HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-10-2012MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of December 13, 2011 draft Planning Commission
minutes.
6. Wallace Marx — Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan
for a Conservation Design subdivision of four contiguous parcels
totaling 109.58 acres at 2500, 2700, 2702, 2900 Parkview Drive
(PIDs #16-118-23-32-0002; #16-118-23-31-0002; #16-118-23-
23-0005; and #16-118-23-33-0001). The subdivision proposes
eight Single Family Home sites and to place approximately 60
acres into a conservation easement.
7. Public Hearing — Text Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina
City Code to modify and add Street Setback regulations.
8. Election of the 2012 Planning Commission Chair
9. Election of the 2012 Planning Commission Vice Chair
10. City Council Meeting Schedule
11. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL January 6, 2012
1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes
3 Tuesday, December 13, 2011
4
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner R. Reid called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners Kathleen Martin, Victoria Reid, Kent Williams,
9 John Anderson, and Robin Reid
10
11 Absent: Charles Nolan and Beth Neilson
12
13 Also Present: City Council member Elizabeth Weir, City Council member Jeff
14 Pederson, City Planner Dusty Finke, and Associate Planner Dale Cooney
15
16 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
17
18 No public comments.
19
20 3. Update from City Council proceedings
21
22 Council member Elizabeth Weir presented a report of recent activities and decisions
23 by the City Council. Comments included approval of parking standards ordinance,
24 stonnwater management ordinance, budget reductions, and Marx conservation
25 design.
26
27 4. Planning Department Report
28
29 Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects.
30
31 5. Approval of the October 11, 2011 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes
32
33 V. Reid asked to strike line 32.
34
35 Motion by Martin, seconded by V. Reid, to approve the October 11, 2011 draft
36 minutes with the recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent:
37 Nolan and Neilson)
38
39 7. Continued Public Hearing — JJC Hamel LLC — Request to rezone 805 Hamel
40 Road from UR, Urban Residential, to R2, Two Family Residential, and
41 subdivide one lot into two lots (PID #11-118-23-41-0001)
42
43 Cooney delivered the staff report. He stated that JJC Hamel LLC was requesting to
44 split the parcel at 805 Hamel Road into 2 parcels and to rezone Lot 2 to the R2 zoning
45 district. He summarized the existing property and showed the proposed subdivision.
46 Cooney discussed the required setback from County Highways. He stated that staff
1
1 believed the requirement is redundant with setback requirements contained within
2 zoning districts.
3
4 Bill Cavanaugh (applicant, 3320 Niagara Lane, Plymouth) explained his previous
5 application last year was proposed to have three lots and current proposed application
6 has only two lots. He said he wanted to maintain the variance for the right of way
7 variance that he had requested previously and thought this two lot subdivision
8 continued to include a request for a variance to the right of way. He said if he could
9 have the variance it would improve the lots and he didn't think the roadway would
10 ever go through anyway.
11
12 Anderson inquired if Cavanaugh would be open to maintaining the current zoning.
13 Cavanaugh said that he thought Pinto seemed to act as a break between single-family
14 and the multi -family to the east. Cooney stated the intent of the rezoning was to be
15 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
16
17 Anderson inquired about the drainage to the southwest. Cooney stated the proposed
18 improvements control the rate as required. It would also filter the water as required,
19 but the City Engineer has recommended they work with the neighbor to the south to
20 pipe it to a better discharge location.
21
22 Martin inquired if there would be easements over the raingarden and swale. Cooney
23 stated an easement would be over the raingarden and he would check further into
24 requiring an easement over the swale.
25
26 Martin inquired how the process would work with the change to the setback from the
27 County Road. Finke stated the intent would be to get direction from the Planning
28 Commission and prepare an ordinance amendment which could be adopted before the
29 review timeframe for this request elapses.
30
31 Public Hearing opened at 7:43 p.m.
32
33 Anderson inquired if there was sufficient space to accommodate the required tree
34 planting. Cooney stated there was sufficient space and would be accomplished with
35 eleven 4 -inch in diameter trees.
36
37 R. Reid stated one of the neighbors asked for a fence along the western property line.
38 She asked if the City could make this requirement. Finke noted that the City had
39 buffer yard and tree replacement requirements and he was not aware of a time the
40 City has required fencing for a lot split. He suggested the Commission could
41 condition the placement of the replacement trees in that area.
42
43 Martin stated she felt the use of trees would be a reasonable way to accommodate
44 screening.
45
2
1 V. Reid inquired if the City needed the 17 -feet of right-of-way. Finke stated the
2 right-of-way is utilized for snow storage, as well as drainage and utilities. If the City
3 were to ever need to reconstruct the street and utilities in the future it would be best
4 served by having at least 50 -feet of right-of-way (the minimum allowed in the code).
5
6 V. Reid stated that she thought the new proposal was an improvement over what she
7 saw last year. She stated the width of the lots would really not be much different than
8 the property to the west. Anderson said he had been persuaded.
9
10 R. Reid stated the proposal makes sense in its location. Allowing a twinhome would
11 be consistent with other housing in the area. She felt the fence made a lot of sense,
12 but perhaps landscaping could accomplish the same thing.
13
14 Public Hearing closed at 8:06 p.m.
15
16 Motion by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to approve the preliminary plat, subject
17 to conditions 1-11 in the staff report, and to 1) modify condition number four to
18 require any additional easements as recommended by the City Engineer for the
19 benefit of lot two and for stormwater drainage to raingarden on proposed lot one; 2)
20 to require eleven 4 -inch in diameter trees be planted to screen the property to the
21 west; and 3) a new condition be added as number 12 to remit a 50 -foot setback
22 requirement from Hamel Road on the preliminary plat, which is an amendment to the
23 code. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan, Neilson)
24
25 8. _ Public Hearing — Sarah Borchers and Brian Kingsley — Request for a Setback
26 Variance from the 50 foot requirement along the south property line to
27 reconstruct a new in -ground swimming pool in the Rural Residential (RR)
28 zoning district —1512 Tamarack Drive (PID #26-118-23-12-0004)
29
30 Finke delivered the staff report explaining the setback requirements changed in 2006
31 requiring a 50 -foot setback from all property lines. He said the proposed Variance
32 request reduced an existing non -conformity, yet didn't bring the pool into current
33 setback requirements. He said the property met statutory practical difficulty
34 standards.
35
36 Sarah Borchers, applicant, read e -mails from two neighbors supporting the variance,
37 focusing particularly on the protection of the oak tree. She asked if the in -ground
38 pool would have to be constructed within a certain time period and Finke replied it
39 would be required to be built within a year from the date of the approved Resolution.
40
41 R. Reid opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. No public comments were made.
42
43 The Commission discussed the setback Variance and they requested the staff report
44 reflect findings that the Commission wanted to protect the 100 year old oak tree,
45 since it was a City goal. The Commission did not feel a fifty -foot setback could be
46 met and at the same time protect the 100 year old oak tree.
3
1 Motion by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval. Motion
2 carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan, Neilson)
3
4 6. Continued Public Hearing — Text Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina City
5 Code related to regulations for signs
6
7 Finke delivered the staff report, which primarily reflected the changes from previous
8 review of the ordinance. The biggest change he pointed out was the removal of the
9 maximum area limitation based on lot size and the limitation on internally illuminated
10 signs.
11
12 Martin pointed out a few grammatical inconsistencies.
13
14 Martin asked about the difference between directional and internal site signs. Finke
15 responded that directional is external and along the street front. Internal is more
16 internal. Martin asked for them to be better defined.
17
18 Martin asked about the definition of a porch sign. Finke responded that if it wasn't in
19 the ordinance he would add it.
20
21 Martin asked if the intention on page 5, subd. 3, was to prohibit mylar balloons, or
22 signage on mylar balloons. V. Ried and Anderson questioned the same. Finke said
23 he just copied the text from another location and it is currently prohibited.
24
25 Anderson said when people are hosting a party they use mylar balloons to indicate the
26 location of the party. R. Reid asked if residential could be excluded. Anderson
27 suggested a time limitation be put in place for this type of sign. Martin added the
28 mylar balloons are used for birthdays and new baby arrivals in the residential
29 districts. She suggested that type of sign could maybe be an "event" sign. Martin
30 questioned if commercial businesses would have a use for these types of signs. The
31 Commission discussed why these types of balloons were prohibited and suggested
32 maybe the balloons being referred were more like the large gorillas or large objects
33 created with balloons to catch people's attention.
34
35 Finke responded that staff would look into revising the section. Williams suggested
36 excluding event signs. V. Reid asked if it should only be a residential use. R. Reid
37 asked if it should be struck, or should they be considered temporary signs.
38
39 Continued Public Hearing opened at 8:43 p.m.
40
41 Michael Cronin of 8809 Bush Lake Road in Bloomington spoke at the podium as a
42 representative for Holiday Station Stores. He made comment that a lot of
43 communities prohibit the balloons to be attached to the roof of a building, which
44 tends to eliminate the large balloons the Commission talked about, and allowed for
45 people to attach balloons to their mailboxes or front doors.
4
1 Cronin said Holiday Station Store wanted to thank the City for sending out a mailing
2 to all businesses which provided opportunity for them to comment on the ordinance.
3 He said Holiday was in the process of changing their electronic signs and tried
4 figuring out a way to modify their dynamic signs with Medina's ordinance and they
5 couldn't make it work. He went on to recommend five changes to the dynamic sign
6 section listed on the dynamic sign handout.
