Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-13-2017 POSTED IN CITY HALL JUNE 9, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Introduction of New Members: Aaron Amic and Kerby Nester 3. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 4. Update from City Council proceedings 5. Planning Department Report 6. Approval of Draft May 9 , 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 7. Toll MN L.P. – PID #01-118-23-24-0010 – PUD Concept Plan Review for Phase II of the Reserve of Medina 8. Public Hearing – Wallace and Bridget Marx – 2700-2900 Parkview Dr. – Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Plan for Conservation Design subdivision 9. Public Hearing – Brian Fragodt – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Code to the MR, Multi-Family Residential District to reduce the setback adjacent to open space or common area. 10. Council Meeting Schedule 11. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 June 6, 2017 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: June 1, 2017 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – June 6, 2017 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Johnson Accessory Dwelling Unit CUP – Robin Johnson has requested a CUP to allow an accessory dwelling unit in an accessory structure at 1325 Tamarack Drive. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the May 9 meeting and recommended approval. The request is scheduled to be presented at the June 6 meeting. B) Dykhoff Septic Variance – 3396 Elm Creek Drive – Michael Dykhoff has requested a variance to reduce the required 75 foot setback for a replacement septic system from wetlands. The only area on the property which could accommodate a mound system is approximately 50 feet from a wetland. Staff intends to present the request for a public hearing at the June 6 meeting. C) Lunski Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, Site Plan Review – Lunski, Inc. has applied for approvals for a development of 90 units of mixed senior housing, 24,767 s.f. of office, and 4,100 s.f. commercial north of Highway 55 and west of Mohawk Drive. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will schedule for public hearing when complete, potentially at the June 13 Planning Commission meeting, but likely at the July 11 Planning Commission meeting. D) MultiFamily Residential Setback Amendment – Brian Fragodt has requested that the City consider amending its zoning code to permit a reduced rear setback within the MR zoning district for property adjacent to commonly-owned open space. The property owner owns a twinhome at 3500 Pinto Drive, which backs up on a large Outlot owned by the HOA. Other districts in the City permit such a reduction and the owner seeks to expand their existing deck. The request is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the June 13 Planning Commission meeting. E) Reserve Phase II PUD Concept – Toll Brother has requested review of a concept plan for a potential Planned Unit Development for the future phases of the Reserve project. The applicant proposes to plat the same amount of lots, but to narrow many of the lots in order sell 4 acres of land to the City for a City park. The matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing at the June 13 Planning Commission meeting. F) School Lake Nature Preserve CD-PUD – Wally and Bridget Marx have requested review of a PUD General Plan of development and preliminary plat for a conservation design subdivision to include 6 lots and conservation of 70 acres (11.76 buildable). The matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing at the June 13 Planning Commission meeting. G) 4035 Apache Drive Animal Structure Setback variance – Joe Molde has requested a variance to reduce the required animal structure setback of 150 feet for a small chicken coop. It appears that no location on the subject site could meet the 150 foot setback. The Planning Commission reviewed at their April 18 meeting and recommended approval. The City Council adopted a resolution of approval at the May 16 meeting. The project will now be closed. H) Three Rivers Park/We Can Ride CUP – 4301 County Road 24 – Three Rivers Park District and We Can Ride have requested a conditional use permit amendment to allow We Can Ride, a nonprofit that provides programming to individuals with disabilities or special needs, to occupy the stable previously utilized by Three Rivers Park mounted patrol. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request at their March 20 meeting and Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 June 6, 2017 City Council Meeting recommended approval of the request. The Council adopted resolutions for approval on April 18. Staff will work with the applicant on meeting the conditions of approval. I) Woodridge Church, AutoMotorPlex, Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery – The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. J) Woods of Medina – This preliminary plat has been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat application K) Capital Knoll, Hamel Haven subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before the plats are recorded Other Projects A) Comprehensive Plan – The draft Comprehensive Plan has been routed to affected jurisdictions for their review. Staff intends to send a follow-up after a few months in attempt to receive comments sooner in the 6-month period. B) Conservation Design-PUD Regulations – The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the May 9 meeting and recommended approval of an amendment to the ordinance. Staff presented the ordinance to the City Council at the May 16 meeting and has made the changes requested for Council review at the June 6 meeting. C) Nursing Home/Memory Care/Assisted Living regulations; R-4 Zoning District Regulations – The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on regulations for the high density residential zoning districts at the May 9 meeting. The Commission also discussed regulations related to nursing homes, memory cares, and assisted living facilities. The Commission recommended approval of an amendment to the R-4 and R-5 district which is intended to be presented to the Council on June 6. D) Cable Franchise/Broadband discussion – staff met with a representative from Mediacom related to the use of the Broadband grant to finalize construction in Medina. Staff will present information on this discussion to the Council on June 6. Staff is waiting for the 2017 buildout map from Mediacom. E) Predatory Offender Ordinance – Planning staff made changes to the ordinance as discussed by the Council and updated the map. Staff also provided the City of Loretto with a map for their discussion as requested by the Public Safety Director. F) GIS and Planning Intern interviews – staff conducted interviews with potential intern candidates. Background check is underway and staff will make an offer afterwards. 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday May 9, 2017 4 5 1. Call to Order: Chairperson White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Chris Barry, Dino DesLauriers, Kim Murrin, 8 and Janet White. 9 10 Absent: Laurie Rengel. 11 12 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke. 13 14 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 15 16 No comments made. 17 18 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19 20 Anderson reported that the Council met the prior week to consider several items that the 21 Planning Commission had previously recommended action on. He stated that for the Molde 22 public hearing, the Council approved the variance request for a chicken coop. He stated that 23 the Council consider the Elim Care concept plan and noted that similar to the Palm project, 24 this was a terrific project, but the timing is not right because of the review of the draft 25 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Council deemed it an inappropriate time to consider 26 the application and hopefully bring the project back in one year when the draft 27 Comprehensive Plan has been adopted. He stated that the Council approved the three road 28 improvement projects as presented. 29 30 Murrin referenced the Elim Care concept plan and said that the applicant had stated that they 31 were going to ask for a pre-approval so they would be ready to build when the 32 Comprehensive Plan takes effect. She asked if the applicant brought that idea forward and 33 the thoughts of the Council. 34 35 Anderson stated that topic was discussed and he believed the consensus of the Council was to 36 not take any action that would require a vote recorded in public record in the event that it 37 could be scrutinized and come back to bite the City. He stated that the parcel could then be 38 considered unavailable for the draft Comprehensive Plan which would create more issues. 39 40 4. Planning Department Report 41 42 Finke provided an update. He noted that Commissioner Rengel has submitted her resignation 43 from the Planning Commission. 44 45 5. Approval of the April 11, 2017 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 46 47 Motion by Albers, seconded by Reid, to approve the April 11, 2017, Planning Commission 48 minutes with the noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Rengel) 49 50 6. Public Hearing – Robin Johnson – Conditional Use Permit Request for an 51 Accessory Dwelling Unit and Accessory Structures in Excess of 5,000 Square 52 Feet at 1325 Tamarack Drive 53 2 Finke presented a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), noting that it is actually two 54 requests. He stated that the first is having accessory structures in excess of 5,000 square feet 55 and the second for an accessory dwelling unit. He noted that the request is unique, as the 56 applicant is going to build a single-family home and the existing structures would then 57 become the accessory structures; therefore, the applicant is asking for the necessary approvals 58 before moving forward. He provided background information on the existing accessory 59 structures currently on the parcel, noting that the accessory dwelling structure would be used 60 while the applicants build a new single family home. He noted that currently the proposed 61 accessory dwelling structure is the main dwelling accessory structure on the property. He 62 reviewed the adjacent parcels uses and displayed an older aerial photograph. He noted that 63 the previous home has been demolished. He stated that there are specific standards used to 64 review the elements of a CUP and briefly reviewed those elements and how they apply to the 65 request. He stated that staff does recommend approval subject to the conditions noted in the 66 staff report. 67 68 Robin Johnson, 1325 Tamarack Drive, stated that she and her partner are happy to be in the 69 position to open the barn. She stated that they are planning to be a very small animal 70 sanctuary for abused and neglected animals. She noted that the accessory structure would be 71 used for their mothers to stay when they come visit and the other barn would be used for the 72 animals. 73 74 White opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. 75 76 No comments made. 77 78 White closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. 79 80 Reid stated that it is pretty clear that the applicant meets all the conditions for both CUP 81 requests. 82 83 Albers asked the number of animals that the applicants would be able to have on the property. 84 85 Finke replied that there is no request to exceed the general standards for animal units on the 86 property and therefore the manure condition is just applied for these types of uses. He stated 87 that the applicant would have approximately 15 grazable acres. 88 89 Ms. Johnson replied that there are seven stalls in the barn. 90 91 DesLauriers referenced condition three in the staff report which addresses the primary 92 residence. He asked what would happen if the applicant’s primary residence was in Florida 93 and they lived at this property in the summer. 94 95 Finke stated that is the requirement language for dwelling units. He noted that even if the 96 applicant spent six months and one day at this dwelling that would qualify as the primary 97 residence. 98 99 Motion by Murrin, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use 100 Permit for an accessory dwelling unit and accessory structures in excess of 5,000 square feet 101 at 1325 Tamarack Drive, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Motion carries 102 unanimously. (Absent: Rengel) 103 104 7. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Zoning Code Related 105 to Regulations for Conservation Design 106 3 Finke stated that this is a request by the City Council for the Commission to review the 107 Conservation Design PUD Ordinance in response to the requests the City has considered in 108 the past years. He provided background information on the ordinance. He stated that there 109 has been some concern raised by the Council related to the density allowed under this 110 ordinance. He stated that the Council would like a direct link to the density and the 111 conservation design elements and to make the language clearer that the objectives must be 112 well met in order to justify the density and flexibility. He stated that staff amended the 113 language in that manner in the proposed ordinance. He stated that the density bonus may 114 have caused pause because of the sheer scale of the request that was approved and that may 115 be a unique request in that there were 22 base lots to begin with. He noted that there are very 116 few properties that would have that level of base density to begin with in the rural residential 117 zoning district. 118 119 Reid referenced page four of the draft ordinance which includes reference of an open space 120 composite map but believed that should be moved. 121 122 Albers stated that the one project that was approved was unique because of the scale. He 123 asked how many other parcels of land would have that same opportunity. 124 125 Finke stated that he did not have the exact number, but noted that a 40-acre minimum would 126 be required; however, the door would be open for a 20-acre parcel. He stated that in the rural 127 residential zoning district there are about 200 parcels that have 20 acres, but noted that the 128 number becomes smaller at 40 acres. 129 130 White noted that you would also need to consider how many of those parcels would have 131 elements that would qualify for conservation. 132 133 Albers stated that he is curious to see how many other 40-acre lots could be split and would 134 qualify in terms of natural resources that would be worth protecting. He acknowledged that 135 may be a lot of additional work for staff. 136 137 Finke replied that it would be relatively easy to do because you could overlay the natural 138 resources map over the City and identify 40-acre lots. He stated that you would be hard 139 pressed to find any lot of that size that does not have some resource, as technically maybe all 140 of the 40-acre lots would qualify but some might have higher quality resources. 141 142 Reid reminded the Commission that the Stonegate development was reached through 143 litigation and therefore is not the normal request. 144 145 Murrin asked if this would be more flexible. 146 147 Albers stated that this draft would be more restrictive than the current language. 148 149 Reid stated that this language correlates the resources preserved and conservation efforts to 150 the density bonus available. 151 152 Murrin stated that she believes this language is better because it does require higher quality 153 resources to preserve, rather than just allowing a prairie to be the main element. 154 155 Finke stated that this ordinance is an incentive to the property owner to choose this option 156 over regular development, as this would conserve 30 percent of the buildable land. He noted 157 that incentives need to be built into the ordinance, but the discretion should be left to the City. 158 He stated that there are about 40 properties in the rural residential district that are above 40 159 4 acres and about 200 20 acre properties. He noted that the minimum requirement is 40 acres 160 but there is an exception for 20 acres if there is something exceptional for protection. 161 162 White opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. 163 164 No comments made. 165 166 White closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. 167 168 DesLauriers stated that “at the discretion of the City” is mentioned multiple times throughout 169 the ordinance and therefore felt that it was clear. He referenced another time period that 170 refers to four years and asked for more information on that time period. 171 172 Finke replied that four or five years is a pretty typical timeframe for restoration efforts and 173 ensures that the activity begins with development. He provided additional information on the 174 escrow that is required and noted that it would be hard for a developer to fund that in 175 perpetuity and therefore the timeframe was identified. 176 177 Albers referenced the language regarding street trees and suggested striking a portion of the 178 sentence which states “but are not required.” 179 180 Motion by Reid, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the Ordinance related to 181 Conservation design with the direction to staff to move the open space composite map to 182 another section of the ordinance. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Rengel) 183 184 8. Public Hearing – Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Zoning Code Related 185 to the R-4, Limited High-Density Residential Zoning District 186 187 Finke stated that this is one of many zoning requests that the Commission will review in the 188 next year. He stated that following the adoption of the draft Comprehensive Plan the City 189 controls need to be brought into compliance with the plan. He stated that this ordinance was 190 seen as an opportunity to begin with because of the requests the City has seen in the past few 191 months in this specific zoning district. He stated that the thought is to have this language 192 updated and in place prior to the plan becoming effective. He reviewed the density range 193 included in the draft Comprehensive Plan and noted that amendment is needed, as the current 194 zoning districts do not allow for that density. He stated that staff is recommending that the R-195 5 district be deleted. He noted that the current Comprehensive Plan has a higher range of 196 densities and the draft Comprehensive Plan has a smaller range for density; therefore, the 197 highest range can be eliminated. He noted that there are only three properties in the City, all 198 adjacent to each other, that are within the zoning district and therefore only one category is 199 needed for high density housing. He stated that elements have been added which are meant 200 to address the actual or perceived problems with overcrowding of residential units. He 201 provided examples of extra screening or additional amenities. He noted that another element 202 would be to consider the conditional use of nursing homes or assisted living facilities and 203 whether that should continue to be allowed. He stated that the concept plans that have come 204 forward have identified the high-density parcels near Maple Plain for nursing home/assisted 205 living facilities. He noted that there has been discussion on whether that property would be 206 better suited for multi-family residential. He stated that the City currently allows nursing 207 home and assisted living in the business zoning district. He stated that dwellings have not 208 been projected for the business district, but noted that nursing home/assisted 209 living/independent living facilities could be built in that zoning district. He stated that the 210 mixed-use zoning district would be another option, as that zoning district is new and does not 211 have stipulations at this point. He noted that property would be similar to medium to high 212 5 density zoning and therefore perhaps a portion of that property would be eligible for nursing 213 home/assisted living facilities. He stated that in the mixed-use zoning district the market 214 would dictate that the majority of the site would be developed with single family homes and 215 perhaps one third of the property would be developed in a higher density product. 216 217 Murrin asked if there is a potential for more homes to be developed by combining the R-4 218 and R-5 zoning districts. 219 220 Finke explained that they are not adding anything and are actually deleting the higher range 221 of density allowed in the R-5 zoning district. He noted that the entire smaller range would be 222 contained in the R-4 district. 223 224 Murrin asked if the ordinance changes would have an impact on affordable housing. 225 226 Finke explained that this zoning does not have an impact on affordable housing. He stated 227 that in reality affordable housing could be constructed in any residential zoning district, but 228 the market dictates that it would be a higher density product. 229 230 Barry asked and received confirmation that the parking would be addressed in another area. 231 He used the example of nursing home/assisted living and how they would use less parking 232 than typical high density housing. 233 234 Finke stated that the parking elements are addressed in another ordinance and confirmed that 235 nursing homes/assisted living facilities do have less parking requirements. 236 237 White opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. 238 239 Larry Palm, 1432 County Road 29, referenced memory care and the limit of 15 units per acre 240 and asked for additional discussion on that element. He stated that he has a large concern 241 with the architectural requirements set forth in the ordinance on page 12, subsection 3.d. He 242 stated that his concern is that the hard surfaces that are laid out in the ordinance lend 243 themselves to an institutional feel and the trend is to have the facility feel more like a home. 244 He stated that people like the residential feel and want to feel like that is their home and the 245 language needs to be able to have that flexibility. He stated that the language is dated for the 246 intended use and encouraged the Commission to review that language. He stated that there 247 are very durable materials that have a good aesthetic and long lifespan and are not brick or 248 stone. 249 250 Finke stated that staff has built in a reduction of the required land for nursing home and 251 memory care facilities of effectively 50 percent, which would raise the allowed density to 30 252 per acre. 253 254 White closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. 255 256 Reid asked if traditional wooden siding is prohibited for the zoning district. 257 258 Finke stated that this is the original language regarding materials and the language is intended 259 to be commercial scale building materials. 260 261 Murrin asked why they wanted to have commercial building products rather than residential. 262 263 Finke stated that these were seen as more commercial uses rather than residential. He noted 264 that apartment buildings have their own requirements, but noted that those are less 265 6 commercial. He stated that there is still a requirement that 50 percent of the materials are not 266 combustible. He noted that something similar could be allowed for nursing home/assisted 267 living facilities. He stated that they have been making similar changes to some commercial 268 development to make it feel more residential. He stated that generally the thought is less 269 aesthetic than it is longevity and durability of products. 270 271 Murrin stated that would fall to the owner of the property that they would need to maintain 272 the property sooner rather than later. She acknowledged that the other option would be that 273 the property could become blighted. 274 275 Finke explained that regulating enforcement is very difficult and therefore this language was 276 seen as a method to prevent blights. He stated that it would put some constraints on design 277 and noted that the ordinance has not kept up on the changes in material. 278 279 DesLauriers stated that perhaps there is a compromise between the commercial and 280 residential, noting the long lifespan of fiber cement lap siding. 281 282 Albers asked the threshold that would make something would seem more residential. 283 284 Murrin asked if the City could approve variations in materials if desired. 285 286 Finke stated that there would not be a variance and therefore a PUD would be the only option 287 for that allowance, but noted that there is an additional cost and process that would have a 288 risk to the developer. He stated that it is more likely that a developer will find a way within 289 development standards rather than pursue a PUD. He stated that glass could also play a 290 factor in the standards. 291 292 Albers asked if moving the percentage for those other materials to 40 percent rather than 20 293 percent would help create a residential feel. 294 295 Finke stated that raising the class two materials percentage would probably still constrain the 296 design as using that material as your primary material. He did not feel that the residential feel 297 would change by simply increasing the percentage. He stated that if the Commission likes 298 that material they should simply allow the material. 299 300 Barry stated that perhaps the fiber cement lap siding should be allowed for nursing 301 home/assisted living facilities. He stated that would help to create the residential feel that 302 people want. 303 304 Albers stated that he would be interested in increasing the percentage to 60 percent for class 305 two materials. 306 307 Mr. Palm stated that apartment buildings allow the materials at 50 percent, while nursing 308 homes/assisted living is only allowed at 20 percent. He stated that people live in both types 309 of housing and should at least be equal. 310 311 Finke noted that vinyl siding is allowed as a material for apartment buildings. 312 313 Murrin asked if vinyl siding should be eliminated for apartment buildings. 314 315 Finke stated that would drive up the cost of building an apartment building. 316 317 7 Murrin stated that perhaps that is the right path, as it states the City only wants to see 318 development of a higher standard. 319 320 Finke noted that there are standards within the ordinance that relate the building materials to 321 the allowable materials in order to provide incentive. 322 323 White confirmed the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to amend the language 324 regarding allowable materials for nursing home/assisted living facilities. 325 326 He stated that in reviewing the concept plans the City has recently considered, the Palm 327 concept plan would meet the density outlined in the proposed ordinance. He noted that Elim 328 Care would not meet the density standards and some sections of their proposal would exceed 329 the allowable density. 330 331 Motion by Barry, seconded by DesLauriers, to recommend approval of the Ordinance 332 related to the R-3, R-4, and R-5 Zoning Districts. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 333 Rengel) 334 335 9. Council Meeting Schedule 336 337 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting the following Tuesday and Reid volunteered 338 to attend in representation of the Commission. 339 340 Albers volunteered to attend the June meeting. 341 342 10. Adjourn 343 344 Motion by Albers, seconded by Murrin, to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. Motion 345 carried unanimously. 346 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. __________________________________________________________________ 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina City Council FROM: Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner DATE: April 9, 2014 RE: Reserve at Medina Phase II PUD Concept Plan File No: LR-17-202 Application Date: May 10, 2017 BACKGROUND / GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Toll Brothers has made an application for a PUD Concept Plan related to an adjustment to the Reserve at Medina Preliminary Plat. The concept would allow for a revision to the plan to allow for a park while keeping the same number of total lots within the second phase. SUBJECT SITE / COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / ZONING The subject site is Outlot C of the Reserve at Medina. This was intended to be the second addition of the Reserve subdivision. It is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. It is guided for a Low Density Residential land use. This site was originally preliminary platted for 75 R-1 lots. The proposed revision would require the development to be zoned as a PUD, as the lots would require some flexibility from the R-1 standards. CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW General Concept The general concept is to have the lots adjusted slightly to keep the same number of single family lots (75) while creating a park in the north central portion of the development. Also, the applicant is broadening the house types that will be allowed within the subdivision. In the original plan, the north central area had six single family lots and a temporary cul-de-sac which are being removed. Replacing these six lots is the proposed park. The six lots are incorporated into the remainder of the development by adjusting the lot sizes. The currently approved subdivision plan has all lots zoned R-1 and meeting the minimum standards of the R-1 District. The R-1 District requires lots to be 90 feet wide and 100 feet deep with a minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet. Side yard setbacks are required to be 25 feet combined, with neither side less than 10 feet. The required front yard setback is 25 feet. Street facing garage doors are required to be at 30 feet and side loaded garages being at 20 feet. The lots proposed in the original development plan are all about 97 feet wide with the ability to accommodate side loaded garages. 2 The proposed revisions include three types of lots. One lot type (Group A) is a minimum size of 85’ x 120’ (10,200 square feet), the second (Group B) is a minimum of 90’ x 140’, and the third (Group C) the lot is the same as in the original plan. The lots are depicted with different colors on the applicant’s plan. The smallest lots are primarily in the interior of the plan while the largest lots are on the eastern boundary of the site. Performance Standards The applicant is requesting flexibility from certain standards of the R-1 District. 28 of the 75 proposed lots would be a minimum of 85 feet wide, rather than the required 90 foot width. The applicant is then also proposing to have a front yard setback for a street facing garage of 25 feet rather than the required 30 feet for all lots. The applicant is also proposing to have 10 foot setbacks for all lots on either side of the house rather than the 25 foot combined setback. The lots within Group C would still have the ability to use the original development plans with side loaded garages with a 20 foot front yard setback. However, if these lots were to have street facing garages, the applicant is requesting the reduced 25 foot front yard setback. Roads & Access The roads and access to the site are generally unchanged from the previously approved plan. A cul-de-sac is proposed by the new park area. This City’s subdivision ordinance does not allow for cul-de-sacs to be greater than 750 feet in length. The proposed cul-de-sac appears to be under 600 feet in length. An access into the park from Hackamore Road will need to be planned for. Also, the applicant will need to provide a plan for the turn lanes from Hackamore Road with the second phase of this development. Utilities Utilities are proposed in the same general manner as the original plan. Utilities will need to be extended into the park property. Proposed Park & Open Space As part of this PUD plan, the City would be acquiring a new park of about 4 acres in size on the north side of the development on Hackamore Road. Originally no park was acquired for the subdivision. The nearest park is within the Fields of Medina subdivision. However, the area of the Reserve subdivision is separated from this park by County Road 116. This will allow for a safer, more accessible park for areas east of County Road 116. There is an open space area in the southeast corner of the subdivision that has been dedicated to the City. It is identified as Outlot C on the plans. This phase of the development is required to provide access to this parcel. Access should be through a 40 foot wide easement or 20 foot wide outlot dedicated to the City. This may result in a necessary adjustment to Lots 12 and 13. Staff recommends a condition that the developer grade the park area in connection with the conveyance to the City. Water Resources / Grading There are several wetlands on the site. The buffers and plantings will need to be provided as required by Section 828.43 of the Zoning Ordinance. Permits for all impacts will need to be provided. A revised grading plan based on this development plan will need to be provided. Tree Preservation There are no anticipated changes from tree removal proposed during the original development. The developer should confirm this upon preliminary plat. 3 Park Dedication City Council members and Planning Commissioners have expressed a desire for consideration of a park in this general vicinity, and have actually included a park is in the City’s draft Comprehensive Plan park and trail plan. There may also be opportunities for trails connections on the eastern side of the property. Building Plans The applicant has provided revised building plans for the houses that are intended to be included in the PUD. This includes the greater number of street facing garage models. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW In Section 827.25, the City states the purpose of a planned unit development. It states that the PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage: 1) Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. 2) Higher standards of site and building design. 3) The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 4) Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of the City. 5) Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses. 6) A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and service facilities. 7) An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower development costs and public investments. 8) A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. PUDs are not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles. 9) A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City. The purpose of the concept plan review for a PUD is for the applicant to explain the general intent of the plan, for the Planning Commission and City Council to provide advisory comments to the applicant, and for the public to give input. No comments from the Planning Commission or Council imply any future approvals or commitments from the City. If the City Council does not feel the proposed plan meets the purpose of a PUD or the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, comments on how to improve the plan should be provided. STAFF REVIEW The proposed PUD would allow for the applicant to provide a park while not reducing the number of lots within the subdivision. The PUD flexibility being sought is to reduce the front and side yard setbacks. It could be argued that narrowing the lots in order to result in the same number of lots provides for the maintenance of open space in a portion of the site for the purposes of the park (PUD objective #5) and providing a park consistent with the objectives of the Park and Trail plan within the draft Comprehensive Plan update (PUD objective 8). 4 The City reviewed similar flexibility requests in the single family home portion of the nearby Villas of Medina Country Club PUD. In Block 3 of that development, the City allowed similar flexibility to the side yard setbacks using 10 feet to each side rather than the 25 total. In Block 2, the City allowed street facing garages at 25 feet. These flexibilities were permitted to allow for a slightly more compact lot design on the edge of the golf course. The City has a good deal of discretion when reviewed a PUD request. A PUD should meet the objectives noted above in order to be approved. In this case, if the City does not determine that the PUD is appropriate, the original preliminary plat would still be valid. The developer may not be willing to work with the City to convey the property for the park if they were not able to rearrange the lots to arrive at a similar overall number. In this case, the goal is to largely allow for the same amount of density but also accommodating new parkland. If the Commission were to find that this meets the purpose of the City’s PUD Ordinance, this general layout could be deemed appropriate with the following comments: 1. The developer shall be responsible for site grading within the proposed park. 2. The developer shall provide utility stubs for the park. 3. A plan for turn lanes from Hackamore will be required. 4. The access to Outlot C shall either be a 40 foot wide easement or a 20 foot wide outlot. 5. The applicant shall depict the footprint of the proposed building plans on the proposed lots. 6. The developer shall confirm that the original tree preservation plan will be met. 7. Revised grading and utility plans are required upon preliminary plat submission. 8. All comments from the City Engineer shall be addressed. 9. All comments from the City Attorney shall be addressed. Attached Exhibits: A – Aerial Photo B – City Engineer’s Comments C – Applicant’s Narrative D – Concept Plan E – House Plans F – Original Preliminary Plat He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Re se rve at Med ina - P ha se II Da te : 6/9 /2 01 7 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 8 00 fee t PAR CEL ID: 01118 23 240 01 0 OWN ER N AME: Toll Mn L P PAR CEL AD DRESS: 8 0 A ddr es s Pe ndin g, Medin a MN 0 00 00 PAR CEL AR EA: 34 .91 ac r es , 1,5 20,8 71 sq ft A-T-B: To rr ens SAL E PR ICE: SAL E D ATA: SAL E C OD E: ASSESSED 20 16 , PAYABLE 201 7 PROPERT Y TYPE: Vac an t L and -R es ide ntial H OM ESTEAD : N on -H ome stea d M AR KET VAL UE: $3,1 65,00 0 TAX TO TAL: $4 6,100 .92 ASSESSED 20 17 , PAYABLE 201 8 PRO PER TY TYPE: Va ca nt L an d-reside ntial HO MESTEAD: No n-h ome ste ad MARKET VALU E: $3 ,2 00 ,0 00 This data (i) is fur nish ed 'A S IS' wit h no represent at ion as t o com ple ten ess or acc urac y ; (ii) is furnis hed w it h n o war rant y of an y k ind; an d (ii i) is not sui tab le for lega l, engi neering or surv ey ing purposes . Hen nepin County s hall not be l iable fo r a ny damage, in jury or los s re sul ting f rom this dat a. COP YRIG HT © H EN N EPIN COU N TY 20 1 7    701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800    Building a legacy – your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com  May 30, 2017 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: The Reserve of Medina Phase II Concept – Engineering Review City Project No. LR-17-202 WSB Project No. 010120-000 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed The Excelsior Group Concept plan submittal dated May 10, 2017. The plans propose to construct 75 single family parcels. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Site Plan & Civil 1. The City will require that the developer provide a grading plan and perform grading throughout the future City park area. 2. Provide a storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and watermain stub north of Elysium Trail into the City’s future park property (a minimum of 20 feet). 3. Provide grading and utility plans with future submittals. Improvements must not impact adjacent properties. If grading occurs on adjacent properties, easements must be obtained from the owner. 4. Impacts to the wetland north of Elysium Trail have already occurred. Provide documentation that the proper mitigation proceedings have been completed. If the impacts were not mitigated, the applicant must do so. 5. A permanent access to the future City Park from Hackamore Road will be required. 6. Confirm the length of the cul-de-sac does not extend past the City’s maximum allowable. 7. The watermain improvements will require approval from the MDH, provide completed and approved permit documents. 8. The sanitary sewer improvements will require a permit from the MPCA, provide completed and approved permit documents. Traffic 9. Provide a plan for the turn lane improvements on Hackamore Road. The Reserve of Medina Phase II Concept – Engineering Review May 30, 2017 Page 2 Stormwater 10. Provide a stormwater management report, modelling, and calculations specific to Phase II 11. The development will need to meet the appropriate watershed standards. Provide completed and approved permit documents. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer `Toll `Brothers America's Luxury Home Builder® May 3, 2017 City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 RE: Reserve of Medina, Phase 2 - Rezoning Dear Mr. Finke, Toll Brothers Inc. (Toll) is proposing to rezone approximately 52 -acres of the remaining property at the Reserve of Medina, consisting Outlots B, C, & D. The purpose of the rezoning is to provide additional flexibility and product offerings within this project without increasing the number of homes (75 lots). As market conditions continue to change and more and more developments open in the area, it is evident that Toll Brothers must also adapt to the market demands. While our national market niche has always been the larger style homes with multiple formal spaces and grand two story volume space, the local market prefers more functional and family friendly floor plans. It is our intent to cater to both markets with a harmonious blend of products. We will continue to offer our traditional product from Phase I on the remaining 97' lots, a blend of old and new product on the 90' lots (fits 13 of our homes plans) and setting aside the 85' lots for the new product (fits 7 of our home plans). Lot mix can be seen on the attached concept plan and new product elevations and floor plans are also included. In addition to the lot width change being requested, we are also requesting approval for a change in front and side yard setbacks. A 25' front setback for a front entry garage will provide for a larger rear yard for our families as well as additional depth for our sunroom and rear expansion options which have been extremely popular. It has proven difficult to maintain an odd number side yard setback at 25' given the size of our homes. A home built on one lot maximizing the space leaving 10' setback on both sides affects the size of home that can be built on the neighboring lot and ultimately restricting customers on what and where they can purchase. In addition, the requested change to 20' side yard setbacks is critical to the product offering fitting on the various lot widths as described above. The table below provides a summary of the proposed changes to the Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Existing RI Proposed PUD Difference Minimum Lot Width 90 feet 85 feet 5 feet Front Setback (Front Entry Garage) 30 feet 25 feet 5 feet Side Setback 25' Combined 20' Combined 5 feet New York Stock Exchange • Symbol TOL MINNESOTA DIVISION 14260 23rd Ave N • Plymouth, MN 55447 • (651) 365-0601 • Fax (651) 365-0605 tollbrothers.com 0�`7 (Brut hers `Br�hers America's Luxuly Home Builder° In consideration for the flexibility and proposed changes to the R1 zoning, Toll is offering to dedicate approximately 4 -acres of park land as depicted on the Concept Plan as Outlot A. Please contact me at (651)-587-8409 or, ihenson@tollbrothers.com should you have any questions. Sincerely, Jon�-lenson Minnesota Division Assistant Vice President New York Stock Exchange • Symbol TOL MINNESOTA DIVISION 14260 23rd Ave N • Plymouth, MN 55447 • (651) 365-0601 • Fax (651) 365-0605 tollbrothers.com 1.0' 14.0'14.0'9.0'13.0' 27.0'23.0' 5' CONCRETE SIDEWALK 1/4" PER FT.2.0% D428 SURMOUNTABLE CONC. CURB & GUTTER SUBGRADE PREPARATION PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SUBGRADE STABILIZATION FABRIC 8 OZ./SY NON-WOVEN 18" SELECT GRANULAR (MNDOT 3733.2) 8" -100% CRUSHED LIMEROCK AGGREGATE BASE OR RECYCLED AGGREGATE (MNDOT 3138) 2" MNDOT SPNEW230B 1-1/2" MNDOT SPWE240B FINISHED GRADEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED 20' TRAIL EASEMENTLILIUM TRAILLILIUM TRAILLILIU M T R AI L AST E R R O A D ZINNIA TRAILELYSIU M T R AI L HACKAMORE ROAD DAISY CIRCLEASTER ROAD HEATHER DRIVELILIUM TRAIL MEDINA LAKE ROAD COUNTY ROAD NO. 116DAISY C IRCLE BERGAMOT DRIVECALAMUS CIRCLESHAWNEE WOODS ROAD OU T L O T X EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) EXISTING ZONING: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) EXISTING ZONING: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) EXISTING ZONING: RURAL RESIDENTIAL-URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR)WILD MEADOWS EXISTING ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD #1) EXISTING ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT EXISTING ZONING: PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC (PS) EXISTING ZONING: PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC (PS) CITY OF MEDINA CITY OF CORCORAN EXISTING ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT EXISTING ZONING: URBAN RESERVE (UR) EXISTING ZONING: URBAN RESERVE (UR) EXISTING ZONING: URBAN RESERVE (UR) EXISTING ZONING: URBAN RESERVE (UR) EXISTING ZONING: URBAN RESERVE (UR) EXISTING ZONING: URBAN RESERVE (UR) 4.1 ACRES PARK OUTLOT A OUTLOT B 13.8 ACRES OUTLOT C 3.5 ACRES RESERVE OF MEDINA PHASE 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5051 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 313233 EX. POND NWL=986.0 HWL=988.8 CABLE CONCRETE SPILLWAY TOP OF BERM ELEV.=990.0 RIP RAP OVERFLOW ELEV.=988.8 EXISTING LIFT STATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5051 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 313233 EX. POND NWL=986.0 HWL=988.8 WETLAND IMPACT # 1 2,612 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 2 1,062 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 3 1,810 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 4 3,971 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 5 1,942 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 6 4,030 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 7 1,762 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 8 1,705 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 9 937 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 10 984 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 11 877 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 12 4,965 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 13 2,903 SF WETLAND IMPACT 14 (INCIDENTAL) 22,800 SF MANAGE 1 30' AVG. WETLAND BUFFER 20' MIN. WETLAND BUFFER (TYP) 15' BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) PRESERVE (NON DNR MAPPED AREA) 35' AVG. WETLAND BUFFER 25' MIN WETLAND BUFFER (TYP) 15' BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 15' BUFFER SETBACK (TYP)MANAGE 2 25' AVG. WETLAND BUFFER 20' MIN WETLAND BUFFER (TYP) WETLAND 7 HWL=1017.9 WETLAND 8 HWL=1018.5 WETLAND 5 HWL=1019.1 FILTRATION TRENCH (SEE DETAIL) 20' MAINTENANCE ACCESS WETLAND IMPACT # 1 2,612 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 2 1,062 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 3 1,810 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 4 3,971 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 5 1,942 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 6 4,030 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 7 1,762 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 8 1,705 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 9 937 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 10 984 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 11 877 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 12 4,965 SF WETLAND IMPACT # 13 2,903 SF WETLAND IMPACT 14 (INCIDENTAL) 22,800 SF MANAGE 1 30' AVG. WETLAND BUFFER 20' MIN. WETLAND BUFFER (TYP) 15' BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) PRESERVE (NON DNR MAPPED AREA) 35' AVG. WETLAND BUFFER 25' MIN WETLAND BUFFER (TYP) 15' BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) 15' BUFFER SETBACK (TYP)MANAGE 2 25' AVG. WETLAND BUFFER 20' MIN WETLAND BUFFER (TYP) WETLAND 7 HWL=1017.9 WETLAND 8 HWL=1018.5 WETLAND 5 HWL=1019.1 FILTRATION TRENCH (SEE DETAIL) 20' MAINTENANCE ACCESS CABLE CONCRETE SPILLWAY TOP OF BERM ELEV.=990.0 RIP RAP OVERFLOW ELEV.=988.8 CABLE CONCRETE SPILLWAY TOP OF BERM ELEV.=990.0 RIP RAP OVERFLOW ELEV.=988.8 CONCEPT PLANCP-1 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.BYREVISIONSNo.DATESHEET NUMBER Plotted By:Smith, TylerDate:May 04, 201707:57:34amFile Path:S:\DAL_Civil\068625009-Reserve @ Medina\Cad\Preliminary\Concept Exhibit_170503.dwgCITY OFCOUNTY, MINNESOTADATEAS SHOWNCHECKED BYSCALEDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYKHA PROJECT12750 MERIT DRIVE, SUITE 1000, DALLAS, TX 75251PHONE: 972-770-1300FAX: 972-239-3820WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMTX F-928©KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.20' FRONT SETBACK MIN. 85'MIN. 120'MIN. 90'MIN. 97'MIN. 140'MIN. 140'25' FRONT SETBACK25' FRONT SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK LOT TYPE A LOT TYPE B LOT TYPE C 10' SIDE SETBACK /20' COMBINED10' SIDE SETBACK /20' COMBINED10' SIDE SETBACK /20' COMBINEDTYPICAL LOT DIMENSIONS NTS LOT COUNT TYPICAL STREET SECTION NTS MRDMRDTCPNORTH 0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 75 150 300 LAND USE DATA EXISTING ZONING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R1) TOTAL PROJECT AREA 52.0 AC 100% RESIDENTIAL USE AREA 25.3 AC 49% TOTAL OPEN SPACE AREA 21.4 AC 41% OUTLOT A 4.1 AC OUTLOT B 13.8 AC OUTLOT C 3.5 AC APPROXIMATE STREET AREA 5.3 AC 10% PARKING/LOADING AREA 0 AC 0% OWNER/APPLICANT:14260 23rd AVENUE N. PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 CONTACT: JON HENSON PHONE: (651) 365-0601 EMAIL: JHENSON@TOLLBROTHERSINC.COM ENGINEER:12750 MERIT DRIVE, SUITE 1000 DALLAS, TX 75251 CONTACT: MATTHEW R. DUENWALD, P.E. PHONE: (972) 770-3034 EMAIL: MATT.DUENWALD@KIMLEY-HORN.COM PROPOSED: A (85'X120') -28 LOTS B (90'X140') -24 LOTS C (97'X140') -23 LOTS 75 LOTS EXISTING: C (97'X140') -75 LOTS BENCHMARKS BM NO. 1 MNDT CADY, GSID #11222 ELEV.=1008.695 NGVD 29 BM NO. 2 MNDT 2722AA, GSID #10283 ELEV.=1008.748 NGVD 29 RESERVE OFMEDINA - PHASE 2MEDINAHENNEPIN068625009MAY 2017MRDMRD2017 THE ADLEYTHE ADLEY | Home Designs(NE-RAMD/141669) 112216 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (ADLEY)Country ManorReserve at Medina 651-330-7070 | ReserveAtMedina.comManorBerkshireadly3VF-ramd3379-insert-141669.indd 111/22/2016 9:59:30 AMTHE ADLEY | Floor Plan4 Bedrooms | 3 ½ Baths | 3-Car GaragePhotographs, renderings, and floor plans are for representational purposes only and may not reflect the exact features or dimensions of your home. All dimen-sions are subject to field variations. Some design features and options shown may not be offered in your community. All options to be included in your home must be specified in an Exhibit B to the Agreement of Sale. All Toll Brothers floor plans and designs are copyrighted. All rights reserved and strictly enforced. This is not an offering where prohibited by law. Please consult our sales representative for details. (NE-RAMD/141669) 112216 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (ADLEY)First FloorSecond FloorTHE ADLEY HIGHLIGHTS • The foyer opens to the elegant turned stairs and has an open view ofthe great room beyond.• The gourmet kitchen features a large center island, a walk-in pantry andopens to the spacious great room with a fireplace.• The spacious master bedroom is highlighted by a large walk-in closetand a master bath with a Roman tub, dual-sink vanity, a separateshower with a seat, and a private toilet area.• The second floor of this home includes three additional bedrooms, twobaths, and a loft.• Additional highlights include a mud room with a walk-in closet, a powderroom, a flex space and a convenient second floor laundry.• Nine-foot ceilings throughout the first and second floors.MUDROOMOPT.DROPZONEWALK-INPANTRYOPT.BUILT-INSOPT.BUILT-INSGOURMETKITCHEN16'6"X9'8"FLEXSPACE12'X11'1"FOYERTHREE-CARGARAGE20'X20'24'4"X10'9"POWDERROOMWALK-INCLOSETCLOSETGREAT ROOM26'X16'6"DNUPDNMICRO/WALLOVENREF.ENCL.DWBERKSHIRE ANDCOUNTRY MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNSINCLUDE A LARGERFLEX SPACE.BERKSHIRE AND MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNS INCLUDEA LARGER FOYER.YFOCROALLOVWLINENMASTERBATHTSHOWERSEATWALK-INCLOSETW/DSPACELINENWALK-INCLOSETWALK-INCLOSETBATHBATHLAUNDRYMASTERBEDROOM15'8"X15'OPTIONALTRAY CEILINGBEDROOM #313'X11'LOFT12'X10'BEDROOM #412'X11'6"BEDROOM #212'8"X12'7"WALK-INCLOSET8'9"X6'6"DNOPT.CABS.BERKSHIRE ANDCOUNTRY MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNSINCLUDE A LARGERBEDROOM #2.BERKSHIRE AND MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNS INCLUDEA LARGER WALK-IN CLOSETO2#2ATSPLAUNDRTYTadly3VF-ramd3379-insert-141669.indd 211/22/2016 9:59:30 AM THE HARRIETTHE HARRIET | Home Designs(NE-RAMD/141670) 112116 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (HARRIET)Country ManorReserve at Medina651-330-7070 | ReserveAtMedina.comManorBerkshirehrrt3VE-ramd3379-insert-141670.indd 111/22/2016 8:08:35 AMTHE HARRIET | Floor Plan4–6 Bedrooms | 3 ½–4 ½ Baths | 3-Car GaragePhotographs, renderings, and floor plans are for representational purposes only and may not reflect the exact features or dimensions of your home. All dimen-sions are subject to field variations. Some design features and options shown may not be offered in your community. All options to be included in your home must be specified in an Exhibit B to the Agreement of Sale. All Toll Brothers floor plans and designs are copyrighted. All rights reserved and strictly enforced. This is not an offering where prohibited by law. Please consult our sales representative for details. (NE-RAMD/141676) 112116 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (WINSTED)First FloorSecond FloorTHE HARRIET HIGHLIGHTS • The spacious foyer opens to the versatile flex space and offers views of the familyroom beyond.• The well-designed gourmet kitchen features a large center island with a breakfast bar,a walk-in pantry, an adjoining breakfast area and an open view of the family room witha fireplace.• The spacious master bedroom features a sitting area, a large walk-in closet, and aprivate bath that includes dual-sink vanities, a Roman tub, a shower with a seat, and aprivate toilet area.• The second floor also features a spacious loft, two secondary bedrooms that share aJack-n-Jill bath, and an additional bedroom with a private bath.• Additional features of this home include a sunroom, mud room with storage, and aconvenient second floor laundry.• Nine-foot ceilings throughout the first and second floors.BEDROOM 413'X11'BEDROOM 313'X11'1"BEDROOM 212'2"X11'MASTER BEDROOM17'3"X14'OPTIONALTRAY CEILINGLAUNDRYSEATLOFT13'6"X10'9"OPTDOORTBATHBATHWALK-INCLOSET13'6"X10'1"MASTERBATHSHOWERW/DSPACEWALK-INCLOSETCLOSETWALK-INCLOSETDNWALK-INCLOSETWALK-INCLOSETOPT.CABS.OPT.CABS.BERKSHIRE ANDCOUNTRY MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNSINCLUDE A LARGERBEDROOM #4.COUNTRY MANOR ANDMANOR EXTERIOR DESIGNSINCLUDE A LARGER LOFT.BERKSHIRE ANDMANOR EXTERIORDESIGNS INCLUDEA LARGERWALK-IN CLOSETT.SASWOTRREF.ENCL.FLEX SPACE15'X11'MICRO/WALLOVENOPTDROPZONEOPTBUILT-INOPTBUILT-INFAMILY ROOM23'X16'GOURMETKITCHEN16'6"X12'SUNROOM16'X12'BREAKFASTAREA12'X9'7"MUDROOMWALK-INPANTRYTHREE-CARGARAGE34'8"X22'OPTBUILT-INFOYERPOWDERROOMWALK-INCLOSETCLOSETDWDNUPBERKSHIRE ANDCOUNTRY MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNSINCLUDE A LARGERFLEX SPACE.BERKSHIRE ANDMANOR EXTERIORDESIGNS INCLUDEA LARGER FOYER.WRC6"XRO/TGOIT6hrrt3VE-ramd3379-insert-141670.indd 211/22/2016 8:08:36 AM THE ITASCATHE ITASCA | Home Designs(NE-RAMD/141673) 112216 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (ITASCA)Country ManorReserve at Medina651-330-7070 | ReserveAtMedina.comManorBerkshireitas3VC-ramd3379-insert-141673.indd 111/22/2016 9:59:02 AMTHE ITASCA | Floor Plan4–5 Bedrooms | 2 ½–4 ½ Baths | 3-Car GaragePhotographs, renderings, and floor plans are for representational purposes only and may not reflect the exact features or dimensions of your home. All dimen-sions are subject to field variations. Some design features and options shown may not be offered in your community. All options to be included in your home must be specified in an Exhibit B to the Agreement of Sale. All Toll Brothers floor plans and designs are copyrighted. All rights reserved and strictly enforced. This is not an offering where prohibited by law. Please consult our sales representative for details. (NE-RAMD/141673) 112216 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (ITASCA)First FloorTHE ITASCA HIGHLIGHTS • The welcoming foyer opens to the versatile flex space and has a clear line of sight tothe turned staircase and spacious great room.• The well-equipped gourmet kitchen features a large center island, a walk-in pantryand opens to the spacious great room with fireplace, creating a perfect space forentertaining family and friends.• The spacious master bedroom includes a large walk-in closet and a private masterbath with a dual-sink vanity, a shower with a seat and a private toilet area.• Additional features of the second floor of this home include three secondary bedroom,each with a walk-in closet and access to a hall bath.• Additional highlights of this home include a planning center, mud room, first floorpowder room and a convenient second floor lanudry.• Nine-foot ceilings throughout the first and second floors.Second FloorSEATBEDROOM #412'X11TSHOWERW/DSPACEWALK-INCLOSETWALK-INCLOSETLINENBEDROOM #312'2"X11'BEDROOM #212'3"X11'1"MASTERBEDROOM15'3"X15'OPTIONALTRAY CEILINGWALK-INCLOSET10'1"X9'1"MASTERBATHLAUNDRYWALK-INCLOSETOPT.DOOROPT.DOORBATHDNOPT.CABS.COUNTRY MANOR ANDMANOR EXTERIOR DESIGNSINCLUDE A BEDROOM #2.BERKSHIREEXTERIOR DESIGNINCLUDES A LARGERWALK-IN CLOSET.BERKSHIRE EXTERIORDESIGN INCLUDES A LARGERMASTER BEDROOM.FOYERVAULTEDCEILINGREF.ENCL.DWMICRO/WALLOVENDNUPDNTHREE-CARGARAGE30'10"X23'4"FLEXROOM11'3"X11'1"GREAT ROOM33'3"X17'GOURMETKITCHEN17'X9'8"MUD ROOMPLANNINGCENTERPOWDERROOMWALK-INPANTRYCLOSETWALK-INCLOSETOPT.BUILT-INOPT.BUILT-INDININGAREAOPT.DROPZONECOUNTRY MANOR AND MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNS INCLUDE ALARGER FLEX ROOM.DPROEMPDMOITC17'XN/DSPATNDRYRROPOALKitas3VC-ramd3379-insert-141673.indd 211/22/2016 9:59:02 AM THE MAGNEYTHE MAGNEY | Home Designs(NE-RAMD/141671) 112216 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (MAGNEY)Country ManorReserve at Medina651-330-7070 | ReserveAtMedina.comManorBerkshiremgny3VG-ramd3379-insert-141671.indd 111/22/2016 12:57:04 PMTHE MAGNEY | Floor Plan4 Bedrooms | 3 ½ Baths | 3-Car GaragePhotographs, renderings, and floor plans are for representational purposes only and may not reflect the exact features or dimensions of your home. All dimen-sions are subject to field variations. Some design features and options shown may not be offered in your community. All options to be included in your home must be specified in an Exhibit B to the Agreement of Sale. All Toll Brothers floor plans and designs are copyrighted. All rights reserved and strictly enforced. This is not an offering where prohibited by law. Please consult our sales representative for details. (NE-RAMD/141671) 112216 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (MAGNEY)THE MAGNEY HIGHLIGHTS • The spacious foyer opens to views of the elegant turned stairs, theformal dining room and great room beyond.• The well-designed gourmet kitchen features a large center island, awalk-in pantry and is open to the spacious great room with a fireplace.• The master bedroom boasts a large walk-in closet, and a private bathwith dual-sink vanities, a Roman tub, a separate shower with a seat anda private toilet area.• The second floor includes a large loft, a convenient laundry, twosecondary bedrooms that share a Jack-n-Jill bath and a third bedroomwith a private bath.• Additional highlights of this home include a flex space, mud room, and apowder room.• Nine-foot ceilings throughout the first and second floors.Second FloorFirst FloorMUDROOMDNUPDWMICRO/WALLOVENDNGOURMETKITCHEN15'X9'6"GREAT ROOM29'X15'DININGROOM11'X9'7"THREE-CARGARAGE30'9"X20'FLEXSPACE11'X10'FOYERPOWDERROOMREF.ENCL.UTILITYCABINETWALK-INPANTRYCLOSETOPT.DROPZONECLOSETOPT.BUILT-INSOPT.BUILT-INSOPEN TOABOVEBERKSHIRE ANDCOUNTRY MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNSINCLUDE A LARGERFLEX ROOM.MANOR EXTERIORDESIGN INCLUDESA LARGER FOYER.DINOO79'GETYBINETALINNTRYRX1MASTERBATHWALK-INCLOSETTDNBEDROOM #212'6"X11'WALK-INCLOSET11'5"X10'MASTERBEDROOM16'X15'OPTIONALTRAY CEILINGBEDROOM #412'X11'BEDROOM #312'3"X12'LOFT16'3"X10'8"LAUNDRYBATHWALK-INCLOSETWALK-INCLOSETSHOWERW/DSPACEBATHSEATOPEN TOBELOWOPT.CABS.BERKSHIRE AND COUNTRYMANOR EXTERIOR DESIGNSINCLUDE A LARGER BEDROOM #4.BERKSHIRE ANDMANOR EXTERIORDESIGNS INCLUDEA LARGER BATH.COUNTRY MANOR AND MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNS INCLUDE ALARGER BEDROOM #3.DNL1UNDRYPTCSmgny3VG-ramd3379-insert-141671.indd 211/22/2016 12:57:05 PM THE MONSONTHE MONSON | Home Designs(NE-RAMD/141674) 112216 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (MONSON)Country ManorReserve at Medina651-330-7070 | ReserveAtMedina.comManorBerkshiremnsn3V4-ramd3379-insert-141674.indd 111/22/2016 4:20:00 PMTHE MONSON | Floor Plan2-4 Bedrooms | 2 ½-3 ½ Baths | 3-Car GaragePhotographs, renderings, and floor plans are for representational purposes only and may not reflect the exact features or dimensions of your home. All dimen-sions are subject to field variations. Some design features and options shown may not be offered in your community. All options to be included in your home must be specified in an Exhibit B to the Agreement of Sale. All Toll Brothers floor plans and designs are copyrighted. All rights reserved and strictly enforced. This is not an offering where prohibited by law. Please consult our sales representative for details. (NE-RAMD/141674) 112216 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (MONSON)Floor PlanTHE MONSON HIGHLIGHTS • The foyer opens to the entry hall and adjacent flex space and then leads tothe expansive great room.• The gourmet kitchen includes a walk-in pantry, a large island that overlooksthe great room and an adjacent casual dining room.• The master bedroom includes a large walk-in closet and a private bath withdual vanities, a dressing area, a private toilet area, a shower with a seat, anda Roman tub.• The second bedroom also includes a walk-in closet and a private bath.• Other features of this home include a mud room with a walk-in closet, apowder room, and a convenient laundry.• Ten-foot ceilings throughout.DNWALK-INPANTRYHALLTRAY CEILINGFLEX SPACE16'X11'1"BATHWALK-INCLOSETBEDROOM #216'7"X12'POWDERROOMFOYERCLOSETWALK-INCLOSETOPTIONALDROP ZONEDNTHREE-CARGARAGE29'9"X21'10"STORAGE15'8"X7'MASTERBATHOPTIONALDOORDRESSINGAREALINENSHOWERSEATWALK-INCLOSET12'X9'4"MASTERBEDROOM19'6"X17'TRAY CEILINGCOVEREDPATIOGREAT ROOM35'5"X18'3"GOURMETKITCHEN18'3"X10'3"CASUAL DINING17'X11'TRAY CEILINGOPTIONALCABINETSTW/DSPACELAUNDRYDWREF.ENCL.MICRO/WALLOVENMUDROOMOPTIONALBUILT-INSOPTIONALBUILT-INSTRANSOMWINDOWSOPT.CABS.BERKSHIRE EXTERIOR DESIGNINCLUDES A LARGER FOYER.BERKSHIRE AND MANOR EXTERIORDESIGNS INCLUDE A LARGERBEDROOM #2.COUNTRY MANOR EXTERIOR DESIGNINCLUDES A LARGER GARAGE.LEHYALSmnsn3V4-ramd3379-insert-141674.indd 211/22/2016 4:20:00 PM THE VERMILLIONTHE VERMILLION | Home Designs(NE-RAMD/141675) 112216 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (VERMILLION)Country ManorReserve at Medina 651-330-7070 | ReserveAtMedina.comManorBerkshirevrml3VD-ramd3379-insert-141672.indd 111/28/2016 11:28:50 AMTHE VERMILLION | Floor Plan4 Bedrooms | 3 ½ Baths | 3-Car GaragePhotographs, renderings, and floor plans are for representational purposes only and may not reflect the exact features or dimensions of your home. All dimen-sions are subject to field variations. Some design features and options shown may not be offered in your community. All options to be included in your home must be specified in an Exhibit B to the Agreement of Sale. All Toll Brothers floor plans and designs are copyrighted. All rights reserved and strictly enforced. This is not an offering where prohibited by law. Please consult our sales representative for details. (NE-RAMD/141672) 112216 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (VERMILLLION)First FloorSecond FloorTHE VERMILLION HIGHLIGHTS • The spacious foyer opens to views of the elegant turned staircase, theformal dining room, and great room beyond.• The well-designed gourmet kitchen features a large center island, awalk-in pantry, and is open to the spacious great room with a fireplace.• The master boasts two large walk-in closets, and a private bath withdual-sink vanities, a Roman tub, a separate shower with a seat, and aprivate toilet area.• The second floor includes a large loft, a bath, a conveniently locatedlaundry room, two secondary bedrooms that share a Jack-and-Jill bath,and a third bedroom.• Additional highlights of this home include a flex space, mud room, and apowder room.• Nine-foot ceilings throughout the first and second floors.POWDERROOMLINENCLOSETWALK-INPANTRYWALK-INCLOSETMUDROOMOPT.DROPZONEFLEXSPACE12'2"X12'THREE-CARGARAGE29'4"X25'9"DNDININGROOM16'X12'4"GREAT ROOM26'4"X15'GOURMETKITCHEN15'X15'UPDNOPT.BUILT-INSOPT.BUILT-INSREF.ENCL.DWMICRO/WALLOVENFOYEROOMX4DDRWALINPANTY1W/DSPACESHOWERBATHLAUNDRYMASTERBATHWALK-INCLOSET10'5"X9'7"MASTERBEDROOM17'X15'OPT. TRAY CEILINGWALK-INCLOSET7'4"X6'WALK-INCLOSETBEDROOM #416'X12'BATHBEDROOM #315'X11'WALK-INCLOSETWALK-INCLOSETBEDROOM #214'X12'SEATLOFT16'X13'OPENTOBELOWTDNOPT.CABS.BERKSHIRE EXTERIOR DESIGNINCLUDES A LARGER BEDROOM #4.COUNTRY MANOR AND MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNS INCLUDE ALARGER BEDROOM #3.OF3L16Xvrml3VD-ramd3379-insert-141672.indd 211/28/2016 11:28:50 AM THE WHEATONTHE WHEATON | Home Designs(NE-RAMD/141675) 112216 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (WHEATON)Country ManorReserve at Medina651-330-7070 | ReserveAtMedina.comManorBerkshirewhtn3CD-ramd3379-insert-141675.indd 11/10/2017 3:27:18 PMTHE WHEATON | Floor Plan4–6 Bedrooms | 3 ½–4 ½ Baths | 3-Car GaragePhotographs, renderings, and floor plans are for representational purposes only and may not reflect the exact features or dimensions of your home. All dimen-sions are subject to field variations. Some design features and options shown may not be offered in your community. All options to be included in your home must be specified in an Exhibit B to the Agreement of Sale. All Toll Brothers floor plans and designs are copyrighted. All rights reserved and strictly enforced. This is not an offering where prohibited by law. Please consult our sales representative for details. (NE-RAMD/141675) 112216 ©TB PROPRIETARY CORP. (WHEATON)First FloorTHE WHEATON HIGHLIGHTS • The two-story foyer offers views of the elegant turned staircase andis flanked by the formal dining room and the private study withdouble doors.• The gourmet kitchen is well-designed with an adjacent breakfast area,a walk-in pantry, and a large island that overlooks the expansivegreat room.• The master includes a tray ceiling, three walk-in closets, and a privatebath with a private toilet area, dual-vanities, a dressing area, a Romantub, and a separate shower with a seat• The second floor also boasts a princess suite with a private bath and awalk-in closet. Additionally, you will find a convenient laundry and twoadditional bedrooms with walk-in closets and a shared jack-and-jill bath.• Nine-foot ceilings throughout the first and second floors.Second FloorOPT.DOORWALK-INCLOSETWALK-INCLOSETWALK-INCLOSETLINENSHOWERSEATLINENDRESSINGAREAMASTERBATHBATHPRINCESS SUITE13'2"X12'3"LAUNDRYW/DSPACEBEDROOM #313'2"X11'9"WALK-INCLOSETWALK-INCLOSETBATHWALK-INCLOSETLINENBEDROOM #414'6"X11'OPEN TOBELOWDNTOPT.CABS.BERKSHIRE AND MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNS INCLUDEA LARGER BEDROOM #4.BERKSHIRE AND MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNS INCLUDEA LARGER FOYER.BERKSHIREEXTERIOR DESIGNINCLUDES A LARGERMASTER BEDROOM.COUNTRY MANOR AND MANOREXTERIOR DESIGNS INCLUDE ALARGER MASTER BEDROOM.MASTERBEDROOM19'7"X18'4"OPT. TRAY CEILINGNAUDPACYOPTOSEOPABNTLINSTUDY14'6"X13'4"TWO-STORYFOYERDINING ROOM15'8"X11'4"OPTIONALTRAY CEILINGTHREE-CARGARAGE32'9"X26'3"CLOSETCOUNTRY MANOR EXTERIOR DESIGN SHOWN.UPMANOR EXTERIOR DESIGNINCLUDES A LARGER STUDY.BERKSHIRE EXTERIOR DESIGNINCLUDES A LARGER FOYER.MANOR EXTERIOR DESIGNINCLUDES A LARGER DINING ROOM.STUDY14'6"X14'WALK-INCLOSETPOWDERROOMCLOSET7'6" CLG.GREAT ROOM24'3"X17'GOURMETKITCHEN17'X13'9"BREAKFASTAREA13'9"X8'7"TWO-STORYFOYERDINING ROOM14'3"X11'4"OPTIONALTRAY CEILINGUPDNWALK-INPANTRYOPT.BUTLERPANTRYOPT.DROPZONEMUDROOMDNWALK-INCLOSET8'1"X6'9"DWREF.ENCL.MICRO/WALLOVENUTILITYCABINETSOPT.BUILT-INSOPT.BUILT-INSTHREE-CARGARAGE32'9"X24'1"ST'6DY14CL76WTILNETMMIIOO//WVDwhtn3CD-ramd3379-insert-141675.indd 21/10/2017 3:27:18 PM LEGEND PROPERTY LIMIT EASEMENT WETLAND OMITS WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK PROPOSED LUSTING K DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY AREA GROSS SITE AREA LESS R/W (COUNTY ROAD 116 & IINCKAMORE ROAD) LESS WETLAND LESS WETLAND BUFFER LESS PRIVATE PAM NET SITE AREA DEVELOPMENT DENSITY 127 UNITS (INCLUDING POOL LOT) 62.63 AC = 2.03 UNITS/ACRE LOT SUMMARY NUMBER Of LOTS OUTLOTS SETBACKS FRONT YARD REAR YARD SIDE YARD SIDE YARD AT CORNER COUNTY ROAD 116 (MINOR COLLECTOR) HACKAMORE ROAD (MINOR COLLECTOR) WETLANDS PRESERVE (NON DNA MAPPED AREA) BUFFER SETBACK MANAGE I BUFFER SETBACK MANAGE 2 BUFFER SETBACK 3,536,217 SF 81.18 AC 79,694 SF 1.83 AC 493,986 SF 11.34 AC 148,755 SF 3A1 AC 85,542 SF 1.97 AC 2,728,240 SF 62.63 AC 127 6 20 FEET 30 FEET 20' COMBINED (10'/10) FEET 20 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET (AVG) / 25 FEET MIN 15 FEET 30 FEET (AVG)/ 20 FEET MIN 15 FEET 25 FEET (AVG)/20 FEET MIN 15 FEET OHW SETBACK 50 FEET MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE 90 FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE 11,0005F MINIMUM LOT DEPTH 100 FEET MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE 40% ZONING EXISTING ZONING RR-UR PROPOSED ZONING RI DEVELOPMENT NOTES A. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. B. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. C. STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE OTT. D. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED OVER ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UP TO ONE FOOT ABOVE THE HIGH WATER LEVEL OF ALL PONDS E. THE STREET RIGHT OF WAYS ARE TO BE 50 FEET IN WIDTH. F. THE STREET SECTION SHALL BE 28' BACK TO BACK TO BE DEDICATED TO HENNEPIN COLINTY r \ MEDINA LAM DRIVE z DRAINAGE & IJTILTY EASEMENT PAC ac 21227 Si 1 ToT- DRAINAGE& UTILITY EASEMENT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: ' (NOT TO SCALE) h-5 • 10 BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. EXISTING 33' PRIVATE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT 589°50'311 1325.13 -102-- ▪ em.c KW SF 3 ( — SO! 0o- _ s& „sic Still 4 .SI 1 amrc KPS SF 5 a 20' DRAINAGE & N. LINE OF THE S1/2 UTILITYIEASEMENT / 97 ( OF NW1494 • • • • • Ns • • • 41. • a. • • • 20' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT • • Fx NO. se 976 ---j 7'`0= i ---_1--1t3 It T-- er' r yI4 1 p 1 2 11 tang a F "swat A n�ss �1 G AC 6 I I 'as" Lu II I I II F L_ _I ___J 20' DRAINAGE UTIUIY EASEMENT 7 7 030 IC MalM 8 97 > 1 O II so 2 L—}17 J 12t— —7r-' I 6 Gm t WASP 9 -109- — J 20' MAINTENANCE DRAINAGE & ACCESS EASEMENT UTILITY EASEMENT `N. LINE OF THE S. 495,44 FEET OF NW1/4 589°55'51°W 2642.17 P 33 EXCEPT vC C r 0 N 2'.