 acres for park. The Mixed Use zoning district allows for residential and
39 commercial, but at least half must be residential. Finke noted that the Stage II plan is
40 required to be consistent with the Stage I plan, and that generally the conditions from
41 Stage I were met. Finke noted the Stage I plan includes more than the minimum
42 number of housing units and is proposed to be approximately 65% residential with a
43 net density of 5 units/acres.
44
45 Finke noted the applicant will construct Meander Road to the southwest corner of the
46 future park. This arrangement is sufficient from a traffic perspective, but the fire
2
1 marshal has concerns regarding single access point and also the single entrance into
2 the subdivision.
3
4 Finke noted that staff recommends approval of rezoning in order to be consistent with
5 the Comp Plan. Finke stated that the right-of-way variance may not be necessary if
6 the Council adopts the ordinance recommended by the Commission. Finke inquired
7 if the Commission would recommend approval of the variance. Staff believes it is a
8 stretch to justify a hardship for a variance. Finke noted that staff recommends
9 approval of Stage II and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in the staff report.
10
11 Williams requested additional information related to the second emergency vehicle
12 access.
13
14 Finke noted that the applicant proposes to dead-end Meander at the southwest corner
15 of the proposed park. Development to the south or west would ultimately link to this
16 road and provide the additional access. The question was for the short-term prior to
17 development and whether the City should require an additional access. Finke stated
18 that there would be various options including requiring the developer to construct
19 Tamarack, require a temporary fire lane, or have the City construct Tamarack or the
20 fire lane and assess all properties based on benefit.
21
22 Nolan inquired if the connection to Highway 55 wouldn't improve traffic on CR116
23 in addition to providing emergency access.
24
25 Finke stated that it seems unlikely that MnDOT would allow eastbound turns onto
26 Highway 55, even if Tamarack was constructed, until additional development occurs.
27 Therefore, it is unlikely that the connection would help with traffic on CR116.
28
29 Anderson inquired about the traffic study. Finke responded that the city and county
30 engineers reviewed the study and agree that existing improvements are adequate.
31
32 Dan Herbst (Pemtom Land Company) stated that they had worked hard to address
33 concerns and had held a neighborhood meeting. He believes this will be a positive
34 addition to the community. Herbst mentioned that divided entrances are common and
35 are not an issue and can add safety. He stated that this number of homes on a single
36 access road should not be an issue in his experience, and that removing the
37 landscaped entrance would diminish the community feel.
38
39 V Reid inquired about the price point of the homes.
40
41 Steven Logan (Mattamy Homes) responded that they planned for upper $300,000 to
42 mid -$400,000.
43
44 Williams asked the developer if they conducted a cost analysis of a fire lane.
45
3
1 Dave Nash (EVS Engineering, developer's engineer) stated that they used a cost
2 estimate similar to the proposed construction of Meander which was $250K.
3
4 Public Hearing opened at 7:52 p.m.
5
6 Bill Ciora (915 Sunset Court) stated that traffic is very backed up between 7 and 8.
7 He inquired if a full study was conducted measuring all 200 homes.
8
9 Finke replied that an in-depth traffic study was completed for 65 homes. A more
10 conceptual study was completed for the whole development, which suggested that
11 when the townhomes are constructed, Tamarack would be constructed with access to
12 Highway 55. The study assumed most of the townhome traffic would exit onto
13 Highway 55.
14
15 Mike Spack (Developer's traffic engineer) stated that it was a twofold study. It first
16 looked at 65 homes and concluded that things should be fine as is. The long term
17 traffic study concluded that once the signal is added on Highway 55, it will work
18 well. He noted that MNDOT will only allow the signal when sufficient trips warrant.
19
20 V. Reid inquired about the number of cars currently. Spack replied that through -
21 traffic on southbound CR116 is 940 cars during peak time.
22
23 R. Reid inquired how soon CR116 will be improved. Spack and Finke noted that
24 they are in the design stages and still evaluating. Finke stated that no funding has
25 been allocated, so it is not likely to be soon.
26
27 V. Reid inquired if the traffic study considers the backup. Spack replied that it does,
28 and that the delay to enter onto CR116 falls within standards.
29
30 Ciora asked if Meander will have a berm and trees on the north side through the
31 wetland. Finke stated that the road falls quickly to the wetland on both sides and
32 would require additional impacts. Weir stated that planting is not allowed in
33 wetlands.
34
35 Ciora stated that he is concerned about additional usage of Foxberry's park if there is
36 a pedestrian connection between the neighborhoods.
37
38 Public Hearing was closed at 8:04 p.m.
39
40 Nolan stated the issues seemed to be the single access point, the divided entrance, and
41 the right-of-way variance.
42
43 Williams stated there was also the comment related to drainage.
44
45 V. Reid stated that the landscape entrance should be addressed in a homeowner's
46 document and doesn't see it as an issue for snow removal.
4
1
2 Finke explained that it results in extra plowing time because the trucks have to make
3 multiple passes to clear the ends of the island.
4
5 Anderson asked how big of a deal it is. Finke stated that Public Works brings it up
6 every time. If they are allowed in all neighborhoods, it multiplies. It is a policy
7 decision which the Council can make. The trade-off is aesthetics for paying
8 additional overtime to get the plowing done.
9
10 Martin stated she likes the landscaping and has no objection. V. Ried agrees. Nolan
11 stated that it seems to be possible to beautify the sides of the street, but he is ok with
12 the island. Williams concurred.
13
14 R. Reid inquired about parking in the park. Finke stated that the design will be
15 discussed by the Park Commission.
16
17 Nolan returned to the single entrance issue.
18
19 Williams stated that having a landscape island provides two entrances and mitigates
20 the issue.
21
22 Finke inquired about the Meander dead-end.
23
24 R. Reid stated that it is a temporary problem and the City shouldn't make this
25 development pay for it.
26
27 V. Reid stated she is more concerned with the CR116 traffic issue. She stated that
28 CR116 isn't usable and that she uses back roads.
29
30 Anderson inquired about the ability to delay development because of the CR116
31 issue.
32
33 R. Reid stated that cities can't punish the developer for the county's negligence on
34 this issue.
35
36 Nolan summarized that the Commission is okay with Meander as the temporary
37 single access point as proposed.
38
39 Finke stated that staff is concerned about the impact of sump pump water on
40 neighboring lots. Staff recommends a design that alleviates problems. Some
41 neighborhoods have installed a separate pipe in the street for each house to hook their
42 sump pumps into. The Enclave project was required to install individual underground
43 pipes on each lot to dump water into ponds or wetlands.
44
45 R. Reid stated that condition 9 states the developer has to work out a solution.
46
5
1 Nash stated that the design incorporates a minimum 2% grade and sump pumps
2 would discharge in side yard swales for each home. This water then would get to the
3 ponds and the development would have the opportunity to reuse water.
4
5 Nolan stated that the City is looking for a solution for each lot and that we don't want
6 future homeowners to decide.
7
8 Nash stated that they would sit down with staff.
9
10 R. Reid summarized that the conditions recommended by staff were mostly
11 unchanged. The Commission wished to strike condition 8 and add maintenance of
12 landscape island for homeowners.
13
14 Motion by Williams, seconded by Anderson to recommend approval of the
15 rezoning of the single family to Mixed Use and the park to Public/Semi-Public.
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Martin, to recommend approval of the Stage II
19 Plan and Preliminary Plat with the conditions noted in the staff report, excluding
20 condition #8, and modifying condition #13, as noted. Motion carried unanimously.
21
22 Nolan stated that the Commission seems to support the narrower right-of-way, but he
23 couldn't support a variance. The general consensus of the Commission concurred.
24
25
26
27 8. Public Hearing — Wallace Marx — 2500, 2700, 2702, 2900 Parkview Drive —
28 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a Conservation Design
29 subdivision of four contiguous parcels totaling 109.58 acres — proposing ten
30 Single Family Home sites and 57.5 acres into a conservation easement.
31
32 Finke stated that this is a conservation design proposal, which under City regulations
33 allows the City to grant flexibility from existing zoning district standards to the
34 applicant as an incentive for that property owner to conserve natural resources via a
35 permanent conservation easement. The degree of flexibility granted by the City
36 should be based on how well a particular proposal meets the conservation objectives
37 of the Conservation Design ordinance above and beyond those protections that are
38 already required by existing regulations. The primary incentive for this type of
39 development is to allow for a density bonus. Finke went on to point out that this
40 proposal was the first of its kind under the new Conservation Design ordinance.
