HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-11-2012MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY DECEMBER 11, 2012
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 November 13, 2012 draft Planning Commission
minutes.
6. Continued Public Hearing — Jacob Moser — Requests Variances
to construct a new home in the Urban Residential (UR) zoning
district along Ardmore Avenue (PID 18-118-23-24-0154).
7. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the
Medina City Code relating to the Subdivision Regulations.
8. Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL December 5, 2012
G, T Y 0 A
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: / ' ( / VG'i/
Address: Z�L� .4----/Oiife, / 7e //l LC.
Telephone (optional): 3 — /2/7r— - 1777�
Representing: 6'\ /C/7 -
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments: P laie s -'c 4/ t -r g // / e eV
,,e ,
ll/ei, �l%/T /. /fl -/' ,
/x/' . �/ ,w/,/ ;s) 7///�� (. r 7, , /( �� /'zt � / ; ?'••'
, 9��= /i P'e � r � �% ti <`i 7)/z ,�� /Ii , l�-� ,'"�«c lie
��
, 4,774— ,
Approach the podium to speak ,4„,',.., ----
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G, T Y O a
Comment Card
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: I q n SC ) ipC-,1L-
Public Forum
Agenda Item
lease print)
Address: 2 7 )- ii. ri l'e
Telephone (optional):
Representing:
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G , Ty a
Comment Card
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: ` �'( CA/ t"~,-)f'^z%-Zt-�
Public Forum
Agenda Item
(please print)/
Address: , -35 IV t )1') -Y"-e. P\--1/ --.
j
Telephone (optional): `" - (--(7 e*: _ ( 7 .23
Representing: IN,: Lj <_. t ,-
Agenda Item (list number ((and letter): t\f\- 5--e/r
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G , 7 v
Card
C �� "" � Comment ar
MEDINA fr , �;
Name of Speaker: ) i, g-- - R r vf% 6 �-5
Public Forum
Agenda Item /1
(please print) Address: bJ �,�; a, m rvz- ,,_„-_
Telephone (optional):
Representing:
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments: M. b 6._P/\.. %{,e.- 4 (d -&
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G , 1 Y
��- � Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item X
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: r'i ()ilk j --j, etc -it ,y
(please print)
Address: 2 (Liz_ Ay (1 IN) CA,% .Nre ;'r a ck i ► 1(;
Telephone (optional):
Representing: S -t if And L (Sc., i r\_)z `,
J
Agenda Item (list number and letter): 0
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G% i Y O a
(,.w Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item tV-
MEDINA .__-
\--JA .E6 Zev/%dK)
Name of Speaker: T 1
Address: 2 9M 5 AirPitm,mfAVE
Telephone (optional):
Representing: 414 kE A A D,4 E A/0 i !k- C
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Alomments: P/E fd(AJtfti_vv-7--,41/O / V
D S /A /l/ v
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G , I Y
Comment Card
IVIEDINA
7-2
Name of Speaker: '��\. .-- ,-, ::C t -A
Public Forum
Agenda Item
(please print)
Address: '� '�_
Telephone (optional):
Representing: 2k. D �j ,� l� �.�
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: November 15, 2012
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates November 20, 2012 City Council Meeting
Ordinance Updates
A) Standards for Private Roads and premature subdivision — Staff recommends a number of
changes to the City's subdivision regulations related to private roads and also standards related
to premature subdivision. The ordinance is tentatively scheduled to be discussed with the
Planning Commission at their December meeting.
Land Use Application Reviews
A) Fields of Medina West — north of Highway 55, east of Arrowhead — Mattamy Homes has
applied for a preliminary plat for 65 single-family homes located on the 20 acres west of the
Fields of Medina project currently under construction. The Planning Commission held a Public
Hearing at the November 13 meeting and recommended denial. The application is scheduled for
review at the December 4 City Council meeting.
B) Moser Variance — Jacob Moser has requested variances in order to construct a home on an
existing vacant parcel in the Independence Beach Area (east of Ardmore Ave at the intersection
of Balsam St. Requested variances are from the setback requirements from the ordinary high
water level of Lake Ardmore, the front property line, and from an unused right-of-way. The
Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the October 24 Planning Commission meeting,
recommended that the applicant alter their plans to reduce the size of the home/garage and
tabled the application to allow them to update plans. The applicant has submitted updated plans,
which are scheduled for review at the December 11 Planning Commission meeting.
C) Tamarack Ridge Preliminary Plat — Property Resources Development Co. has submitted a
preliminary plat for an eight lot rural subdivision on approximately 80 gross acres northwest of
the existing Deerhill Road between Willow Drive and Homestead. The applicant is contesting
the suitable soils map as part of the application. The application is incomplete for review at this
time, and will be scheduled for a Public Hearing when determined to be complete for review.
D) Buckley Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) CUP — 1582 Homestead Trail — Hanna
Buckley has applied for a CUP to construct a 189 -foot wind turbine on their property and the
application is incomplete for review at this time. The application is incomplete for review at
this time, and staff intends to contact the applicant to see if they intend to amend their
application in light of the amended city regulations related to WECS.
E) Woods of Medina Concept Plan, Toll Brothers — Toll Brothers have submitted a concept plan
for review for a 125 -lot single-family subdivision on the Gorman Farm property east of County
Road 116 and south of Hackamore. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the
October 9 meeting and provided comments. The City Council reviewed and provided comment
at the October 16 meeting. Staff will await an application for preliminary plat.
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 December 4, 2012
City Council Meeting
Additional Projects
A) Stormwater Utility REF Analysis — staff has prepared an updated analysis of Residential
Equivalency Factor (REFs) for calculating stormwater utility fees. This work has previously
been completed by the City Engineer at a significant cost. This information has been provided
to Finance for 2013 bills.
B) Stormwater Utility Ordinance — staff is preparing amendments to the stormwater utility
ordinance which are recommended after completing the REF analysis. The ordinance is
scheduled to be presented to the City Council at the December 4 meeting.
C) Zoning Enforcement — staff has sent a request to a property owner along the Hunter Drive
trail to remove their fence from the right-of-way. It has been placed directly on the edge of
the trail, leaving no room for maintenance, signage, and other public purposes.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 December 4, 2012
City Council Meeting
1 CITY OF MEDINA
2 PLANNING COMMISSION
3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
4 Tuesday, November 13, 2012
5
6
7 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
8
9 Present: Planning Commissioners Robin Reid, Kathleen Martin, V. Reid, Charles
10 Nolan, John Anderson and Randy Foote
11
12 Absent: Kent Williams
13
14 Also Present: City Councilmember Elizabeth Weir and City Planner Dusty Finke.
15
16 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
17
18 No public comments.
19
20 3. Public Hearing — Mattamy Homes requests a Preliminary Plat and Rezoning for
21 a 65 lot residential subdivision to be located north of Highway 55 and east of
22 Arrowhead Drive (PID 02-118-23-34-0002).
23
24 Finke presented application. He explained the property is currently agricultural and is
25 approximately 10 acres in size. Single entrance point is Meander Road. Stormwater
26 ponds located on the NW side of the site along with the center of the homes within
27 the development are being proposed.
