HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-11-2014Ft lc-
MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2014
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of December 10, 2013 Draft Planning Commission
minutes
6. Public Hearing — Dominium — Planned Unit Development Concept
Plan — 510 Clydesdale Trail
7. Council Meeting Schedule
8. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL February 6, 2014
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Weir and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: January 30, 2014
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates February 5, 2014 City Council Meeting
Land Use Application Reviews
A) Dominium PUD Concept Plan — 510 Clydesdale Trail — Dominium has requested review of a
PUD Concept Plan for the development of 32 affordable rental townhomes on 4 acres at 510
Clydesdale Trail. The Concept Plan is scheduled for a Public Hearing at the February 11
Planning Commission meeting.
B) Hamel Haven Final Plat — 805 Hamel Road — JJC Hamel LLC has requested final plat approval
for a proposed lot split. The Council granted preliminary approval back in 2011. Staff is
conducting a preliminary review and the request will be presented to the City Council when
complete.
C) Wakefield Subdivision — 3385 County Road 24 — The Wakefield Family Partnership has
requested approval of a rural subdivision of 74 acres at the southeast corner of Homestead Trail
and County Road 24. The applicant has submitted additional information for review, and a
Public Hearing will be scheduled when it is deemed complete.
D) St. Peter and Paul Cemetery CUP — St. Peter and Paul church intends to expand their cemetery
at the southeast corner of County Road 19 and Hamel Road. Improvements include new access
drives, landscaping, stormwater improvements and additional grave sites. The Planning
Commission held a Public Hearing at the July 9 meeting and recommended approval. The
applicant requested that the Council delay review until they could work through some of the
conditions.
E) Hartray Lot Combination — 4035 Apache Drive — the property owner has requested approval of
a lot combination of two lots which do not meet minimum lot size standards in order to create a
lot which is less non -conforming. The combination will also allow the construction of a new
septic system, because the only potential location lies across the common lot line. The request
is incomplete for review at this time, and will be presented to the Council when complete.
F) Property Resources Development Co. (PRDC) Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Concept Plan
— West of Willow Drive, southwest of Deerhill Road — PRDC has requested a Comp Plan
Amendment to reguide 90 acres from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential (2-3.49
units/acre) and also a PUD Concept Plan for a 99 lot subdivision. Staff is conducting a
preliminary review of the information submitted, and it will be scheduled for a public hearing if
deemed complete, potentially at the March 11 Planning Commission meeting.
G) Woods of Medina Preliminary Plat — Jeff Pederson has requested preliminary plat and rezoning
to subdivide 9.5 acres (8.8 net acres) at the intersection of CR116 and Shawnee Woods Road
into 16 R1 single family lots. The request includes a vacation of a portion of Shawnee Woods
Trail and a partial waiver from tree preservation requirements. The City Council adopted
documents approving the requests at the January 7 meeting. Staff will await a final plat
application.
H) Fawn Meadows subdivision — east of CR 116, north of Medina Lake Drive — Money Tree, LLC
has requested a preliminary plat and rezoning for the development of 11 lots on the 10 acres
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 February 5, 2014
City Council Meeting
(5.72 net acres) immediately north of the Toll Brothers Reserve of Medina project. The City
Council granted preliminary approval at the January 21 meeting. Staff will now await final plat
application.
I) Three Rivers Park/Reimer Lot Rearrangement — the property owners have requested a lot
rearrangement to allow a "land swap" of property which the Reimers own on the west side of
Homestead Trail and which Three Rivers owns on the east side of Homestead Trail. The City
Council reviewed at the August 7 meeting and adopted a resolution of approval at the August 20
meeting. Staff will work with the owners to finalize the conditions of approval.
J) Morrison Lot Split and Variance — Truxtun and Adrienne Morrison have requested to
subdivide their 18 acres at 1525 Hunter Drive into two lots. The City Council approved of the
division at the June 4 meeting. Staff will work with the applicant to finalize the terms and
conditions of the approval.