41
42 Finke describes the development as proposing ten single family homes, which would
43 put 57.5 gross acres into a conservation easement, of which 9.65 of those acres would
44 be considered buildable as defined by the ordinance.
45
6
1 Finke describes the property in question as located on the east side of Parkview
2 Drive, to the southwest corner of School Lake. The property is 109.58 acres in size,
3 approximately half of which is considered wetland. The property encompassing the
4 proposed development is currently four PIDs on which there are two existing houses.
5 Finke went on to describe the property from an aerial photograph, pointing out the
6 wetlands, lake, and maple -basswood forest areas.
7
8 Finke described the PUD process as a three step process, the first of which is the
9 concept plan (being reviewed tonight) where recommendations are passed along to
10 the City Council. The Concept Plan is actually formal action taken by the City
11 Council via resolution. The next phase in the PUD process would be a Preliminary
12 Plat, and the third step is Final Plat.
13
14 Finke went on to note the primary and secondary objectives of the Conservation
15 Design ordinance. The primary objectives are protection and restoration of ecologic
16 resources; the protection, restoration and creation of moderate quality ecologic
17 resources as identified in the composite map of the open space report; and the
18 preservation and restoration of land connecting these resources in order to create
19 habitat corridors. Meeting these objectives gives heightened consideration for
20 development flexibility. Secondary objectives are the protection of viewsheds, and
21 land used for trails and parks.
22
23 Finke noted that the City used these objectives in consultation with the City's
24 ecologist Paul Bockenstedt to identify priorities within the site. Finke stated that the
25 highest priority on the site was the preservation of the moderate quality maple -
26 basswood forest. Also of preservation priority were the deep swamps on the southeast
27 side of the property; as well as the Tamarack swamps to the west and north of the
28 lake.
29
30 Finke went on to note that the conservation design process was a four -step process,
31 beginning with identification of those areas that are not buildable (including wetlands,
32 wetland buffers, and steep slopes); followed by identification of priority conservation
33 areas; followed by identification of housing sites, streets and trails; and concluded by
34 delineating the property lines.
35
36 Finke discussed the applicant's proposal, and staff's attempt to follow the four -step
37 process previously described. Finke described the location of the ten lots and went on
38 to describe the areas proposed to be conserved on the property.
39
40 Commissioner Williams asked what type of development would be allowable without
41 the Conservation Design PUD. Finke responded that standard zoning is four lots.
42
43 Finke continues with the presentation and describes what is required under the
44 conservation design ordinance. The minimum conserved area is 30 percent of the
45 buildable property. The development as proposed preserves 29.3 percent of the
46 buildable area. Finke pointed out that much of the buildable area is along the
7
1 perimeter of the site. Finke noted that, as proposed, two houses do not meet required
2 setbacks.
3
4 Finke stated that the ordinance allows for a maximum of doubling of the base density
5 of what would be allowed under existing zoning. Finke noted that the non -
6 conforming lot in the south would not meet current zoning standards, but that the city
7 should give credit for the lot since there is a high quality conservation area located on
8 the lot. Finke stated that base density for the land would be three buildable parcels,
9 and the southern nonconformity might allow for another. Therefore, doubling base
10 density would be six parcels, with a seventh parcel given for the southern non -
11 conforming lot if you balance the objectives of the ordinance.
12
13 Finke also noted that the regulations allowed for siting septic systems if the septic
14 sites did not impact the conservation area. Finke pointed out several septic sites
15 within the proposal impacted conservation areas.
16
17 Finke closed the staff presentation with recommendations for how the proposal might
18 better serve the conservation priorities of the city. Finke also mentioned that the
19 property in question was currently in the Agricultural Preserve program, participation
20 in which would not allow the property to develop for another five years.
21
22 Commissioner Martin asked about the development restriction issues. Martin asked
23 why we would go through a process now that would require timeline extensions if the
24 plan were approved. Finke pointed out that if the city were to get easements for
25 conservation areas, the city could gain the easements now. But Finke admitted that
26 there were difficulties considering the timeline.
27
28 Commissioner V. Reid asked what would happen if the law is changed later. Finke
29 responded that the City Attorney's opinion is that the City Council cannot bind a
30 future City Council.
31
32 Commissioner Nolan asked about identifying School Lake as a conservation
33 objective. Finke responded that the lake was unbuildable and also assumed in the
34 city's map. Finke noted that the lakefront area was also mentioned in the staff report.
35
36 Applicant Wallace Marx of 2700 Parkview Drive presented his plan. Marx gave a
37 history of his property. Marx stated that he moved to Medina in 1998 and eventually
38 purchased properties in succession as buffers to the north and south. Marx noted the
39 improvements made on the northern parcel, notably removing the large amount of
40 animal remains and trash left by the previous owner. Marx also stated that he restored
41 prairie on the parcel. Marx stated that his improvements helped improve the water
42 quality of the lake.
43
44 Marx showed aerial images of what he is hoping to preserve, and described the
45 property. Marx also described many of the landscaping improvements and road
46 improvements completed on the property. Marx went on to describe the high quality
8
1 wetlands and conservation areas on the property. Marx then played a four -minute
2 slide show of images superimposed with copy taken directly from the City's
3 Conservation Design ordinance. Marx spoke about how things may change in the
4 future and that what is protected now may not be protected in the future.
5
6 Marx stated that the layout of the project was intended to create a homeowners
7 association from the six lots on the north parcel. Marx stated that these homes would
8 be high end and would police each other and protect the natural areas.
9
10 Marx noted the time and money he had spent on the project to get to this point. Marx
11 noted that the conservation ordinance, unlike other ordinances, motivates people to do
12 something good for the city and for posterity. Marx concluded his presentation.
13
14 Commissioner Nolan asked about the preservation of the horse trail. Marx said that he
15 was not sure how the trail would be preserved, but that he would like to preserve it.
16
17 Nolan asked for Marx to comment on density and the difference between staff's
18 recommendation of seven lots versus the proposal of ten lots. Marx responded that
19 PUD gives almost a blank slate and that this density would allow the development to
20 put 77 acres in permanent conservation. Marx stated that fewer lots would be
21 unfeasible with costs.
22
23 Public Hearing opened at 9:32 p.m.
24
25 Janet White of 4642 Brook Street commented that the houses in the proposal were
26 positioned close to the natural areas. White also mentioned not deviating from
27 wetland setbacks. White stated that she didn't see the clustering she had imagined
28 when the City was developing the ordinance.
29
30 Richard Haberman of 2782 Parkview Drive stated that he moved to the area to try to
31 get away from housing development and associated problems. Haberman asked why
32 there had been a change of heart on the subdivision of the Ganglehoff property. The
33 previous owners attempted to subdivide property into two parcels, but weren't
34 allowed. Haberman pointed out that the current proposal would have five or more lots
35 on the same parcel. Haberman asked if Wallace Gardens would remain private and
36 who would maintain them. Marx replied that the gardens would be private.
37
38 Haberman enquired about how many homes would be in the HOA. Marx replied that
39 just the six homeowners would be in the HOA.
40
41 Haberman stated that he was concerned with lot size and clustered homes. Haberman
42 also asked for clarification on buildable areas.
43
44 Commissioner Nolan responded that anything within the conservation easements
45 would be conserved. Nolan added that anything not conserved will change as the city
46 changes. Commissioner Martin clarified what "buildable" meant.
9
1 Haberman asked about the potential for additional traffic on Parkview. Haberman was
2 concerned that the road was a dangerous road already with existing traffic. Haberman
3 expressed concerns about the reduced exclusivity of the area and that property values
4 may be diminished if more homes are built. Haberman also noted that he would like
5 to see fewer homes in the northeastern part of the development.
6
7 Mark Luetmer of 2930 and 2920 Parkview Drive stated that he has concerns with the
8 proposed density of the development and the negative effect on the natural areas.
9 Luetmer had concerns with the five lots proposed for the lakeshore.
10
11 Bob Bernu of 2910 Parkview Drive stated his concerns at having a housing site
12 within 100 feet of him.
13
14 Larry Le Jeune of 2820 County Road 24 stated that he was concerned with the
15 proposed density and proximity. Le Jeune asked about the fence through the wetland.
16 Marx noted that the fence was designed to keep deer out of his garden.
17
18 Commissioner Nolan redirected the conversation back to the application at hand.
19
20 Lejune asked about the selling price of the property and Marx replied that he did not
21 know.