7
8 1. Asks to allow electronic message center to be added to present nonconforming
9 sign, as long as the area is not increased.
10 2. Asks to review the tier of changeable message signs handout he provided.
11 Holiday is trying to find ways to get people into their store ever since "pay at the
12 pump" started. Would appreciate being able to get 32 square feet.
13 3. Exclude the non EMC from the sign square footage of overall sign.
14 4. Asks to no longer require a sign height maximum.
15 5. To provide changes to lighting ambient standard. He said at noon the sign is the
16 lightest. No more than .03 of a foot-candle.
17
18 Martin asked clarifying questions about sign types on the handout he was provided.
19 Cronin responded with clarification.
20
21 Williams asked about regulations limiting the frequency of changing the message and
22 what his opinion was on it. Cronin responded between 8 or 12 seconds, but has no
23 objections to the 5 minute length. Cronin also mentioned Holiday would only want a
24 snap cut on these signs, and that safety would be better than some older signs (e.g.
25 Medina Ballroom) which use more intense effects such as flashing, wipes and fade -
26 ins.
27
28 R. Reid asked what the maximum area for a dynamic sign was and Finke responded
29 35% of sign area.
30
31 R. Reid voiced support of the EMC signs and the time limit.
32
33 Councilmember Pederson spoke at the podium and voiced concerns about making the
34 sign ordinance too restrictive and to be respectful of the needs of the business
35 community.
36
37 R. Reid asked about changes of dynamic sign regulations. Finke stated he's not
38 proposing to change that aspect of the regulations since it was changed in 2008.
39
40 V. Reid asked about the temporary sign limit of six 21 -day periods, and mentioned
41 that she thought it would be too much.
42
43 Finke asked if there was a reason to differentiate between temporary signs and
44 portable signs. V. Reid suggested shorter periods, such as 14 -days. There was
45 general agreement on 14 days.
5
1 V. Reid inquired about portable signs being illuminated or backlit. Finke responded
2 concerning allowing illuminated only along highway frontage. He also said mylar
3 balloons and inflatable signs should not be allowed taller than the building.
4
5 Martin inquired about event signs under item G. and asked if it was per event. Finke
6 confirmed it was per event.
7
8 Martin asked about freestanding signs. Finke directed the conversation to height.
9 Martin and Anderson thought 15 feet seemed too low. Anderson suggested 20 feet.
10 Williams stated that he would be comfortable with 25 feet. The Commission agreed
11 on 20 feet in height maximum as a revision.
12
13 Martin asked if 80 square feet would be adequate. The Commission discussed the
14 square footage allowance and they agreed 80 square feet seemed adequate.
15
16 Martin suggested that the sign not "encroach upon" the clear vision triangle.
17
18 Martin suggested a text change that one "additional" sign be allowed for gas stations.
19
20 Discussion turned to wall signs. V. Reid asked about PUD wall sign exemptions.
21 Finke responded that large buildings are not necessarily PUDs. V. Reid asked where
22 most increases are coming from. Finke responded that freestanding signs are the
23 biggest increase. V. Reid wondered if the allowance on large buildings was adequate.
24 Finke said that he would look for a resolution to their questions.
25
26 Martin asked about the measurement of the wall and grades. Finke said he would
27 include architectural features in the measurements.
28
29 V. Reid asked about a PUD process for larger wall signs. Weir recommended a
30 sliding scale rather than other options. Finke suggested thinking about Target and
31 Office Max. Martin asked for more guidance from staff on the issue.
32
33 Martin asked about window signs and if the restriction was per structure or per
34 window. Finke suggested limiting per street frontage, instead of per structure and the
35 Commission agreed.
36
37 Directional signs: Martin asked if pavement markings were signage. V. Reid didn't
38 think pavement markings should be regulated.
39
40 Martin asked about 10 feet in non -highway commercial districts. The Commission
41 decided 10 feet was adequate.
42
43 The Commission asked about the bonus freestanding sign for gas stations in
44 Commercial General (CG) districts. V. Reid suggested the elimination of the bonus
45 sign. Commission agreed to strike the bonus sign in CG district.
6
1 V. Reid asked about the 100 square foot wall sign limit in Uptown Hamel (UH), but
2 64 square feet in other districts. Finke pointed out that other signs are less likely in
3 UH. Commission agreed to lower the limit to match other districts.
4
5 Martin asked about pylon signs in the Public -Semi -Public district (P/SP). Finke
6 explained that it encourages monument signs since the regulations are less strict.
7
8 Williams asked why the limitation in P/SP is at 32 square feet. Finke said the
9 language was taken from the existing code. The Commission agreed that 64 square
10 feet would be consistent with other regulations.
11
12 The Commission reviewed dynamic displays and asked about the history of the
13 ordinance. Mr. Cronin suggested providing more information to Finke and working
14 with Finke on revised language at the next meeting. Martin thought that seeing the
15 sign examples would be helpful to gain a better understanding.
16
17 The Commission recommended tabling the ordinance by general consensus to
18 evaluate further the dynamic display aspects.
19
20 Finke added a distance between signs be added to language.
21
22 Tabled for further information from staff, with public hearing remaining open.
23
24 9. City Council Meeting Schedule
25
26 The Commission discussed meeting dates to present at the City Council meetings.
27
28 10. Adjourn
29
30 Motion by Anderson, seconded by Martin, to adjourn the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
31 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and Neilson)
7
G x T Y
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: J Rk 5 Jo (f...) S,f3
(please print)
Address: a S OS (0 1 ((o w D at (mac
Telephone (optional): G' X- S Cj`I 6 7 67 - Cc.
Representing:
Agenda Item (list number and letter): Ire/2,, ‘
o-- vkLV-p,x-13L�
Comments: S (---T- �i r K S t=cs1 Co -p..1:5 C�2 J c�'zci�.�
\-►-c c-- S ID o ►var- w -t ak du ( N.1 ir. (1 n A I
c (4-14-11 vt-e.-r-z5z
tF V2 € 5 6.2 / uk Z (54 c) F Tit # i ( A at -14 c C's t wt () 04 crt-r1 I
Approach the podium to speak
CcnJsc7o v(A Z-rd11 5e G, corn -MA c
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
C‘ 7 V 0 A
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: I A R V LErM G.
(please print)
Address: 90 4- '- 9 -3v 1 iA-C'— -k1 kk.�i,z.j `( li E --
Telephone (optional):
r
Representing: e ( t
Agenda Item (list number and letter): f a / (t / kV' L/ \ PLk •
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson
DATE: January 4, 2012
MEETING: January 10, 2012 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Wally Marx — Conservation Design Subdivision PUD Concept Plan —
2500-2900 Parkview Drive
Review Deadline
Complete Application Received: May 13, 2011
Review Deadline: February 10, 2012 (extended by applicant)
Information Related to Updated Concept
Wally Marx has requested approval of a PUD Concept Plan for a Conservation Design
subdivision at his property at 2500-2900 Parkview Drive. The applicant proposes to divide the
110 acres into eight single-family residential lots and proposes to place 57.5 acres (10.11 acres
buildable) into conservation easements.
The Planning Commission and City Council previously reviewed a concept with 10 lots and the
primary concerns were: 1) Density; number of lots proposed; 2) Lack of Buildable
Conservation area and connectivity of conservation areas; 3) Impacts within wooded areas for
septic systems, roads, and homesites.
This section of the staff report briefly summarizes the changes in the updated concept plan and
summarizes staff's recommendation. The remaining report includes more in-depth information,
much of which is the same or similar to earlier staff reports.
The primary changes from the previous concept plan are:
1) Number of proposed lots reduced from 10 to 8. This includes removal of the lot that was
proposed in the heart of the wooded area near the existing driveway and also removal of
one of the lakefront lots.
2) Buildable area within conservation area increased from 9.67 acres to 10.11 acres. The
primary increase in conservation area resulted from the removal of the lot within the
wooded area of the property.
3) Individual driveways proposed for Lots 3-5 rather than shared drive. Staff recommends
utilizing a shared drive to reduce impacts.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the following potential changes which
could be applied to the updated concept plan and may result in the City's conservation objectives
being better met. These changes are also shown on a map exhibit on the attached sketch.
1) The amount of additional lots beyond base density shall be determined by the Planning
Commission and City Council after analyzing the extent to which the proposal meets the
City's conservation objectives better than traditional development of the site under the
City's Rural Residential standards.
Wally Marx Page 1 of 8 January 10, 2012
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
2) Reduce number of septic sites within wooded area adjacent to Lots 3 and 4 to serve only
one lot in order to reduce impacts and increase conservation area
3) Utilize a single shared drive through the wooded area south of Lots 3 and 4 to reduce
impacts and to increase conservation area
4) Place lake frontage and wetlands adjacent to the lake into an outlot and potentially
include within designated conservation area
5) Increase width of conservation area on the south and east of proposed Lot 6
In addition to the changes which staff recommends above to the physical arrangement of the site
plan, the following list of potential conditions are identified by staff in this report:
1. All homesites shall be a minimum of 50 feet from the exterior property lines of the
subdivision. Setbacks between lots within the subdivision shall be determined during the
review of the General Plan of development.
2. Homesites shall meet setbacks from the ordinary high water level of the lake, or stormwater
improvements shall be integrated into the design to treat water from the residential lots.
3. All comments from the City Engineer and Building Official shall be addressed upon
submission of a General Plan of Development.
