Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-14-2013MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2013 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 April 9, 2013 draft Planning Commission minutes. 6. Public Hearing — Randy Cole & Sandra Fenske - 2959 Lakeshore Avenue - Request for a Variance to the Setback Requirements from the Ordinary High Water Line of Lake Independence and Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage for an addition and deck onto their home (PID 18-118-23-23-0022). 7. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina City Code relating to required street widths 8. Continued Public Hearing — T. Truxton Morrison — Lot Subdivision of one existing Lot into Two Lots and a Variance from minimum Road Width requirements. 9. Continued Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina City Code related to flag lots, lot frontage, driveway regulations, minimum street grades, and the use of public easements and rights -of -way. 10. Council Meeting Schedule 11. Adjourn POSTED IN CITY HALL May 10, 2013 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: May 2, 2013 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates May 7, 2013 City Council Meeting Ordinance Updates A) Lot Frontage, Flag Lots, Driveway Regulations — staff intends to begin work on an ordinance related to these subjects, which originally was a 2012 goal, but was deferred as other ordinances were determined to be of higher priority. The Planning Commission reviewed at the April meeting and tabled, seeking additional information. Land Use Application Reviews A) The Reserve of Medina Preliminary Plat — Toll Brothers submitted a preliminary plat for a 126 -lot single-family subdivision on the Gorman Farm property east of County Road 116 and south of Hackamore. The Commissions and Council had provided comments during a concept plan review last fall. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the April 9 meeting and recommended approval. Staff intends to present for Council review at the May 7 meeting. B) The Enclave at Brockton 3rd Addition — Lennar has requested approval to plat the "detached townhome" portion of the Enclave at Brockton. The application is will be presented to the Council at the May 7 meeting. C) Morrison Lot Split and Variance — Truxton and Adrienne Morrison have requested to subdivide their 18 acres at 1525 Hunter Drive into two lots. The applicant has also requested a variance from the required road width standards of the subdivision ordinance. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the April 9 meeting and tabled the matter, requesting additional information. The hearing will likely continue at the May 14 Commission meeting. D) Fenske/Cole Variance Request — 2959 Lakeshore Avenue — Sandra Fenske and Randy Cole have requested a variance from the setback from Lake Independence to construct a house addition in the location of an existing deck on their home. A lake setback variance was granted in 1999 for the deck, but staff determined that the two-story (+ walkout) addition in the same location and an additional deck proposed by the applicant was an intensification and could only be constructed if a new variance is granted. The item is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the May 14 Planning Commission meeting. E) Johnson Lot Combination, Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning — 2505 Willow Drive — Dan and Jill Johnson have requested a CPA to change the future land use of three parcels of land from Rural Residential to Agriculture and a rezoning of the property from Rural Residential to Agricultural Preserve. This change would make the property eligible to be enrolled in the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserve program. The City Council adopted a resolution approving the Comp Plan Amendment at the February 19 meeting and it has been submitted for Met Council review. One of the conditions of approval was that the applicant combine their properties. The applicant has now requested a lot combination and staff is conducting a preliminary review. If complete, the combination may be presented to the Council in May. F) Fawn Meadows subdivision — east of CR 116, north of Medina Lake Drive — Money Tree, LLC has requested a preliminary plat and rezoning for the development of the 10 acres (5.72 net Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 May 7, 2013 City Council Meeting acres) immediately north of the Toll Brothers Reserve of Medina project. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and the item will be scheduled for a Public Hearing when complete. G) The Enclave at Medina 3rd Addition and 4`" Addition — the City Council approved the final plat requests at the March 19 meeting. Staff is coordinating the conditions of approval before signing the plats and authorizing work to begin on the improvements. H) Fields of Medina West — I S` Addn — north of Highway 55, east of Arrowhead — Mattamy Homes applied to final plat 34 of the 64 lots within the subdivision. The Council granted final plat approval at the April 16 meeting, and staff is working with the developer to finalize the conditions of approval before construction begins. I) Woodridge Church Variance — Woodridge Church has requested approval of a variance to allow construction of an 85,000 square foot building with 400 parking spaces on their property at 1500 County Road 24. The applicant does not propose construction at this time, but only to secure the variance pursuant to the settlement agreement by and between the City of Medina and Woodridge Church. The Council approved the requested variances on April 16 and the project will now be closed. Additional Projects A) Willow Drive Improvement Project — staff conducted a preliminary assessment analysis and prepared mailing labels for the upcoming open house which Public Works has scheduled. B) Wellington Management — staff met with representatives from Wellington Management, who purchased the Clydesdale Marketplace properties (Office Max, Caribou/Verizon, two vacant lots) from Ryan Companies. C) Commercial Development pre -application — staff held a pre -application meeting related to the construction of a small commercial building. More information will be provided upon formal application. D) GIS Training — staff took part in a training related to GIS capabilities which provided insight into how public works infrastructure may be more easily incorporated into the City's GIS system E) Connection Fee Analysis — Planning staff continues to be active in the long-term sewer and water analysis. Staff prepared an ordinance amending the fee schedule consistent with the direction of the Council from the April 16 worksession. Staff has also begun the analysis of how fees could be structured for higher density housing and commercial properties as directed. F) Parks and Trails Plan — staff provided assistance with updated maps and financial information for Park Commission's draft Parks/Trails plan. Planning Department Update Page2of2 May7,2013 City Council Meeting 1 CITY OF MEDINA 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 4 Tuesday, April 9, 2013 5 6 1. Ca11 to Order: Commissioner R. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 7 8 Present: Planning Commissioners Robin Reid, Kathleen Martin, Kent Williams, 9 Randy Foote, and V. Reid. 10 11 Absent: Charles Nolan and Osmanski 12 13 Also Present: City Councilmember Elizabeth Weir, City Planner Dusty Finke, Nate 14 Sparks of NAC and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson. 15 16 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 17 18 No public comments. 19 20 3. Update from City Council proceedings 21 22 Weir updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City Council. 23 24 4. Planning Department Report 25 26 Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects. 27 28 5. Approval of the March 12, 2013 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes. 29 30 Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to approve the March 12, 2013 minutes as 31 written. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Osmanski) 32 33 6. Public Hearing — Toll Brothers, Inc. — Preliminary Plat for 126 Single Family 34 Lot Subdivision and a Rezoning from Rural Residential -Urban Reserve (RR - 35 UR) to Single Family Residential (R-1) on an 81 acre parcel located east of 36 County Road 116 and south of Hackamore Road known as the Gorman Farm 37 property (PID 01-118-23-21-0004). 38 39 Finke presented the application and explained the location is within the staging period 40 for development for sewer and water availability and the property is approximately 81 41 acres in size. He said the order of approval for the project would be to approve the 42 rezoning, preliminary plat, and then the driveway setback waiver. He explained the 43 property is predominantly farmed currently. The site has a number of wetlands and 44 wooded areas. The access is proposed to be off Co. Rd. 116 in the initial phases and 45 then a future phase would include access onto Hackamore Road. 1 46 47 Finke explained that comments were provided during the Concept Review Process 48 stage and the plans were reviewed by staff based on those previously recommended 49 comments by the Commission. He said the proposed density was 2.01 units/acre if 50 Outlot D was excluded from the calculation. If Outlot D wasn't excluded then the 51 density would be 1.95 units/acre. The decision to include or exclude Outlot D would 52 be a decision of the Commission and Council. 53 54 Finke said staff felt the plans were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The lot 55 frontage being proposed was a little larger than the standard width for the R1 zoning 56 district. 57 58 Finke said wetland impacts were being proposed by the applicant. He said the most 59 impacted area was for the construction of the road in the NW location of the site. 60 Staff recommended the 500 year floodplain area be further researched. 61 62 Finke said a traffic study was completed with a broader scope, including areas of 63 Corcoran. The preliminary comments had been submitted to the City and right -of - 64 way would be required, with an obligation to fund improvements as part of 65 development agreement. 66 67 Finke said the interior streets were proposed to be 28 feet in width. He asked that 68 staff be allowed some flexibility to realign the streets in future phases internally. The 69 plan meets 20% phosphorus reduction and requirements related to the 70 infiltration/filtration. A number of full basements were being proposed to reduce the 71 amount of grading which would also preserve trees and assist with better drainage. A 72 total of 28.6% tree removal is proposed with a 15% maximum without tree 73 replacement. The applicant is proposing to replace the percentage they are over. 74 75 Finke said a public park was discussed by the Park Commission and they determined 76 a park wasn't needed in this location, but rather trails would be important. Cash in 77 lieu of land would be paid for the park dedication. 78 79 Williams asked about the sewer line to the north and if the City can obtain easements. 