22
23 Cindy Piper of 2905 Willowood Farm Road distributed a handout about the School
24 Lake Trail. Piper stated that he was pleased to hear that the horse trail will remain
25 open.
26
27 City Council Member Elizabeth Weir of 1262 Hunter Drive expressed admiration
28 towards Marx for his initiative to conserve the resources. Weir stated that what will
29 ultimately be conserved is 9.65 acres of fragmented preservation, perhaps less with
30 setbacks. Weir noted that since this is the first conservation design application, the
31 results of the application would be precedent setting. Weir stated that she feels the
32 proposal maximizes development rather than conservation. Weir noted that Lot 9 was
33 built in woodlands that would be worth conserving. Weir noted that Lot 6 has a
34 primary septic site offsite, while the septic sites for Lots 5 and 6 are in woodlands and
35 are distant from the proposed houses. Weir also pointed out that both septic sites for
36 Lot 3 are in the wooded areas. Weir stated that the primary goal of the ordinance was
37 conservation.
38
39 Public Hearing was closed at 9:57 p.m.
40
41 Commissioner Nolan asked Marx about the cleaning of the land, and asked if he had
42 done any environmental testing of the area. Nolan stated his concerns about what
43 might be found during excavation and water quality issues related to well drilling.
44 Marx replied that he had not tested the site and that he does not know what is under
45 the cleaned up area.
10
1 Nolan asked if staff knows about the soils or groundwater. Finke responded that there
2 are tight soils in the area that tend to prevent pollution of the aquifers. Finke also
3 stated that from a construction and septic standpoint, the pollution issues may be
4 more of a concern and that correction may need to take place.
5
6 Nolan recommended that Marx find out what pollution may be in that area.
7
8 Commissioner Martin inquired if the HOA would be six lots or all ten lots. Marx
9 responded that the HOA is only for the six lakeshore lots.
10
11 Martin stated that the density is limited by express language of ordinance which
12 would mean six lots, or a maximum of seven with the nonconforming lot to the south.
13
14 Williams asked why propose the application at all if it would not be economically
15 feasible under the ordinance. Under existing regulations, the additional two lots
16 would have a minimal burden on the land. Nolan responded that the applicant has the
17 right to apply and we must respond. Nolan stated that the economics are the
18 applicant's concern. Williams clarified that he was more concerned with the proposal
19 meeting conservation objectives above and beyond what was already protected, not
20 whether or not the applicant should have applied.
21
22 The Commission had a general discussion of density and concluded the density is at
23 most seven units. Commissioner Martin noted the intensification of development
24 along School Lake.
25
26 Nolan summarized the concept review discussion to this point. Nolan reiterated that
27 the density is at most seven units; that the development needs to be sensitive to
28 development along the lakeshore; and that the proposal meets minimum standards of
29 conservation and for septic sites.
30
31 Finke stated that in theory under the general PUD process and not the Conservation
32 Design PUD, there is the potential for more density.
33
34 Commissioner Nolan summarized further that Parkview lots up on the hill are too
35 close together; Lot 9 is problematic; Lakeshore density is an issue; and that in
36 reworking the plan, three lots would need to be eliminated.
37
38 Commissioner Martin stated that if Lots 1 and 2 meet setbacks, they would be
39 reasonable. Martin stated that adjacent landowners may moan about the proximity,
40 but if the lots meet the setbacks they cannot object.
41
42 Nolan stated that because of the additional homes and the fact that the development
43 would essentially be creating a variance, the process is more flexible than that.
44
45 Finke noted that one lot could be built near the northern property line as zoned. Finke
46 also pointed out that due to the suitable soils and the disturbed nature of the land in
11
1 the northwest part of the property, these would be good areas for clustering home
2 sites.
3
4 Williams and Martin agreed with Finke's observation that the best areas to cluster
5 home sites would be near the northwest corner of the property.
6
7 Nolan stated that density would be a maximum of six or seven sites, but also
8 dependent on meeting the other objectives of the conservation design ordinance.
9 Nolan added that meeting the minimum ordinance requirements would not be good
10 enough to qualify the proposal for the maximum allowable density.
11
12 Commissioner V. Reid stated that it may seem unfair, but already protected wet areas
13 wouldn't count towards conservation.
14
15 Nolan stated that he would have to find the proposal very compelling to offer the
16 maximum density, and that his inclination is to err on the conservative side.
17
18 Rose Lorsung, consultant for Wallace Marx, stated that many potentially conservable
19 sites within the city would likely not be preserved because of contiguous suitable
20 soils issues.
21
22 Marx stated that he has spent $50,000 on consultants and legalities.
23
24 Lorsung stated that perhaps there should be fewer requirements for upfront
25 submission.
26
27 Commissioner Williams replied that Marx should have started with buildable areas
28 first, and was puzzled by the $50,000 expense.
29
30 Commissioner Martin expressed concerns over only having six of the ten lots
31 participate in the HOA, even though they benefit from conservation. Martin was
32 concerned with the potential for uneven distribution of cost burden for maintenance
33 of the conservation areas.
34
35 Nolan asked Marx if he would like to continue the process understanding that the
36 Commission would likely deny the application. Marx stated that he would like the
37 process to continue so that he may get feedback from the City Council as well.
38
39 Motion by Williams, seconded by Anderson, to recommend denial of the Planned
40 Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a Conservation Design. Motion carried
41 unanimously. (Absent: Nielsen)
42
43
44
45 9. Site Plan Review — Loram Inc. — Request for a 14,785 gross square foot
46 expansion of parking lot at 3900 Arrowhead Drive (PID# 11-118-23-22-0002).
12
1
2 Cooney presented the staff report. The proposal would add 13,887 square feet of
3 parking, for a total of 43 parking stalls.
4
5 Commissioner Anderson inquired how many employees Loram currently has.
6
7 Tim Heisel of Loram Maintenance of Way Inc. stated Loram employed 325 people at
8 this time.
9
10 Councilmember Elizabeth Weir stated that trees within the parking lot islands tend
11 not to survive. Weir proposed that perhaps day lilies or other more hearty alternatives
12 be placed in the landcape areas and that the trees be located to other parts of the site.
13 The Commission agreed with Weir's recommendation and agreed to add it as a
14 condition to the application.
15
16 Motion by Martin, seconded V. Reid, to recommend approval of the Site Plan
17 Review, with the condition noted by staff. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent:
18 Nielsen)
19
20 10. City Council Meeting Schedule
21 July 17 — Anderson
22
23 11. Adjourn
24 Motion by Williams, seconded by V. Reid, to adjourn the meeting at 10:57 p.m.
25 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nielson)
13
AGENDA ITEM: 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Medina Planning Commission
FROM: Dale Cooney, Associate Planner
DATE: August 5, 2011
MEETING: August 9, Planning Commission
SUBJ: Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. — Request for a Text Amendment to Allow
Expanded Impervious Coverage within the Industrial Park (IP) District
Review Deadline
Original Application Received: June 17, 2011
Complete Application Received: July 5, 2011
60 -day Review Deadline: September 3, 2011
Overview of Request
Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. is requesting a text amendment to expand impervious coverage
allowances within the Industrial Park (IP) zoning district from 50% to 60%.
Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. is at or near capacity for employee parking, while also very
close to exceeding the impervious surface coverage limit on its property at 3900 Arrowhead
Drive. The property is zoned Industrial Park which currently has an impervious coverage limit of
50%. Loram anticipates that it may need to expand its surface parking further, but would be
unable to do so under current regulations.
Existing Code for Industrial Park (IP) District
Impervious coverage limits for the IP district, quoted below, are found in Chapter 8, Section
833.07, Subd. 1 (o):
"Impervious Coverage — The maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed 50
percent. No impervious surface is allowed in required setback areas except approved
driveway, parking, and approved walks and trails. An approved soft trail (one
comprised of wood chips, ag lime, or crushed rock) will not be counted as impervious.)
See Figure 1 ".
Proposed Text Amendment
Applicant proposes to amend Chapter 8, Section 833.07, Subd. 1 (o) to read as follows:
"Impervious Coverage — The maximum impervious coverage shall not exceed 60
percent. No impervious surface is allowed in required setback areas except approved
driveway, parking, and approved walks and trails. An approved soft trail (one
comprised of wood chips, ag lime, or crushed rock) will not be counted as impervious.)
See Figure 1 ".