4. A Phase I Environmental Assessment, and a Phase II Assessment, if warranted, shall be
completed prior to the General Plan of Development in order to investigate impacts and
necessary remediation for historical dumping of waste which occurred on the property.
5. The applicant shall obtain a map amendment in order to identify floodplains on the property.
6. The General Plan of Development shall identify plans for ownership and management of the
conservation area, as well as restoration/maintenance plans acceptable to the proposed
easement holder.
7. The applicant shall submit a complete request for approval of a General Plan of Development
within two years of approval of a concept plan, or concept plan approval shall be considered
null and void.
Summary of Request
Wally Marx has requested approval of a PUD Concept Plan for a Conservation Design
subdivision at his property at 2500-2900 Parkview Drive. The applicant proposes to divide the
110 acres into eight single-family residential lots and proposes to place 57.5 acres (10.11 acres
buildable) into conservation easements.
The subject properties are located on Parkview Drive, southwest of School Lake and east of the
Baker National Golf Course. A significant portion of the property (52 acres) is either wetlands
or located under the high water level of School Lake. Approximately 18 acres are within School
Lake or the adjacent wetland, along with 34 acres of wetland throughout the remaining property.
An aerial of the site can be found at the top of the following page.
The Conservation Design Planned Unit Development (CD-PUD) district is an overlay district
which allows the City to grant flexibility to the underlying zoning regulations in order to
encourage property owners to protect natural resources and open space with permanent
conservation easements. Flexibility can include density bonuses, reduced setbacks and lot size
requirements, and flexibility to park dedication or septic regulations. Flexibility can also be
Wally Marx Page 2 of 8 January 10, 2012
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
considered for upland buffer and tree preservation regulations on specific lots in the interests of
protecting natural resources more broadly on the site. The CD-PUD district was adopted in 2010
and this is the first request to be reviewed under the ordinance. The ordinance is attached to this
report for reference.
The current request is for a PUD Concept Plan Review. A PUD is a three -step process:
1) Concept Plan; 2) General Plan/Preliminary Plat; and 3) Final Plan/Final Plat. A PUD Concept
Plan is more formal than other concept plans reviewed by the City, and requires that the City
Council approve (or approve with conditions) or deny the request.
Designating Conservation Areas/Site Design Process
As mentioned above, the CD-PUD process allows the City to grant flexibility to the underlying
zoning regulations as an incentive to permanently conserve natural resources and open space.
The City needs to determine how much flexibility to grant based on how the proposal meets the
primary and secondary conservation objectives of the City over and above that which would be
achievable under conventional development.
The primary conservation objectives identified in the ordinance are:
i. The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native hardwood forests (e.g.
Maple -Basswood Forest), lakes, streams and wetlands.
Wally Marx
Page 3 of 8 January 10, 2012
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
4 -
ii. The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality ecological
resources including the sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the
Composite Map of the Open Space Report as updated from time to time.
iii. The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources in
order to restore and/or create new ecological resources suitable for habitat movement
corridors.
The secondary conservation objectives are as follows:
i. The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from roads identified as
"Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open Space Report as updated from
time to time.
ii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order to create
connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the current Parks, Trails, and
Open Space Plan.
iii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space in order to
achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The subject property includes remnants of Maple -Basswood forest which were ranked as
moderate quality in the City's natural resources inventory, a deep swamp adjacent to the lake in
the southeast corner of the property which ranked as good quality, and also portions of Tamarack
Swamp which ranked as moderate. These areas are identified within the Composite map of the
City's Open Space report. The City's environmental scientist reviewed the plans and prepared
comments which are attached for reference. Protecting these areas would be consistent with the
first two conservation objectives.
General Performance Standards
Minimum Size of Subdivision
A CD-PUD subdivision within the Rural Residential zoning district is required to be a minimum
of 40 acres in size. The proposed subdivision is approximately 110 acres.
Required Conservation Area
A minimum of 30% of the total Buildable Land Area, or higher depending on the land and
opportunities to achieve the City's conservation objectives, is required to be included in the
Conservation Area. Although a total of 57.5 gross acres are proposed in the conservation area,
most of this area consists of wetlands and wetland buffers. A relatively small amount (10.11
acres) is considered buildable. This accounts for approximately 30.67% of the buildable land
area. Depending on the flexibility that the Planning Commission and City Council extends on
the application, staff would likely recommend more buildable area within the conservation area.
Density and Design Flexibility
The CD-PUD ordinance allows the City to grant flexibility from standard City requirements. It
appears that flexibility is being requested from the following City regulations:
Wally Marx Page 4 of 8 January 10, 2012
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Density/Lot Size/Width
The applicant proposes eight residential
lots. Existing rural residential regulations
would not allow further subdivision of the
existing four parcels. The CD-PUD
ordinance allows the City to grant additional
density as an incentive, up to a maximum of
200% of the base density. The base density
is determined by the standard underlying
zoning designation (in this case, 5 -acres of
contiguous suitable soils per lot).
According to Hennepin County Soils data, it
appears that there is a six acre contiguous
area of suitable soils in the northwest corner
of the site and a twelve acre contiguous area
of suitable soils in the center of the property
(see insert at right).
This results in a base density of three over
the northern three parcels, and 200% of the
base density would be six lots. The
southern parcel does not include enough
suitable soils to add to the base density, but includes some of the highest quality portions of
wetlands and also a portion of the Maple -Basswood Forest. The CD-PUD ordinance states that
"any additional density....shall be calculated as a percentage of Base Density" and that "in the
Rural Residential District, Base Density shall be determined by calculating the number of 5 -acre
areas of contiguous soils." Staff believes that the maximum number of additional lots which
could be approved under the CD-PUD ordinance would be three. This would be a maximum of
seven lots, with the amount of bonus decided by the Planning Commission and City Council
based on how well the subdivision would achieve the City's conservation objectives. The
applicant proposes to double the existing four PIDs rather than a more literal interpretation of
Base Density. Staff does not recommend more than seven lots as currently arranged. The septic
sites and driveways for Lots 3, 4, and 5 result in tree removal and impacts to the conservation
benefits of the proposal.
3.93
1.66
0 95
1611823320002
620
161 13'2'32-3-06
`\, \
1.32
40
1823310002
1611823330001
2.97
Primary/Alternate septic sites
Standard City regulations require a primary and alternate septic site within each lot. On the
previous concept plan, the applicant had identified two septic sites for each lot, but a number of
them are not located within the lots, and some are quite distant. In fact, a number of septic sites
were located in conservation areas and would have required impacts to the forested area of the
property. The Planning Commission and Council raised concerns with the septic locations.
The updated concept plan shows two septic sites within each proposed lot (although lot 5
requires a good deal of gerrymandering), and none within conservation areas. The septic sites
for Lots 3, 4, and 5 are located within the wooded portion of the property, but not within
conservation areas. Staff conducted a site visit and located the proposed septic locations. These
Wally Marx Page 5 of 8 January 10, 2012
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
areas do appear to have limited numbers of significant trees (over 8" in diameter), although
would require removing a large number of smaller trees. Staff believes that the potential
construction of septic systems within wooded areas is not consistent with the conservation
objectives and believes there are opportunities to locate some of these sites, especially for lot 5,
in areas that have been previously altered.
Shoreland setbacks
The building pad identified for Lot 5 does not meet the 150' setback requirement from the
ordinary high water level of the lake. Staff recommends that this building either meet setback
requirements or that stormwater management practices be implemented which mitigate runoff
from the sites.
Shoreland lot width
Lots 1-3 do not meet the minimum 200' lot width adjacent to the lake. Staff also noted the large
number of lots which are proposed to have frontage on the lake (Lots 1-5). Staff believes that
limiting lots with lake frontage would better serve the City's conservation objectives. This could
be accomplished perhaps by having one shared outlot along the lake for all lots and the
remaining frontage be within a conservation area.
Analysis
Following is a summary of the proposed lots in the subdivision:
Lot Area
Upland Area
Suitable Soils
RR Standard
5 acres suitable
N/A
5 acres
Lot 1
3.87 acres
2.45 acres
Lot 2
4.87 acres
3.02 acres
Lot 3
3.22 acres
1.82 acres
Lot 4
8.42 acres
2.42 acres
Lot 5
14.44 acres
2.99 acres
Lot 6
9.85 acres
6.02 acres
Lot 7
3.09 acres
1.25 acres
Lot 8
2.8 acres
1.43 acres
The CD-PUD process allows the City a good deal of discretion with the amount of flexibility
which may be granted based on how well a proposal meets the City's conservation objectives.
The quality of the natural resources and connectivity of corridors, as well as the quantity of
conservation area should guide the decision on the flexibility, which also needs to be incentive
enough for the property owner to choose to proceed with conservation design.
The applicant proposes 57.5 acres within the conservation area. Most of this area is wetland or
would be within wetland buffers required to be protected by easement under a standard
development. 10.11 acres of buildable area (30.67% of the total buildable area on the property)
is proposed within the conservation areas. Of the buildable conservation area, 1.52 acres are
located within the 50 foot required structure setbacks around the perimeter of the site.
Wally Marx Page 6 of 8 January 10, 2012
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
During the review of the original concept plan, staff recommended the following changes to the
to better serve the conservation objectives of the City. Staff has summarized changes made by
the applicant in the updated concept relevant to each recommendation:
• Conserve area proposed for construction of Lot 9 (updated concept identifies this area for
conservation)
• Reduce impacts of the road serving Lots 4-6 — this could perhaps be accommodated by
shared drives for each pair of homes (three individual driveways are proposed, which
staff believes increases the impacts to the wooded area).