28
29 Applicant proposes to construct Meander Road. Staff has some concerns with the
30 main road into the subdivision. The applicant will be required to construct left turn
31 lanes on Meander and a study is required to determine final design. The sewer line
32 will come across State Hwy 55 and staff suggests the sewer line be held down as far
33 as possible. The water would come from the Fields of Medina East project. The
34 applicant will need to submit specifications for irrigation. Public Works and City
35 Engineer finds the Park site as a location for a water tower.
36
37 The stormwater ponds don't have good access and staff recommends better access
38 and to make sure it is able to handle sump pump water. There is a floodplain
39 elevation that will need to be determined. Staff is not concerned, but needs the
40 elevation to be determined, and will also need a map amendment.
41
42 The tree replacement plan of 4700 inches of trees is required. This volume of trees
43 wouldn't be possible to replace on the overall site. The applicant requests a tree
44 waiver to the tree replacement requirements in lieu of the park plan proposed. He
45 said the park would allow for planting of trees and playground equipment.
1
1 V. Reid asked about the access point on the east and if it would be the only access
2 point or would additional access eventually come from Tamarack. Finke said the
3 City's Transportation Plan and Concept Plan have shown a connection. He said if
4 Tamarack is going to fall on the eastern lot line then we'd want at least 500 feet of
5 separation and V. Reid said that was a good point. V. Reid said she sees two benefits
6 such as causing the traffic to flow to the west and then with an eventual access point
7 to the south would take some traffic off of 116.
8
9 V. Reid asked why another water tower would be required when there is one along
10 Pinto and Tower Road. Finke explained the tower didn't hold water, but rather a
11 leasing structure for telecommunications. Finke said the proposed site functions well
12 for a water tower since the elevation is high and it wouldn't require as much pressure.
13 V. Reid said she was not real supportive of the proposed water tower location.
14
15 V. Reid asked about hockey rinks on ponds. She asked if the City could ever do
16 hockey on ponds. Finke stated that it doesn't work very well. He said a lot of the
17 same issues with the stormwater ponds make the rinks hard to maintain.
18
19 Foote asked if the applicant was proposing the minimum number of lots to meet
20 density. Finke said yes. Foote then said does that mean if they remove one lot they
21 wouldn't meet density. Finke said yes.
22
23 R. Reid asked if the City received pictures of what the homes would look like. Finke
24 said the style would be similar to the first phase.
25
26 Anderson asked what the City knew about the property to the south. Finke said the
27 property to the south is zoned commercial with approximately 30 acres in size. He
28 said south of the Fields of Medina East is mixed use and their proposal showed
29 multifamily in that area, with additional medium density directly to the north.
30
31 Martin inquired about the trees in the northwest corner. She stated that it does not
32 appear efforts have been made to save the trees. She stated that a different housing
33 style would better meet density and save trees. Finke said the area is technically not
34 wetland and the area does have a lot of large Oaks and is transitioning to Maple and
35 Basswood understory due to the shade tolerance. He went on to say it is ranged as
36 moderate quality with about two acres in size. Martin said she is troubled by the
37 removal of the wooded area. She further asked what had been done to preserve the
38 trees. Finke said a different housing style. Martin said it is more the intent of the
39 zoning.
40
41 Martin stated that the plans seemed a bit skinny and a lot of blanks need to be filled at
42 the preliminary plat stage. She said she was hesitant to recommend approval without
43 some of the blanks filled. She also agrees with V. Reid concerning the traffic issue
44 for access.
45
2
1 Nolan said the property was originally guided mixed use and then the land owners
2 came to the City to change the zoning. He said it would have been nice to see some
3 of the minutes around that time. He said having been on the committee during the
4 Comprehensive Plan process, it was his vision that there would be more of a
5 transition between zoning along State Hwy 55 than what the proposed plan would
6 provide. The mixed use was supposed to be a transition from Highway 55 back to
7 single-family. The plan smacks of Plymouth and it is a boring plan.
8
9 Anderson said he recalls the discussion and said that the Commission wanted a
10 transition. Finke said the property was originally 40 acres and then it was divided
11 into two properties. The property owners had statutory authority to divide the
12 property without platting. The property was guided mixed use. After they divided
13 the 40 acre parcel, the property owners requested one of the two parcels be re -guided
14 to medium density rather than mixed use. Finke said the property immediately to the
15 north was guided medium residential.
16
17 Foote inquired if this was the bare minimum number of units that could be developed
18 on this site. Finke stated that it was.
19
20 R. Reid stated that the Mixed Use concept would allow for saving the trees, while
21 also meeting the density. She said she agrees with Nolan concerning the plan being
22 boring. Anderson said if two-family residential was constructed it would help with
23 the density issue and then would help resolve the issue of the trees, which then could
24 be preserved. Nolan said that a thorough tree inventory was not provided.
25
26 Nolan asked if the applicant had looked at the opportunity of expanding the existing
27 pond to the east, rather than creating a new one on this sight, which would then
28 preserve the trees. Finke said the trees would have to be removed for the ponding,
29 and utilizing the pond to the east wouldn't be possible. Foote said he doesn't see how
30 the plan could work without removing all the trees and that isn't something they care
31 to do.
32
33 Tom Wolter (Mattamy Homes) stated that they were looking to plan for a 2nd phase of
34 the project to double the size of the first phase and to mirror it. He said they would
35 install Meander Road next summer. They would be offering the same product line as
36 the first phase. He said they did look at the townhome product line, but it was not
37 cost effective.
38
39 Anderson asked to have the economics of townhome development explained. Dave
40 Nash (EVS) stated that the City's fees make it impossible to construct a feasible
41 townhome project. The primary problem is that the City bases its fee on a per -unit
42 basis which ends up being approximately $14,000 per unit. V. Reid asked if that was
43 similar to other cities fees. Nash said that our fees are more expensive than in other
44 communities and our rates are similar to single family homes which make it more
45 difficult.
46
3
1 Anderson inquired how much of a lower fee would make a difference.
2
3 Nolan inquired if the applicant had looked at ways to make the street more
4 interesting. Nash stated that he had worked on numerous site layouts, but when the
5 density is the driving force, there is really nothing that can be done differently.