Loram Text Amendment Request
Page 1 of 3 Medina Planning Commission
to Modify IP Impervious Limits August 9, 2011
Impervious Coverage Limits in other City Zoning Districts
As shown in the table below, the Industrial Park district has lower impervious coverage limits
than most of the City's other zoning districts, including several residential zoning districts:
ZONING DISTRICT
Industrial Park
Business Park
Business
Commercial Highway
Commercial Hwy/Railroad
Commercial General
Single Family Residential (R1)
Two Family Residential (R2)
Mid Density Residential (R3)
Res. Limited Multi -Family (R4)
Multiple Family Residential (R5)
Uptown Hamel 1 & 2
Rural Residential
MAX. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE
50%
70%
70%
75% (80% in some cases)
75% (80% in some cases)
75%
40% (more in some cases)
50% (more in some cases)
50% (more in some cases)
60% (more in some cases)
60% (more in some cases)
20% - 90% depending on use/location/lot size
40% (more in some cases)
Note: In many districts, impervious surface coverage may exceed the maximum limit if
stormwater management practices are implemented which, according to the City Engineer,
exceed stormwater retention and treatment regulations
Comparable Regulations
Staff researched comparable hardcover limits for industrial districts in several neighboring cities.
Orono, Loretto, Greenfield and Minnetonka have set impervious coverage limits for comparable
districts at 85%, while the cities of Delano, Rockford, and Independence have set impervious
coverage limits for comparable districts at 75%.
Analysis
All of the properties currently zoned IP are adjacent or proximate to the Highway 55 corridor. In
an effort to gage the impacts these impervious limits are having on existing businesses, staff
estimated the existing impervious coverage of the ten developed IP properties using recent
satellite photography. Six properties had approximate hardcover in the range of 15-38%. The
remaining four properties had approximate hardcover of 44% or higher. One property, Clamcorp,
located at 600 Clydesdale Trail, is likely over the 50% hardcover limit.
One possible justification for originally setting the IP impervious coverage limit at the
comparably low level of 50% might have been that the intensity of industrial uses merits greater
surface water protections. Another possible rationale would be to allow for transitions to less
intense uses. If, however, the justification was an attempt to limit city-wide impervious surface
coverage, then it is hard to reconcile that objective with the allowance of 70% to 75%
impervious coverage within the Business and Commercial districts.
Loram Text Amendment Request
Page 2 of 3 Medina Planning Commission
to Modify IP Impervious Limits August 9, 2011
Staff Recommendation
Staff is supportive of increasing impervious coverage limits within the Industrial Park zoning
district provided that properties are able to meet stormwater management requirements. Staff
supports the applicant's text amendment as written which would expand impervious coverage
limits within the district to 60%. Staff would also not oppose higher impervious coverage limits
within the district. However, given setback requirements, wetland protection, and surface water
regulations, it is unlikely that an IP parcel would reach 70% impervious coverage. Practical
difficulties aside, it seems reasonable for the City to allow IP impervious coverage limits that are
comparable to the City's Business and Commercial districts.
Attachments
1. Proposed ordinance revising Section 833 - Industrial Park District
Loram Text Amendment Request
Page 3 of 3 Medina Planning Commission
to Modify IP Impervious Limits August 9, 2011
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
An Ordinance Amending Section 833 of the Code of Ordinances
Regarding Impervious Coverage Limits in the Industrial Park District
The city council of the city of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Medina Code Section 833.07, Subd. 1 (o) is amended by deleting the stricken
material and adding the underlined material as follows:
(o) Impervious Coverage — The maximum impervious coverage shall not
exceed 5060 percent. No impervious surface is allowed in required setback
areas except approved driveway, parking, and approved walks and trails. An
approved soft trail (one comprised of wood chips, ag lime, or crushed rock)
will not be counted as impervious.) See Figure 1.
SECTION II: The ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the city council of the city of Medina this day of , 2011.
By:
T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Douglas S. Reeder, Interim City Administrator -Clerk
Published in the South Crow River News this XX`h day of August, 2011.
Ordinance No. XX
August ##, 2011
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Medina Planning Commission
FROM: Dale Cooney, Associate Planner
DATE: August 4, 2011
MEETING: August 9, Planning Commission
SUBJ: An Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances Section 828.51. Parking
Background
This revision of the City's parking ordinance was undertaken as part of the Planning
Department's goal to review and revise the City's zoning codes on an ongoing basis. According
to City records, the City's off-street parking ordinance, Section 828.51, has not been revised
since 1985. During that time, the type of development experienced by the City, and society in
general, has changed significantly.
The purpose of this revised ordinance is to bring the City's current off-street parking regulations
into alignment with the stated goals of the comprehensive plan. Those goals include considering
alternatives for meeting parking requirements such as parking in the rear of buildings, shared
parking, on -street, underground, or ramp parking. Broader comprehensive plan goals also
include growth in compact, efficient locations, creating flexible zoning standards and creative
land use concepts, and encouraging methods of Low Impact Development.
Summary of Proposed Changes
Off-street parking regulations can fundamentally alter the character of a community. Inadequate
parking can create long term traffic and circulation problems, while an over -abundance of
parking can result in wasteful land use patterns, environmental degradation, and a diminished
public perception.
Staff has attempted to eliminate inefficiencies found within the parking ordinance in order to
reduce unnecessary hardcover dedicated to parking while still allowing for adequate off-street
parking. Changes include revised standards for parking space sizes, new standards for angled and
parallel parking, and revisions to off-street parking minimum requirements.
A primary goal of the parking ordinance is to allow for flexibility within the regulations. This
flexibility is found in sections pertaining to Joint Use Parking, Parking Reduction, and Proof of
Parking.
Other additions include language relating to fire lane standards, change of use regulations, and
pervious pavement considerations, and bicycle considerations.
Parking Space Size
Existing regulations require 9'wide x 20' deep parking stall dimensions. A typical parking stall
ranges in size from 8' to 9' wide and 18' to 20' deep, with the most typical suburban width being
9'. Proposed regulations would reduce the minimum parking stall size to 9' wide by 19' deep.
Parking Regulation
Proposed Changes
Page 1 of 5 Medina Planning Commission
August 9, 2011
The Planning Commission may wish to consider narrowing parking stall width to 8' 6" as the
cities of Saint Louis Park and Long Lake have done. Such a narrowing would reduce parking
stall hardcover by an additional 5.5%, but would also result in tighter parking, particularly for
larger trucks and SUVs.
Drive Aisles
Drive aisle regulations currently require a maximum 22' width. The typical range for drive aisle
width is 20' to 24', with 24' being the most common. As written, staff would require widths of
24' for primary drive aisles and fire lanes, and 22' for secondary drive aisles.
Staff has also proposed minimum one-way drive aisle widths for standard parking angles. Staff
does not recommend two-way drive aisles for angled parking.
Fire Lanes
State fire lane standards require fire lanes of 20' in width. Staff has proposed fire lanes to be 24'
in width to allow for certain amount of obstruction due to large or inappropriately parked
vehicles. Adequate turning radii are also required. The fire marshal has reviewed and approved
the above standards.
Other Design and Maintenance Considerations
Staff has added language encouraging the use of pervious asphalt (or similar materials), as well
as allowing for grasscrete (or similar materials) to be used for special event parking areas or for
those areas where parking is used less than 20 times per year.
Off -Street Spaces Required by Use
The table below delineates proposed off-street parking spaces required based upon a particular
land use. It is important to note that while these requirements are the mandatory minimums.
Some cities, particularly within the urban core, also incorporate maximum parking standards.
Staff does not believe that, at this time, the city has experienced development proposing
excessive parking (except in attempts to meet the City's minimum standards, which are proposed
to be relaxed in the ordinance).
The table below shows proposed off-street parking language for a variety of uses, with a typical
range found in regional suburban areas added for context. Some uses seemed relatively
standardized with parking ratios falling into a somewhat narrow range. Other uses, notably
hospitals and schools, showed a wide variety of ranges and approaches to off-street parking.
USE
EXITING/PROPOSED
TYPICAL SUBURBAN RANGE
One and Two-family
Two dwelling
2 per unit
(2) spaces per residences unit,
which may include enclosed spaces.
Multiple Dwellings and
Two (2) spaces per dwelling unit, which
2 per unit; plus .10 to .5
spaces per unit guest parking
Townhomes
may include enclosed spaces; plus .5 spaces
of guest parking per unit.
Parking Regulation
Proposed Changes
Page 2 of 5
Medina Planning Commission
August 9, 2011
Religious Institutions,
Theaters, Auditoriums,
and other places of
assembly.