• Relocate the septic sites serving Lots 3-6 — previous submittals identified more septic
sites in the existing disturbed areas between the gardens on the east side of the property.
(septic sites were reduced as a result of removing one of the lots; staff believes septic
sites for Lot 5 could be relocated and only recommends one set of septic sites and one
driveway in the area around Lots 3&4 on the updated concept)
• Reduce wetland impacts for driveway — it appears that the primary reason for this impact
is to increase the size of Lot 4 (driveway is still proposed to impact wetlands rather than
following existing impacts)
Timing, Ag Preserve Covenant
The northeastern 42 acre parcel is currently guided Agriculture and zoned Agricultural Preserve.
This designation requires that the density not exceed one unit per 40 acres. Obviously, the
proposed subdivision would not be consistent with this requirement. As such, a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and rezoning of the property would be required before the property could be
platted under CD-PUD process. The property owner has enrolled this property within the
Metropolitan Agricultural Preserve program, which prevents more dwelling units, from being
created within the northeastern 42 acres until February 28, 2016. Approvals at the various stages
of the PUD process expire in 180 days, so the timelines are not consistent. The applicant has
stated that they intend to request that the City Council extend the approvals until after the
property comes out of Ag Preserve in 2016.
Floodplain Amendment
FEMA floodplain maps identify large portions of this site as "A," or having more than a 1%
chance of flooding. However, Zone "A" does not have a flood elevation established, and are
based on national -level data which are commonly inaccurate upon further investigation. The
topography of this site suggests that large portions would likely not be in the floodplain if studied
further. Staff recommends that the applicant obtain a map amendment from FEMA to clarify the
location of any floodplains on the property.
Engineering and Building Official Comments
Comments from the Building Official and City Engineer are attached. The primary engineering
comments involved providing stormwater management improvements and attempting to
minimize the slope on the private roads. The building official comments requested more
information on the septic sites, and the building official also urged staff to support the primary
septic sites being located within each lot.
Wally Marx Page 7 of 8 January 10, 2012
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Conservation Area Protection, Ownership, and Maintenance
The applicant has provided very little information with regards to who will own the Conservation
Area and who will hold the conservation easement. It appears likely that an HOA will own the
property, and the applicant has stated that they are in discussion with various conservation
groups related to holding the easement. Staff recommends that the ownership of the
conservation area as well as the party who will hold the easement be decided prior to the general
plan of development and preliminary plat. A restoration and maintenance plan should also be
prepared.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the original 10 -lot concept at their July 12 meeting and held
a Public Hearing. The Commission unanimously recommended denial of the Concept Plan with
the following findings:
1) The density of development requested exceeds that allowed within the CD-PUD district.
2) The proposed amount of conservation area is below the minimum requirement of the CD-
PUD district.
3) The location of septic sites within wooded conservation areas is not consistent with the
conservation objectives of the City.
4) The impacts proposed for the construction of Lot 9 are inconsistent with the conservation
objectives of the City.
During the Planning Commission discussion, there were also discussions related to concerns that
previous owners had dumped a great deal of organic garbage on property adjacent to School
Lake when it used to be operated as a hog farm. The Planning Commission recommended that
an assessment be conducted to investigate potential impacts or necessary remediation which
might be required in order to build homes in these areas. Staff has included this requirement in
the list of recommended conditions.
Park Commission Recommendation
The Park Commission reviewed the original 10 -lot concept plan at their August 17 meeting. The
Commission was complementary that the applicant was looking to utilize the CD-PUD ordinance
and to conserve property. The Commission was concerned about the fragmentation of the
conservation areas and the proposed density. The Commission did not express much interest in
trails or other public amenities within the proposed project.
Attachments
1. Conservation Design-PUD Ordinance
2. Comments from City Engineer dated 5/25/2011
3. Comments from City Ecologist dated 11/22/2011
4. Comments from City Fire Marshal dated 5/13/2011
5. Map showing potential changes to Site Design from staff
6. Concept Plan/Site Design dated November 21, 2011
Wally Marx Page 8 of 8 January 10, 2012
CD-PUD Concept Plan Planning Commission Meeting
Medina City Code
ATTACHMENT 1: Conservation Design ordinance (11 pages)
CONSERVATION DESIGN DISTRICT (CD)
Section 827.51. Conservation Design (CD) — Purpose.
The purpose of this district is to preserve the City's ecological resources, wildlife corridors,
scenic views, and rural character while allowing residential development consistent with the
goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Report as updated
from time to time. The specific conservation objectives of this district are to:
1. Protect the ecological function of native hardwood forests, lakes, streams, and
wetlands.
2. Protect moderate to high quality ecologically significant natural areas.
3. Protect opportunities to make ecological connections between parks and other
protected lands and ecologically significant natural areas.
4. Protect important viewsheds including scenic road segments.
5. Create public and private trails for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space resources.
6. Create public and private Open Space for citizens to access and enjoy Open Space
resources.
Section 827.53 Applicability.
Subd. 1. Conservation design is an option that a property owner is encouraged to consider
as an alternative to Conventional Development, as defined herein. The City will give
heightened consideration to such requests where the opportunities to achieve conservation
objectives are significantly higher than that available through conventional development.
Conservation design may be considered on qualifying parcels lying in the Rural
Residential District and all sewered residential districts.
Section 827.55 Intent.
Subd. 1. It is the intent of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by
approving a Planned Unit Development. In exchange for achieving the conservation
objectives, it is the intent of the City to provide density and design flexibility and to
encourage development review through a Collaborative Process.
Subd. 2. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses and other regulations set forth in
the existing zoning districts shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District, the
PUD District, or if determined by the City Council to be inconsistent with the purpose and
intent of this District as part of the final PUD documents.
Subd. 3. The procedures and regulations set forth in the PUD District shall apply unless
specifically addressed in this District. If a final PUD plan is approved by the City, the
subject property shall be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District (CD-PUD). The
permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall then be
those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and
agreements. The following subsections are requirements for all CD-PUDs unless
exceptions, as part of a PUD, are otherwise approved by the City Council.
0
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 30 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
Section 827.57. Definitions.
Subd. 1. Base Density. The maximum number of units or lots that are allowed on a parcel
in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district and the Zoning and
Subdivision Codes.
Subd. 2. Buildable Land Area. The total land area in a proposed Conservation Design
Subdivision less the amount of land that includes: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands,
required wetland buffers, lakes, and land contained within the 100 year floodplain.
Subd. 3. Collaborative Process. A development review process that results in a
development plan in which clearly defined conservation objectives are achieved in
exchange for greater flexibility from the requirements of the base zoning district and the
Zoning and Subdivision Codes.
Subd. 4. Conventional Development. Development that meets the standard minimum
requirements of the City's ordinances regulating development.
Subd. 5. Conservation Easement. As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A
nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative
obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -
space values of real property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational,
or open -space use, protecting natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water
quality, or preserving the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of
real property.
Subd. 6. Conservation Design Subdivision. Any development of land that incorporates
the concepts of designated Conservation Areas and clustering of dwelling units.
Subd. 7. Conservation Area. Designated land within a Conservation Design Subdivision
that contributes towards achievement of one or more of the conservation objectives. A
Conservation Easement is placed on Conservation Areas to permanently restrict the
Conservation Area from future development. Conservation Areas may be used for
preservation of ecological resources, habitat corridors, passive recreation, and for pasture,
hay cropping and other low impact agricultural uses.
Subd. 8. Homeowners Association. A formally constituted non-profit association or
corporation made up of the property owners and/or residents of a development for the
purpose of owning, operating and maintaining common Conservation Areas and/or other
commonly owned facilities and Open Space.
Subd. 9. Open Space. Land that is not designated as a Conservation Area that is used for
parks, trails or other uses. Open Space may be owned and managed by the City,
homeowner's association or other entity.
Subd. 10. Viewshed. The landscape or topography visible from a geographic point,
especially that having aesthetic value.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 31 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
Subd. 11. Yield Plan. A conceptual layout that shows the maximum number of lots that
could be placed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the existing zoning district
and the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. The Yield Plan shows proposed lots, streets,
rights -of -way, and other pertinent features. Yield Plans shall be drawn to scale. The layout
shall be realistic and reflect a development pattern that could reasonably be expected to be
implemented, taking into account the presence of wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, and
existing easements.
Section 827.59. General Performance Standards.
Subd. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision.
(a) The minimum land area required for development shall be:
(1) 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District
(2) 20 contiguous acres in sewered residential districts
(b) A subdivision in the Rural Residential District of over 20 contiguous acres but less than
40 contiguous acres may apply for approval if they meet all the requirements for CD,
and the visual impact of the subdivision from existing adjacent roadways is mitigated
by existing topography, existing vegetation, and/or acceptable vegetative buffers.
Subd 2. Required Conservation Area. The minimum required Conservation Area within
the CD development shall be:
(a) At least 30% of the total Buildable Land Area in the Rural Residential District, or
higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City's conservation
objectives.
(b) At least 20% of the total Buildable Land Area in sewered residential districts, or
higher depending on the land and opportunities to achieve the City's conservation
objectives.
Subd. 3. Designating Conservation Areas.
