Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-08-2013MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2013 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Approval of September 10, 2013 Planning Commission minutes 6. Public Hearing — D.R. Horton — Stage I Plan for a mixed use development — north of Highway 55 between Arrowhead Dr. and Mohawk Dr. 7. Estate of Caroline Brede — Variance to reduce front setback requirement from 30 feet to 23 feet — 2921 Lakeshore Ave. 8. Lennar — 3032 Basswood Road — Variance to reduce side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 5 feet for existing home 9. Council Meeting Schedule 10 . Adjourn POSTED IN CITY HALL OCTOBER 3, 2013 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Weir and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: September 26, 2013 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates October 1, 2013 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Reviews A) Brede Estate Plat — The Estate of Caroline Brede has requested to re -plat property at 2921 and 2929 Lakeshore Avenue in the Independence Beach neighborhood. The applicant proposes two lots on approximately an acre of property. Granting right-of-way for Lakeshore Ave. causes the existing garage to no longer comply with front setback requirements, so the applicant has also requested a variance. A Public Hearing was held on the plat at the September 10 Planning Commission meeting, and the Commission recommended approval. A hearing is scheduled for the variance at the October 8 meeting. B) 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 98 single family lots, a 72 unit apartment building and 5 acres of commercial development. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing at the September 10 meeting and recommended substantial changes to the Stage I Plan and denial as presented. The applicant has updated the Stage I Plan, and staff intends to present it to the Planning Commission at the October 8 meeting. C) Lennar Variance — 3032 Basswood Road — Lennar has requested a variance from 7.5 feet to 5.0 feet for the side setback for the first detached townhome constructed in the Enclave at Brockton. The home was constructed following the wrong setback requirements of the PUD, and staff did not catch the error during the permit review. A Public Hearing is scheduled for the October 8, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. D) 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 Rl single family lots. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and the application will be presented to the Planning Commission when complete. E) Fawn Meadows subdivision — east of CR 116, north of Medina Lake Drive — Money Tree, LLC has requested a preliminary plat and rezoning for the development of the 10 acres (5.72 net acres) immediately north of the Toll Brothers Reserve of Medina project. A Public Hearing was held at the September 10 Planning Commission meeting, and the applicant requested that the Commission table the application to allow them to address staff comments. F) 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. G) 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 Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 October 1, 2013 City Council Meeting and County Road 24. The application is currently incomplete for review, and will be scheduled for a Public Hearing after additional information is submitted. H) Enclave at Medina 5th Addition - Lennar requested approval for a 9 -lot subdivision of the 5 acre (-2.5 net acre) property north of the Enclave. These lots would be incorporated into the Enclave neighborhood. The City Council adopted a resolution approving the final plat at the September 17 meeting. Staff is working with the applicant to meet the conditions of approval before utility and street work begins. 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) Kunin/Anderson Lot Rearrangement and Easement Vacation - 855 Medina Road - the property owners have requested to rearrange lot lines to add two acres of property to 855 Medina Road. The applicant also requests the vacation of drainage and utility easements adjacent to the lot line proposed to be adjusted. The City Council adopted resolutions approving the rearrangement and vacation at the July 16 meeting. Staff will work with the property owners to finalize the conditions of approval and finalize the rearrangement. Ordinance Updates A) Subdivision Ordinance - At the City Council's goal setting session, the Council directed staff to conduct a comprehensive review of the subdivision ordinance and prepare necessary amendments. Staff intends to hold off on this ordinance until a number of land use applications under review have been finalized. Other Projects A) Midwest Planning Conference - Deb and I attended the Midwest Planning Conference in Rochester, MN last week. Sessions were informative, and perhaps the most useful take -away was that staff learned about a new process to assist homeowners with floodplain map amendments that can prevent the need to hire a surveyor. This should save property owners significant time and money. B) Hennepin County Bike Plan -1 have volunteered to serve on the Advisory Group for Hennepin County's Bike Plan. I attended their first meeting, discussing the process and beginning the preliminary work of the plan. C) Development Fee presentation -1 attended a session at which representatives from the Builders Association and WSB discussed development fees, and potential ways cities and developers can work together on fees. Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 October 1, 2013 City Council Meeting OP 1 CITY OF MEDINA 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 4 Tuesday, September 10, 2013 5 6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 7 8 Present: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan, Robin Reid, Randy Foote, Victoria 9 Reid, Mark Osmanski, and Kent Williams. 10 11 Absent: Commissioner Bob Mitchell 12 13 Also Present: Mayor Elizabeth Weir, City Councilmember Kathleen Martin, City 14 Councilmember Jeff Pederson, City Planner Dusty Finke, and Nate Sparks of NAC. 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 and reminded 25 Commissioners about the upcoming Medina Celebration Day on September 21, 26 which includes a fireworks display. 27 28 5. Approval of the August 13, 2013 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes. 29 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Foote to approve the August 13, 2013 minutes as 30 corrected. R. Reid stated, Line 255 Victoria Reid made comment regarding big box 31 users. Carried 5-0-1 (Osmanski abstained; Mitchell absent). 32 33 6. Public Hearing - D.R. Horton — Stage I Plan for a mixed use development to 34 include 98 single-family parcels and a 72 -unit apartment building north of 35 Highway 55 between Arrowhead Dr. and Mohawk Dr. (PIDs 03-118-23-41-0005, 36 03-118-23-42-0001, and 03-118-23-41-0005). 37 38 Finke presented the request. Stage I Mixed Use Plan for 80 acres east of Polaris, 39 north of OSI. The property is guided Mixed Use in the Comprehensive Plan and the 40 Stage I is intended to establish land uses and establish general site layout. Finke 41 noted that the Comp Plan requires a minimum of half of the property to be residential 42 at 3.5-7 units per acre. 43 44 Finke stated that the plan proposes 98 single family parcels and a future apartment 45 building with no commercial on the subject site. There is five acres of vacant 1 46 commercial property adjacent to the southwest. A large wetland in the center of the 47 property with 9 acres of woodlands to the west, and the remainder of property is 48 farmland. Finke noted that he had walked the woods with the City's arborist who 49 said that the woods were predominately ash trees. 50 51 Finke said that two story buildings are the maximum within the Mixed Use District. 52 There are density bonuses available, but would not accomplish the required density. 53 The R4 zoning could accomplish the density required, but only permits 3 -story 54 buildings. Finke noted that substantial tree removal would occur in this development 55 plan, with approximately 1 acre of the 9 acres being preserved. Options to preserve 56 more trees include less single family, increase density in other areas, or public 57 dedication of land. Finke stated that it may be a possibility to encourage a larger area 58 of preserved trees as part of the R4 Zoning. 59 60 Finke stated that staff believes the Chippewa Road connection is very important 61 based upon the City's planned development in the area. The City's practice is to 62 require construction of roadways as part of development. 63 64 R. Reid asked if the plan would meet density if there was no apartment building. 65 Finke replied that it would not, but the rezoning to R4 could allow a 3 -story 66 apartment which could get the site up to the minimum. 67 68 Foote asked if there were any plans for Hwy. 55 being expanded to a 4 -lane in this 69 area. Finke stated it was a 50 year plan to do so. 70 71 Williams asked if R4 was a Mixed Use zone. Finke stated that rezoning portions of a 72 Mixed Use development is viewed as being consistent so long as the objectives of the 73 land use are served. The City had done so for the single-family homes in the Fields 74 of Medina mixed use project. Williams said it seems that they are increasing density 75 in one spot to make up for the fact that it was not as high as necessary. 76 77 Nolan asked who owned the adjacent commercial parcel. Finke stated he believed it 78 was the same property owner. Nolan asked about the access to the commercial 79 parcel. Finke said there would need to be right-of-way dedication. Nolan said the 80 plan resembles a single family subdivision and not exactly Mixed Use. He stated he 81 has concerns that the adjacent commercial site is viable. 82 83 Nolan said the extension of Chippewa is depicted as being half on this property and 84 half on the property on the north. Finke said this is the first property to develop and 85 the City should require necessary right-of-way. R. Reid asked if the developer is 86 proposing to build Chippewa and Finke said no, but staff recommends that it be a 87 condition. 88 89 Foote and Osmanski asked about the tree removal. Osmanski stated that the current 90 layout doesn't take into consideration the preservation of the natural environment. 91 2 92 Mayor Weir asked if a PUD could be used on this site to help preserve natural areas 93 and balance densities. Nolan asked if this had been considered. Finke stated the 94 Mixed Use District was intended to be like a PUD. 95 96 Osmanski asked if considerations are being made for the infrastructure impacts from 97 this development on the community at large. Finke stated the Comprehensive Plan 98 establishes these parameters, especially for sewer/water infrastructure. He noted that 99 the County and State are partners in the Comp Plan process and should also be 100 prepared to support the development, although that seems to be in question. 