One (1) space for each three four seats or for
1 per 3 to 6 seats
(1 per 3 is most common)
each five (5) feet of pew length based upon
maximum design capacity:; plus additional
parking for accessory uses and facilities as
prescribed by this Ordinance.
Business and
Professional
Offices
One (1) space for each 400 300 square feet
1 per 200 to 325 gsf.
(1 per 250 is most common)
of gross floor space.
Medical and Dental
Clinics
Five (5) doctor dentist,
1 per 200 to 250 gsf.
spaces per or plus
one (1) space for each employee. One (1)
space for each 250 square feet of gross floor
space.
Hotel or Motel
One (1) space per rental unit plus one (1)
space for each employee on largest
1 to 1.5 spaces per room
(1 per room is most
common); many include
additional parking for
employees.
workshift.
Schools: Grade
At least (1) for four
1 per 30 to 50 (plus 1 space
per classroom);
or 2 spaces per classroom.
one parking space etcich
based design
schools, elementary
(') students on capacity, plus
one (1) additional two (2) spaces for each
schools, middle school,
junior high school
classroom and one (1) space for each
employee on largest workshift.
Schools: High School,
At least one (1) space for each six (6)
1 per 2 to 10 students
(sometimes 1 space per
classroom is included)
vocational. or business
students plus one (1) space for each
classroom and one (1) space for each
employee on largest workshift.
Hospitals
At least one (1) parking space for each three
(3) hospital beds, plus one (1) space for each
four (4) employees, other than doctors, plus
one (1) parking space for each resident and
staff doctor on largest workshift.
3 per 2 beds; 1 per 350 gsf; 1
per 1 plus staff; 1 per 5 plus
employees.
Bowling Alleys
At least five (5) parking spaces for each
alley,
for
5 spaces per lane, plus
accessory uses.
required related uses such as restaurant
plus one (1) per five (5) seats of other
related facilities (e.g. restaurant), plus one
(1) additional space for each employee on
largest workshift.
Automobile Service
Stations
At least two (2) one (1) off-street parking
2 per stall; plus employee
parking or four stalls.
(Often calculated as multiple
uses)
spaces -for each five hundred (500) square
feet floor four (1)
gross area; plus (4) one
off-street parking spaces for each service
stall.
Parking Regulation
Proposed Changes
Page 3 of 5
Medina Planning Commission
August 9, 2011
Retail e Sales and
At least one (1) off-street parking space for
hundred fifty 250 (4-50250)
1 per 200 to 325 gsf. (1 per
200 and 1 per 250 are most
common)
Service
each one square
feet gross floor area up to 10,000 square
feet; plus at least one (1) off-street parking
space for each three hundred (300) square
feet gross floor area in excess of 10,000
square feet.
Restaurants, Cafes,
Bars, Taverns, Night
Clubs
At least one (1) space for each three (3) seats
based on capacity design including outdoor
1 per 40 to 60 gsf; or 1 per
2.5 to 3 seats. Plus 5
stacking spaces;
seating areas; plus at least five (5) stacking
spaces for drive -through operations.
Health Club (Includes,
At least one (1) off-street parking space for
1 per 200 to 250 gsf.
but not limited to
each two hundred fifty (250) square feet
dance, martial arts, and
gross floor area.
yoga studios.)
Funeral Homes
Sufficient off-street parking shall be required
to accommodate the maximum number of
guests expected to be in attendance at a
funeral home at any given time. The number
of required spaces shall be determined by the
local governs g City Council body after due
1 per 200 to 250 gsf.
consideration is given to the expected
parking needs of the funeral home.
Industrial, Warehouse,
Storage, Handling of
Bulk Goods
At least one space for each employee on
maximum major workshift or one space for
1 per 1,000 to 2,000 gsf ;
or 1 per employee on major
shift.
(1 per 2,000 gsf is most
common)
each two thousand square feet of gross floor
area, whichever is larger.
Retail Parking
The existing City of Medina retail parking ratio of 1 per 150 gross square feet (gsf) is
considerably higher than suburban norms. Staff is proposing to reduce retail parking minimums
to be more in line with emerging best practices which are trending toward fewer minimum
required parking spaces. Retail developments are proposed to have a parking ratio of 1 space per
250 gsf for the first 10,000 sq/ft, with areas in excess of 10,000 sq/ft parked at a ratio of 1 space
per 300 gsf.
The tiered approach to retail parking assumes smaller -scale developments would require higher
rates of parking than larger -scale developments. The reasoning behind this assumption is that, on
a per -square -foot basis, employee parking for a small retail business tends to takes up more space
than larger retail businesses. Also larger parking areas have a greater ability to absorb the ebb
and flow of traffic, compensate for alternating peak demands, and can offset high -demand
businesses.
Parking Regulation
Proposed Changes
Page 4 of 5 Medina Planning Commission
August 9, 2011
Calculation of Required Parking
Staff has attempted to build in flexibility from required parking minimums through methods such
as Joint Use Parking and Parking Reductions. Joint Use allows for a parking reduction based
upon shared lots that have different peak use hours. Parking Reduction allows for reduced
minimums in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that parking demand or capacity will
deviate from generalized assumptions, or where other, higher -priority City objectives are in
conflict with strict adherence to the parking requirements.
Proof of Parking
One of the primary means to allow for parking flexibility is proof of parking. Proof of Parking
allows a property to comply with the parking requirements, while also allowing for up to 20% of
the required parking to remain unpaved, pervious surface until such time as the property sees fit
to pave the area or until compelled to do so by the City.
Proof of Parking will allow flexibility from adding unneeded impervious surface within the City,
but will also provide the City with insurance against the potential for underparked properties.
Existing City regulations already allow for proof of parking within the Industrial Park district.
Updated parking regulations would allow for proof of parking city-wide.
Attachments
1. Draft Parking Ordinance
Parking Regulation Page 5 of 5 Medina Planning Commission
Proposed Changes August 9, 2011
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
An Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances Section 828.51. Parking -Location
The city council of the city of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Medina Code Section 828.51 is amended by deleting the stricken material and
adding the underlined material as follows:
Section 828.51. Parking Location §tand . r. s.
Subd. 1. Location.
as -fellows-: Required parking spaces must be located on the same lot as the principal use, unless
shared parking or off -site parking is apprgved for the use.
(a) Spaces accessory to one and two family dwellings on the same lot as the principal use
served.
building served.
(c) Spaces acres,, ry t„ , 3 located : a bunine s ithi, °e ght hundre (800) f et f a
entrance to tb, ta .,l bu l in oa
required m each distract.
Subd. 2; General Provisions.
(a) P rki g paces. Each parking space shall not be less than nine (9) feet wide and
twenty (20) feet in length exclusive of an adequately designed system of access drives.
(b)(a) Control of off-street parking facilities. When required accessory off-street parking
facilities are, provided elsewhere than on the lot in which the principal use served is
located} they shall be in the same ownership or control, either by deed or long-term
lease, as the property occupied by such principal use,
principal use shall file a recordable document with the City Council Said parking
provision shall be recorded with a legal instrument acceptable to the city
requiring the owner and his or her heirs and assigns to maintain the required
number of off-street spaces during the existence of said principal use.
Ordinance ##
Month ##, 2011
1
(e)(b) Use of parking area. Required off-street parking space in any District shall not be
utilized for open storage of goods or for the storage of vehicles which are
inoperable or for sale or for rent.
Subd. 3. Parking Space Size.
(a) The minimum dimensions for off-street parking spaces shall not be less than 9' wide
and 19' deep except as required by Table 1, Minimum Parking Space and Aisle
Dimensions, or Paragraph (b) below. These minimum dimensions are exclusive
of access drives or aisles, ramps, or columns.
Table 1: Minimum Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions
Parking Angle
Stall Width
Stall Depth
1 Way Aisle
Width
2 Way Aisle
Width
0° (Parallel)
91
22'
12'
22'
3.02
9'
19'
12'
91
14'
60°
91
91
19'
12'
(b) The minimum square footage required for residential two car garages shall be not
less than 240 square feet.
Subd. 34. Design and Maintenance of Off -Street Parking Areas.
(a) Parking areas shall be designed so as to provide adequate means of access to a public
alley or street. Such access shall not exceed twenty-four (24) feet in width for
primary drive aisles and twenty-two (22) feet in width for secondary drive aisles.
Access shall be so located as to cause the least interference with traffic
movement.