80 Finke said the intention would be to keep the pipes upland so as to not need 81 easements. 82 83 Williams raised concern about the Fire Marshal's comments about road width. Finke 84 said by placing signage on one side of the road with "no parking" the remainder of 85 the road would be 19 feet in width. He said a 32 foot wide road with parking on both 86 sides actually has less width. Foote asked Finke the Fire Marshals opinion of staff's 87 recommendation of the 28 foot wide streets with parking on one side of the road. 88 Finke said that the Fire Marshal continues to have concern with the proposal. 89 90 V. Reid raised concerns with the Park Commission and Council not thinking a park 91 was necessary. She said she noticed the City of Minneapolis requires a park every six 2 92 blocks and is concerned with not having a park for the development density being 93 proposed. She also added that Foxberry Farms Park didn't seem sufficient for the 94 size of the development and that people shouldn't have to walk to a park by having to 95 cross a busy roadway such as Co. Rd. 116. Finke said he agreed concerning a park in 96 the area, but it was determined to not be necessary. V. Reid asked the crowd 97 attending that people should speak up if they are in favor of a park in this 98 development area. 99 100 R. Reid asked if there was a reason the City shouldn't accept Outlot D. Finke said it 101 would be like maintenance and tree removal that the City would be responsible for if 102 we took it over. 103 104 Martin asked where the trails are located within the development. Finke said five 105 foot wide sidewalks were being proposed for walking. 106 107 James Hepler, Director of Land Development, explained that Toll Brothers was 108 founded in 1967 and thanked staff for working with them. He said he was happy to 109 answer any questions the Commission may have about their proposal. R. Reid said 110 during the Concept Plan Review Stage residents raised concerns about drainage in the 111 area neighborhood to the south of the proposed development and questioned if those 112 concerns had been satisfied by the proposal. Matthew Duenwald, Engineer for Toll 113 Brothers, said they worked on mottling the soils and grades for drainage. 114 115 Duenwald explained the amenities were being proposed to be in Lot 12, Block 10. 116 He said a tot lot and Clubhouse would be constructed in that location. He said Outlot 117 C (1/4 acre) is recommended to be utilized for a play area and that flattening the 118 grades would make for a better use of the lot for kids to play. 119 120 R. Reid said her big concern is only having one outlet along Co. Rd. 116. She asked 121 how many houses would be constructed before connecting to Hackamore Rd. Martin 122 said 50+ lots would be developed. R. Reid asked how long it would take to build out 123 the development. Hepler said production is expected to be 24-30 homes per year, so 124 somewhere between 4-5 years before the development would be fully built out. 125 126 V. Reid raised a concern with the recommended street names having "fox" within it 127 and suggested it be changed since there could be confusion with the Foxberry Farms 128 development where most streets have the word "fox" in it. 129 130 Public Hearing opened at 7:50 p.m. 131 132 Mark Czech of 660 Shawnee Woods Road raised concern with the traffic on 116 and 133 that it's a bus stop location. He also expressed that he was perplexed by the fact that 134 the area within the development that has a lot that stubs into the southern existing 135 development seemed rather odd to him since it's along a Council member's property. 136 He also said his sump pump ran every single day this winter and understands 137 development has to happen but that the drainage in the area should be corrected and 3 138 not made worse. He feels the way the proposed development is proposed to be 139 graded will reduce the value of his property. 140 141 Steve Theesfeld of 600 Shawnee Woods Road said his property is immediately south 142 of Outlot D and he had raised concerns during the Concept Stage Review process 143 with the Planning Commission about the drainage. He said at the Concept Stage 144 meeting he had asked that the applicant's engineer meet with him to discuss the 145 drainage issues and it is unfortunate that no one had contacted him. He said he 146 presently has standing water and specifically is concerned with the proposed lots 21, 147 22, and 23. He said the houses are in the woods and near a pond and there are things 148 that could be done to remediate the issues. He said the lots could just move 20-30 149 feet to the north to preserve the trees. 150 151 Theesfeld said he was also concerned that the development only has one entrance/exit 152 initially and that it will inundate their neighborhood. He recommended the plans be 153 redrawn to provide two access points onto County Road 116. He said it's a higher 154 density neighborhood that will be disbursed into a lower density neighborhood. He 155 asked the Commission to consider changes be made to address his concerns. 156 157 R. Reid asked how Poppy Trail was established. Finke said the current plan is to find 158 another connection through the development in the future, but currently is shown as a 159 dead end and wouldn't connect through until additional development occurred south 160 of Shawnee Woods. 161 162 V. Reid asked the applicant what they have done to reduce possible impacts to the 163 neighborhood to the south. Duenwald said they have surface water under control and 164 drain tiles would be installed. V. Reid asked if Shawnee Woods neighborhood had 165 issues after the development is constructed what would Toll do to correct their issues. 166 Duenwald said they are going to be picking up more of the surface water than what's 167 currently being done and it will be going to the stormwater pond which is centrally 168 located within the development. 169 170 Duenwald said there will be less water going to the wetlands/ponds than what there is 171 currently which will help the Shawnee Woods development, plus they are diverting 172 water through piping and swales. 173 174 V. Reid asked about the issue of Outlot D and if the City took it over would the City 175 then be responsible for drainage issues that the new development created. Finke said 176 it could be looked at as a benefit to take Outlot D and be in control of the possible 177 drainage issues, yet it would be a cost to the City. 178 179 Williams asked if the City took Outlot D could we ask that the City Engineer validate 180 that the drainage is improving the area rather than impacting the neighborhood. Finke 181 said this would already be a requirement whether we took it or not. Finke said we'd 182 continue to look at the stormwater management in the area. 183 4 184 V. Reid asked how it's handled if the trees are planted within the development and 185 they end up not surviving. Finke said the applicant is required to post a letter of 186 credit that the City holds to guarantee the trees survive or are replaced. 187 188 Finke wanted to point out a letter from a resident and will be entered into the record. 189 190 Williams asked Duenwald to explain the site lines and bus stop area. Duenwald 191 explained that in the first phase of the development the traffic would be fine, but 192 future phases would require additional turn lanes and they haven't gotten into the 193 details of the school buses stopping. V. Reid said all the kids would have to walk the 194 distance to Co. Rd. 116 rather than the bus going into the development. 195 196 V. Reid said the reason the school bus wouldn't go into the development is because 197 they can't get turned around in the cul-de-sac. Finke said once Poppy Trail went 198 through to the south they could drive to that point if they were willing. 199 200 Weir said the traffic study included the Fields of Medina and Fields of Medina West 201 along with other anticipated developments in the area. 202 203 It was suggested jointly by the Commission that adding another condition for the use 204 of Outlot C be spelled out clearly as to the activities and maintenance that is expected 205 for that lot. 206 207 Martin asked about the entrance monuments. Finke explained we didn't have 208 specifications at this time. R. Reid asked the developer to maximize the aesthetic 209 appearance of the entrance monuments. 210 211 Hepler said they would have 4-5 different interior and exterior elevations for each 212 home. Williams asked about exterior siding materials and colors and it was explained 213 that they will be using higher quality materials. 214 215 Public Hearing Closed at 8:22 p.m. 216 217 Motion by Martin, seconded by Williams, to recommend approval of the 218 Preliminary Plat and Rezoning for a 126 single family lot subdivision with staff 219 conditions identified in the staff report along with additional comments as discussed 220 by the Commission. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Osmanski) 221 222 7. Public Hearing — Thomas T. Morrison — Lot Subdivision of one existing Lot into 223 Two Lots at 1525 Hunter Drive (PID 25-118-23-22-0005) and a Variance from 224 minimum Road Width requirements. 225 226 Nate Sparks of NAC presented the application. He explained the proposed access 227 over an easement and that a maintenance plan would be needed. He said that no trees 228 were being proposed to be removed and that the wetlands would need to be delineated 229 or they would provide buffers around the wetlands. Due to weather, the delineation 5 230 could not be done, but could be a condition of approval of the subdivision. He then 231 explained the drainage easements proposed and that the Park Commission 232 recommended cash in lieu of park land dedication. 233 234 Sparks explained the Variance request. He said the private road currently had a 235 traveled surface width of 18 feet. He said Section 820.28. Subd. 1. (b) requires a 236 traveled surface of 20 feet in width. Morrison stated the street was private and 237 reconstruction would be an excessive cost for one additional lot. Sparks reviewed the 238 subdivision review criteria and Variance Review Criteria with the Commission. 239 240 Sparks said staff didn't feel granting the Variance would be appropriate for the area; 241 however if the Commission found it appropriate to grant the Variance, then the 242 applicant should be conditioned to improve the roadway to allow for emergency 243 vehicles to have pull -over areas so two vehicles can pass on the road. 244 245 Williams asked about the review criteria and if they all needed to be satisfied. Sparks 246 said they all need to be met to approve the division. Finke said if the Commission 247 found one or more items that the applicant didn't meet within the Subdivision Criteria 248 then it should be denied. Finke said the same holds true for the Variance Criteria. 