101 Osmanski expressed concerns about the pace of development. 102 103 R. Reid noted that the construction of Chippewa would reduce traffic impacts. 104 105 Williams noted that the Mixed Use plats seem to be heavy on the single family 106 residential. Finke noted that on the Jubert property, approximately 60%-65% of that 107 area was reserved for townhomes and commercial. 108 109 Ron Mullenbach from D.R. Horton said the Cavanaughs already developed the OSI 110 site and were instrumental in having the SW corner zoned commercial, which should 111 be considered when looking at the mix of uses in the area. Topography makes sense 112 for single family. Multi -family requires flattening areas for larger building pads plus 113 there are market considerations. A tremendous amount of the site is wetland and 114 wetland buffer. The proposal is to accommodate future developability of the 115 commercial site and the area of that property may be modified. There are a range of 116 single family housing types that the developer offers. The housing offered in the 117 multi -family portion is intended to be workforce housing that would accommodate 118 the business in the area. They are in support of zoning the site as R4. Mullenbach 119 noted that they are making a lot of effort to build around wetlands and views 120 connecting Chippewa as being counter -productive. A former road in this area was 121 problematic, according to the property owner, and had to be removed. He doesn't 122 believe this location is appropriate for this road connection. 123 124 V. Reid asked about considerations for townhomes. Mullenbach said the market 125 doesn't support townhomes and this plan shows what could be built right now. That 126 type of market is several years away. V. Reid asked about the market for 127 commercial. Mullenbach said the market isn't there but it might be some day. V. 128 Reid noted that Mixed Use requires transitions. Mullenbach said that while the 129 transition isn't seamless in the west, landscaping and buffering would be possible. 130 He stated that they would be open to consider alternatives for land uses on portions of 131 the site. 132 133 Nolan asked about single family versus multi -family having larger building pads. 134 The density could be placed in a smaller area. Mullenbach said it depends on the 135 assumptions you make about the developable area of the site. The density may be 136 higher to meet the economics of the site. The return on a townhome is lower than 137 single family requiring more units. 3 138 Nolan asked why the apartment building was four stories tall. Mullenbach said they 139 thought they could do that in this area and have done similar elsewhere with success. 140 141 Nolan asked if the single family area was reduced would the developer no longer be 142 interested. Mullenbach said it would depend on the extent of the changes. Nolan 143 asked about the PUD zoning for the site and Mullenbach said he was not opposed. 144 Nolan asked where he thought the road could be moved to off the site. Mullenbach 145 said there was a narrow point north of the site that would be more appropriate. 146 Another spot further south would be putting a major collector road through a 147 neighborhood. 148 149 Public Hearing opened at 8:15 p.m. 150 151 Michelle Kramer of the Bridgewater neighborhood asked how Arrowhead would be 152 impacted by this development and if an EIS was conducted. Finke said 153 improvements are necessary for both Chippewa and Arrowhead and will be reviewed 154 in a traffic study. This property is short of the mandatory threshold for an EAW. 155 Nolan stated they would have to meet ordinances and standards for wetland 156 protection. 157 158 An unnamed person from the crowd asked what the price point of the housing would 159 be. Mullenbach said it was premature to say, but they would be similar to Steeple 160 Hill at $400 — $600,000. The apartments would be managed rental for the public 161 servants and office workers. V. Reid asked how many square feet and how many 162 bedrooms. Mullenbach said 700-800 square feet and up to 2 and 3 bedrooms. 163 164 Public Hearing closed at 8:25 p.m. 165 166 Foote finds the tree removal to be excessive; the apartment building is too large for 167 the area. He stated the PUD is a good approach with more multi -family to have a 168 better transition between uses. 169 170 V. Reid said the tree removal is too much and the apartment building is too tall. She 171 questioned whether this proposal captures the intent of the Mixed Use concept. The 172 road across Chippewa makes sense and wondered if there would be a way to share 173 costs with other benefitted properties. Nolan asked about the property to the north. 174 Finke said the property is guided for Low Density Residential and the developable 175 area is mostly to the west. R. Reid asked if there was right-of-way for the road. 176 Finke stated that he believed there was some right-of-way because there used to be a 177 public road in this location. 178 179 Williams stated that he didn't feel the attempt to make up for lack of density with one 180 apartment building was appropriate. He said the applicant isn't preserving enough of 181 the natural features with this development plan. 182 4 r 183 R. Reid stated the loss of trees was excessive and there wouldn't be a reasonable way 184 to mitigate. There wasn't enough of an effort to preserve woodland open space. The 185 apartment building is too tall. She suggested rental townhomes as an idea. It seems 186 abrupt to have apartments transition to $400,000 houses. A more creative plan is 187 necessary. 188 189 Nolan said that this plan doesn't provide enough diversity of housing. He 190 understands where the market is today, but the Comprehensive Plan takes a longer 191 view. There may be a product that is not hot today, but could be in the future that 192 may be appropriate for this site. V. Reid added that a diversity of housing includes 193 housing life cycle opportunities. Nolan said that he would prefer a PUD; that the 194 apartment density was too tall; that the shape of the commercial parcel is problematic; 195 that the location of the apartment is acceptable, but that there should be a transition; 196 and the southeastern corner of the site would be appropriate for higher density 197 residential. He also stated that Chippewa Road has to be resolved with this site. 198 199 Foote asked about the length of the cul-de-sacs. Finke said the Public Works 200 Department is looking to limit the numbers, and the length of the longest is 1000 feet. 201 Foote said that seems too long. 202 203 V. Reid stated she would think two two-story apartment buildings would be more 204 appropriate than one four-story. 205 206 R. Reid said higher end empty nest townhomes may be an ideal fit. Mullenbach said 207 there is a market for that type of home, but the commercial services aren't in this area 208 right now. 209 210 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by V. Reid, to recommend denial of the Stage I Plan 211 based upon the following findings: 1) the plan does not preserve open space and 212 natural features; 2) the plan does not protect the natural environment; 3) the proposed 213 apartment building is inconsistent with City zoning standards and the Plan does not 214 meet the density standards of the Comprehensive Plan without it. Motion carries 6-0 215 (Absent: Mitchell). 216 217 7. Public Hearing - Money Tree Holdings, LLC — Preliminary Plat for 13 single - 218 family parcels and Rezoning from Rural Residential -Urban Reserve (RR-UR) to 219 Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district — east of County Road 116 and 220 south of Hackamore Road (PID 01-118-23-22-0006). 221 222 Sparks presented the staff report. The property is guided Low Density, requiring a 223 minimum of 10 lots. 13 lots are proposed to be zoned R1. The lots generally meet 224 the dimensional standards of the RI district, although the subdivision design does 225 present a number of concerns. Sparks stated that the applicant proposes to extend 226 Daisy Circle from the Reserve subdivision to serve the site. The applicant proposes 227 for two lots to be served off of a private road along the south of the site. This private 228 road is proposed to be within a 17 -foot wide outlot on the subject property and within 5 jl 229 a 33 -foot easement in the back yards of lots within the Reserve. Creating double - 230 frontage lots is not permitted by the subdivision code, and private roads are required 231 to be in 50 -foot wide outlots. Access to these lots does not meet City requirements. 232 Staff has raised concerns about access to the stormwater ponds. The applicant 233 proposes to remove 61% of the trees on the site which necessitates substantial 234 replacement. The applicant has not provided a tree replacement plan. 235 236 Sparks stated that the rezoning would be consistent with the Comp Plan, and staff 237 does not oppose it. It may be in the applicant's best interest to grant an extension so 238 that the rezoning can be moved along with the plat. 239 240 Osmanski inquired about access to the back two lots. Sparks confirmed that this 241 private road is inconsistent with ordinance standards. 242 243 Nolan asked if the location of the street along the western property line caused issues 244 for the property to the west. Sparks stated that this is the reason staff recommended 245 ghost platting the western property. Nolan stated that shifting the road to the south 246 might help so it would be good to ghost plat. 247 248 Joe Cavanaugh stated that they had been in conversation with staff and agreed that it 249 would be appropriate to table. They wanted the Commission to have a look in order 250 to flush out any additional comments. He thought they may remove Lot 5 in Block 1 251 and shift things around in order to meet standards. 252 253 Nolan inquired how it would be that only Lot 5 be removed. 254 Cavanaugh replied that they could plat a flag lot with frontage. If this lot utilized the 255 existing easement for a driveway, many of the trees could be saved. 256 257 Public Hearing opened at 9:23 p.m. 258 259 Roger Miller of 655 Hackamore stated that they had moved to the area recently for 260 rural atmosphere and natural beauty. Removal of all of the trees would negatively 261 impact his property value. He stated that he would hate Medina ending up looking 262 like Plymouth and Maple Grove with McMansions. The fronts all look nice, but the 263 backs all look the same. 264 265 Melody Gilbert of 4612 Co. Rd. 116 agreed with Mr. Miller. She stated that she has 266 already noticed the dragonflies reduce since the Reserve began construction, and that 267 dragonflies kept the mosquitos at bay. You can't recreate what exists here, and it is 268 quickly becoming like Plymouth and Maple Grove. 