(b) No signs shall be located in any parking area except as necessary for orderly
operation of traffic movement and such signs shall not be a part of the
permitted advertising space.
(c) Parking shall meet the building setbacks of each district, except that in commercial or
industrial districts parking areas may be located not less than 25 feet from a front
lot line provided the parking area is separated from the street or right of way by
an earth berm a minimum of four feet in height.
(d)(c) Parking space for six (6) or more cars. When a required off-street parking space for
six (6) cars or more is located adjacent to a Residential District, a fence of adequate
design not over five (5) feet in height nor less than four (') feet in height and of a
height approved by the City, shall be erected along the Residential District property
line.
Ordinance ##
Month ##, 2011
2
(e)(d) Maintenance of off-street parking space. It shall be the joint and several
responsibility of the operator and owner of the principal use, uses and/or building
to maintain, in a neat and adequate manner, the parking space, accessways,
landscaping and required fences.
(#)(e) Asphalt or concrete surface for parking and driveway areas shall be required
in all commercial and industrial districts. Porous asphalt or other similar
pervious material suitable for use in Minnesota shall be encouraged.
Parking areas for infrequent parking such as for special events or for
fewer than 20 times per year, may use grasscrete or similar materials or
techniques and be in conformance with this provision. Such materials
shall not be considered impervious if at least 50 percent is exposed grass
or similar landscaping.
(MD Access driveways leading to loading docks and trash collection areas
shall be constructed to a minimum nine ton capacity.
(g) To the extent practicable, dead end drive aisles shall not be permitted.
(h) To the extent practicable. traffic moving from one part of a parking area to another
shall be capable of doing so without using a public street or ally.
(i) Fire lanes shall have a clear aisle width of not less than 24 feet. Adequate
turning radii shall be provided at fire lane corners to allow emergency
vehicles to turn in one maneuver without interference from
obstructions.
(j) Parking lots shall comply with City of Medina engineering standards.
Subd. 4_5. Parking in Residential Areas. Parking in residential areas (off-street and on -
street) shall be limited to the use of the residents of those homes. Except for short-term
parking (six (6) hours or less) and guest parking, the number of vehicles parked on or in
front of a residential lot shall not exceed double the number of persons residing on the
premises and having automobile driver's licenses.
Subd. 56. Off -Street Spaces Required (One—spaee—e .,ls 300 f „t) The
following are the minimum number of parking spaces required for each use. However,
in all commercial and industrial districts no use shall be provided fewer than four
parking spaces.
(a)
One and Two-family
Two (2) spaces per residences dwelling unit, which
may include enclosed spaces.
Ordinance ##
Month ##, 2011
3
(b)
Multiple Dwellings and
Two (2) spaces per dwelling unit, which may
Townhomes
include enclosed spaces; plus .5 spaces of guest
parking per unit.
(c)
Religious
Institutions, Theaters,
Auditoriums, and
other places of
assembly.
One (1) space for each three four seats or for each
five (5) feet of pew length based upon maximum
design capacity.; plus additional parking for
accessory uses and facilities as prescribed by this
Ordinance.
(d)
Business and Professional
Offices
One (1) space for each 400 three hundred
(300) square feet of gross floor space.
(e)
Medical and Dental Clinics
Five doctor dentist, one (1)
(5) spaces per or plus
One (1) space for each
250 square feet of gross floor space.
(f)
Hotel or Motel
One (1) space per rental unit plus one (1) space for
each employee on largest orkshift.
(g)
Schools: Grade schools,
At least space for four (1)
one (1) parking each
students based design (1)
elementary schools, middle
on capacity, plus one
additional two 2 `spaces for each classroom
school, junior high school
for
and one (1) space each employee.
(h)
Schools: High School,
At least one (1) space for each six (6) students
vocational, or business
plus one (1) space for each classroom.
(h) (i)
Hospitals
At least one (1) parking space for each three (3)
hospital beds, plus one (1) space for each four (4)
employees, other than doctors, plus one (1)
parking space for each resident and staff doctor
on major shift.
(
Drive in Food
At least (1) space for each fifteen (15)
Establishments
one parking
feet of floor space in a building allocated to
square
drive in
a operation.
(j)
Bowling Alleys
At least five (5) parking spaces for each alley, plus
for uses
additional spaces as maybe required related
(1) five (5)
such as restaurant plus one space per
seats of other accessory facilities, plus one (1)
additional space for each employee on largest
workshift.
(k)
Automobile Service
Stations
At least two (2) (1) off-street spaces
one parking
for each five hundred (500) square feet gross floor
four (1) (1) spaces
area; plus one off-street parking
for each service stall.
Ordinance ##
Month ##, 2011
4
(1)
Retail Store Sales and
At least one (1) off-street parking space for each
hu,,dre.a ffy two hundred fifty (150250)
Service one
square feet gross floor area up to 10,000 square
feet; plus at least one (1) off-street parking space
for each three hundred (300) square feet gross
floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet.
(m)
Restaurants, Drive- through
At least one (1) space for each three (3) seats
based on capacity design including outdoor
Food Establishments, Cafes,
Bars, Taverns, Night Clubs
seating areas; plus at least five (5) stacking spaces
for drive -through operations.
(n)
Health Club (Includes, but
At least one (1) off-street parking space for each
not limited to dance, martial
two hundred fifty (250) square feet gross floor
arts, and yoga studios.)
area.
(r+ -)_(o)
Funeral Homes
Sufficient off-street parking shall be required to
accommodate the maximum number of guests
expected to be in attendance at a funeral home at
any given time. The number of required spaces
be determined by the local body
shall governing
City Council after due consideration is given to the
expected parking needs of the funeral home.
(o)_(p)
Industrial, Warehouse,
Storage, Handling of Bulk
Goods
At least one space for each employee on
Ffiwiimtini largest workshift or one space for each
two thousand square feet of gross floor area,
whichever is larger.
(p)
Uses not specifically noted
As determined by the City Council following
review by the Planning Commission.
Subd. 7. Calculation of required parking.
(a) Principal and Multiple Uses. The number of parking spaces is computed based on
the principal uses on the site except as stated in Paragraph (b), below. When
there are two or more separate principal uses on a site, the required parking for
the site is the sum of the required or allowed parking for the individual principal
uses.
(b) Accessory Uses. When more than 20 percent of the floor area on a site is in an
accessory use, the required parking is calculated separately for the accessory
use.
(c) Joint Use Parking. Joint use of required parking spaces may occur where two or
more uses on the same or separate sites are able to share the same parking
spaces because their parking demands occur at different times, if approved by
the City. Joint use of required nonresidential parking spaces is allowed if the
Ordinance ##
Month ##, 2011
5
following documentation is submitted in writing as part of a building or zoning
permit application or land use review:
(i) The names and addresses of the uses and of the owners or tenants that are
sharing the parking;
(ii) The location and number of parking spaces that are being shared;
(iii) An analysis showing that the peak parking times of the uses occur at
different tunes and that the parking area will be large enough for the
anticipated demands of both uses: and
(iv) A legal instrument acceptable to the city that guarantees access to the
parking for both uses.
(d) Change of Use. No change of use or occupancy of land already dedicated to a
parking area, parking spaces or loading spaces shall be made, nor shall any
subdivision of land be made which reduces area necessary for parking, parking
stalls or parking requirements below the minimum proscribed by this section.
Any change of use or occupancy of any building or buildings, including
additions thereto, requiring more parking area shall not be permitted until
additional parking spaces as required by this section are provided.
(e) Parking Reduction. A waiver may be granted by the city to reduce the required
number of parking spaces where it can be demonstrated that such reduction is
justified due to:
(i) factors having an impact on parking demand and capacity;
(ii) the achievement of other, competing city objectives including, but not
limited to preservation of unique or historic buildings, preservation of
cominunity character, tree or natural resource preservation: or
(iii) unique or extenuating circumstances unforeseen by this ordinance.
(iv) Parking reduction waivers shall be recorded with a legal instrument
acceptable to the city.
Subd. 8. Proof of Parking.