249 R. Reid asked if the Road would have to be improved all the way to Hunter. Sparks 250 said yes. Sparks said financial securities would have to be taken in. R. Reid asked if 251 private roads had to follow the same standards as the proposed public roads like the 252 Toll Development that was heard earlier. Finke said three or more lots triggers an 253 increase in the standards of a roadway. Foote asked if the 20 foot road is the 254 minimum. He asked if it shouldn't be 24 feet. Finke explained that Tamarack Ridge 255 was an example of the need for a specific width. 256 257 Truck Morrison, 1525 Hunter Drive, asked if they got a copy of his background letter. 258 Finke said yes. Morrison said he's an owner and not a developer. He said this is 259 more of a dream. He said he would build a newer home on the new lot and would 260 increase the width of the driveway/road with the subdivision. He said he was 261 applying for the subdivision because he'll be 75 years of age in a month and came 262 from an agricultural background. He said he currently mows 15 of the 20 acres and 263 needs to reduce that amount. He said his dream is to have a smaller piece of property 264 and cut back on the size of the house and lot. He said he made a mistake on how he 265 divided his property previously and he should have hired an attorney. If the City 266 decides a 20 foot road is required then his dream would come to pass. The idea of 267 incorporating pull -over areas for emergency vehicles doesn't seem practical in this 268 situation. 269 270 R. Reid asked about the driveway affected. Morrison said he would be responsible 271 for any damage during the road construction of his new lot if approved. They would 272 build a new driveway. He said Sparks asked if a formal association existed and he 273 said it didn't since he was doing all the work up to the last 10 years. 274 6 275 Morrison said they now have an agreement for cost sharing of road maintenance, but 276 it wasn't formal. 277 278 A Coldwell Banker representative (daughter of Mr. Morrison) mentioned that of the 279 last four houses she's sold, three were on Hunter Drive. She said she can't 280 understand how the City is concerned with a low density; no maintenance project 281 could be held to such high standards as high density development. 282 283 Foote asked about the condition of the road. Morrison said he paid for everything 284 from all the road improvements and plowing and maintaining over all the years. The 285 City had paid nothing. Williams asked how wide the road easement was. Sparks said 286 60 feet. Morrison said another way to handle the road would be to make it a public 287 road, but they love their privacy having a private road. 288 289 Public Hearing was opened at 9:04 p.m. 290 291 A representative spoke on behalf of the owner (Ferris) at 1535 Hunter Drive 292 explaining that the Ferris's would like the Commission or Council to consider an 293 alternative access for the new lot being proposed. He explained the location of the 294 proposed driveway runs parallel along the Ferris property and suggested the driveway 295 access through the current Morrison property instead of being in their front yard. The 296 Ferris's feel it would have an impact on their property value. Also, if anyone had 297 safety concerns, it would be the Ferris's since they are the furthest away. 298 299 Morrison said their driveway is over an easement that they created and it runs to the 300 newly proposed lot. 301 302 Williams asked about the idea of the installation of pull -over areas for emergency 303 vehicles. Finke said the physical surroundings make it almost impossible given the 304 conditions of the road and it isn't in the applicant's control. Martin of 440 Pheasant 305 Ridge Road said it isn't a condition that the proposed development caused, but rather 306 exists. She said the street is the envy of the City and the roadway seems expansive 307 and is ample for two way traffic. The homes are beautiful and private services are 308 hired for handling traffic if a residence has a party. In her opinion, without being a 309 traffic engineer, she wished Mr. Morrison would have developed her development 310 because it's done so much nicer. 311 312 Morrison explained planting of trees. He said it's like a park. R. Reid asked if the 313 shoulders could be improved. He said their ability to do so would be limited, but 314 would be possible in some locations. Williams said he didn't want to destroy trees. 315 R. Reid said it could be conditioned. Finke said it seems the 20 foot roadway width 316 seemed to be the issue. Williams and R. Reid said it seemed to be a unique situation. 317 V. Reid suggested that maybe the 20 foot width was excessive with a development 318 that doesn't have a lot of homes. Williams said he's not sure if it's the ordinance or 319 rather the unique situation. Foote said he's typically in favor of the 20 foot width and 320 prefers sometimes wider, but doesn't want to jeopardize the trees. Morrison said one 7 321 pull -over area could maybe be created so as to not jeopardize trees. R. Reid said 322 we're asking one owner to pay for the improvement which would be a hardship. V. 323 Reid asked Williams as a lawyer if he thought this was a unique circumstance. 324 Williams said yes, he sees a hardship. V. Reid said it makes common sense but 325 wanted to make sure it's appropriate. 326 327 Weir said she sees it reasonable as it stands. She said the Commission should 328 remember a recent decision made on another application, and that a variance should 329 be thought through carefully. 330 331 Williams asked Sparks how the road was measured. Sparks said the applicant's 332 engineer measured the road and found it to be 18 feet. He measured with Finke and 333 did find some areas with more width than 18 feet. It's mostly 18 %2 feet and it looks 334 like none of the existing lots in the area are subdividable per Finke. Williams asked if 335 the bump -outs would bring the road into compliance and Sparks said no. 336 337 Jeff Pederson, City Council member, said that as much as he appreciates what Mr. 338 Morrison is doing, he thinks the Commission should approve or deny rather than 339 recommending a Variance. 340 341 Finke said staff could provide more alternatives for the Commission to look at later. 342 Williams asked if the road would still be out of compliance if a road met the width 343 requirement, but had a short section that was not 20 feet. Weir suggested the wiser 344 decision would be to table the application. 345 346 Public Hearing was kept open 347 348 Williams made a motion to table the Morrison division and direct staff to further 349 explore whether to build bump outs in sufficient length using the existing road. V. 350 Reid made a friendly amendment to staff that they were open to any other options and 351 to include them in the ordinance. Foote seconded. Motion carries unanimously. 352 (Absent: Nolan and Osmanski). 353 354 8. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina City Code 355 related to flag lots, lot frontage, driveway regulations, minimum street grades, 356 and the use of public easements and right-of-ways. 357 358 Finke presented application. He said the City does not have a minimum flag pole 359 width. Commission agreed to limit the use of flag lots to rural residential with 360 minimum standards. Finke explained a minimum of one percent grade should be 361 maintained for run-off. He went on to explain the use of easements in the right -of - 362 way and what can be put in easements. He thinks we need to have more authority of 363 what goes into the easements. V. Reid asked why a shrub or rock couldn't be 364 allowed. Finke said in the right-of-way it could be in the way of snow plowing. 365 Martin thinks that "the license" allows an interim use and continued through the 366 ordinance with suggestions to staff. 8 367 368 Public Hearing Opened at 10:O1p.m. Martin moved to table the ordinance to a later 369 time. 370 371 Motion by Martin, seconded by V. Reid to table the proposed ordinance to provide 372 staff additional time to revise. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Nolan and 373 Osmanski). 374 375 9. Council Meeting Schedule 376 377 Finke to attend and present at the April 16th, 2013 Council meeting. 378 379 380 10. Adjourn 381 382 Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Williams, to adjourn at 10:02 p.m. Motion carried 383 unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Osmanski) 9 AGENDA ITEM: 6 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners"oinacplanning.corr PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina Planning Commission Scott Johnson, City Administrator FROM: Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner DATE: May 8, 2013 RE: Fenske-Cole Variance Request FILE NO: LR-13-106 INTRODUCTION Randy Cole & Sandra Fenske have made a request for a variance from the lake setback and the impervious surface coverage standards in order to place a deck and addition on the back of a house located at 2959 Lakeshore Avenue. The subject property is located in the Indepednece Beach neighborhood, west of the intersection of Lakeshore Avenue and Balsam Street. The proposal is for a deck to be replaced by an addition and small deck. The proposed addition would be 45 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Independence. ANALYSIS Zoning Ordinance/Comprehensive Plan The site is zoned UR, Urban Residential and is guided for a Medium Density Residential land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is also located in the Lake Independence Shoreland District, which is classified as a Recreational Development lake. Existing Conditions The property is currently utilized for a single family house. In 1999, the City granted a variance for the then property owner to remove a small cabin and replace it with the current two-story walkout house. Variances were granted allowing the house to be placed 25 feet from the right- of-way and 55 feet from the lake with a 10 foot deck that was to be 45 feet from the lake. The house was actually constructed at 19.6 feet from the right-of-way. The ten foot deck was then actually built out 17 feet from the house placing it 44.5 feet from the lake. It is unclear how this came to be, as surveys submitted with the variance and building permit both show the house and deck as represented on the 1999 variance application. The property also lies within a floodplain. The 100 year flood elevation for Lake Independence is 960 feet. The survey shows the proposed construction being done on a portion of the property Fenske Cole Variance Page 1 where the elevation is 966 feet. There are no wetlands identified on the property. The shoreline is improved with rip -rap and a deck. Proposed Construction The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck and screened in porch underneath, replace it with an addition and then place a new deck on the remainder of the rear of the house. The proposed addition would be for a screened -in porch, sun room, and home office. There is a proposed 4.5 foot wide cant for a fireplace that would extend out two feet but is an allowed encroachment into a yard by Section 825.31 Subd. 3. The porch is proposed to extend 14 feet from the rear of the house while the home office and sunroom extend 16 feet. From the cant, the addition would have a lake