269 270 Public Hearing closed at 9:26 p.m. 271 272 Nolan stated that it is a battle to protect the character of Medina and balancing against 273 mandates. He agrees with staff that shifting the road southwest should reduce or 6 t 274 eliminate retaining walls, improving access to the pond, saving trees. Access to the 275 lot in the southwest corner shouldn't be in the back yards of the Reserve lots. 276 277 Williams inquired if this would be the appropriate place for a conservation design 278 which might save features. 279 280 Nolan wondered if it wouldn't be possible to add covenants against the title to prevent 281 people from removing trees which are saved. 282 283 R. Reid stated that she wants to see some of the tree line being preserved. 284 285 Foote stated that moving the road to the south seems like it may help with a lot of the 286 issues with the plat. 287 288 Motion by Williams, seconded by V. Reid, to table the request to allow the 289 applicant to update plans. Motion carries (Absent: Mitchell) 290 291 8. Public Hearing - Estate of Caroline Brede — Preliminary and Final Plat for 2 292 single-family parcels on 1.21 acres — west of Lakeshore Ave. and south of Brook 293 St. (PIDs 18-118-23-23-0024,18-118-23-23-0026, 18-118-23-23-0027, and 18-118- 294 23-23-0001). 295 296 Finke stated that two lots are proposed out of four existing parcels totaling 52,681 297 square feet west of Lakeshore and south of Brook Street. The proposed southern lot 298 is vacant, wooded, and sitting on a bluff. The northern would include garage and 299 cabin, and is closer to lake level. Existing lots are substandard and the proposed lots 300 would meet dimensional standards. Finke noted that Lot 1 is fairly shallow between 301 the front setback and lake setback, approximately 20 feet at the most narrow point, 302 but there is an adequate space for a building pad on the south end. The existing cabin 303 does not meet lake setbacks. Dedication of required right-of-way would make the 304 garage non -conforming. Stormwater improvements are necessary upon development 305 of Lot 2, but staff recommends requiring easements and documents at this time to 306 inform future buyers of both lots that Lot 2 will need to grade over Lot 1. 307 308 Nolan asked if the applicant was coming back for a variance or if the structure would 309 just be non -conforming. Finke stated that the applicant has indicated they desire a 310 variance, but that if they did not, it would be governed by the non -conformities 311 statutes. 312 313 Helen Bechtold, representing the estate, said she planted many trees on the site. She 314 noted that there are two water stubs, but only one is utilized. 315 316 Public Hearing opened at 9:44 p.m. 317 Public Hearing closed at 9:45 p.m. 318 V. Reid asked about the setbacks to the road and lake. Finke said they are better off 319 than most of the properties on the street. 7 t 1 320 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the subdivision 321 with the conditions noted in the staff report. Motion carries (Absent: Mitchell) 6-0. 322 323 9. Council Meeting Schedule 324 Williams agreed to attend and present at the September 17, 2013 Council meeting. 325 326 10. Ad'ourn 327 Motion by Foote, seconded by R. Reid, to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Motion carried 328 unanimously. (Absent: Mitchell) 8 AGENDA ITEM #6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: October 3, 2013 MEETING: October 8, 2013 Planning Commission SUBJ: D.R. Horton — Stage I Plan Review — 85 single family; 56 apartment units; 3.55 acres commercial — N of Hwy 55, W of Arrowhead — Public Hearing Review Deadline Complete Application Received: August 29, 2013 Review Deadline: October 28, 2013 Summary of Request D.R. Horton has requested approval of a Stage I Plan for the development of approximately 80 acres (51 acres buildable) of mixed use property north of Highway 55 between Arrowhead Dr. and Mohawk Dr. The Planning Commission reviewed it at the September meeting and recommended denial unless the applicant made changes to the plan. The primary concerns of the Commission appeared to be: 1) The Stage I Plan did not "consist of creative and thoughtful residential and commercial development that preserves open space and natural features" as required by the mixed use ordinance. Development was not "integrated and coordinated in a way to protect the natural environment." The removal of the wooded area was of primary concern. 2) The Stage I Plan lacked commercial development and did not provide for an adequate mix of uses intended by the Comprehensive Plan. 3) The Stage I Plan did not provide smooth transitions between uses as required by the mixed use ordinance. The applicant's original Stage I Plan included 98 single family homes and a future 72 -unit apartment building. No commercial development was shown within the mixed use property, although approximately 5 -acres of commercial property is located to the southwest of the mixed use property. The updated Stage I Plan includes 85 single family homes, a future 56 -unit apartment building, and 3.55 acres of commercial property (which is shown to be linked to the commercial property to the south for a total of 5.1 net acres). Additionally, over 3 acres of the wooded area is proposed to be preserved. The single family alignment is very similar to the original Stage I Plan, except some of this land is now proposed for the apartment building. Commercial development is proposed in the area previously planned for the apartment. Following review of the original Stage I Plan, the Planning Commission had directed staff to discuss the Mixed Use ordinance with the City Council to determine if amendments are warranted. Specifically, Commissioners wondered if the ordinance should include a minimum amount of commercial development. Staff intends to discuss this with the Council when the Stage I Plan is presented to the Council. The ordinance already includes a requirement for DR Horton Page 1 of 8 October 8, 2013 Stage I Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting property within 300 feet of certain roadways to be commercial. Staff has reviewed the land use map and noted that this property currently being discussed is the only mixed use property in the City which would not mandate some amount of commercial. It appears that the other mixed use parcels would require a minimum of approximately 25% commercial. Pursuant to Section 842.1.04 of the City Code: "a Stage I Plan...identifies the parcels proposed to be subject to the mixed use development plan, proposed land uses, general site plan layout, phasing, and other general elements of the project... The Stage I Plan establishes the general layout of land uses and densities of development in the MU District. The Stage I Plan further identifies the limits of the MU development, for purposes of identifying residential unit counts, acreages devoted to various land uses, and overall compliance with Comprehensive Plan objectives. More than one parcel may be included in an individual Stage I Plan for a mixed use development." Mixed use development is subject to a three-part process; the Stage II Plan generally accompanies a preliminary plat, and the Stage III Plan with final plat. According to Section 842.1.01 of the Code, "the purpose of the Mixed Use District is to integrate a mix of uses to promote housing and commercial diversity. The Mixed Use District will serve, in most cases, as a transitional district between more intense highway -oriented development and less intense rural or low -density residential uses. The intent of the Mixed Use District is to permit flexibility in the use of land, while maintaining a set of development standards and expectations that will allow property owners to design development projects that respond both to market needs and City development goals. The transitional aspect of development in the Mixed Use District will require that projects are designed with a special focus on mitigating any negative impacts on existing and future development in the area. New development proposals will be evaluated for their consistency with this goal and may be required to be amended, or may be rejected, when found to be inconsistent. New developments in the Mixed Use District shall be consistent with the following objectives: (1) This District shall consist of creative and thoughtful residential and commercial development that preserves open space and natural features. (2) Residential density shall average between 3.5 units per acre and 6.99 units per acre over a minimum of half of the developable area. (3) Residential development shall complement existing development in surrounding residential neighborhoods. (4) Developments shall incorporate creative design and buffering techniques to ensure smooth transitions between different types of development or different intensities of uses. (5) Where appropriate, developments shall be easily accessible to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. (6) Development shall include high quality and attractive building materials and architectural design as well as extensive landscaping in order to limit impacts on surrounding land uses, and shall be integrated and coordinated in a way to most efficiently utilize site improvements and to protect the natural environment. (7) Development in the MU District shall demonstrate consistency with the goals, policies, and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. (8) Development shall be designed to be served with public utilities, streets and other infrastructure without separate City investments, including the necessary extension of such infrastructure to connect with surrounding existing and/or future development." DR Horton Page 2 of 8 October 8, 2013 Stage I Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Additionally, the following General Standards apply to Mixed Use development: (1) Minimum Residential Density: 3.5 dwelling units per net acre. (2) Minimum Land Area to be devoted to residential uses shall be 50 percent of net developable land. (3) Maximum Density: 6.99 dwelling units per acre (see density incentives). (4) Required residential density shall be calculated using the total number of units and the total land area devoted to residential uses in the Stage I Plan. (5) Where feasible, residential areas shall consist of more than one dwelling unit style, e.g. single family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings, attached townhouses, or multiple family dwellings. (6) Areas abutting and within 300 linear feet of Trunk Highway 55, County Road 19 or Willow Drive shall be utilized for commercial land uses. (7) Areas within 100 feet of property designated in the