6
7 Nolan asked if the developer would construct twin homes along one side of the
8 development. If you took out ten of the units and constructed twins, the impact fees
9 wouldn't be significantly higher. He said over such a large development he has a
10 hard time understanding how the approximate $75,000 would have an impact on
11 development. He said if the numbers are that tight, what are they going to do if the
12 market gets soft?
13
14 Nash said part of the issue is the market for twin homes and the fees. He said the
15 product is unknown.
16
17 Public Hearing was opened at 7:57 p.m.
18
19 Bill Freeland (4290 Arrowhead Drive) stated that he owns the 11 acres to the
20 northwest. He asked questions about access and how the proposed plan shows a road
21 dead ending near his property.
22
23 Nolan explained to Freeland that it is City policy to show potential future roads near
24 areas that may be developed in the future. He said once the property to the north is
25 developed by a developer, the City would require a connection at that time. Freeland
26 appeared to be satisfied with Nolan's explanation.
27
28 Freeland said that in the past 15 years the water seems to be creeping up and getting
29 worse every year. Nolan inquired if there may be issues with the outlet structure.
30
31 Freeland also said he has concerns with traffic on County Road 116.
32
33 He stated that they were concerned about the trees since that is their view from their
34 home; and then if a water tower was constructed it would be that much worse. Nolan
35 said the applicant was proposing a storm water pond in the location of the trees and
36 the water tower would be placed on the east side of the development, not where the
37 trees are currently.
38
39 Joe Cavanaugh (property owner) stated that they had gone through the concept plan
40 process with the Planning Commission and City Council. He said they had offered
41 park dedication land from the adjacent property in order to save the trees. He stated
42 that the Park Commission and Council had said they had more interest in the cash
43 which would amount to $150,000. Nolan asked if the Park Commission didn't want
44 the trees. Weir said during those meetings she pushed heavily to preserve the trees,
45 with homes being placed amongst the trees. She said there isn't anything better than
4
1 trees to absorb the water. She said it seems a shame to clear cut the woods in that
2 area. She also said it would help the price point to preserve some of the trees.
3
4 Finke noted that, having been part of the conversation, the Council certainly did not
5 recommend only single-family homes spread across the entire site. They spoke
6 specifically about different types of housing and that density would need to be met.
7
8 Weir said her voice at the Council was to preserve as much of the trees as possible.
9
10 Public Hearing Closed at 8:10 p.m.
11
12 Nolan stated that he respects the difficulties that an applicant is up against with City
13 regulations, fees, and the market, but the plan as presented is not interesting. He said
14 that he would like to push it back to the applicant to get creative, such as different
15 housing types.
16
17 Martin stated that she agrees with Nolan's comments. Shea said certainly the plan
18 does not justify a waiver of the tree replacement requirements.
19
20 V. Reid stated that she is concerned about any project that puts more traffic onto
21 County Road 116. She thinks that the access point being on the west side would draw
22 traffic towards Arrowhead instead of County Road 116.
23
24 R. Reid stated that the Comp Plan speaks a lot about a variety of housing styles.
25 Developers are saying there is not a market today, but the Comprehensive Plan is a
26 longer term vision. Today's market should not be able to force the City to change its
27 original objectives.
28
29 Anderson stated that he believes the Commission and Council have shown a good
30 deal of flexibility. With a good plan, there may be some way to make it a great
31 neighborhood for the developer and the City.
32
33 Nolan suggested that it sounds like the Commission is not going to recommend
34 approval of the plan. He asked the applicant if they would be interested in evaluating
35 the feedback and adjust the plan, in which case the Commission could table the
36 application until a future meeting.
37
38 Cavanaugh stated that his brother Dick is 78 years old and has owned the property for
39 a long time. He said they had offered Park Dedication land from the adjacent site and
40 the Park Commission was not interested.
41
42 Nolan stated that he cannot in good conscience recommend approval of a plan
43 because someone has owned property for 56 years.
44
45 Martin stated that she would give up on creativity a bit in order to preserve the trees
46 and hit the density.
5
1 Wolter said they could certainly look at moving the entrance to the west and the
2 possibility of some twin homes.
3
4 Martin inquired if adding twin homes would allow for more tree preservation. Nash
5 said they would have to look into it.
6
7 Motion by Nolan, seconded by Foote, to recommend denial of the subdivision
8 because housing is not consistent, tree preservation regulations, circulation adds
9 congestion to County Road 116, not recommending the stormwater pond within the
10 park (and thus not meeting density), single family backing up on intense commercial
11 development, and interference with future Tamarack. Motion carries unanimously.
12 (Absent: Williams)
13
14 7. Council Meeting Schedule
15
16 Nolan stated that he would attend the November 20th Council meeting.
17
18 Comments for the good of the order:
19 Anderson suggested that the Planning Commission discuss infrastructure fees.
20
21 Martin recommended that the Commission discuss private road maintenance and
22 whether the City would want to assess the projects.
23
24 4. Adjourn
25
26 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Foote, to adjourn at 9:24 p.m. Motion carried
27 unanimously. (Absent: Williams)
6
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners'nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
Medina Planning Commission
Scott Johnson, City Administrator
FROM: Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner
DATE: December 6, 2012
RE: Moser Variance Request
FILE NO: L-12-089
INTRODUCTION
Jacob Moser made a request for a variance from the front yard setback, side yard setback
(adjacent to right-of-way), wetland buffer setback, and lake setback to construct a house on an
unaddressed property on Ardmore Avenue. The applicant's initial request was tabled by the
Planning Commission on October 24, 2012 to allow for revisions. The applicant's new proposal
is to construct a 1.5 story house that is proposed to be 22 feet from the right-of-way of Ardmore
Avenue, 15 feet from the undeveloped Palm Street right-of-way, 48 feet from the OHW of Lake
Ardmore, and 2 feet from the Upland Buffer. The proposal also requires a variance pursuant to
Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 Subd. le (2) (e) regarding non -conforming lots of record
within the Shoreland District
The applicant originally proposed to construct a 2.5 story house that was 15 feet from the right-
of-way of Ardmore Avenue, 15 feet from the undeveloped Palm Street right-of-way, 55 feet
from Lake Ardmore, and 10 feet from the Upland Wetland Zone buffer.
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 Ardmore Shoreland District,
which is classified as a Recreational Development lake.
Site
The site is an unaddressed parcel of land located on Lake Ardmore. The parcel is north of the
undeveloped Palm Street right-of-way and across the street from 2945 Ardmore Avenue, which
is located at the intersection of Ardmore and Balsam Street. Originally the parcel was three
Moser Variance
Page 1
platted lots, as the legal description is Lots 9, 10, and 11 of Block 21. The parcel was combined
into one and compares to the Urban Residential & Shoreland District standards thusly:
Standard
Requirement
Moser Parcel
UR/Riparian Lot Area
9,000 sq. ft./ 20,000 sq. ft.