(a) The city may reduce the amount of parking spaces required to be constructed
provided the property owner provide proof of parking which can be constructed if
deemed necessary by the city, provided the following conditions are met:
Ordinance ##
Month ##, 2011
(i) A minimum of 30 parking spaces are provided;
(ii) A minimum of 80 percent of the required parking spaces, or more if so
determined by the city, shall be constructed;
(iii) a parking plan, drawn to scale for the property, is submitted with the site
plan which indicates that the site is capable of complying with the total
parking requirements stated above and with the parking lot design to the
standards required by this Ordinance;
(ii) the proof of parking area is defined as that portion of the site which is not
paved, but is suitably landscaped and is capable of containing the amount of
6
parking equal to the difference between the area of paved parking to be
provided and the area of parking required to meet the requirements of this
Ordinance. For purposes of calculating impervious surface, such area shall
be considered impervious;
(iii) the proof of parking area shall be prepared for the construction of future
parking to the extent required by the city. This may include grading,
construction of necessary stormwater management practices, and other
preparations as required by the City;
(iv) the proof of parking area shall be clearly delineated on the e parking plan for
the site;
(v) the paved portion of the parking area shall comply with the pertinent sections
of this Ordinance; and
(vi) The proof of parking area is not used to satisfy any other landscaping, setback,
or other requirement of this Ordinance and is not located in an area occupied
by a building.
(f) Agreement Required. The property owner shall enter into a legal instrument with city,
in a fonn acceptable to the city, related to the requirements and provisions of the
proof of parking. Such instrument shall be recorded against the property.
(g) In circumstances where proof of parking is provided for joint use parking, the
proof of parking area maybe calculated as 80% of the joint use requirement.
(h) Construction of proof of parking. The city may, at its sole discretion, require that
the proof of parking area, or portions thereof, be constructed in a way that it
meets the requirements of this section.
(i) Notification: The city shall notify the property owner of the requirement to
construct the required parking, upon which the property owner shall have
up to 60 days to apply for a building permit to expand the parking area.
(ii) Appeal. The property owner may appeal the requirement to the city
council. An appeal shall be provided in writing no later than ten days
from the date of the notice.
(iii) Failure to. Correct. If the property owner does not construct the required
parking expansion within 180 days, the city may enter the property and
perform
the work. The amount incurred by the city in performing such
work, including reasonable associated administrative costs, shall be
invoiced to the property owner. If such invoice is not paid within 30
days, the city may certify such costs to the county for collection with the
property taxes.
Subd. 9. Off -Street Bicycle and Motorcycle Parking: Provisions shall be made for the
off-street parking of bicycles and motorcycles in all multiple family and non-
residential developments and uses. Plans for such facilities shall be reviewed and
Ordinance ##
Month ##, 2011
7
evaluated on an individual project or use basis as part of site plan review provisions
of Section 825.55 of this Chapter.
Subd. 10. Pedestrian Ways and Trails. Off-street parking areas shall provide pedestrian
access between the building, parking lot, and sidewalk. Parking layout shall be
desi _ ed such that • arkin areas do not intrude on • edestrian access or im • act
accessibility.
SECTION II: The ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the city council of the city of Medina this day of , 2011.
By:
T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Douglas S. Reeder, Interim City Administrator -Clerk
Published in the South Crow River News this XXth day of , 2011.
Ordinance ##
Month ##, 2011
8
AGENDA ITEM: 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: August 4, 2011
MEETING: August 9, 2011 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment: Accessory Dwelling Units
Background
When the City discussed the new residential zoning districts created back in 2009, the City
Council discussed adding "in-law" apartments as an allowed use in single family districts.
Ultimately, the City Council added Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as a conditional use in the
R-1 district.
An ADU is essentially a separate dwelling unit located on the same lot as a single-family home.
An ADU could be located within the same structure (on different levels, within a bonus room
above garage, etc.) or could be within a separate structure. ADUs can also be called "in-law"
apartments, guesthomes, and various other terms.
Current City regulations do not allow ADUs in most single-family districts. As a result, only one
dwelling unit can be constructed on most lots. "Lodging Rooms" are permitted within the Rural
Residential zoning district, which allow property owners to construct a guesthouse with a single
bedroom, bathrooms, and a living room. However, staff is required to deny requests for a
guesthouse which proposes to include a kitchen.
Accessory dwellings have the potential to serve various objectives for the community:
• As mentioned above, ADUs allow the construction of an entirely separate guesthouse, which
has often been requested by residents on larger properties.
• The City Council's interest in ADUs in 2009 was more to respond to changing demographics
and to allow aging family members to move in, but yet maintain independence by having a
separate unit.
• If the community allows renting of ADUs, there is also the potential to provide a housing
stock that would be otherwise unavailable. Such scenarios increase the access to rental
housing, and yet do so within relatively low density surroundings.
Obviously, a large number of ADUs being constructed in a neighborhood could lead to an
increase in density, although such an increase wouldn't exceed 2x.
Communities regulate ADUs in various ways, depending on the goals they are trying to achieve.
The following types of regulations are fairly common:
• Limitations on the size or number of bedrooms in an ADU
• Requirement that ADU be located within the principal structure (instead of separate building)
• Limitations on renting (for example: property owner required to occupy one of the units;
only can rent to family members; or total prohibition of renting).
Accessory Dwelling Units
Page 1 of 3 August 9, 2011
Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting
Policy Discussion
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council first discuss what objectives
are hoped to be accomplished by permitting ADUs. The regulations which the City chooses to
apply to ADU would follow these objectives.
• Guesthouses
• Caretaker housing
• "In-law" arrangements
• Renting of the units
Draft Ordinance
Staff used the ordinance approved by the City Council in 2009 and the feedback from that
discussion as a starting point to create the attached ordinance. The ordinance adds ADUs as an
allowed Conditional Use within all zoning districts which requires a larger lot area than the R1
zoning district. ADUs would be permitted in the following zoning districts:
• Rural Residential (RR)
• Agricultural Preserve (AG)
• Rural Residential -1 (RR1)
• Rural Residential -2 (RR2)
• Rural Residential -Urban Reserve (RR-UR)
• Suburban Residential (SR)
• Single-family Residential (R1)
Construction of an ADU would require approval of a conditional use permit (CUP), which would
follow the review procedures through the Planning Commission and City Council.
The ordinance also includes a number of regulations which an ADU would need to be in
conformance with. Following are a summary of the primary regulations, and the full list can be
found on pages 3-4 of the ordinance.
Maximum Size
The ADU is limited to the lesser of the following: 1) 900 square feet; or 2) 40% of the size of
the principal structure. For reference, 40% of 2250 square feet is equal to 900 square feet.
Minimum Size
The ordinance requires an ADU to be at least 300 square feet in size. This requirement was
included in the R1 district in 2009, without much discussion. It appears that building code would
require 190-220 square feet (or more depending on number of occupants).
Maximum Bedrooms
No more than 2 bedrooms are permitted.
Parking
The ordinance requires one off-street parking stall per bedroom. One of the spaces is required to
be enclosed (a one -bedroom ADU would require a garage space). Existing regulations require
two garage spaces per home, and the parking for the ADU would be above and beyond this
requirement. If the expectation were for more rentals, it may be advisable to require two spaces
Accessory Dwelling Units Page 2 of 3 August 9, 2011
Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting
even for a one -bedroom ADU. The Commission and Council may also wish to discuss whether
an enclosed garage space should be required.
Owner Occupancy
The ordinance requires that property owners maintain primary residence in either the principal
dwelling or the ADU. However, renting one of the units is not prohibited. The occupancy
requirement is intended to prevent an investor from converting the property and renting both
units. Having the owner present has been shown to improve maintenance
Allowed within principal structure or in a separate structure
The ordinance allows for ADUs to be located within the principal structure or within a separate
structure. The Commission and Council may wish to discuss allowing ADUs in separate
structures only within the Rural districts and require them to be within the principal structure on
smaller lots.
Other Potential Regulations
Allow ADUs in smaller single-family districts
In the current draft, ADUs are not allowed in the Urban Residential (UR) or Single/Two Family
(R2) zoning districts. This would include neighborhoods such as Independence Beach,
Morningside, Elm Creek, and Cherry Hill. If the Commission and Council are supportive of
allowing ADUs in these districts, staff would recommend a minimum lot size requirement
(perhaps 11,000 square feet), and would likely recommend that ADUs not be allowed within a
detached structure.
Require water/gas/electric services and meters to be shared
This regulation supports the fact that the ADU is "accessory" to the primary residence. If the
Commission and Council do not support rentals, this requirement could be added to dissuade
rental units.
Limiting the number of ADUs within an area
Communities occasional apply location/density limitations to ADUs (i.e. no ADU can be
constructed if another one has been approved within 500 feet). Staff does not recommend this
type of regulation as it grants more rights to the "first through the door."
Require a "deck" if exterior staircase is proposed
The Planning Commission and City Council may wish to require that any exterior staircase has a
larger landing, which would make the staircase resemble a deck rather than a fire escape.