Comprehensive Plan for rural residential or low density residential development, shall be comprised of only single family detached or two family attached dwellings. (8) If the two standards in (6) and (7) above conflict, standard (6) shall have precedence. Comprehensive Plan The subject property is guided Mixed Use, which the Comprehensive Plan defines these uses as follows: Mixed -Use (MU) provides opportunities for multiple, compatible uses on a single site including a residential component and one or more of the following: general business, commercial, office and public semi-public uses in each case where the primary use is residential. The areas designated with this land use will have residential densities between 3.5 units per acre and 6.99 units per acre over a minimum of half of the developable area. The mixed -use areas are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services in the future. Subject Site The subject site includes a large wetland running through the center which separates the east and west portions. This wetland includes two small streams which come into the basin from the north and the west. A wooded area approximately 9 -acres in area is located along the western edge of the wetland. The remaining property is largely farmland. An aerial of the site can be found at the top of the following page. Uses and Density Determining the uses and density of a Mixed Use development is the primary purpose of a Stage I Plan review. The subject property is 42.07 net acres in area. The applicant proposes to develop the entire property with residential uses. The proposed lots are 70' in width. Additionally, property at the southwest of the site is planned for a large apartment building. The Mixed Use land use (and zoning district) requires that half of the property is developed with residential uses and does not provide for a minimum percentage of commercial development. The Mixed Use district does require that "areas abutting and within 300 linear feet of Highway 55" be developed with commercial uses. In this case, although a portion of the Mixed Use property is within 300 feet of Highway 55, it does not abut Highway 55, but is separated by property guided Commercial. DR Horton Page 3 of 8 October 8, 2013 Stage I Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The number of residential units which are required on the subject property is based upon how much of the property is dedicated to residential uses. If only '// of the property were developed with residential (the minimum required in the Comp Plan), 80 units of residential would be required. In this case, the applicant proposes most of the property for residential uses, and a minimum of 138 units are required in order to meet the minimum 3.5 units/acre requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant proposes for the wooded area to be publicly owned, which would reduce the number of required units to 126, if the City agreed to take the property. Generally, it appears that the proposed single-family lots meet the dimensional standards of the Mixed Use (which are the same standards of R-2) district, which are: Requirement Proposed Minimum Lot Size 8,000 square feet 8,050 square feet Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 70 feet Minimum Lot Depth 90 feet 115 feet Front Yard Setback 25 feet Front Yard Setback (garage) 30 feet Side Yard Setback -combined 15 feet (10 & 5) Side Yard (corner) 30 feet Rear Yard Setback 25 feet Max. Hardcover 50% DR Horton Stage I Plan Review Page 4 of 8 October 8, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting The applicant proposes to work with another party to develop an apartment building in the southwest portion of the site. A letter from a potential partner for the apartment building is attached. The Stage I Plan identifies a three-story, 56 -unit apartment building with underground parking on 6.2 acres (3.7 net acres). 56 -units in this area results in a density of 15.14 units/acre. If the City does not desire to accept the preserved wooded area for public ownership, this area reduces the density of the apartment building to 8.06 units/acre. Similar to the discussion on the previous submittal, developing the 56 -unit apartment building could not be accomplished following the standards of the Mixed Use zoning district. The development could be accommodated through an alternative zoning (R-4 or PUD, as examples). The proposed apartment exceeds the density allowed in the Mixed Use zoning district. Multiple - family housing within the Mixed Use zoning district is allowed to be a net density of five units/acre, with bonuses allowed under certain circumstances (affordable housing, LEED certification, underground parking, etc.). Even with all density bonuses, the density exceeds that permitted in the mixed use zoning district. Additionally, the mixed use zoning district limits height to 2 stories. Staff believes that the additional height and density permitted by the R-4 zoning district helps to preserve a portion of the wooded area. The preserved woods would not need to be publicly owned, but staff would recommend a covenant be recorded to protect the trees as a condition of the rezoning. Utilizing the increased density to protect trees was one of the alternatives discussed by staff at the September meeting. The stream to the north of the proposed apartment building provides the opportunity to buffer between the single-family homes and the apartment building. If the Commission and Council are not in favor of rezoning the apartment parcel to R-4, the Stage I Plan would have to be re -designed in its entirety to be consistent with the Mixed Use zoning district. More property would be necessary for apartments (or other attached/multiple family homes) in order to meet minimum lot size requirements. Determining if the Commission and Council supports balancing the density with a large apartment building is likely the primary policy question of the Stage I Plan review. Wetlands and Floodplains A large wetland is located in the center of the subject property, stretching from the south to the north of the site. This wetland includes small streams to the northwest and west of the larger basin. There are additional isolated wetland basins in the eastern portion of the site and within the wooded area on the west. The applicant proposes wetland impacts primarily for a street connection across one of the streams. Additional impacts proposed on the original submittal have been eliminated on the updated Stage I Plan. Impacts will be subject to WCA approval, and the impacts for the street will likely be under the jurisdiction of the DNR because the larger wetland is a public water. The applicant has illustrated upland buffers on the plans, 35 feet in width along the large wetland (which is classified as a preserve wetland) and also consistent with code along the other remaining wetlands. DR Horton Page 5 of 8 October 8, 2013 Stage I Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting A floodplain is identified within and adjacent to the large wetland. FEMA does not have an established flood elevation for the basin, so the applicant will need to work with the watershed and DNR to determine the elevation and verify that all impacts are mitigated. Transportation/Streets The applicant proposes for the western portion of the site to access Mohawk Drive and the eastern portion of the site to access Arrowhead Drive. The City has identified Chippewa Road to be constructed from Mohawk to Arrowhead. The City's practice is for new street construction to be the responsibility of the adjacent development causing the need for the street. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a traffic study to identify necessary improvements for Arrowhead Drive and also to what standard Chippewa should be constructed. Construction of Chippewa will require wetland impacts which the City may desire to participate in as the Wetland Conservation Act authority. Staff believes the Chippewa connection is a vital link because Mohawk Drive is a right-in/right-out and without Chippewa, the western portion of this site would need to drive a mile west in order to head east. The internal streets of the development are shown as 28' wide within a 50' wide right-of-way, which has become the standard of the City. Staff recommends a condition be added requiring the applicant to design the cul-de-sacs in a manner acceptable to City staff. Staff recommends that the northeastern access point be analyzed to determine if adequate spacing exists from the intersection of Arrowhead Drive and future Chippewa Road. It appears that the proposed location is problematic. The City Engineer has also recommended that 50 -feet of right-of-way be required adjacent to the intersection of Arrowhead and Chippewa in order to accommodate turn lanes. Sewer/Water The Stage I Plan includes a conceptual utility plan. Utilities are adjacent to the site along Mohawk and Arrowhead. The City Engineer has provided comments to address upon Stage II Plan, especially related to looping the water system between the two portions of the development. The Fire Marshal has also provided comments requiring additional hydrants. Stormwater/LID Review The Stage I Plan does not contain information related to stormwater management. The Stage II/Preliminary Plat will be subject to the City's stormwater management ordinance. Tree Preservation/Buffer Yards and Landscaping The Stage I Plan does not include specific information about the trees on the site. As noted previously, approximately 9 -acres of site are wooded. The updated Stage I Plan preserves additional wooded areas, but the plan will still result in substantial tree replacement requirements. DR Horton Page 6 of 8 October 8, 2013 Stage I Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The Stage I Plan submittal did not include substantial information related to landscaping. City ordinances require two trees per single-family lot and buffer yards with a 0.1 opacity along the external streets. The area between the apartment and single family homes will require an opacity of 0.3. Park Dedication The applicant does not propose park or trail improvements. No park lands needs were identified in the parks and trails master plan, although an earlier study had suggested the possibility of a "pocket -park" around this site. The master plan identifies a future park to the west of the site, which would be within '/2 mile of the homes on the western portion of the site. The Park at Fields of Medina is more than '/2 mile, but less than 1 mile from the homes on the eastern portion of the site. The parks/trails master plan identifies the need for a east -west trail connection. Because of the wetland, it is difficult to achieve this connection without following future Chippewa Trail. Staff recommends that additional trail easement be required where wetland is not