18,520 sq. ft.
Width at ROW Setback
60 feet
120 feet
Width at Lake Setback
75 feet
125 feet
Lot Depth
100 feet
105 feet
Adjacent to this property, the elevation at the edge of the improved road surface is 968 feet. This
drops to 966 at the front lot line and to 964 at the 30 foot line. About 60 feet into the property,
the 500 year floodplain elevation of 962.7 is reached. The 100 year floodplain is 962.3. The
Ordinary High Water mark for Lake Ardmore is 959.8 and is located about 115 feet from the
center of the front property line.
Adjacent to Lake Ardmore there is a wetland area that is delineated on the survey provided by
the applicant. This wetland area is about 30 feet in width along the lake. The wetland is an
"Other Preserve" designation on the Wetland Management Classification Map, meaning there
must be an average 35 foot wide buffer with a minimum of 25 feet.
Proposed Construction
At the October 24th Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners discussed the applicant's
original proposal and formed a general consensus that a smaller house further from the right-of-
way with a two -car garage would be more preferable for this parcel. The amount of fill being
proposed for the site was also an area of concern. Some Commissioners felt that the use of the
undeveloped right-of-way for the driveway was problematic, as well.
Mr. Moser revised the plan to reduce the size of the house by 1 story and the garage by 1 stall.
Now, the applicant is proposing to construct a one-story walk out house on the parcel. The
footprint of the proposed construction is 2,040 square feet. Originally, the house was proposed
at 2.5 stories and the proposed house, porch, and garage had a footprint of 1,859 square feet. The
proposed hardcover is reduced, even though the footprint of the home is slightly larger, because
of the two -car driveway directly onto Ardmore Ave. The applicant is seeking variances for
setbacks to the Ardmore Avenue right-of-way, undeveloped Palm Street right-of-way, Lake
Ardmore, and the Upland Buffer Zone.
Standard
Required
Originally
Proposed
Revised
Plan
Ardmore Avenue ROW
30
15
22
Palm Street ROW
30
15
15
Lake
75
55
48
Upland Buffer Zone Setback
15
10
2
Impervious Surface Max
25.00%
13.41%
13.25%
Structure Height
2.5 stories
/ 30 feet
2 stories
/ 26.8
1 story / 19.6
The applicant is still proposing to bring fill on to the property. Previously, the fill was estimated
Moser Variance
Page 2
4
to be about 400-500 cubic yards to raise the grade of the site. The revised plan is estimated to
bring in about 250 cubic yards. The driveway grade will still be about 4% but the shorter, more
direct drive necessitates a lesser amount of fill.
The City Engineer has reviewed this proposal and finds that this is generally acceptable from a
drainage standpoint, and the Public Works Superintendent believes that raising the grade will
help to improve the drainage patterns around the home and towards Lake Ardmore. 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.
As the parcel is less than 20,000 square feet in area, it requires a variance pursuant to Minnesota
State Statutes 462.357 Subd. 1e (2) (e) regarding non -conforming lots of record within the
Shoreland District. This section states that a non -conforming lot of record may be allowed as a
building site without variances from the lot size requirements, provided that all structure setback
provisions are met. Since this request requires variances from the setback provisions, a variance
from the minimum lot size must also be considered.
Tree Preservation
There are a total of 36 significant trees on the site. For this type of development, there is an
allowance for removal of 20% which is 7 trees. The applicant is proposing to remove 9 trees,
which would be over the allowed removal. Thus, tree replacement is required. The average size
of tree being removed is 16 inches in diameter. Therefore, the applicant must replace the
equivalent of two 16 inch trees, which is 32 inches in total. The previous plan called for more
tree removal and the replacement was 57 inches. The applicant shall be required to present a tree
replacement plan pursuant to the requirements of Section 828.41 and provide the requisite
security as a condition of any approval and prior to the issuance of any building permit.
Wetlands
As mentioned, there is a delineated wetland adjacent to Lake Ardmore. The applicant is required
by Section 828.43 to provide a 35 foot wide average buffer to the wetland. This buffer is not
allowed to be less than 25 feet in width. There is a required setback to the Upland Buffer Zone
established by this average buffer of 15 feet. The applicant is proposing a setback of 2 feet.
Previously, this was proposed at 10 feet, but was reduced in order to increase the setback from
Ardmore Ave. as suggested by the Commission. The applicant is required to provide Upland
Buffer Zone Markers, easements over the Upland Buffer Zone, and a vegetation plan as a
condition of any approval and prior to the issuance of any building permit. This information
could be created in consort with the Tree Replacement Plan mentioned above.
In exchange for the reduced setback to the Upland Buffer Zone, the applicant will need to exceed
City standards found in this Section. At minimum, this may be accomplished by placing a
standard drainage and utility easement along the northern property line and by providing an extra
easement over the actual wetland and lake portions of the property. Staff also recommends a
condition that drainage from the site be designed so that runoff is directed towards the wider
portions of the Upland Buffers.
Moser Variance
Page 3
6
Building Height
The proposed house is a 1 story walkout and is 19.6 feet in height. The previous plan was for a 2
story walkout that was 26.8 feet in height. The maximum standards for the UR District are 2.5
stories and 30 feet in height.
Driveway
The applicant revised the driveway to go straight to Ardmore Avenue. The garage is set back 22
feet from Ardmore Avenue. Previously, the applicant proposed a side loaded garage with a
driveway through the undeveloped Palm Street right-of-way. This alignment reduces hardcover
and addresses concerns about the use of the Palm Street right-of-way.
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.
(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.
With strict application of all requisite district standards, there is a very small amount of buildable
area (about 400 square feet) on the parcel. The 75 foot setback to Lake Ardmore actually
intersects required setback to Ardmore Avenue. It is impossible to build a house and garage
meeting the minimum building standards within the buildable area of this parcel. Without some
relief from these standards, this legally created parcel would not be allowed any use.
The main consideration remaining is whether or not the applicant proposing to put the property
to a reasonable use that is within the "essential character" of the neighborhood. In order to
determine this, a general survey of the neighborhood (2935 to 2992 Ardmore) was conducted.
There are houses ranging in size from a small 682 square foot house at 2955 Ardmore Avenue to
Moser Variance
Page 4
a larger 2000+ square foot house with a 1000 square foot garage at 2992 Ardmore. Building
footprints, including house and garage, range from 682 square feet to 3000 square feet. The
proposed house/attached garage would have a building footprint of 2040 square feet, which lies
within the range.
