HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-12-2010MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2010
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of September 14, 2010 Planning Commission minutes
6. Continued Public Hearing — Lennar — 3212 Hunter Drive (PIDs 12-
118-23-43-0002 & 13-118-12-0001) — Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat (with right-of-way
width variance) to subdivide 111 acre property into 115 single family
lots and 41 townhomes to be known as "The Enclave of Medina."
7. Public Hearing - Helmuth Von Bluecher — 1425 Tamarack Drive
( PID #26-118-23-21-0003) - Preliminary Plat to subdivide one
existing 42 acre parcel into three lots, to be known as "Fortuna
Farms."
8. Public Hearing — Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning for
three parcels at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Arrowhead
Drive as follows: to change the future land use of PID 02-118-23-34-
0002 to Medium Density Residential and the zoning designation to
Rural Residential -Urban Reserve (RR-UR); to change the future land
use of PID 02-118-23-34-0002 to Commercial and the zoning
designation to Commercial Highway (CH); and to change the zoning
designation of PID 02-118-23-33-0003 to Mixed Use (MU).
9. City Council Meeting Schedule
10. Adj ourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL OCTOBER 7, 2010
G, T Y o c
Comment Card
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: i \ rC (re - -ii ✓
Public Forum
Agenda Item
_,. 4;
�� (please print)
,C. Address: .. f,0 u n t e l c/
Telephone (optional):
Representing: �G'1
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G x T V
Comment Card
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: /dc..4t i r:01 t'
Public Forum
Agenda Item
(ple se print)
Address: 5", j' V ... •iw) J /1 dc.-•) .
Telephone (optional):
Representing: 5 L V.
Agenda Item (list number and letter): i £ ^ A 4 i .
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G, Ty F
MEDINA
Name of Speaker:
Comment Card
V- e )0c) I
Public Forum
Agenda Item
V. ✓
Ue-
Address: Z�
�U ;callprint��) ccd
k...13
avatA L
Telephone (optional):
Cr
Representing: "C c ' 49- (6-4?' -ELA-(2-a'e-- r
—J
Agenda Item (list number
Comments:
and letter): ([�
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G % T Y
Comment Card
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: N r I L / F'4.•
Public Forum
Agenda Item
(please print)
Address: 3 6/6 Lin-\ C/Zte_-C OOH
Telephone (optional):
Representing: - / f -
Agenda Item (list number and letter): I Z) 1 l p °— i Z ` 0-19
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G% T Y 0 A
Card Comment
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: iez c,- ,/-6,.. /e
Public Forum
Agenda Item
p� 7 lease riot) p J
Address: /.5E� /h-7nn /t U
Telephone (optional):
Representing: /Ri.S, de), /
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments: 4'SA
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G% T Y O p
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: Cd ki
/ �� ( lea e rint
`G
Address: I`�7 %'f i Y. d ,..$i_ ).
Telephone (optional):
Representing: /.---,---,<1 G-`*-oc3-14,.Pi,
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments:
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
G, T Y 0 A
Comment Card
MEDINA
c.
Name of Speaker: L.., 1 4.1 al �P �V---
Public Forum
Agenda Item
(please rint)
(JC_
Address: 1 .7 O i 0._AA;'b c Ark
Telephone (optional): ( Z - o o - Zt'• CP
Representing: i
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments: \ _ 0.---VV1 ktJ1.�.��� .1,.
a_ -(I-
(,
cry
4-t ,1.-' &c - `i--6tA-t y
Approach the podium to speak
Meeting Rules of Conduct
MEDINA
• Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum
or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner.
• Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments.
• Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass
the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to
speak when it is your turn.
• Please approach the podium when called on to speak.
While Speaking
Please give name and address
Please indicate if representing a group
Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Adams
DATE: September 30, 2010
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates for October 5, 2010 City Council Meeting
Ordinance Updates
A) Re -zonings — The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 11 and the City
Council approved of the ordinances on September 7. Staff has begun the process of
amending the Comp Plan with regards to the two parcels north of Highway 55 and east of
Arrowhead as directed by the City Council.
B) Driveway setback regulations — during the review of the Lennar project, staff has noted an
inconsistency between the 5 -foot setback in the R-2 zoning district, and the requirement that
driveways be setback 10 feet from property lines. The Planning Commission recommended
that staff consider amendments to the driveway setback requirement.
C) Procedures for Appealing Open Space data — The Planning Commission held a Public
Hearing at the September 14 meeting and recommended approval and the City Council
adopted the ordinance at the September 21 meeting. It will be published this Friday and be
in effect.
Land Use Application Reviews
A) Enclave of Medina Subdivision — 3212 Hunter Drive — Lennar has submitted for
preliminary plat and Comp Plan Amendment for the Holasek property. A Public Hearing
was held at the July 13 Planning Commission meeting, and the Commission raised a number
of concerns with the plan. The Commission tabled the matter and urged the developer to
update plans consistent with their comments. The applicant has submitted new plans which
identifies 115 single family homes and 41 townhomes. The applicant is now requesting to
shift the MUSA to the south to include an additional 3.17 acres of the existing tilled field
and is maintaining 8.79 acres (4.93 net acres) of the wooded area within the MUSA as open
space. The Public Hearing is scheduled to continue at the October 12 Planning Commission
meeting.
B) Hunter Ridge Farm Plat — 1382 Hunter Drive — Ron Carlson has requested subdivision of
an existing 13.9 acres parcels into two lots. The request contests the Hennepin County Soils
Survey in order to show adequate suitable soils for a subdivision. The Planning
Commission held a Public Hearing on September 14 and recommended approval. Staff
plans to present the request for City Council review at the October 5 meeting.
C) Fortuna Farms Plat — 1425 Tamarack Drive — Helmuth von Bluecher has requested
subdivision of an existing 44.2 acre parcel into three lots. The request contests the
Hennepin County Soils Survey in order to show adequate suitable soils for a subdivision.
Staff has begun review, and a Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for the October 12
Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 October 5, 2010
City Council Meeting
D) Hennepin County PUD Amendment — 1600 Prairie Drive — Hennepin County has requested
Final PUD Plan approval to construct the 397 -foot wind turbine at its Public Works facility.
Staff is reviewing submitted material and verifying that the conditions of the PUD approval
are met. Staff will present the PUD agreement for Council to review at the October 5
meeting.
E) Appeal of Administrative Decision — 2590 Keller Road — The City Council heard the
property owner's and contractor's appeal of the denial of a permit to construct a pair of
4'x4' monuments within the City right-of-way adjacent to 2590 Keller at the January 5
meeting and adopted a resolution ordering the removal of the improvements on February 3.
Staff provided an additional notice, and the monuments have not been removed. Staff will
begin discussing options and prepare for a hearing for the Council to determine what action
to take.
F) Bradley Leawood 3rd Addn Plat — 3415 Leawood Drive — the City Council approved a
resolution for preliminary plat on July 6. The City will await an application for Final Plat.
G) Holy Name Cemetery — The City Council approved resolutions for the lot combination,
CUP/Site Plan, Interim Use Permit and easement vacation over a year ago, but has not
finalized all of the required conditions. The applicant is now considering requesting
approval of some additional improvements on the site as well.
H) Wrangler's Restaurant — 32 Hamel Road — the Council approved resolutions at the July 21
meeting. Staff has been in contact with the applicant regarding recording of the plat and
requirements for submitting building permits. The City Council granted until March 10,
2011 for the applicant to final the plat.
Additional Projects
A) Zoning Enforcement (Hamel Station tree removal) — the City Council approved the
agreement with the developer related to the remediation of the violations of the tree
preservation ordinance and the shoreland overlay district. The applicant recently reported
that plantings have been installed on the site and staff will schedule an inspection.
B) Zoning Enforcement — Staff continues working with a number wetland violations and other
work completed without permits.
C) Municipal State Aid (MSA) mapping — Staff continues to work with Corcoran, Loretto, and
MnDOT related to the map as approved by the City Council.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 October 5, 2010
City Council Meeting
1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
2 Draft Meeting Minutes
3 Tuesday, September 14, 2010
4
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners, Victoria Reid, Robin Reid, John Anderson,
9 Kathleen Martin, Kent Williams, Charles Nolan and Beth Nielsen.
10
11 Absent: none
12
13 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -
14 Dufresne
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 Martin explained the Council discussion on the City taking over the cemetery;
23 Williams explained the discussion of the Cavanaugh property regarding its zoning
24 and uses for the property. Finke explained the Councils discussion of the City budget
25 and MSA funding.
26
27 4. Planning Department Report
28
29 Finke informed the Commission that the Enclave project may be at the October
30 Planning Commission meeting. He briefly explained other applications in the
31 process.
32
33 5. Approval of August 11, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes
34
35 Motion by Anderson, seconded by R. Reid to approve the August 11, 2010 minutes
36 with recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None)
37
38 6. Public Hearing — Ronald & Kimberly Carlson —1382 Hunter Drive (PID #25-
39 118-23-13-0007) — Preliminary Plat to subdivide one existing parcel into two lots
40 to be known as Hunter Ridge Farm.
41
42 Finke presented the application describing the existing and proposed property layout
43 and the existing animal structures that do not meet setback requirements. He pointed
44 out conditions would be applied to the plat regarding the existing accessory
45 structures.
46
1
1 Anderson asked if the slope is the primary reason for the different soil categories.
2 Finke said yes the slope changes the classification.
3
4 Nolan said the property was surveyed and it's more of a geometry equation. Finke
5 said its all relative depending on where you're starting and ending. He said a
6 significant amount of staff time had been spent on the application and he is
7 comfortable with the final percentage of suitable soils. He also noted that the
8 applicant's surveyor also removed some of the soils from the list.
9
10 Williams pointed out that Loren Kohnen, the Building Official, made comment.
11 Finke stated staff didn't hire a separate party or hire the City engineer to verify soil
12 calculations. Williams asked if the City should have had the City engineer go out to
13 field verify. Finke said no, because he had reviewed the slopes and soil types
14 himself. Williams asked if Kohnens comments were obvious issues that staff could
15 review. Finke said yes. Nolan asked if it was common for an applicant to contest
16 suitable soils. Finke explained the process in how the applicant hires a surveyor and
17 staff verifies the information. Finke said the word is out that the data on suitable soils
18 within the City may not be 100% accurate, and could be challenged.
19
20 Nolan and the Commission requested suitable soils be discussed and reevaluated due
21 to the data the City is provided. The Commission requested flagging this issue as a
22 potential area for the Commission to review in the future. Finke said new data may
23 be provided in the future which would also help with floodplain data.