setback of 43 feet but from the protrusion of the structure, it is proposed at 45 feet. Included in the proposal is a new 6 foot x 20 foot deck located on the north half of the back of the house. There .are stairs proposed to access this deck which are to be reoriented so as to not extend directly out towards the lake but rather turn to the side. There is no deck or other appurtances on the house in this location, currently. This new deck is proposed to be 48 feet from the lake. Steps that extend to the ground level of the house do not count as an encroachment but the proposed stairs extend 12 fewer feet out into the yard than the existing. The existing deck and stairs occupy 415 square feet. The stairs extend 23 feet from the house and are four feet wide. The current deck (not including the top of the stairs) is 19 feet wide by 17 feet deep. The proposed deck, stairs, and addition are a total of 501 square feet. This is an increase of 86 square feet for structures, mostly consisting of the new deck and stairs. The new deck and stairs are largely being built over plastic lined landscaping creating a net increase of impervious surfaces of about 50 square feet. Standard Required Current Proposed Lake Setback 75 44.5 45 Side Setback 10 10 10 Impervious Surface Max 25% 50% 51% Structure Height 2.5 stories / 30 feet 2.5 stories / 30 feet No change The proposed location of the house is towards the southern side of the property. There are drainage concerns on the northern property line as the water drains from Pine Street to Lake Ardmore. This location, and the proposed grading plan, allows for the drainage way to be improved. Neighboring Properties At the time of the 1999 variance review, there was a great amount of discussion regarding the proposed house and deck being similar in location to other houses in the immediate vicinity. A review of City records found the following: • The property two to the north, 2969 Lakeshore Ave, received a variance in 1987. This variance allowed for the house to be placed 45 feet from the lake and 16 feet from the Fenske Cole Variance Page 2 right-of-way. • The house at 2961 Lakeshore Ave, which is directly to the north of the subject site, received variances in 1999. These variances allowed for the construction of the house 19.4 feet from the right-of-way, 5 feet from the south property line, and 43 feet from the lake for a 10 foot wide deck. • The property directly to the south received three different variances. In 1992 a variance was granted allowing for construction of a garage 19.75 feet from the right-of-way. In 1996 a variance was granted to allow for a 10.4 foot wide deck to be placed 41 feet from the lake. In 1997 another variance was granted for a side yard setback reduction down to 1.9 feet. • The house two to the south, 2929 Lakeshore Ave, is 40 feet from the lake and 50 feet from the right-of-way. Therefore, these other houses in the area are between about 40 and 45 feet from the lake at their furthest protrusion. This proposal is within this range. However, the houses directly on either side have deck type structures that are the furthest protrusion and not to the house itself. As noted above, the house actually received a variance to be 25 feet from the right-of-way in 1999 but was built 19.6 feet from the right-of-way. This places the house at 25 feet from the edge of pavement. The houses adjacent on either side appear to be about 25 feet from the edge of the pavement, as well. Impervious Surfaces The proposed construction would increase impervious surfaces on the property by about 50 square feet to 51% of the lot. It is unclear what the impervious surface percentages are on neighboring properties but this property is of a similar size (around 7000 sq ft) and building footprint (approx. 2000 square feet) to the two properties to the north. Ideally, requests such as this would not create additional egregious amounts of impervious surfaces, which may cause impairment to water quality. Much of the property has plastic lined rock landscaping and there may be an opportunity with this project to convert this to a pervious surface as to not increase or to possibly reduce the total percentage. On other recent variances in the area, to combat water quality issues, the City has required storm water improvements on the subject site. This property could perhaps place a natural area around the catch basin in the southwest corner of the lot in order to slow water infiltration. If such a feature would interest the Commission, the City Engineer could review this possibility. STAFF REVIEW For reviewing a variance request, the Planning Commission must consider the following criteria: (a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Fenske Cole Variance Page 3 (b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficulty to be established, all of the following criteria shall be met: (1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the city shall consider, among other factors, that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and that the variance does not confer on the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposal adds massing within the setback area. Currently, there is a porch and deck which will be increased to a third level. The applicant is also planning on adding a deck where one currently does not exist but it largely is over an impervious landscaping area and will be replacing steps that will extend 12 feet less into lake yard. The furthest extension of this addition will be similar in nature to the furthest protrusions within the vicinity. However, increasing impervious surfaces on a riparian lot that is already over 50% (including a lakeside deck within the shoreland impact zone) pushes the boundaries of reasonableness. Unless the potentially negative additional impacts of this proposal can be limited, it may be difficult to clearly state this is a "reasonable use". Perhaps there could be a compromise reached where impervious surfaces are at least off -set by the expansions proposed. RECOMMENDATION If the Planning Commission finds that this meets the threshold for a practical difficulty in putting the property to a reasonable use then it would be appropriate to recommend approval to the Council with the following conditions: 1. Storm water management improvement approved by the City Engineer placed near catch basin. 2. Applicant shall reduce the amount of impervious surfaces to at least off -set the increase. 3. All comments by the City Engineer and City Attorney shall be addressed. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial of Site 2. Applicant's Narrative 3. Survey showing proposed addition 4. Proposed building plans Fenske Cole Variance Page 4 Copyright ©2007 Pictometiy I nternational Corp. April 10, 2013 To whom it may concern, We are asking for a variance to allow us to redo and improve our existing cement stab, lower porch and deck on our house at 2959 Lakeshore Avenue. When we purchased this home in 2001 it had a lower porch with a cement slab and a deck off the main level above this slab. The original construction of the deck was not very sturdy and several times we added some reinforcements to the existing structure to prolong its existence. The railing on this deck has never been right but we have managed to make it work with some minor improvements....i.e. thicker Plexiglass panels that didn't flex when our kids pushed on them. The cement slab below this deck is in very poor shape. It has multiple cracks that have formed over the past 11 years since we moved in and the cracks are now becoming wider and deeper. It is time for these structures to be replaced. Due to our growing family, changing needs and the constant wind and afternoon sun we endure, we decided that an enclosed 4 season porch would better serve our needs than another deck. Also we need to redo the cement slab and screen porch underneath and improve it to make it better able to survive the changing ground conditions from winter to summer. in going through this process of formulating the plans for this project we decided it would look "better" if we added a much needed office on the level above the 4 season porch. The roof lines would be improved and the addition would blend better as to not look like such an "add-on". The original 4 season porch and redo slab/porch was tentatively approved after we supplied a survey to ensure we were not changing anything or encroaching closer to Lake Independence. The only change to this original plan is to add an office above the porch which would not only provide us with some extra space we need, but also improve the appearance of this improvement and make It better blend into the original structure. We would not be increasing the original footprint of this home nor changing the original hardcover. Even the landscaping around the house would be relatively unaffected with this variance request. We ask that you please review and grant this variance request. Despite its density of homes, especially compared to the rest of the City of Medina, we enjoy the "community" of the Lake Independence Beach area and hope to continue raising our 3 children in this neighborhood. dra Penske & Randy Cole LAKE INDEPENDENCE —20 0 956.8 (O 20 STC3i SIEPS re Lit t (9613) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR RANDY S. COLE OF LOT 3, BLOCK 27, INDEPENDENCE BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • 89° 10' 54" E `-' :'(966.0) Iw, 10 �Ivu® 13= 14.34 3 ✓� 89°12' 16" W6 PROPOSED tia STARSN vom I `/ OINT 20 mane cow TO IS PROPOSED ADDITION (965.9} ROCK CH PLASTIC (9049) 40 60 .. .•ter _ '.-...J'c SCALE IN FEET WOOD & GRAVEL STAIRWAY EXISTING e, a� LOWER FLa0R_ (9e6,E) a(9e54) HOUSE #2959 ROCK ON FABRIC (9659) 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : (from tax records) 10 :PAVER WALx',. t ca QJ _/ O 52.10 �; - 111.76 0 Lot 3. Black 27, "Independence Beach, Hemepin County. Minnesota and that part of the tract designated as "Beach on the plat of Independence Search, Hennepin County, Minnesota. lying between the North and South lines of said Lot. extending westerly from the West line of said Lot 3. to the shore of Lake independence. also that port of the westerly 10.00 feet of Lake Shore Avenue vacated which lies between the easterly extensions of the North and South lines of the above described tract of fond. o : denotes iron marker set o : (908.3) : --917---: denotes iron marker found denotes existing spot elevation, mecn sea level datum denotes existing contour line, mean sea levet datum Bearings shown are based- upon on assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property. the location of on existing house, spot elevations, partial topography. all visible "hardcover", and the proposed location of a proposed addition thereon_ It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. 