In terms of allowing a variance from the minimum riparian lot size of 20,000 square feet to allow
for a house requiring setback variances, this survey also includes the lot sizes for the other
riparian parcels in the immediate area. With 18,520 square feet in area above the OHW, this
parcel would be the largest parcel with a home on it on the western side of Lake Ardmore. The
house at 2992 Ardmore Avenue is on a parcel of 13,030 square feet in area, 2982 Ardmore is just
under 17,625 square feet, and 2972 Ardmore is 13,080 square feet. These parcel sizes do not
exclude any property which may be below the OHW, as this information was not readily
available. A comparison of the four riparian parcels north of the Palm Street right-of-way is
found below:
Ardmore Avenue Riparian
Parcel Comparison
Lot Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Building
Footprint
(Sq. Ft.)
Stories
Distance to
Ardmore
Roadway
Distance
to Lake
Subject Site (Proposed)
18,520
2040
1
40
48
2972
13,080
2450
1
40
50
2982
17,625
2112
2
40
45
2992 (Variance in 2000)
13,030
3000
2
40
51
RECOMMENDATION
At the previous review, Staff generally recommended approval but questioned the amount of fill
being brought in to raise the height of the house. The applicant has reduced the amount of fill
and the height of the structure. The revised plan removed a level from the house, a stall from the
garage, 7 feet of height, and about half of the proposed fill. The setback to the wetland buffer,
however, has decreased from 10 feet to 2 feet.
The subject site is an impossible property to fit a conforming house on. The lake setback,
wetland buffer setback, and the two front yard setbacks create a very small buildable area. This
clearly creates a "practical difficulty" in putting this property to a reasonable use. Other
properties within the area are developed with similarly sized houses with somewhat similar
setbacks.
The Planning Commission tabled the request for several reasons. Generally, the house was
found to be too large for the site. Also, the Commissioners thought the house was too close to
the right-of-way, the garage was too large, and the amount of fill for the project was too great.
Concerns about the use of the undeveloped right-of-way were also raised. The applicant has
attempted to prepare a plan to meet these concerns. The Planning Commission will need to
consider whether the plan is acceptable and make a recommendation to the Council. If the
Planning Commission makes a recommendation of approval, it should be with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall prepare a tree replacement plan.
Moser Variance
Page 5
2. The applicant shall prepare an Upland Buffer Zone vegetation plan.
3. The applicant shall provide a conservation easement over the Upland Buffer Zone.
4. The applicant shall provide drainage and utility easements over the north, south, and
westerly 10 feet of the property.
5. The applicant shall provide an additional easement over the wetland and lake areas of the
parcel.
6. The grading plan shall be updated so that drainage from the site is directed towards the
portions of the Upland Buffer which are wider.
7. All plans and easements shall be provided and accepted by the City prior to the issuance
of any building permit on the property.
8 The City Engineer shall approve the grading plan prior to the issuance of any building
permit.
9. The driveway location shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any
building or driveway permit.
Attachments:
Exhibit A — Neighborhood Property Survey
Exhibit B — Revised Plan
Exhibit C — Survey showing Setback Requirements and Building Envelope w/o Variances
Exhibit D — Previous Plan
Exhibit E — Exterior Elevations
Exhibit F — Floor Plans
Moser Variance
Page 6
S
Exhibit A - Neighborhood Property Survey
Photo of property
Details from County Records
2935 Ardmore
Approx. 1880 sq. ft. building footprint
Approx. 55 feet to pavement
2942 Ardmore
Approx. 1600 building footprint.
Approx. 44 feet to pavement
2945 Ardmore
Approx. 1300 sq. ft. building footprint
2 stories
Approx. 55 feet to pavement
Subject Site
Proposed:
2040 sq. ft. building footprint
1 story walkout
Approx. 40 feet to pavement
48 feet to OHW
Moser Variance
Page 7
2955 Ardmore
Approx. 700 sq. ft. building footprint
Approx. 45 feet to pavement
2971 Ardmore
Approx. 1650 sq. ft. building footprint
2 stories
Approx. 42 feet to pavement
2972 Ardmore
Approx. 2450 sq. ft. building footprint
Approx. 40 feet to pavement
Approx. 50 feet to OHW
Riparian parcel size: 13,080 square feet
2982 Ardmore
Approx. 1540 building footprint (house)
572 sq. ft. garage
2 stories
Garage appox. 40 feet to pavement
House approx. 45 feet to lake
Riparian parcel size: 17,625 square feet
Moser Variance
Page 8
2985 Ardmore
Approx. 2100 sq. ft. building footprint
Approx. 35 feet to pavement
2992 Ardmore
(Received variance in 2000)
Approx. 3000 sq. ft building footprint
2 story walkout
51 feet to lake
15.5 to Ardmore right-of-way
Approx. 40 feet to pavement
Approx. 30% hardcover
Riparian parcel size: 13,030 square feet
Moser Variance
Page 9
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
JACOB MOSER
OF LOTS 9, 10, & 11, BLOCK 21, INDEPENDENCE BEACH
NOV 1 5 2012
m
0
m
0
-n
37.
v
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ro
mss,
1 t -�
i W 15
8 BOER
l 12 ELM
•
` c 4 ASH
PROPOSES DRIVEWAYi
111 \� 2,2.0
8 3UGARIPI
MOLE
10-12
r)SOPQSED
14SILMER MAPLE
.411110 BASSWOOD--
MAPLE
18 SILVER'
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (VERIFY)
1) BASEMENT = 964.3
2) TOP OF FOUNDATION = 972.1
3) GARAGE = 969.8
4) FIRST FLOOR = 973.8
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES :
Lots 9, 10, and 11, Block 21, INDEPENDENCE BEACH
o : denotes iron marker
(961.5) : denotes existing spot elevation. mean sea level datum
967.51 : denotes proposed spot elevation
— denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum
�— : denotes proposed contour line
: denotes tree to be removed
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
35 trees on site, 8 to be removed, 8/35 = 22.9%
This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property,
existing topography and 100 year flood line thereon, and the proposed
location of a proposed house and driveway. It does not
purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
NOTE: 500 year flood elevation is 952.7
s
7�g
INCREASE IN BUFFER
FROM 35 FT.
9904.- S.F.
DECREASE IN BUFFER
FROM 35 FT.
990+- S.F.
ARDMORE
12
9'VL4
PROPOSED HARDCOVER:
HOUSE & PORCH = 2040 SQ.FT
WALK�4 SQ. FT.
DRIVE= 350 SQ.FT.
TOTAL= 2454 SQ.FT.
24541 18520 X 100 =13.25% HARDCOVER
LOT AREA ABOVE OHW=18520 SQ.FT.