Administrative Review
Some communities allow for an administrative review of ADUs rather than a formal hearing
before the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff believes the CUP process provides the
opportunity to attach conditions to the use and a formal record to track and enforce the approved
ADUs.
Attachments
1. DRAFT Ordinance
Accessory Dwelling Units
Page 3 of 3 August 9, 2011
Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
An Ordinance Amending Section of the Code of Ordinances
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units in Residential Zoning Districts
The city council of the city of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Medina Code Section 825.07 is amended by adding the underlined material as
follows:
Section 825.07. Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed to
them:
Subd. 25. Dwelling Unit - A residential building or portion thereof which is arranged,
designed, used or intended for use as the living quarters for one family, but not including
hotels, motels, or boarding or rooming houses.
Subd. 25.1. Dwelling Unit, Accessory — a second dwelling unit located upon the same
parcel or within the same structure as the principal single-family home.
Subd. 26. Dwelling, Attached - a dwelling which is joined to another dwelling at one or
more sides by a party wall or walls.
Subd. 27. Dwelling, Detached - A dwelling which is entirely surrounded by open space on
the same lot.
SECTION II: Medina Code Section 825.07 is amended by adding the underlined material as
follows:
Section 825.07. Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed to
them:
Subd. 47.2. Habitable Space — A space in a building for living, sleeping. eating or cooking.
Bathrooms. toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not
considered habitable spaces.
SECTION III: Medina Code Section 826.11 is amended by adding the underlined material and
deleting the stricken material as follows:
Section 826.11. (AG) Conditional Uses. Within the agricultural preservation zoning district, no
structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit:
Ordinance No. ###
DATE
Subd. 1. Home occupations in conformance with section 826.98, Subd. 2 (c) of this
ordinance.
Subd. 2. Private use of windmills or wind energy conversion systems (WECS).
Subd. 3. Solar equipment.
Subd. 4. Accessory Dwelling Units in conformance with section 826.98 subd. 2(p) of this
ordinance; and. A second home, in addition to the permitted farmstead residence of 14
acres or larger, if placed on the farm building site and if used to house members of the
resident farming family or for help employed full time on the farm and if the need for
such an additional unit to support and carry on the principal use has been established. The
applicant shall file an overlay with the zoning administrator demonstrating that the
seeend-henie-meets-al-l-setbaek. are and sewage disposal requirements of city
ordinances,; and
Subd. 5. Other uses similar to those permitted in this subdivision, as determined by the city
council.
SECTION IV: Medina Code Section 826.21 is amended by adding the underlined material as
follows:
Section 826.21. (RR) Conditional Uses. Within the Rural Residential District, no structure or
land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit:
Subd. 1. Home occupations in compliance with the conditions of Section 826.98, Subd. 2 (c)
of this ordinance.
Subd. 2. Cemeteries in compliance with the conditions of section 826.98, subd. 2 (d) of this
ordinance.
Subd. 3. Outdoor recreational facilities, including non-commercial parks, golf courses, and
driving ranges in compliance with the conditions of section 826.98, subd. 2 (g) of this
ordinance.
Subd. 4. Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) in compliance with the conditions of
section 826.98, subd. 2 (e) of this ordinance.
Subd 5. On parcels of 40 acres or larger, a second principal residential dwelling structure.
Subd. 6. Accessory Dwelling Units in conformance with section 826.98 subd. 2(p) of this
ordinance.
SECTION V: Medina Code Section 826.25.3 is amended by adding the underlined material as
follows:
Section 826.25.3. (RR-UR) Conditional Uses. Within the Urban Reserve district, no structure
or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit:
Subd. 1. Home occupations in compliance with the conditions of section 826.98, subd. 2 (c)
of this ordinance.
Subd. 2. Cemeteries in compliance with the conditions of section 826.98, subd. 2 (d) of this
ordinance.
Ordinance No. ### 2
DATE
Subd. 3. Outdoor recreational facilities, golf courses, and driving ranges in compliance with
the conditions of section 826.98, subd. 2 (g) of this ordinance.
Subd. 4. Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) in compliance with the conditions of
section 826.98, subd. 2 (e) of this ordinance.
Subd. 5. Accessory Dwellin Units in conformance with section 826.98 subd. 2(p) of this
ordinance.
SECTION VI: Medina Code Section 826.26.4 is amended by adding the underlined material as
follows:
Section 826.26.4. (SR) Conditional Uses. Within the Suburban Residential district, no structure
or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit:
Subd. 1. Local government buildings.
Subd. 2. Churches and other places of worship.
Subd. 3. Home occupations in compliance with the conditions of Section 826.98, Subd. 2 (c)
of this ordinance.
Subd. 4. Cemeteries.
Subd. 5. Outdoor recreational facilities, including non-commercial parks, golf courses, and
driving ranges.
Subd. 6. Private use of windmills or wind energy conservation systems (WECS).
Subd. 7. Solar equipment.
Subd. 8. Windmills or wind energy conservation systems.
Subd. 9. Public or private schools having a course of instructions approved by the Minnesota
board of education for students enrolled in preschool through grade 12 or any portion
thereof.
Subd. 10. Accessory Dwelling Units in conformance with section 826.98 subd. 2(p) of this
ordinance.
SECTION VII: Medina Code Section 826.98 is amended by adding the underlined material as
follows:
Section 826.98. Conditional Use Permit Standards for Agricultural Preservation and
Residential Districts.
Subd. 2. Specific Standards. In addition to the general standards specified in section 825.39
of this ordinance, no conditional use permit shall be granted unless the city council
determines that all of the specific standards contained in this subdivision will be met:
(p) Accessory Dwelling Units.
(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:
(ii) The lot shall contain an existing single-family dwelling unit which conforms
to district regulations:
Ordinance No. ### 3
DATE
laiihThe habitable area of the_accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed_... lesser
of the following: 1) 900 square feet; or 2) 40 percent of the habitable area
of the principal single-family dwelling
(iv) The accessory dwellingunit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of
habitable space;
(v) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms;
(vi)_A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided per bedroom for
the accessory dwelling unit. A minimum of one of these required parking
spaces shall be within a garage to which the occupant of the accessory
dwellinu unit has access. Such parking spaces shall not interfere with
accessing the required_garaie spaces for the principal single-family
dwelling;
(vii, No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory
dwelling unit;
(viii) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the
principal single-family dwelling;
fix The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling
or the accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence;
(x) 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;
(xi) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit shall be
located in a way to minimize visibility from the street; and
(xii) 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.
SECTION VIII: Medina Code Section 840.3.05 is amended by adding the underlined material and
deleting the stricken material as follows:
Section 840.3.05. Supplemental Requirements for Specific Uses within Single- and Two -
Family Residential Zoning Districts. In addition to the general standards specified for
conditional uses in section 825.39 of the City Code and other requirements of this ordinance, the
following uses shall not be permitted unless the city council determines that all of the specific
standards contained in this subdivision will be met:
Subd. 1. Accessory dwelling units
Ordinance No. ### 4
DATE
(a) No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be located on a property.__N_o accessory
dwelling unit shall be permitted upon a property on which a lodoin<2 room or a second
residential dwelling is located;
(b) The lot must contain an existing single-family dwelling unit which conforms to district
regulations;
(c) The habitable area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the lesser of the
following: 1) 900 square feet; or 2) 40 percent of the habitable area of the principal
single-family dwelling;
(d) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a minimum of 300 square feet of habitable
area;
(e) The accessory dwelling unit shall contain no more than two bedrooms;
(f) A minimum of one off-street parking space per bedroom shall be provided for the
accessory dwelling unit, at least one of which shall be enclosed.. These spaces shall not
interfere with accessing the required garage spaces for the principal single-family
dwelling;
(g) No separate driveway or curb cut shall be permitted to serve the accessory dwelling unit;
(h) No accessory dwelling unit shall be sold or conveyed separately from the principal
single-family dwelling;
(i) The property owner shall occupy either the principal single-family dwelling or the
accessory dwelling unit as their primary residence;
(j) 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;
(k) Any exterior stairway which accesses an accessory dwelling unit shall be located in a
way to minimize visibility be less visible from the street; and
(1) 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.
SECTION IX: The ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the city council of the city of Medina this
ATTEST:
day of , 2011.
T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor
Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -Clerk
Published in the South Crow River News this day of , 2011.
Ordinance No. ### 5
DATE