located in order to increase separation from Chippewa Road, and also recommends that the trail be construction in connection with Chippewa Road. Pedestrian Circulation The applicant proposes a sidewalk on one side of the interior streets for pedestrian circulation. Sidewalks/trails are also shown connecting the single family area through the apartment property and open space to the commercial property to the south. Review Criteria When reviewing a Stage I Plan, the City is determining if the proposed land uses and general site plan layout are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use ordinance, and other policies. The City shall deny any proposed development if it is found that the proposed development does not meet the objectives of the Mixed Use District or of the Comprehensive Plan. These objectives are noted at the top of page 2 of this report. Staff Recommendation The primary questions for the Planning Commission and City Council during a Stage I Plan review are related to proposed uses, residential densities, and general site layout. Consistency with other City ordinances is reviewed at future plan reviews. The updated Stage I Plan designates a small portion of the mixed use property for commercial development and preserves 3.25 net acres of the wooded area. The proposed use of the net property is: 77.1% single family, 16.5% multiple family (almost half of which is preserved open space), and 6.4% commercial. If the Commission and Council believe that the proposed Stage I Plan is generally consistent with the objectives of the Comp Plan and Mixed Use District, staff recommends the following conditions: DR Horton Page 7 of 8 October 8, 2013 Stage I Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 1. This Stage I Plan approval does not confer any development rights. Development shall be subject to Stage II Plan approval in addition to other relevant approval processes, including subdivision, rezoning, and, if applicable, site plan review approval. Such development shall also be subject to all relevant ordinance requirements in place at the time of application. 2. Any future development shall obtain Stage II and Stage III approval prior to any construction and these plans shall be consistent with the general layout, land uses, and densities depicted on the approved Stage I plan, except as modified herein. This documentation shall be recorded against the property in the subject site. 3. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, in a form and of substance acceptable to the City Attorney, which shall be recorded against the property which shall covenant the property to develop as shown in the Stage I Plan consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and ordinances. 4. The proposed apartment property shall be rezoned to the R-4 zoning district. The property shall be subject to a covenant that requires future development to provide a minimum number of units necessary to meet City density standards, and to ensure preservation of the wooded area. 5. The applicant shall complete a traffic study prior to Stage II review of any portion of the site. This study shall determine necessary improvements based upon the impact of development of the entire site. The study shall also determine appropriate construction standards for Chippewa Road, which construction shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 6. The City shall limit the number of single-family lots platted as it deems appropriate until such time as the apartment building units are constructed in order to meet Comprehensive Plan density requirements. The City may approve plats for a portion of the single-family lots prior to construction of the apartment building. 7. The applicant shall obtain Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) approval of any proposed wetland impacts. 8. The applicant shall verify or establish the flood elevation with relevant agencies. No impacts to the floodplain shall be permitted unless properly mitigated. 9. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated as deemed necessary by the City Engineer for turn lanes. 10. The applicant shall design cul-de-sacs in a manner acceptable to City staff and shall move the northeastern entrance to the subdivision if recommended by the City Engineer for improved circulation and stacking. 11. All comments of the City Engineer dated August 16, 2013 shall be addressed by Stage II plan submittals. Attachments 1. City Engineer comments dated 8/16/2013 2. Fire Marshal comments dated 8/13/2013 3. Narrative from Applicant 4. Letter from Sand Development 5. Stage I Plan received by the City 9/27/2013 DR Horton Page 8 of 8 October 8, 2013 Stage I Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting WSB ,,,,K engineering • planning. environmental • construction August 16, 2013 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: City Project: DR Horton Stage 1 Plan, LR-13-121 WSB Project No. 2065-670 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Dear Dusty: We have reviewed the concept plans dated August 8, 2013, for the proposed DR Horton Stage 1 Development. The site is located north of TH 55, east of Mohawk Drive, south of the future Chippewa Trail and west of Arrowhead Drive. The concept proposes to develop with a combination of single family housing, an apartment building and a future commercial development in the southwest corner of the site. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: 1. The City generally desires through roadways and discourages cul-de-sacs. We recommend that Street 2 be extended through to the future commercial area and connect with the proposed street to serve the apartment complex thus eliminating the cul-de-sac at the south end of Street 2. In addition, we recommend that Street 3 be eliminated and the lot configuration surrounding Street 3 be revised. 2. As part of this development Chippewa Road between Mohawk Drive and Arrowhead Drive should be constructed in its entirety. 3. Future sanitary sewer and watermain designs should be consistent with City standards. Specifically, sanitary sewer manholes should be located outside of the roadway and hydrants should be located on the sidewalk side of the street. 4. The watermain design should incorporate a 12" (or equivalent) trunk watermain connection through the development between the existing 12" watermain at the intersection of Meander Road/Arrowhead Drive and the existing 12" watermain on Mohawk Drive. 5. The sanitary sewer design should be reconsidered and potentially revised so that flows are directed southerly to minimize pipe depth and the need for risers. 6. The sanitary sewer service proposed to serve the apartment building should be revised so that it does not cross the future commercial site. St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K.:101065-670AdminDacs\DR Horton Stage / Memo 08/613.doc DR Horton Stage 1 Plans August 16, 2013 Page 2 7. Future plans should show how the future commercial site will be served with sanitary sewer and water. 8. The watermain design should incorporate more looping to improve water quality and eliminate dead end lines. 9. The City requires that all local streets meet a minimum 30 mph design speed. There are sag curves on streets 4 and 5 that do not meet this requirement. 10. MnDOT should review the plat to determine if additional right-of-way dedication in required along the future commercial parcel. Please contact me at 612-209-5113 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Tom Kell6r41—. ogg .0:102065-670Udmi,, DocsDR Moran Singe 11/emo 081613.doc METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC. Loren Kohnen, Pres. August 13, 2013 TO: Debra Peterson Planning Assistant FROM: Loren Kohnen RE: D.R. Horton Inc. Arrowhead Drive/Mohawk Drive CAVANAUGH PROPERTY STAGE 1 PLAN (763) 479-1720 FAX (763) 479-3090 Mtrowst76@aol.com Items for consideration: 1) All cul-de-sacs have six (6) lots on them; limited parking. 2) Any streets narrower than 28' no parking can be allowed. Twenty- eight (28') and greater, parking only opposite side from side- walks. 3) Nine (9) more fire hydrants provided; max spacing 300'. Hydrants provided only on sidewalk side of street. 4) West side development w/50 homes only has one (1) exit to a main road. 5) When will Chippewa Road be completed? All traffic from West development will have to go West to Willow to go East on Highway 55. LK:jg Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357 Stage 1 Narrative Cavanaugh Property Medina, MN September 18, 2013 Dusty Finke City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Re: Cavanaugh Property Stage 1 Plan Mr. Finke, On behalf of D.R. Horton, Inc. -Minnesota, I am pleased to submit for your review this revised application of a Stage 1 Plan for the Cavanaugh property north of Highway 55 between Arrowhead and Mohawk Drives, which is currently guided Mixed Use. We have made a number of modifications to the plan after hearing feedback at the recent Planning Commission meeting. In keeping with the purpose and intent of the Mixed Use designation, our Stage 1 plan provides for a number of new housing opportunities including 70' wide single family and apartment homes, as well as an expanded commercial parcel along highway 55. Following is a brief synopsis of how D.R. Horton proposes to meet the various objectives in the Mixed Use District, as listed within Chapter 8 of Medina City Code: 1) ...creative and thoughtful development that preserves open space and natural features. We have prepared a plan that carefully respects the extensive amount of natural features found on the property. Most lots back to open space to provide privacy and enjoyment of the natural features. As recommended at the Planning Commission meeting, we have eliminated the street connection and single family lots south the existing wetland drainage to better preserve the existing woodland. The extent of woodland preservation has greatly increased over our prior concept, totaling approximately 3.25 contiguous acres of trees. We proposed to dedicate this woodland area as public parkland, given the city's desire to retain this as an environmental area. Our plan honors the required wetland buffers (generally 35' average width for the majority of wetlands onsite). Westwood has also completed with a tree inventory and survey of all the existing significant trees found on the property. As part of preparation of a Stage II plan, we will attempt to preserve as many significant trees as practical. Stage 1 Narrative Cavanaugh Property Medina, MN 2) ...Residential density shall average between 3.5 and 6.99 units per acre over a minimum of half the developable area. As discussed occurred at the Planning Commission meeting, we heard that the city had some concerns over the limited commercial parcel along Highway 55. We have amended our plan to expand the commercial parcel, and have also provided a concept layout for a 2 story office building to illustrate how that property may develop in the future. We have also modified the proposed apartment layout, reducing its size down to a three-story, 56 unit apartment. The residential component of our Stage 1 plan provides for an estimated net density of 4.09 units/acre over the net developable residential area of 34.5 acres. Consistent with net developable area definitions of the Met Council, we have deducted from the gross site area all commercial lands, arterial road R.O.W., existing wetlands, proposed wetland buffers, required buffer yards between commercial uses, and public park/woodland preservation areas that will be set aside as permanent open spaces. 