REVISED 9-7-12 TREES WITHIN GRADING LIMITS SHOWN
REVISED 10-1-12 ADDITIONAL TREEA SHOWN, BUFFER
LIMITS REVISED
REVISED 11-14-12 REVISED HOUSE AND GRADING
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS,
SITE PLANNERS
445 N. WILLOW DRIVE
LONG LAKE, MN. 55356
952-473-4141
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super-
vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
SCALE
1"=30'
7122 DATE
10-1-1211-14-12
JOB NO.
12-202 C
co
LE
X
LU
12-202 C
Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota Lice se Number 12755
001 0 NIEp
>i
•
‹MI
c1
{
,1
V
D
0
m
0
11
'
0
m1
>H'
Zi
8 80X
12 ELM
1
ci SUG.
MAPi
.Y .
MAPLE
in
a MAPLE
is sttvER�' knetE
'OSED ELEVATIONS (VERIFY)
\SEMENT = 964.3
P OF FOUNDATION = 972.1
\RAGE = 969.8
RST FLOOR = 973.8
1"=30'
1
EXHIBITC
OUT DATED PLANS
25'.MINIMUM BUFFER
;11. 1 1 i
1 l
15' BUFFER SETBACK
i \ \•
1 i . 1 \
\ ARDMORE
f 75' LAKE SETBACK
ll
kL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES :
g.xlr;%b'►k-
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
JACOB MOSER
OF LOTS 9, 10, & 11, BLOCK 21, INDEPENDENCE BEACH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
OUT DATED PLANS
D'
73,
01
0
ro
8 BO Lt1ER
12 ELM
p SUG
IMAPO
1
i`
I
s
N 88°4 14" E 1$9.00,
19.67 iA .12-
ar; MAPLE
�, 010 BASSWOO--
8-51{A €R MAPLE
18 SILVER Lf`
OUT DATED
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (VERIFY)
1) BASEMENT = 964.3
2) TOP OF FOUNDATION = 972.1
3) GARAGE = 969.8
4) FIRST FLOOR = 973.8
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES :
Lots 9, 10, and 11, Block 21, INDEPENDENCE BEACH
o denotes iron marker
INCREASE IN BUFFER
FROM 35 FT.
990+- S.F.
1961.51 : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum
967.5 : denotes proposed spot elevation
— : denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum
. denotes proposed contour line
: denotes tree to be removed
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
35 trees on site, 10 to be removed, 9/35 = 28.6%
This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property,
existing topography and 100 year flood line thereon, and the proposed
location of a proposed house and driveway. It does not
purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
NOTE: 500 year flood elevation is 962.7
DECREASE IN BUFFER
FROM 35 FT.
990+- S.F.
/04
PROPOSED HARDCOVER:
HOUSE.= 1763 SQ.FT
PORCH= 96 SQ.FT.
DRIVE= 625 SQ.FT.
TOTAL= 2484 SQ.FT.
2484 / 18520 X 100 = 13.41% HARDCOVER
LOT AREA ABOVE OHW= 18520 SQ.FT.
REVISED 9-7-12 TREES WITHIN GRADING LIMITS SHOWN
REVISED 10-1-12 ADDITIONAL TREEA SHOWN, BUFFER
LIMITS REVISED
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS,
SITE PLANNERS
445 N. WILLOW DRIVE
LONG LAKE, MN. 55356
952-473-4141
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super-
vision, and that 1 am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
5
SCALE
1"=30`- •
8-17-12 DATE
9-7-12 10-1-12
JOB NO.
12-202 A
12-202 A
Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12
JOIlD f'ribijl
One horse rroductions
design production performance
888/ 424-9772
These drawings are design concept only. Responsibility
for all information here in is by the „general contractor.
Conform to State and L. ocaf Codes.
Copyright p 201 I John Fribyl, �nc_
UT DATED PLANS
Front l levation 1/-v' = 1'-o"
'The original purchaser of the plan, ti__ , is granted
a limited nonexclusive and nontransferablelicense to build
one, and only one, structure using this plan. Use of this plan
to build more than one home is prohibited. The plan may not
reproduced or transferred without the express written
permission from the copyright owner.These plans are
rotectedunderthe edera P
p � Copynght Laws.
roject
Genera
Contractor
OAT°
eHeer
OF
OUTDATED
gols‘beil
rn
(1)
J
_
M
D
r
m
Gm
o
N
D
-f
m
c3
D. B. oRn wlNPROV ID ED BY
RASKOB
CONSTRUCTION
2064 ARfM1ORE AVE. MED IN A, MN 55359 17631479-1393 ALR SKOOC*MC}ISI C OM
PROJECT FOR: JAKE MOSER
XXXX ARDM ORE A VE.
MEDINA, MN 55359
(163) 458-8636
CO NTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS. INFORMATION
DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT
GAURA NTEED.
o3
CO
N
17'
2O5OSC
1
47' 10"
60'
285090
23'
S 20'
12' 2"
Q 0
11' 9 1/2"
FUTURE FAM ILY
33'-4" x 17-5"
T_ I J ; ) �I
LLD ` — ='— �,
R.I. BATH 1
8'-11" x 4'-10"
LAUNDRY
11'-0"x6'-1"
II
13' 9"
HRV
0
UTILITY / STORAGE
15'-5"x 11'4"
0
8' 6"
]Dee
—7 — r
1
J, —
FUTURE
BEDROO M
11'-2"x 12'-9"
UNEXCAV ATED
20'- 8" x 32'-8 "
CO
30' 9"
60'
7' 3"
9' 10"
12'-2"
FOUNDATION PLAN
ZXP"P'E 1* -k
2'-6„
12'-4"
17' 1"
12' 1"
60'
31' 2"
16' 6"
16' 7"
11-9"
SC
xu x
26606C 006
co
NV yy�x
N �'
2'
0
1 -ASTER BDRM
1,0" x 11'-10"
MASTER BATH
12'-10' x 6'-6" "
/
/
BEDRQO// M
10'-0" (11'-6"
/
969
/
1
LIVING / DINING
21'-2" x 17'-7"
N
16
R
KITCHEN
9'-2" x 12'-11"
/
ENTRY
68 x70'
HALL
3'-2" x 10-9"
B
BEDROOM
9'-8" x 11-6"
/
/
/
PORCH
6'-6" x
/
2t /
GARAGE
21'-0" x 33'-0"
N
a
7' 8" 16'
iW IC°
7' 8"
10'-6" 2' 6" 5 5" 10' •-�2'-11"
60'
4' 8"
1
6' 8"
13'
22'
11'
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
n
r
Ft,
N
0
N
D
DR AW IN6 PROVIDED BY:
D .B.