40 z LAKESHORE HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS Lot area = 7480 Sq_ ft. Existing house = 1561 sf Existing driveway = 428 sf Stoop = 42 sf Concrete walks 103 sf Deck & steps near shore = 218 sf Rock on plastic = 784 sf Walls & borders = 174 sf Fire ring = 17 sf Proposed addition = 321 sf Proposed deck & steps = 180 sf Total hardcover = 3828 Sq. ft. 3828 / 7480 x 100 - 51.18% ram. We.C. wax = M" GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS i hcaDy c,rtif loaf :hie survey. plati or report pr °° 2.y n� w u' wy d,reet 7 ron the teat I o n o doiy Licensed Lond Sweyor ,odor 14343 13. ' o[ the state of a9uwsota srxE I 1--13.. �°' • CONSULTING y;n 4-24-13 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE. LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 952-473-4141 .ICs NC. .3-1 t3-155 3 13-153 e.Ierh S. c.on -rg 1.Gnnesoto Licwe Number 12755 NO CHANGES TO EXISTING LIVING AREAS 0 GRILLING DECK TREX ACCENTS DECKING NO RTHERN VIEW RAILINGS W/ GLASS PANELS REMOVE EXISTING SLIDER & CASE OUT OPENING 6 cc CD J 8 X 16' 6" T 1'-6" 20' V cw � IL JI REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW I -71—'—T; 0 0 SUNROOM (FORMER DECK) 9' SIDEWALLS ALIGN FLO OR HT. PORCH WALL BELOW t 72X60GL-16TR 6" 72X60GL-16TR <0 39'-6" 4' 6" 19' 6" It 6' MAIN LEVEL 0 w 3 a DRAWINGS PROVIDED SY: J. SCALE 1/4" =1 '-0 SHEET: 2 4/11/2013 16' 13/31 i13ddf1 w CD rn 3' 13' m (o C 3' 27 1 DO m C m x rrn T z 0o pg. 00 0 13' N CA) o W , ` Ii 1 - 'O DRAWING S PROVIDED BY: g, RASKOB CO NSTRUCTION fl64A MMO. A VE MD. \M N MO .314,1. 39 Nx1.338#lQW.CO M PROJECT FOR: SANDY FENSKE 295.9 AKESHORE AVE. MEDINA, MN 55359 () -1093 (812612 685 ) 685-1574 CONTRACTOR TO VER IFY All DIMENSIONS. INFORM ATION DEEM ED RELIABLE BUT NOT GAURANTEED. ��_ -i IV p CO SCALE AS NOTED SHEET: 4 DRAWINGS PR OVIDED BY: D .B.Allppiiii  RASK OB C ONSTRUCTI ON ��..MFUNA. MN55iBB CBSIe79-1IDB Nw.SYAB$1.14(9.WM PROJEC T FOR: SANDY FENSKE 2959 AKESH ORE AVE . MEDINA, MN 55359 (6 ) 479-1093 12) 8 4 C ONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSI ONS: INFORMATION DEEMED AELIABLE BUT NOT (3AURANTEED. SHEET: 5 4/11/2013 Fn DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY: RASKO B A iMplp.g_lik CO NSTRUCTION 196#Mo 6oi¢ AV E ME W, MN .159 76316 19-1139 MGSKOB®MO&a WOM PROJECT FOR: SANDY FENSKE 2959 AKESHORE AVE. M EDINA, MN 55359 (763) A79 -1U93 (612) 6854 57a CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. INFORM ATIO N DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NO T QAURANiEED. r AGENDA ITEM: 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: May 9, 2013 MEETING: May 14, 2013 Planning Commission SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment: Adequate Streets to Subdivisions Background At the April Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the City's regulations related to the requirement of adequate access for property being subdivided. Under existing requirements, if a property which is proposed to be subdivided is served by an existing street, such street is required to have a traveled surface of at least 20 feet in width. If the street serving the site is not 20 feet in width, the subdivider is required to upgrade the street in order for a subdivision to be approved. A subdivision creating 3 or more lots has a higher standard, and must be served by a street that meets the standards which would be required of a new street (22- 28 feet wide). The Commission seemed to be open to, under certain circumstances, a width less than 20 feet. If this is the case, staff does not believe granting variances on a case -by -case basis is the best way to determine how wide of a street is acceptable. Instead, staff would suggest that the flexibility could be built into the City's regulations. It should be noted that the City's Fire Marshal recommends maintaining the regulations as currently drafted. Options The following are some options for consideration based upon the Commission's discussion at the April meeting. Leave regulations as -is If the Commission and Council determine that a minimum of 20 -feet of width should be required for all subdivisions, except for if a variance is justified, the regulations could be left as -is. In situations where legitimate unique circumstances and non -economic hardships exist, the City could consider variance requests. Remove specific width standard If the Commission and Council wanted the most flexibility to review roads on a case -by -case basis, the regulations could be updated to remove the specific width standard. Staff believes this would be the least enforceable to deny a variance or require improvement if the City determines that a street in insufficient. Such an amendment would appears as: "If an existing street provides access to the area to be subdivided, such street shall, at a minimum, have a traveled surface of at least 20 feet in an appropriate width and be otherwise of sufficient surface and Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 2 May 14, 2013 Adequate Streets to Subdivisions Planning Commission Meeting stability to allow for adequate access of emergency vehicles, or shall be improved to meet such standards. Retain specific width standard; Added flexibility If the Commission and Council believe that a width of 20 -feet should generally be required, but desires some flexibility to consider the circumstances and other alternatives, staff believes that language could be added to the ordinance to provide such flexibility. The attached ordinance would insert such language. The Commission and Council may wish to consider some adjustments to the language. For example, language could be added that limits the flexibility to serve a certain purposes. For example, the flexibility could be limited to cases where the alternatives prevent environmental impacts (wetland impacts, tree removal, erosion, etc.). Staff believes this option would allow the City greater discretion in reviewing requests for flexibility. Additionally, the language could be updated to add more specificity to the alternatives. For example, a minimum sightline distance or a maximum distance between "bump -outs" could be added. Attachment 1. DRAFT ordinance Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 2 May 14, 2013 Adequate Streets to Subdivisions Planning Commission Meeting 1 k CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR STREETS PROVIDING ACCESS TO PROPERTY TO BE SUBDIVIDED; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 820.28 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the stricken language as follows: Section 820.28. Premature Subdivisions Prohibited. Subd. 1. Adequate Streets to Provide Access to the Subdivision Required. No subdivision shall be approved unless the area to be subdivided has adequate access as described below: (a) New streets constructed to provide access to the area to be subdivided shall be constructed consistent with the standards of Subd. 820.29 Subd. 2 and the engineering standards of the City. (b) If an existing street provides access to the area to be subdivided, such street shall, at a minimum, have a traveled surface of at least 20 feet in width and be otherwise of sufficient surface and stability to allow for adequate access of emergency vehicles, or shall be improved to meet such standards. If a subdivision of a single lot into two lots is proposed and the traveled surface of the existing street is less than 20 feet in width, the City may consider alternative street designs rather than requiring the entire street to be widened to 20 feet. Such alternative design shall only be approved by the City if it determines that such design allows adequate circulation and staging for emergency vehicles and that such design is adequate for the projected traffic upon the street. Such alternative designs may include, but are not limited to: wider widths at specific locations along the street, additional maintenance requirements on private streets, and improving existing street alignment. In no case shall the traveled surface be less than 18 feet in width. (c) Additionally, all streets providing access to the area to be subdivided shall be suitably improved as required by the city, county, or state. Streets providing access to a subdivision resulting in a net increase of three or more lots shall, at a minimum, meet the design standards of Subd. 820.29 Subd 2. and the engineering standards of the City. For the sake of deter►nininu the net increase of lots, the City shall consider the aggregate increase of lots if a property has been subdivided multiple times following June 1, 2013. In the event the street is not suitable to accommodate the proposed additional traffic from the subdivision because of factors of width, grade, stability, vertical or horizontal alignment, site distance, shoulders, base, right-of- way amount, surface condition, or other relevant factors, the subdivider shall be Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE f responsible for improving the street at its expense or otherwise funding the required improvements as may be required by the City. SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this day of , 2013. Elizabeth Weir, Mayor Attest: Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -Clerk Published in the South Crow River News on the Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE day of , 2013. AGENDA ITEM: 8 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners' .nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina Planning Commission Scott Johnson, City Administrator FROM: Nate Sparks DATE: May 9, 2013 RE: Medina — Morrison Division CITY FILE: LR-13-098 BACKGROUND T. Truxton Morrison has made an application for an unplatted subdivision at 1525 Hunter Drive. The applicant has also requested a variance from the required street width standard for a street providing access to the subdivision. The site is located west of Hunter Drive on a private street. The subject site is approximately 18 acres in size and occupied by one single family house. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at the April 9, 2013 meeting and tabled the item in order to review possible ordinance amendments regarding adequate street access to subdivisions. Possible ordinance amendment options have been prepared by City Planner Finke for review. Staff recommends that action on this request be reviewed within context of the Commission's recommendation on the ordinance. PROPOSED DIVISION The applicant is proposing to divide the 18 acre subject site into two parcels. The existing house is proposed to be placed on the "East Parcel" and a new building site is proposed for the "West Parcel". Parcel Width Depth Gross Area Suitable Soils West 456.53 feet 870.88 feet 6.95 acres 6.17 acres East 790.55 895.70 11.12 10.53 RR District 300 200 - 5 Both parcels generally conform to Rural Residential District Standards. The RR District also has setback requirements of 50 feet for front, side, and rear yards. Both proposed parcels have adequate room to accommodate these requirements. The existing house on the "East Parcel" is proposed as 178 feet from the front, 210 and 320 feet from the sides, and over 500 feet from the rear. The plan depicts primary and alternate septic sites for both the existing and proposed house. These sites appear to be generally acceptable but will require final approval by the City Building Official. ZONING / COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The site is zoned Rural Residential and guided for a Rural Residential Land Use in the Comprehensive Plan. It is also located in the Long Term Sanitary Sewer Area for post - 2030 development. PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS This area was originally divided in 1978 through an unplatted division that created nine parcels. The division provided for a shared private street that ran about 1200 feet west and then 400 feet south to the northeastern corner of the subject site. Each lot was either directly served by this private street or by shared driveways that extended from the private street for direct access. The attached "Driveway Exhibit" shows how the lands were divided back in 1978. As can be seen on the Driveway Exhibit, a lot shaped similarly to the proposed "western parcel" existed back in 1978. This northwestern parcel was intended to be accessed through a driveway easement running across Lots 5 and 6. On October 17, 2006, the City approved a lot line rearrangement that resulted in Lots 3 and 4 being rearranged so that the vacant parcel was located to the southeast of Mr. Morrison's home. The applicant now is seeking to have an additional parcel created in the approximate site of the old "Lot 4." The new lot is proposed to be accessed by the former parcel's driveway easement. STREET ACCESS & VARIANCE The subject site is accessed by a private street that runs westerly from Hunter Drive to the site. The private street currently serves nine parcels. It was designed to end at a cul-de-sac at the northeastern corner of the subject property and then continue on with shared driveways to provide direct access to the lots. This private street is currently constructed to an 18 foot width. The Subdivision Ordinance requires when a parcel to be subdivided is served by an existing street, the street must meet minimum standards of Section 820.28 Subd. 1 (b). Such streets must have a traveled surface of at least 20 feet in width and be otherwise of sufficient surface and stability to allow for adequate access of emergency vehicles, or shall be improved to meet such standards. The private street that currently accesses the site is only 18 feet in width. The applicant has made a variance application seeking relief from this condition. The applicant states that this is an existing private street that has served multiple parcels since 1978 and the cost to reconstruct this road to make it meet the 20 foot width standard is excessive. The applicant additionally states that while the road is 18 feet in width in certain locations there is an additional one foot shoulder on either side. However, this shoulder is not consistently one foot in width on both sides. It may have been initially designed as such but is no longer in this state and the applicant has not provided a delineated plan demonstrating its consistency. As mentioned, the applicant has made a variance application to address the road surface width issue. However, the Planning Commission will be reviewing an ordinance amendment at the May 14 meeting that may render the variance unnecessary. DRIVEWAY ACCESS The proposed "West Parcel" is to be accessed by a shared driveway across the two parcels north of the subject site. The westerly of the two northern properties (1535 Hunter Drive — Lot 5 on the Driveway Exhibit) currently utilizes this driveway. There is a 60 foot wide driveway easement in place for this purpose. However, no maintenance agreement is in place related to the maintenance of this driveway. The existing driveway within this easement is about 10 feet in width. In cases where the City allows for building sites to be created on parcels lacking clear access, it is imperative that the proper safeguards are put in place to guarantee adequate access to the site. Additionally, as noted above, the parcel at 1535 Hunter Drive currently uses this driveway. The construction traffic on this drive may damage the road and make access to both sites unsuitable. Staff is concerned that this potential damage is burdensome for the adjacent property owner and may conflict with the adjacent owner's use of the easement. Staff recommends the applicant provide a plan for accessing the lot that does not impact the improvements that others legally utilize unless a private agreement can be reached regarding maintenance. DRAINAGE / EASEMENTS / WETLANDS / UTILITIES / TREES The applicant is proposing no new grading for the initial site development, but future grading may be necessary for a custom building site. There are currently drainage and utility easements located at the perimeter of the property. The applicant is proposing additional easements along the newly created shared lot line. A small wetland is located in the northwestern corner of the site. This wetland has been previously delineated and is placed within an easement. An upland buffer zone is required adjacent to the wetland and is required to be placed within an additional 35 foot conservation easement. A buffer planting plan will be required, as well. There is also a pond on the parcel that where the existing house is located. This pond will also require a conservation easement and buffer planting plan. The has indicated that, later in the spring, they intend to apply for a determination that this pond is not a jurisdictional wetland. In order to do so, a wetland evaluation will need to be submitted and reviewed by City Staff. In the unlikely event that this pond is not classified as a wetland, the requirement to install an upland buffer adjacent to the pond would not be applicable. The fieldwork necessary for wetland determinations cannot be conducted until after April 20th. If the applicant is intended to have this work done, a revised analysis on the wetland in the northwestern corner of the site is recommended, as well. The applicant is proposing no tree removal as part of the initial development. Secondary development requirements will need to be met for the construction of the house. PARK DEDICATION The Park Commission reviewed the division at their March 20th meeting and recommended cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication. REVIEW CRITERIA In the case of all subdivisions, the Planning Commission and City Council shall deny approval of a subdivision based on the following findings: (a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the City or that the proposed subdivision is premature, as defined in Section 820.28. (b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not meet minimum lot size standards. (d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or private streets, easements or right-of-way. The application for subdivision is accompanied by a variance application to relieve the property owner from having to comply with the terms of Section 820.28 Subd. 1 (b). This section requires that the private street be reconstructed to a 20 foot width in order to accommodate additional divisions. The variance is from a subdivision ordinance requirement and uses different criteria for review than a zoning ordinance variance. The review criteria for this type of request are as follows: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of this ordinance were carried out. (b) The conditions upon which the application for the variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not common to other properties within the City. (c) The hardship is related to the requirements of these regulations and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The purpose and intent of Section 820.28 is to prohibit divisions of land on sites that are currently inadequate due to lack of proper access or utilities. The standard requiring a 20 foot wide travelled surface to access the property is intended to require that all new divisions occur only on streets that have a minimum fire lane width for access. In this case, the site is proposed to be accessed by an existing private street that lies within a 60 foot road easement but is only constructed to an 18 foot width. The private right-of- way width is not at issue merely the width of the travelled surface of road. This is an existing condition determined by code to be inadequate to allow for property division, until the road is improved. At the April meeting, Staff had recommended that this application not be approved until that time the street serving the subdivision could be improved to meet the standards of the ordinance. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance to amend the street width standards, it would be appropriate to make a recommendation of approval of the subdivision contingent on the City Council's adoption of the ordinance amendment. If the Council were to not adopt the Ordinance, the Commission should request the application be sent back for review with the variance request. Any recommendation to the Council for approval should be made with the following conditions: 1. Easement legal descriptions shall be provided to the City Attorney. 2. An Upland Buffer conservation easement and planting plans shall be provided around the wetlands. 3. The applicant shall pay $8000 cash -in -lieu of park dedication. 4. The applicant shall complete improvements to the private road acceptable to the City to allow for adequate emergency vehicle circulation. 5. The applicant shall provide a plan acceptable to the City to access the Western lot that does not impact the improvements that others legally utilize unless a private agreement can be reached regarding maintenance. 6. The property owner shall meet the requirements of the City Attorney with regards to title issues and recording procedures. 7. The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the preliminary plat and other relevant documents. 8. The applicant must file necessary paperwork with Hennepin County to effectuate the lot split within 180 days of approval or such approval is null and void. Attached: Site Location Map Driveway Exhibit Applicant's Proposed Division cc: Dusty Finke Debra Peterson Tom Kellogg Ron Batty 1 • 15+4, 44`34. S 5'W C.00, Azrt♦ • • • ORIGINAL 1978 SUBDIVISION Jj i'F, ♦ .., • M ti t. Rf t a / ♦ . K 43^/ ArrH 1., 51' ii : N...,r .'Ac 5 •• • .'i • f rf i • HUNTER DRIVE I 7 2006 LOT REARRANGEMENT 9 4 re 4`-4(? t'l"C'Cf"'W '<i7A:7r :r. S 4p' .4‘3•3 e,F , N E 34: h' t. f. t 4.. G 07,,(Z., YYS xr if /'..Th r44*1 Aar.., 5 Ii ' w 'W r aeti.',44 Ar re .' 3!'4 :4.3 1 Relocated Lot 4 i'1,4"4 r/ 7,4 0,4 A;.ra ht ,4 tYt:'aa r 4!•i' it _..4F to w: 4' " „'S.,44' 4 ; iP K _ As., n r4•!5 5T'd ..a.,rl. lrs � Pt..rh 7,AJ5 14 nI ti E >J .0 M1 K ., 4r. S; .4 J, 4. 4. A.., /sv.nr.,,, HUNTER DRIVE (31 • CURRENT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION 4 , ., 9 44, 4 r..- _•,t r♦, It ., ,,, Iii it 4 fill Ac.,, Proposed New Lot ;.,4.T'!M •t ft • (4. VS A,'c. 43 43 • F';3.7 sf i, Relocated Lot 4 •t!. ii.°4S `N' ti,44 $ 41 r ♦ • .r•,• L z x r. 6,3 •, r, 4.,.i A eel iirrx t °3 ;51; 14 ,. e7i A,., t 54511C nLyS'S?r. 5 el 0. kg' b ,r 4. 4 HUNTER DRIVE 4 I L22D2 0.61: ACRES NONE '1020 / 1890 3€ 55"' E I ER V22C2 I / 1.63: ACRES 4.o ACCEPTABLE 456.63 .'. r2, I /Race. 56770 1 /rw .icS T; / PROPOSED WEST - PARCEL / �_. ._ 6.95: ACRES TOTAL .--Z.134 6. 17: ACRES ACCEPTABLE CONTIGUOUS / L45A er ate, 2$•-1:9-2.9 0.02- ACRES ACCEPTAELE 00070000 J,OhO/TN e 5E}1 rIC Sere Tn /1 L37B 1,II 4.22 !A CRES ACCEPTABLE tit -1060- / �I�-H I•. % 0 ,/,4•42' 27,• -.. ...... 30820..,...... .. . I z :Lev -;7 / t„ 70.15 r' 38'33' 04 E PROPOSED DIVIDING LINE PROPOSED EAST PARCEL 11. 12:_ ACRES TOTAL 10.53: ACRES ACCEPTABLE CONTIGUOUS L37B 1.64: A CRES ACCEPTABLE PRCP OSTO - \, DRA INAGE AAN 0 U TY• :_.. f !Y \ EASEMENTS h \ c4 ✓ -:// 1 1/ EXIST040 / 1 ' AREA TM/NT/ II ro /,j7 _291 -9,19_ .. S96.00,- 3° � 1050- . ,--- ' S0VTK NEST Caw1ER .Or RER TH*E51 QUARTER 0r SEC :5-115-2' REVISIONS — 1050- \ `f POND 0.601 ACRES 220 06 / 762. 39 . t-1 \ L44A / ry oo /> A 82: ACRES / NOTE 02 0000/ ry L. / N4 At' / b' C2 1 hereby 0,1.17 that 115 * su rve y, ye n, 01 rep/rt was poepored by me, ot 000er y 707 21 04 571215=511. Ond that I am, 0 dul/ Licens ed 1.a,d Sur+e,Or ,o des the laws of the State of Min nesoto. o �'-7s9 I,..yk 5. Or rLero Minn 0:0 lice nse Nnloer 127 r7 (1 040 - PROPOSED PROPERTY DIVISION & CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR THOMAS T. "TRUCK" =VIORRISOIy IN THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 25-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA L44A ox' *5215 A CCJ'1 - a EAST ENE OR WEST 1/2 OR.•' K.x I/O OK SEC. i5-116-13 Q4j L r -60 0 60 120 180 SCALE IN FEET LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREM ISES : That part of the W est Ho ff of the Northwest Quorter of Section 25, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of Th_ 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin Canty, Minnesota, described as foll ows: Comment ng at the southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence North 0 degrees 23 minutes 05 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the west lin e of s aid North west 0u crt er a distance of 942. 21 feet to the pant of begin ning of the land to be described; thence continuin g N arth. 0 degrees 23 minutes 05 seconds East o distan ce of 870 .88 feet; th ence South 89 degrees 36 minutes 55 seconds East o distance of 456 .63 feet to the intersection of Lin e "X", hereinafter described; then ce South 80 degrees 31 minutes 00 sec onds East o distence of 790.55 feet; thence South 45 degrees 31 minutes 10 seconds West o distance of 485.57 feet; thence South 41 degrees 19 minutes 42 se conds West o distonce of 200 .75 feet; thence Sou th 0 degrees 11 minutes 05 seconds West a dista nce of 249 .03 feet to the intersection with o line drown South 89 degrees 48 minutes 55 seconds East from the poin t of begin ning;_ thence North 89 -degrees 48 minutes 55 seconds West a cistonce of 762,39 feet to sold point of beginning, Line "X" Commencing 01 the southwest corner of sold Northwest Quarter thence North 0 degrees 23 minutes 05 seconds East, assumed bearing, alo ng the west line of sold Northw est Quarter c dista nce of 1277.62 feet; thence South 84 degrees 42 min utes 27 seconds East a distance of 358 .20 feet; thence N orth 0 degrees 23 minutes 05 seconds Eost, p .,rasct with said west fine o distance of 139.85 feet to the point of beginning of said Li ne "X"; thence North 13 degrees 33 minutes 19 seconds Lost a distance of 500 feet and s aid Line "X" there terminating. o ; denotes iron marker — .. .417 _ ., .-: denotes existing contour line, pc( USCS 060810291a map 8eorings sh own ore based upon on assumed datum This survey intends to sho w the bosndaries of the obo ve described property, the location at an exi0ting house, driveway . pond. soil typ es . ten foot contours. septic sites and test holes . and the proposed location of c proposed dividing line thereon. €t does not purp ort to show any other i r•prove2:ents w encroachme nts. OWN ER : ADRIENNE 5. & THOM AS T. MO R.R1502 1525 HUNTER ORiVE 0100104. MN 55391 GRONBERG & ASSOCI ATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS 445 NORTH WILLO W DRIVE, LONG LAKE, 6IN 55356 952--473--4141 14- V AGENDA ITEM: 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: May 9, 2013 MEETING: May 14, 2013 Planning Commission SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment: Driveways, Flag Lots, Frontage, Use of Easements and Rights -of -way Background During the review of various recent subdivisions, staff, Planning Commissioners, and Council members have noted various regulations in City Code related to access (driveways, frontage) and the use of easements/rights-of-way (retaining walls, decorative monuments) which deserved review and potential amendment. The attached ordinance makes a wide variety of changes related to these subjects. The Planning Commission began a Public Hearing on this ordinance at the April 9 meeting, and tabled the ordinance and continued the hearing. The Commission requested a couple of changes which have been incorporated into the attached ordinance. The main change was to allow rural lots without frontage on a public or private street. Staff has made this change, but still requires that a 60 foot easement be granted for the property without frontage. Driveway Regulations Setbacks Current regulations require driveways to be setback a distance of 10 feet from side property lines. Some zoning districts (the R2 district, for example), require only a 5 foot side -yard setback for a garage. This inconsistency has been addressed during the subdivision process by granting waivers to driveways within the subdivision to reduce the setback to 5 feet. Staff believes the better approach is to amend the code requirement. The attached ordinance requires a side setback equivalent to the setback required for buildings, up to a maximum of 10 feet. The draft ordinance also includes a reduced setback requirement for driveways extending from side -load garages. This is intended to remove a disincentive for a property owner constructing a side -load garage and was discussed during the review of the Reserve of Medina subdivision. The draft ordinance also clarifies that the setback requirements do not apply to a shared driveway. This would allow, for example, a driveway to be split on a common property line to reduce the number of accesses onto a street. Surfacing The draft ordinance proposes to limit gravel driveways to rural areas of the City. The intent is to reduce tracking, sediment, and the like in suburban and urban areas, and is a fairly common Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 3 May 14, 2013 Driveways/Flag Lots/Use of Easements Planning Commission Meeting 4 regulation in other communities. The section does allow for permeable options such as pavers, porous bituminous, permeable concrete, etc. Shared Driveways The draft ordinance proposes regulations related to shared driveways. The language limits shared driveways to four residential properties (more would require a public or private street). A shared driveway for three or four homes would be required to be 20 feet in width. The current draft would prohibit gravel surfaces, but this regulation could be removed. Frontage and Flag Lots Current regulations state that "all lots shall abut their full frontage on a street" and define flag lots as an alternative for frontage. These two standards seem a bit inconsistent. Additionally, the City has approved of subdivisions creating lots containing no frontage (where a lot would sit behind another lot and have access through an easement over the front lot). Additionally, no standards exist for flag lots. A property could have a one -foot wide "flag pole" and claim to have frontage, even though the one -foot wide part of the lot is useless. The attached ordinance establishes a minimum "flag pole" width. The width is 25 feet plus the required driveway setback in the district. In the rural area, for example, this would require a 45 foot wide flag pole. The ordinance also requires that the flag pole portion of the lot is usable for access, and allows the City to require a wider amount of area depending on wetlands, topography, etc. The attached ordinance also amends the frontage requirement to remove the "full frontage" requirement. As directed by the Planning Commission at the April meeting, staff has updated the ordinance to allow rural lots to be created without frontage. Lots served by city sewer/water would be required to have frontage on a public or private street. Staff has recommended certain conditions upon rural lots which are proposed without frontage. This includes a minimum easement width of 60 -feet, and clarifying that the soils within this easement cannot be counted towards the suitable soils of the lot on which the easement is located. Staff believes that a frontage requirement is important for sewered single-family lots. Frontage provides access for utility services without needing to cross another private property. Minimum Street Grade The City's subdivision code and engineering standards are inconsistent related to the minimum street grade required traveling along a street. The attached ordinance updates the subdivision code to require a minimum of 1% slope. Use of Right-of-way and Easements The City has seen various examples over the past few years of improvements placed within rights -of -ways or easements which staff feared may interfere with future uses of these areas. Examples include large landscaping monuments close to the curb of a street, trees and fences directly against streets and trails, and retaining walls in drainage and utility easements. Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 3 May 14, 2013 Driveways/Flag Lots/Use of Easements Planning Commission Meeting The City Engineer has also brought up concerns about rear -yard drainage systems in new developments and the potential of neighbors damming drainage. The attached ordinance requires City approval for grading, tree planting, landscaping, or construction within rights -of -ways and easements. This will assist with preventing negative impacts before they occur. The ordinance also states that any alteration within an easement or right-of-way can be altered or removed by the City if necessary to use the area for its intended purpose. The ordinance also specifically prohibits above -grade structural improvements (retaining walls, landscaping monuments, etc.) from being placed in rights -of -way or easements. The ordinance exempts mail boxes and fences. Fences, however, are required to be less than 8 feet in height and may not block surface water flow. Attachment 1. DRAFT ordinance Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 3 May 14, 2013 Driveways/Flag Lots/Use of Easements Planning Commission Meeting CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS, LOT FRONTAGE AND FLAG LOTS, MINIMUM STREET GRADES AND THE USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY AND EASEMENTS; AMENDING CHAPTERS 4 AND 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 400.11 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the ftricken language as follows: Section 400.11. Construction Requirements Generally. In addition to such rules, regulations and specifications as may be required by the Superintendent for specific projects, the following requirements shall be met with respect to all work performed under permits issued pursuant to this ordinance: (a) Required excavation for drainage shall be completed before placement of the culvert or fill material for the driveway approach; (b) The driveway approach shall be completed and graveled before any construction may begin on the property; (c) During the time of construction on the property, the driveway approach shall be the only ingress or egress to the property; (d) Driveways shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the side property line, except as follows: (i). In the Uptown Hamel district, driveways shall be located at least 2.5 feet from the side property line, unless a shared driveway is utilized. Shared driveways shall be encouraged when applicable, be located at the rear of the building utilizing a rear access road and adjacent property owners shall enter into a reciprocal easement and maintenance arrangement; (ii) In any other zoning district which requires a side yard setback of less than 10 feet, driveways may be located closer than 10 feet from the side property lines, but no closer than a distance equal to the required side yard setbacks for the principal structure; (iii) Reduction for side -load garages. Notwithstanding the above, the setback for a driveway providing access to an attached side -loaded garage may be reduced but may be located no closer than a distance of five feet from the side property line. Such reduction shall only be permitted if the driveway does not extend into side yard drainage and utility easements and only if the Public Works Director determines that the driveway will not negatively impact drainage of the adjoining property. (iv) Shared driveways. Driveways which provide access to more than one lot shall not be subject to setback requirements from the common lot line between the Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE lets sharing such driveway, P operty owners shall enter into, a reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement, which shall he recorded against both properties. (e) Except as otherwise provided, no driveway may be located closer than 100 feet from a corner. In the urban residential, urban commercial and urban industrial districts, no driveway may be located closer than 50 feet from a corner or shall be located as far from a corner as is reasonably practicable. In the Uptown Hamel district, driveways • shall be located as far from a corner as is reasonably practicable; (f) If a parcel of land has frontage on both a cul-de-sac and a lead-in portion of a right -of way, the driveway shall be constructed off of the lead-in portion of the right-of-way and not the cul-de-sac; (g) Only one curb cut shall be allowed per parcel of land, except as permitted below. If the parcel of land is bordered by more than one right-of-way, the curb cut shall be located on the less traveled right-of-way, as determined by the Superintendent. If all of the following conditions are met, two curb cuts may be allowed for a residential property: (i) Lot width at street side shall be 100' or greater; (ii) If the curb cuts are for a corner lot with curb cuts on separate streets, the total street frontage shall be 150' or greater; (iii) The property owner entering into an agreement with the city setting forth the terms and conditions for the two curb cuts. The agreement with the city shall be recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. (iv) A storm water treatment system must be constructed on the property to treat the storm water from the area of the second curb cut. A storm water treatment system management plan must be submitted to the city and approved by the Superintendent prior to the start of construction; and (v) A storm water treatment system may be constructed in public right-of-way if it does not hinder the use of the road by others, it is approved by the Superintendent, the property owner agrees to be responsible for maintaining the area and the property owner enters into a maintenance agreement with the city. (h) In new subdivisions, driveways for existing dwellings or properties shall be relocated to be served from the new subdivision right-of-way; (i) The width of a residential driveway approach shall abide by the following requirements, based on the zoning district in which it is located: (i-) Rural residential, rural residential -1, rural residential -2, agricultural preserve, and urban reserve zoning districts: (1) 24 feet maximum when measured at the property line. (2) The total combined width of two driveway approaches for two curb cuts shall not exceed 34 feet when measured at the property line. (3) Driveway approach width shall be allowed to increase where meeting the road to a width reasonably necessary to accommodate maneuvering of vehicles. This increased width shall be approved by the Superintendent consistent with the standards of Section 400.07. Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE (4) For the purposes of measuring driveway approach width, if a parcel extends to center of roadway, the width shall be measured 20 feet off the road surface. (ii) Other residential zoning districts not listed in (i) above: (1) 24 feet maximum when measured at the curb. (2) 28 feet maximum when measured at the property line. (3) The total combined width of two driveway approaches for two curb cuts shall not exceed 34 feet, measured at both curb and property line. (j) The total width of a driveway approach shall not exceed 32 feet for commercial and industrial property, measured at the property line. Driveway approach width shall be allowed to increase where meeting the road to a width reasonably necessary to accommodate maneuvering of vehicles. This increased width shall be approved by the Superintendent consistent with the standards of Section 400.07. (k) Drainage from the driveway shall not be onto the right-of-way, unless the right-of- way is designed for such purpose; (1) No tree, shrub, or other obstruction may be placed adjacent to a driveway if it may impair sight distances. cm) Driveway surfaces. Gravel driveways shall only be permitted on property within the following rural districts: AG, RR, RR-UR, RR -1, and RR -2. Driveways within all other districts shall be of an approved surface such as bituminous, concrete, or permeable pavers. (n) Shared Driveways. Shared driveways may provide access to no more than four residential properties. (i) Necessary documents describing easement rights and maintenance details shall be recorded against the properties. (ii) A shared driveway providing access to three or four residential properties shall have a traveled surface of a minimum of 20 feet in width. Gravel surfacing shall not be permitted and the shared driveway shall be of an approved surface such as bituminous, concrete, or permeable pavers. SECTION II. Section 820.17, Subd. 19.1 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the stricken language as follows: Section 820.17. Definitions. For the purpose of these regulations, certain terms and words are hereby defined as follows: Subd. 19.1. Flag Lot. A lot with a narrow appendage for the purpose of providing access to frontage on a public or private right-of-way. SECTION III. Section 820.29, Subd. 2(h) of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the stricken language as follows: Subd. 2. Streets. Streets shall conform to the following design: Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE (h) Centerline Gradients. All centerline gradients shall be at least 0.5 one percent and shall not exceed the following: arterials and collector streets - 5 percent, minor streets and marginal access streets - 8 percent. SECTION IV. Section 820.29, Subd. 4(g) and 4(h) of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the stricken language as follows: Section 820.29. Subdivision Design Standards. The following design standards shall be maintained. Subd. 4. Lots. (g) Location. All lots shall abut their full frontage on a street have frontage upon a public or private right-of-way, except as follows: (1) Lots without frontage upon a public or private right-of-way may be permitted in the following rural zoning districts: AG, RR�RR-UR, RR -1, and RR -2. (2) Lots without frontage upon a public or private street shall only be permitted if provided access to a public or private street through an easement with a minimum width of 60 feet. The location, form and substance of the easement shall be acceptable to the City. Suitable soils within the area of the easement providing access to lots without frontage upon a public or private street shall be subtracted from the area of the lot on which they are located for the sake of meeting minimum lot size requirements. (3) The subdivider shall be required to demonstrate that adequate access can be provided within the proposed easement. (h) Flag Lots. The appendage of a flag lot which provides frontage on a public or private right-of-way shall be located appropriately, be of sufficient width, contain adequate upland area, and otherwise be adequate to accommodate a driveway sufficient to provide access to the lot. At a minimum, the appendage shall be a width equivalent to 25 feet plus the required setback for a driveway. Additional width may be required by the City depending on topography, sightlines, wetlands, soil conditions, and other relevant factors. SECTION V. New code Section 828.17 is added to the code of ordinances of the city of Medina as follows: Section 828.17. Interference with the Use of Rights -of -way and Easements Prohibited. (a) No grading, tree or shrub planting. above -grade landscaping, or construction shall occur within a public ri ht -of -way or easement without approval of the City. Such ay royal shall only be Uranted if the City determines that such use will not interfere with existing or intended future use of such right-of-way or easement. Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE (b) Any alteration. tree, shrub, or improvements within a public right-of-wav or easement may be altered or removed by the Citv if necessary to utilize right-of-way or easement for its intended purpose. No compensation shall be provided for such alteration or removal. Above -grade structural improvements, including retaining walls, shall not be erected or installed within rights -of -way or public easements with the exception of the following: (1) Public improvements, signage for public and private streets, public utility facilities and essential services, and stormwater improvements. (2) Mailboxes approved by the United States Postal Service and which are attached to the Ground with support(s) which do not exceed 16 square inches in cross-sectional area for the first four inches above the ground. The cross-sectional area of the support(s) of Cluster Box Units approved by the United States Postal Service may exceed 16 square inches. (3) Fences shall be allowed within easements if less than eight feet in height and if - surface water is not prevented from flowing. SECTION VI. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this day of , 2013. Elizabeth Weir, Mayor Attest: Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -Clerk Published in the South Crow River News on the Ordinance No. ### 5 DATE day of , 2013.