3) ... development shall complement existing development in surrounding residential neighborhoods. Our proposed neighborhood will be consistent in character with other established Medina residential neighborhoods, both in neighborhood design standards and housing products we intend to offer. 4) ...incorporate creative design and buffering techniques to ensure smooth transitions between differing types or differing intensities of uses. Our Stage 1 plan utilizes the natural features of the site to provide substantial buffers between the differing land uses and residential densities. The large existing woodland on the southwest portion of the property will be used to buffer our single family lots from the proposed future commercial parcel adjacent to TH 55. The location and siting of the proposed apartments will also serve as a transition between commercial and lower density residential and eliminate any circulation conflicts between commercial and single family uses. Our new plan has a significant open space separation between the apartment and single family uses, a benefit gained by removing the single family lots south of the wetland drainage as originally proposed. At the main (northwesterly) entry to the project, our plan provides for homes that side up against Mohawk with an adequate buffer yard, thereby eliminating rear yards backing up to this arterial street and the commercial use to the west. To the southeast, our plan provides for a significant (100' wide) buffer yard between our residential lots and the existing commercial use, Open Systems International. As part of our Stage II development plans, we will provide landscaping in the upland portions of this buffer to further screen between these differing land uses. 5) ... Where appropriate, development shall be easily accessible to pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. Stage 1 Narrative Cavanaugh Property Medina, MN Another modification to our plan involves enhancing pedestrian connectivity. We have amended our plan to illustrate a potential trail linkage that would connect the west neighborhood, the apartments, and the future commercial parcels to the large preserved woodland. As well, our neighborhood will provide sidewalks on one side of all residential streets, consistent with Medina requirements. 6) ...development shall include high quality and attractive building materials, architectural design, and extensive landscaping... The neighborhood will offer stylish contemporary homes constructed using attractive, high quality building materials. The single family homes will attract first time single family and move - up single family buyers in this market. Extensive landscape plantings, with an emphasis on larger nursery stock trees, will be provided on home site, buffer yard areas and other open spaces to create significant landscaped areas. 7) ...development shall demonstrate consistency with goals, policies, and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Stage 1 plan, with its mix of residential units that promote housing diversity and serve nearby employers, is consistent with Medina's Comprehensive plan. 8) ... development shall be served with public utilities, streets and other infrastructure... Our land plan provides for public streets, utilities, and other infrastructure to be constructed as part of our future development plans. The necessity of extending of Chippewa Trail and what alignment it may take, keeping in mind the environmental impacts associated with extending this collector road, warrants review and discussion. SUMMARY We believe that our revised Stage 1 plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Mixed Use District and Comprehensive Plan. We appreciate all the feedback we received at Planning Commission, and believe our new plan addresses those issues raised. We are pleased to be bringing another quality neighborhood development to the City, and look forward to receiving any comments from all stakeholders during the Stage 1 review process. If you have any questions or comments about this request, please contact me at 952-985-7827. Sincerely, Ron Mullenbach Land Manager Sand August 6, 2013 Ron Mullenbach Land Manager D.R. Horton, Inc. -Minnesota 20860 Kenbridge Court, Suite 100 Lakeville, MN 55044 RE: Cavanaugh Property - Medina, Minnesota Dear Mr. Mullenbach: 366 South Tenth Avenue PO Box 727 Waite Park, MN 56387-0727 www. SandCompanies.com P: (320) 202-3100 F: (320) 202-3139 It was a pleasure speaking with you again about the Cavanaugh Property located in Medina, Minnesota. Sand Development, LLC would support joining with D.R. Horton in the development of this property. We would propose a 54 - 67 (dependent on market study) Multi -Family Workforce Housing Development very similar to the project we co -developed in Plymouth, Minnesota last year. This project was very successful for both entities and I envision the same in Medina. Partnering in the development of this parcel would support the needs of the local employers by providing housing for their workforce. The proximity to mass transit and major employers makes this a highly desirable location. Thank you for the opportunity. We look forward to working with you and your company once again. Sincerely, Neil Fortier Vice President Sand Development, LLC a Suhsidia,y ofSrnxt Comlxmies, J,i Equal Opportunity Employer 366 South Tenth Ave., PO Box 727 Waite Park, Minnesota 56387-0727 (320) 202-3100 46 East Fourth Street, Suite 200 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-1137 (651) 289-0300 22851 Industrial Blvd. Rogers, Minnesota 55374-8703 (320) 202-3100 3831 Tyrone Blvd., Suite 104 Saint Petersburg, Florida 33709-4114 (727) 384-4400 CONCEPT SKETCH STAGE 1 PLAN (REVISED) CONCEPT DATA grate slat Arm hai Comn sercial Parcel 8.8 0c (Gross) few Arterial ROW 2S ac (Chippew a & Mohawk ROW) OAK GPM Residentia l Arias 72.5 as Ina Deline ated Wetlands 24.75 ac Propose d We dand Buffe rs 8.50 ac 2F 100'Buffer Yard (n et wet & buffers) 1. 50 ac Publk Park /Wo odland ',misery. 3. 25 ac file tk oile seektRagislantia_3114.as Pandin atIodkra tionAltistatie ns 23 as, othe r Cksrmlisiata(Pdvw6 1. sa{, Gots Un itas . lelwks 20' Single Fa mily 8Shomes Future Apra n 56 units grass Dimity 0lasW. creak 1. 94 un/ac BYiPldgs IAM wrier ?kooks/ 31.5 ac desela pabke mid areal r 9-26-2013 0301402A0 (Based on he ld delin ea tion, appro vals in process) 135' a verage , 25'min. wetla nd butler generally) (100' separation from existing commercial& SE caner) (Woodland preservation area net upland area) DRHORTUN'••' }}- �i?yv' NICG! GGLldG'te III CAVANAUGH PROPERTY MEDI NA, MN Delineated Wetland ' Wetland Buffer 11 10 Ale k110 9' e AGENDA ITEM: 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: October 2, 2013 MEETING: October 8, 2013 Planning Commission SUBJ: Brede Estate — Variance — 2929 Lakeshore Ave. Review Deadline Complete Application Received: September 4, 2013 60 -day Review Deadline: November 3, 2013 Overview of Request The Estate of Caroline Brede requests approval of a variance to reduce the required front setback for the existing garage on the property from 30 feet to 23 feet. The existing garage currently meets setback requirements, but granting additional right-of-way for Lakeshore Avenue would cause the garage to no longer conform with this standard. The right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated as a condition of approving a replat of the property. The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat at the September 10 meeting and recommended approval. As discussed at the September meeting, the applicant proposes to dedicate right-of-way on the plat as recommended by City staff. Staff recommends that a minimum of 25 feet from the centerline of Lakeshore Ave. be dedicated, consistent with City standards. Dedicating this right-of-way pushes the front lot line back, which causes the front setback of the garage to fall below 30 feet. The applicant has requested that the City consider the variance since they are willing to grant the right-of-way, preventing the garage from becoming non -conforming. Analysis The property is zoned Urban Residential (UR) and is located within the shoreland overlay district of Lake Independence. The following table summarizes the required setbacks on the proposed plat and the existing structures. As noted in the September meeting, proposed Lot 2 on the plat would be vacant. Required Lot 1 Front Yard Setback 30 feet 23 feet (garage) 46 feet (house) Setback from Lake 75 Feet 35 feet (house) 90 feet (garage) Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 35 feet (house) 90 feet (garage) Side Yard Setback 10 feet 14 feet (house -north) 15 feet (garage -south) Impervious Surfaces 25% (shoreland) 16.6% Brede Estate Variance Page 1 of 2 October 8, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting p As shown in the table, the existing structures do not meet two of the required setbacks. The plat reviewed the by Commission at the September meeting does not change the existing non- conformity related to the setback of the home from Lake Independence. The applicant has not requested a variance related to this non -conformity. The existing garage currently meets setback requirements, but the dedication of additional right- of-way would cause it to no longer meet front setback requirements. It should be noted that the Lakeshore right-of-way was originally wider, but the City vacated 10 feet of the Lakeshore Avenue prior to the garage being constructed in 1986. Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation According to Subd. 2 of Section 825.45, the City shall consider the following criteria when reviewing requests for variances: (a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. (b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be established, all of the following criteria shall be met: (1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district; (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff believes the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Staff believes the plight of the landowner is fairly unique to the property, because the City has not commonly vacated portions of rights -of -way on City streets and then increased its width standards. Staff does not believe the variance will alter the essential character of the area, as existing structures in the area tend to be as close, if not closer, to the street. Subject to the conditions noted below, staff believes it would be reasonable to conclude that the criteria are met. If the Planning Commission concurs, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1) The required front yard setback for the existing garage shall be reduced from 30 feet to 23 feet. This variance shall only be valid for the garage as currently exists on the property and not for additional structures or expanded structures. 2) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the variance. Attachment Preliminary Plat received by City 9/5/2013 Brede Estate Variance Page 2 of 2 October 8, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting i • ' LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE N 1/4 COR. OF SEC. 18, TW P. 118, RGE. 23 (HENNEPING CO. CAST IRON MON.) PA C4T EO o S09'29'531e \ s 26.73 wm 12 i 00 $78. 13'50'Est 10.00 u`� �o POIN T 00 --- BEGINNING HOUSE\ w� � tlz 0 - N S Z O ci rS Xo zw > W." ' °L! fare z °Lo zy `g: N13. 28" 13. 06 2.E m Olpg o RCS J FORD 6mw �Wb z(n � I i L. //: 0 rc @ Bolton & Monk, Inc. 2013, All Rights Reserv ed I:\PRIV\112105550\C30\10555oPRI.DWG 09-04-2013 9:19a.m. / / ::A11 E SH 5 O R.0-ple]sJ 10..1 1.3526 o .loo dz�77'52' a �� PC OM G Nr L i)1.p , OC If0^ NO 2 12 Q yN SW B ONE NWAI 01.00 - 9 11 7Ep SEPT 27 6. a *VT, ,�E (GOD AIN O tm nE 01�tEl 28) ---,Vick 960 a (NGYD 29) PER BREDE ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this sur vey was prepared by me or under my direct sup er visio n a nd that I am a duly licensed land surveyor under the law s of the State of Minnes ota. REVISED: SHORELINE & AREA NOTE 9/4/2013 OWNER:x '^'GC A yENUE VENUE / / SW NH BENCHMARK a-sea.0 /TOP NUT HYDRANT ELN.m987.22 (NCVD 29) 90G HO SR 4223J8r 0.1z 8. A 5-1 PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASE MENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: II I I I I -4- I-5 I I I I BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING SIDE & REAR LOT IJNES A ND 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING PUBIJC WAYS . UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THIS PLAT. A K E 1 N D 32 {-HSPCO gap Op0�troAHP O . ���` � 38044,E11 PfD ,ELI/Ar sue`` ?l E P DESCRIPTION (Certific at e of Titl e No . 1344160) Th ose ports of L ots 5, 6 a nd 7, Block 27, th e tract of l and design at ed as "BEACH " and the vac ated West 10 feet of L ake Shore Av enue, all in Indep end ence Be ach, H en nepin C ounty, Minnes ota, and of the unplatted part of Go vernme nt Lot 2, Sectio n 18, T ownship 118, Range 23, lying within the foll owing d es cribed parcel: Comm en ci ng at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence on an ass umed be ari ng of N orth 11 d egrees 46 minutes 10 se conds East, al ong th e e asterly lin e of s aid Lot 5, to th e I nt er secti on with the north line of the s outh 50.00 feet as me asur ed at a right angle, of said Lot 5 and the poi nt of begi nning o1 the land to be described; th ence So uth 78 degr ees 13 minutes 50 sec onds East, a dista nce of 10.00 feet; th ence nc S outh 11 degree. 46 minut es 10 sec onds W est, a distanc e of 151.18 f eet; the e S outh 69 degrees 05 minutes 34 sec onds E ast, a distan ce of 8 .92 f eel; thence S outh 21 degr ees 12 mi nut es 32 seco nds West, a dista nce of 316 feet . m ore or less, to the sh or e line of L ak e I ndependen ce; then ce northerly, alo ng said shore line, to the inters ecti on with a line 20 feet south of, as me as ured at a right angle. a nd par all el with the westerly ext ensi on of the north line of said L ot 6; thence South 85 degrees 40 mi nutes 27 s ec onds E ast, al ong said par allel line, to the Intersecti on with a line 20.00 feet west erly of , as m eas ured at a right angle, and par allel with the westerly line of s aid Lot 6; thence N orth 13 degr ees 26 minutes 02 seconds East, parall el with said westerly line. a distonce of 10 .13 feet to the Inters ection with a line 10.00 feet south of, as measured at a right angle, and parallel with said westerly extension of the n orth line of L ot 6; then ce South 85 degrees 40 mi nutes 27 seconds East, p arall el with said westerly extensi on, a distance of 1.86 /set to th e interse cti on with 'Line A'; thenc e N orth 4 degrees 19 minutes 33 s ec onds East, al ong said "Line A. a distance of 10.00 feet to it s n ortherly terminus; thence North 85 degrees 40 mi nutes 27 seconds West, al ong said west erly extension, a distance of 0 .26 f eat to the intersecti on with a line 20.00 feet westerly of. as measured at a right angl e and p or oll el with the west erly line of said L ot 5; the nc e N orth 13 degr ees 26 minutes 02 s econds East, parall el with said west erly line of L ot 5. to the int ersecti on with a line 10.00 feet n ortherly of , o, m easur ed at o right angl e, and parall el with said west erly extensi on of th e n orth lin e of Lot didistr..6; thence N orth 85 degree s 40 minutes 27 sec onds West, alo ng said intersect ed line, a distr.. of 12 feet, more or l ess, to the shore line of Lake Indepe nd ence; thence n ortherly, along said shor e line, to the m easur ed int er secti on with a line 35.00 feet northerly of. as ea ur ed at a right a ngl e, a nd par allel with s aid westerly e xtensi on of the n orth line of L ot 6; th ence So uth 85 degree s 40 min ute, 27 sec ond s East al ong said Int ersected Inc. a dist ance of 8 f eet, m ore or l ess, to the intersection with "Line B thence South 13 degrees 26 minute. 02 se conds West, al ong said "Line 8'. to the so utherly t erminus of said 'Lin e B thence South 88 degr ee, 32 minutes 17 s ec onds E ast, par all el with the westerly extensi on of th e n orth line of said Lot 5, a distance of 20 f eet to s aid westerly line of Lot 5; thence N orth 13 degree s 26 minutes 02 sec onds E ast, alo ng said westerly lin e of L ot 5, a dist ance of 15 .06 f eet to th e intersecti on with sold n orth fine of the S outh 50.00 feet of L ot 5; thence South 85 degrees 40 minutes 27 second' East along said north line of the So uth 50 .00 f eet of L ot 5, a dist ance of 95.99 f eel to th e point of b eginning. "Line A" is described as follow s: C ommen cing at the north west c omer of said L ot 6; then ce w esterly. on the westerly ext ensio n of the north line of said L ot 6, a di st anc e of 20 .00 feet to the point of beginning of "Li ne A the nce south erly, at a right angle to said we sterly extensi on, a di st ance of 10.00 feet and sold "lin e A" and th er e termin ati ng . 'Line B" is describ ed as f ollo ws: C ommen cing at a p oint on said west erly f lin e of Lot 5, dietont 45.00 feet n orth of the southw est co ner of s aid Lot 5; th enc e westerly, par allel with the westerly e xt ensi on of the north li ne of s aid L ot 5, a distance of 20.00 f eet to the p oi nt of beginning of 'Li ne B'; then ce southerly, p orollel with s aid west erly line ofLot 5. a dista nce of 10.00 feet and said "Li ne B" th ere t erminati ng . UTIUTY AND SITE DATA The f ollo wing Z oning information was obtained from Debra Peterso n -Dufresne at the City of Medina Plan ni ng & Zoning Office, on J anuary 26, 2009 . F or d etailed zoning i nformation and sp ecifi c i nt erpretati on of c ode requir ements, conta ct Debra P eterson -Dufresne at th e City of Medina Pl anning & Zoning Office (763)-473-4643. Z ONI NG: Subject pr operty: UR (Urb an R esid enti al) and Shor eland Overlay Distri ct FLOOD ZONE: C ommunity P anel No. 2705300142E, dated Sept ember 2. 2004, of Fl ood Ins ur an ce R ote Maps published by U.S. Department of H ousing and Urb an D evelopment, shows thi s site as b eing l ocated in Z ones X and AE. Zone X is defi ned 0e "Are a determi ned to be outside th e 0.20 an nual chanc e fl oodpl ain; Zone AE is defined as "Base flood elevati ons d etermi ned." C omm unity P anel N o. 2705300144E, d ated September 2, 2004 , of Flood Insurance R at e Maps p ublish ed by U.S . D epartment of H ousi ng and Urban D evelopment, sh ows this site as being l ocated in Z ones X a nd AE. Zo ne X is defin ed as "Area determin ed to be outside the 0.20 annu al ch ance fl oodpl ai n;' Zon e AE is d efined as "B ase flo od el ev ations d etermin ed.' The division bet ween the Flood Zones is not sh ow n on this sur vey m op. Flood Z one m aps are n ot sufficiently precise f or occurately deriving the l oc ati on of z one limits by scale. A field survey to determi ne th e on -ground l ocatio n of th e b oundary betwe en z ones was not a c ontr actu al c omp one nt of this survey MINES: O nly utility lines and str uctur es obs erved during the course of the field survey of this site are shown on this map . The sur veyor d oes not guarant ee th at th ere are no oth er utility lin ee and str uctures, a cti ve or ab andoned, on or adj acent to th e subject pr operty. AREA: The subje ct pr operty cont ains ±52,700 sq uare f eet ( ±1 .21 acr es) . PROPOSED AREAS LOT 1 - 20,080± SO . FT . LOT 2 - 31,874± S0 . FT . LAKE SHORE AVE. R/W - 727 SO. FT. (NOTE: All ar eas measured & lie above the Ordinary High Water Mark (0006)) O WNER/SUBDIVIDER H elen Becht old, P ereon ol Representative of th e Est ate of Car oli ne Br ede 6904 Creston Rood Edin a, MN 55435 SURVEYOR/DESIGNER Bolto n & Monk, I nc. 12224 Nic ollet Avenue Burnsville, MN 55337 F 4y ot2 (3° e^1 Q 2-r. ,y fl -t4 �Ae� � V 1eLJ ' Q24 Sys, E N D E N C E II CTORs0, NO,H f 0P P 2�GN36N s C(Gr° W (G) m` a}.4tx ) .4.°,1 13 �s- Q 21 ,'"' © -e OS 0,%\:,41;41 6 '.BASE FLOOD E1i09 50N: 960 FT . ry,GE oDap :T2 0.4 ° p 01 I,N" pFSt oN 9 0 • • I8 mo s 0 14 O J1 -OU- -ST- LEGEND JUDICIAL LANDMARK MONUMENT (11.06) SET PURSUANT TO INTERLOCUTORY ORDER 20621 3/4 " IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET MARKED BY REG. NO. 19840 IRON PIPE FOUND HENN. CO. SE CTION MONUMENT FOUND JUDICIAL LAND MARK MONUMENT FOUND SET PURSUANT TO TORRENS C ASE N O. 17237 (DEC . 12, 1972) BENCHMARK ANCHOR CATCH BASIN HYDRANT TELEPHONE PEDE STAL LI111001 POLE CURB STOP SA NITARY MANHOLE WATER VALVE ELECTRIC METER DECIDUOUS TREE & DA. SIZE CONIFERO US TREE & DIA. SIZE SUMP BUSH TRAFFIC SIGN POST APRON UTILITY OVERHEAD STORM SEWER 0 20 40 10 '0I F IN FEET Horizontal Datum: 1986 Hennepin County C oordi nate Syst em Vertical Datum: NGVD 1929 PRELIMINARY PLAT 2921 & 2929 LAKESHORE AVENUE, MEDINA, MN 55359 II\ BOLTON 8c MEN K, INC. Cons ulting Engineers & Surveyors 12224 NICOLLET AVENUE S, BURNSVILLE. MN 55337 (952) 890-0509 MANKATO, FNRMONT, SLEEPY E YE, BURNSVILLE, W LIA VR , CHASKA . RAMSEY, MAPLEW00D. BAXTER, ROCHESTER . MINNES OTA & AMES , SPENCER. IOWA P/0 BLOCK 27 & TRACT DESIGNATED AS 'BEACH', INDEPENDENCE BEACH, HENNEPIN CO. , MN AND P/0 GOV'T LOT 2, SEC. 18, TWP . 