RASK OB
CONSTRUCTION
2864 ARDMORE AVE. ME DI NA. MN 55359 (7 43) 479-1393 ALR ASKOB@A1C1151.COM
PROJECT FOR:
JAKE M OSER
X( XX ARDMORE AVE .
MEDINA, MN 55359
(T63) 458-8636
C ONTRACT OR TO VERIFY ALL
DIMENSIONS . INFORMATI ON
DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT
GAURANTEED.
"
M E M O R A N D U M
T O : P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
F R O M : D u s t y F i n k e , C i t y P l a n n e r
D A T E : D e c e m b e r 6 , 2 0 1 2
M E E T I N G : D e c e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 1 2
S U B J : S u b d i v i s i o n O r d i n a n c e P r i v a t e S t r e e t s a n d P r e m a t u r e S u b d i v i s i o n s
B a c k g r o u n d
T h e a t t a c h e d o r d i n a n c e p r o p o s e s t o a d d s t a n d a r d s t o t h e s u b d i v i s i o n o r d i n a n c e o n t w o s u b j e c t s :
1 ) p r i v a t e s t r e e t s ; a n d 2 ) r e q u i r e d i m p r o v e m e n t s f o r s u b d i v i s i o n s .
T h e C i t y c o m m o n l y a p p r o v e s r u r a l s u b d i v i s i o n s w h i c h p r o p o s e p r i v a t e s t r e e t s i n s t e a d o f p u b l i c l y
d e d i c a t e d s t r e e t s w i t h i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n . T h e C i t y h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a n u m b e r o f p r a c t i c e s w i t h
r e l a t i o n t o p r i v a t e s t r e e t s s u c h a s : r e q u i r i n g t h e m t o b e b u i l t t o t h e s a m e s t a n d a r d a s C i t y s t r e e t s ,
r e q u i r i n g a p r i v a t e r o a d a g r e e m e n t a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e c i t y , a n d r e q u i r i n g p r i v a t e s t r e e t s t o b e
l o c a t e d i n o u t l o t s r a t h e r t h a n a c r o s s p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y . T h e s e p r a c t i c e s h a v e p r e v i o u s l y n o t b e e n
d e s c r i b e d i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n o r d i n a n c e .
S t a t e S t a t u t e a l l o w s t h e C i t y t o c o n d i t i o n s u b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l o n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f v a r i o u s
i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i m p r o v e m e n t s w i t h i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n a n d e x t e r n a l l y w h i c h s e r v e t h e s u b d i v i s i o n .
T h e p r o p o s e d o r d i n a n c e a d d s a d d i t i o n a l l a n g u a g e r e l a t e d t o t h e C i t y ' s a b i l i t y t o r e q u i r e
i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i m p r o v e m e n t s t o s e r v e a s u b d i v i s i o n . T h e o r d i n a n c e a m e n d m e n t a d d s d e t a i l
r e l a t e d t o m i n i m u m s t a n d a r d s f o r s t r e e t s w h i c h s e r v e s u b d i v i s i o n s , i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t , a t a
m i n i m u m , e m e r g e n c y v e h i c l e a c c e s s i s s u f f i c i e n t a n d t h a t l a r g e r s u b d i v i s i o n s ( 3 + l o t s ) a r e s e r v e d
b y a s t r e e t t h a t m e e t s a l l C i t y s t a n d a r d s .
T h e c h a n g e s p r o p o s e d i n t h e o r d i n a n c e a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p a s t C i t y p r a c t i c e s a n d a r e i n t e n d e d t o
f o r m a l i z e t h e m w i t h i n t h e o f f i c i a l c o n t r o l s .
A t t a c h m e n t
1 . D R A F T o r d i n a n c e
S u b d i v i s i o n O r d i n a n c e P a g e 1 o f 1 D e c e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 1 2
P r i v a t e S t r e e t s / I n f r a s t r u c t u r e I m p r o v e m e n t s P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE REGARDING
AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Section 820.17, Subd. 23 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. 23. Lot. A parcel of land separated from other parcels by legal description and meeting
the physical standards of this ordinance.
(a) Lot Area. The horizontal plane bounded by the Lot Lines.
(b) Lot Corner. A lot bounded by the intersecting boundaries of two or more streets.
(c) Lot Depth. The average horizontal distance between the Front Lot Line and the Rear
Lot Line.
(d) Lot Line. A line defining the horizontal plane of a Lot.
(e) Lot Line, Front. The line connecting the Side Lot Line of a Lot measured along the
boundary of the Right -of -Way designated by the City Council to serve the Lot.
(f) Lot Line, Rear. That Lot Line which is opposite the Front Lot Line. If the Rear Lot
Line is less than ten (10) feet in length, or if the Lot forms a point at the rear, the
Rear Lot Line shall be a line ten (10) feet in length within the Lot parallel to and at
the maximum distance from the Front Lot Line.
(g) Lot Line, Side. Any Lot Line which is not a Front Lot Line or a Rear Lot Line.
(h) Lot Width. Lot width shall be measured as follows: (1) For lots located entirely on the
turn -around portion of a cul-de-sac or for pie -shaped lots, lot width is the maximum
horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at any point in the lot. (2)
For flag lots or lots not having frontage on a public or private right-of-way, lot width
is the maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at the point
equal in distance to the front yard setback from the first lot line generally parallel to
the front lot line or to the right-of-way. (3) For all other lots, lot width is the
maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at the front
building setback line.
$0
►
300
SO
(i) Out -blot. A parcel of land in a platted subdivision, which is not part of a block and is
identified by a capital letter separated from the other parcels by a legal description
until such physical standards are met. which often contain common elements serving
more than one property, such as stormwater ponds or private roads, and which are
not buildable until replatted into platted lot(s) which can be shown to meet all
development standards.
SECTION II. Section 820.17, Subd. 42 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. 42. Street and Alleys.
(a) Street. A right-of-way improved for vehicular and pedestrian traffic and accepted by the
City Council for maintenance and public travel.
(b) Collector Street. A street which carries traffic from local streets to arterials.
(c) Cul-de-sac Street. A minor street with only one outlet and having a terminus with a
right-of-way diameter of 125 feet.
(d) Service Street. A minor street, which is parallel and adjacent to a thoroughfare and
which provides access to abutting properties and protection from through traffic.
(e) Local Street. A street of limited continuity used primarily for access to the abutting
properties and the local need of a neighborhood.
(f) Alley. A minor street which is used primarily for secondary vehicular service access to
the back or the side of properties abutting on a street.
(g) Arterial Street. A street or highway with access restrictions designed to carry large
volumes of traffic between various sectors of the City and beyond.