\'�N. j 1, • 0• 1)•° ° .. XCCP LION S89°33'013fE 363.32 0°2 1' r 1 Pt r 1 18a-1 1- 1 I I =set' 1 Si 131 1 _—le4J L_J III I II I •Wrl th 14 I 1M I 6alalc MAIasI I 1s8 - 1M! L_J 1M1 r II I 116 I 1aJ L _ 11 n 1 °u.s"% I 0.. II I - �T4 L L T60-1 W2 1 I II I a °mall I 6 I FYI I 1 L__4yJ LJ I ---I60 13 I a,,.atl I 1 q. KMosl I m II I TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF MEDINA H 20 QMINAGE & LJTI EASEMENT t- 20' DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT UT 00%7'18"W 2163. 0 SCALE / / /k \ I I 1 NORTH 100 IN 200 FEET fra englneedngsurveying planning energy 14800 28th No. N. See 140 Pymoulh Minnesota 55447 1769 476.6010 telephone (M 476.6532 facsimile M tilha.com Client TOLL BROTHERS, INC. ?o11 `T3rothers Project THE RESERVE OF MEDINA Location MEDINA, MINNESOTA Certification I hereby certify that this plan, specis:at o� report was prepared by me or uede� supervision and that I am a d professional ENGINEER under of the state of Minnesota. AqALt$YDu` aid R IstratIon No.45403 Date: 03/15/2013 Ifappkable. contact to fora wet signed copy of this plan W(1.4 awkble upon request at MFRA Inc., Flyrnouty MN ogre Summary Designed:kw Drawn:Bi Approved: MRD Book/ Page: Phase:PRELIMINMY Initial lssued:01/la/J013 Revision History No.Date By Submittal/ Revision A 03/15/13 Ni REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS Sheet Title PRELIMINARY PLAT Sheet No. Revision C3.00 A Project No. TOL19393 M M 1013 . ISO= J 3 LAPII0ICnt3RLEINYMACIA0a 1 un103aepmwUTI1 C1 f i rno ccr Wally Marx Page 1 of 11 June 13, 2017 CD-PUD General Plan/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: June 8, 2017 MEETING: June 13, 2017 Planning Commission SUBJ: Wally and Bridget Marx – 2700-2900 Parkview Drive – Conservation Design Subdivision PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat – Public Hearing Review Deadline Application Received: May 12, 2017 Review Deadline: September 9, 2017 Overview Wally and Bridget Marx have requested review of a PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat for a Conservation Design subdivision at their property at 2700-2900 Parkview Drive. The applicant proposes to divide three lots totaling 89.75 acres into six single-family residential lots and proposes to place 69.61 (11.76 acres buildable) into conservation easements. The subject properties are located on Parkview Drive, southwest of School Lake and east of the Baker National Golf Course. A significant portion of the property is either wetlands or located under the high water level of School Lake. The large wetland in the southwest portion of the site is identified as a moderate quality tamarack swamp and black ash swamp in the City’s Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) data. The MLCCS identifies a moderate quality maple-basswood forest between this wetland and Parkview Drive, and then extending though the center of the site. Another portion of moderate-quality maple-basswood forest extends onto the property on the southeast of the site. An aerial of the site can be found on the following page. The Conservation Design Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) district is an overlay district which provides an applicant an option to permanently preserve portions of a property in by providing incentives to develop the property consistent with the conservation objectives of the City rather than conventional development following the standard zoning regulations. The ordinance allows the City to grant flexibility to the underlying zoning regulations in order to encourage property owners to protect natural resources and open space with conservation easements. Flexibility can include density bonuses, reduced setbacks and lot size requirements, and flexibility to park dedication or septic regulations. Flexibility can also be considered for upland buffer and tree preservation regulations on specific lots in the interests of protecting natural resources more broadly on the site. The Planning Commission recently reviewed the CD-PUD district ordinance and the City Council has also been reviewing. The Council directed staff to place the ordinance on the consent agenda at the June 20 meeting, so staff anticipates this draft will be adopted before the City takes action final on this application. As a result, the red-lined draft is attached to this report for reference. Wally Marx Page 2 of 11 June 13, 2017 CD-PUD General Plan/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting The City reviewed the applicant’s PUD Concept Plan earlier in the year. Excerpts from the Planning Commission and City Council review are attached for reference. The primary changes from the Concept Plan are: 1) Lot 4 driveway was shifted to reduce wetland impacts 2) A looped public trail is proposed along private road, into the maple-basswood forest and providing a view of School Lake. This trail is kept separate from the private horse trail. 3) Potential house locations were adjusted to meet setbacks from exterior of the site. 4) Applicant is proposing for individual owners to own the Outlots containing the Conservation Area (rather than an association of owners). 5) The applicant is proposing to remove some existing invasive and pioneer tree species with native tree species. The aerial above identifies the proposed location for homesites, septic systems, and driveways. Staff believes it is helpful to see these items in connection with the aerial. The proposed conservation areas are shown in purple. In addition to comments from the Commission and City Council, staff had provided the following comments on the Concept Plan. A brief summary of whether the comment has been addressed follows in italics: Maple-basswood forest (moderate quality) Maple-basswood forest (moderate quality) Maple-basswood forest (moderate quality) Tamarack and black ash swamp (good quality) School Lake Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Wally Marx Page 3 of 11 June 13, 2017 CD-PUD General Plan/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting 1) Consider relocating some of the septic sites for lots 3 and 4 in order to provide improved connectivity and to preserve wooded area. No changes were made to the proposed septic location for lots 3 and 4 2) Include conservation areas within outlots in order to ensure improved long term enforcement of conservation easements. Conservation areas are included within outlots, but the outlots are proposed to be owned by individual lot owners rather than an association. 3) Consider adding secondary septic site locations to conservation areas, even if left within the private lots. All septic locations are proposed within lots. 4) Maintain minimum setback distances from development site perimeter. The potential house site of Lot 2 would need to be adjusted to meet this requirement. The potential location was adjusted. 5) Provide trail connection to conservation areas available to the public. A trail is proposed along the driveway and to loop in the conservation area. The Park Commission had requested a future trail all of the way to the east property line as well. The applicant is considering location for this corridor. 6) Any future submittal should address the comments of the City Engineer, City Fire Marshal, Hennepin County, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed. Comments will be provided for this review as well. Site Design Process The CD-PUD ordinance describes a four-step “Site Design Process” which is supposed to influence the site plan. The process is described within the ordinance attached, but is summarized as follows. Also following is a summary from the applicant’s site design process, which is described more in-depth within the narrative. This summary helps explain the various colors on the applicant’s concept plan. Step 1 – Identify Conservation Areas. This step includes first identifying “unbuildable areas” (shown in green, and dark and light blue in the applicant’s plans) and then identifying Conservation Areas which are buildable (shown in yellow in the applicant’s plans). The remaining land is potentially buildable land area (shown in grey in the applicant’s plans). Step 2 – Locate Housing Sites. Sites should be located in relation to views and buildable land areas. The sites are shown as boxes with an “X” on the applicant’s plans. Step 3 – Align streets and trails. Streets are shown in brown on the applicant’s plans. Trails are shown but further discussion is needed with the applicant for access from Parkview Drive to the trails and possible realignment of proposed trail. Step 4 – Draw lot lines. Proposed lot lines provide for the six lots, outlots, and conservation areas. Wally Marx Page 4 of 11 June 13, 2017 CD-PUD General Plan/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting Conservation Objectives and Determining Flexibility The CD-PUD process allows the City to grant flexibility to the underlying zoning regulations as an incentive to permanently conserve natural resources and open space. According to the CD- PUD ordinance, the City has the full discretion to determine how much flexibility to grant based “the amount and quality of Conservation Area protected, the public access to or enjoyment thereof, and how well the project achieves the following conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development: a) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following primary conservation objectives will be given higher consideration for flexibility from performance standards. (1) The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood forests (e.g. Maple-Basswood Forest). (2) The protection and preservation of lakes, streams and wetlands beyond existing regulatory requirements. (3) The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. (4) The reservation of land connecting aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement corridors. (5) The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. (b) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following secondary conservation objectives may be given consideration for flexibility from performance standards: (1) The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as “Scenic Roads” on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. (2) The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant describes in their narrative how they believe these objectives are met. The applicant proposes 70 acres of conservation area, 11.76 acres of which is classified as buildable under the ordinance. An additional 3-acres of steep slopes are included in the Conservation Area which are not considered buildable. However, staff believes these areas deserve more consideration than wetlands because steep slopes are not protected under existing regulations. The primary area of preservation which is beyond that required by standard wetland regulations and setback requirements is a 10-acre area east and west of Lot 3. The area west of Lot 3 includes the maple-basswood forest remnant referenced in the applicant’s forester’s report. In addition, two acres of the School Lake lakeshore are conserved which is beyond the general regulations. Approximately 50 acres of the Conservation Area includes wetland areas, areas within School Lake or within the setback of Parkview Drive. As previously noted, the property does include a moderate quality maple-basswood remnant and good quality tamarack swamp. The forester’s report from Hennepin County stated that maintenance of the maple-basswood forest could raise the quality of the area, and the applicant Wally Marx Page 5 of 11 June 13, 2017 CD-PUD General Plan/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting has indicated that they intend to propose some removal of invasive/pioneering trees and replacement with native species. The proposed conservation area provides a corridor connection between School Lake and the tamarack swamp in the southern portion of the property. This corridor is located east and west of Lot 3. The corridor is interrupted in narrow locations by the shared driveway for lots 3-6 and the driveway for Lot 4. The septic sites for Lot 4 are also within this corridor. During concept plan review, staff had recommended finding alternative locations for some of these improvements, potentially within Lot 5. Parkview Drive is not identified as a “Scenic Road”, although it appears that the proposed development would generally protect the viewshed from the road nonetheless. Staff believes that only one of the lots would be visible from the road. The applicant proposes a public trail along the shared driveway from Parkview Drive which would loop into the wooded area and provide a view of School Lake. The Park Commission had also recommended a trail easement connection from Parkview Drive to the eastern property line. This easement would secure the ability for a trail connection in the future between Parkview and Willow Drive, depending on future development or purchase of easement rights on property to the east. The applicant has indicated that they are open to such an easement, but have not identified a location. Staff’s impression is that the Park Commission did not have a specific route or location in mind, but would be open to the applicant placing the trail in a location which works well for their proposed site design. The applicant has also shown a private trail along School Lake. The applicant has indicated that they are open to providing access to this trail for property owners around School Lake, but not to the general public. Neighbors along School Lake expressed concern during the concept plan review that opening the existing private trail up to the public will cause significant trespass concerns. The applicant has attempted to address these concerns by leaving it private. The applicant is working with Minnehaha Creek Watershed to potentially hold and enforce the Conservation Easement. Minnehaha Creek holds the easement in the Deer Hill Preserve CD- PUD and the draft easement is fairly similar. The applicant has provided a draft Land Stewardship Plan and Conservation Easement for review. Generally speaking, the Land Stewardship plan calls for very limited restoration or active management on an on-going basis. The Plan describes some removal of invasive trees and replacement with native species. The applicant is proposing that individual homeowners own the Conservation Area adjacent to their property rather than the Conservation Area being held in common by an association. City staff is concerned that this may lead to enforcement and administrative difficulties in the long term. The applicant believes individual ownership will provide more “pride in ownership” and will improve enforcement in the long-term. They suggest it may be difficult to ensure that the owners of Lots 1 and 2, for example, take part in the management of the property on the far east or south of the subdivision, even if they were part of an association that owned the entire conservation area. Wally Marx Page 6 of 11 June 13, 2017 CD-PUD General Plan/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting General Performance Standards Minimum Size of Subdivision A CD-PUD subdivision within the Rural Residential zoning district is required to be a minimum of 40 acres in size. The proposed subdivision is approximately 89.75 acres. Required Conservation Area A minimum of 30% of the total Buildable Land Area, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City’s conservation objectives, is required to be included in the Conservation Area. The applicant proposes 69.61 acres within the conservation area, or 77.6% of the site. Most of this area (staff estimates 49 acres) is wetland or would be within wetland buffers required to be protected by easement under a standard development. Buildable areas consist of 11.76 acres (40% of the total buildable area on the property). Density and Design Flexibility The CD-PUD ordinance allows the City to grant flexibility from standard City requirements. Density/Lot Size/Width The applicant proposes six residential lots. Existing rural residential regulations would not allow further subdivision of the existing three parcels. The CD-PUD ordinance allows the City to grant additional density as an incentive, with the maximum number of lots limited to 2x the base density. During recent discussions, the City Council added a clause stating that “the maximum density bonus will only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” The base density is determined by the standard underlying zoning designation (in this case, 5-acres of contiguous suitable soils per lot). According to Hennepin County Soils data, it appears that there is a six acre contiguous area of suitable soils in the northwest corner of the site and a twelve acre contiguous area of suitable soils in the center of the property (see insert at right). This results in a base density of three parcels. 2 times of the base density would equate to a maximum of six lots. The property is currently included in three PIDs. If these three lots are separate lots of record and are buildable, the applicant could not further subdivide the property under current requirements. As such, City wetland buffer and other similar requirements would unlikely be triggered upon the property. A summary of the proposed lot sizes in the subdivision is to the right: Lot Area Lot 1 2.65 acres Lot 2 2.53 acres Lot 3 1.63 acres Lot 4 2.99 acres Lot 5 6.84 acres Lot 6 3.51 acres Wally Marx Page 7 of 11 June 13, 2017 CD-PUD General Plan/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting Setbacks The following table summarizes the setback requirements of the proposed CD-PUD district: Proposed RR Standard CD-PUD Requirement Setback from Parkview Dr. 440 feet 50 feet 100 feet Setback from Perimeter 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Interior structure setback 50 feet 50 feet 30 feet School Lake 172 feet 150 feet 150 feet Subdivision Review Primary/Alternate septic sites Standard City regulations require a primary and alternate septic site to serve each lot. The CD- PUD ordinance permits flexibility for the alternate site to be located within conservation areas. The concept plan shows two septic sites within each proposed lot (although lot 4 requires a good deal of gerrymandering), and none within conservation areas. Staff noted that the septic sites for Lots 3 and 4 are located within the wooded portion of the property, although this portion of the woods does not appear to be part of the maple-basswood forest but is lower quality compared to much of the woods. These sites do interrupt the corridor between School Lake and the tamarack swamp to the south, and it would appear preferable if alternative locations could be found, especially for Lot 4. Shoreland Lot Width Requirement The City’s Shoreland ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 200 feet at the ordinary high water level at the 150’ structure setback. As proposed, none of the lots are actually adjacent to the lake. The entire lakeshore is included within outlots which would be subject to the conservation area. However, Lots 1-4 each are each proposed to individually own an outlot which is adjacent to the lake. Outlot B does not meet the minimum 200’ lot width adjacent to the lake. In discussions with DNR staff, it is possible for the City to submit a PUD with reduced lot width from review to the DNR. The DNR would consider, similar to the consideration the City is making on the CD-PUD, if the proposed PUD protects more of the shoreline than the standard 200 foot width would protect. Staff is awaiting comment from the DNR related to the proposal. Staff’s impression is that the lakeshore being entirely subject to a Conservation Easement (although with some allowance for lots 1-4 to access the lake) will likely be seen as positive and doubts the DNR will raise concerns. The subject site has over 1200 feet of lakeshore, so the applicant is proposing fewer lots to front the lake than would be permitted through the standard 200 foot lot width. Woodlands The subject property includes remnants of Maple-Basswood forest which were ranked as moderate quality in the City’s natural resources inventory. These areas are identified within the Composite map of the City’s Open Space report and protecting the area would be consistent with the first conservation objectives. Wally Marx Page 8 of 11 June 13, 2017 CD-PUD General Plan/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting The septic sites and driveways for Lots 3 and 4 as currently proposed, would result in tree removal over an area of approximately 1.6 acres. This area is of a lower quality and includes predominantly boxelder. Preserving more of the area would have benefits in terms of corridor connectivity. The proposed building site for Lot 2 would impact approximately 0.5 acre of the woods. These impacts would account for just over 10% of the wooded area on the site. The tree preservation ordinance allows up to 15% of the trees to be removed without replacement. Staff believes a tree survey of the entire site is not necessary, as the ordinance allows sampling. However, staff has requested specific information related to tree removal to verify compliance. Wetlands and Floodplains The applicant shifted the driveway location for Lot 4 in order to minimize wetland impacts. The driveway proposes to use an existing field road, so some minimum impacts may occur to widen the driveway. Otherwise, no wetland impacts are proposed. The applicant has shown wetland buffers adjacent to the wetlands on the property which generally exceed City requirements (in order to meet Minnehaha Creek standards). The exception is for the buffer along the wetland south of the proposed shared driveway for lots 3-6. The existing driveway location prevents establishing a buffer with the minimum required width. Staff recommends that the applicant average the width of the buffer along the driveway in order to meet the required average width. Staff would recommend a condition that requisite easements, signage, and vegetation are provided for the buffers. The applicant has also identified floodplain locations adjacent to School Lake and within the Tamarack swamp. No impacts are proposed. Septic setbacks from wetlands All septic sites appear to meet the minimum setback requirement of 75 feet from wetlands and 150 feet from the ordinary high water level of the lake. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant verify the setback for the septic location for Lot 6, as it is close to the required setback. Stormwater The applicant proposes stormwater improvements to be constructed in connection with the expansion of the shared driveway for lots 3-6. It is not practical to construct a stormwater system for the construction on the lots within the subdivision. As such, each lot will be required to incorporate stormwater improvements in connection with construction in the future. Transportation/Access Lots 1 and 2 are proposed to share a driveway which would access Parkview Drive in the location of the existing orchard driveway at 2900 Parkview Drive. Lots 3-6 are proposed to share a driveway in the location of the existing driveway for 2700 Parkview Drive. This driveway is proposed to be widened to 20 feet in width and paved in order to provide emergency access. The shared driveway would be 20 feet in wide to the point where it splits into two shared driveways (one driveway for lots 3 and 4 and one driveway for lots 5 and 6). The City Engineer has provided comments related to the design of the shared driveway for lots 3-6, and staff also recommends a condition requiring the applicant to abide by the requirements of Hennepin County. Wally Marx Page 9 of 11 June 13, 2017 CD-PUD General Plan/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting Easements Staff recommends a condition requiring the preliminary plat to dedicate drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of each lot, over the outlot containing the shared driveway, and over all wetland areas. Park Dedication The Park Commission is scheduled to review park dedication at their meeting on June 21. According to the subdivision ordinance, the City can require the following for park dedication 1) Up to 10% of the buildable (non-wetland) land – approximately 4 acres in this case 2) Cash-in-lieu – 8% of the pre-developed market value subject to a minimum of $3500 per unit and maximum of $8000 per unit - $24,000 in this case 3) Combination of the above. Staff estimates that the area of the proposed trail easement is approximately 1/2 acre and the trail easement to the eastern property line will likely account for another 1/2 acre. Staff would recommend the remaining 75% of the park dedication to be paid in cash-in-lieu. The CD-PUD ordinance does permit the City to provide flexibility with regards to park dedication requirements as an incentive for conservation design. The Park Commission and City Council can discuss whether this is appropriate in this case. Review Criteria/Discretion Ultimately, the Planning Commission and City Council have full discretion to determine if a proposed CD-PUD subdivision better serves the conservation objectives of the City than would conventional development. The Planning Commission and City Council have complete discretion to determine the extent to which the flexibility described in the CD-PUD district, including density bonuses, is justified by the proposed conservation. Staff believes that the proposed site is a good candidate for consideration of a conservation design subdivision and staff has suggested some potential alterations to the plan which would seem to better serve the conservation objectives of the CD-PUD district. The primary question would be how much flexibility, especially bonus density, is appropriate as an incentive for the permanent conservation. If the Planning Commission and City Council determine that the proposal is consistent with the conservation objectives of the City and supports flexibility (perhaps with some plan alterations), staff would recommend the following conditions be applied to any recommendation of approval: 1. The Applicant shall submit final construction plans in connection with the final plat application for review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall be in a form and of substance acceptable to the City and which shall include the conditions described in this approval as well as other requirements of City ordinance or policy. 3. The Applicant shall provide to the City a letter of credit prior to any site construction in an amount recommended by the City Engineer to ensure completion of the required improvements. Wally Marx Page 10 of 11 June 13, 2017 CD-PUD General Plan/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting 4. Except as explicitly authorized by City resolution or ordinance, all aspects of this subdivision shall comply with all applicable state laws, city codes, ordinances and regulations. 5. The Applicant shall submit a preliminary plat which dedicates drainage and utility easement as recommended by the City Engineer. 6. The Applicant shall obtain wetland replacement plan approval prior to approval of the final plat. 7. The Applicant shall abide by the requirements of the wetland protection ordinance, including easement, signage, and vegetation requirements. 8. The Applicant shall submit covenants for review and approval of the City. Such documents shall ensure maintenance of conservation areas, stormwater facilities, shared driveway(s), and other common elements. 9. Shared driveways shall meet relevant standards and include a reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement satisfactory to the City, which shall be recorded against the properties. 10. The Applicant shall grant trail easements in the locations shown on the plans received by the City on May 12, 2017. The Applicant shall also provide a trail easement to the eastern property line and pay to the City a fee-in-lieu of dedicating additional land after the area of these easements have been deducted. 11. Conservation easements shall be granted over all conservation areas and shall be in a form and of substance acceptable to the City. The easement shall include enforcement and collection methods by which the easement holder can ensure payment of ongoing annual maintenance costs of the conservation areas by the homeowners within the subdivision. The easement holder for the conservation area shall be secured prior to application for final plat and be willing to accept the easement in the manner required by the CD-PUD District Ordinance. 12. Details on any significant tree removal and compliance with the tree preservation ordinance shall be provided. 13. Final land stewardship plan shall be provided in connection with the application for final plat for review and approval by the City. 14. The Applicant shall address all comments from the City Attorney, City Engineer, Hennepin County, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed. 15. The Applicant shall submit title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney at the time of submission of the final plat application. 16. The Developer shall obtain necessary approvals and permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Health, and other relevant agencies. 17. The application for final plat shall be submitted to the City within 360 days of preliminary approval or the preliminary plat shall be considered null and void. 18. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat, construction plans, and other relevant documents. Attachments 1. Document List 2. Conservation Design-PUD Ordinance Wally Marx Page 11 of 11 June 13, 2017 CD-PUD General Plan/Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting 3. Excerpt from DRAFT 1/10/2017 Planning Commission minutes 4. Excerpt from DRAFT 2/7/2017 City Council minutes 5. Comments from City Engineer dated 6/8/2017 6. Comments from Building Official dated 5/26/2017 7. Applicant Narrative 8. Forest Analysis 9. Land Stewardship Plan 10. Lot Summary 11. Plans received by the City 5/12/2017 Project:  LR‐17‐205 – Marx CD‐PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports.  All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document  Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic  Paper Copy? Notes Application  5/12/2017  5/12/2017  3 Application Y   Fee         Narrative  5/12/2017  N/A  7 Narrative Y   Labels  5/12/2017  N/A  1 Labels Y   Land Stewardship Plan  5/12/2017  5/10/2017  15 Land Stewardship Plan Y   Conservation Easement  5/12/2017  N/A  17 Conservation Easement Y   Plans  5/12/2017  5/8/2017  6 Plans Y   Lot size calculation  5/12/2017  5/8/2017  1 Lot Size Summary Y    Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document  Document Date # of pages Electronic  Notes Legal Comments  5/25/2017  1 Legal Comments  Engineering Comments  6/8/2017  2 Engineering Comments  Building official comments  5/26/2017  1 Building Comments  Preliminary Review/Schedule  6/9/2017  2 120day Letter  Legal Notice  6/1/2017  12 Notice   Public Comments  Document Date  Electronic  Notes       Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING CONSERVATION DESIGN; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 827.51 eq. seq. of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: CONSERVATION DESIGN DISTRICT (CD) Section 827.51. Conservation Design (CD) – Purpose. The purpose of this district is to preserve the City’s ecological resources, wildlife corridors, scenic views, and rural character while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as updated from time to time. The specific conservation objectives of this district are to: 1. Protect the ecological function of native hardwood forests, lakes, streams, and wetlands. 2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas. 3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas. 4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments. 5. Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. 6. Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. Section 827.53 Applicability. Subd. 1. Conservation design is an option that a property owner is encouraged to consider as an alternative to Conventional Development, as defined herein. The City will give heightened consideration to conservation design applications that achieve significantsuch requests where the opportunities to achieve conservation objectives are significantly higher than that availablenot otherwise attainable through conventional development. Conservation design may be considered on qualifying parcels lying in the Rural Residential District, and all sewered residential districts, and commercial or business districts. Section 827.55 Intent. Subd. 1. It is the intent of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by approving a Planned Unit Development. In exchange for achieving the conservation Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE objectives, it is the intent of the City to provide permit additional density and to provide design flexibility and to encourage development review through a Collaborative Process. Subd. 2. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses and other regulations set forth in the existing zoning districts shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District, the PUD District, or, if determined by the City Council to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this District, as part of the final PUD documents. Subd. 3. The procedures and regulations set forth in the PUD District shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District. If a final PUD plan is approved by the City, the subject property shall be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District (CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall then be those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and agreements. The following subsections are requirements for all CD-PUDs unless exceptions, as part of a PUD, are otherwise approved by the City Council. Section 827.57. Definitions. Subd. 1. Base Density. The maximum number of units or lots that are allowed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Subd. 2. Buildable Land Area. The total land area in a proposed Conservation Design Subdivision less the amount of land that includes: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, required wetland buffers, lakes, and land contained within the 100 year floodplain. Subd. 3. Collaborative Process. A development review process that results in a development plan in which clearly defined conservation objectives are achieved in exchange for greater flexibility from the requirements of the base zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Subd. 4. Conventional Development. Development that meets the standard minimum requirements of the City’s ordinances regulating development. Subd. 5. Conservation Easement. As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open- space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open-space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real property. Subd. 6. Conservation Design Subdivision. Any development of land that incorporates the concepts of designated Conservation Areas and clustering of dwelling units. Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE Subd. 7. Conservation Area. Designated land within a Conservation Design Subdivision that contributes towards achievement of one or more of the conservation objectives. A Conservation Easement is placed on Conservation Areas to permanently restrict the Conservation Area from future development. Conservation Areas may be used for preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, passive recreation, and for pasture, hay cropping and other low impact agricultural uses. Subd. 8. Homeowners Association. A formally constituted non-profit association or corporation made up of the property owners and/or residents of a development for the purpose of owning, operating and maintaining common Conservation Areas and/or other commonly owned facilities and Open Space. Subd. 9. Open Space. Land that is not designated as a Conservation Area that is used for parks, trails or other uses. Open Space may be owned and managed by the City, homeowner’s association or other entity. Subd. 10. Viewshed. The landscape or topography visible from a geographic point, especially that having aesthetic value. Subd. 11. Yield Plan. A conceptual layout that shows the maximum number of lots that could be placed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. The Yield Plan shows proposed lots, streets, rights-of-way, and other pertinent features. Yield Plans shall be drawn to scale. The layout shall be realistic and reflect a development pattern that could reasonably be expected to be implemented, taking into account the presence of wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and existing easements. Section 827.59. General Performance Standards. Subd. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision. (a) The minimum land area required for development shall be: (1) 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District (2) 20 contiguous acres in sewered residential districts (3) 10 contiguous acres in commercial or business districts (b) A subdivision in the Rural Residential District of over 20 contiguous acres but less than 40 contiguous acres may apply for approval if they it meets all the requirements for of the CD-PUD District, and the visual impact of the subdivision from existing adjacent roadways is mitigated by existing topography, existing vegetation, and/or acceptable vegetative buffers. Subd 2. Required Conservation Area. The minimum required Conservation Area within the CD development shall be: (a) At least 30% of the total Buildable Land Area in the Rural Residential District, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City’s conservation objectives. (b) At least 20% of the total Buildable Land Area in sewered residential, commercial, Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE or business districts, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City’s conservation objectives. Subd. 3. Designating Conservation Areas. (a) The required amount of Conservation Area shall be designated and located to maximize achievement of the City’s conservation objectives. Opportunities for achieving these objectives will vary depending on the location, size and specific qualities of the subject parcel. Each parcel will be evaluated for opportunities to achieve the following primary and secondary conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development: (1) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following primary conservation objectives will be given higher consideration for flexibility from performance standards. (1) The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood forests (e.g. Maple-Basswood Forest), lakes, streams and wetlands. (2) The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. (3) The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement corridors. (2) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following secondary conservation objectives may be given consideration for flexibility from performance standards: i. The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as “Scenic Roads” on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. ii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. iii.i. The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 4. Perimeter Setbacks. Structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be the same as the existing zoning district. Section 827.60 Open Space Report Composite Map Appeal Process. In the event that an applicant is not in agreement with the Composite Map of the Open Space Report or the data contained within a report on which the Composite Map is based upon, the applicant may present an appeal to the city. Subd. 1. The applicant shall put the appeal in writing, accompanied by the fee as described by the City’s Fee Schedule, and is responsible to provide documentation supporting their appeal. Ordinance No. ### 5 DATE Subd. 2. The appeal shall be reviewed by city staff, with the assistance of any technical consultants which city staff shall determine are appropriate. Such consultants may include, but are not limited to, environmental engineers, wetland scientists, arborists and other similar experts. City staff shall make a determination on the appeal within sixty days of receipt of a complete appeal application. Subd 3. The applicant may appeal city staff’s decision to the city council. The appeal must be filed within thirty days of staff’s determination. Subd. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs accrued by the City in review of the appeals described above, including the costs of technical consultants hired by the City. Section 827.61. Density and Design Flexibility. Flexibility from the requirements of the existing zoning district or other requirements of this code may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. In considering the amount, if any, of such flexibility, the City will evaluate the amount and quality of Conservation Area protected, the public access to or enjoyment thereof, and how well the project achieves the following conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development and the amount and quality of conservation area protected. Subd. 1. Conservation Objectives and Determining Flexibility. Conservation Area(s) shall be designated and located to maximize achievement of the City’s conservation objectives. Opportunities for achieving these objectives will vary depending on the location, size and specific qualities of the subject parcel. Each parcel will be evaluated for opportunities to achieve the following primary and secondary conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development. (a) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following primary conservation objectives will be given higher consideration for flexibility from performance standards. (1) The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood forests (e.g. Maple-Basswood Forest). (2) The protection and preservation of, lakes, streams and wetlands beyond existing regulatory requirements. (3) The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. (4) The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement corridors. Ordinance No. ### 6 DATE (5) The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. (b) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following secondary conservation objectives may be given consideration for flexibility from performance standards: (1) The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as “Scenic Roads” on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. (1)(2) The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 12. Additional Density. (a) Density, in addition to the Base Density, may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. Any additional density or additional number of dwelling units shall be calculated as a percentage of Base Density. The Base Density shall be that established by regulations in the relevant existing zoning district. The granting of additional density shall be at the full and complete discretion of the City based upon the amount and quality of the Conservation Area protected, public access to or enjoyment thereof, and the extent to which the proposal meets the objectives over and above that achievable through Conventional Development. (1) In the Rural Residential District, Base Density shall be determined by calculating the number of 5-acre areas of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system that are located on the subject property. (2) In sewered residential districts, a Yield Plan shall be developed to determine Base Density. Regulations of the base district and all other relevant land use regulations of this Code shall be used for completing the Yield Plan. (b) The total number of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and may be: (1) Up to 200% ofA maximum of twice the amount of the calculated Base Density in the Rural Residential District, provided that the maximum density bonus will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. (2) Up to 120% ofA maximum of 1.2 times the calculated Base Density in all sewered residential districts. Ordinance No. ### 7 DATE Subd. 23. Other areas of flexibility (a) In the Rural Residential District, flexibility may include: (1) Lot size, lot width and structure setbacks provided setbacks comply with the following minimums: i. Setback from local streets: 35 feet. ii. Setback from Arterial and Collector Streets: 100 feet. iii. Interior structure setbacks: 30 feet. iii.iv. Perimeter setbacks: Minimum structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be 50 feet. (2) Housing type. (3) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (4) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating park dedication requirements. (5) Variations to City regulations regarding septic systems. (b) In all sewered residential districts, flexibility may include: (1) Lot size, lot width, and structure setbacks, except that setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be equal to or greater than that required in the underlying zoning district. (2) Housing type. (3) Landscaping. (4) Screening. (5) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (6) Buffer yard. (7) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating park dedication requirements. (c) In commercial or business districts, flexibility may include: (1) Lot size, lot width, and structure setbacks. (2) Building height limitations, provided that the City determines that adequate emergency and fire access are provided in consultation with the fire department. (3) Landscaping. (4) Screening. (5) Loading dock and outside storage requirements. (6) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (7) Buffer yard. (8) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating park dedication requirements. Section 827.63. Conservation Area Protection and Ownership. Subd. 1. Land and improvements in areas designated as Conservation Areas in a CD-PUD shall be established, protected and owned in accordance with the following guidelines: Ordinance No. ### 8 DATE (a) Designated Conservation Areas shall be surveyed and subdivided as separate outlots. (b) Designated Conservation Areas must be restricted from further development by a permanent Conservation Easement (in accordance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C.01-05) running with the land. The Conservation Easement must be submitted with the General Plan of Development and approved by the City Attorney. (1) The permanent Conservation Easement may be held by any combination of the entities defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C, but in no case may the holder of the Conservation Easement be the same as the owner of the underlying fee. (2) The permanent Conservation Easement shall be recorded with Hennepin County and must specify: i. The entity that will maintain the designated Conservation Area. ii. The purposes of the Conservation Easement, that the easement is permanent, and the conservation values of the property. iii. The legal description of the land under the easement. iv. The restrictions on the use of the land and from future development. v. To what standards the Conservation Areas will be maintained through reference to an approved land stewardship plan. vi. Who will have access to the Conservation Area. (3) Ownership of the underlying fee of each designated Conservation Area parcel, may be held by any combination of the following entities: i. A common ownership association, subject to the provisions in the PUD District. ii. An individual who will use the land in accordance with the permanent Conservation Easement. iii. A private nonprofit organization, specializing in land conservation and stewardship, that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. iv. A government agency (e.g. park and/or natural resource agency or division). v. The City of Medina, in rare situations when there are no other viable options. (c) Open Space areas that do not achieve the City’s conservation objectives may be established under a homeowner’s association without protection by a Conservation Easement. Such areas shall be regulated according to provisions of the PUD District. Section 827.65. Land Stewardship Plan. Subd. 1. Plan Objectives. Where a CD-PUD has designated Conservation Areas, a plan for the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all Conservation Areas, may be required. The plan shall: (a) Define ownership and methods of land protection. (b) Establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities. (c) Estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated with plan implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on-going basis. This shall include land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and Ordinance No. ### 9 DATE management of the Conservation Easement by the easement holder. The fees shall be estimated and validated by the proposed easement holder. (d) Meet the requirements of the future conservation easement holder. Subd. 2. Plan Submittal Requirements. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of Development. A Final Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan Stage of PUD development. The plan shall contain a narrative describing: (a) Existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the landscape; (b) Objectives for each Conservation Area, including: (1) The proposed permanent or maintained landscape condition for each area. (2) Any restoration measures needed to achieve the proposed permanent condition, including: i. Measures for correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as erosion and intrusion of invasive plant species. ii. Measures for restoring historic features (if applicable). iii. Measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types. (3) A maintenance plan, including: i. Activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including mowing and burning schedules, weed control measures, planting schedules, and clearing and cleanup measures and schedules. ii. An estimate of the annual on-going (post restoration) operating and maintenance costs. Subd. 3. Funding of Operation and Maintenance. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation costs of Conservation Areas for up to four years depending on restoration measures. Subd. 4. Enforcement. In the event that the fee holder of the Conservation Areas, common areas and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly maintain all or any portion of the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City in coordination with the holder of the easement, may serve written notice upon such fee holder setting forth the manner in which the fee holder has failed to maintain the aforesaid common areas and facilities. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the fee holder , or any successor organization, shall be considered in violation of this Ordinance, in which case the City shall have the right to enter the premises and take the needed corrective actions. The costs of corrective actions by the City shall be assessed against the properties that have the right of enjoyment of the common areas and facilities. Ordinance No. ### 10 DATE Section 827.67. Conservation Area Design Standards. The following Conservation Area design standards shall also be considered in designing the CD-PUD: Subd. 1. Conservation Areas should be interconnected wherever possible to provide a continuous network of Open Space within the PUD and throughout the City. It should coordinate and maximize boundaries with Conservation Areas and Open Space on adjacent tracts. Subd. 2. Incorporate public and private trails with connections to existing or planned regional trails as identified in the most recent Park, Trail and Open Space Plan. Subd. 3. Designated public access trails shall be protected by an access easement owned by the City. Subd. 4. Incorporate public and/or private Open Space as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 5. Views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be minimized by the use of existing topography, existing vegetation, or additional landscaping. Ridge and hilltops should be contained within designated Conservation Areas wherever possible. Trees should not be removed from ridges and hilltops. Subd. 6. The boundaries of designated conservation areas shall be clearly delineated and labeled on CD-PUD plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or other measures approved by the city. Subd. 7. Stormwater management facilities may be located in designated conservation areas. Subd. 8. Existing land in row-cropping use shall be converted to a use that supports the achievement of the City’s conservation objectives. Section 827.69. Landscape Design Standards. Subd. 1. Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing through common Conservation Areas or Open Space. Subd. 2. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance that regular spacing may invoke. Subd. 3. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types identified in the City’s 2008 Natural Resources Inventory. Ordinance No. ### 11 DATE Subd. 4. Planted buffers between clusters of residential lots are encouraged to enhance privacy and a rural appearance between lots. Subd. 5. Buffers consisting of an informal arrangement of native plant species combined with infrequent mowing are strongly encouraged, to create a low-maintenance, natural landscape. Subd. 6. Planted buffers are also encouraged along natural drainage areas to minimize erosion. Subd. 7. Grading for Conservation Areas and other common landscaped areas and stormwater management areas shall be avoided to reduce compaction and impacting water infiltration rates. Soil testing and decompaction may be required if site construction activities negatively impact soil permeability. Subd. 8. Better Site Design/Low Impact Development practices as identified in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall be used to design sites and meet the performance standards. Section 827.71. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Facilities. Subd. 1. Where city services are not available, CD-PUD developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and all required drainfields/mound systems located on the lot, or individual septic tanks and primary drainfield/mount system located on the lot and secondary drainfields/mound system located in the designated Conservation Area or other Open Space. Subd. 21. Where city sanitary sewer service is not available, Aall septic systems shall conform to the current performance standards of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and its appendices, or the amended Rules in effect at the time of installation. Except in instances where flexibility has been explicitly granted by the City, septic systems shall also conform to relevant City regulations, including the requirement to identify a primary and secondary drainfield site. Subd. 32. The City may consider shared sewage treatment systems which are consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations and relevant City ordinances, provided adequate agreements are in place related to monitoring and maintenance procedures and replacement of the system in case of a failure. Subd. 43. Lots within CD-PUD developments may be designed so that individual septic tanks and all required treatment and dispersal areas are located within the lot, or so that individual septic tanks and the primary treatment and dispersal area is located within the lot and the secondary treatment and dispersal area located in the designated Conservation Area or other Open Space. Secondary drainfields/mound systems treatment and dispersal areas may only be located in designated Conservation Areas and other Open Space provided that: Ordinance No. ### 12 DATE (a) They The treatment and dispersal area isare located within a limited distance of the lots they it serves. (b) Construction of treatment and dispersal area drainfields/mound systems do not result in the destruction of ecological resources. (c) The Conservation Area or Open Space parcel containing the treatment and dispersal area drainfield/mound system is owned in fee by a common ownership association which owns non-Conservation Area land within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision is mandatory. (d) The individual lot owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the treatment and dispersal areadrainfield/mound system. (e) The ground cover over the treatment and dispersal area drainfield/mound system is maintained according to the Land Stewardship Plan. (f) Recreational uses are prohibited within 50 feet of the treatment and dispersal areadrainfields/mound systems. (g) The Conservation Easement for the dedicated Conservation Area parcel describes the location of individual drainfields/mound systems treatment and dispersal areas. (g)(h) The City may consider the impact of the future construction of the treatment and dispersal area(s) when determining the value of the Conservation Area, the extent to which the Conservation objectives have been met, and the amount of density and design flexibility which is granted. Section 827.72 Open Space Report Composite Map Appeal Process. In the event that an applicant is not in agreement with the Composite Map of the Open Space Report or the data contained within a report on which the Composite Map is based upon, the applicant may present an appeal to the city. Subd. 1. The applicant shall put the appeal in writing, accompanied by the fee as described by the City’s Fee Schedule, and is responsible to provide documentation supporting their appeal. Subd. 2. The appeal shall be reviewed by city staff, with the assistance of any technical consultants which city staff shall determine are appropriate. Such consultants may include, but are not limited to, environmental engineers, wetland scientists, arborists and other similar experts. City staff shall make a determination on the appeal within sixty days of receipt of a complete appeal application. Subd 3. The applicant may appeal city staff’s decision to the city council. The appeal must be filed within thirty days of staff’s determination. Subd. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs accrued by the City in review of the appeals described above, including the costs of technical consultants hired by the City. Section 827.73. Site Design Process. At the time of PUD Concept Plan development and review, applicants shall demonstrate that the following design process was performed and influenced the design of the concept site plan. Ordinance No. ### 13 DATE Subd. 1. Step 1—Identify Conservation Areas. Identify preservation land in two steps. First identify “unbuildable” areas which include: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Next, identify Conservation Areas which include those areas designated as Conservation Areas (Section 827.59 Subd. 3.) The remaining land shall be identified as the potentially Buildable Land Area. The applicant shall identify the quantity of land designated as unbuildable, Conservation Area, and potentially Buildable Land Area. Subd. 2. Step 2—Locate Housing Sites. Locate the approximate sites of individual houses in regard to protected views and the potentially buildable land areas. Subd. 3. Step 3—Align Streets and Trails. Align streets in order to access the lots. New trails and connections to regional trail systems, if any, should be laid out to create internal and external connections to existing and/or potential future streets, sidewalks, and trails. Subd. 4. Step 4—Lot Lines. Draw in the lot lines. Section 827.75. CD-PUD Application Processing. The review and approval procedures of the PUD District shall be used to review and approve CD-PUDs. Prior to the Concept Plan Stage PUD application, the City encourages applicants to engage in an informal collaborative project goal setting process with the City. The purpose of this process is to jointly develop site design and conservation objectives and assess areas of regulatory flexibility for achieving developer and City objectives for the specific parcel of land. The Collaborative Process may include council members, city commission members, land owners, developers, city staff, other governmental jurisdiction staff, the potential future Conservation Easement holder, and other participants as appropriate. The outcome of the process is a Project Guidance Report prepared by city staff. The report will summarize the project concept, project objectives, and preliminary understanding of regulatory flexibility needed to achieve the objectives. SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this _____ day of _____, 2017. ______________________________ Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of ______, 2017 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/10/2017 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Wally and Bridget Marx – 2700 – 2900 Parkview Drive – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a 6 Lot Conservation Design-PUD Subdivision with the Permanent Preservation of Land Finke explained the intent for the conservation design-PUD subdivision and the flexibility that can be gained through the preservation of land. He stated that the property does include various aspects of natural resources that have been identified in the City’s natural resources and open space reports. He identified the high-quality tamarack swamp and area of maple basswood. He explained the potential access proposed and displayed the concept plan as proposed by the applicant. He identified the proposed conservation areas. He explained the intent of the ordinance, noting that the objectives provide a little more detail on those elements. He stated that there are six proposed lots which would be a 200 percent density bonus, as normal development would allow for three lots. He stated that the typical buildable lot size ranges from 1.6 acres to 6.5 acres, with the majority of the lots coming in with 2 to 3 acres of buildable land. He stated that over 75 percent of the property is proposed for conservation, noting that only 11.5 acres of that land is considered buildable. He noted that the site in total has 28 acres which still makes the conservation proposed to be 40 percent of the total buildable land and therefore exceeds the 30 percent threshold of the ordinance. He provided additional details on the section of land that staff recommended for inclusion in the conservation area. He stated that lots one and two would not meet the minimum lot width for the shoreline and provided additional details on possible conservation that could be designated to avoid the issue of non-compliance. He stated that staff spoke with the septic provider to determine that reasonable septic service and site locations could be provided on the lots. He stated that this is simply a process to allow input, and formal action is not required tonight. He stated that staff believes that this property would be a good candidate for conservation, but discussion would be needed regarding the potential density bonus. He stated that the forester indicated that a little stewardship could push the wooded areas into a higher quality categorization. R. Reid referenced building site three and asked if that has been eliminated. Finke stated that area was marked as a higher priority conservation area and therefore the lots were shifted. R. Reid noted that the change was not listed in the conditions and asked if that should be one of the conditions for approval. Finke stated that one comment referenced a reduction to the number of septic systems and therefore shifting the lot would be one of the ways to accomplish that. Barry referenced the five contiguous acres of suitable soils stipulation and asked if that is per lot or proposal. Finke stated that the base zoning of the rural residential zoning district requires five acres of contiguous suitable soils per lot. He explained that simply determines the base density and then during the review of the conservation design-PUD request, there would need to be a determination as to whether there would be justification of a bonus density; and if so, the percentage of density bonus that would be allowed. R. Reid referenced site number three and asked if that meets the shoreline overlay requirements for setback. Finke confirmed that the lot would meet those requirements. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/10/2017 Meeting Minutes 2 Rengel asked and received clarification on the flexibility that is provided under the conservation design- PUD ordinance. Albers asked for information on what appears to be a road near the lake. Finke replied that is a field road currently and noted that it is very steep and therefore he is not sure if that would be practical to reuse. Kent Williams, 1632 Homestead Trail, stated that he is present to represent the applicant on this proposal. He stated that they are looking for feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council and will then consider that input in regard to their potential proposal. He stated that the Marx family has lived on the property since 1998 and have put a substantial amount of work into the property as it was formerly a pig farm. He stated that the result has been an explosion of wildlife to and from School Lake. He stated that Mr. Marx has also established the largest privately owned English garden that has received international accolades. He stated that the proposal from staff would move lot three into the garden and therefore they would not agree with that element because of the work that Mr. Marx put into the garden and the accolades it receives. He noted that he himself was part of the Planning Commission when the conservation design-PUD ordinance was enacted. He stated that he was also on the Commission when Mr. Marx brought forward two other requests for a conservation design-PUD on the property. He noted that he was disappointed by the first request, but the Marx family came back with a much improved request in 2012 that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that the Marx family then discovered part of the land could not be developed until 2016. He noted that he was disappointed at that time because he felt the City was losing out on the conservation of valuable resources. He stated that he was happy when Mr. Marx contacted him to state that they would like to try it again as all the property is now available for development. He noted that this is a challenging site because of the topography and wetlands. He stated that this is the highest percentage of land proposed for a conservation design-PUD that the City has ever considered, and is also high quality elements. He noted that a total of 70 acres would be put into conservation easement as there would be unbuildable land in addition to the 11.5 acres of buildable land. He noted that part of the conservation is contained on the lots and will further restrict what can be done on that land. He stated that the conservation proposed far exceeds the development proposed. He discussed what would happen under typical development of the site. He stated that these types of resources need to be managed and this is a method to ensure that happens as the land would be put under stewardship with a management plan that ensures that not only is the land not built upon, it is also managed in a responsible and reputable manner. He stated that they proposed that lot three remain in the current location as it is the lowest quality wooded area and only contains boxelder trees which are not even protected by the tree ordinance. He stated that they would much prefer to have the garden over the boxelder trees. He stated that they did contemplate clustering the homes, but wanted to stay with the more rural character rather than have a suburban character. He referenced the existing field road and agreed that it is very steep. He noted that it is often washed out and would possibly be a hazard during the winter months. Murrin asked who would manage the conservation easement land. Mr. Williams replied that they are in conservation with two potential organizations and provided the examples. Michael Pressman, applicant’s conservation consultant, confirmed that the intent would be that the steward would maintain the land in a similar manner. He provided additional details stating that the subdivision would also have a list of dos and don’ts of what could be done. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/10/2017 Meeting Minutes 3 Murrin stated that the property is beautiful and would encourage the stewards to follow the method that Mr. Marx has used. She asked if the apple orchard would be cut down to build a home. Mr. Williams stated that whoever purchases the lot would have the options to either build a home and remove the orchard, could build a home and keep a portion of the orchard, or the person who purchases the neighboring lot could choose to purchase that lot as well to keep as an orchard. Albers referenced the placement of one of the lots and the neighboring home. Mr. Williams replied that they are willing to move the alignment of the lot slightly, but want to be cautious to ensure that the viewsheds of the other lots are not impacted to maintain the rural character. Albers asked if there has been consideration to making lots one and two just one lot. Mr. Williams stated that currently there is a field directly adjacent to the neighboring home owner and was unsure what they could see from their home, but believed perhaps a portion of the orchard could be seen. He recognized that the neighboring homeowner would be able to see a home if the development is approved. Murrin asked if the owners of lot five would be able to maintain the garden or choose to do what they like with it. Mr. Marx replied that the owner of the lot would be able to do what they desire with it. He stated that it is costly and cumbersome to maintain. He stated that he will not be able to maintain the garden forever. He stated that hopefully lot five would be the last lot sold. He stated that if he sold the entire property as one lot, the home would be built where lot one is proposed. He noted that most likely lot one would be the only home that would be visible. Albers noted that lot one is the location of the five contiguous acres of suitable soils and therefore if sold as one property, that would be the location that someone would build even if the property wasn’t subdivided. Mr. Marx stated that he has attempted to donate the garden to the Arboretum but they asked how many millions of dollars he would give to help maintain the land. He stated that he also attempted that with Three Rivers Park District and was declined. He explained that there is not a public entity that will accept the donation. Albers opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. No comments made. Albers closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Rengel stated that she does not have anything she would proposed to change, but at some point in the process would like to see a land stewardship plan. Finke noted that is part of the first formal step of the process. R. Reid referenced the site design done by staff and asked if that was done before or after the applicants. Finke stated that he did it six years ago, and did it again after he saw this application. He stated that to a certain extent, things that he found in the site design were similar to what he had done. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/10/2017 Meeting Minutes 4 R. Reid asked if staff would still recommend using their site design over the applicant’s. Finke stated that he is not suggesting that the staff design supersede the applicant’s, but is a process of the request to see what would be the same and what would be different. He stated that the staff version is done looking at the open space report and natural resources report. He stated that staff recognizes that this ordinance has to include an incentive if it is going to be a tool that the City is going to use to create open space without the City having to buy property for conservation. He provided additional input regarding the septic systems. Mr. Marx provided additional details on horse trails. Barry stated that his concern was that lot four might be too far to access the septic, but was satisfied with the engineering comments. Finke stated that the Council is set to review the concept plan on February 7th and the Park Commission will discuss at their meeting next Wednesday. Medina City Council Excerpt from 2/7/2017 Meeting Minutes 1 Wally Marx – Conservation Design Subdivision PUD Concept Plan – 2500-2900 Parkview Drive (7:46 p.m.) Johnson noted that this was first brought forward to the Council in 2010/2011 but the property was found to be in agricultural preserve and therefore had to wait until 2016. Sparks stated that the property is currently three parcels that would be proposed to be developed into six lots. He stated that of the 90 acres, about 70 acres would be in easement and of that 40 percent would qualify for the buildable acre clause. He stated that this property is currently zoned and guided for rural residential use. He stated that the property includes two areas of moderate quality maple basswood forest and a good quality tamarack swamp land that were identified in the open space report. He noted that those elements would be proposed to be conserved. He explained the purpose of the ordinance, which creates and protects the conservation ordinance. He stated that the base density of the three parcels would allow three lots, and therefore this would be a 200 percent density bonus. He noted that they are proposing conservation of 77.6 percent of the site. He provided additional details on the lot layouts, access, and septic locations. He stated that the purpose of a concept plan is for the applicant to gain input from the Commissions and Council in regard to what they would be expecting when the applicant submits their actual application. He noted that the staff conditions were included in the packet along with the comments of the Planning and Park Commissions. He stated that a neighboring property owner submitted a letter stating that they did not like the number of units proposed for the property. Martin referenced the applicant’s concept plan and the four septic sites, asking for clarification on locations and the types of trees in those areas. Sparks noted that the specific area had boxelder trees. Cousineau asked if the trees could be restored to create a corridor. Sparks agreed that the area is lower quality but could be restored to a higher quality with some work. He noted that restoration of some of the woodlands would improve the quality. Martin referenced the staff concept plan and asked where on the property homes could be placed. She asked for, and received, clarification on certain elements of the plans. She referenced a man-made wetland on the property and asked if there is a difference in protection. Mark Gronberg, Gronberg and Associates, replied that the wetland has been delineated as a wetland and therefore there is no difference. Laura Domyancich, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, stated that if there is a wetland on the plan that has been delineated as a wetland but does not have a classification it would not have the same protection as a wetland. She stated that if preservation of the wetland is desired a MnRam would need to be done for the wetland to determine a management plan and classification. Kent Williams, 1632 Homestead Trail, stated that he is speaking on behalf of the applicants at their request. He stated that the applicant submitted a narrative with the concept plan, noting that this is the third time Mr. Marx has come to the Council with an attempted project. He stated that under any measure this project is one that provides significant value to the City. He stated that the Marx family purchased the land in 1998 and spent 20 years restoring the property, as it Medina City Council Excerpt from 2/7/2017 Meeting Minutes 2 was previously a pig farm. He stated this is one of the last few groves of trees left and would be protected. He stated that the Marx family has proposed to put 40 percent of buildable land into conservation easement, noting that there has not been a request that has come before the City with that high of a percentage. He noted that the percentage of buildable land is quite low already for this property and therefore this is a significant sacrifice. He stated that the conservation elements that are being protected through the easements should justify the density bonus itself. He noted that it is important to note that on top of the buildable land, the Marx family would be conserving another 60 acres of unbuildable land. He noted that they are not asking for a large number of homes in return for this conservation, they simply believe in the conservation of the land. He highlighted the conservation benefits that would be provided through this proposal. He highlighted what would happen under normal development of this property, which would create three lots and the future landowners could do a lot of things with their land, outside of building, that could be detrimental to the natural features. He stated that this is a harmonious plan with a single easement holder and would provide a benefit to the City. He stated that this provides more conserved land and less buildable homes than any application before. He referenced the park dedication requirement for the horse trail around the lake. He stated that the lake is entirely private at this time, along with the horse trail, and is used by invitation only and not used by the public. He stated that there has been pushback from the neighbors on the lake that they do not want that path open to the public at large and those neighbors would close their segments of the trail. He also noted that there would be issues with parking for people attempting to access the trail. He noted that there was a lengthy discussion at the Park Commission meeting. He noted that an alternate trail location was discussed in the southern portion of the property, which would keep the trail away from the homes. He noted that the intent then would be for it to be a nature trail. He stated that the Park Commission wanted the ability to provide trail connection to the properties east and west. He noted that there are not currently trails to the east or west. He noted that the applicant is conserving not only the required buildable land but also 60 additional acres of non-buildable land and therefore asked that the Council waive the requirement for park dedication. He stated that a lot of thought went into this concept plan. Martin referenced a gravel drive and asked if the existing configuration would continue or whether there would be a relocation. It was noted this is the existing horse trail. She stated that on the applicant’s proposal she noticed buildable area that is going into conservation and compared that to the staff plan. She also noted what seemed to be a straight line of trees and asked for more information. Wally Marx replied that the line of trees is very straight because they purchased the land in 1998 and there were 400 hogs on the property before they purchased the property. He noted that the pigs devastated the land. He stated that in order to create more conserved land they have limited the housing footprint to one acre each. Charlie Schroder, 2910 Parkview, stated that they are the neighbor immediately to the north and are present to understand what is going on. He stated that they are new neighbors and have found this background information to be helpful. He asked how the PUD is superior to the conventional development, as he did not quite see how the land would be better under the PUD. He stated that having the trail open to the public would be problematic with parking. He stated that a north/south trail on Parkview would be objectional. He stated that this seems like a lot of density relative to a conventional development plan. Pederson stated that he was on the Council in 2011 and stated that this request is considerably better than that request. He stated that he has concerns with the proximity to the lake. He Medina City Council Excerpt from 2/7/2017 Meeting Minutes 3 stated that the trail would be problematic because the other property owners do not want that. He stated that with the trails at Baker Park he was unsure why additional trails would be needed here. He stated that it would be difficult to give up park dedication, noting that he does not have any interest in dropping park dedication. Mitchell provided background information on the Long Lake Hounds. Anderson agreed that this is a substantially better plan than what was presented in 2011. He stated that he does have concerns with the closeness of lots one and two. He stated that it seems that the buildable acreage is in pieces rather than one contiguous piece and therefore could not find how it would benefit the City. He agreed that the park dedication should not be waived. Williams stated that they attempted to not make the conservation areas fragmented. He noted that the green and yellow areas are proposed for preservation, identifying corridors. Martin stated that lots one and two seem close together and would also need a variance. She stated that other than that she likes the fragmentation of the lots as it seems more rural and less planned. She stated that there was conscious thought from the applicant to preserve land in corridors. She stated that she would want the conservation areas to be placed in outlots to minimize the amount of conserved areas within the lots. She asked which areas were the highest value in terms on conservation, noting that the tamarack swamp is high quality but would be protected as a wetland. She stated that the maple basswood forest would protect the tree line and view shed from the road. She stated that perhaps there could be a trail that would provide a vista of the lake. She stated that she would avoid the horse trail. She stated that she would preserve a trail further east that could be built out at a further time. She stated that she would give park dedication for trails that are built. She stated that she would like to see protection of the wooded areas more and would recommend the staff suggestion for layout with a trail that could overlook the lake. She stated that she would like to see the setbacks met and would keep the roads out of the middle woodland area to loop around a bit more as staff recommended. Cousineau stated that she appreciates that staff moved lot three to the southern part, but noted that it seems that may be crowded. She stated that she would support a trail becoming public overlooking a vista of the lake but would not support the horse trail. She stated that park dedication is important. Mitchell stated that he just does not understand it, as it seems that this is attempting to get ten pounds of flour into a five-pound sack. He stated that in the rural area the effort is for less houses. He stated that he does not see any public benefit to this land. He stated that he does not understand how the little bits of yellow on the map would be justification for double density. He stated that three homes would preserve the most trees, the animal corridor, the marshes, and wetlands. He stated that he does not see that this meets the minimum ordinance standards. Williams stated that there seems to be a misunderstanding of what could be done and what could not be done under conservation or regular ownership. He stated that the property owner could buy wetland mitigation credits and fill wetlands. He stated that the natural elements could be left to the whim of a future land owner or they could choose to protect and conserve the rare and disappearing elements that exist on the land. He stated that you would not get the same Medina City Council Excerpt from 2/7/2017 Meeting Minutes 4 level of land stewardship and management under this request compared to traditional development. Cousineau stated that if you go to five homes, there is already one home and you would only be adding four homes. She stated that this is a large area of land and therefore would be comfortable with some additional homes. Anderson asked if the applicant feels that they received feedback from the Council. Williams stated that it seems that there is some antagonism towards the ordinance itself rather than the project. He stated that if you hate the ordinance you can say no to every request, noting that there will not be a lot of these requests. He stated that it does not seem that this should rise or fall on five or six homes when the applicants would be conserving 70 acres of land. He stated that the conservation aspects on this request far exceed what was gained through Stonegate, and this request is only asking for three additional homes. He appreciated the honest feedback but felt that the Council is providing negative comments against the ordinance itself. Cousineau stated that lots one and two do not conform to the DNR shoreline regulations. She agreed that this was a hot topic tonight but noted that there would have to be some conformity in order to discuss the 200 percent density bonus. Williams stated that if the parcels should be expanded, it would make them more saleable as they would gain more shoreland. He explained that the lots are smaller because of the conserved shoreline. He did not feel they would have trouble presenting the case to the DNR. Mitchell stated that it seems that they could just do a PUD to approve additional lots. Batty stated that is not what the applicant has requested and would have different standards for review. Mitchell stated that he did not understand how this would meet the objectives of the conservation design ordinance. Michael Pressman stated that he has spent about 25 years on conservation development, as this is his career. He stated that he began looking at this property when he was working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and he made an offer at that time to purchase a conservation easement to secure what is proposed to the City for free. He stated that he secured an easement to the north. He stated that he was attracted to this property because of the natural features of the site. He noted that while the yellow area may seem small that is connected to the green areas that would also be preserved. He stated that he joined his profession to look ahead and ensure conservation when changes come in the future. He stated that this project has come before the Council three times now. He stated that this site contains areas identified in the City’s open space plan and meet the requirements of the ordinance. Martin asked how many homes could be built on this property if this property were rezoned in the future as single family detached or attached.    701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800    Building a legacy – your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com  June 8, 2017 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Marx PUD Concept – Engineering Review City Project No. LR-17-205 WSB Project No. 03433-170 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed the Marx PUD Concept application and plans dated May 12, 2017. The applicant proposes to construct a six single family parcels. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Site Plan & Civil 1. Note proposed driveway grades. 2. Show the location of the public access trail referenced in the narrative. 3. With future submittals, please provide the following: a. A drawing showing or exhibit showing fire truck turning movements and access through site. b. Soil borings or hand augers shall be provided to confirm that 12-inches of class 5 and a geotextile fabric exist. c. Show a proposed street typical section detail on the plans. With future submittals submit cross sections along the roadway at least every 50 feet to confirm the construction limits of the proposed road widening. d. Add curve data and roadway grades to the proposed road profile on Sheet 5. Stormwater 4. Show stormwater treatment locations within each lot and consider grading implications. Marx PUD Concept – Engineering Review June 8, 2017 Page 2 5. With future submittals, please provide the following: a. Stormwater calculations showing compliance with the City’s rate control, water quality, infiltration and freeboard requirements. b. Documentation that a permit application has been sent to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Provide the final permitting documents prior to the start of construction. c. Indicate existing high water levels and overflow routes of School Lake and the large wetland complexes on the plans in order to evaluate compliance with the freeboard requirement. d. The development is proposed on what appears to be the overflow route for School Lake to the south, labeled Outlot A and I. Verify adequate freeboard is provided to future development and that the capacity of the EOF is not impacted. Wetlands 6. Wetland C is shown entirely within Lot 5. Provide an easement to fully encompass this wetland area including the appropriate buffers. 7. It appears wetland impacts are being avoided to a great extent, but provide a more detailed plan showing the roadway to Lot 4 as that passes through a very narrow area between Wetlands E and F. 8. Provide appropriate documentation of compliance with WCA for any proposed wetland impacts. 9. Wetland H should be connected to Wetland F – the final approved delineation did not include Wetland H, simply one connected wetland named F. 10. It does not appear the applicant will meet the minimum 30’ buffer width required on the north side of Wetland B. 11. The applicant is proposing wetland management classifications that differ from those shown City of Medina’s Wetland Management Classification map. The applicant provided a document outlining the proposed classifications on June 6, 2017. Following a review of the document, the City agrees with the proposed wetland management classifications. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer METRO WET :N 1FECTI0N SERWkCE3, INC. Loren Kohnen, Pres. Metro West Inspection Services, Inc. Box 248 Loretto, MN 55357 May 26, 2017 To: Debra Peterson From: Loren Kohnen Item: School Lake Nature Preserve Wallace Marx Six lot proposal East of Parkview Drive, SW side of School Lake (763) 479-1720 FAX (7 63) 479-3090 Mtrowst76@aol.corn I have reviewed the proposal and checked the septic design and locations. All will meet code and must be protected before any road or driveway construction begins. The design of the driveways must be submitted and approved by the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal (Loretto Fire Department) before final approval of the plat by Medina City Council. Most driveways are very long and though poor soil. Respectfully, Loren Kohnen Fire Marshal Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357 SCHOOL LAKE NATURE PRESERVE GENERAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT Wallace and Bridget Marx (“the Applicants”) respectfully submit the following General Plan of Development in compliance with Medina City Code § 827.35, General Plan of Development. This General Plan of Development is supplemented by and should be read in conjunction with the Project Narrative and Concept Plan previously submitted on December 9, 2016, which are incorporated by reference (to the extent not modified by this Application). The Applicants propose to place approximately 70 acres of the subject property, including 11.76 acres of buildable land, into a permanent conservation easement. This represents 40.44 percent of the total buildable land on the property. The easement area will include 21.22 acres (out of a total of approximately 25 acres) of the tamarack swamp and Big Woods maple-basswood forest found significant by Hennepin County.1 The easement will also include large swaths of land to preserve wildlife corridors to School Lake. A well-placed public access trail will allow members of the community to enter and enjoy some of the most valuable and unique parts of the property, all of which have been restricted to private access until now. As an incentive for the above, and to help alleviate the economic loss from committing 40% of their limited buildable land to conservation, the Applicants ask for a full density bonus of three additional lots. The conservation areas will be protected by a Land Stewardship Plan and Conservation Easement Agreement. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (“MCWD”) will own the easement, and will have the right to periodically inspect the property and ensure that conservation areas are being properly maintained. Individual lot 1 The remaining acreage of these conservation assets lies within a separate parcel that is not part of this Application. 2 owners will own the conservation areas in fee, and will be signatories to the easement agreement with the MCWD. Funds for restoration and maintenance of the conservation areas will be obtained from the proceeds of sales of individual lots, and will be supplemented with annual dues to be paid by individual lot owners into an escrow account controlled by the MCWD. The Applicants have met with the MCWD regarding the necessary permits and will file applications for same once approval for the project has been granted. Any storm water management and other required improvements required by the City will be implemented prior to the sale of any lots. No grading or other improvements are anticipated to be required prior to the sale of the lots. The Applicants anticipate that construction of the private road will take place after Lots 3 and 4 are sold, with the funds required to complete the road obtained from the proceeds of such sales. 1. Property Address. 2700-2900 Parkview Drive, Medina, MN. 2. Zoning Classifications. The property is presently zoned as Rural Residential (RR-Rural Residential). The Applicants request a zoning change to Conservation Design-PUD District (“CD-PUD”). When the project is completed, the zoning classification most comparable to the proposed development will continue to be Rural Residential. The primary modification needed from the comparable zoning classification is flexibility with respect to the requirement of five acres of contiguous suitable soils pursuant to § 826.25 subd. 2(a). 3. Property Owners: Wallace A. and Bridget A. Marx 2700 Parkview Drive Medina, MN 55340 3 Mr. and Mrs. Marx jointly own the subject property in fee simple absolute, as husband and wife. 4. Preliminary Plat. See attached preliminary plat prepared by Gronberg & Associates. 5. Preliminary plans: see attached preliminary plans prepared by Gronberg & Associates. 6. Legal descriptions: This property is composed of three separate parcels: a. PID 16 118 23 32 0002 2700 Parkview Drive Medina, MN 55340 Legal description: Commencing at the NE corner of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, thence South to the SE corner thereof, thence West to the SW corner thereof, thence North to the SW corner of Priscilla’s Addition, thence easterly along the southerly line of said Addition to the SE corner thereof, thence North to the NE corner thereof, thence East to the beginning, except road. Section 16, Township 118, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. b. PID 16 118 23 31 0002 2702 Parkview Drive Medina, MN 55340 Legal description: The South 500 feet east of that part of the NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 lying West of the East 520 feet thereof. Section 16, Township 118, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. c. PID 16 118 23 23 0005 2900 Parkview Drive Medina, MN 55340 Legal description: That part of the S 1/2 of the NW 1/4 lying south of the North 845 feet thereof, except the West 417.42 feet of the North 208.71 feet of the South 213.71 feet thereof; also that part of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 lying West of the East 520 feet thereof and North of the South 500 feet thereof, except road. Section 16, 4 Township 118, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 7. Tabulation of residential dwellings and expected population: This proposal provides for a total of six (6) residential dwellings, with an expected population of around eighteen (18), assuming an average of three (3) persons per household. See City of Medina 2030 Comprehensive Plan at 3-3 & Table 3-A (citing 2000 census information showing an average of 3.06 persons per household in Medina). The proposal adds three houses and approximately nine (9) people compared to conventional development under existing regulations. Because the property is within the Metropolitan Council’s long term-sewer service area, it likely will receive sewer service at some point in the future. When this occurs, the property probably will not keep its low-density “Rural Residential” classification. With 29 acres of buildable land, and assuming a low density residential classification of 2-3.5 units per acre, conventional sewered development would result in 58-102 residential dwellings, or 174-306 people. If the property were rezoned to Residential Mid-Density (R3), which has a minimum lot size of 8,750 feet and a maximum lot size of 12,500 feet, the range would be from 99-141 residential dwellings, or 297-423 people. 8. Preliminary grading and site alteration plan: see attached plans prepared by Mark Gronberg & Associates. 9. Timeline for development: 12/9/16 Application filed 1/9/17 Planning Commission Concept Plan Presentation 2/7/17 City Council Concept Plan Presentation 5 5/12/17 Application for Preliminary Approval filed 6/13/17 Planning Commission Meeting (CD-PUD) 6/27/17 City Council Meeting (CD-PUD) 7/12/17 Final City Approvals 7/31/17 MCWD Permits granted 7/31/19 Estimated residential occupancy of Lots 1-4 9. A statement summarizing all changes made to previously-submitted documents: Since their application was filed last December, the Applicants have made a number of changes based on suggestions they received from the Planning Commission, the Park Commission, the City Council, the City Planner, and the anticipated easement holder, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (“MCWD”). These changes include the following: a. Conservation area ownership. The Applicants propose that all of the conservation easement area be owned in fee by the individual residential homeowners, rather than landowners plus one or more homeowner associations. The Applicants and the MCWD agree that this will simplify administration of the conservation easement agreement. The Applicants submit that landowners will take their conservation obligations more seriously if they are held directly responsible as signatories to the easement agreement. Appropriate signage and effective enforcement by the MCWD will help ensure that landowners do not conduct impermissible activities in protected areas. b. Tree replacement program. Although the MCWD does not believe significant restoration of the property is needed, the Land Stewardship Plan 6 includes a program for replacing box elder trees and other invasive species with higher-quality trees, and dedicates funds for this purpose. c. Escrow. An escrow account controlled by the MCWD will be established and maintained with funds paid by landowners both at closing and on an annual basis, to pay for the tree replacement program and any needed maintenance. d. Public trail. A public access trail is proposed, with an entrance just north of the road near the Old Growth Woods, heading east-northeast along the road and then northeast into Outlot C and heading on toward School Lake, circling in a loop, and then connecting back to the original trail. This trail will allow the public to view the Old Growth Woods, the Tamarack Swamp, and School Lake, none of which are currently available to the public. The public trail is configured so that it does not interfere with the existing horse trail. The public trail is offered in addition to the general east-west easement in the southern part of the property that was requested by the Park Commission. e. Lot 1 Perimeter setback. The perimeter setback for Lot 1 now complies with existing regulations. f. Outlots. All conservation areas are included as Outlots A-K on the concept plan (the green and yellow areas). g. Lot 4 driveway and septic line. The driveway and septic line for Lot 4 has been re-drawn to avoid Wetland F. Rusty Olson has confirmed that the new location does not present any difficulties. 7 The requisite number of copies of maps showing existing conditions, a soils overlay, preliminary plat, preliminary road plan, and simplified ownership map, along with copies of a draft Land Stewardship Plan and draft Conservation Easement Agreement, are submitted with this General Plan of Development. Marx Woods Forest Analysis Authors: Mike Reinikainen and Dave Thill Introduction A small proportion of the original Maple -Basswood forest cover -type remains in Hennepin County, and some of the best opportunities to preserve remnants of this forest type from future development exist in western portions of the county. The importance of preserving these stands of trees lies in the fact they offer ecological, economic, and social benefits to Hennepin county citizens that are nearly impossible to replace without significant input of resources and time. Benefits of mature stands of trees include, carbon and nutrient storage, oxygen production, stormwater management and erosion control, recreational opportunities, and critical habitat for native flora and fauna. Hennepin County has identified 25.23 acres of the 37.42 acre parcel (PID# 1611823320002) owned by Wally Marx at 2700 Parkview Drive, Medina, MN as being ecologically significant and within a state and county -identified natural resource corridor. The parcel harbors three stands of interest; an 11 acre tamarack wetland complex, a nearly pure one acre silver maple stand, and a 14 acre maple -basswood remnant. The tamarack wetland complex has previously been identified as ecologically significant as we are at the southern edge of that species range and there are only a handful of similar native plant communities in the county. The silver maple stand is quite rare locally and unique given the topography and hydrology of the site. The 14 acre Maple -basswood stand, hereafter referred to as Marx Woods, is classified as a southern rnesic sugar maple — basswood — (bitternut hickory) forest (MHs39a) using the MN DNR Ecological Classification System for Native Plant Communities (MNDNR 2003). This was a once common and extensive forest -type that has been fragmented and is now underrepresented on the landscape, especially in the mature or old -growth stages of development. Methods Hennepin County Forestry and Natural Resource Staff collected data from Marx Woods on May 24th 2016 to determine the quality and growth stage of the forest. Data were collected from four prism plots systematically installed ever 132 feet from a random start. Within the prism plot, live and dead tree size and species were collected to estimate tree density and basal area. At three of the plots downed deadwood data were collected using the line -intercept method and converted to a volume per acre value. Species presence and cover was estimated at all four plots. Data were summarized in the office and compared to available benchmarks from regional forest research literature. Findings Hale et al. (1999) examined old -growth and mature Maple -Basswood forests from around Minnesota to better describe what elements of these forests set them apart from disturbed and early successional Maple -Basswood forests. Examination of 21 regional Maple -Basswood forests, including stands at nearby Baker Park Reserve and Wolsfeld Woods SNA, revealed that mature and old -growth maple - basswood stands have a significantly higher area occupied by trees (or live tree basal area) and a higher level of accumulated deadwood (downed as well as standing dead or "snags"). Table 1 is a comparison for key compositional and structural forest traits identified by Hale et al. as indicative of mature and old -growth forests of this type in the region. We have included Marx Woods for comparison. The data indicates that on 3 out of 6 measures of forest composition and structure, Marx woods compares really well with the old -growth stands from the Hale et al. (1999) study. Floral diversity approximates mature and old -growth conditions. Live tree basal area, representing the area occupied by trees, is significantly greater than mature and old -growth forests. Similarly, the proportion of large diameter trees (>24" diameter at breast height, or DBH) is substantially greater than that observed in regional old growth. These measures all indicate that this stand is indeed unique, and taken with the fact the property lies within an ecological corridor identified by the county, this stand is a strong candidate for preservation. Further, given bark and growth form characteristics of the large diameter trees present, we would estimate the oldest trees in this stand to be in excess of 150 years old; this is a forest condition not easily replicated. Table 1. Comparison of forest measures used to distinguish mature and old -growth forest stages including field collected data from Marx Woods. Those characteristics at Marx Woods that are similar to Stand -type Measure Species diversity (evenness) Standing deadwood (snags) Downed deadwood (logs) Coarse deadwood (snags+logs) Live tree basal area Proportion of trees > 30' DBH Density of trees Variable Shannon's H' index cu. ft. per acre cu. ft. per acre cu. ft. per acre sq. ft. per acre percent trees per acre Mature Old -growth Marx Woods 0.79 0.87 0.83 114 386 62 572 786 64 %00 1258 126 109 135 160 3 6 15 144 137 100 mature and old -growth forests are in bold. Recommendations This stand is no doubt unique and worth protecting, but it is not untrammeled and is in need of some forest management and restoration. Table 1 reveals that this stand is lacking in deadwood, a hallmark and the strongest predictor of mature and old -growth forest. Deadwood is important for floral and faunal habitat as well as water retention and nutrient cycling. Large diameter stumps were located on site, indicating trees were harvested in the past. Wally Marx noted that removals did take place to reduce fire risk following a blow -down event in the late 1990s. Deadwood is now significantly lacking in this stand. Figure 1 further demonstrates how Marx Woods differs from regional mature and old -growth forest in that it lacks trees in the middle diameter classes (i.e. 12-19.9") when compared to regional mature or old -growth. Grazing likely occurred on site as floral diversity is lower than expected. Only 21 native ground layer plants were identified on the site, and those plants were present in rather low abundance or cover. Potential grazing in the early- to mid -twentieth century may have halted forest development as ground cover and hardwoods seedlings were consumed by livestock. The lack of floral diversity could also be explained by the presence of invasive earthworms. This, however, would not explain the lack of trees in mid -diameter classes. Regardless of the stand history, Marx Woods displays important characteristics of mature and old - growth forests that takes hundreds of growing seasons to reproduce. This stand is worth preserving for the established canopy, the high number of large trees present per acre, the floral diversity that does exist, and the manageable number and cover of invasive species present. If preservation is achieved on this property, steps should be taken to maintain and enhance deadwood pools, control buckthorn and garlic mustard, and increase floral diversity in both richness (i.e., number of species) and abundance (i.e., cover) in the ground cover layer. ■ Mature a Marx ■ Old growth 50% 45% ;n 40% m 35% 0 30•% O 25% O • 20% O 15% 2 a a 10% 5% 0% 8-119 12-15.9 4-7.9 hi r111 7', 16-19.9 20-23.9 24+ Diameter at breast height (4.5 ft. in inches) Figure 1. Diameter distribution comparing forest structure of Marx Woods to average regional mature and old -growth maple basswood forests. Table 2. Species observed with tree species in bold. Species observed Avens Bitternut hickory Black cherry Buckthorn Bur oak Cleavers Common nightshade Cutleaf toothwort Dutchmen's breeches False rue anemone Garlic mustard Green ash Green briar Hackberry Ironwood Jack in the pulpit Large white trillium Moonseed Nannyberry Penn sedge Prickly gooseberry Wild leek Red cedar Red oak Solomon's seal Spring beauty Sugar maple Tartarian honeysuckle Virginia creeper Virginia waterleaf White oak Wild geranium Wild grape References Hale, C.M., J. Pastor, and K.A. Rusterholz. 1999. Comparison of structural and compositional characteristics in old -growth and mature, managed hardwood forests of Minnesota, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 29: 1479-1489. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, MNDNR, St. Paul, Minnesota. 1 LAND STEWARDSHIP PLAN School Lake Nature Preserve Medina, Minnesota DRAFT 2 May 10, 2017 Prepared for: Wally Marx 2700 Parkview Drive Medina, MN 55340 Prepared by: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 15320 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (To be revised with updated page numbers once final) INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... Conservation Design........................................................................................................ Land Stewardship Plan.................................................................................................... EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................................................ Compilation of Existing Data........................................................................................... Field Reconnaissance...................................................................................................... Findings........................................................................................................................... CONSERVATION DESIGN OF SCHOOL LAKE NATURE PRESERVE................................................. Development Layout...................................................................................................... Grading & Ecological Stormwater Management............................................................ Cultural Amenities.......................................................................................................... OWNERSHIP, CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES & LAND PROTECTION............................................ School Lake Nature Preserve Land Allocation................................................................ Development Area.......................................................................................................... City Park Land Dedication……………………………………………………………….............................. Conservation Area........................................................................................................... 3 LAND STEWARDSHIP PLAN SCHOOL LAKE NATURE PRESERVE FINAL PLAT Medina, Minnesota INTRODUCTION Wally Marx proposes to develop 89.75 acres of land contained within three contiguous parcels in Medina, Hennepin County, Minnesota following the City’s Conservation Design – Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) requirements. The project includes 6 single family sites and holds unique and important conservation values based on its regional location and variety of wetland, woodland, and shoreline habitats. These values are recognized by a number of local agencies, and Mr. Marx’s goal is to create unique lots that preserve the natural resource values of the site, integrate the home sites into the landscape, and provide options for future management and possible expansion of restored areas. Conservation Design The proposed development complies with the City of Medina’s Conservation Design Development requirements as described in detail in subsequent sections and per City Code Section 827.51. Conservation Design (CD) – Purpose. The purpose of this district is to preserve the City’s ecological resources, wildlife corridors, scenic views, and rural character while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Plan as updated from time to time. The specific conservation objectives of this district are to: 1. Protect the ecological function of native hardwood forests, lakes, streams, and wetlands. 2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas. 3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas. 4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments. 5. Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. 6. Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. City Code Section 827.57 defines Conservation Area and Conservation Easement. Conservation design typically follows a process that begins with the identification of primary Conservation Areas (i.e., areas that generally should not be affected by development) and 4 secondary conservation areas (i.e., areas that should be avoided or protected where feasible). (See page XX for definition of Conservation Area and Conservation Easement) Primary conservation areas typically contain: • larger blocks of core wildlife habitat • ecologically significant natural areas, usually with native plant communities • legally-protected natural areas, such as wetlands and existing conservation easements • steep slopes (>18% per Medina City Code) • land within the 100-year floodplain • other rare natural features, including rare species Secondary conservation areas often contain: • former wetlands and intermittent drainageways, often with hydric soils, which present challenges for development • steep slopes that may be prone to erosion • semi-natural areas, which are damaged ecosystems or lack native vegetation, but support some wildlife • ecological connections providing movement corridors for wildlife • buffer zones to protect primary conservation areas and sensitive natural resources such as wetlands and aquatic ecosystems • valued cultural/historical features • scenic viewsheds Site development is focused in the remaining areas, with impingement on primary and secondary conservation areas first avoided, then minimized if impacts cannot be avoided, and lastly mitigated. Mitigation can take the form of regulated wetland mitigation, as well as ecological restoration, enhancement, and management of the site’s Conservation Areas. Creating and managing diverse and healthy plant communities dominated by native species (including those associated with a naturalized stormwater treatment train) provides value to the development. Conservation developments should also be designed with minimal grading, naturalized stormwater management, and public and private access in mind. Preservation of existing drainage divides and use of existing drainage patterns will reduce grading costs and take advantage of the site’s unique landforms. Where feasible, well-drained soils should be identified and incorporated into naturalized infiltration systems to help manage the development’s stormwater runoff. Land Stewardship Plan Per City of Medina Code Section 827.65, a Land Stewardship Plan (LSP) is required for the project. An LSP addresses the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of the Conservation Area associated with a proposed development. More specifically, this Final LSP: 5 (a) Defines ownership and methods of land protection. (b) Establishes necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities. (c) Estimates staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other costs associated with plan implementation and defines the means for funding the same on an on-going basis. This includes land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and management of the Conservation Easement by the easement holder. The fees have been found reasonable by the proposed easement holder. (d) Addresses the requirements of the future Conservation Easement holder. The following Land Stewardship Plan applies to the entire area contained within the Conservation Easement, unless otherwise stated. Mr. Marx intends to develop all residential lots at once. Restoration after Construction Related Activities Construction activities in development of the private lots may temporarily impact portions of the Conservation Area. The following summary generally describes how the fee owner anticipates coordinating site development and restoration activities concurrently: • In summer of 2017, the fee owner anticipates the commencement of site development, weather permitting. • Staging areas in pre-determined locations will be constructed to accommodate construction and other activities and may temporarily impact portions of the Conservation Area. Once a staging area is no longer needed, the fee owner will remove the staging area and correct any damage in the Conservation Area to achieve conditions similar to those at the time of easement recording. • Utilities, including secondary septic sites, may be constructed as part of the development of the residential lots. Any construction activities that damage a Conservation Area will be corrected to achieve conditions similar to those at the time of easement recording. Any other land disturbance, not identified above, occurring with the development will be corrected to achieve conditions similar to the conditions at the time of easement recording. The following sections address the City-required elements of the LSP. EXISTING CONDITIONS Compilation of Existing Data The following existing data were compiled and reviewed to assess the natural, cultural, historic, and scenic character of the site and its surroundings: 6 • MnDNR Ecological Classification System • MnDNR Minor Watershed boundaries • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)-listed Impaired Waters • Web Soil Survey (SSURGO Soil Survey data from USDA/NRCS) • Original Vegetation of Minnesota (pre-European vegetation mapping by Marshner/MnDNR) • MnDNR Rare Natural Features (from the Natural Heritage Information System, NHIS) • MnDNR Native Plant Communities (NPC) • MnDNR Sites of Biological Significance (SBS) • Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA) – both original mapping and 2008 update • MnDNR Regional Ecological Corridors – based on 2008 MLCCS data • Metro Conservation Corridors • Hennepin County Open Space Corridors and Priority Natural Resources Corridors • Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) wetland mapping • MCWD Key Conservation Area mapping • Restoration Prioritization and Prediction Model (RePP) • Public conservation lands (e.g., public parks, Scientific and Natural Area (SNA), Wildlife Management Area (WMA)) • Historical and current aerial photographs (1937, 1957, 1960, 1962, 1967, 1969, 1971, 2000, 2015) • Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) mapping (based on discrete datasets from 2001, 2005, and 2008) • Wetlands (including delineated site wetlands, Hennepin County Wetland Inventory, and MCWD Functional Assessment of Wetlands (FAW)) • City of Medina Open Space Plan (2007) • Site parcel boundaries • Topographic contours (2-ft LiDAR data) and digital elevation model (DEM) • Minnesota Historical Society database report Field Reconnaissance On December 5, 2016, Laura Domyancich (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) conducted a field reconnaissance of the site accompanied by David Thill of Hennepin County Natural Resources, Michael Pressman of Conservation Solutions, and the property owner, Wally Marx. Existing conditions (including landforms, slopes, wetland boundaries, drainage patters, erosion, etc.) were noted. In brief, the site is dominated by several small wetlands, moderate to high quality woodlands, restored prairie, and maintained formal gardens. Steep slopes were observed along the western edge of the site and in the northern portion of the site to the west of School Lake. 7 Findings Ecological Context According to Minnesota’s Ecological Classification System, the site is located in Minnesota’s Big Woods Subsection of the Minnesota & NE Iowa Morainal Section, of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. The site is within the Long Lake Creek sub-watershed, which drains into Lake Minnetonka (several bays of which are listed by the MPCA as “impaired”), then into the Minnehaha Creek and eventually the Mississippi River. Moderate slopes (<18%) exist in the northern portion of the site. Site soils consist of a variety of upland and wetland (i.e., hydric) soils, ranging from well drained to very poorly drained. Pockets of poorly drained soil are mapped throughout the site and are associated with the wetland areas. Prior to European settlement, the majority of the site was dominated by Big Woods (e.g., oak, maple, basswood, hickory, elm). Some of this original land cover type remains on the site. The southwestern portion of the site contains a 6-acre tamarack swamp, fringed by 12-acres of black ash swamp. The other 6 acres of wetland on site are dominated by narrow-leaf cattail and reed canary grass. The northern and western portions of the site include nearly 22-acres of maple- basswood forest. Regional Ecological Significance Remnant tamarack and black ash swamps and maple-basswood forests have been noted on the site and create a resource corridor between Minnesota County Biological Survey-identified mesic oak forest and maple-basswood forest to the northeast and a large minerotrophic tamarack swamp complex to the south. A Hennepin County Environmental Services report identified a one-acre nearly pure silver maple stand, a 14-acre maple basswood remnant, and an 11-acre tamarack wetland complex. Conifer swamps are a sensitive wetland type, susceptible to degradation resulting from invasive species, stormwater runoff, and hydrologic alterations. The property has been identified as a conservation priority in numerous plans and studies, including the following: 1. City of Medina Natural Resources Inventory: most of the property is identified as an Ecologically Significant Natural Area. 2. Medina Open Space Plan: property and it natural areas are called out as Priority Areas 3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Regionally Significant Terrestrial and Wetland Ecological Areas: property is part of a large complex identified as “Regionally Significant” by the MN DNR. Along with Baker Park and areas to the immediate north, it is one of a few large terrestrial and wetland complexes remaining in Hennepin County. 4. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan: property is identified as part of a District Conservation Priority of the Long Lake Subwatershed Plan, which is part of an important conservation corridor extending to the Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area. 5. Hennepin Environmental Services: property is part of a conceptual greenway corridor system proposed by Hennepin County in 2008. 8 The broader landscape includes a significant natural resource corridor that includes School Lake to the northeast and Baker Park Reserve to the west and southwest, and a larger tamarack swamp complex to the south. Cultural/Historical/Scenic Significance The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) database search did not identify cultural/historical resources on the site. Currently, there is only one home on the site, the residence of the property owner at 2700 Parkview Drive. Approximately 8 acres of the property has been developed into extensive formal gardens maintained by the property owner. Prior to Mr. Marx purchasing the property, the northernmost parcel was the site of a hog farm, which caused significant soil disturbance. Mr. Marx has completed restoration of this area, which includes native prairie and orchards. Aerial Photograph Review The earliest available aerial photograph of the site is from September 1937. The photo shows an area on the northern portion of the site in row crop agriculture. The wetland complex around Miller Lake at the southern extent of the property is a mix of herbaceous vegetation with presumably tamarack and black ash in the center. School Lake appears to have no open water. A photo from 1957 shows that the area was likely dredged to create open water. Between the aerial photo year of 1937 and 1960, the farm site on the northern portion of the site was established. A review of more recent aerial photos from the early 1960s indicates that portions of the site consisted of row crop agricultural fields until around 1960-1962. The tamarack swamp and several apparent lowlands and drainageways were not cultivated. A wetland in the center of the site appears to have been expanded and deepened around 1967 and again in 2000, but has begun to fill in with cattails over the last 17 years. The formal gardens were installed in the early 2000s. Agricultural Records Prior to the Marx’s purchase of the property in 1998-1999, the northern portions of the property served as a 400 animal hog farm, which caused significant soil disturbance, damage to School Lake’s vegetative buffer, and significant pollution to School Lake. In 2000, the Marx’s contracted with Ron Bowen, former president of Prairie Restorations, and restored approximately seven acres of prairie at a cost of $20,000 plus annual maintenance. There is also a 130-tree apple orchard the Marx’s planted on the northern end of the property. In 2000, Mr. Marx put the entire 43 acre north parcel into the status of Agricultural Preserve. The initial mandatory term was eight years, and Mr. Marx renewed its status for an additional eight years after that until 2016. During that time Mr. Marx continued to improve the quality of the land by extensive cleaning up debris from the previous forty-five years of animal farming, quality planting and maintenance. The land produced forage and crops of apples. 9 Land Cover & Wetlands The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) was developed in the late 1990s but was not released until approximately 2001. The City of Medina was one of the first areas mapped as part of the pilot program, with MLCCS field work conducted in 1999 and updated in 2008. This land cover mapping identified existing site features such as the maple-basswood forest dominating the western portion of the site, the tamarack and black ash swamp in the south, box elder-green ash forest, areas of seasonally and permanently flooded non-native dominated emergent vegetation, palustrine open water, and mesic prairie. This mapping is reflective of the site’s current land cover classifications. In 2016, an approved wetland delineation of the entire site identified 9 wetlands totaling 41.58 acres. Of this wetland area, the tamarack swamp, the surrounding black ash and willow swamp, and the temporarily flooded emergent wetlands containing hybrid and narrow-leaf cattail and reed canary grass combine for 15.75 acres total. All of these wetlands are in the southern portion of the site. Another 14.13 acres of wetland are adjacent to School Lake. Several smaller wetlands were delineated in the eastern portion of the site, south of School Lake. The remaining acreage of the property includes 18.25 acres of steep slopes or non-buildable land and 29.09 acres of buildable land, 11.47 acres of which will be placed in conservation easement. In total, 71.3 acres of natural resource lands will be placed in conservation easement (79.4% of the entire property). CONSERVATION DESIGN OF MARX PROPERTY Development Layout The conservation design approach described in the Introduction was applied to the Marx site. The development team (including Mark Gronberg, Michael Pressman, Kent Williams, and Wally Marx) worked together to identify and respond to the site’s unique attributes and sensitive natural features. Primary and secondary Conservation Areas were identified along with appropriate ecological buffers, and ecological corridors/connections. These Conservation Areas were avoided to the extent feasible when siting roads and residential lots, and they have been thoughtfully integrated into the development’s design, establishing a connected network of predominantly native landscapes. The Marx site design also followed the Better Site Design/Low Impact Development (LID) practices of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The Marx conservation development design incorporated all of the MPCA’s “better site design techniques” listed below, except where noted: • Preserve natural areas • Natural area conservation • Site reforestation 10 • Wetland and shoreline buffers • Open space design • Disconnect and distribute runoff • Soil compost amendments (these may be incorporated into final design of stormwater management elements) • Disconnect surface impervious cover • Grass channels • Stormwater landscaping • Narrower roadways where possible • Reduce impervious cover in site design • Narrower sidewalks (no sidewalks are proposed; all trails will be natural surface) The proposed conservation development plan will remove no native forest and will preserve and buffer the existing maple-basswood forest at the west edge of the site. Development is clustered on the perimeter of the property away from the sensitive ecological features of the tamarack and black ash swamps. Grading and Ecological Stormwater Management Site grading and disturbance has been minimized to the extent feasible, retaining natural drainage patterns. The design team has capitalized on opportunities for ecological stormwater management in order to minimize runoff. Because of the siting of homes on Lots 1&2 on the plateau off of County Road 201, any impact of stormwater drainage from that which currently exists should be minimal. Also, with only a single acre allotted to building for each of Lots 1&2, and given their locations, any impact of stormwater drainage from that which currently exists should also be minimal. Necessary stormwater management will be addressed through stormwater ponds, rain gardens, and infiltration or filtration areas. Cultural Amenities & Access An easement will be granted to the City of Medina for their future construction of public trails in the southern portion of the property. An existing private horse trail, that extends through the property along the shoreline of School Lake and continues around the lake through neighboring properties, will be retained. An additional public trail has been proposed to provide residents and the public with an opportunity to explore some of the natural areas and have a view of School Lake. The site has very little frontage on the adjacent scenic roadway to the west (Parkview Drive), and is not highly visible from adjacent properties. Planned lots have been positioned to provide screening between homes on the site and existing homes on Parkview Drive and on School Lake. The site does contain significant topographic changes, given the slopes above School Lake 11 and on the western edge of the site. Siting and existing tree cover on the property will make structures, at most, only intermittently visible from the surroundings. OWNERSHIP, CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES & LAND PROTECTION Marx Property Land Allocation The Marx Property Final Plat addresses an 89.75-acre Conservation Design Subdivision. The proposed development plan calls for Development Areas including the private lots and roadways and Conservation Areas, as illustrated in Figure X below. Figure 1. School Lake Nature Preserve Land Allocation Development Area Areas not included in the Land Stewardship Plan The Marx Property’s approximately 18.45 acres of Development Area includes roads, rights-of- way (ROW), park dedication, and private lots. Mr. Marx shall retain ownership of all private roads with necessary rights-of-way provided to the homeowners, the District, and the City, as Marx Property 89.75 acres Conservation Area 71.3 acres Wetlands 41.58 acres Uplands 11.47 acres Steep Slopes or Unbuildable 18.25 acres Development Area 18.45 acres Private Lots XX acres Roads and ROW XX acres Park Dedication XX acres 12 appropriate. Private lots will be owned and maintained by Mr. Marx until the lots are purchased by homeowners. City Park Land Dedication Approximately XX acres of land will be dedicated to the City as a trail easement to fulfill a portion of the City’s park dedication requirements. This property will be deeded to the City at Final Plat and will not be a part of the Conservation Area or the Development Area. Additionally, public trails are planned within the Conservation Area and the corresponding acreage is included within the Conservation Area identified in Figure X, however, the City will be granted an easement to construct and maintain the trails. Conservation Area The City of Medina defines Conservation Area as: Designated land within a Conservation Design Subdivision that contributes towards achievement of one or more of the conservation objectives. A Conservation Easement is placed on Conservation Areas to permanently restrict the Conservation Area from future development. Conservation Areas may be used for preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, passive recreation, and for pasture, hay cropping and other low impact agricultural uses. And, the City of Medina defines Conservation Easement as: As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open-space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real property. The approximately 71.3 acres of Conservation Area (CA) in the subdivision will be protected under a Conservation Easement that will be held by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), with the homeowners retaining ownership of the CA. This area is discussed below in terms of ownership, objectives, proposed restoration/enhancement, land protection methods, scheduling, funding, and enforcement. Ownership & Objectives The Conservation Areas will be protected by a conservation easement with the underlying fee owned by each of the homeowner’s. The boundaries of these areas will be marked clearly in the field with permanent MCWD conservation easement signage. The overarching objective for 13 the CA is to retain or improve the existing natural resource values and ecosystem functions of these areas. Land Protection Methods & Schedule The CA will be protected by the Conservation Easement, which will be held by the MCWD. Per the easement requirements, the MCWD will perform, at a minimum, annual monitoring inspections of the easement to assure compliance with the easement. Any disturbance in the CA as a result of site development or other future development will be restored at least to the conditions of the site at the time of easement recording. The Conservation Easement will include a Property Report, which will document the site conditions at the time of easement recording. The fee owner will be responsible for restoration of the Conservation Area following site disturbance, as well as perpetual operations and maintenance, and elective ecological enhancement of the site’s CA. Land Protection Funding Through its holding of the Conservation Easement, the MCWD has accepted responsibility for funding perpetual monitoring of the easement. Ongoing land management of the CA will be funded by the fee owner of the property through an annual land stewardship fund. Ecological enhancement is not scheduled for the CA, however, over time the landowners may consider ecological enhancement or management activities in the CA and would budget for such activities through this land stewardship fund. Annual dues (paid by residents) will be supplemented by Mr. Marx (as necessary) to establish an escrow account to fund perpetual stewardship, and such account should total no less than $X at any time ($X/ac x 71 ac Conservation Area), and such account shall be fully funded at the onset of site development (beginning in 20XX). The stewardship fund will continue to be funded by annual landowner dues plus a perpetual real-estate transaction fee (estimated at $X per transaction), which will provide additional funds to the account each time a property within the development is sold. Mr. Marx will prepare escrow documents including Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions that will provide for the assessment and collection of funds for the ongoing management of the Conservation Area. It will be the responsibility of the landowners, with assistance from their ecological contractor, to determine the necessary maintenance and management activities in a given year, and make the appropriate adjustments to the minimum escrow account balance if necessary. The fee owner will be required to maintain a General Liability insurance policy that will cover the Conservation Area, exclusive of the public trails and public trail easements. The MCWD is in agreement with this LSP, insurance coverage requirements, perpetual stewardship obligations, and cost estimates for funding the perpetual stewardship of the Conservation Area. Land Protection Enforcement Because the CA will be protected by the MCWD-held Conservation Easement, all easement requirements will be monitored by the MCWD, and the MCWD will inform the fee owner of any 14 violations and direct the fee owner to take prompt action to resolve any issues. MCWD staff will conduct, at least, annual inspections of the Conservation Easement to document site conditions and to see that the conservation values of the easement are being upheld. The fee owner recognizes that in the event that the fee holder of the Conservation Area, or any successor organization thereto, fails to maintain all or any portion of the aforesaid Conservation Area so as to violate the conservation purpose of the easement, the City or the holder of the Conservation Easement (MCWD or its assigns), independently or together, may serve written notice upon such fee holder setting forth the manner in which the fee holder has failed to maintain the aforesaid Conservation Area. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the fee holder, or any successor organization, shall be considered in violation of the LSP, in which case the City or the easement holder shall have the right to enter the premises and take the needed corrective actions. The costs of enforcement and corrective actions by the City or the easement holder shall be assessed against the fee owner and/or the properties that have the right of enjoyment of the Conservation Area. Perpetual Management Perpetual management will be essential to maintaining the composition, structure, and function of healthy ecosystems throughout the CA. Perpetual management activities will include: • Areas disturbed during site construction: maintain seeded areas with mowing during first growing season, early and late season mowing during second growing season with targeted spot herbicide applications, and targeted spot herbicide applications during the third growing season. • Areas of significant erosion: evaluate with project consultants and easement holder to determine best method of erosion correction, which may include erosion control materials, biological stabilization, rock check dams, riprap, grading, seeding, etc. • Woodlands and wetlands: remedial or enhancement seeding or planting in areas where invasive plants have been controlled. Remedial or enhancement plantings along the School Lake shoreline where less desirable trees and shrubs are thinned. • Monitoring and reporting: landowner(s) or their ecologists and land management contractors to supply management activity reports to easement holder. After achieving initial restoration goals following site disturbance, perpetual management will be guided by necessary long-term management tasks identified above. CONCLUSION The proposed School Lake Nature Preserve complies with the City of Medina’s Conservation Design District requirements and will serve as a model for future conservation developments in the City and region. The implementation and perpetual management of the project—as 15 protected by the MCWD-held Conservation Easement—will result in a high quality development in which thoughtfully-planned home sites and enhanced ecological functions all work together and create a beautiful, livable place. SCHOOL LAKE NATURE PRESERVE 6 LOT PLAN LOT SUMMARY MAY 8, 2017 LOT_ AREA (ACRE) BUILDABLE(ACRES)_ Lot 1 2.65 2.65 Lot 2 2.53 2.43 Lot 3 1.63 1.63 Lot 4 2.99 2.75 Lot 5 6.84 5.04 Lot 6 3.51 1.71 Outlot A 2.72 0.34 Outlot B 4.65 0.71 Outlot C 4.44 2.80 Outlot D 4.00 0.50 Outlot E 21.38 2.02 Outlot F 5.45 1.81 Outlot G 3.02 1.11 Outlot H 0.39 0.37 Outlot I 1.13 0.61 Outlot J 1.16 1.16 Outlot K 21.26 1.49 Total 89.75+- Ac 29.13+ -Ac 30% OF 29.72 acres = 8.92 acres required BUILDABLE AREA IN CONSERVATION AREAS BC 1 0.46 BC 2 0.02 BC 3 0.39 BC 4 0.25 BC 5 0.37 BC 6 3.62 BC 7 0.46 BC 8 0.28 BC 9 0.10 BC 10 0.50 BC 11 1.22 BC 12 0.67 BC 13 0.05 BC 14 0.99 BC 15 0.02 BC 16 0.10 BC 17 0.08 BC 18 2.18 Total 11.76+- Ac. 11.76/29.13 = 40.44% GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC 445 N. WILLOW DR. LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Project:  LR‐17‐205 – Marx CD‐PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports.  All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document  Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic  Paper Copy? Notes Application  5/12/2017  5/12/2017  3 Application Y   Fee         Narrative  5/12/2017  N/A  7 Narrative Y   Labels  5/12/2017  N/A  1 Labels Y   Land Stewardship Plan  5/12/2017  5/10/2017  15 Land Stewardship Plan Y   Conservation Easement  5/12/2017  N/A  17 Conservation Easement Y   Plans  5/12/2017  5/8/2017  6 Plans Y   Lot size calculation  5/12/2017  5/8/2017  1 Lot Size Summary Y    Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document  Document Date # of pages Electronic  Notes Legal Comments  5/25/2017  1 Legal Comments  Engineering Comments  6/8/2017  2 Engineering Comments  Building official comments  5/26/2017  1 Building Comments  Preliminary Review/Schedule  6/9/2017  2 120day Letter  Legal Notice  6/1/2017  12 Notice   Public Comments  Document Date  Electronic  Notes       Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING CONSERVATION DESIGN; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 827.51 eq. seq. of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: CONSERVATION DESIGN DISTRICT (CD) Section 827.51. Conservation Design (CD) – Purpose. The purpose of this district is to preserve the City’s ecological resources, wildlife corridors, scenic views, and rural character while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as updated from time to time. The specific conservation objectives of this district are to: 1. Protect the ecological function of native hardwood forests, lakes, streams, and wetlands. 2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas. 3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas. 4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments. 5. Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. 6. Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources. Section 827.53 Applicability. Subd. 1. Conservation design is an option that a property owner is encouraged to consider as an alternative to Conventional Development, as defined herein. The City will give heightened consideration to conservation design applications that achieve significantsuch requests where the opportunities to achieve conservation objectives are significantly higher than that availablenot otherwise attainable through conventional development. Conservation design may be considered on qualifying parcels lying in the Rural Residential District, and all sewered residential districts, and commercial or business districts. Section 827.55 Intent. Subd. 1. It is the intent of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by approving a Planned Unit Development. In exchange for achieving the conservation Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE objectives, it is the intent of the City to provide permit additional density and to provide design flexibility and to encourage development review through a Collaborative Process. Subd. 2. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses and other regulations set forth in the existing zoning districts shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District, the PUD District, or, if determined by the City Council to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this District, as part of the final PUD documents. Subd. 3. The procedures and regulations set forth in the PUD District shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District. If a final PUD plan is approved by the City, the subject property shall be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District (CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall then be those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and agreements. The following subsections are requirements for all CD-PUDs unless exceptions, as part of a PUD, are otherwise approved by the City Council. Section 827.57. Definitions. Subd. 1. Base Density. The maximum number of units or lots that are allowed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Subd. 2. Buildable Land Area. The total land area in a proposed Conservation Design Subdivision less the amount of land that includes: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, required wetland buffers, lakes, and land contained within the 100 year floodplain. Subd. 3. Collaborative Process. A development review process that results in a development plan in which clearly defined conservation objectives are achieved in exchange for greater flexibility from the requirements of the base zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Subd. 4. Conventional Development. Development that meets the standard minimum requirements of the City’s ordinances regulating development. Subd. 5. Conservation Easement. As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open- space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open-space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real property. Subd. 6. Conservation Design Subdivision. Any development of land that incorporates the concepts of designated Conservation Areas and clustering of dwelling units. Ordinance No. ### 3 DATE Subd. 7. Conservation Area. Designated land within a Conservation Design Subdivision that contributes towards achievement of one or more of the conservation objectives. A Conservation Easement is placed on Conservation Areas to permanently restrict the Conservation Area from future development. Conservation Areas may be used for preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, passive recreation, and for pasture, hay cropping and other low impact agricultural uses. Subd. 8. Homeowners Association. A formally constituted non-profit association or corporation made up of the property owners and/or residents of a development for the purpose of owning, operating and maintaining common Conservation Areas and/or other commonly owned facilities and Open Space. Subd. 9. Open Space. Land that is not designated as a Conservation Area that is used for parks, trails or other uses. Open Space may be owned and managed by the City, homeowner’s association or other entity. Subd. 10. Viewshed. The landscape or topography visible from a geographic point, especially that having aesthetic value. Subd. 11. Yield Plan. A conceptual layout that shows the maximum number of lots that could be placed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. The Yield Plan shows proposed lots, streets, rights-of-way, and other pertinent features. Yield Plans shall be drawn to scale. The layout shall be realistic and reflect a development pattern that could reasonably be expected to be implemented, taking into account the presence of wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and existing easements. Section 827.59. General Performance Standards. Subd. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision. (a) The minimum land area required for development shall be: (1) 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District (2) 20 contiguous acres in sewered residential districts (3) 10 contiguous acres in commercial or business districts (b) A subdivision in the Rural Residential District of over 20 contiguous acres but less than 40 contiguous acres may apply for approval if they it meets all the requirements for of the CD-PUD District, and the visual impact of the subdivision from existing adjacent roadways is mitigated by existing topography, existing vegetation, and/or acceptable vegetative buffers. Subd 2. Required Conservation Area. The minimum required Conservation Area within the CD development shall be: (a) At least 30% of the total Buildable Land Area in the Rural Residential District, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City’s conservation objectives. (b) At least 20% of the total Buildable Land Area in sewered residential, commercial, Ordinance No. ### 4 DATE or business districts, or higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City’s conservation objectives. Subd. 3. Designating Conservation Areas. (a) The required amount of Conservation Area shall be designated and located to maximize achievement of the City’s conservation objectives. Opportunities for achieving these objectives will vary depending on the location, size and specific qualities of the subject parcel. Each parcel will be evaluated for opportunities to achieve the following primary and secondary conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development: (1) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following primary conservation objectives will be given higher consideration for flexibility from performance standards. (1) The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood forests (e.g. Maple-Basswood Forest), lakes, streams and wetlands. (2) The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. (3) The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement corridors. (2) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following secondary conservation objectives may be given consideration for flexibility from performance standards: i. The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as “Scenic Roads” on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. ii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. iii.i. The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 4. Perimeter Setbacks. Structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be the same as the existing zoning district. Section 827.60 Open Space Report Composite Map Appeal Process. In the event that an applicant is not in agreement with the Composite Map of the Open Space Report or the data contained within a report on which the Composite Map is based upon, the applicant may present an appeal to the city. Subd. 1. The applicant shall put the appeal in writing, accompanied by the fee as described by the City’s Fee Schedule, and is responsible to provide documentation supporting their appeal. Ordinance No. ### 5 DATE Subd. 2. The appeal shall be reviewed by city staff, with the assistance of any technical consultants which city staff shall determine are appropriate. Such consultants may include, but are not limited to, environmental engineers, wetland scientists, arborists and other similar experts. City staff shall make a determination on the appeal within sixty days of receipt of a complete appeal application. Subd 3. The applicant may appeal city staff’s decision to the city council. The appeal must be filed within thirty days of staff’s determination. Subd. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs accrued by the City in review of the appeals described above, including the costs of technical consultants hired by the City. Section 827.61. Density and Design Flexibility. Flexibility from the requirements of the existing zoning district or other requirements of this code may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. In considering the amount, if any, of such flexibility, the City will evaluate the amount and quality of Conservation Area protected, the public access to or enjoyment thereof, and how well the project achieves the following conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development and the amount and quality of conservation area protected. Subd. 1. Conservation Objectives and Determining Flexibility. Conservation Area(s) shall be designated and located to maximize achievement of the City’s conservation objectives. Opportunities for achieving these objectives will vary depending on the location, size and specific qualities of the subject parcel. Each parcel will be evaluated for opportunities to achieve the following primary and secondary conservation objectives over and above that achievable under conventional development. (a) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following primary conservation objectives will be given higher consideration for flexibility from performance standards. (1) The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood forests (e.g. Maple-Basswood Forest). (2) The protection and preservation of, lakes, streams and wetlands beyond existing regulatory requirements. (3) The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. (4) The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement corridors. Ordinance No. ### 6 DATE (5) The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. (b) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following secondary conservation objectives may be given consideration for flexibility from performance standards: (1) The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as “Scenic Roads” on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time. The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. (1)(2) The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 12. Additional Density. (a) Density, in addition to the Base Density, may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. Any additional density or additional number of dwelling units shall be calculated as a percentage of Base Density. The Base Density shall be that established by regulations in the relevant existing zoning district. The granting of additional density shall be at the full and complete discretion of the City based upon the amount and quality of the Conservation Area protected, public access to or enjoyment thereof, and the extent to which the proposal meets the objectives over and above that achievable through Conventional Development. (1) In the Rural Residential District, Base Density shall be determined by calculating the number of 5-acre areas of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system that are located on the subject property. (2) In sewered residential districts, a Yield Plan shall be developed to determine Base Density. Regulations of the base district and all other relevant land use regulations of this Code shall be used for completing the Yield Plan. (b) The total number of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and may be: (1) Up to 200% ofA maximum of twice the amount of the calculated Base Density in the Rural Residential District, provided that the maximum density bonus will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. (2) Up to 120% ofA maximum of 1.2 times the calculated Base Density in all sewered residential districts. Ordinance No. ### 7 DATE Subd. 23. Other areas of flexibility (a) In the Rural Residential District, flexibility may include: (1) Lot size, lot width and structure setbacks provided setbacks comply with the following minimums: i. Setback from local streets: 35 feet. ii. Setback from Arterial and Collector Streets: 100 feet. iii. Interior structure setbacks: 30 feet. iii.iv. Perimeter setbacks: Minimum structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be 50 feet. (2) Housing type. (3) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (4) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating park dedication requirements. (5) Variations to City regulations regarding septic systems. (b) In all sewered residential districts, flexibility may include: (1) Lot size, lot width, and structure setbacks, except that setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be equal to or greater than that required in the underlying zoning district. (2) Housing type. (3) Landscaping. (4) Screening. (5) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (6) Buffer yard. (7) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating park dedication requirements. (c) In commercial or business districts, flexibility may include: (1) Lot size, lot width, and structure setbacks. (2) Building height limitations, provided that the City determines that adequate emergency and fire access are provided in consultation with the fire department. (3) Landscaping. (4) Screening. (5) Loading dock and outside storage requirements. (6) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of these regulations are met for the site as a whole. (7) Buffer yard. (8) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when calculating park dedication requirements. Section 827.63. Conservation Area Protection and Ownership. Subd. 1. Land and improvements in areas designated as Conservation Areas in a CD-PUD shall be established, protected and owned in accordance with the following guidelines: Ordinance No. ### 8 DATE (a) Designated Conservation Areas shall be surveyed and subdivided as separate outlots. (b) Designated Conservation Areas must be restricted from further development by a permanent Conservation Easement (in accordance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C.01-05) running with the land. The Conservation Easement must be submitted with the General Plan of Development and approved by the City Attorney. (1) The permanent Conservation Easement may be held by any combination of the entities defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C, but in no case may the holder of the Conservation Easement be the same as the owner of the underlying fee. (2) The permanent Conservation Easement shall be recorded with Hennepin County and must specify: i. The entity that will maintain the designated Conservation Area. ii. The purposes of the Conservation Easement, that the easement is permanent, and the conservation values of the property. iii. The legal description of the land under the easement. iv. The restrictions on the use of the land and from future development. v. To what standards the Conservation Areas will be maintained through reference to an approved land stewardship plan. vi. Who will have access to the Conservation Area. (3) Ownership of the underlying fee of each designated Conservation Area parcel, may be held by any combination of the following entities: i. A common ownership association, subject to the provisions in the PUD District. ii. An individual who will use the land in accordance with the permanent Conservation Easement. iii. A private nonprofit organization, specializing in land conservation and stewardship, that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. iv. A government agency (e.g. park and/or natural resource agency or division). v. The City of Medina, in rare situations when there are no other viable options. (c) Open Space areas that do not achieve the City’s conservation objectives may be established under a homeowner’s association without protection by a Conservation Easement. Such areas shall be regulated according to provisions of the PUD District. Section 827.65. Land Stewardship Plan. Subd. 1. Plan Objectives. Where a CD-PUD has designated Conservation Areas, a plan for the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all Conservation Areas, may be required. The plan shall: (a) Define ownership and methods of land protection. (b) Establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities. (c) Estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated with plan implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on-going basis. This shall include land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and Ordinance No. ### 9 DATE management of the Conservation Easement by the easement holder. The fees shall be estimated and validated by the proposed easement holder. (d) Meet the requirements of the future conservation easement holder. Subd. 2. Plan Submittal Requirements. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the General Plan of Development. A Final Land Stewardship Plan shall be submitted with the Final Plan Stage of PUD development. The plan shall contain a narrative describing: (a) Existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the landscape; (b) Objectives for each Conservation Area, including: (1) The proposed permanent or maintained landscape condition for each area. (2) Any restoration measures needed to achieve the proposed permanent condition, including: i. Measures for correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as erosion and intrusion of invasive plant species. ii. Measures for restoring historic features (if applicable). iii. Measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types. (3) A maintenance plan, including: i. Activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including mowing and burning schedules, weed control measures, planting schedules, and clearing and cleanup measures and schedules. ii. An estimate of the annual on-going (post restoration) operating and maintenance costs. Subd. 3. Funding of Operation and Maintenance. At the discretion of the City, the applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation costs of Conservation Areas for up to four years depending on restoration measures. Subd. 4. Enforcement. In the event that the fee holder of the Conservation Areas, common areas and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly maintain all or any portion of the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City in coordination with the holder of the easement, may serve written notice upon such fee holder setting forth the manner in which the fee holder has failed to maintain the aforesaid common areas and facilities. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified, the fee holder , or any successor organization, shall be considered in violation of this Ordinance, in which case the City shall have the right to enter the premises and take the needed corrective actions. The costs of corrective actions by the City shall be assessed against the properties that have the right of enjoyment of the common areas and facilities. Ordinance No. ### 10 DATE Section 827.67. Conservation Area Design Standards. The following Conservation Area design standards shall also be considered in designing the CD-PUD: Subd. 1. Conservation Areas should be interconnected wherever possible to provide a continuous network of Open Space within the PUD and throughout the City. It should coordinate and maximize boundaries with Conservation Areas and Open Space on adjacent tracts. Subd. 2. Incorporate public and private trails with connections to existing or planned regional trails as identified in the most recent Park, Trail and Open Space Plan. Subd. 3. Designated public access trails shall be protected by an access easement owned by the City. Subd. 4. Incorporate public and/or private Open Space as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 5. Views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be minimized by the use of existing topography, existing vegetation, or additional landscaping. Ridge and hilltops should be contained within designated Conservation Areas wherever possible. Trees should not be removed from ridges and hilltops. Subd. 6. The boundaries of designated conservation areas shall be clearly delineated and labeled on CD-PUD plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or other measures approved by the city. Subd. 7. Stormwater management facilities may be located in designated conservation areas. Subd. 8. Existing land in row-cropping use shall be converted to a use that supports the achievement of the City’s conservation objectives. Section 827.69. Landscape Design Standards. Subd. 1. Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing through common Conservation Areas or Open Space. Subd. 2. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance that regular spacing may invoke. Subd. 3. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types identified in the City’s 2008 Natural Resources Inventory. Ordinance No. ### 11 DATE Subd. 4. Planted buffers between clusters of residential lots are encouraged to enhance privacy and a rural appearance between lots. Subd. 5. Buffers consisting of an informal arrangement of native plant species combined with infrequent mowing are strongly encouraged, to create a low-maintenance, natural landscape. Subd. 6. Planted buffers are also encouraged along natural drainage areas to minimize erosion. Subd. 7. Grading for Conservation Areas and other common landscaped areas and stormwater management areas shall be avoided to reduce compaction and impacting water infiltration rates. Soil testing and decompaction may be required if site construction activities negatively impact soil permeability. Subd. 8. Better Site Design/Low Impact Development practices as identified in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall be used to design sites and meet the performance standards. Section 827.71. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Facilities. Subd. 1. Where city services are not available, CD-PUD developments may be platted to accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and all required drainfields/mound systems located on the lot, or individual septic tanks and primary drainfield/mount system located on the lot and secondary drainfields/mound system located in the designated Conservation Area or other Open Space. Subd. 21. Where city sanitary sewer service is not available, Aall septic systems shall conform to the current performance standards of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and its appendices, or the amended Rules in effect at the time of installation. Except in instances where flexibility has been explicitly granted by the City, septic systems shall also conform to relevant City regulations, including the requirement to identify a primary and secondary drainfield site. Subd. 32. The City may consider shared sewage treatment systems which are consistent with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations and relevant City ordinances, provided adequate agreements are in place related to monitoring and maintenance procedures and replacement of the system in case of a failure. Subd. 43. Lots within CD-PUD developments may be designed so that individual septic tanks and all required treatment and dispersal areas are located within the lot, or so that individual septic tanks and the primary treatment and dispersal area is located within the lot and the secondary treatment and dispersal area located in the designated Conservation Area or other Open Space. Secondary drainfields/mound systems treatment and dispersal areas may only be located in designated Conservation Areas and other Open Space provided that: Ordinance No. ### 12 DATE (a) They The treatment and dispersal area isare located within a limited distance of the lots they it serves. (b) Construction of treatment and dispersal area drainfields/mound systems do not result in the destruction of ecological resources. (c) The Conservation Area or Open Space parcel containing the treatment and dispersal area drainfield/mound system is owned in fee by a common ownership association which owns non-Conservation Area land within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision is mandatory. (d) The individual lot owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the treatment and dispersal areadrainfield/mound system. (e) The ground cover over the treatment and dispersal area drainfield/mound system is maintained according to the Land Stewardship Plan. (f) Recreational uses are prohibited within 50 feet of the treatment and dispersal areadrainfields/mound systems. (g) The Conservation Easement for the dedicated Conservation Area parcel describes the location of individual drainfields/mound systems treatment and dispersal areas. (g)(h) The City may consider the impact of the future construction of the treatment and dispersal area(s) when determining the value of the Conservation Area, the extent to which the Conservation objectives have been met, and the amount of density and design flexibility which is granted. Section 827.72 Open Space Report Composite Map Appeal Process. In the event that an applicant is not in agreement with the Composite Map of the Open Space Report or the data contained within a report on which the Composite Map is based upon, the applicant may present an appeal to the city. Subd. 1. The applicant shall put the appeal in writing, accompanied by the fee as described by the City’s Fee Schedule, and is responsible to provide documentation supporting their appeal. Subd. 2. The appeal shall be reviewed by city staff, with the assistance of any technical consultants which city staff shall determine are appropriate. Such consultants may include, but are not limited to, environmental engineers, wetland scientists, arborists and other similar experts. City staff shall make a determination on the appeal within sixty days of receipt of a complete appeal application. Subd 3. The applicant may appeal city staff’s decision to the city council. The appeal must be filed within thirty days of staff’s determination. Subd. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs accrued by the City in review of the appeals described above, including the costs of technical consultants hired by the City. Section 827.73. Site Design Process. At the time of PUD Concept Plan development and review, applicants shall demonstrate that the following design process was performed and influenced the design of the concept site plan. Ordinance No. ### 13 DATE Subd. 1. Step 1—Identify Conservation Areas. Identify preservation land in two steps. First identify “unbuildable” areas which include: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands, wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Next, identify Conservation Areas which include those areas designated as Conservation Areas (Section 827.59 Subd. 3.) The remaining land shall be identified as the potentially Buildable Land Area. The applicant shall identify the quantity of land designated as unbuildable, Conservation Area, and potentially Buildable Land Area. Subd. 2. Step 2—Locate Housing Sites. Locate the approximate sites of individual houses in regard to protected views and the potentially buildable land areas. Subd. 3. Step 3—Align Streets and Trails. Align streets in order to access the lots. New trails and connections to regional trail systems, if any, should be laid out to create internal and external connections to existing and/or potential future streets, sidewalks, and trails. Subd. 4. Step 4—Lot Lines. Draw in the lot lines. Section 827.75. CD-PUD Application Processing. The review and approval procedures of the PUD District shall be used to review and approve CD-PUDs. Prior to the Concept Plan Stage PUD application, the City encourages applicants to engage in an informal collaborative project goal setting process with the City. The purpose of this process is to jointly develop site design and conservation objectives and assess areas of regulatory flexibility for achieving developer and City objectives for the specific parcel of land. The Collaborative Process may include council members, city commission members, land owners, developers, city staff, other governmental jurisdiction staff, the potential future Conservation Easement holder, and other participants as appropriate. The outcome of the process is a Project Guidance Report prepared by city staff. The report will summarize the project concept, project objectives, and preliminary understanding of regulatory flexibility needed to achieve the objectives. SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this _____ day of _____, 2017. ______________________________ Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of ______, 2017 Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/10/2017 Meeting Minutes 1 Public Hearing – Wally and Bridget Marx – 2700 – 2900 Parkview Drive – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a 6 Lot Conservation Design-PUD Subdivision with the Permanent Preservation of Land Finke explained the intent for the conservation design-PUD subdivision and the flexibility that can be gained through the preservation of land. He stated that the property does include various aspects of natural resources that have been identified in the City’s natural resources and open space reports. He identified the high-quality tamarack swamp and area of maple basswood. He explained the potential access proposed and displayed the concept plan as proposed by the applicant. He identified the proposed conservation areas. He explained the intent of the ordinance, noting that the objectives provide a little more detail on those elements. He stated that there are six proposed lots which would be a 200 percent density bonus, as normal development would allow for three lots. He stated that the typical buildable lot size ranges from 1.6 acres to 6.5 acres, with the majority of the lots coming in with 2 to 3 acres of buildable land. He stated that over 75 percent of the property is proposed for conservation, noting that only 11.5 acres of that land is considered buildable. He noted that the site in total has 28 acres which still makes the conservation proposed to be 40 percent of the total buildable land and therefore exceeds the 30 percent threshold of the ordinance. He provided additional details on the section of land that staff recommended for inclusion in the conservation area. He stated that lots one and two would not meet the minimum lot width for the shoreline and provided additional details on possible conservation that could be designated to avoid the issue of non-compliance. He stated that staff spoke with the septic provider to determine that reasonable septic service and site locations could be provided on the lots. He stated that this is simply a process to allow input, and formal action is not required tonight. He stated that staff believes that this property would be a good candidate for conservation, but discussion would be needed regarding the potential density bonus. He stated that the forester indicated that a little stewardship could push the wooded areas into a higher quality categorization. R. Reid referenced building site three and asked if that has been eliminated. Finke stated that area was marked as a higher priority conservation area and therefore the lots were shifted. R. Reid noted that the change was not listed in the conditions and asked if that should be one of the conditions for approval. Finke stated that one comment referenced a reduction to the number of septic systems and therefore shifting the lot would be one of the ways to accomplish that. Barry referenced the five contiguous acres of suitable soils stipulation and asked if that is per lot or proposal. Finke stated that the base zoning of the rural residential zoning district requires five acres of contiguous suitable soils per lot. He explained that simply determines the base density and then during the review of the conservation design-PUD request, there would need to be a determination as to whether there would be justification of a bonus density; and if so, the percentage of density bonus that would be allowed. R. Reid referenced site number three and asked if that meets the shoreline overlay requirements for setback. Finke confirmed that the lot would meet those requirements. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/10/2017 Meeting Minutes 2 Rengel asked and received clarification on the flexibility that is provided under the conservation design- PUD ordinance. Albers asked for information on what appears to be a road near the lake. Finke replied that is a field road currently and noted that it is very steep and therefore he is not sure if that would be practical to reuse. Kent Williams, 1632 Homestead Trail, stated that he is present to represent the applicant on this proposal. He stated that they are looking for feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council and will then consider that input in regard to their potential proposal. He stated that the Marx family has lived on the property since 1998 and have put a substantial amount of work into the property as it was formerly a pig farm. He stated that the result has been an explosion of wildlife to and from School Lake. He stated that Mr. Marx has also established the largest privately owned English garden that has received international accolades. He stated that the proposal from staff would move lot three into the garden and therefore they would not agree with that element because of the work that Mr. Marx put into the garden and the accolades it receives. He noted that he himself was part of the Planning Commission when the conservation design-PUD ordinance was enacted. He stated that he was also on the Commission when Mr. Marx brought forward two other requests for a conservation design-PUD on the property. He noted that he was disappointed by the first request, but the Marx family came back with a much improved request in 2012 that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. He stated that the Marx family then discovered part of the land could not be developed until 2016. He noted that he was disappointed at that time because he felt the City was losing out on the conservation of valuable resources. He stated that he was happy when Mr. Marx contacted him to state that they would like to try it again as all the property is now available for development. He noted that this is a challenging site because of the topography and wetlands. He stated that this is the highest percentage of land proposed for a conservation design-PUD that the City has ever considered, and is also high quality elements. He noted that a total of 70 acres would be put into conservation easement as there would be unbuildable land in addition to the 11.5 acres of buildable land. He noted that part of the conservation is contained on the lots and will further restrict what can be done on that land. He stated that the conservation proposed far exceeds the development proposed. He discussed what would happen under typical development of the site. He stated that these types of resources need to be managed and this is a method to ensure that happens as the land would be put under stewardship with a management plan that ensures that not only is the land not built upon, it is also managed in a responsible and reputable manner. He stated that they proposed that lot three remain in the current location as it is the lowest quality wooded area and only contains boxelder trees which are not even protected by the tree ordinance. He stated that they would much prefer to have the garden over the boxelder trees. He stated that they did contemplate clustering the homes, but wanted to stay with the more rural character rather than have a suburban character. He referenced the existing field road and agreed that it is very steep. He noted that it is often washed out and would possibly be a hazard during the winter months. Murrin asked who would manage the conservation easement land. Mr. Williams replied that they are in conservation with two potential organizations and provided the examples. Michael Pressman, applicant’s conservation consultant, confirmed that the intent would be that the steward would maintain the land in a similar manner. He provided additional details stating that the subdivision would also have a list of dos and don’ts of what could be done. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/10/2017 Meeting Minutes 3 Murrin stated that the property is beautiful and would encourage the stewards to follow the method that Mr. Marx has used. She asked if the apple orchard would be cut down to build a home. Mr. Williams stated that whoever purchases the lot would have the options to either build a home and remove the orchard, could build a home and keep a portion of the orchard, or the person who purchases the neighboring lot could choose to purchase that lot as well to keep as an orchard. Albers referenced the placement of one of the lots and the neighboring home. Mr. Williams replied that they are willing to move the alignment of the lot slightly, but want to be cautious to ensure that the viewsheds of the other lots are not impacted to maintain the rural character. Albers asked if there has been consideration to making lots one and two just one lot. Mr. Williams stated that currently there is a field directly adjacent to the neighboring home owner and was unsure what they could see from their home, but believed perhaps a portion of the orchard could be seen. He recognized that the neighboring homeowner would be able to see a home if the development is approved. Murrin asked if the owners of lot five would be able to maintain the garden or choose to do what they like with it. Mr. Marx replied that the owner of the lot would be able to do what they desire with it. He stated that it is costly and cumbersome to maintain. He stated that he will not be able to maintain the garden forever. He stated that hopefully lot five would be the last lot sold. He stated that if he sold the entire property as one lot, the home would be built where lot one is proposed. He noted that most likely lot one would be the only home that would be visible. Albers noted that lot one is the location of the five contiguous acres of suitable soils and therefore if sold as one property, that would be the location that someone would build even if the property wasn’t subdivided. Mr. Marx stated that he has attempted to donate the garden to the Arboretum but they asked how many millions of dollars he would give to help maintain the land. He stated that he also attempted that with Three Rivers Park District and was declined. He explained that there is not a public entity that will accept the donation. Albers opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. No comments made. Albers closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Rengel stated that she does not have anything she would proposed to change, but at some point in the process would like to see a land stewardship plan. Finke noted that is part of the first formal step of the process. R. Reid referenced the site design done by staff and asked if that was done before or after the applicants. Finke stated that he did it six years ago, and did it again after he saw this application. He stated that to a certain extent, things that he found in the site design were similar to what he had done. Medina Planning Commission Excerpt from 1/10/2017 Meeting Minutes 4 R. Reid asked if staff would still recommend using their site design over the applicant’s. Finke stated that he is not suggesting that the staff design supersede the applicant’s, but is a process of the request to see what would be the same and what would be different. He stated that the staff version is done looking at the open space report and natural resources report. He stated that staff recognizes that this ordinance has to include an incentive if it is going to be a tool that the City is going to use to create open space without the City having to buy property for conservation. He provided additional input regarding the septic systems. Mr. Marx provided additional details on horse trails. Barry stated that his concern was that lot four might be too far to access the septic, but was satisfied with the engineering comments. Finke stated that the Council is set to review the concept plan on February 7th and the Park Commission will discuss at their meeting next Wednesday. Medina City Council Excerpt from 2/7/2017 Meeting Minutes 1 Wally Marx – Conservation Design Subdivision PUD Concept Plan – 2500-2900 Parkview Drive (7:46 p.m.) Johnson noted that this was first brought forward to the Council in 2010/2011 but the property was found to be in agricultural preserve and therefore had to wait until 2016. Sparks stated that the property is currently three parcels that would be proposed to be developed into six lots. He stated that of the 90 acres, about 70 acres would be in easement and of that 40 percent would qualify for the buildable acre clause. He stated that this property is currently zoned and guided for rural residential use. He stated that the property includes two areas of moderate quality maple basswood forest and a good quality tamarack swamp land that were identified in the open space report. He noted that those elements would be proposed to be conserved. He explained the purpose of the ordinance, which creates and protects the conservation ordinance. He stated that the base density of the three parcels would allow three lots, and therefore this would be a 200 percent density bonus. He noted that they are proposing conservation of 77.6 percent of the site. He provided additional details on the lot layouts, access, and septic locations. He stated that the purpose of a concept plan is for the applicant to gain input from the Commissions and Council in regard to what they would be expecting when the applicant submits their actual application. He noted that the staff conditions were included in the packet along with the comments of the Planning and Park Commissions. He stated that a neighboring property owner submitted a letter stating that they did not like the number of units proposed for the property. Martin referenced the applicant’s concept plan and the four septic sites, asking for clarification on locations and the types of trees in those areas. Sparks noted that the specific area had boxelder trees. Cousineau asked if the trees could be restored to create a corridor. Sparks agreed that the area is lower quality but could be restored to a higher quality with some work. He noted that restoration of some of the woodlands would improve the quality. Martin referenced the staff concept plan and asked where on the property homes could be placed. She asked for, and received, clarification on certain elements of the plans. She referenced a man-made wetland on the property and asked if there is a difference in protection. Mark Gronberg, Gronberg and Associates, replied that the wetland has been delineated as a wetland and therefore there is no difference. Laura Domyancich, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, stated that if there is a wetland on the plan that has been delineated as a wetland but does not have a classification it would not have the same protection as a wetland. She stated that if preservation of the wetland is desired a MnRam would need to be done for the wetland to determine a management plan and classification. Kent Williams, 1632 Homestead Trail, stated that he is speaking on behalf of the applicants at their request. He stated that the applicant submitted a narrative with the concept plan, noting that this is the third time Mr. Marx has come to the Council with an attempted project. He stated that under any measure this project is one that provides significant value to the City. He stated that the Marx family purchased the land in 1998 and spent 20 years restoring the property, as it Medina City Council Excerpt from 2/7/2017 Meeting Minutes 2 was previously a pig farm. He stated this is one of the last few groves of trees left and would be protected. He stated that the Marx family has proposed to put 40 percent of buildable land into conservation easement, noting that there has not been a request that has come before the City with that high of a percentage. He noted that the percentage of buildable land is quite low already for this property and therefore this is a significant sacrifice. He stated that the conservation elements that are being protected through the easements should justify the density bonus itself. He noted that it is important to note that on top of the buildable land, the Marx family would be conserving another 60 acres of unbuildable land. He noted that they are not asking for a large number of homes in return for this conservation, they simply believe in the conservation of the land. He highlighted the conservation benefits that would be provided through this proposal. He highlighted what would happen under normal development of this property, which would create three lots and the future landowners could do a lot of things with their land, outside of building, that could be detrimental to the natural features. He stated that this is a harmonious plan with a single easement holder and would provide a benefit to the City. He stated that this provides more conserved land and less buildable homes than any application before. He referenced the park dedication requirement for the horse trail around the lake. He stated that the lake is entirely private at this time, along with the horse trail, and is used by invitation only and not used by the public. He stated that there has been pushback from the neighbors on the lake that they do not want that path open to the public at large and those neighbors would close their segments of the trail. He also noted that there would be issues with parking for people attempting to access the trail. He noted that there was a lengthy discussion at the Park Commission meeting. He noted that an alternate trail location was discussed in the southern portion of the property, which would keep the trail away from the homes. He noted that the intent then would be for it to be a nature trail. He stated that the Park Commission wanted the ability to provide trail connection to the properties east and west. He noted that there are not currently trails to the east or west. He noted that the applicant is conserving not only the required buildable land but also 60 additional acres of non-buildable land and therefore asked that the Council waive the requirement for park dedication. He stated that a lot of thought went into this concept plan. Martin referenced a gravel drive and asked if the existing configuration would continue or whether there would be a relocation. It was noted this is the existing horse trail. She stated that on the applicant’s proposal she noticed buildable area that is going into conservation and compared that to the staff plan. She also noted what seemed to be a straight line of trees and asked for more information. Wally Marx replied that the line of trees is very straight because they purchased the land in 1998 and there were 400 hogs on the property before they purchased the property. He noted that the pigs devastated the land. He stated that in order to create more conserved land they have limited the housing footprint to one acre each. Charlie Schroder, 2910 Parkview, stated that they are the neighbor immediately to the north and are present to understand what is going on. He stated that they are new neighbors and have found this background information to be helpful. He asked how the PUD is superior to the conventional development, as he did not quite see how the land would be better under the PUD. He stated that having the trail open to the public would be problematic with parking. He stated that a north/south trail on Parkview would be objectional. He stated that this seems like a lot of density relative to a conventional development plan. Pederson stated that he was on the Council in 2011 and stated that this request is considerably better than that request. He stated that he has concerns with the proximity to the lake. He Medina City Council Excerpt from 2/7/2017 Meeting Minutes 3 stated that the trail would be problematic because the other property owners do not want that. He stated that with the trails at Baker Park he was unsure why additional trails would be needed here. He stated that it would be difficult to give up park dedication, noting that he does not have any interest in dropping park dedication. Mitchell provided background information on the Long Lake Hounds. Anderson agreed that this is a substantially better plan than what was presented in 2011. He stated that he does have concerns with the closeness of lots one and two. He stated that it seems that the buildable acreage is in pieces rather than one contiguous piece and therefore could not find how it would benefit the City. He agreed that the park dedication should not be waived. Williams stated that they attempted to not make the conservation areas fragmented. He noted that the green and yellow areas are proposed for preservation, identifying corridors. Martin stated that lots one and two seem close together and would also need a variance. She stated that other than that she likes the fragmentation of the lots as it seems more rural and less planned. She stated that there was conscious thought from the applicant to preserve land in corridors. She stated that she would want the conservation areas to be placed in outlots to minimize the amount of conserved areas within the lots. She asked which areas were the highest value in terms on conservation, noting that the tamarack swamp is high quality but would be protected as a wetland. She stated that the maple basswood forest would protect the tree line and view shed from the road. She stated that perhaps there could be a trail that would provide a vista of the lake. She stated that she would avoid the horse trail. She stated that she would preserve a trail further east that could be built out at a further time. She stated that she would give park dedication for trails that are built. She stated that she would like to see protection of the wooded areas more and would recommend the staff suggestion for layout with a trail that could overlook the lake. She stated that she would like to see the setbacks met and would keep the roads out of the middle woodland area to loop around a bit more as staff recommended. Cousineau stated that she appreciates that staff moved lot three to the southern part, but noted that it seems that may be crowded. She stated that she would support a trail becoming public overlooking a vista of the lake but would not support the horse trail. She stated that park dedication is important. Mitchell stated that he just does not understand it, as it seems that this is attempting to get ten pounds of flour into a five-pound sack. He stated that in the rural area the effort is for less houses. He stated that he does not see any public benefit to this land. He stated that he does not understand how the little bits of yellow on the map would be justification for double density. He stated that three homes would preserve the most trees, the animal corridor, the marshes, and wetlands. He stated that he does not see that this meets the minimum ordinance standards. Williams stated that there seems to be a misunderstanding of what could be done and what could not be done under conservation or regular ownership. He stated that the property owner could buy wetland mitigation credits and fill wetlands. He stated that the natural elements could be left to the whim of a future land owner or they could choose to protect and conserve the rare and disappearing elements that exist on the land. He stated that you would not get the same Medina City Council Excerpt from 2/7/2017 Meeting Minutes 4 level of land stewardship and management under this request compared to traditional development. Cousineau stated that if you go to five homes, there is already one home and you would only be adding four homes. She stated that this is a large area of land and therefore would be comfortable with some additional homes. Anderson asked if the applicant feels that they received feedback from the Council. Williams stated that it seems that there is some antagonism towards the ordinance itself rather than the project. He stated that if you hate the ordinance you can say no to every request, noting that there will not be a lot of these requests. He stated that it does not seem that this should rise or fall on five or six homes when the applicants would be conserving 70 acres of land. He stated that the conservation aspects on this request far exceed what was gained through Stonegate, and this request is only asking for three additional homes. He appreciated the honest feedback but felt that the Council is providing negative comments against the ordinance itself. Cousineau stated that lots one and two do not conform to the DNR shoreline regulations. She agreed that this was a hot topic tonight but noted that there would have to be some conformity in order to discuss the 200 percent density bonus. Williams stated that if the parcels should be expanded, it would make them more saleable as they would gain more shoreland. He explained that the lots are smaller because of the conserved shoreline. He did not feel they would have trouble presenting the case to the DNR. Mitchell stated that it seems that they could just do a PUD to approve additional lots. Batty stated that is not what the applicant has requested and would have different standards for review. Mitchell stated that he did not understand how this would meet the objectives of the conservation design ordinance. Michael Pressman stated that he has spent about 25 years on conservation development, as this is his career. He stated that he began looking at this property when he was working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and he made an offer at that time to purchase a conservation easement to secure what is proposed to the City for free. He stated that he secured an easement to the north. He stated that he was attracted to this property because of the natural features of the site. He noted that while the yellow area may seem small that is connected to the green areas that would also be preserved. He stated that he joined his profession to look ahead and ensure conservation when changes come in the future. He stated that this project has come before the Council three times now. He stated that this site contains areas identified in the City’s open space plan and meet the requirements of the ordinance. Martin asked how many homes could be built on this property if this property were rezoned in the future as single family detached or attached.    701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800    Building a legacy – your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com  June 8, 2017 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Marx PUD Concept – Engineering Review City Project No. LR-17-205 WSB Project No. 03433-170 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed the Marx PUD Concept application and plans dated May 12, 2017. The applicant proposes to construct a six single family parcels. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Site Plan & Civil 1. Note proposed driveway grades. 2. Show the location of the public access trail referenced in the narrative. 3. With future submittals, please provide the following: a. A drawing showing or exhibit showing fire truck turning movements and access through site. b. Soil borings or hand augers shall be provided to confirm that 12-inches of class 5 and a geotextile fabric exist. c. Show a proposed street typical section detail on the plans. With future submittals submit cross sections along the roadway at least every 50 feet to confirm the construction limits of the proposed road widening. d. Add curve data and roadway grades to the proposed road profile on Sheet 5. Stormwater 4. Show stormwater treatment locations within each lot and consider grading implications. Marx PUD Concept – Engineering Review June 8, 2017 Page 2 5. With future submittals, please provide the following: a. Stormwater calculations showing compliance with the City’s rate control, water quality, infiltration and freeboard requirements. b. Documentation that a permit application has been sent to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Provide the final permitting documents prior to the start of construction. c. Indicate existing high water levels and overflow routes of School Lake and the large wetland complexes on the plans in order to evaluate compliance with the freeboard requirement. d. The development is proposed on what appears to be the overflow route for School Lake to the south, labeled Outlot A and I. Verify adequate freeboard is provided to future development and that the capacity of the EOF is not impacted. Wetlands 6. Wetland C is shown entirely within Lot 5. Provide an easement to fully encompass this wetland area including the appropriate buffers. 7. It appears wetland impacts are being avoided to a great extent, but provide a more detailed plan showing the roadway to Lot 4 as that passes through a very narrow area between Wetlands E and F. 8. Provide appropriate documentation of compliance with WCA for any proposed wetland impacts. 9. Wetland H should be connected to Wetland F – the final approved delineation did not include Wetland H, simply one connected wetland named F. 10. It does not appear the applicant will meet the minimum 30’ buffer width required on the north side of Wetland B. 11. The applicant is proposing wetland management classifications that differ from those shown City of Medina’s Wetland Management Classification map. The applicant provided a document outlining the proposed classifications on June 6, 2017. Following a review of the document, the City agrees with the proposed wetland management classifications. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Jim Stremel, P.E. City Engineer METRO WET :N 1FECTI0N SERWkCE3, INC. Loren Kohnen, Pres. Metro West Inspection Services, Inc. Box 248 Loretto, MN 55357 May 26, 2017 To: Debra Peterson From: Loren Kohnen Item: School Lake Nature Preserve Wallace Marx Six lot proposal East of Parkview Drive, SW side of School Lake (763) 479-1720 FAX (7 63) 479-3090 Mtrowst76@aol.corn I have reviewed the proposal and checked the septic design and locations. All will meet code and must be protected before any road or driveway construction begins. The design of the driveways must be submitted and approved by the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal (Loretto Fire Department) before final approval of the plat by Medina City Council. Most driveways are very long and though poor soil. Respectfully, Loren Kohnen Fire Marshal Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357 rn D CT7 41. 13 CA ) IV AV 12J3AO SiIOS rn X cn — r rn z = 0 rn o -I z D 2 0 z Cn 0 Z 0 0 r rn rn �Z =D PI —I C rn 70 rn Cn rn rn 0 7 B REVISIONS REMARKS ESIGNE C MAHN C CKEt7 I here°y certify mm mm plan. specirkauon. er report was prepared by me or under my d ire ct supervision and Cud I am a duty License d Land Survs yor under the taws of the Slate of Mpme ;ota. ° re, ir8_i7 MINN LicEeesEMASER /Z7s£r GRONBERG & ASSO CIATES, INC. 0 CIV IL ENGINEERS, LA ND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS 1s-z7a 445 N. WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356 ° �L/ PHONE: 952-473-4141 FA X: 952-473-4435 SCHOOL LAKE NATURE PRESERVE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IN THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 16-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA EXISTING CONDITIONS • 40 800 •, SCALE IN FEET EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: PARCEL 16-118-23-23-0005 That part of the South half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying south of the north 845 feet thereof, EXCEPT that West 417.42 feet of the North 208.71 feet of the South 213.71 feet of said South half of the Northwest Quarter; ALSO That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 16 lying North of the South 500 feet thereof and West of the East 520 feet thereof; PARCEL 16-118-23-32-0002 The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, EXCEPT that part thereof platted as PRISCILLAADDITION; PARCEL 16-118-23-31-0002 The South 500 feet of that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian tying West of the East 520 feet of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter. !gi un z D 5 } RI SCHOOL LAKE NATURE PRESERVE SOILS OVERLAY IN THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 16-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA '09'10' w 417A0 1.74+. AC PID#1611823320002 S 8$°16'25" E S 69.03.53' - 31.04 .1.05 N 88`68'34" W J 2681.97 L49A 1.20+. AC 11823230005 N 89°03'53" W 819.72 w 1"4.11+- AC 74 0.74+- AC to N 89°09'10" W 520.01 S 00°26'42" W 485.47 0 200 400 800 SCALE IN FEET U W .T iW. WYWR.Mtfa. Sbn.st 16-278 N NJ 1030 1 WD 2 FT. r•� N EXISTING IRIVE Gilts E //// /7/7 I00 200 SCALE IN FEET 1020 1010 1000 SCHOOL LAKE NATURE PRESERVE PRELIMINARY ROAD PLAN EXISTING 15 INCH CMP YIRDEN EXISTING DRIVE 4 FT. ON NORTH 31DE FROM S'$9 TO END OUTLOT K 1 PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN EwSTIND Horn PROFILE -- 990 980 0 1 2 PROPOSED ROAD ADO i NM3STYT!E 2itl0.@IiFAN5L N @HBE COI1R8E+1L7i0 1340ThJ5400+1459DiH kNOSSH�.TR COORSE.TQ . . SASTi gspF CLASS 5 AGURECIATE DICGEOTERi1LE•FAIRM• WIMP yp FRFiYAD£ gLACRTOP An/ VEIT VIDE GRAIL USING MINE Sp_.CTIGN. • 3 4 5 6 7 8 : 1030 1020 • :.1014 1 000 9 10 $90 980 Oz 5 w I PHONE 952-473-4141 18-27$ N 00°26'44" E D/S PICT CC W CC S 89°09'10" E 417.43 SCOTT R/CKFORD 2822 °09'10` W 417.40 S 89°0I}`te"-E-589-®11 \1 T K M GREY/GBH & R D HABERMAN #2782 s e4'2o'01" W OUTL UTLOT SCHOOL LAKE NATURE PRESERVE CHARLES AND PAMELA SCHROEDER #2910 SIMPLIFIED MAP PROPOSED HORSE TRAIL PRDPOSED WIDEN EK15TENG DRIVE FIRE TRUCK TOM FT WIDE BITUMINOUS r �NROUWD OUTLOT } 1 OCITILOT A T 18>FTFi OUTLOT F (TO BE OWNED BY LOT 3) S 89°03'53" E 2159 45 25" E 2681 97 XISTING RDENSO H LINE OF NORTH 845 FT. S 1/2, NW 114 SEC. 16.115.23 IC* YEAR OPt. d PROPOSED FIRE TRUCK -.../TURNAROUN • 23 OUTL f G f f N 89°09'10" W 520 01 PROPOSED HORSE TRAIL T JOHNSON & 8J B JOHNSON w #2505 S 00°26'42" W 485.47 1 CONSERVATION AREAS L_i REVISIONS O ra 4 C w 6 w 0 m)' efoWPIIlI £ F1. I ) Ih f 16-278 Brian Fragodt Page 1 of 2 June 13, 2017 MR Rear Setback Text Amendment Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: June 8, 2017 MEETING: June 13, 2017 Planning Commission SUBJ: Brian Fragodt –MR Rear Setback Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment – Public Hearing Summary of Request Brian Fragodt has requested that the City consider amending its zoning regulations to reduce the required rear setback within the Multi-Family Residential (MR) district for property which abuts common areas or open space. The applicant owns a twinhome at 3500 Pinto Drive and is interested in rebuilding and expanding the existing deck at the rear of the building. The twinhome association owns a 16 acre parcel containing a large wetland abutting the rear or the properties. The MR district requires a 40 foot rear setback, and this setback would not permit an expansion of the existing deck for 3500 and 3504 Pinto Drive. Other residential zoning districts permit a reduced rear setback when adjacent to open space areas. This allowance is included in the PUD1 (Wild Meadows), R1, and R2 and Mixed Use zoning (residential) districts. The applicant had considered applying for a variance, but staff believed it would be hard to justify a hardship in this case. Existing Regulations The MR zoning district allows duplexes, townhomes, and mutli-family dwellings (apartments). The district would also permit schools, churches, nursing homes, clinics, and animal clinics. The district applies to a small amount of properties in the City. These properties are generally located along Hamel Road, east of Pinto Drive. Additionally, a group of parcels are zoned MR at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and County Road 101 on which single-family homes are located but which could be redeveloped. A zoning map is attached for reference. Few of the MR properties abut a common open space area. As a result, the proposed amendment would have very limited applicability. The MR district currently requires a minimum 40-foot rear setback, 50-foot front setback, and 15-foot side setback (or ½ the height of the building). Applicant’s Proposed Amendment The applicant requests that the City consider adding language similar to other districts which would allow a reduced rear setback of 20-feet if adjacent to an open space area. The amendment is illustrated on the attached ordinance. Brian Fragodt Page 2 of 2 June 13, 2017 MR Rear Setback Text Amendment Planning Commission Meeting Staff Recommendation Staff generally supports the requested amendment. Open space which abuts a property generally serves the same purpose as a larger rear yard setback. The requirement would be similar to that in a number of other districts, and the applicability of the ordinance is fairly limited because of the small number of MR properties which abut open space. In some cases, other setback requirements may come into play. For example, wetland buffer and setback requirements may still necessitate a larger setback. The City has a higher level of discretion when considering amendments to the zoning code because the action is legislative in nature. Potential Motion If the Planning Commission supports the request, the following motion would be in order: Move to recommend approval of the ordinance regarding rear yard setbacks abutting open space in the Multi-Family Residential Zoning District. Attachments 1) List of Documents 2) DRAFT ordinance 3) Applicant Narrative 4) Zoning Map Project:  LR‐17‐201 – MR Rear Setback Amendment The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports.  All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document  Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic  Paper Copy? Notes Application  5/3/2017  5/3/2017  3 Application Y   Fee  5/3/2017    1      2 $500 checks Narrative  5/30/2017  5/30/2017  1 Narrative Y   Ordinance  5/3/2017  N/A  2 Ordinance Y   Ordinance  6/9/2017    2 Ordinance‐06‐13‐2017 Y    Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document  Document Date # of pages Electronic  Notes Legal Comments  5/25/2017  1 Legal Comments   Public Comments  Document Date  Electronic  Notes       Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ABUTTING OPEN SPACE IN THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MR) ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 826.37 eq. seq. of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 826.45. (MR) Lot Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements. Subd. 1. Height limit: 30 feet. Subd. 2. The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in other sections of this Ordinance. (a) Minimum Square Footage per Family Unit (townhouses) 6,000 sq. ft. (b) Minimum Square Footage per Family Unit (Multi-family Structures) (i) l bedroom 2,400 sq. ft. (ii) 2 bedroom 3,000 sq. ft. (iii) 3 bedroom 4,500 sq. ft. (iv) 4 bedroom 6,000 sq. ft. (c) Minimum Lot Width (Multi-family) 100 ft. (d) Minimum Front Yard 50 ft. (e) Minimum Side Yard One-half height of building or 15 ft., whichever is greater. (f) Rear Yard 40 ft. The rear yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet if abutting a preserved open space or common area. Ordinance No. ### 2 DATE SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this _____ day of _____, 2017. ______________________________ Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the ____ day of ______, 2017 D[0URIERS & SONS INC BUILDERS & REHOD lERS May 30, 2017 City of Medina Attn: Dusty Finke 322 Commanche Trail - Hamel, MN 55340 Phone: (612) 799-9005 - Fax: (763) 478-2302 E-mail: hamelusa@msn.com RE: Consideration to change setbacks at 3500 and 3504 Pinto Drive Medina, MN. I am requesting on behalf of the homeowners, Brian and Kim Fragodt, 3500 Pinto Drive and Craig and Erica Brolin 3504 Pinto Drive both in Medina, MN to consider changing the current set back ordinance on these 2 residences. When talking with Dusty, the City of Medina allows 20 foot setbacks in other districts if adjacent to open space. These two properties also have a large wetland area behind them. Out of the 7 homes in this association these are the only 2 that will require this change so that the outside decks will be uniform with the other 5 homes. And then the entire association will be in compliance with City of Medina ordinances and legal. Bill DesLauriers 612-799-9005 Katrina Independence Medina Spurzem Peter School Lake Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Mooney Winterhalter Krieg Miller Thies Ardmore Hidden Lake HAMEL PIO N EE R H O M E S T E A DTOM AHAWKCHIPPEWA PARKVIEWWILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19COUNTY ROAD 116MEDINAMOHAWKNAVAJO HIGHWAY 55 TOWNLINETAMARACKCHESTNUT COUNTY ROAD 24 ARROWHEADHUNTERCHEYENNE COUNTY ROAD 101BROCKTONCOUNTY ROAD 11 CLYDESDALE HOL Y NAMEHACKAMORE H O L L Y B U S H MORNINGSIDE H A M E LCOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGHWAY 55 PI ONEERCOUNTY ROAD 24 CHIPPEWA ARROWHEADCOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGHWAY 55 M E D I N A M E D IN A HAMEL WILLOWTAMARACKHUNTERZoning Map(Residential) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles Please contact the Planning Department (763-473-4643) for more information regarding property within PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) Map Updated: January 23, 2014 Legend Non-Residential (see reverse) Agricultural Preserve (AG) Rural Residential (RR) Rural Residential 1 (RR1) Rural Residential 2 (RR-2) Rural Residential-Urban Reserve (RR-UR) Suburban Residential (SR) Urban Residential (UR) Single Family Residential (R1) R1 - rezoning pending Single and Two-Family Residential (R2) R2- rezoning pending Residential-Mid Density (R3) Multiple Family Residential (MR) Mixed Use (MU) Uptown Hamel 1 (UH-1) Uptown Hamel 2 (UH-2) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Katrina Independence Medina Spurzem Peter School Lake Holy Name Half Moon Wolsfeld Mooney Winterhalter Krieg Miller Thies Ardmore Hidden Lake HAMEL PIO N EE R H O M E S T E A DTOM AHAWKCHIPPEWA PARKVIEWWILLOWCOUNTY ROAD 19COUNTY ROAD 101COUNTY ROAD 116MEDINAMOHAWKNAVAJO HIGHWAY 55 TOWNLINETAMARACKCHESTNUT COUNTY ROAD 24 ARROWHEADHUNTERCHEYENNE BROCKTONCOUNTY ROAD 11 CLYDESDALE HOL Y NAMEHACKAMORE H O L L Y B U S H EVERGREEN MORNINGSIDE H A M E LC LY DESDAL ECOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGHWAY 55 PI ONEERCOUNTY ROAD 24 CHIPPEWA ARROWHEADCOUNTY ROAD 19WILLOWHIGHWAY 55 M E D I N A M E D IN A HAMEL WILLOWTAMARACKHUNTERZoning Map 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Miles Please contact the Planning Department (763-473-4643) for more information regarding property within PUDs (Planned Unit Developments) Map Updated: January 23, 2014 (Non-Residential) Legend Residential - see reverse Agricultural Preserve (AG) Rural Residential-2 (RR-2) Mixed Use (MU) Uptown Hamel-1 (UH-1) Uptown Hamel-2 (UH-2) Public/Semi-Public (PS) Rural Public/Semi-Public (RPS) Business Park (BP) Business (B) Industrial Park (IP) Commercial-Highway (CH) Commercial Highway-Railroad (CH-RR) Commerial-General (CG) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rural Business Holding (RBH) Rural Commercial Holding (RCH) Sanitary Landfill (SL)