24
25 Finke explained the access and maintenance to both lots would be shared using the
26 existing driveway. He then explained the wetlands on -site and suggested the
27 Commission discuss frontage requirements.
28
29 Finke stated trees were not proposed to be removed or landscaping planted as part of
30 the plat. Easements were recommended around the perimeter of the lot, over
31 wetlands, floodplains, and upland buffers, which are standard. He also noted the Plat
32 application was going to the Park Commission on September 15, 2010 regarding Park
33 Dedication.
34
35 Finke reviewed the Criteria Requirements to subdivide a property. He pointed out the
36 potential changes to conditions within the staff report. He said the owner requested to
37 be able to move or remove the small shed either at time of sale of the property, time
38 of building permit issuance on the lot, and/or no later than three years. He also said
39 another possible condition would be related to grading and drainage onto adjoining
40 property to the north. He said the north property owner had an issue with existing
41 drainage and has concerns when the property develops.
42
43 Nielsen asked about the trail easement. She asked what happens if the trail moved
44 and the City didn't put it on the east side of the road. Finke said if the City decides to
45 put the trail on the west side of the street then the City would miss out on park
46 dedication based on how it is calculated within the staff report.
2
1
2 Anderson asked if anyone was interested in purchasing the property. Ron Carlson,
3 1382 Hunter Drive, applicant and owner stated he had someone interested in the
4 property, but nothing signed until City approval.
5
6 Nolan asked how long the applicant had to file the Plat. Finke explained.
7
8 Williams asked about the letter submitted with drainage concerns. Finke explained
9 the letter will be included in the minutes.
10
11 R. Reid raised concern with remembering the conditions of the Plat and how staff
12 tracks them.
13
14 Carlson said he appreciates all the work Finke has done. He thinks his is the last
15 property that has a parcel of this size. He feels it is more consistent with the lots in
16 the surrounding area. He does not see any legal issue with it. He said he went to
17 each of the neighbors to the north and gave them first offer to purchase the land prior
18 making an application and they chose to pass.
19
20 V. Reid asked how the applicant felt about the three year condition. Carlson said it
21 was a reasonable time frame, but is willing to listen to concerns related to that time
22 period.
23
24 Nielsen asked what would happen to existing animals. Carlson said their animal
25 numbers would have to be adjusted (reduced).
26
27 Nolan asked about the letter submitted by a neighbor and their concern with
28 shadowing. Carlson said the future house would have to be a very tall home to have
29 shadowing issues. He further explained the existing drainage patterns and that they
30 have been in existence since the owners to the north purchased. R. Reid asked about
31 protecting site lines. Carlson said the property owners to the north were given the
32 opportunity to purchase the site lines.
33
34 Finke explained drainage would be handled when issuing the building permit. He
35 said landscaping would not be a condition of the plat. Carlson explained a swale
36 currently exists. Finke explained most of Lot 1 is down slope.
37
38 R. Reid said not much hard cover would be added. Finke concurred.
39
40 Anderson asked for clarification of what Carlson meant by the neighbor to the north
41 purchasing his site line. Carlson explained he gave the northern property owner an
42 opportunity to purchase.
43
44 Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m.
45
46 Public Hearing closed at 7:51 p.m.
3
1
2 Nolan explained he was on the Commission when flag lots were established and the
3 issue was really minimum lot width for RR zoning districts. He felt the issue of lot
4 width was never really dealt with during that process. In other words, the proposed
5 application should be looked at with current regulations. Nolan asked if a lot should
6 be created without frontage. He said his strong opinion was that each lot should have
7 road frontage. Nielsen asked Nolan why. Nolan said an easement can be contested
8 and in his experience all communities have a minimum frontage.
9
10 Finke said he thinks all lots should have their entire frontage on a public street. Finke
11 said the City has been inconsistent in their regulations. He said since 2001 the City
12 has not approved a lot without frontage.
13
14 R. Reid said a long discussion was done by the Commission defining a flag lot. The
15 Commission didn't determine how wide a flag lot had to be.
16
17 Finke said the existing property doesn't have enough frontage to create a 50 foot wide
18 flag since the existing parcel is only 325 feet wide.
19
20 Finke said he doesn't think it's possible to have a 25 foot driveway easement (an
21 unusable flag pole). Nolan said it would create a frontage for the lot, even though it
22 may not be usable. Nielsen asked why a frontage was necessary. Finke said the
23 primary reason is ownership and emergency access. Nolan said they only have half
24 an answer. He felt to avoid future conflict, having a legal access off the road was
25 necessary. He said an easement could be the actual paved right-of-way.
26
27 R. Reid asked if staff was recommending a shared driveway with easement rights
28 over Lot 1 for benefit of Lot 2. Finke said an alternative would be to create a 25 foot
29 flag lot to meet minimum lot size requirements, with adjustments of the property line.
30 He said the use of the frontage would be questionable. R. Reid asked what was
31 proposed was not a flag lot and Finke confirmed.
32
33 Anderson asked how the properties to the north are handled. Finke said shared
34 driveways.
35
36 Nolan asked from a policy viewpoint what is better for the City. Finke said requiring
37 a minimum flag pole width would be best.
38
39 Carlson said they have a well that may be impacted by changing property lines
40 running north/south.
41
42 Nielsen said she does not have any issues with the proposed subdivision design.
43 Williams said if it's not practical to utilize the flag pole perhaps it shouldn't be
44 required.
45
4
1 V. Reid said the person at risk for not having direct frontage on Hunter Drive is the
2 person proposing the application.
3
4 Nolan asked if the City had street frontage requirements. Finke said yes. Nolan said
5 he doesn't have an issue with the proposed subdivision, but he is a stickler for
6 following public policy. He said why not require the subdivision to have frontage
7 and an easement, even though they don't use it. Finke said that is what is suggested
8 as an alternative without moving the driveway.
9
10 Carlson said he agrees and understands with Nolan's concerns. He asked if there is a
11 minimum size for the flag access. Nolan said they should look at the width necessary
12 for emergency access and required setbacks for driveways.
13
14 Carlson asked if frontage on a lake qualifies as frontage for Lot 2. Williams said it's
15 more practical than the flag lot access. Williams said with only 25 feet the driveway
16 could only be five feet wide, since 10 feet is required for setbacks.
17
18 Finke explained the rights of the Commission to hold up on the application in order to
19 work on resolving the access issue.
20
21 Williams suggested the Commission mark the issue of establishing flag lot width
22 requirement to be resolved by the Council.
23
24 Finke explained a 300 foot lot width requirement within the RR district and a 150
25 foot setback requirement for animal structures could result in a possibility that lots
26 can be created that wouldn't allow an animal structure.
27
28 Commissioners discussed adding flexibility to when the shed removal should occur.
29
30 Commissioners discussed adding a condition related to grading of Lot 1.
31
32 Williams had an issue with how the Park Dedication was being interpreted. He said
33 his interpretation of the Statute is that the City could take the 15 feet for trail and then
34 also take the 8% ($8,000.00) cash.
35
36 The consensus on Park Dedication was to follow staff's recommendation, but
37 discussed Williams's concern.
38
39 Finke said the City is working on a policy for park dedication. Williams wants his
40 interpretation of how to calculate park dedication on the record.
41
42 Nolan asked the applicant to review the existing well location.
43
44 Nolan said he likes to stay as close to policy as one can, even if it means the lot has
45 frontage that is unlikely to be used. Nolan therefore recommended a 25 foot
46 minimum road frontage for Lot 2.
5
1
2 V. Reid asked if it is required that the lot have frontage along the entire front of the
3 lot. Nolan said the enactment of the flag lot effectively repeals that entire frontage
4 law and agrees with Finke's interpretation.
5
6 Motion by Nolan, seconded by Williams to recommend approval of the subdivision
7 subject to conditions in staff report, with the following modifications:
8
9 1. Lot 2 shall be required to have frontage on a public road of 25 feet and a
10 reciprocal easement be granted.
11 2. Additional flexibility for removal of shed on Lot 2.
12 3. Add a condition related to the review of drainage on Lot 1 at time of grading
13 permit.
14
15 Motion by Williams, seconded by Anderson to amend the park dedication
16 requirements to trail easement and $8000. Ayes, Nielsen, Anderson and Williams.
17 Motion to amend Failed. (Recused: Martin)
18
19 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by V. Reid to amend original motion to remove 25 foot
20 flag requirement. Ayes by Nielsen, R. Reid, and V. Reid. Motion to amend failed.
21 (Recused: Martin)
22
23 Commission voted on original motion: Ayes: Williams, Nolan, and Anderson.
24 Motion Failed. (Recused: Martin)
25
26 Motion by V. Reid, seconded by R. Reid to recommend approval of the Preliminary
27 Plat subject to conditions in staff report, with the following modifications:
28
29 1. Additional flexibility for removal of shed on Lot 2.
30 2. Add a condition related to the review of drainage on Lot 1 at time of grading
31 permit.
32
33 Motion carried unanimously. (Recused: Martin)
34
35 The Planning Commission requested the Council provide direction on the following
36 concerns within the zoning ordinance:
37
38 • Lot frontage in the Rural Residential zoning district
39 • Establishing a minimum flag lot width along a street
40 • Interpretation of how to calculate park dedication
41 • Creating a policy for suitable soil discrepancies
42
43
44
45
6
1 7. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Section 827 of the City Code with
2 regards to the process of appealing information within the City's Open Space
3 Report related to development in the Conservation Design district.
4
5 Finke explained why the zoning district was created and the objectives of the
6 conservation design ordinance. He referenced the City's open space report and the
7 regulations within the conservation design ordinance, which allows a developer to
8 meet certain open space guidelines to allow for additional density. The open space
9 ordinance is designed to protect existing open space. He further explained that if a
10 developer or applicant disagreed with staff on what is considered significant, the
11 attached process is proposed to allow for an appeal to staffs decision.
12
13 R. Reid asked what year the MLCCS inventory was done. Finke said 2005 and 2007.
14 She further asked if it was fair to say the science had improved since 2005 and 2007.
15 Finke said Bonestroo, the City's engineering firm, said there are shades of gray in the
16 MLCCS and interpretations are in the process of being clarified.
17
18 Nolan asked the Commissioners if they had any issue or concerns.
19
20 Williams suggested the language should be changed in the first sentence to read
21 "conservation design applicant."
22 Finke explained that from a policy standpoint the review gives staff administrative
23 authority, yet the proposed additions to the ordinance will allow an applicant to
24 appeal a decision.
25
26 Public Hearing opened at 8:55 p.m.
27
28 Public Hearing closed at 8:56 p.m.
29
30 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Martin to approve the Ordinance Amendment with
31 the addition of language suggested by Williams. Motion carried unanimously.