2
hl Private Street. A street which is privately owned and maintained rather than being, -
owned maintained by the City, but which is subject to a private road agreement.
SECTION III. Section 820.21, Subd. 10 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 820.21. Preliminary Plat Procedure.
Subd. 10. In the case of all subdivisions, the Planning Commission and City Council shall
deny approval of a preliminary or final plat based on one or a combination of 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.
SECTION IV. New Code Section 820.28 is added 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 from a publicly dedicated
and opened street.
(a) New streets constructed to provide access to the subdivision shall be constructed
consistent with the standard of Subd. 820.29 Subd. 2 and the engineering standards of
the City.
(b) No subdivision shall be approved unless a street serving the subdivision exists or is
constructed which has a traveled surface of at least 20 feet in width and is otherwise of
sufficient surface and stability to allow for adequate access of emergency vehicles.
3
(c) Additionally, all streets serving the subdivision shall be suitably improved as required bv
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. 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 responsible for improving the street at its expense or otherwise
funding the required improvements as may be required by the City.
Subd. 2. Adequate Water Supply Required. No subdivision shall be approved unless adequate
sources of water supply are available to serve the proposed subdivision. In the event the
subdivision is intended to be served by the municipal water supply system and the system is
not extended to the area of the proposed subdivision or is not otherwise suitable to
accommodate the proposed additional water use from the subdivision. the subdivider shall be
responsible for extending the system at its expense or otherwise funding the required
improvements as may be required by the City.
Subd. 3. Adequate Wastewater Disposal System Required. No subdivision shall be approved
unless provisions are in place to dispose of wastewater from the proposed subdivision.
(a) to the event the subdivision is intended to be served by the municipal sanitary sewer
system and the system is not extended to the area of the proposed subdivision or is not
otherwise suitable to accommodate the proposed additional water use from the
subdivision. the subdivider shall be responsible for extending the system at its expense
or otherwise funding the required improvements as may be required by the City.
(b) In the event the subdivision is intended to be served by on -site sewage treatment, the
subdivider shall demonstrate that each lot has the capacity to meet relevant codes of the
City and other relevant jurisdictions related to sewage treatment.
Subd. 4. No subdivision shall be approved unless the requirements of this sectionhave been
satisfied to the satisfaction of the City. The City shall deem the subdivision to be premature
if the subdivider does not agree to provide for the construction or funding of any
improvements determined to be necessary by the City in order to meet these requirements
and under the terms and conditions as the City may require. The City Council shall deny
any proposed subdivision deemed premature for development. The burden of proof shall be
upon the subdivider to show that the proposed subdivision is not premature.
SECTION V. Section 820.29, Subd. 2 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.
4
Subd. 2. Streets. Streets shall conform to the following design:
(a) Widths. Streets shall conform to the following minimum dimensions unless a narrower
or wider dimension is determined to be appropriate by the City Council in order to
accommodate the expected traffic, parking, pedestrian ways, and utilities:
Street Type
Right -of -Way Width Roadway Width
Major Arterial 250 feet
Minor Arterial 150 feet
Collectors 70 feet 40 feet
Local 50-60 feet 24 feet
Local Rural Service Area 60 feet 24 feet
Private Townhome Streets 24-50 feet 20-28 feet
Marginal Access Roads 60 feet 24 feet
Cul-de-sac Streets 60 feet 24 feet
Cul-de-sac Turnaround
Diameter 125 feet 50 feet
Commercial/Industrial
Local 60 feet 28-36 feet
(b) Street Intersections. Insofar as practical, streets shall intersect at right angles. In no case
shall the angle formed by the intersection of two streets be less than 80 degrees, with
90 degree intersections preferred. Intersections having more than four corners shall
be prohibited. Adequate land for future intersection and interchange construction
needs shall be dedicated.
(c) Tangents. A tangent of at least three hundred (300) feet shall be introduced between
reverse curves on arterial and collector streets.
(d) Deflections. When connecting street lines deflect from each other at one point by more
than ten (10) degrees they shall be connected by a curve with a radius adequate to
ensure a sight distance of not less than five hundred (500) feet for arterials, three
hundred (300) feet for collectors, one hundred (100) feet for all other streets. The
planning commission may allow greater or lesser sight distances at the
recommendation of the engineer.
(e) Street Jogs. Street jogs with centerline offsets of less than 150 feet shall be avoided for
local streets.
(f) Local Streets. Minor streets shall be laid out so that their use by through traffic is
discouraged.
(g) Cul-de-sac. The maximum length of a street terminating in a cul-de-sac shall be 750
feet, measured from the centerline of the street of origin to the end of the right-of-
way, or a maximum of 20 lots, whichever is shorter. Lot lines abutting cul-de-sacs
5
shall be radial.
(h) Centerline Gradients. All centerline gradients shall be at least 0.5 percent and shall not
exceed the following: arterials and collector streets - 5 percent, minor streets and
marginal access streets - 8 percent.
(i)
Access to Arterial Streets. In the case where a proposed subdivision is adjacent to a
limited access highway (arterial), there shall be no direct vehicular or pedestrian
access from individual lots to such highways. As a general requirement, access
arterials shall be at intervals of not less than 1/4 mile and through existing and
established crossroads where possible.
(j) Subdividing Small Tracts. In the subdividing of small tracts of land fronting on arterial
streets where there is no convenient access to existing entrances and where access
from such subdivision would be closer than 1/4 mile from an existing access point, a
temporary entrance permit may be granted. Provision shall be made in such
subdivisions for the connection of roads to neighboring land. As the major land is
subdivided and developed, the access becomes possible at a preferred location, such
temporary entrance permits shall be discontinued.
(k) Half Streets. Half streets shall be prohibited.
(1) Hardship to Owners of Adjoining Property. The street arrangement shall not cause
hardship to owners of adjoining property in subdividing their own land and
providing convenient access to it.
(m) Private Streets. Private Streets shall be located within an Outlot shall be subject to a
private road agreement in a form and of substance acceptable to the City. The
Outlot shall be of the same width as the right-of-way which would be required if the
Street were intended to be dedicated to the City. Private Streets shall be built to the
standard required for Streets which are to be dedicated to the City,
SECTION VI. Section 820.73 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 820.73 Building Permits. No building permits will be delivered issued for the con-
struction of any building or structure ef-on any lot in a subdivision as defined herein which has been
approved for platting subdivision until all requirements of this Ordinance have been fully complied
with. The City shall also issue no building permit for parcels created through a statutory exception to
the City subdivision requirement unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city,
that the property meets all minimum development standards of the City.
6
SECTION VII. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the Medina city council this day of , 2012.
T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor
Attest:
Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -Clerk
Published in the South Crow River News on the day of , 2012.
7