(a) The required amount of Conservation Area shall be designated and located to
maximize achievement of the City's conservation objectives. Opportunities for
achieving these objectives will vary depending on the location, size and specific
qualities of the subject parcel. Each parcel will be evaluated for opportunities to
achieve the following primary and secondary conservation objectives over and above
that achievable under conventional development:
(1) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following primary conservation
objectives will be given higher consideration for flexibility from performance
standards.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 32 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
i. The protection and/or restoration of the ecological function of native
hardwood forests (e.g. Maple -Basswood Forest), lakes, streams and
wetlands.
ii. The protection, restoration, and/or creation of moderate to high quality
ecological resources including the sensitive ecological resources
identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the Open Space
Report as updated from time to time.
iii. The reservation of land connecting these aquatic and terrestrial
ecological resources in order to restore and/or create new ecological
resources suitable for habitat movement corridors.
(2) Parcels with opportunities to achieve the following secondary conservation
objectives may be given consideration for flexibility from performance standards:
i. The protection of scenic views and viewsheds including the views from
roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the Open
Space Report as updated from time to time.
ii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and private trails in order
to create connections to existing or planned trails as identified in the
current Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan.
iii. The reservation of land for incorporating public and /or private Open Space
in order to achieve goals as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 4. Perimeter Setbacks. Structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision
shall be the same as the existing zoning district.
Section 827.60 Open Space Report Composite Map Appeal Process. In the event that an
applicant is not in agreement with the Composite Map of the Open Space Report or the data
contained within a report on which the Composite Map is based upon, the applicant may present
an appeal to the city.
Subd. 1. The applicant shall put the appeal in writing, accompanied by the fee as described
by the City's Fee Schedule, and is responsible to provide documentation supporting their
appeal.
Subd. 2. The appeal shall be reviewed by city staff, with the assistance of any technical
consultants which city staff shall determine are appropriate. Such consultants may
include, but are not limited to, environmental engineers, wetland scientists, arborists and
other similar experts. City staff shall make a determination on the appeal within sixty
days of receipt of a complete appeal application.
Subd 3. The applicant may appeal city staff's decision to the city council. The appeal must
be filed within thirty days of staff's determination.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 33 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
Subd. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs accrued by the City in review of the
appeals described above, including the costs of technical consultants hired by the City.
Section 827.61. Density and Design Flexibility .
Flexibility from the requirements of the existing zoning district or other requirements of this
code may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. In considering such flexibility, the
City will evaluate how well the project achieves the conservation objectives over and above
that achievable under conventional development and the amount and quality of conservation
area protected.
Subd. 1. Additional Density.
(a) Density, in addition to the Base Density, may be granted at the discretion of the City
Council. Any additional density or additional number of dwelling units shall be
calculated as a percentage of Base Density. The Base Density shall be that established
by regulations in the relevant existing zoning district.
(1) In the Rural Residential District, Base Density shall be determined by calculating
the number of 5 -acre areas of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage
disposal system that are located on the subject property.
(2) In sewered residential districts, a Yield Plan shall be developed to determine Base
Density. Regulations of the base district and all other relevant land use
regulations of this Code shall be used for completing the Yield Plan.
(b) The total number of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the
density limitations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and may be:
(1) Up to 200% of the calculated Base Density in the Rural Residential District.
(2) Up to 120% of calculated Base Density in all sewered residential districts.
Subd. 2. Other areas of flexibility
(a) In the Rural Residential District, flexibility may include:
(1) Lot size, lot width and structure setbacks provided setbacks comply with the
following minimums:
i. Setback from local streets: 35 feet.
ii. Setback from Arterial and Collector Streets: 100 feet.
iii. Interior structure setbacks: 30 feet.
(2) Housing type.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 34 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
(3) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of
these regulations are met for the site as a whole.
(4) Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when
calculating park dedication requirements.
(5)
Variations to City regulations regarding septic systems.
(b) In all sewered residential districts, flexibility may include:
(1) Lot size, lot width, and structure setbacks.
(2) Housing type.
(3) Landscaping.
(4) Screening.
(5) Upland buffers and tree preservation regulations provided that the objectives of
these regulations are met for the site as a whole.
(6) Buffer yard.
(7)
Due consideration may be given for conservation easements granted when
calculating park dedication requirements.
Section 827.63. Conservation Area Protection and Ownership.
Subd. 1. Land and improvements in areas designated as Conservation Areas in a CD-PUD
shall be established, protected and owned in accordance with the following guidelines:
(a) Designated Conservation Areas shall be surveyed and subdivided as separate outlots.
(b) Designated Conservation Areas must be restricted from further development by a
permanent Conservation Easement (in accordance with Minnesota Statute Chapter
84C.01-05) running with the land. The Conservation Easement must be submitted with
the General Plan of Development and approved by the City Attorney.
(1) The permanent Conservation Easement may be held by any combination of the
entities defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 84C, but in no case may the
holder of the Conservation Easement be the same as the owner of the
underlying fee.
(2) The permanent Conservation Easement shall be recorded with Hennepin County
and must specify:
i. The entity that will maintain the designated Conservation Area.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 35 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
ii. The purposes of the Conservation Easement, that the easement is
permanent, and the conservation values of the property.
iii. The legal description of the land under the easement.
iv. The restrictions on the use of the land and from future development.
v. To what standards the Conservation Areas will be maintained through
reference to an approved land stewardship plan.
vi. Who will have access to the Conservation Area.
(3) Ownership of the underlying fee of each designated Conservation Area parcel,
may be held by any combination of the following entities:
i. A common ownership association, subject to the provisions in the PUD
District.
ii. An individual who will use the land in accordance with the permanent
Conservation Easement.
iii. A private nonprofit organization, specializing in land conservation and
stewardship, that has been designated by the Internal Revenue Service as
qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
iv. A government agency (e.g. park and/or natural resource agency or
division).
v. The City of Medina, in rare situations when there are no other viable
options.
(c) Open Space areas that do not achieve the City's conservation objectives may be
established under a homeowner's association without protection by a Conservation
Easement. Such areas shall be regulated according to provisions of the PUD District.
Section 827.65. Land Stewardship Plan.
Subd. 1. Plan Objectives. Where a CD-PUD has designated Conservation Areas, a plan
for the development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all Conservation Areas,
may be required. The plan shall:
(a) Define ownership and methods of land protection.
(b) Establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities.
(c) Estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated
with plan implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on -going
basis. This shall include land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 36 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
management of the Conservation Easement by the easement holder. The fees shall be
estimated and validated by the proposed easement holder.
(d) Meet the requirements of the future conservation easement holder.
Subd. 2. Plan Submittal Requirements. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan shall be
submitted with the General Plan of Development. A Final Land Stewardship Plan shall be
submitted with the Final Plan Stage of PUD development. The plan shall contain a
narrative describing:
(a) Existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the
landscape;
(b) Objectives for each Conservation Area, including:
(1) The proposed permanent or maintained landscape condition for each area.
(2) Any restoration measures needed to achieve the proposed permanent condition,
including:
i. Measures for correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as
erosion and intrusion of invasive plant species.
ii. Measures for restoring historic features (if applicable).
iii. Measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types.
A maintenance plan, including:
(3)
i. Activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including
mowing and burning schedules, weed control measures, planting
schedules, and clearing and cleanup measures and schedules.
ii. An estimate of the annual on -going (post restoration) operating and
maintenance costs.
Subd. 3. Funding of Operation and Maintenance. At the discretion of the City, the
applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation
costs of Conservation Areas for up to four years depending on restoration measures.
Subd. 4. Enforcement. In the event that the fee holder of the Conservation Areas,
common areas and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly
maintain all or any portion of the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City in
coordination with the holder of the easement, may serve written notice upon such fee
holder setting forth the manner in which the fee holder has failed to maintain the aforesaid
common areas and facilities. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required
and the time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the
time specified, the fee holder , or any successor organization, shall be considered in
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 37 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
violation of this Ordinance, in which case the City shall have the right to enter the
premises and take the needed corrective actions. The costs of corrective actions by the City
shall be assessed against the properties that have the right of enjoyment of the common
areas and facilities.
Section 827.67. Conservation Area Design Standards.
The following Conservation Area design standards shall also be considered in designing the
CD-PUD:
Subd. 1. Conservation Areas should be interconnected wherever possible to provide a
continuous network of Open Space within the PUD and throughout the City. It should
coordinate and maximize boundaries with Conservation Areas and Open Space on adjacent
tracts.
Subd. 2. Incorporate public and private trails with connections to existing or planned
regional trails as identified in the most recent Park, Trail and Open Space Plan.
Subd. 3. Designated public access trails shall be protected by an access easement owned
by the City.
Subd. 4. Incorporate public and/or private Open Space as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 5. Views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be
minimized by the use of existing topography, existing vegetation, or additional
landscaping. Ridge and hilltops should be contained within designated Conservation Areas
wherever possible. Trees should not be removed from ridges and hilltops.
Subd. 6. The boundaries of designated conservation areas shall be clearly delineated and
labeled on CD-PUD plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or
other measures approved by the city.
Subd. 7. Stormwater management facilities may be located in designated conservation
areas.
Subd. 8. Existing land in row -cropping use shall be converted to a use that supports the
achievement of the City's conservation objectives.
Section 827.69. Landscape Design Standards.
Subd. 1. Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing
through common Conservation Areas or Open Space.
Subd. 2. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance
that regular spacing may invoke.
Subd. 3. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types
identified in the City's 2008 Natural Resources Inventory.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 38 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
Subd. 4. Planted buffers between clusters of residential lots are encouraged to enhance
privacy and a rural appearance between lots.
Subd. 5. Buffers consisting of an informal arrangement of native plant species combined
with infrequent mowing are strongly encouraged, to create a low -maintenance, natural
landscape.
Subd. 6. Planted buffers are also encouraged along natural drainage areas to minimize
erosion.
Subd. 7. Grading for Conservation Areas and other common landscaped areas and
stormwater management areas shall be avoided to reduce compaction and impacting water
infiltration rates. Soil testing and decompaction may be required if site construction
activities negatively impact soil permeability.
Subd. 8. Better Site Design/Low Impact Development practices as identified in the
Minnesota Stormwater Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall
be used to design sites and meet the performance standards.
Section 827.71. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Facilities.
Subd. 1. Where city services are not available, CD-PUD developments may be platted to
accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and all required
drainfields/mound systems located on the lot, or individual septic tanks and primary
drainfield/mount system located on the lot and secondary drainfields/mound system
located in the designated Conservation Area or other Open Space.
Subd. 2. All septic systems shall conform to the current performance standards of
Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and its appendices, or the amended Rules in effect at the
time of installation. Except in instances where flexibility has been explicitly granted by
the City, septic systems shall also conform to relevant City regulations, including the
requirement to identify a primary and secondary drainfield site.
Subd. 3. The City may consider shared sewage treatment systems which are consistent
with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations and relevant City
ordinances, provided adequate agreements are in place related to monitoring and
maintenance procedures and replacement of the system in case of a failure.
Subd. 4. Secondary drainfields/mound systems may be located in designated
Conservation Areas and other Open Space provided that:
(a) They are located within a limited distance of the lots they serve.
(b) Construction of drainfields/mound systems do not result in the destruction of
ecological resources.
(c) The Conservation Area or Open Space parcel containing the drainfield/mound system
is owned in fee by a common ownership association which owns non -Conservation
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 39 of 41
Medina City Code 827. Zoning — Zoning Districts
Area land within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all
property owners in the subdivision is mandatory.
(d) The individual lot owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the
drainfield/mound system.
(e) The ground cover over the drainfield/mound system is maintained according to the
Land Stewardship Plan.
(f) Recreational uses are prohibited within 50 feet of the drainfields/mound systems.
(g) The Conservation Easement for the dedicated Conservation Area parcel describes the
location of individual drainfields/mound systems.
Section 827.73. Site Design Process.
At the time of PUD Concept Plan development and review, applicants shall demonstrate that
the following design process was performed and influenced the design of the concept site plan.
Subd. 1. Step 1 —Identify Conservation Areas. Identify preservation land in two steps.
First identify "unbuildable" areas which include: slopes greater than 18%, wetlands,
wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Next, identify
Conservation Areas which include those areas designated as Conservation Areas (Section
827.59 Subd. 3.) The remaining land shall be identified as the potentially Buildable Land
Area. The applicant shall identify the quantity of land designated as unbuildable,
Conservation Area, and potentially Buildable Land Area.
Subd. 2. Step 2 —Locate Housing Sites. Locate the approximate sites of individual
houses in regard to protected views and the potentially buildable land areas.
Subd. 3. Step 3 —Align Streets and Trails. Align streets in order to access the lots.
New trails and connections to regional trail systems, if any, should be laid out to create
internal and external connections to existing and/or potential future streets, sidewalks, and
trails.
Subd. 4. Step 4 —Lot Lines. Draw in the lot lines.
Section 827.75. CD-PUD Application Processing.
The review and approval procedures of the PUD District shall be used to review and approve
CD-PUDs. Prior to the Concept Plan Stage PUD application, the City encourages applicants to
engage in an informal collaborative project goal setting process with the City. The purpose of
this process is to jointly develop site design and conservation objectives and assess areas of
regulatory flexibility for achieving developer and City objectives for the specific parcel of land.
The Collaborative Process may include council members, city commission members, land
owners, developers, city staff, other governmental jurisdiction staff, the potential future
Conservation Easement holder, and other participants as appropriate. The outcome of the process
is a Project Guidance Report prepared by city staff. The report will summarize the project
concept, project objectives, and preliminary understanding of regulatory flexibility needed to
achieve the objectives.
827. Zoning — Zoning Districts Page 40 of 41
ATTACHMENT 2: City Engineer Comments (3 pages)
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
May 25, 2010
Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: L-10-062
Marx Property Concept Plan
City of Medina
Bonestroo File No.: 000190-10000-1
Dear Dusty,
Bonestroo
We have reviewed the concept plans dated 5-11-11 for the proposed lot subdivision at 2700
Parkview Drive. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters.
• 5' Interior lot line and 10' perimeter drainage and utility easements will be required along
lot lines.
• A large portion of the proposed development, including home sites, is located within
FEMA flood zones A and X. Further study and determination of the base flood elevation
along with a FEMA map revision may be necessary with this project.
• This project will need to comply with Medina's Local Surface Water Management Plan.
Design and calculation information will need to be submitted for the following.
o Stormwater peak runoff rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm events.
o Stormwater runoff volumes must not be increased - typically a 1.1 -inch rainfall
event is used as the basis for this analysis.
o Phosphorus loadings must be reduced 20% over the existing loading.
• The plans should be submitted to the fire marshal for review of the minimum allowable
road width, cul-de-sac radius, and dead-end road length.
• The proposed road in Outlot D is located in an area of steep grades. Attempts should be
made to limit the maximum street grade to 8 to 10%.
• The applicant will need to follow the City Code 828.43 for Wetland Conservation. This
Code includes plan submittal requirements, wetland classifications, buffer and setback
width requirements, and buffer landscape requirements. John Smyth's memo dated 5-
25-11 further explains the wetland and buffer requirements.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894.
Sincerely,
BONESTROO
Darren Amundsen
Cc: Tom Kellogg
Memorandum Bonestroo
To: Dusty Finke
Project Wallace Marx
Date: 5/25/2011
From: John Smyth Client City or Medina
Re:
2335 Highway 36 W
St Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636.4600
Fax 651-636.1311
Wetland Conservation Act and Medina Wetland Code Review File No: 190-11-000 www.bonestroo.com
Remarks:
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT REVIEW
Wetland Delineations have been completed and were reviewed in November of 2010.
They were formally approved after modifications were provided on December 14,
2010. As proposed there are wetland impacts from a proposed private road. Wetland
impacts should be hatched and impacts areas provided on future submittals so City
staff and governmental official understand the wetland impacts with the proposed
development layout. If wetlands are impacted they will require Wetland Conservation
Act Permit Approval from the City.
MEDINA WETLAND CODE REVIEW
The proposed site improvements trigger the requirements of Section 828.43.
(Wetlands Conservation) of the City Code. This Section of the code should be
reviewed by the applicant to confirm compliance and provide the appropriate
submittals.
This memo provides a summary of requirements from the Medina Wetland
Conservation code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to review the code and
meet all of its requirements. There are seven wetlands located on the property.
Below is a summary of the wetland classification with comments that should be
addressed for each wetland.
Wetland
ID
Classification
Buffer
width
Required
Comments
1
Protect
35'
Shows 30 ft buffer on the plan. It will
require a minimum of 35 ft and 50 ft if within
a DNR mapped area. This needs to be
confirmed.
2
Protect
35'
May require a 50 ft buffer if within DNR
mapped area. This needs to be confirmed.
3
Manage 1
30'
4
Manage 1
30'
Show and label buffer on plan
5
Protect
35'
May require a 50 ft buffer if within DNR
mapped area. This needs to be confirmed.
6
Manage 1
30'
7
Manage 1
30'
Show and label buffer on plan
Buffer Condition and Requirements
Currently some of the upland buffer areas have vegetative conditions that are not
acceptable per Subd. 8 of the City Wetland Code and have turf or contain greater then
25% weeds. According to Subpd.8. the wetland buffer will need to be converted to
native vegetation.
The applicant will need to provide a Management/Landscaping plan that at minimum
includes the following:
1. Method of site preparation for establishing native vegetation in
upland buffer area. (MN BWSR Web Site — Publication:
"Restoring & Managing Native Wetland and Upland Vegetation"
source for options).
2. Species proposed to be seeded or planted in the upland buffer.
According to the wetland code the seed mix or plant layout must
have a minimum of four species of native grasses and five species
of native forbs and a cover crop. The seed mix shall consist of at
least fifteen pounds of pure live seed (PLS) per acre and the
cover crop shall be at least twenty pounds per acre. If planting is
proposed, spacing between plants shall not exceed three feet
unless otherwise approved by the city engineer.
3. Detailed specifications that describe sequencing, scheduling,
materials installation and maintenance execution for the removal
of weeds from the upland buffer.
4. Cost estimate for buffer landscaping to determine escrow.
Wetland and Upland Buffer Zone Mitigation
As proposed the project will have impacts to both wetlands and their buffers. Per
Subp. 10 of the City Wetland Conservation Code both the wetlands and upland buffers
will need to be replaced if impacted. Replacement of upland buffers on -site by
expansion of existing buffers is preferred. Future submittals should show were upland
buffer mitigation is to be located.
Survey and Conservation Easement Requirements
The upland buffer location is required to be shown on the site plan or certificate of
survey. A legal description for the upslope edge of the buffer will need to be
submitted with a conservation easement granted to the city by the applicant in a form
provided by the city. This does not need to be done at the concept phase of the
project.
Upland Buffer Markers
The applicant must place markers at the upslope edge of the upland buffer at least
one per lot or every two hundred fifty feet which ever is closer. The applicant must
show the location of the signage on a plan (landscape or grading) for City approval.