32 (Absent: None)
33
34 8. City Council Meeting Schedule
35
36 9. Adiourn
37
38 Motion by Anderson, Seconded by Nielsen to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
7
c
AGENDA ITEM 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dale Cooney, Management Intern; through Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: October 8, 2010
MEETING: October 12, 2010 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Helmuth Von Bluecher —1425 Tamarack Drive (PID 26-118-23-21-0003) —
Preliminary Plat to subdivide 46.33 acre parcel into three lots —
Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Original Application Received: July 8, 2010
Complete Application Received: August 9, 2010
120 -day Review Deadline: December 8, 2010
Overview of Request
Helmuth Von Bluecher proposes to subdivide his existing 46.33 acre property at 1425 Tamarack
Drive into three lots. Please see the location map below. The preliminary plat, called "Fortuna
Farms" is attached for review. As part of the request, the applicant is contesting the Hennepin
County soils data and claiming additional area should be considered "suitable soils."
Property Description
The subject property is
located on the southwest
corner of Tamarack Drive
and Deerhill Road. An
aerial photograph of the site
is located on the back of this
page. The lot is primarily
pasture land with some
wooded areas surrounding
the existing home site. A
stream is located in the
northwest corner of the lot,
running diagonally to the
southwest. Besides the
existing home, the property
contains six additional
structures. The largest
structure, a 16,000 foot horse barn, is on a proposed lot line and will need to be removed as a
condition of this subdivision. Other existing structures on the property include four animal
structures and a lean-to.
Helmuth Von Bluecher Page 1 of 7
Fortuna Farms Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
October 12, 2010
fr
The property is currently zoned Rural Residential (RR), and guided Rural Residential in the
City's Comprehensive Plan. The property is surrounded on all sides by other RR land uses.
Preliminary Plat
The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 46.33 acre parcel into three lots. Lot 1 is
proposed to be 14.54 acres in size. Lot 2 is proposed to be 12.21 acres total. Lot 3 is proposed to
be 17.43 acres total. Remaining acreage is dedicated as right-of-way along Tamarack Drive and
Deerhill Road. Final parcel size after right-of-way dedication is 44.18 acres. Lot 1 has proposed
driveway access onto Deerhill Road. Lots 2 and 3 have proposed driveway access onto
Tamarack Drive. The preliminary plat is attached, and the photo on this page is an aerial
photograph which shows the approximate location of the proposed dividing lines.
Helmuth Von Bluecher
Fortuna Farms Preliminary Plat
Page 2 of 7 October 12, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting
l
Lot Standards
The proposed characteristics of the proposed lots are summarized in the table below, compared
with the requirements of the RR zoning district.
Rural Residential
Requirements
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot Size (gross)
None
14.54 acres
12.21 acres
17.43 acres
Lot Size (suitable
soils)
5 -acre contiguous
suitable soils
5.05 acres
5.12 acres
5.38 acres
Minimum Lot Width
300 feet
705 ft.
588 ft.
1285 ft.
Minimum Lot Depth
200 feet
890 ft.
895 ft.
580 ft.
Setbacks
Front
50 feet
405' (Pos
House Site)
350' (Pos
House Site)
625' (Existing
House Site)
Side
50 feet
80' / 520'
455' / 340'
65' / 480'
Rear
50 feet
435'
185'
615'
Animal Structures
150 feet
705' / 65'
125' / 605'
N/A
585' / 265'
445' / 205'
Shoreland Overlay
75 feet
535 ft.
N/A
N/A
Maximum Hardcover
40% (25% in shoreland overlay)
.5%
2.8%
3.8%
Grazable Acres
(Maximum animal units)
1 unit/first 2 acres
+ 1 unit/acre
11 acres
(10 animal
units)
10.9
(9.9 animal
units)
12.2 acres
(11.2 animal
units)
As proposed, all three lots meet the dimensional standards of the RR district. There is a small
lean-to structure on Lot 1 that does not meet minimum setbacks required for the RR district. This
structure will need to be moved or taken down. The existing animal structure on proposed Lot 1
does not meet the 150 foot setback required in the RR district, so it will not be able to be used to
house animals in the future. Staff recommends conditions to this effect.
The applicant has provided designs for two septic sites on each lot which were reviewed by the
building official. All lots can support a primary and secondary site.
Suitable Soils
As mentioned above, the applicant is contesting the Hennepin County soils information on this
property. An attached preliminary plat delineates the areas of suitable soils with yellow
highlighting. Soils being contested are shown with a crosshatch.
The applicant is seeking to reclassify a large portion of the soils in the front pasture from
"L22D2" soils (non -suitable) to "L22C2" soils, which are considered suitable. L22D2 and
L22C2 soils share most of their characteristics, and the only difference between the two is the
topography on which they are located. L22C2 soils are less than 12% while L22D2 soils are
12% or greater.
The applicant has submitted topographical information in order to demonstrate that much of this
area is less than 12% in slope. A fair amount of the area is significantly under 12%, while some
Helmuth Von Bluecher Page 3 of 7 October 12, 2010
Fortuna Farms Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
areas appear to be 10-12%. Staff consulted with the building official/septic inspector who
agreed that if soils identified as L22D2 are indeed less than 12%, they should be considered
suitable.
It should also be noted that the applicant has excluded some areas which the City's soil
information classified as suitable because when they surveyed the topography, these areas were
greater than 12% in slope. So, in addition to seeking to add some soils as suitable, the applicant
is also subtracting a smaller area.
Streets/Access
Currently, a dedicated right-of-way does not exist along either Deerhill Road or Tamarack Drive.
As part of this subdivision, the applicant proposes to dedicate right-of-way to the city.
As proposed, Lot 1 would require new driveway access off of Deerhill Road and Lot 2 would
require new driveway access off of Tamarack Drive. Lot 3 would use existing driveway access
off of Tamarack Drive.
Lot 1 is located within a shoreland overlay district and has a proposed driveway near a protected
stream. Medina City Code 827.07, Sub. 3a does not allow roads within 50 feet of a shore impact
zone. Future build out of this lot should be reviewed for compliance. Staff recommends this as a
condition of approval.
Staff does not believe the creation of additional lots requires any type of street improvements.
Wetlands/Floodplains
The property owner has submitted a wetland delineation for review and staff has completed a
preliminary review. The property includes six wetlands, and upland buffers will be required
adjacent to these wetlands. In five of the six wetlands, it appears that pasture and turf grass will
need to be removed and a more suitable buffer established. The remaining wetland, 26-046,
contains both pasture and a wooded buffer. In addition to providing a more suitable buffer along
the pasture area, buckthorn remediation will need to be provided in the wooded areas.
For the purposes of suitable soils, applicant has used Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
floodplain information. Floodplain maps identify a Zone A (1% annual chance) floodplain along
the northern third of the property, with the largest floodplain areas concentrated near the wetland
areas on the northwest and northeast sides of the property.
Conditional Use Permits
The existing property was granted a conditional use permit for horse boarding, breeding and
training (City of Medina Resolution No. 87.74). The subdivision process will revoke the exiting
CUP rendering the horse boarding, breeding and training facilities non -conforming.
Under city code, up to two accessory structures are permitted on lots larger than three acres
(Medina City Code 825.19, Subd.3). Lot 3 will contain three accessory structures following the
subdivision. Staff recommends approval of a CUP for the existing accessory structures be
granted as part of this approval.
Helmuth Von Bluecher Page 4 of 7 October 12, 2010
Fortuna Farms Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Stormwater and LID Review
The City Engineer does not recommend requiring stormwater improvements as a condition of
this subdivision. Drainage will be reviewed when a building permit is requested for Lots 1 and 2
in order to mitigate any potential impact of additional run-off on adjacent properties.
No LID practices are proposed, however due to the large lot sizes proposed lots will contain
minimal hardcover.
Tree Preservation/Landscaping
There is limited tree cover on the exiting property, most of which will be located on Lots 1 and 3
upon subdivision. Lot 2 is primarily open pasture, so tree removal should be limited when this
site develops. Future construction will be subject to the City's tree preservation ordinance.
Due to the limited number of trees along the north of the property, views of adjacent properties
across Deerhill Road are unobstructed. The applicant is not proposing landscaping as part of the
subdivision. The RR zoning district does not include specific landscaping requirements, and this
division does not trigger a bufferyard. Staff believes it is very likely that future property owners
building on Lot 1 and Lot 2 will wish to install additional landscaping, the location of which is
dependent on where the future home is located. As a result, staff is not recommending additional
landscaping as a condition of approving this subdivision.
As mentioned above, buffers will need to be planted and maintained adjacent to wetlands on the
property.
Easements
The plat states that standard perimeter easements will be granted on the final plat around each
lot. Additionally, drainage and utility easements will be required over all wetlands and
floodplains. Staff has recommended a condition that easements be provided over all upland
buffers around wetlands as well, but these will not be identified on the plat.
Park Dedication
The City's park dedication ordinance allows the City to require "up to 10% of the buildable
land" to be dedicated for parks and trails. As an option, the City may accept a cash fee in -lieu of
dedicated property. Of the 44.18 acres, staff estimates 36.76 acres are buildable, which would
mean the City could require a maximum of 3.6 acres of buildable property to be dedicated. If the
City wished to collect only cash, the maximum fee would be $16,000 (generally, this amount is
8% of the market value, but $8,000 is the maximum fee per new dwelling unit in the fee
schedule). The City could also choose a combination of land and cash.
The Trail plan identifies a future moderate -low priority trail along Tamarack Drive and low
priority trail along Deerhill Road. The trail plan does not specify which side of the street these
trails should be on. The Park Commission will review the application to determine if trail
easements should be required, of if cash should be required in -lieu in the amount of $16,000.
Helmuth Von Bluecher Page 5 of 7 October 12, 2010
Fortuna Farms Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Review Criteria/Findin2s of Fact
Subd. 10 of Section 820.21 of the City Code describes the criteria for reviewing a subdivision
and states that the City "shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat based on one or a
combination of the following findings
(a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city.
(b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are
such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not
meet minimum lot size standards.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or
private streets, easements or right-of-way."
With the conditions recommended below, staff does not believe the proposed subdivision meets
any of the findings above for denial.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions:
(1) No construction or grading is proposed or approved at this time. Future construction shall
be reviewed for compliance with relevant regulations of the City Code prior to issuance
of any building permits.
(2) Applicant shall remove existing 16,000 sq/ft. animal structure.
(3) Future construction on Lot 1 shall be reviewed for compliance with shoreland overlay
district regulations.
(4) The existing lean-to within Lot 1 minimum setback requirements of 50 feet shall be moved
or demolished.
(5) The existing animal structure within Lot 1 minimum setback requirements of 150 feet shall
be moved, demolished, or converted to a non -animal use.