K) D.R. Horton Stage I Plan — D.R. Horton has requested Stage Plan I approval for development
of Mixed Use property west of Arrowhead, east of Mohawk and north of Highway 55. The
entire property is approximately 84 acres in area (approximately 59 acres upland) and the
applicant proposes 85 single family lots, a 54 unit apartment building and 5 acres of commercial
development. The City Council granted Stage I approval at the January 21 meeting.
Other Pro' ects
A) City of Orono Comp Plan Amendment (Lakeview Golf Course) — The City of Orono has routed
a proposed Comp Plan Amendment to re -guide the Lakeview Golf Course property (405 North
Arm Drive) from Parks/Recreational to Rural Residential in order to allow development on 2 -
acre lots. The property is two miles south of the Medina/Orono border and staff does not
believe this amendment would have an impact on any Medina systems. Staff intends to respond
that Medina has no comments unless the City Council provides any at the February 5 meeting.
B) Met Council 2040 Projections —I attended an event at which a Met Council representative
discussed their 2040 population projections. Indications are that they are adjusting the model in
a way which will likely increase the projections for Medina from what was released in
September. The projections are scheduled to be released in the middle of February.
C) Complete Eye Care Open House —I attended the Open House with Mayor Weir on January 22.
Dr. Wesley indicated that walk-in traffic was much greater with their new facility.
D) 2014 Road Projects — staff began analyzing potential assessments for the Chippewa Road (west
of Pioneer) and Navajo/Carriage/Trappers road project for upcoming hearings.
E) Chippewa Road Discussions — staff met with the Department of Natural Resources and
Minnesota Department of Transportation related to the extension of Chippewa Road from
Mohawk to Arrowhead. Staff is analyzing the information gained at these meetings and intends
to present options to the City Council in February.
F) MSA Route Discussions — Staff is analyzing potential changes to the City's MSA routes
because of additional street mileage being constructed in the City and also because of changes in
how funding is calculated. Staff has had conversations with neighboring cities related to streets
along common boundaries. Staff intends to present this analysis to the City Council in
February.
G) On -going Litigation — Staff took part in another settlement conference related to potential
settlement of litigation.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 February 5, 2014
City Council Meeting
1 CITY OF MEDINA
2 PLANNING COMMISSION
3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
4 Tuesday, December 10, 2013
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan, Robin Reid, Randy Foote, Robert
9 Mitchell, Victoria Reid, Mark Osmanski, and Kent Williams.
10
11 Absent: None
12
13 Also Present: City Councilmember Kathleen Martin, City Planner Dusty Finke,
14 Planning Consultant Nate Sparks
15
16 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
17 No public comments.
18
19 3. Update from City Council proceedings
20 Martin updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City
21 Council.
22
23 4. Planning Department Report
24 Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects.
25
26 5. Approval of the November 12, 2013 Draft Planning Commission meeting
27 minutes.
28
29 Motion by Mitchell, seconded by R. Reid, to approve the November 12, 2013
30 Planning Commission minutes with the change noted by Commissioner R. Reid.
31 Motion carries unanimously.
32
33 6. Public Hearing Money Tree Holdings, LLC — Preliminary Plat for 13 single -
34 family parcels and Rezoning from Rural Residential -Urban Reserve (RR-UR) to
35 Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district — east of County Road 116 and
36 south of Hackamore Road.
37 Sparks noted that this request was heard at the September 10 meeting and has been
38 subsequently revised. The updated plan has reduced the number of lots from 13 to
39 11. Sparks summarized the staff report.
40
41 Nolan inquired about the retaining walls on the plans.
42 Sparks replied that the walls were all around 4 feet in height, as opposed to the 10
43 foot walls on previously plan revisions.
44
45 Nolan inquired where the two additional lots were located on the original plan.
1
46 Sparks showed the old version of the plans.
47
48 Nolan inquired about the easement between lots 2 and 3. It seems like it is inviting
49 issues when it could be easily run down the flag pole.
50
51 Nolan inquired about the temporary cul-de-sac. He asked what would be left when
52 the street is continued. Sparks stated that staff believes it may be preferable to shift
53 the sidewalk to the edge of the right-of-way and there could be a landscaping feature
54 when the asphalt is removed.
55
56 R. Reid asked how close the temporary cul-de-sac would be to the house on Lot 1.
57
58 R. Reid stated that if the City is going to play the game, the landscaping should be a
59 requirement.
60
61 Osmanski asked what the minus 250 was in the tree removal plan. Nash said that he
62 would check on that and correct as necessary.
63
64 R. Reid asked why the sewer line was behind the lots. Finke responded that you -
65 know -what flows downhill and placing the pipe along the wetland means that it will
66 not be as deep as it would be if it were placed in the street.
67
68 Osmaski asked if the stormwater treatment proposed meets City requirements,
69 especially with the large wetland to the north. Finke noted that the engineer had
70 reviewed and provided comments, but did not believe there would be an issue
71 meeting requirements. Sparks noted that the wetland buffer also will help.
72
73 Nolan asked about moving the cul-de-sac to the west edge. Nash stated that the width
74 of the cul-de-sac fits best in this location to save trees.
75
76 Nolan asked about the sewer connection for lot 4. Nash stated that it is best to have
77 the shortest lines as possible. Nolan said that in his experience it is best to keep
78 people's improvements off of other people's property. He would defer to the
79 Engineering Department on whether this is better than having an extra 100 feet of
80 pipe.
81
82 Nolan stated that he thinks it is worth considering whether the driveway to the flag lot
83 made more in the flag pole or on the private easement.
84
85 Continued Public Hearing opened at 7:55 p.m.
86
87 Public Hearing closed at 7:57 p.m.
88
89 Williams stated that he appreciates the reduction in tree removal and retaining walls.
90 He noted that it is a good improvement and he is in favor.
91
2
92 R. Reid stated that her main concern was the landscaping after the temporary cul-de-
93 sac is removed. She stated that the flag lot is a bit strange and she is trying to
94 visualize it. It is a long private driveway and it really isn't her concern.
95
96 Foote agreed that the trees and the walls were the main issues and have been
97 improved.
98
99 Nolan agreed that it was vastly improved. He agrees with Reid that the flag lot is a
100 bit funky and he asked the developer to consider whether using the easement is
101 really the best outcome. After looking at the lots in the Reserve and the visual
102 impact, maybe using the easement just because you can is not the best plan.
103 Nolan stated that he heard the developer say they were open to discussing the
104 sewer for Lot 4, and the City Engineer should provide more comment.
105
106 Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Williams, to recommend approval to work with the
107 City Engineer to find the best solution to connect Lot 4 to the trunk sewer line and
108 submittal of a landscaping plan for the temporary cul-de-sac after removal.
109
110 7. Council Meeting Schedule
111 Mitchell agreed to attend and present at the December 17, 2013 Council meeting.
112
113 8. Adjourn
114 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Foote, to adjourn at 8:08 p.m. Motion carried
115 unanimously.
3
AGENDA ITEM: 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: February 6, 2014
MEETING: February 11, 2014 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Dominium — PUD Concept Plan — 510 Clydesdale Trail —
32 Affordable Rental Townhomes — Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: December 23, 2013
Review Deadline: February 21, 2014
Summary of Request
Dominium has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for the construction of 32 rental
townhomes and associated accessory improvements (club house, playground, parking) on
approximately 4 acres at 510 Clydesdale Trail, just north of the Medina Entertainment Center.
The applicant has received pledges for financial support through the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency and other agencies (including the City of Medina) to develop townhome units with limits
on the rent which can be charged and limits on the income level of the occupants.
The applicant is seeking a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as an alternative to the City's
standard zoning regulations to allow flexibility for development of the site. The applicant
mainly seeks reductions in setback requirements interior to the site (between buildings, between
buildings and private streets) as a result of the site being relatively small and in recognition of
the fact that all units will be owned by a single party.
The PUD process includes multiple reviews by the Planning Commission and City Council. The
PUD Concept Plan review is less formal in nature, so that the Commission and City Council only
need to provide comments on the concept. The Council will not take formal action on the
concept, and the Commission does not need to provide a recommendation as a body.
Rezoning a property to a PUD and allowing the flexibility is a discretionary decision by the City.
City regulations establish the criteria by which to determine if the PUD rezoning is appropriate.
These criteria are discussed further below. One of the main purposes of the concept plan is to
allow the City to provide an indication whether the PUD is justified before the applicant spends
the time and money to draft plans which would not be allowable under strict adherence to the
City's zoning ordinance.
The subject site is vacant and vegetation is predominantly turf grass. The site is utilized on rare
occasions as overflow parking by the Medina Entertainment Center. Most of the site is flat,
although it falls steeply closer to the north and east property lines. A portion of a larger wetland
extends onto the northeast corner of the site. Surrounding uses include commercial to the south
and west, private recreation (golf course) to the north, and single family homes (planned for
commercial redevelopment) to the southwest. Following is an aerial of the site:
Dominium — Affordable Rental Townhomes Page 1 of 8 February 11, 2014
PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Purpose of PUD Regulations
According to Section 827.25. of the City Code: "PUD...provisions are established to provide
comprehensive procedures and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the development
of neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing
for a mixture of uses. 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:
Subd. 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.
Subd. 2. Higher standards of site and building design.
Subd. 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.
Subd. 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.
Dominium — Affordable Rental Townhomes Page 2 of 8 February 11, 2014
PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Subd. 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.
Subd. 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.
Subd. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby
lower development costs and public investments.
Subd. 8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive
Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.)
Subd. 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict
application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City."
Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is guided Mixed Use -Business MU -B. City officials discussed the
possibility of higher density residential development on this site during the Comprehensive Plan
update process, which is permitted in the MU -B land use. The MU -B land use would also have
allowed commercial development, and provided the property owner with a good deal of
flexibility. The Comprehensive Plan defines the MU -B as follows:
Mixed -Use Business (MU -B) provides opportunities for multiple, compatible uses on one site
including two or more of the following: residential, general business, commercial, or office.
Residential densities in this designation will be between 7.0 units per acre and 45.0 units per
acre across the entire area and may include some vertically integrated uses. The mixed -use
business areas will be served by urban services.
As proposed, the net density is 8.65 units/acre, which would fall within the low end of the range
planned for the MU -B district. Staff anticipates that some property within MU -B will develop
with only commercial uses and some property will develop with higher density so that all MU -B
property, taken together, falls within the range. The City has zoned the subject property as
Mixed Use, which allows density from 3.5-7 units per acre, and therefore accounted for a lower
amount of residential development on this site. Additional density would bring the MU -B area
overall more into the planned density range.
The Comprehensive Plan establishes the following objectives for the Mixed Use land use:
"The mixed -use designations focus on integrating a mix of uses to help promote housing and
commercial diversity within the community. Such mixed -use designations are concentrated
along the TH 55 corridor to promote a more compact development pattern in proximity to
existing infrastructure and will include residential and commercial components with ratios of
use determined by topography and market conditions. Mixed -use areas are all located in the
urban service area.
Dominium — Affordable Rental Townhomes Page 3 of 8 February 11, 2014
PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Objectives:
1. Allow a mix of residential and commercial uses to co -exist on adjacent parcels as well as
within the same structure or on the same parcel.
2. Create flexible zoning standards that would allow for a mix of residential and commercial
uses on parcels that preserve the City's open space and natural features.
3. Consider alternatives for meeting parking requirements including parking in the rear of
buildings, shared parking, on -street, underground, or ramp parking.
4. Use building standards that enhance and maintain the small town heritage and traditional
small-town look including brick facades, traditional street lighting, overhangs over the
sidewalk, boardwalks, and the like.
5. Involve residents, businesses, community groups and other stakeholders in the planning
of these areas.
6. Create master plans for mixed -use areas to ensure integration of uses and responsiveness
to adjacent land uses.
7. Establish design criteria for platting and developing site plans which will be compatible
with surrounding physical features, existing land uses and the preservation of
ecologically significant natural resources."
Proposed Site Layout
The applicant proposes 32 townhome units in nine buildings. A horseshoe private drive provides
access to the units and is proposed to have two access points to Clydesdale Trail. The
townhomes all include attached two -car garages (although the garages shown meet the very
minimum size requirement of code) and sufficient depth for parking two cars in each driveway.
The concept plan also includes a "clubhouse" for common use and a playground for recreational
use. Seventeen parking spaces are proposed in addition to the garage and driveway parking.
Following are the setbacks proposed by the applicant:
MU/R3
Standard
Concept Plan
Setback from Public Street
40 feet
40 feet (building)
22 feet (parking)
Setback from private street
25 feet
22 feet
Setback between buildings
30 feet
20 feet
Side and Rear Yard (exterior)
20 feet
20 feet (west)
40 feet (building - north)
35 feet (decks — north)
Side and Rear Yard (exterior) — less
intensive zone
40 feet
N/A
Max. Hardcover
50%
49.7%
Dominium — Affordable Rental Townhomes Page 4 of 8
PUD Concept Plan
February 11, 2014
Planning Commission Meeting
The PUD process allows the City to grant flexibility to the standard zoning and lot requirements,
provided the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, meets relevant City objectives,
and is consistent with the purposes of the PUD ordinance.
The concept plan shows patios behind some of the units and decks behind others. Patios do not
have required setbacks, but decks are required to be building setbacks. Since this is a PUD
discussion and the applicant is seeking relief on many of the setback standards, staff suggests
that the Commission and Council discuss whether the 20 foot western setback if sufficient.
The grades behind most of the units fall fairly steeply and there is almost no usable space beyond
the patios/decks. A common recreational area is provided in the south center of the site.
As a frame of reference in terms of setbacks between buildings in the development, the homes in
the Fields of Medina and the north end of The Enclave are often 15 feet apart. The applicant in
this case is proposing 20 feet between banks of townhomes.
The applicant proposes a setback of 22 feet from the buildings to the driving surface of the
private drives. Staff believes this is the absolute minimum which should be considered in order
to allow adequate space to park in the driveways. A standard parking space is 19' deep, so this
does not leave much room to walk between the vehicle and the garage, or to ensure that vehicles
do not extend into the drive aisle.
The proposed development is similar a project Dominium constructed in Albertville, along
County Road 37 west of County Road 19. The applicant proposes similar architecture (photos
attached) and the proposed setbacks and density are similar.
Wetlands
A wetland on the property to the east extends into the northeast corner of the site. The wetland is
classified as Manage 1 according to the City's Functional Assessment of Wetlands. An upland
buffer with an average width of 30 feet is required, and structures are required to be set back an
additional 15 feet from this buffer. The wetland was delineated 8 years ago, and this delineation
will need to be updated in the spring. However, the City's wetland specialist does not believe it
is likely the wetland has changed in a way which would negatively impact the concept plan.
Streets/Parking
The applicant proposes a 24 foot wide private drive to provide access to the individual driveways
for the townhome units. The Fire Marshal and Fire Chief recommend that no parking be allowed
along the access drive in order to allow adequate emergency vehicle circulation.
The City Engineer has not identified the need for improvements to Clydesdale Trail to support
the proposed development.
As noted above, 17 guest parking stalls are proposed. These spaces should be constructed to the
City's standard of 19 feet in depth. Staff believes these spaces are important to secure for guest
parking, because no street parking is available. Staff is also concerned that residents will tend to
use at least one of their garage stalls for storage and residents near the guest parking spaces will
Dominium — Affordable Rental Townhomes Page 5 of 8 February 11, 2014
PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
be tempted to use them for their own cars. Staff recommends that, as a condition of the PUD,
that the owner regulate these spaces to be for guest use only
Sewer/Water
The applicant has provided a conceptual utility plan. The City Engineer and Fire Marshal have
provided comments, which are attached for reference.
The applicant has shown grading on the property owned by the City in the southeast corner of
the site. This property houses a City well and pump house. The well is not connected to the
City's water treatment plant and has not been pumped to the system since the City expanded the
wells and built the treatment plant. The thought was that the well would be used to supplement
irrigation water for the Medina Clydesdale Marketplace commercial development. However, it
has only been used once in the past 7 years. The applicant had inquired about the City
transferring the property to them, and staff has discussed. Staff believes that it may make sense
to transfer the property if the applicant agrees to be responsible for the well. This would relieve
the City of maintenance and liability of the well and pump house. Staff intends to discuss with
the matter with the City Council.
Stormwater/LID Review
Because this is a concept plan, the applicant has not submitted drainage calculations. The plan
identifies conceptual rain garden improvements in the front of the site adjacent to Clydesdale
Trail. Runoff rate control was provided by stormwater ponds within the Clydesdale Marketplace
development in exchange for land transaction during the development of that site. However, the
applicant will need to provide infiltration/filtration and water quality improvements consistent
with updated City regulations.
Buffer Yards and Landscaping
The concept plan submittal did not include substantial information related to landscaping.
Standard City ordinances would require a minimum of 30 overstory trees, 15 ornamental trees,
and 44 shrubs would be required. Because this is a PUD, the City may want to consider a higher
landscaping threshold, especially along the western property line where the setback is the
smallest.
The proposed landscaping appears to fall well short of City regulations. Staff recommends that it
be improved to at least meet minimum standards.
The applicant has indicated that they intend to install an underground reservoir to reuse some of
the rainwater from the raingardens for lawn irrigation. If the City Council is favorable towards
transferring the well property to the applicant, they would use the well to supplement the
reservoir. The applicant could also need to become responsible for supplying supplemental
irrigation water to the commercial properties in Medina Clydesdale Marketplace.
Dominium — Affordable Rental Townhomes Page 6 of 8 February 11, 2014
PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Pedestrian Circulation/Recreation
As noted above, the applicant proposes playground equipment in the south portion of the plan.
The applicant has also shown a system of sidewalks through the common space which connects
with the trail on Clydesdale Trail.
Building Design
Materials
City ordinances require a minimum of 20% of townhome facades facing public or private streets
be an accent material. The concept plan identifies shakes and brick veneer which appear to
exceed this amount. Because this is a PUD, the City could require some additional elements, and
if there is such interest, staff believes it is appropriate to mention in comments on the concept
plan review. Because the existing topography falls steeply to the north and east of the site, the
applicant is proposing that the grade level behind a number of the units be 2-6 feet below the
ground floor. This will result in significant portions of foundation block being visible at the rear
of the unit. While the decks on these units may hide some of this block, the Planning
Commission may wish to discuss alternative materials with the applicant.
Modulation/Articulation
City regulations require the building design of townhomes buildings to be modulated a minimum
of once per 50 feet. The rear elevations shown on the concept plan are broken up through the use
of materials and dormers. The front elevations are a bit monotonous, and staff recommends
discussion whether this should be improved as a condition of the PUD.
Garages
City regulations require townhomes to have garage space of two cars per units (minimum of 440
sq. ft.) The concept plan meets this standard. Additionally, additional architectural elements
("may include varying setback of garage doors, differentiating roof designs, constructing
dormers, and installing garage doors with windows or other design elements") are required if
garage doors occupy more than 50% of the frontage of a building. It appears that the garage
doors in this case will commonly exceed 60% of building frontages. The Commission and
Council should discuss whether the typical elevations provide sufficient elements.
Trash and Recycling
Code requires that trash and recycling bins for individual dwelling units are stored so not to be
prominently visible form streets or neighboring units. Staff recommends a condition that the
owner incorporate policies to regulate this matter. With 22'x20' garages, staff is concerned that
garage storage may be difficult, and staff recommends that the applicant address this point on
their general plan of development submittal.
Review Criteria/City Discretion
The City has a great deal of discretion in reviewing a PUD. The decision requires rezoning to a
PUD district, a legislative act with the greatest level of discretion. According to Section 827.27
of the City Code "If the [City] determines....that the project does conform with the overall intent
and purpose of this Section, it may approve a PUD."
Dominium — Affordable Rental Townhomes Page 7 of 8 February 11, 2014
PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
In order to approve of the PUD, the City should determine that it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and other relevant policies (even if it is not consistent with some specific
standards of the zoning code). The City should also determine that the PUD process is
accomplishing one or more of the purposes referenced on pages 2-3.
If the Planning Commission and Council believe the PUD rezoning is appropriate, officials
should discuss whether each of the deviations sought by the applicant is appropriate. These
deviations include:
1) Reduction of distance between units from 30 feet to 20 feet.
2) Reduction of setback from private road from 25 feet to 22 feet.
3) Reduction of parking setback from Clydesdale from 40 feet to 22 feet.
The PUD process also provides flexibility for the City to require higher standards in addition to
those requirements which are relaxed. Officials may want to discuss whether any of the
minimum standards ought to be increased.
As noted above, the Planning Commission does not need to provide a formal recommendation to
the City Council on a concept plan review, nor does the City Council take a formal action.
Commissioners and Council members can provide comments for the applicant to incorporate into
their formal submission.
Staff has provided the following comments throughout the staff report which the Commission
and Council may also wish to consider:
1. Landscaping shall be increased to at least meet minimum standards of the Mixed Use
District. Additional landscape buffering should be considered along the western property
line as a result of the smaller setback.
2. Parking spaces shall be constructed a minimum of 9 feet by 19 feet.
3. The applicant shall submit a stormwater management plan with the General Plan of
Development which meets minimum standards for volume control/filtration and water
quality.
4. The applicant shall adopt policies to ensure that parking spaces are reserved for guest
parking and not commonly used by residents.
5. The applicant shall adopt policies to ensure that trash and recycling containers are stored
so not visible from streets or neighboring property.
6. Comments of the City Engineer shall be addressed.
7. Comments of the Fire Marshal shall be addressed.
Attachments
1. City Engineer Comments
2. Fire Marshal Comments
3. Narrative
4. Photos of units of similar materials and design
5. Concept Plan
Dominium — Affordable Rental Townhomes Page 8 of 8 February 11, 2014
PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
WSB
SB
&Assoc- engineering• planning• environmental. construction
December 26, 2013
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: City Project: Dominium, LR-13-125
WSB Project No. 2065-840
Dear Dusty:
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
We have reviewed the PUD concept plans dated December 16, 2013, for the Medina Townhomes
site. The plans propose to construct street and utility improvements to serve a 32 unit townhome
development at 510 Clydesdale Trail. We have the following comments with regards to engineering
matters.
Sheet C1.0 Existing Conditions
1. The City should review the need for the 30 -foot drainage and utility easement shown on the
north boundary of the property.
Sheet C2.0 Concept Site Plan
1. Retaining walls and patios are shown encroaching into the northerly drainage and utility
easement. The plans should be revised to eliminate these encroachments.
2. The building footprint north of Outlot E encroaches into the southerly perimeter drainage and
utility easement. The plans should be revised to eliminate this encroachment.
3. Parking stall depths should be revised from the 18' shown to the City standard of 20'.
Sheet C3.0 Concept Grading Plan
1. Retaining walls are not permitted in perimeter drainage and utility easements. The plans
should be revised to relocate the proposed retaining wall that encroaches into the northerly
drainage and utility easement.
2. All retaining walls that exceed 4' in height or tiered retaining walls that are not separated by
at least twice the height of the tallest wall require an engineered design.
St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng•com
K:101065-8401AdminalcslDominium Plan Re•'iew-121613.d,