The applicant is responsible for the cost of obtaining and installing markers. The City
will provide sign dimensions, specifications, verbiage, and artwork.
Page 2 all
Stantec
Memo
ATTACHMENT 3: City Ecologist Comments (4 pages)
4. Bonestroo
To:
Dusty Finke, City of Medina From: Paul Bockenstedt, Ecologist
Planner
File: Medina Gen. Date: November 22, 2011
Reference: Wally Marx Property Site Walk Summary
Dear Dusty,
Thank you for the opportunity to walk the Wally Marx property at 2700 Parkview Drive
with you and Mr. Marx on 21 November, 2011. The primary purpose of our review in the
field was to discuss potential modifications Mr. Marx is considering for the layout of his
proposed development. Below is a summary of ecological considerations as it relates to
my understanding of the changes considered for the development layout.
Background
The Marx property at 2700 Parkview Drive includes moderate to good quality wetlands,
wetland plant communities and upland forest (primarily maple -basswood forest). Key
considerations in previous analysis of natural resources in the area by Hennepin County
Environmental Services (HCES), Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and others
highlight the importance of contiguous, core natural areas as well as maintaining
connectivity between natural areas. As noted in a previous memo regarding this area,
ecologically important resources at this site include:
• Maple -basswood forest (as mapped by HCES using MLCCS methodology, and
also ranked as High Quality in Cross River Consulting evaluation)
• Wetlands and other water resource features, including buffer areas as defined in
the Medina Wetland Code (summarized in a 5.25.11 memo from John Smyth to
Duste Finke)
• Natural Resource/Open Space Corridors (Figure 8 Medina NRI/MLCCS, HCES)
Summary of Potential Development Layout Modifications
While in the field, the group discussed a number of potential modifications to the design
of a potential development that could help minimize impacts to existing natural areas
and/or provide opportunities for restoration/expansion of existing natural areas. These
largely revolved around two potential alignments for an access road to residences on
the north side of the site. Below is a brief summary of the three potential access roads
for the north side of the site, with the attached map illustrating approximate locations
(please note these are hypothetical alignments — a final design for roadway alignments
should be considered and appropriately adjusted in the field based on the locations of
significant trees and minimizing impacts to existing forest areas).
One Team. Infinite Solutions.
df u:\dustyfinke\for planning\marx cd subdivision\marx property -natural resources evaluation_pjb= 11-22-11.docx
Stantec
22 November 2011
City of Medina — Wally Marx Site Review
Page 2 of 3
Reference: Wally Marx Property Site Walk Summary
Site wide road width considerations
One approach discussed that could minimize impacts to natural areas across the site
was to reduce the number of houses served by any particular lane stemming from the
main drive for the proposed development. Reducing the number of houses to two that
are served by each lane would reduce the required road width.
Potential access road alignment 1
The Concept Plan for the site dated by the city 13 May 2011 shows a driveway for the
house on Lot 3. One potential revised road alignment (shown in orange on the attached
map) for an updated development design could utilize the previously shown driveway
for Lot 3. That road would extend north from the main road, up a swale dominated by
cool season, nonnative grasses and scattered boxelder trees and as the road reached
the grassland area to the north, it would turn east and extend along the south edge of
the grass, along the forest edge.
This option would result in the least overall impact to existing forest. However, it would
reduce the area available to the northeast for forest expansion/restoration. As well,
keeping a potential road alignment in the grassland area would likely force a house lot
to be shifted north toward the lake, resulting in impact to the wetland edge forest
(dominated by boxelder) on the north side of the prairie planting.
Potential access road alignment 2
A second potential road alignment (shown in green on the attached map) would extend
from the main drive in the same manner as the driveway for Lot 3 shown in the May
2011 Concept Plan, but turn to the northeast approximately 2/3 of the way up the
nonnative grass -dominated swale. The road would then traverse through an area of
forest with relatively young trees and widely spaced larger trees. This road would
impact the subcanopy and ground layer of the forest. However, this alignment could be
chosen so that it would result in taking out one large Siberian elm (an invasive,
nonnative tree) and minimize impacts to native trees over 6 inches in diameter within
the forest itself. As well, a narrow road aligned to minimize impacts to trees over 6
inches could result in minimal or no loss of tree cover at the canopy level. Construction
techniques would need to be especially sensitive to minimizing the risk of tree root
damage, compaction outside of the road alignment, as well other considerations.
Potential access road alignment 3
A third potential road alignment (shown in purple on the attached map), if built would
result in no need for the potential access roads shown in green and orange to be
extended across the wetland (shown in blue). Currently, there is a gravel field road at
this crossing. This would leave the potential for removal of the existing field road at the
wetland and/or conducting some hydrologic and vegetative restoration in that area.
However, removal of the road would result in relatively little restoration of wetland. If
removal of the road were considered for the purposes of wetland restoration, additional
analysis of the existing culvert elevation and other factors should be considered and the
ecological benefits and financial costs be considered.
Stantec
22 November 2011
City of Medina — Wally Marx Site Review
Page 3 of 3
Reference: Wally Marx Property Site Walk Summary
Potential Forest Expansion/Restoration areas
Should the access road noted above be constructed under forest canopy, the city may
consider requiring forest expansion and/or restoration. There are several areas on the
property that would serve as good sites for forest expansion (shown in yellow on the
attached map). As well, there area a number of areas around the proposed house sites
and proposed conservation areas to the south that would benefit from active restoration.
Forest expansion and/or restoration planning should be conducted by a qualified
ecologist and could include activities such as:
• Forest expansion, including planting native hardwood tree seedlings in select
areas to increase the size of core forest areas on the north side of the site (see
map). This activity would also be beneficial to improve forest/native habitat
connectivity, as well.
• Invasive species management (primarily European buckthorn and garlic
mustard). This activity would benefit the forest areas within the proposed
developed areas of the property, and could also be considered for other areas
on the site.
• Selective thinning of overstocked native trees to accelerate/foster development
of diverse, mature native hardwood forest (i.e. oak, maple -basswood). Currently,
a number of forest areas have overcrowded subcanopy layers and/or have
invasive, weedy trees such as boxelder competing with trees more typical of
upland forest (sugar maple, basswood, oak, elm, etc.). Selective cutting of
overcrowded/invasive trees by a trained ecologist can improve the overall quality
of the forest and reduce the time required to develop a higher quality, mature
hardwood forest.
Thank you for the opportunity to continue being part of the conversation about the
ecology of the Wally Marx site. Please let me know if would like additional input.
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
aul Bockenstedt, Ecologist
paul.bockenstedt(a stantec.corn
Attachment: map of site
c. file
CONCEPT PLAN
WALLACE MARX
NORTH DETAIL
November 22, 2011
Pa ul B ock enstedt - Ec ological E valuation of
changes considered for Concept Plan of Wally
Mar x Property, 2700 Park vi ew Drive, Medina, MN
METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.
Loren Kohnen, Pres.
May 17, 2011
ATTACHMENT 4: City Fire Marshal Comments (1 page)
TO: Debra Peterson -Dufresne
Planning Assistant
FROM: Loren Kohnen
RE: Wallace Marx
2700 Parkview Drive
Medina, Minnesota
CONCEPT PLAN
.r... \l J..")-rIu^.lvyv
Mtrowst76@aol. corn
I have reviewed the concept plan provided by Mr. Marx. This is the
2nd concept plan I have reviewed. This plan addresses some of my
concerns from the 1st plan.
This plan does a fine job protecting wetlands and environmentally
sensitive sites.
I have not been able to review any plans for proposed septic sites.
I will need soil borings and topographical information. All sites
must be fenced with approved materials before any work begins; site,
roads, or driveways.
Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 have very long access drives. A meetingwith Mr. Marx
and his engineer must be set up to discuss these long drives. Concerns
are access and turn -a -rounds for emergency vehicles.
I have visited and walked the property with Mr. Marx.
LK:jg
Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357
R09fRi 0 & r.n T% r E -.v 0
ii ,, 1'11\1Iiji 1
�, 1'1: 'I (l.[
i
560 '03'51 .E
CONCEPT PLAN
WALLACE MARX
NORTH DETAIL
8i'I 25' E 2991.97
8
?I
' fil_�ED Ar;r;L
;A(IONS
POSS/SLE HOUSE SITE
POSSIBCLE
SEPT:SITE
SLOPE>18%
—I BUILDABLE AREA
_7 WITHIN L OTS
30% BUILDABLE AREA IN
CONSERVATI ON EASE MENT
ADDITIONAL
CONSERVATION ARE AS
SCHOOL LAKE
BELOW 598 0 H W
WETLANDS AND
ADDITIONAL BUFFERS
THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT
401
i
N
S
//
N
/\//,
44 4
/i%1 n\
IJ
C
m
r
z
m o
rn o
O 0
5O
COO
CD r-
>
Om
CD
0> o0
0 0 7_ '
2—! me
m 0 ?...3 F-
‹
-- =W
o 7m
1`
CDm
G7
m 111>
C
m {
m
2
J
�tp
,-r
2>
r W
Om
cn
m
1s
%2 .<2dO1
I
RLIS 3Sf10H
/„/
$7
S 00°26'42" W 485.47
CID
O
RE VISIONS
DA FE
2-1511
511-11
BY
REMARKS
DESIGNED
DRAWN
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN. SPECIFICATION OR REPORT
WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION.
AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
AND LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA
DATE
11-3-10
SOLE
1"=100'
10-346
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC,
CIVIL ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS
445 N. WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356
PHONE: 952-473-4141 FAX: 952-473.4435
8-1511
11-22-11
REVISED AREAS
CHECKED
DATE MINN. LICENSE NUMBER
SHEET
a
SHCE TS
to
CONCEPT PLAN
WALLACE MARX
SOUTH DETAIL
x 1029.4 1030
x 985 .4
x 985.4
S SLOPE > 18%
88° 58'34" E 1339 .11
O
—�� x 954 .8
JAMES T HALE &
SHARON HALE
/2472
x 953.6
AREAS IN 30% BUILDABLg;AREA-YELLOW
AREAS IN ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION AREA -GREEN
AREAS
PROPERTY TOTAL 110.98+- ACRES
TOTAL EXCLUSIVE OF PARkVIEW DRIVE R.O.W. 109.57+- ACRES
9. 13+- ACRES
STEEP SLOPE TOTAL
WETLAND AND BUFFER TOTAL 67.26+- ACRES
APPROX. FLO ODPLAIN OUTSIDE OF BUFFERS 0.22+- ACRES
AREA UNDER BUFFER OR STEEP SLOPE 9.13 + 67.26 + 0.22 = 76.61 +- ACRES
BUILDABLE AREA 32. 96+- ACRES
BUILDABLE AREA IN CO NSERVATION EASEMENT 10. 11+- ACRES = 30.67%
x 1003 .0
WETLAND 1
i
L F LEJEU NE &
J r' L EJEU NE
/2810
f 1 BUILDABLE AREA
L__IWITHIN LOTS
X
POSSIBLE HOUSE SITE
POSSIBLE
SEPTIC SITE
0 100 200
114531***39
SCALE IN FEET
400
CC• U,
zMLA
klt
Z nJ 4):1;
—azr-
�sw
LL
0>o
cos J
ot$.o'
cew• 0in
• Z
zto, zo
O • 5o=
0
0
qa
6
80
II)
ZL
0Q
w
U1s
w
a
Agenda Item 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dale Cooney, Associate Planner
DATE: January 5, 2012
MEETING: January 10, 2012 City Council
SUBJ: Amendments to Sections 825 and 826 of the Medina City Code regarding
street setback regulations.
Summary of Request
Staff seeks to repeal Section 825.25. Property Abutting County or State Highways of the Medina
City Code. Staff also seeks to incorporate additional street setback requirements for individual
zoning districts found in Section 826 of the Medina City Code.
Background
Hamel Road west of Pinto Drive is classified as a County Highway. In conjunction with the
proposed two -lot subdivision at 805 Hamel Road, staff attempted to comply with the county and
state highway setback standards of Section 825.25 which state:
Section 825.25. Property Abutting County or State Highways. The front yard setback for
all structures shall be 100 feet from the center line of a County Highway, or 50 feet from
the public right-of-way, whichever is greater. For state highways the front yard setback
for all structures shall be 150 feet from the center line or 100 feet from the public right-
of-way.
It quickly became apparent that the standards would require aggressive setbacks that are out of
character for a medium density residential district and excessive for the traffic volumes and
speed of the adjacent roadway. Staff believes that such a blanket regulation does not take into
account the land use needs of each particular zoning district. Also, many zoning districts already
have street setback standards based on road types, but those standards are superseded by the
more aggressive setback requirements of Section 825.25. It should also be noted that this setback
requirement has been inconsistently applied. This includes the property immediately to the west
of 805 Hamel Road, which was built in 2002.
Instead, staff is proposing to add language that creates setbacks from road types based on zoning
districts for those districts that don't already have such language. Those districts that are most
affected by the proposed changes are the SR and UR districts fount in Section 826 of the Medina
City Code. These proposed revisions to Section 826 also include language clarifying setbacks
required for properties without designated right-of-way.
Zoning District Setback Changes
Current city code requires that setbacks along all property lines with street frontages be equal to
a zoning district's front yard setbacks. Many of the zoning districts within Section 826 have front
yard setbacks of 50 feet or greater, and staff does not recommend requiring setbacks of greater
Zoning Text Amendment: Page 1 of 2 January 10, 2012
Street Setbacks Planning Commission Meeting
than 50 feet from any road type. Therefore, the new setback changes will primarily affect those
districts with smaller front yard setbacks. Those districts are the SR and UR districts.
The following table outlines the various districts' purpose and the proposed setback changes to
those districts. Several districts within 826 have been excluded from changes since they do not
have applicable setback requirements or because the front setback requirement of at least 50 feet,
which staff believes is adequate for even arterial roadways.
Zoning District
District Purpose
Proposed Changes
AG -Agricultural
Preservation
Maintain and enhance the use of
land for commercial agriculture.
No setback changes proposed since minimum
front setbacks are 50 feet or greater.
RR -Rural Residential
Low intensity residential uses
including hobby farms,
conservation, horticulture, and
single family homes.
No setback changes proposed since minimum
front setbacks are 50 feet or greater.
RR-UR- Rural Residential
Urban Reserve
Accommodate future urban growth
in areas not currently served by
municipal services.
Same as RR.
RR 1 -Rural Residential 1
Similar to RR, but different
standards due to proximity to
denser developments or
transportation corridors.
Same as RR.
RR 2 -Rural Residential 2
Similar to RR, but allows for
commercial riding stables.
Same as RR.
SR -Suburban Residential
Single family with municipal
services. Provide a buffer between
RR and higher density residential
districts.
Setback increased for a property line facing a
Major Collector road to 50 feet.
UR-Urban Residential
Continuation of existing residential
development and infill in older
neighborhoods.
Setback increased for a property line facing
the following road types:
Minor Collector: 35 feet
Major Collector: 50 feet
MR -Multi Family
Residential
Multiple -family dwellings.
No setback changes proposed since minimum
front setbacks are 50 feet or greater.
RPS-Rural Public/Semi-
Public
Rural public or semi-public uses
such as governmental, religious,
recreation, etc.
No changes proposed since minimum setbacks
are 50 feet or greater.
PS-Public/Semi-Public
Public or semi-public uses such as
governmental, religious,
recreation, etc.
No setback changes proposed since minimum
front setbacks are 50 feet or greater.
Zoning Text Amendment: Page 2 of 2
Street Setbacks
January 10, 2012
Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item 7
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of the
Code of Ordinances Regarding Street Setbacks
The city council of the city of Medina ordains as follows:
SECTION I: Medina Code Section 825.25 is amended by deleting the stricken material as
follows:
Section 525.25. '-red tate Higher c o. etbacio-a1
structures shall be 100 feet from the center line of a County Highway, or 50 feet from the public
right of way, whichever is greater. For state highways the front yard setback for all structures
shall be 150 feet from the center line or 100 feet from the public right of way.
SECTION II: Medina Code Section 826.26.6 (SR) is amended by adding the underlined material
as follows:
Section 826.26.6. (SR) Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements.
Subd. 1. No building shall exceed two and one-half (2-1/2) stories or thirty (30) feet in height,
as defined in section 825.07, subd. 12, except as regulated by Subd. 3 of this section.
Subd. 2. The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional
requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in other sections of this ordinance:
(a) Minimum lot size
(b) Minimum lot width
(c) Minimum lot depth
(d) Front yard setback
(e) Side yard setback
(f) Rear yard setback
The required yard setback from a property line adjacent to a Major Collector or
Arterial Roadway shall be increased to 50 feet.
30,000 sq. ft.
100 feet
125 feet
35 feet
15 feet
40 feet
Subd. 3. The height of single family detached residences may exceed 30 feet, but may not
exceed 40 feet or two and one-half (2 1/2) stories, if the following standards are met:
(a) Accurate building plans and elevation drawings shall be submitted to the City;
(b) The residence shall be constructed with side and rear yard setbacks at least twice as
great as those specified in Subd. 2 of this section;
(c) Those portions of the residence greater than 30 feet in height shall be uninhabited and
not planned for storage;
(d) Those portions of the residence greater than 30 feet in height shall be no larger than
500 sq. ft. or shall be divided into spaces no greater than 500 sq. ft. and separated by
an approved draft stop.
(e) The height from the lowest ground level (and 8 feet out) to the eave shall be no greater
than 30 feet; and
(f) There shall be a two (2) story height limitation at the driveway or point of access to the
residence.
SECTION III: Medina Code Section 826.35 (UR) is amended by adding the underlined material
as follows:
Section 826.35. (UR) Lot Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Requirements.
Subd. 1. No buildings hereafter erected shall exceed two and one half (2 1/2) stories or thirty
(30) feet in height.
Subd. 2. The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional
requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in other sections of this Ordinance.
Minimum Lot Area
(Single-family detached) 9,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
(Single-family detached) 60 feet
Front Yard 30 feet
Side Yard 10 feet
Rear Yard 30 feet
Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet
Subd. 3.
(a) Where adjoining structures existing on the effective date of this Ordinance have a
shorter front setback from that required, the front setback of a new structure shall
conform to the average of the front setback observed by the adjoining houses on
either side, but not less than 20 feet.
f A required yard setback from a property line adjacent to a public or private street
shall be increased based on the classification of the street in the Comprehensive
Plan as follows:
(1) Minor Collector Roadway: 35 feet
(2) Major Collector or Arterial Roadway: 50 feet
SECTION IV: The ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the city council of the city of Medina this day of , 2012.
T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -Clerk
Published in the South Crow River News this day of , 2012.