(6) The subdivision shall be subject to park dedication requirements as determined by the City
Council
(7) Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way along Tamarack Drive and Deerhill Road.
(8) The applicant shall dedicate easements as recommended by the City Engineer along the
perimeter of the lot and over all wetland and floodplain locations.
Helmuth Von Bluecher Page 6 of 7 October 12, 2010
Fortuna Farms Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
(9) The existing Conditional Use Permit, granted by Resolution 87-74 shall be revoked, and
non -conforming uses and structures shall be eliminated.
(10) Future construction shall be subject to City tree preservation regulations.
(11) The applicant shall meet the requirements of the City Attorney with regards to title issues
and platting procedures.
(12) The applicant shall meet the recommendations of the City Engineer letter dated August 16.
(13) The applicant shall provide easements over Upland Buffers as required Section 828.43 of
the City Code. These easements shall be a separate instrument and shall not be shown on
the plat.
(14) The applicant shall install vegetation and signage within the Upland Buffers as required by
Section 828.43 of the City Code.
(15) The final plat shall abide by the requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
(16) The application for final plat must be submitted to the City within 180 days of preliminary
plat approval or the preliminary plat shall be considered void, unless a written request for
time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council.
(17) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the
cost of reviewing the preliminary plat and other relevant documents.
Attachments
1. City Engineer comments dated August 16, 2010
2. Preliminary plat with highlighted suitable soils.
3. Preliminary Plat as received by the City on October 8, 2010
Helmuth Von Bluecher Page 7 of 7 October 12, 2010
Fortuna Farms Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
clep
2335 Highway 36 W
5t. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
• Fax 651-636-1311
August 16, 2010
Ms. Debra Peterson -Dufresne
Planning Assistant
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: L-10-058
Fortuna Farms Preliminary Plat (1425 Tamarack Drive)
City of Medina
Bonestroo File No.: 000190-10000-1
Dear Deb,
We have reviewed the revised preliminary plat dated 8-6-10 for the proposed subdivision
at 1425 Tamarack Drive. We have the following comments with regards to engineering
matters.
• The applicant has noted that the Final Plat will show all lot line dralnage.and utility
easements as requested.
• The driveway for the proposed Lot 2 should be located off Tamarack Drive. This
would eliminate any floodplain or wetland impacts.
• The driveway for the proposed Lot 1 should use the existing field road alignment
eliminating any wetland or floodplain impacts.
• Lot 3 should use the existing driveway as shown on the plans for any future home.
• The Final Plat should dedicate 33' of right-of-way along Tamarack Drive and Deer Hill
Road.
• Please see wetland ordinance comments from John Smyth submitted under separate
cover.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894.
Sincerely,
BONESTROO
Darren Amundsen
Cc: Tom Kellogg
Dusty Finke
1
www.boneshno.com
Bonestroo •
Memorandum
To: Debra Peterson -
Dufresne
Project: 1425 Tamarack Drive
(Fortuna Farms)
Date: 8/16/2010
From: John Smyth Client: City or Medina
Re: Wetland Conservation Code (828.43) Compliance
Review
` Bonestroo
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
File No: 139-10000 www.bonestroo.com
Remarks:
The project involves subdividing the property into three lots which triggers the
requirements of the City Wetland Conservation Code 828.43 (Wetland Code).
There are six wetland basins located within the property. The table below
summarizes the wetland ID, classification, buffer width and setback from the
buffer for the wetlands within the property.
Wetland ID
(Delineation
Report)
Wetland ID
(City
Classification
Map)
Classification
Buffer Width
Setback
from Buffer
Edge
1
26-047
Preserve
35
15
1A
26-011
Manage 1
30
15
Ditch A
26-046
Preserve
35
15
2
26-049
Manage 1
30
15
3
26-010
Manage 2
25
15
4
26-003
Preserve
35
15
Future submittals should show:
1. Wetland ID
2. Wetland classification
3. Line represent upslope edge of buffer
4. Line representing setback from buffer
Upland Buffer Vegetative Performance Standard
A site visit was conducted on 8-16-10. All the wetlands except for 26-046
have buffers that are predominately open fields that contain plant species
common to pastures such as canada goldenrod, thistle, smooth brome, yellow
foxtail, kentucky bluegrass, rye grass, stinging nettle, red top, common
milkweed and reed canary grass. Wetland 26-046 contains open fields similar
to the other wetlands as well as a wooded buffer. The wooded buffer of this
wetland has walnut trees along with buckthorn and other woodland species.
Reed canary grass, thistle and buckthorn are considered weed species that
will require removal and control within the buffer.
The applicant will need to provide a Management/Landscaping plan that
includes the following:
1. Method proposed to control weed species (MN DNR website source for
options). All buckthorn removal should be done using hand tools as
large equipment can further disrupt the wetland buffer. At a minimum
buckthorn should be cut and the remaining stems should be treated
with an approved herbicide following label instructions. Treating the
cut stumps will help prevent regrowth of the buckthorn.
2. In areas of invasive species native vegetation should be seeded.
According to the ordinance Subd. 8. the seed mix must contain at least
15 pounds (PLS) per acre with a minimum of at least four species of
native grasses and five species of native forbs. A source of potential
seed mixes are provided in the MN BWSR Web Site — Publication:
"Restoring & Managing Native Wetland and Upland Vegetation".
3. A schedule of activities that are part of the management and
maintenance for the removal of buckthorn and the establishment of
vegetation in the buffer shall be provided.
Survey Requirements
A legal description for the upslope edge of the buffer will need to be
submitted as part of the conservation easement (see below).
Conservation Easement
Upland buffer zones shall be protected by a conservation easement granted to
the city by the applicant in a form provided by the city.
Wetland Buffer Markers
The applicant must place markers at the upland boundary of the wetland
buffer edge at least every two hundred fifty feet, subject to City approval.
The applicant will need to show the location of the signage for City approval
on the site or grading plan.
Financial Guarantee
It is recommended that the City require a financial guarantee for the
vegetative corrective work within the buffer on this project. If available from
the applicant the City would like a cost estimate for the buffer landscaping
work. This will help determine an appropriate Financial Guarantee.
Page 2of2
.3
44 Acres
Part of the NE Y. of the NW
of Section 26 T116N R23W
angitria
sample
CAP WO
Approximate Wetland Boundary Map
Overlaid on 2004 Aerial Photography
0
730
Feet
Data Protected In North
American Datum of 1913.1
Universal Transverse
Mercator Zone 15 N
Boundary Source
Hennepin County
Parcel Database
MOW, mnale Panel t3oundary
/ pen nr, a1( Welland Boundary
* Sample Porn)
1425 Tamarack Drive
Medina MN
Figure 5
0
.
Y•i1•
1 OF
1-116-z3
1
HELMUTH VON BLUECHER
IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 26-118-23
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
---S 89°56' 07" E
BLACKTOP
ROADWAYN
Ok
♦ i NONE �";
�:t1�� c_,,,,,,_,
P f POSED• •\`� \ ,
-3 DI G /� ��:(w'" '
i;INES �• � ; � 'N`�.
.�
1 706+- `�
Q 1�
0
0
ITT
0
�I
•
• /r%%
//Hi / / r
— —S 89°53' 04" W
J
01 1 o 1
1!\
111t
m1
• , ` \1
▪ -' L5OA
DENOTES SOL ORICNALLY
DESIGNATED AS ACCEPTABLE:
CHANGED TO NOT ACCEPTABLE
BY TOPOGRAPHY
DENOTES SOL ORIGNALLY
DESIGNATED AS NOT ACCEPTABLE;
CHANGED TO ACCEPTABLE
BY TOPOGRAPHY
//
(1325)
GAS TEN L L`C
•
NORTH L6!
OF NR 1/4 CF
C•26-116-23
USE 023M4 1
14 2 1,0„
•
r L50A \
NONE
/ I ' 3.79 :ACRES
1 ` ,' s
soPTC 1 \
SITE a �. - • , N LK OF
1334.70-----•••
-_966_.
1330.70---"
•
1 33I 33
I1 I
-�1►I
II I ,E CORR OF
K•J�• -NW 1/. CF
VVVVV4 SEC. 26-116-23
11TH
EAST LIE
' - OF i v 1/1 Of
SL C. 36-116-23
BLACKTOP
ROADWAY
1
fi-LL11' KITS
66
FORT UNA FARMS
•
OCT - 8 2010
FLOODPLAIN :
LINE N
0
PRELIMI NARY PLAT AND CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
HELM UT H VON BLUECHER
IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 26-118-23
HENNEPIN CO UNTY, MINNESOTA
--S 89 °56' 07" E
MCWD FLOOD.
/WETLA ND;
BU FFER-•
1
``
I SETBACK �1 T
IS HA, r LUVU YL HIV VL.n iiVir r air , .. .. .. •• ••, - -. . - /'�'
NOTE: THE NW CORNER OF THE PROPERTY ISLOCATEDW ITHIN THE SHOREL AND OVERLAY DISTRICT
0 denotes iron marker
(908.3) : deno tes ex isting spot elevation, mean sea le ve l datum
917- — -: denote s ex isting contour line, mean sea leve l datu m, pe r our Oc tober 2006 field work
Bearin gs shown ore based u pon on assumed datum.
Soils type informatio n is taken from the Hen nepin Co unty website,
an d on ly adju sted based upo n existin g topography.
Total a rea = 46.33 acres
Area without right —of —way = 44.18+ — acres
This survey in tends to sho ws the bo undaries of the abov e desc ribed pro perty.
the loca tion of nine existin g buildings, to pogra phy, spot elevations, soil type s,
wooded area s, an d the proposed loca tion of two div iding lines the reon. It do es
no t purport to show any other improv emen ts or encro achmen ts.
IM PERVIO US SURFACE CALCULATIONS : (HARDCOVER)
Ex isting lot oreo (minu s we tla nds a nd roo ds) = 1,924,481_ Sq. ft.
Existing buildings (minus those to be re move d) = 10,559_st
Existing drivewoys = 13,000 '_ sf
23,559 / 1. 924,481 X 100 = 1.227.
BLACKTOP
ROAD WAY: .,
Tll»—
/" � �IA MAP' ao U /oar_.l 11 0 u� • ti, •
AND THE FLOODWAY CONT OURS AS SHOWN ON THE EAST PART.
NORTH LINE
OF NW 1/4 OF
;SE C. 26-118-23
133
1334.70----------._• I
000
33
NE CO R OF
-N W 1/4 OF
SEC. 26-118-23
•
•
•
•
•
•
N
O
0
UI
co
(J1
v-(9612)
1016150.SFEx6ED1.SCJ
REVISIONS
DESIGNED
IHEREB Y CERTIFY TT(ATTHISPLAN .SPECIFICATIONORREPORT
WAS PREPA ED BY ME OR (ALDER MY DIRECT SU PERVISION. 7-7-16DATE
DATE
&ASS OCIATES, INC .
CIVIL ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS
BY
REMARKS
10•
8-6-10
REVISIONS
D6 uD.
10-167
)GR0NBE
445 N. WILL OW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356
PHONE: 952-473-4141 FAX: 952-473-4435
8-25-10
REVISIONS
10-7-10
REVISIONS
CHECKED
DATE i�Z�f f
� EDswus
AGENDA ITEM: 6
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners@nacplanning.corn
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
Medina Mayor and City Council
Medina Planning Commission
FROM: Nate Sparks / Steve Grittman
DATE: October 6, 2010
RE: Medina — LENNAR/Enclave; Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Rezoning and Preliminary Plat (Continued)
NAC FILE: 306.02 — 10.03 CITY FILE: L-10-055
Review Deadline: January 23, 2011 (extended by applicant)
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission tabled a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and
Preliminary Plat with variance application at the August meeting for a project proposed
by LENNAR to be known as the Enclave. In order to address the issues related to the
item being tabled, the applicant has responded with the attached revised documents
and plans.
The previous submittal had planned for 134 single family dwelling units and 41
townhome units on a 109 acre site located east of Hunter Drive, north of Medina Road
and south of Hamel Road and Uptown Hamel. The revised plan consists of 115 single
family residential parcels and 41 townhome units. The property currently consists of
farmland with one homestead located in the northern half of the site.
To complete the processing of this request, LENNAR has requested approval of the
following applications: a comprehensive plan amendment, a rezoning of the subject site,
a preliminary plat and a variance for reduced right-of-way (ROW) width. The first
decision to be made is the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. A decision on
the comprehensive plan amendment is a policy decision, and the City has a great deal
of discretion when requested. As with the previous review, if the Planning Commission
and City Council do not feel that the comprehensive plan amendment is in line with the
City's land use goals and policies, then the other applications must be denied as well
since they are directly dependent upon the approval of the comprehensive plan
amendment.
The report is divided into three sub -sections, the first outlining policy decisions related to
consistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, followed by a review of
compliance with the three proposed residential zoning districts and the City's general
preliminary plat requirements. The review outlines the planning and zoning issues
related to the request and summarizes key issues that the Planning Commission and
City Council should discuss prior to making a decision on the submitted applications.
Exhibits:
1. City Engineer's Report(s)
2. EAW
3. Revised Sketch Depicting R-1 Lots
4. Revised Sketch Depicting Elm Creek Drive Access & Cul-de-sac
5. Revised Sketch Depicting Appropriate Comprehensive Plan Designations
6. Applicant's Plan Set
7. Applicant's Narrative
ANALYSIS
SECTION 1- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
Concept Plan Review. A concept plan for The Enclave was reviewed by the Planning
Commission and City Council earlier this spring. The concept plan proposed 195 single
family lots. During the concept plan review process, the Planning Commission, City
Council and general public offered comments regarding proposed densities, site design
and other general comments. The majority of the comments made by City staff, officials
and the general public encouraged the developer to propose a subdivision that closely
mirrored the future land use guiding set forth by the Comprehensive Plan. There were
several comments made in opposition to extension of the MUSA line.
It was noted that during the comprehensive plan update process, there were many
discussions on the future land use guiding of this property and it was decided that the
density should be phased from medium residential densities in the northern portion of
the site to rural residential densities in the south. Several of the City officials indicated
that higher density housing and a greater variety of housing types would be preferable.
Comprehensive Plan/Zoning. The subject site is guided for medium density
residential (3.5 to 6.99 units/acre), low density residential (2.0 to 3.49 units/acre) and
rural residential uses in a graduated fashion from the north to the south. The northern
portion of the site guided for medium density residential uses contains 23.21 net acres
and would support a residential development of 81 to 162 units. The middle portion of
the site, guided for low density residential uses, contains 27.8 net acres and could be
developed with a low density residential development containing 56 to 97 units. The
southern portion of the site contains 41.16 acres and is guided for rural residential uses.
Areas designated as rural residential are not planned to be serviced with municipal
2
utilities and are to develop at a density of no more than one unit per five acres of
contiguous soils suitable for a septic system.
Overall, the subject site contains 51.01 net acres within the Metropolitan Urban Service
Area (MUSA) and would be allowed to develop within the range of 137 units to 259 units
to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has proposed 41
townhome units, 101 R-2 single family lots and 14 R-1 single family lots.
The proposal is to add 3.17 acres of the rural residential designation to the MUSA. In
exchange, the developer is proposing to remove an equivalent amount of land from the
MUSA. This area is proposed for preservation of a high quality woodland area that
would serve the City's tree preservation goals. The area removed from the MUSA will
be guided as Park & Recreation, as it is intended to be a conservation area to preserve
trees with trail access.
The northern portion of the plat is guided for Medium Density Residential uses (3.5-6.9
units per acre) and is proposed for a mix of 50 R-2 single family parcels and 41
townhomes. According to the applicant's submittal, the net density of this area comes
out to 3.91 units per acre.
The middle urban portion of the plat is guided for Low Density Residential uses (2.0-
3.49 units per acre. This area is proposed for 65 single family units, 14 of which are
proposed to be zoned R-1 and 51 of which are proposed to be zoned R-2. The purpose
statement of the R-1 District states that the intent of the district is to implement the Low
Density Residential land use category of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose
statement of the R-2 District states that the intent of the district is to implement the
Medium Density Residential land use category of the Comprehensive Plan. As
proposed, there are a preponderance of lots not intended for this land use classification.
Staff recommends that the parcels in Block 5 should meet the standards of the R-1
district. The Commission and Council should also discuss if the portion of Block 4 south
of the land use district dividing line should be R-1 parcels as well.
No changes to the street configuration would be needed to accommodate this change to
the plan to include the 90 foot wide R-1 lots. It would simply result in the adjustment of
lot lines and the reduction of about 8 single family parcels. A sketch illustrating intent of
this change is included in the exhibits.
The southern portion of the plat is guided Rural Residential. Most of this area is
reserved as wetland with the exception of the area involved in the MUSA swap.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. As mentioned, the applicant is proposing a
comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation of approximately
3.17 acres of property from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential (as shown in
the attached "MUSA Amendment Plan"). In exchange for extending the MUSA line to
this location, the applicant is proposing to remove wooded property with the same net
3
area from the MUSA. Overall, the applicant is proposing to preserve an 11.29 acre
wooded area (7.43 net acres) along the eastern edge of proposed development. The
preserved area would be placed in a conservation easement or otherwise deeded to the
City to prohibit any future development of that area. This proposal would maintain the
current amount of acres in the MUSA.
The proposed amendment would result in swap, which means that no additional
residential units would be added to the MUSA. As such, the proposed amendment
does not appear to have an effect on existing infrastructure in terms of public utilities,
sewer capacity and transportation needs. The comprehensive plan amendment may
have negative impacts on existing environmental features due to the further
encroachment of the development toward the existing wetland to the south.. However,
allowing extension of the MUSA and therefore permanently preserving a large number
of trees would likely be considered a benefit to the City.
In consideration of a comprehensive plan amendment, The Planning Commission and
City Council should discuss the proposed amendment's consistency with City's future
land use and development goals as well as its potential impacts on the existing
infrastructure, environmental features and general public health, safety and welfare.
Additionally, the comprehensive plan amendment must be evaluated in terms of its
consistency with regional systems under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council.
The City's forestry consultant has advised that remnants of a maple -basswood forest
exist within the southeast portion of the proposed MUSA amendment area and has
recommended that this area be preserved, as depicted in this current proposal.
Final approval of the comprehensive plan amendment is given by the Metropolitan
Council following a decision by the City Council. Preliminary discussions with
Metropolitan Council staff indicated that the proposed amendment would not have a
negative impact on regional systems.
Zoning. The site is currently zoned PUD2, Planned Unit Development 2. This zoning
was adopted prior to the most recent update of the Comprehensive Plan and is no
longer consistent with the City's Future Land Use plan. As such, the site must be
rezoned to accommodate medium and low density residential uses. As noted above,
the subject site is guided for medium density residential on north half, low density
residential in the mid -portion of the site and rural residential on the far southern portion
of the site.
The applicant is requesting rezoning to Residential -Mid Density District (R-3) for
townhomes, Two Family Residential District (R-2) for the majority of the proposed single
family lots and Single Family Residential District (R-1) for the single family lots proposed
along south property line, within the MUSA extension area.
When considering rezoning of a property, the Planning Commission and City Council
should consider the proposed action's effect on the area in which it is planned. The
4
Zoning Ordinance does not contain specific criteria for the evaluation of a zoning map
amendment, however, general planning criteria should be evaluated against the
proposal to ensure that the requested rezoning is warranted including:
• consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan;
• the proposed action's compatibility with existing and future land uses in the area;
• and the proposed action's impacts to the City's infrastructure including utilities,
transportation as well as community facilities such as parks and schools.
The following table illustrates land uses surrounding the subject site. The primary
compatibility issue with this subdivision is the transition between the proposed single
family lots and the larger rural residential properties to the west, south and east.
Direction
Land Use Plan
Zoning Map
Existing Use
North
Medium Density
Residential; Mixed Use -
Business
UR — Urban Residential;
UH — Uptown Hamel
Urban single
family lots
Undeveloped
East
Parks and Recreation;
Medium Density
Residential; Low Density
Residential
PS — Public/Semi Public;
RR-UR — Urban Reserve;
RR- Rural Residential
Parks and
Recreation; Large
Lot Single Family;
Undeveloped
South
Rural Residential
RR — Rural Residential
Agriculture
West
Rural Residential; Parks
and Recreation
RR -1 — Rural Residential
1; PS — Public/Semi
Public; RR — Rural
Residential
Rural Residential,
Large Lot Single
Family; Parks and
Recreation
The transition between neighborhoods occurs along rear lot lines and across Hunter
Drive, which lessens the potential for negative impacts the proposed R-2 District
property may have on the adjacent rural residential areas.
ANALYSIS
SECTION 11— R-1, R-2 AND R-3 DISTRICT STANDARDS
Townhomes. Within the northeast corner of the site, 41 townhome units are proposed.
The units are designed as attached single family units with three to five units per
building. The proposed townhome development is a unit/base lot arrangement with an
outlot serving as the commonly -owned base lot. Unit/base lot arrangements consist of
each townhome unit resting on a "unit lot" which is a few feet larger on all sides than the
footprint of the townhome unit. Buildings have a shared "zero lot line" with the attached
units on all sides. Each unit lot is then surrounded by the common base lot R-3 District
zoning is proposed for the area which allows for multiple family structures (up to 16
units per building) as a permitted use. The applicant's proposed townhome models are
similar to those found at a development called "Legacy Park" at County Road 47 and
Vicksburg in Plymouth, although the units are proposed a bit further apart in the
Enclave.
5
Net Area Per Unit. Section 841.1.05, Subd. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a
minimum net area per unit of 8,750 square feet within the R-3 District. The applicant is
also proposing a recreation area and improved sound suppression between townhome
units, which allows for a total additional density in the amount of 0.75 units per acre, or
5.75 units per net acre. The current plan is proposing 41 units within an area containing
7.59 net acres. This appears to be consistent with the requirements.
Setbacks. The required setback from a private street for buildings within the R-3 District
is 25 feet. The applicant is proposing a street setback of 25 feet which allows for a
face-to-face building separation of 70 to 74 feet in this area.
A setback of 30 feet between buildings is shown on the submitted plans as required.
Because the proposed townhome development abuts less intensive zoning districts on
all sides, a 40 -foot setback from the site perimeter is required. The submitted plans
have shown that the proposed development is compliant with this requirement.
Private Streets. All streets serving the townhome development are proposed to be
private streets. The interior streets are proposed to be 24 -feet wide, with the main
roads being increased to 28.
Guest Parking. Fifteen guest parking stalls are proposed to serve the development.
The Zoning Ordinance requires at least two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Attached
two -car garage stalls are proposed for each townhome unit and two additional parking
spaces per unit would be available by utilizing each unit's driveway. Visitors to the
townhome units may end up parking along the public streets in the single family area
where parking would be allowed on one side of the street. This may lead to traffic
congestion and unnecessary crowding of the public street.
Each townhome unit is proposed to include an attached two -car garage consisting of
368 square feet. Section 828.51, Subd. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, which outlines the
City's general parking provisions, requires all parking spaces to be at least nine (9) feet
wide and twenty (20) feet long. The proposed two -car garages are narrower than the
Ordinance requirements for two parking spaces. It may prove to be difficult to contain a
household's vehicles, recreational equipment, trash receptacles and other domestic
supplies in a 368 square foot space. Issues that may result from undersized garages
usually include nuisance complaints due to trash receptacles being stored outside and
multiple vehicles and other household equipment occupying space in the driveway.
With these constraints in mind, it would be appropriate for the City to require additional
guest parking to avoid conflicts and to ensure the units are accessible and the site is
orderly and attractive. A nominal standard of space per unit would be enough to
alleviate concerns and keep the integrity of the site circulation. The site would need to
have six additional guest parking stalls to accommodate this condition. Ideally, the
extra stalls will be dispersed through as much of the site as feasible to facilitate their
convenient use.
6
Landscaping. The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan that appears to
meet the standards of the ordinance. Final review and determination of escrow
amounts shall be required prior to installation at the time of site plan review.
Building Design. Buildings in the R-3 District are limited to 32 feet in height. The
proposed townhome buildings are shown to be 26 feet in height. The applicant is
proposing to construct the townhome units using primarily vinyl lap siding and vinyl
shakes. Accent materials include stone and brick. Section 841.4.02, Subd.1(b)
requires no less than 20 percent of the fagade facing a public or private street to consist
of accent materials. It appears as though the proposed townhome exterior meets this
requirement, however, this must be verified during the required site and building plan
review prior to construction. The proposed townhome building design appears to meet
the building modulation and articulation requirements, however, this would be more
thoroughly reviewed during the site and building plan review.
Site and Building Plan Review. Prior to construction of the townhome units, the
applicant would be required to submit an application for site and building plan review as
outlined in Section 825.55 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Single Family Lot Requirements. Section 840.1.05 and Section 840.2.05 of the
Zoning Ordinance outline the lot requirements for the R-1 and R-2 Districts.
Additionally, Section 820.29, Subd. 4 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that all lots
must contain buildable area at least equal to the minimum lot area requirements of the
zoning district exclusive of flood plains, wetlands, areas of excessive high water table,
steep slopes and public rights -of -way. The applicant has provided the net lot areas for
all proposed lots consistent with those requirements assuming that the area is rezoned
to R-1 and R-2 as proposed.
The following tables outline the mandatory lot and setbacks requirements for single
family lots in the R-1 and R-2 Districts.
Zoning
District
Lot Area
Lot
Width
Lot
Depth
R-1
11,000 sq. ft.
90 feet
100 ft.
R-2
8,000 sq. ft.
60 feet
90 ft.
Zoning
District
Setbacks
Front
Side
Side
Corner
Rear
Wetland
Buffer
Setback
Collector
Street
Local
Street
R-1
35 ft.
30 ft.
10/15 ft.
25 ft.
30 ft.
15 ft.
R-2
35 ft.
30 ft.
5/10 ft.
25 ft.
25 ft.
15 ft.
7
The proposed R-1 and R-2 lots generally appear to meet each district's lot area
requirements. The majority of the proposed lots are consistent with setback
requirements. Previously, there were two lots that do not demonstrate compliance with
rear yard setbacks when shown with an attached deck but the plan has since been
revised to address this concern.
Driveways. Section 400.11(d) of the City Code requires driveways to be located a
minimum of ten (10) feet from the side property line. The majority of the driveways are
shown to be located less than ten (10) feet from the property line. These driveways
must be shown to demonstrate compliance with Section 400.11(d) of the City Code as a
condition of preliminary plat approval unless otherwise waived by the City Council. The
R-2 District allows for five (5) foot side yard setbacks along one side of an interior yard.
Oftentimes, the five foot side yard setback is shown on the garage side within the
proposed plat. Staff recommends that in this instance the ten foot driveway setback
requirement be waived for lots proposed within the R-2 District. The Planning
Commission and Council should discuss the ten foot driveway setback requirement
versus the five foot side yard setback requirement.
ANALYSIS :
SECTION 111 - GENERAL PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
Access. Hunter Drive extends along the west side of proposed development. Hunter
Drive is designated as a minor collector road by the Comprehensive Plan. The
applicant is proposing two access points to the subdivision off of Hunter Drive. Hunter
Drive will need to be reconstructed due to this project requiring infrastructure installation
to extend utilities. Hunter Drive will need to be reconstructed in conjunction with this
project. The City Engineer is currently undertaking a feasibility study report. The
developer may finance construction to Medina Road at maximum or to the end of their
plat at minimum.
The Comprehensive Plan sets forth certain goals and policies for the City's existing and
future transportation networks. This plans states that neighborhoods existing
neighborhoods should be connected with infill neighborhoods to ensure safety through
increased access. The Navajo Road extension is proposed on the plat as "Outlot J".
This will need to be depicted as right-of-way with a street design. The City may elect to
not have this road constructed, at this time, in which case the City may wish to collect
money for the construction of this street but defer construction. The applicant has
expressed a desire to explore options for sharing the financing of this street with the
City or neighboring property owners.
The previous submittal had access points to the development off of Hunter Trail at the
park and at Elm Creek Drive. As mentioned, this submission shows a more northerly
access. The two original access points allowed for cohesion with the trail plan and
provided a four way intersection at Elm Creek Drive. Staff recommends that the plan
revert back to these access points.
8
The property included in the plat also includes what is referred to as the "Nolan Parcel"
to the north. This property is shown as being served by a cul-de-sac. The City's
subdivision ordinance allows cul-de-sacs less than 750 feet in length serving fewer than
20 houses, whichever is less. The proposed cul-de-sac would be about 550 feet in
length and serving 16 houses, 9 on the "Nolan Parcel". A cul-de-sac in this location
may be acceptable provided it utilizes a center island design to minimize maintenance
issues related to snowplowing and such. The interior of the center island would be
required for private maintenance. The applicant must submit to the City Engineer and
Public Works Director a cul-de-sac design for review and approval. This may result in a
slight readjustment of the lots in this area.
Traffic Study. The applicant has submitted a traffic study evaluating impacts the
proposed development may have on Hunter Drive and its intersection with Elm Creek
Drive, Navajo Road and the park driveway. The study concludes that the proposed
project's impact on these intersections will not require any additional traffic control
devices, including additional turn lanes, to operate at an acceptable level. The City
Engineer's office has reviewed the traffic study and the requested additional information
and concurs with the assessment that no additional traffic control devices are required
to handle additional traffic proposed by this development.
Streets. The applicant is proposing 24 and 28 -foot wide private streets within the
townhome portion of the development and 28 -foot wide public streets throughout the
remaining development. Section 820.29, Subd. 2 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires
that local streets be at least 24 feet wide with a 60 -foot right-of-way. The applicant is
requesting approval of a variance to allow for a 50 -foot right-of-way along all public local
streets in the single family area. No public right-of-way is proposed within the
townhome development. The applicant claims that the reduction in right-of-way will
allow for a reduced amount of impervious surfaces and assist in meeting density
requirements. While a reduced right-of-way would result in shorter driveway lengths
(presumably five feet shorter on each side of the street) it does also have the effect of
placing the homes closer together and narrowing street thoroughfare through the
neighborhood. Furthermore, reduction of the public right-of-way allows for condensed
area for placement of public utilities, sidewalks, etc. Consideration of a variance shall
include evaluation of the review criteria set forth in Section 825.45 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Variance Review Criteria. Section 820.59, Subd. 1 of the Subdivision Ordinance
outlines the criteria for consideration of a variance from subdivision ordinance
provisions. The applicant is seeking a variance from the ROW requirements. A
variance may only be granted in the event that all of the following circumstances exist:
(a) Because of particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of
the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would
result if the strict letter of this ordinance were carried out.
9
(b) The conditions upon which the application for the variance is based are unique to
the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not common to other
properties in the City.
(c) The hardship is related to the requirements of these regulations and has not
been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the
parcel of land.
(d) That granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel
of land is located.
The applicant is seeking approval of the variance to reduce impervious surface impacts
of the proposed development. It does not appear that the variance is being requested
to alleviate a hardship, however, the City has approved flexibility in ROW width in the
past in order to reduce impervious surface impacts.
Sidewalks. The applicant is proposing to install sidewalks along one side of all public
streets within the single family area: The proposed layout of the sidewalks appears to
minimize street crossings. Most existing sidewalks in the City are 5 -feet in width, and
the applicant will be required to install similar sidewalk subject to City review.
Blocks. Section 820.29, Subd. 3 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires that blocks be
arranged to provide for the most convenient access, circulation, control and safety of
street design. Block length shall be 300 feet to 1,300 feet unless a special exception is
granted by the City Council. Proposed block lengths fall within the range of 300 feet to
1,300 feet and are therefore consistent with ordinance requirements.
Outlots. There are several outlots proposed in the plat for storm ponds, wetlands, and
open space. Outlot H should be split between the area that is in the MUSA and out of
the MUSA. Other outlots may need to be split, as well, depending on planned
ownership.
Landscaping. Section 840.3.04 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines landscaping
requirements for single family lots in the R-1 and R-2 District. All areas of a lot except
for buildings, driveways, walks, patios, recreational areas, wetlands and wetland buffers
are to be landscaped with trees, shrubs, plantings or turf grass. Section 840.3.04,
Subd. 2(b) of the Zoning Ordinance encourages the use of low maintenance and water
conserving alternatives to traditional Kentucky bluegrass.
The applicant is proposing a special drought resistant grass specification that would
alleviate the need for irrigation on the parcels. The City currently requires lawn irrigation
through alternative means such as storm ponds, rather than utilizing treated City water.
The applicant will be expected to escrow for the establishment of yards and landscaping
through the building permit process. In the event that there are severe issues with the
special grass specification, City Staff recommends an escrow for the cost of installing
10
an irrigation system that will utilize storm water. The use of the escrow will be triggered
at the determination of the City.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of two (2) overstory trees to be planted per
lot within fifteen (15) feet of the front lot line. The applicant is proposing two overstory
trees per lot which are 2.5 caliper inches and include a mix of Linden, Hackberry, Honey
Locust, Princeton and Valley Forge Elm, Red and Sugar Maple and Red Oak trees.
Buffer Yards. Section 828.31 of the Zoning Ordinance describes the City's buffer yard
requirements. Buffer yards are required along Hunter Drive as well as between zoning
districts with differing intensity of uses. The applicant has proposed a buffer yard along
Hunter Drive with an opacity of 0.3 as required. Another buffer yard is shown between
the proposed townhome development and the proposed single family lots. This buffer
yard was originally shown as a 0.1 opacity, however, it has since been revised for this
submission to meet the standard of 0.2. A buffer yard was included to the properties to
the east which appears to meet requirements. The buffer yard planting schedule shall
be revised to include any necessary plantings to the north to be consistent with
ordinance requirements as a condition of preliminary plat approval.
Tree Preservation / Tree Removal. The applicant is proposing to mass grade the site
as each phase is developed. The City's tree preservation ordinance allows for up to 15
percent of the significant trees located on the site to be removed for such site
development activities without requiring replacement. If removal is proposed in excess
of this amount, Section 828.41, Subd. 9(c)(i) requires a tree replacement ratio of a
diameter of one (1) caliper inch per one (1) caliper inch of removed significant trees.
Originally, the applicant was proposing to remove 8,585.8 caliper inches of the existing
significant trees on the site (34.8 percent of the total significant trees). This has been
reduced to 5,557 inches. As required by the Ordinance, 1,848 caliper inches of trees
must be replaced. Any comments from the City's forestry consultant's should be
addressed on the revised tree preservation plan.
Park and Trail Dedication. City Staff recommends the City give credit for the land
under the trails and the construction of the trails outside of the right-of-ways and
recommends the remainder be dedicated as cash -in -lieu. The Parks Commission will
review this plan at their October meeting.
Entrance Monuments. The applicant is proposing to install large monument signs
near the entrances of the proposed development. Such signs must be consistent with
the City's sign ordinance and shall be subject to review and approval by City staff prior
to erection on the site.
Easements. Drainage and utility easements are shown at the perimeter of all lots as
well as over all outlots, wetlands and stormwater ponds.
11
It should be noted that easements within side yards located between single family
homes can pose problems when homeowners landscape or fence the area. Equipment
and vehicles need at least a 20 -foot wide clear space to maintain the ponds and
oftentimes homeowners are unaware of this easement and place things in the
easement that can cause issues when maintenance of stormwater ponds and wetlands
is necessary.
Furthermore, several of the proposed single family lots extend into the storm water
ponds. City staff generally discourages against extension of lot lines into ponds. Staff
recommends revising the plan to place stormwater ponds within a designated outlot and
enclosed with a drainage and utility easement.
Also, there is a blanket easement on the property in favor of Wright -Hennepin Electric.
This applicant must resolve this issue in such a fashion that allows for the easement to
be removed, released, relocated, or placed on the property in such a fashion that it does
not interfere with the plat.
Wetlands, grading, drainage and utilities. The existing topography of the site is
generally flat and does not contain significant slopes (slopes of 12 percent or higher).
The proposed grading of the site will change dramatically in some areas. The applicant
is proposing to mass grade the site as each phase develops. The majority of the single
family homes being proposed have walk -out or look -out basements. The applicant is
proposing to add four inch caliper trees, as opposed to the two and a half inch caliper
trees required by Ordinance, which will aid in the screening of the proposed changes in
grade and the view of the new homes from the right-of-way and adjacent properties.
Issues related to wetlands, grading, stormwater, erosion control, irrigation, water and
sewer, sump pumps and other utilities shall be subject to the review and approval of the
City Engineer and shall be made a condition of preliminary plat approval.
LID and Sustainability. The applicant proposes to install a number of decentralized
bio-filtration basins in order to achieve the City's water quality standards, which is
consistent with low -impact development practices. Lennar also proposes to implement
its "powersmart" construction practices which increase energy efficiency beyond general
code requirements. The developer has also discussed utilizing alternative ground cover
as opposed to Kentucky -Bluegrass sod, which could reduce lawn irrigation needs.
However, the plan otherwise generally follows "standard" development practices,
including mass grading of the site and removing almost every tree within the proposed
area where construction is proposed. The applicant has reduced proposed wetland
impacts, although a small area is proposed on wetland #4.
EAW. LENNAR submitted an Environmental Site Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for
the proposed development. An EAW is a screening tool used to evaluate any potential
environmental impacts the proposed development may have on the area. The EAW
process is complete, and few comments were received from agencies and individuals.
12
On August 17, 2010, the City Council determined that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is not required for this project.
Phasing Plan. The applicant is proposing five phases of construction. The first phase
will include 25 single family homes in the northwest corner of the site. The second
phase will include 43 single family homes, the third phase will include 20 single family
homes, and final the final two phases will include the remaining 27 single family lots as
well as the 41 townhome units. It is assumed that future phases will be platted as
outlots concurrent with the final platting of the first phase of the development. As future
phases receive final plat approval, consistency with the approved preliminary plat shall
be strictly adhered to. Full build -out of the proposed development as presented in the
preliminary plat is required in order to maintain consistency with the density
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Development Contract. Following approval of a preliminary plat, the applicant is
required to enter into a development contract with the City to be executed prior to
consideration of a final plat by the City Council. The development contract, which
specifies all conditions of approval, applicable fees and securities to be provided for
required improvements, is subject to review and approval of the City Attorney.
"Nolan Parcel". There is property to the north which is included in the subject property
being proposed for subdivision that is not included in all pages of the plan set. This
area is known as the "Nolan Parcel", however, it is not an independent parcel. The
applicant should include this parcel in the preliminary plat and phasing plan. The site
shall be zoned R-2 and may be split off at the time of the first final plat as an outlot with
development rights for the configuration shown. In the future, the preliminary plat may
be revised for the area of this parcel referred to as the "Nolan Parcel", if desired by
interested parties.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Based on staffs review of the submitted comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning,
variance and preliminary plat applications for The Enclave development, the following
items are considered to be outstanding issues that need resolution prior to granting final
approval of the applications. If these issues can be resolved, City Staff would
recommend approval of the applications:
1. Block 5 and Lots 5-15 of Block 4 shall meet all R-1 Standards.
2. The northern access point to Hunter Drive shall be relocated to Elm Creek Drive.
3. Lot lines shall be removed from the storm ponds.
4. Six more guest parking stalls shall be located in the townhome area.
5. An escrow shall be provided for an irrigation system.
6. Hunter Drive reconstruction shall be provided for, the extent of which should be
discussed by the City Council, but at a minimum to the southern edge of the plat.
7. The "Nolan Parcel" shall be included in the plat, zoned R-2, and included in the
phasing plan.
13
8. HOA documents depicting responsibilities towards all private open space, private
parks, center islands, storm ponds, wetlands, buffer yards, common open space,
and landscaping areas shall be provided.
9. Covenants restricting all R-2 lots to single family residential units shall be
provided to ensure qualifying lots are not developed for duplexes.
10. Navajo Road shall be dedicated as a ROW with a street constructed with the
appropriate phase, or escrow paid to the City for future construction.
11. The easement on the parcel in favor of Wright -Hennepin Electric shall be
resolved.
12. Outlot H shall be split into two outlots, one in the MUSA and one out.
13. The driveways in the R-2 District shall be allowed with a 5 foot setback.
14. All comments by the City Engineer shall be addressed.
15. All comments by the City Attorney related to title issues and recording
procedures shall be addressed.
16. All comments by the City Forestry Consultant shall be addressed.
17. The City will accept the land under the trails and the construction of the trails
outside of right-of-ways as parkland dedication and the remainder will be cash -in -
lieu unless otherwise determined by the City Council upon review of the Park
Commission recommendation.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS
A. Motion to recommend approval of the requested comprehensive plan
amendment. Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment
as depicted by the attachment provided by City Staff.
B. Motion to recommend denial of the requested comprehensive plan amendment.
C. Motion to recommend approval of the requested rezoning, variance and
preliminary plat for The Enclave provided that the applicant resolves the issues
set forth in the planning report and those discussed at the public hearing.
D. Motion to deny the rezoning, variance and preliminary plat for The Enclave as
outlined in the Findings of Fact. (Exhibit 5)
E. Motion to table. If made, this motion should be supported with direction to the
applicant on the issues identified above, and any others raised at the hearing, so
the applicant can revise the development proposal documents for submission to
the City prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Because the Planning
Commission has already requested changes and been able to review the
updated plans, staff recommends that the Commission make recommendations
for approval or denial in order to allow the City Council to review and make a
decision prior to the review deadline.
c. Dusty Finke
Debra Peterson -Dufresne
Tom Kellogg
Ron Batty
14
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
September 30, 2010
Mr. Dusty Finke
City Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: The Enclave of Medina
File No. 000190-10000-1
Plat No. L-10-055
Dear Dusty,
Bonestroo
We have reviewed the revised plans for The Enclave of Medina development. The plan set is dated
9-15-10. Our following comments are general in nature due to many on -going changing aspects of
the plan:
• The water supply and distribution plan shows a looped 12 -inch watermain connection from
Hunter Drive to Brockton Lane. The land use plan shows rural residential south and west of
the Enclave development. We would recommend that 12 -inch watermain be installed along
the south development roads for a future Brockton Lane connection via Navajo Road East (to
the stub near SAN MH 14). The existing south 12 -inch watermain stub to Hunter Drive may
be eliminated; however we recommend keeping the 10 foot wide easement in place for
potential future system expansion.
• All utilities and manholes should be located within the proposed right-of-way. The right-of-
way should be widened to 60' to better accommodate the road, sidewalk, and utilities.
• All sanitary sewer manholes should be located outside of the roadway and sidewalk or trail.
• Normal and high water levels should be shown on all wetlands.
• A sewer stub should be provided from MH 14 to the future right-of-way to the SE.
• EOFs should be labeled for all ponds and wetlands.
• Although this comment is provided in previous letters, we want to stress the importance of
not extending lot lines into wetlands and wetland buffers.
• Storm sewer calculations and a drainage area map should be submitted for review.
• See Johns Smyth's wetland review comments attached memo dated 9-29-10.
City of Medina Page 2
The Enclave of Medina 9/30/2010
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894 or by email at
darren.amundsen@bonestroo.com.
Sincerely,
BONESTROO
Darren Amundsen
Cc: Tom Kellogg
John Smyth
Dan Edgerton
Memorandum
To: Darren Amundsen, Tom Project: The Enclave
Kellogg Development
Date: September 29,
2010
From: John Smyth Client: City of Medina
Re: Wetland Review File No: 190-10000 Enclave
The following are items that should be addressed in future submittals.
Wetland Hydrology (Drainage Areas)
I have concerns that the drainage areas to the wetlands (wetland 4A, 11, 12)
are being significantly reduced as a result of storm sewer routing flows around
the wetlands. This could result in a reduction of hydrology and loss of these
wetlands. As mentioned in the June 8th memo pre -development and post -
development drainage areas should be provided for all wetlands that exist on -
site to insure that hydrology is being maintained to the wetlands. Storm
sewer will be required to be modified to maintain drainage area to wetlands.
Wetland Outlets
The following are internal wetlands and there existing outlets and comments
on the proposed outlets. Outlet elevations below are based on two foot
contours and spot elevation may be more accurate.
Wetland 4B: Natural Overflow approx. 1006 artificially lowered with tile — If
possible restore natural outlet elevation. If not possible explain why.
Wetland 4: Natural Overflow approx. 1009.5 lowered by a ditch. If possible
restore natural outlet elevation. If not possible explain why.
Wetland 11 & 13: Natural Overflow approx. 1008. Maintain natural overflow
elevation and designate overflow point and permanently stabilize. Show how
flows will be routed downstream of trail (trail overflow elev., culvert, etc.)
Wetland 12: Natural Overflow approx. 1007. Maintain natural overflow
elevation and designate overflow point and permanently stabilize.
Wetland 10: Natural Overflow approx. 1008. Maintain natural overflow.
Show how flows will be routed downstream of trail (trail overflow elev.,
culvert, etc.)
City Code for Wetland Protection
The City Code for Wetland Protection will need to be followed and the
required submittals provided. The below sections of the code should be
reviewed.
• Application materials per subp. 4.
• Buffers and setbacks per subp. 5.
• Upland Buffer Zone Markers per subp. 7
F:\Bonestroo Templates \St PauFMemorandum.dot [CRW 9-2008]
Bonestroo
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
" V e g e t a t i o n P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s f o r U p l a n d B u f f e r Z o n e s p e r s u b p . 8
" M a i n t e n a n c e p e r s u b p . 9
" M i t i g a t i o n p e r s u b p . 1 0
P a p 2 o f t
Member Weir introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-56
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE ENCLAVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the city of Medina (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410 contains the requirements for the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board ("EQB") Environmental Review Program; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), for a
proposed residential subdivision located on 109 acres in Medina consisting of 140 single-family
homes, 42 attached townhomes and an association owned Community Park with a pool and pool
house, commonly referred to the Enclave (the "Project"), in accordance with the Environmental
Review Program of the EQB; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2010, the City, as the Responsible Governmental Unit ("RGU")
for preparation of the Enclave EAW approved the EAW for distribution to the EQB distribution
list and interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the EAW was published in the June 28, 2010 edition of the EQB Monitor,
which started the required 30 -day public comment period that commenced on June 28, 2010 and
ended on July 28, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the RGU received five comments letters that are incorporated as Exhibit A,
attached hereto, and the City has determined that the comments received do not support the need
for an EIS on the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, responses were prepared for comment letters received and these responses
are provided in Exhibit B, attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Section 4410.1700, the RGU shall base its
decision regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") on the information
gathered during the EAW process, the comments received on the EAW, and the criteria
established by the EQB to determined whether a project has the potential for significant
environmental effects as provided in the Findings of Fact; and
WHEREAS, after considering the EAW, the comments on the EAW, and the responses
Resolution No. 2010-56
August 17, 2010
to comments, the City Council has determined that the Enclave does not have potential for
significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed in the Project design and permit
development processes and that preparation of an EIS for the project is not required, based on the
following Findings of Fact:
(1) Findings related to: the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects:
The EAW and Response to Comments summarizes the type and extent of impacts to the
natural environment. The proposed Project includes measures to mitigate impacts to the
environment as described in the EAW and response comments. Design features such as
erosion control measures, storm water management systems, sanitary sewer systems, and
water systems are planned to minimize impacts on water quality. Improvements will also be
made to water and sewer utility services to support new development. The development will
be using low water, low maintenance specialized turf throughout the development. This turf
grass will be installed by the developer and be required of all homes and maintained common
spaces. Ideally, the irrigation system as described in the EAW is not needed by the
development, but is currently being considered as a backup plan. Installation of the irrigation
system will be driven by need at a later date and is not planned at this time.
With the irrigation restrictions in place for this development project, a reduction in water
usage rates per person is expected. The irrigation well design and installations will be
closely coordinated with the City of Medina to ensure an adequate municipal water supply.
Aquifer performance tests on future irrigation and city municipal wells will be required as
part of the design and installation processes. Seasonal variation and long-term regional
aquifer decline will be considered in the design and performance of the new welts. Full and
proper well development will be achieved during well installation to reduce drawdown and
increase well performance. The City of Medina will have the authority to restrict or prohibit
the use of the irrigation wells should they threaten the municipal water supply.
Any potential effects that are reasonably likely to occur from this Project would not be
irreversible. The expected effects as a result of the ongoing operation of the residential
development are minimal. There is no reason to believe that the ongoing operations of the
Project will cause a significant negative environmental effect. The potential impacts of
ongoing operations that are reasonably expected to occur have been considered during the
environmental review process and design features to mitigate these impacts have been
developed.
(2) Findings related to: the Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future
projects:
Cumulative impacts of this project include the reconstruction of Hunter Drive within the
same general alignment and width. Improvements will also be made to water and sewer
utility services to support new development. A relatively small area will be added to the
MUSA boundary, however, the City recently completed a Comprehensive Plan that
addresses the cumulative impacts of development on a city wide basis. The addition of
MUSA land was reviewed and determined not to cause impacts beyond what was planned in
Resolution No. 2010-56 2
August 17, 2010
the Comprehensive plan. An equal amount of the extended MUSA area (6.5 acres) is being
reguided to Public thus there is no additional net acreage of development that will occur
beyond what was planned for in the Comprehensive Plan and utility planning. There are no
other future known projects that may interact with this proposed project to cause cumulative
impacts. As the adjoining undeveloped parcels develop there will be connections to the trunk
utilities and the proposed public streets. This development will install the utilities and
provide connection points for the existing neighborhoods and the undeveloped parcels.
In summary, taking into account past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, this
project may have a potential positive cumulative impact on the environment for the limited
reasons stated above. It is noted that agency comments did not disclose any cumulative
effects of any related, past, present or future projects. It is not anticipated that the project has
the potential for adverse cumulative impacts.
(3) Findings related to: the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to
mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority:
The proposed The EAW and Response to Comments identified areas where potential Project
environmental effects exist and appropriate mitigation measures have been or will be
incorporated into Project design and required permits. The City is the government agency
with primary regulatory authority over the Project, although other government approvals and
permits identified in the EAW must also be obtained. The City will condition approval of the
Preliminary Plat, and Rezoning, on the mitigation measures identified through the EAW
process and response to comments, establishing an escrow account for the compliance with
all applicable City ordinances, and compliance, MnDNR, Met Council, MPCA and all other
applicable permit and regulatory requirements to minimize environmental effects. The
Project Development Agreement will incorporate these conditions as well.
(4) Findings related to: the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and
controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public
agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs:
The following documents were reviewed as part of the environmental review for the
proposed The Enclave project. This list is not exhaustive.
• City of Medina Comprehensive/Critical Area Plan and Zoning Ordinance
■ City of Medina Stormwater Management Plan
• Metropolitan Council 2030 Regional Development Framework
• Enclave PUD, Preliminary Plan, and Rezoning Application
■ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources correspondence
• Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office correspondence
■ Phase 1 and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
■ Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review
Based on the review of other studies and this EAW, along with comments from the reviewing
agencies and members of the public, the City of Medina finds that there are no elements of
Resolution No. 2010-56 3
August 17, 2010
the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be
addressed in the Project design and permit development processes, or by local plans. Based
on the environmental review, the City of Medina finds that the environmental effects of the
proposed Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA, that the environmental review requirements of Minnesota
Statutes and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program have
been met by the Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared for this Project. The potential
for environmental effects is not considered significant, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement is not needed.
Dated: August 17, 2010.
T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Johnson
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Crosby, Weir, Johnson, Siitari, Smith
And the following voted against same:
None
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution No. 2010-56 4
August 17, 2010
Ta-1 c,or-s /NJ 12- '-'2.- APe-A- Ti>
175.Nlbt�sZ"f-A"TC G,JNtPU wIM'
C -47(v6- pub AN1> -z4.NIN-6.
Fr--0)(1sloNs
I Ft
Pavrtr-wn t4to en r.
mes7 34c44 Tv tievt cfze5 1=PN/E
wry "i‘et. c
"
L E N N A R
4 1 1
S A T H R E - U E R G Q U I S T T I N C ;
C N S E R V A T I O N A R I A :
R e a m e d 1 4 3 A s
M e g l o i c 1 4 3 o r
I p * r ( L . . * d S w a p 3 1 ` a
A d 4 I I U p i r M b e s i d e M E S A 1 , 7 6 a ^ .
4 J M o a O a t * Y d e M I S A
G e o . * A m 1 0 4 0 s e
M U S A I A S I ) S I S A P *
c p i m d
M 1 e t l Y d
M e 1 1 . m d L O W
G r o s s A n a
1 J ? i s
O A Y K
0 3 1 . 1
3 . 0 a c
1 1 A t . R * * T H I N - M I A
� . . '