118, RGE. 23 FOR: BREDE ESTATE I:\PRN\T12105550\C3D\SDB105550G J OB NUMBER: 712 .105550 FIELD BOOK: SN01, PG. 88-89 DRAWN BY: ER W FILE NO. 384 4 D WG. NO. 3594-6 S18 -T118 -R23-23 AGENDA ITEM: 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: October 2, 2013 MEETING: October 8, 2013 Planning Commission SUBJ: Lennar — Variance — 3032 Basswood Road Review Deadline Complete Application Received: September 16, 2013 120 -day Review Deadline: November 15, 2013 Overview 94. Request Lennar requests approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for an existing detached townhome from 7.5 feet to 5 feet. The structure was the first detached townhome constructed in The Enclave at Brockton PUD, and the builder's construction plans showed the building setback 5 feet from the western property line and 10 feet from the eastern property line. These are the regular setbacks in the R-2 zoning district. However, The Enclave at Brockton PUD amends these setbacks to 7.5 feet on each side. City staff did not catch the error during the permit review, and only noted it after construction was completed on the structure. Analysis The following table summarizes the required setbacks of the PUD and the existing structure: Required 3032 Basswood Front Yard Setback 25 feet 25 feet Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 35 feet (house) 90 feet (garage) Side Yard Setback (west) 7.5 feet 5.0 feet Side Yard Setback (east) 7.5 feet 9.1 feet (deck) As noted above, the structure was already constructed before the error was noticed. The City could attempt to take action to require the building to be brought into compliance with setback requirements, but that would be a very difficult endeavor. The City does not need to issue a variance, but the building would be a known violation of City regulations and may cause difficulties for future buyers. The property is within a PUD, which is meant to provide more flexibility for development standards. As an alternative to the variance, the PUD could be amended for this lot. However, staff believed the PUD amendment was more difficult administratively, and may more difficult to track into the future. Engineering has reviewed the as -built survey and does not believe the reduced setback creates any concerns for drainage or utilities. Lennar — 3032 Basswood Rd. Variance Page 1 of 2 October 8, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting 10 Review Criteria/Staff Recommendation According to Subd. 2 of Section 825.45, the City shall consider the following criteria when reviewing requests for variances: (a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. (b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficult to be established, all of the following criteria shall be met: (1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the board shall consider, among other factors, whether the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and whether the variance confers upon the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district; (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff believes the applicant does propose to use the property in a reasonable manner. The plight is unique to the property insofar as it within a PUD and was the first constructed with unique standards (no other property except for this PUD require a side -yard setback of 7.5 feet). Because of the angles of the lots, the detached townhomes will tend to vary in setback along the street, so staff believes this change in setback would be difficult to notice and will not alter the essential character of the area. If the Planning Commission and City Council believe the criteria above have been satisfied, staff recommends approval of the variance with the following condition: The western side -yard setback shall be reduced from 7.5 feet to 5 feet only for structure as shown on the plans dated May 13, 2013. Any future addition or reconstruction shall meet standards in place at the time of construction. Attachments 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Survey dated 5/13/2013 Lennar — 3032 Basswood Rd. Page 2 of 2 October 8, 2013 Variance Planning Commission Meeting SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. 150 SOUTH BROADWAY, WAYZATA, MINNESOTA, 55391 (952) 476-6000 FAX (952) 476-0104 September 13, 2013 Subject: Variance Request for L2 B4 - The Enclave at Brockton Prepared By: Robert S. Molstad, P.E. This letter is to request a side yard setback variance from 7.5 feet to 5 feet, for Lot 2, Block 4, The Enclave at Brockton. The lot in question is the "current" model home (first built house), in the approved 57' detached townhome lots. The house construction started in the April of this year and was completed in August. The house is in the approved 57' detached townhome lots, which is part of the PUD Concept Plan of the Enclave at Brockton. The PUD for the Enclave at Brockton has three approved layout requirements, 90' lots, 75' Tots and 57' lots, all of which have different setback requirements. The certificate of survey, prepared on April 5th, 2013, was prepared for this lot with a side yard setback of 5 feet and 10 feet, not the required 7.5 feet and 7.5 feet. Therefore we are requesting a variance to allow the west side of Lot 2 to have a 5.0 foot setback, please see the attached survey. LEGEND Cts DENOTES SANITARY MANH OLE 0 A 0 x 000.0 (000.0) 0 DENOTES HYDRANT DENOTES CATCH BASIN DENOTES STORM MANH OLE DENOTES ST OR M APRON DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION DENOTES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE DENOTES SANITARY SEWER SERVICE ELEVATION DENOTES 2. 5" DECIDUOUS TREE •. .••«••• .•• • DENOTES PROPOSED SILT FENCE DENOTES GRAVITY SUM P PUM P DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR TB DENOTES TELEPHONE BOX OFFSET IRONS ELEVATIONS ARE TO THE TOP OF PIPE OS #1=1017,85 OS #3= 1014. 52 OS #2= 1018.72 OS #4= 1014.15 ASBUILT ELEVATIONS ASBUILT GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION ASBUILT TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION ASBUILT BASEMENT FLOOR ELEV ATION ASBUILT LOOKOUT OPENING ELEVATION HARDCOVER LOT AREA = 8,484 S.F. HOUSE AREA= 2,558 S.F. DRIVEWAY AREA= 564 S.F. SIDEWALK AREA= 38 S.F. STOOP AREA= 224 S. F. OF 1, ,, 1171 IiTI 1 [7 P" ,F 7,., .8 II 1,"11 1 U to 1@�75.8 1 BF 1012.8 / I / I •1014.2 r I (1Q14.0) • 1014 .9 0903 1014.52 r O W O BF 1013.3 1.0 1018.3 p °I LO -1F-1021.3- 1016- - AF 1021.0 -- -1018- - • • 1017.8 --^-1020- 1 1 • 1 18. 2 = 1020. 57+ 0. 33=1020.90 (NOT POURED) = 1021.18 = 1012.85+0.33=1013.18 (NOT POURED) = 1016. 32 / B£Mff�ll+dcMRK8 ;TM1E LE V..a 142201, TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA= 3,384 S.F. CO VERAGE = 39.9% ZONING DISTRICT: R3 • I / "\T L .0 1 N89'54'28"W S61212P 20 .59 101 ?.5 F'O,J0 ( 1 c 5r- / 2 0802 1018.72 1/T9.6 B ♦010' E '� (1019.8' ,..--8'"�ONCRETE SIDEWAU UNDER CV NSMUC170N ♦ • 1013.9 x(1015 .1) eis M I X(1015.6 X o x1015.6x +'4.1 30.0 0 0, 0 ♦0+01:1 LOOKOUT ' 12.0 (1016.3) 4-4 • 1013,7 (1015.1)X 7.1 +0+O .O1 •012 -. - PROPOSED „- pl LO$(OJT~ (1018.2 FOLK "A" 3032 BASSWOOD RD ,- .o (8019 .0 .2) GARAGE 6 .8 (1021 .0) (10 .0)1.6A o 0 2.20 ‘. ... •"" e 5 • (1016 .5 (1017.31 1013 .8 0 1 1 1019.6 • BASSWOO D ROAD _i 18 • 13.0 STOOP 1 1 AN V 1 1 0804 • 1012.4 r+ r> 1 1T1 PIT VUIL.U1 ♦7 I- i ITi ' D I- 1 r1T 1 U I kJ \L 4 .0 1 • 1014.4 1014.15 OF 1012.3 1.0 1015 .3 LV .---- / z :>c,302o.3 ..• N ♦ob -SF 1020.0 ,r 1 1 A 0 co i 1018rf -' } - X(i020 .7)x h3 i �' 1 N1 Fl\ ) 0.351 ` Tg. rJ1WEiE Y=1Q2ci6 i1 s %/ 1018 .80 1 ♦0691 i i • 1017 .2 75.83 R-250 ;Q0 .. C t479'5x74 C B.=5.57,266 ----1 0 ti NOTES: 1 .) EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. 2.) MUST MAINTAIN A MINI MUM 2% SLOPE GRADIENT TO ACCOMMODATE POSITIVE DRAINAGE . 3 .) ALL OFFSET IRONS ARE MEASURED TO HUNDREDTHS OF A FOOT AND CAN BE USED AS BENCHMARKS. 4 .) THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW EXACTLY HOW THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE BUILT . DRIVEWAY SHALL NOT ENCROACH INTO THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT. 5.) A TITLE OPINION WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE SURVEYOR. 6.) PROPOSED GRADES SHOWN ADJACENT TO BUILDING FOUNDATION REFERS TO T OP OF BLACK DIRT . 7 .) BENCHMARK: "A" TNH @ LOT 3, BLOCK 6, THE ENCLAVE AT BROCKTON =1020 .51 FEET "B" TNH OUTLOT G, THE ENCLA VE AT BROCKTON = 1023 .04 FEET 8.) LOT CORNERS WERE NOT SET AT THIS TIME DUE TO SITE CONDITIONS . DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATA - LO GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION = 1021.0 BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION = 1013.3 LOOKOUT OPENING ELEVATION =1016.3 PR OPOSED ELEVATIONS PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION = 1021.0 PROPOSED TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION =1021.3 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION = 1013.3 PROPOSED LOOKOUT OPENING ELEVATION = 1018.3 DRIVEWAY WIDTH MAX. WIDTH AT PROPERTY LINE= 28' MAX . WIDTH AT CURB W. 24' SETBACKS R2 MIN. FRONT YARD SETBACK = 25' LIVING MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK = 10' - 5' MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK = 20' NORTH I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE B OUNDARIES OF: LOT 2, BLOCK 4, THE ENCLAVE AT BROCKTON, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, HENNEPIN COUNTY , MINNESOTA AND THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, IF ANY, THEREON, AND ALL VISI LE ENCRO CHMENTS, IF ANY. FROM OR ON SAID LAND . AS SURYED BY A THIS 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013 . 4 David B. P emberton, Professional Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 40344 JOB #: 5046-534 REVISIONS FIELD CREW: CL, JV DRAWN BY: JJA REVISED SIDE SETBACKS 05-01-13 EMW FOUNDATION ASBUILT-M NK-05/13/2013 CHECKED BY: DBP DATE: 4/4/2013 � E.$ SUR` 1 ;;;�;. 0$ SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. m .,,. �% ¢ 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 o HERS ,�r � CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR LENNAR OF MINNESOTA 3032 BASSWOOD RO AD CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA FOUNDATION ASBUILT 20 10 0 10 20 40 SCALE IN FEET Date: /o x -/3 , T Y Comment Card MEDINA Name of Speaker: /per // / u f/e ,,, 4.4 c l' Public Forum Agenda Item 1, (please print) Address: Telephone (optional): Representing: D- g A%✓-vt7 Agenda Item (list number and letter): # 4' Comments: /q?'"-- 1 c`? A) T Approach the podium to speak Meeting Rules of Conduct MEDINA • Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner. • Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments. • Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to speak when it is your turn. • Please approach the podium when called on to speak. While Speaking Please give name and address Please indicate if representing a group Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes