HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-13-2010MEDINA
1. Call to Order
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2010
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of June 8, 2010 Planning Commission minutes
6. Public Hearing — Lennar "The Enclave of Medina" at 3212 Hunter
Drive (PIDs 12-118-23-43-0002 & 13-118-23-12-0001) —
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and
Variance to reduce the width of the right-of-way within the
development. 134 single family homes and 41 townhomes are
proposed on approximately 109 gross acres (68.59 total net acres).
7. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8, Section
826.25.1-826.25.5 of Medina City Code related to the Rural
Residential - Urban Reserve (RR-UR) zoning district.
8. Discussion of additional Planning Commission meetings.
9. City Council Meeting Schedule
10.Adjoum
4.
v
Agenda Item: 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: July 9, 2010
MEETING: July 13, 2010 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Discussion of Additional Planning Commission Meeting
Background
Staff believes that the City is nearly complete making changes to the Zoning Ordinance that were
necessary to make the zoning regulations consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Update.
The final action the City needs to take is to rezone a large number of properties into the newly
amended zoning districts that have been worked on over the past few years. Staff desires to
make this process convenient for all interested property owners to be involved. As a result, staff
did not want to place these rezonings on the July Planning Commission meeting agenda
following the Lennar project, which is a large project which will likely take a lot of time to
review.
Depending on the action the Planning Commission takes on the Lennar project, staff may
recommend that the Commission call a Special Meeting to discuss the rezonings. If the
Commission tables the Lennar project and it appears likely to be reviewed at the regular August
meeting, staff would again not recommend putting the rezonings on the same agenda.
Potential Dates for Special Meeting
The following dates appear to not conflict with other City meetings, and staff could be available.
Staff requests that Commissioners check your calendars to be able to select a date if the
Commission believes it is necessary.
• Wednesday, August 11 — 6:00 p.m. Special Meeting (and shift regular Commission
meeting back to 8:00 p.m.)
■ Monday, August 16
■ Tuesday, August 24
■ Wednesday, August 25
■ Tuesday, August 31
• Wednesday, September 1
Additional Commission Meeting
Scheduling Planning Commission Meeting
Page 1 of 1 July 13, 2010
Medina Planning Commission Draft June 8, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
2 Draft Meeting Minutes
3 Tuesday, June 8, 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, Kathleen
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Martin, Kent Williams, and Beth Nielsen.
Absent;,pone )
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke
16 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
17
18 No public comments.
19
20
21 3. Update from City Council proceedings
22
23 R. Reid presented City Council update.
24
25
26 4. Planning Department Report
27
28 Finke explained the upcoming rezoning of properties and the Lennar project in July.
29
30
31 5. Approval of Mav 11, 2010 Concurrent Planning Commission and Park Commission
32 meeting minutes
33
34 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Anderson to approve the May 11, 2010 minutes with
35 recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None)
36
37
38 6. Approval of May 11, 2010 Planning Commission minutes
39
40 Motion by Anderson, seconded by R. Reid to approve the May 11, 2010 minutes with
41 recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None)
42
43
44 7. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of the City Code of Ordinance —
45 Pertaining to the timing of growth and development to be served by city utilities
46
1
Medina Planning Commission Draft June 8, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 Finke reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment. He explained it requires a property
2 owner to apply for a PUD to request flexibility of the standards. Finke said to request
3 flexibility from standards is typical of a PUD. He said the ordinance has criteria with three
4 stages to qualify. Properties would have to meet certain benchmarks in order to move
5 forward and it could be very subjective. He said there is a lot of discretion by the Planning
6 Commission and City Council when reviewing the criteria.
7
8 Finke said the ordinance is a public hearing and he received one call. The caller suggested
9 the City look at tax base rather than jobs and employment, or possibly all of them when
10 looking at properties to qualify. The caller also stressed the importance of allowing property
11 owners to go before the Planning Commission and City Council to be informed of what they
12 think the cost would be to go through the process to get a yes/no answer.
13
14 R. Reid asked for clarification of the tax base point made. Nolan said if a property is
15 increasing its value by developing, it is creating additional tax dollars for the City. Williams
16 said the process allows the increased tax base to come sooner. Martin said tax value increase
17 wouldn't really take effect for two years. Nolan said he thinks the City assumes the sites will
18 be developed at some point. He doesn't think it is an objective of the City's to build as fast
19 as possible to increase tax base. Williams provided an example of a Target coming into the
20 City, rather than it being a vacant lot.
21
22 Public Hearing opened at 7:24 p.m.
23
24 No public comment.
25
26 Public Hearing closed at 7:25 p.m.
27
28 Williams said he liked the d5 comment on page two of the ordinance. It suggested, instead
29 of assigning points, to require all crucial factors be achieved and a majority of the relevant
30 primary factors be achieved. He expressed his concern with using the point value system
31 since it allows for too much debate with an applicant.
32
33 Finke said requiring applicants to meet certain crucial factors was how the ordinance was
34 written originally, rather than the point system. He suggested strengthening the language and
35 setting some sort of benchmark.
36
37 R. Reid said since the decision will be subjective, she likes the point system. Williams said
38 his preference is not the point system. Nolan explained with the point system if a project
39 couldn't quite make the amount of points needed to jump ahead, the developer/land owner
40 could donate land or money to the City's park system to meet a different objective and then
41 qualify if the City wanted the project to move forward. Martin said she is opposed to the
42 point system for all the points Williams had noted. She said Maple Grove has a third
43 category called "bonus points."
44
2
Medina Planning Commission
V�Y
raft June 8, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1
2
3
4
Martin said the point system is worth a try, but should incorporate the "bonus points" system.
R. Reid said it could be incorporated, but maybe not given the same amount of points/value.
Nielsen said, since the point system is subjective, couldn't the City give more points.
5 Williams and Martin raised concern that litigators can get real creative. Williams said the
6 more specific the point system regulations are, the more ammunition they could have to
7 argue. He likes the point system and feels the more general the regulations are kept, the
8 better it is for the City. Nolan said the point system helps channel a project. Williams said
9 his understanding of the point system is "of how much the concept fulfills the point system."
10
11 Nolan asked what kind of bonus could be gained by the bonus point system. The
12 Commission discussed the number of points and then Anderson suggested not providing a set
13 number of points for a bonus. The Commission concluded an applicant could receive "up to"
14 five bonus points.
15
16 The Commission discussed how to prioritize architectural quality as a result of text within the
17 Comprehensive Plan.
18
19 Finke said he added factors from the Comprehensive Plan such as affordability and jobs.
20
21 Motion by Williams, Seconded by R. Reid to amend the ordinance by giving high quality
22 architecture and design ten points, and making it a primary factor. Motion failed 1-6.
23 (Against: Nolan, V. Reid, R. Reid, Anderson, Martin and Nielsen).
24
25 Motion by Martin, Seconded by Anderson to move up sustainability as a primary factor,
26 due to the stated objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Motion failed 2-5 (Against: Nolan,
27 V. Reid, R. Reid, Williams and Nielsen).
28
29 Motion Anderson, Seconded by Martin to adopt the ordinance as written, except add
30 language allowing up to five bonus points, revising language under Subd.4.(a) as
31 recommended, and revising language under Subd.4.(b).(4) utilize "may" rather than "would"
32 within each sentence. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None)
33
34 R. Reid stated every decision/motion of the Commission doesn't have to be unanimous.
35
36
37 8. City Council Meeting Schedule: Discussion of representation at Council meeting.
38
39
40 9. Adiourn: Motion by Anderson, seconded by Williams to adjourn at 8:43 p.m. Motion
41 carried unanimously. (Absent: none)
42
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: July 7, 2010
MEETING: July 13, 2010 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment — Rural Residential -Urban Reserve (RR-UR) zoning
district text — Public Hearing
Summary
The Rural Residential -Urban Reserve (RR-UR) district is an existing zoning district in the City
Code. A number of properties are currently zoned RR-UR, consistent with the City's "old"
2000 Comprehensive Plan update. The purpose of the RR-UR district is to regulate property
which has been identified for future sewered residential development according to the Comp
Plan.
With the recent update to the Comprehensive Plan, the City further specified the Phasing Plan
into 5 -year increments. Additionally, the Mixed Use land use was identified. The purpose of the
attached ordinance amendment is to address these two changes.
The attached ordinance does not amend the lot or development standards of the RR-UR district.
These were amended back in 2007 when the City began updating the zoning districts. If
Commissioners wish to review the remaining RR-UR regulations, please review pages 11-15 of
Section 826 of the City Code.
The intention of the proposed ordinance amendment is as follows:
1) To expand the purpose and applicability of the RR-UR district to apply to future Mixed
Use properties is addition to future sewered residential.
2) To expand the purpose and applicability of the RR-UR district to clarify that the district
will be applied to properties which have been identified for future sewered development,
but are not currently served by urban services, regardless of which Staging timeframe the
property is within (the existing wording suggests it will only apply to property which will
develop post -2030).
Attachments
1. DRAFT ordinance
2. Map 5-2 — Future Land Use (identifying parcels guided for future residential and mixed use development)
3. Map 5-3 — Staging and Growth (identifying the timing of future development)
Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 1 July 13, 2010
Rural Residential -Urban Reserve (RR-UR) Planning Commission Meeting
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. NW
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REGULATIONS OF THE
RURAL RESIDENTIAL -URBAN RESERVE (RR-UR) ZONING DISTRICT
AMENDING SECTION 826.25.1.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 835 of the Medina code of ordinances is amended to add the
underlined language and delete the t-nfek-thtett-blt language as follows:
RURAL RESIDENTIAL URBAN RESERVE
ZONING DISTRICT (RR-UR)
Section 826.25.1. Rural Residential -Urban Reserve (RR UR) Purpose. The purpose of this
district is to provide a zoning district which is consistent with the area guided for future
residential or mixed -use development u eser'. a in the city's comprehensive plan. The wba+
reset' e district includes areas which are not currently served by e
of -;`he municipal urban services but are planned to be at some time in the future. fifea
Development within the RR-UR district shall be limited as which will not be developed at even
rural residential densitiq, until at least 2030. except under specified in this
section of the ordinance in order to accommodate efficient future development.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the city council of the city of Medina this day of , 2010.
T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk
Published in the South Crow River News this day of , 2010.
Ordinance No. ### 1 DRAFT
DATE To Be Presented 07-13-2010PC
Comment [di]: Text will mad after
amendment:
'The purpose of this district is to provide
a zoning district which is consistent with
the area guided for future residential or
mixed -use development in the city's
comprehensive plan. The district
includes areas which are not currently
served by municipal urban services but
are planned to be at some time in the
future. Development within the RR-UR
district shall be limited as specified in
this section of the ordinance in order to
accommodate efficient future
development."
Map 5-2 MEDINA
Future Land Use Plan
Guide Plan
Rural Residential
- Agriculture
Developing -Post 2030
Low Density Res 2 .0 - 3 .49 U/A
Medium D ensity Res 3 .5 - 6 .99 U/A
® High Density Res 7 - 30 U/A
1111 Mixed Us e 3 .5 - 6 .99 U/A
- Mixed Us e - Business 7 - 45 U/A
- Comm ercial
General Business
Industrial Business
Private R ecreation (PREC)
- Parks and Recreation
- P -R - State or Region al
Open Space
11111 Public Semi -Public 0 U/A
Cl osed Sanitary Landfill
Right -of -Way
*This map is not perfectly precise .
Actual bound aries may vary, and
should be field verified .
Adopted: November 17, 2009
Parcel data current as of October 2006
UTM, Zone 15N, NAD 83
Scal e: 1:30,000
Map 5-3
L 00
MEDINA
Staging and Growth
Urba n Servi ce s Phasi ng Pla n
Developed 2008
2001-2010
2011-2015
2016-2020
2021-2025
2026-2030
D eveloping Post -2030
No Urban Services Planned
Met C ouncil LTSSA
There are se ve ral critical infrastr ucture
mileston es that will control growth including:
- The existing water infrastructure has
capacity of approximately 160 units
available until 2009 .
- The sewer constraints shall limit
development to 2,000 units without
improvements.
Generally, the Phasing Plan demonstrates
that development shall pr oceed in a east to
west pattem. This phasi ng plan allows
fle xibility between adjacent phases to allow
for proper infrastr ucture planning and
development.
The Grey area reflects the area identified by
the City to be developed Post 2030.
The Met C ouncil has identified the LTSSA
for potential future access to urba n services.
No services ar e plann ed duri ng the timeframe
covered by this Plan.
Adopted: Novemb er 17, 2009
Parcel current as of October 2006
UTM, Zone 15N, NAD 83
Sc ale: 1:30,000
Agenda Item: 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Adams
DATE: June 30, 2010
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates for July 6, 2010 City Council Meeting
Ordinance Updates
A) Private Recreation Zoning District — staff believes that this ordinance is not essential for
the City's zoning ordinances to be consistent with the new Comp Plan. As a result, staff is
recommending that this ordinance be placed lower in the priority list.
B) Open Space Development/Conservation Design Regulations — Barr Engineering is
updating the ordinance as directed by the City Council and plans to present the ordinance
again at the July 6 City Council meeting.
C) Staging Point System — the City Council and Planning Commission discussed the "point
system" related to the Staging Plan at their March 16 and March 9 meetings. The Planning
Commission held a Public Hearing on June 8 and recommended approval with a number of
changes. Staff will present the ordinance to the City Council on July 6.
D) Re -zonings — as a result of the new zoning ordinances created by the City and because of
changes to the future use of a number of properties in the Comprehensive Plan, the City
needs to rezone a number of properties. Depending on current projects being reviewed by
the Planning Commission, staff is recommending that either Public Hearings for these
rezonings be held at the August Planning Commission meeting, or potentially a special
Planning Commission meeting to be scheduled.
Land Use Application Reviews
A) Bradley Leawood 3.d Addn Plat — 3415 Leawood Drive — the applicant has applied to split
the existing lot into two parcels. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on May
11 and recommended approval. The City Council reviewed on June 15 and directed staff to
prepare a resolution of approval. This resolution will be on the July 6 consent agenda.
B) Enclave of Medina Subdivision — 3212 Hunter Drive — Lennar has submitted for
preliminary plat and Comp Plan Amendment for the Holasek property. The plat currently
identifies 135 single family homes and 41 townhomes. The applicant has requested to shift
the MUSA to the south to include an additional 6.5 net acres and is excluding 6.5 net acres
of the wooded area from development. The applicant has also requested review of an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project. Staff is reviewing the application
and has scheduled a Public Hearing for the July 13 Planning Commission meeting.
C) 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.
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 July 6, 2010
City Council Meeting
The improvements have not been removed as ordered by the City Council. Staff has sent a
notice to the property owners and builder to comply by July 14, 2010.
D) Holy Name Cemetery — The City Council approved resolutions for the lot combination,
CUP/Site Plan, Interim Use Permit and easement vacation. Staff is working with the
applicant to get all necessary documents recorded correctly.
E) 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 September 11,
2010 for the applicant to final the plat.
Additional Projects
A) Zoning Enforcement (Hamel Station tree removal) — the consultant hired by Elm Creek
Watershed has completed the plan and has recommended twenty overstory trees to be
planted along the Creek in this location. The plan includes a great deal of shrubs and
ground cover plugs in order to supplement the vegetation. Staff plans to present an
agreement for City Council approval regarding implementation of the plan, and also how the
remaining required tree replacement will be addressed.
B) Zoning Enforcement (Manure Management) — staff has conducted inspections of manure
management consistent with procedures set forth in the City's Manure Management Policy
(80.10). Generally, manure practices to protect water quality are being implemented fairly
well. Please see the attached memo from Planning Assistant Deb Peterson -Dufresne.
C) Zoning Enforcement (General) — staff continues to follow-up with various zoning
enforcement actions, including any unlicensed vehicles and tall grasses/weeds. Compliance
was achieved on over 15 lots with regards to tall grasses/weeds over the past few weeks.
D) Minnehaha Creek Watershed Rules Update — staff has been reviewing Minnehaha Creek's
proposed rules update for wetland buffers and shoreline projects. The District will hold a
Public Hearing on the rules on July 8. Staff intends to provide comments on the proposed
rules. The primary change proposed increase the required width for wetland buffer for
Preserve and Manage 1 wetlands. The proposed buffers for these wetlands significantly
exceed those in the City's wetland protection ordinance. One of the City's objectives in the
wetland protection ordinance was to establish consistent regulations for property owners in
all of the watersheds. The proposed Minnehaha rules would result in stricter requirements
for property owners in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 July 6, 2010
City Council Meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dusty Finke, City Planner
FROM: Debra Peterson -Dufresne, Planning Asst.
DATE: June 30, 2010
MEETING: July 6, 2010 City Council Meeting
SUBJ: Commercial Horse Facilities — Manure Management/CUP
Inspections
The following horse facilities were inspected:
Turnquists Property 2000 Chestnut Road — Animal -Assisted Therapy
Facility
The Interim Use Permit expired November 20, 2009 and facility was relocated out
of Medina.
Alpine Farms, Inc. (a 2182 Homestead Trail
An inspection was completed on April 9, 2010 to review all CUP conditions and
the property was found to be in compliance. Manure storage was in corn rows and
being rotated at the time of inspection.
Skvrock ar, 2825 Willow Drive
An inspection was completed on April 9, 2010 to review all CUP conditions and
the property was found to be in compliance. The site has a very large concrete
bunker for manure storage which was being utilized.
J -B Farms (a, 4650 Maple Street
An inspection was completed on April 9, 2010 to review all CUP conditions and
the property was found to be in compliance. The site has a large concrete bunker
for manure storage which was being utilized.
G. V. Kirt and P.J. Rvskamp 4550 Pioneer Trail
An inspection was completed on April 29, 2010 to review all conditions and the
property was found to be in compliance. The farm continues to bag manure.
1
Hasselquist (i 2705 Willow Drive
An inspection was completed on April 29, 2010 to review all CUP conditions and
was found to be in compliance. The site has a concrete bunker for manure storage
which was being utilized.
Greenwood Stables/Hogan (&, 1982 Hamel Road
An inspection was completed on April 29, 2010 to review all CUP conditions and
was found to be in compliance. The site has two concrete bunkers for manure
storage which was being utilized.
Schleeter (i 1585 Medina Road
An inspection was completed on May 21, 2010 to review CUP conditions and
manure management and found the property to be compliance. Manure was not
present at time of inspection. Property owner stated that manure is spread on field
during the spring, summer and fall and during the winter months manure is hauled
to Gregor Farm Greenhouse.
Fortuna Farm (a 1425 Tamarack Drive — Commercial Horse Facility
An inspection was completed on May 21, 2010 to review manure management and
found manure being stored along the approved slope area, but also at the bottom of
the slope which is not preferable. In 2009 Betsy Wieland, Agriculture Extension
Educator for Hennepin County recommended all manure storage be placed on the
slope rather than such concentration at the bottom.
A letter was sent to the farm manager May 26th requesting the relocation of the
manure from the bottom of slope to the top of the slope or be removed from the
property within 14 days. Overall, the manure appeared to be rotated and was
composting well.
On June 15, 2010 a re -inspection was completed and all manure was removed from
the property. The property is in compliance.
Leatherdale Farm a, 2075 Cottonwood Trail
An inspection was completed June 17, 2010. The property has two manure
bunkers, both of which were being utilized. The manure is being picked up weekly
which helps with the reduction of flies. The manure is being picked up by Neaton
Bio-Waste Management out of New Germany, Mn. The company then composts
the manure at their business location.
2
G , T Y
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA A,,
Name of Speaker: k A/ G.,Na�L
b n (please pr.t) 1 /i4 _e_. c
Address: S it:,
Telephone (optional): 7 6 3 (` 7 ,=----L 5--0
Representing: c -f -1J -eD `AA5" 9,5( 43/ al
Agenda Item (list number and letter): '..t.._3 G 1WJP p yr M -Q-14‘'` 4
Comments: RS t .-71 v L' / & s ,, 7F i' D0,,
roach the podium to spec
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 m
Comment Card
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: ,r14(:(/ A c_,_ j/f" r„, c
Public Forum
Agenda Item
(pl a e print)
Address: ‘C `) .-
Telephone (optional):
Representing:
Agenda Item (list number and letter):
Comments: t)(01 rfr,/ I 14)4, J,
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
T Y o c
Comment Card
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: p p R t V) \ S i go 1-1
Public Forum
Agenda Item
g
t
2<'
(please print)
Address: `46 S \ ln1 C Sk 'D -,-,: wk
Telephone (optional):
Representing: ‘N7, CLeK-C- .
Agenda Item (list number and letter): 1— c
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 V
Comment Card (
\y. ,
MEDINA N / WName of Speaker: �, ` o /F-
Public Forum
Agenda Item
lease print)
Address: 3 U ! /p Ci - b4 -
Telephone (optional):
Representing: S 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/� T V
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: Q 4_ ��
(please print)
Address: EC)c —E- .�c N (" '--i 0 --
Telephone (optional):
�`
Representing: CJ ��`
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 V O F
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: C 1, O .11 _._ --"- c v
(please print)
Address: 2� , ) v c>--k-o-, ‘ ,"---
Telephone (optional):
Representing: ..).c\
Agenda Item (list number and letter): ((, )_-� , ,-,
Comments: 'u3 r, - >S 't - ••c'-zs, -�
s , � i-,\ \ rn
--);
i-,� h - lJ ' <-� 1 c , . . ‘-`k 9-L (0 1"71C: ' Z f 5 -e 1 IN t r" S?
1 C -
Approach the podium to speak
1. '-'")11-ii (1z 0 c:;, --\ tx\-) z c. --l- c A `1v 4)2
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
PLANT HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Katharine D. Widin, Ph.D.
Plant Pathologist, Forestry Consultant
13457 6th St. N.
Stillwater, MN 55082
651-436-8811
To: Terry Pernsteiner
Pernsteiner & Associates
11022 Tanglewood Lane North
Maple Grove, MN 55316
Carole Toohey
Land Dev. Mgr., Lennar
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
4/7/10
Re:Tree Inventory - Holasek Property - 3212 Hunter Dr., Hamel
In the summer of 2007, I completed an inventory of the trees on a parcel in the
Medina area owned by the Holasek family. The inventory consisted of determining
identity, size (trunk diameter in inches) and condition of approximately 1585 trees on this
property. The majority of the woodland could be considered a maple -basswood type with
the tree species on the site consisting of: ash, boxelder, elm, sugar maple, silver maple,
oak (bur, red and pin), walnut, butternut, basswood, aspen, cottonwood, hickory, black
cherry, ironwood and, in some wetter sites, willow. In the farmstead area there are also:
white, Norway and Colorado spruce, white cedar, red cedar, red pine, and mulberry. For
the most part, the trees on the site were in fair condition in 2007. The woodland was
somewhat degraded with European buckthorn and some other invasive plants in the
understory. In some areas there was good regeneration of overstory trees, particularly
sugar maple. Many of the largest trees on the site (silver maple, sugar maple, basswood
and red or pin oak), however, were in very poor condition, with extensive internal decay,
defects, and storm damage (broken branches and tops). In most areas, I would conclude
that this is a woodland of only moderate quality in terms of native overstory trees, native
shrub understory, and ground layer plants. There are large areas of the site populated by
elms, many of which are dying of Dutch elm disease. There was little evidence of oak
wilt disease on the site and no currently active infection centers were noted in
2007. Approximately 290 (18 %) of the trees on the site are ash, which will be
susceptible to the emerald ash borer, an invasive insect which kills ash trees and was
found in St. Paul in 2009. At this point, I do not think the condition ratings of the trees
will need to be updated. There will probably be a few more dead trees due to poor
condition and Dutch elm disease, but most of these would be trees which were in poor
condition in 2007 or in the same vicinity as trees identified as having Dutch elm disease
at that time. Please contact me if you have any other questions regarding the condition of
trees on this parcel or the relative quality of the woodland.
ATTACHMENT 10 - Public Comment Received
N O LAN
C O M P A N '1
July 8, 2010
RE: The Enclave Project
Dear Members of the Medina City Council and Planning Commission,
I am writing this letter on behalf of my family regarding the proposed Lennar project, known as The
Enclave, and the potential impact of a proposed future northern "through -road" on the 5 -acre parcel to the
north, which is owned by my family.
One potential option (which my family opposes for the reasons to be discussed) for the Lennar project is
for a cul de sac to be stubbed to the north for future connection to my parcel. When our parcel is
developed, that future public road would extend from the Lennar cul de sac through our parcel to Hunter
Drive. The primary purpose of this future road is to provide traffic flow for the approximately 180 -unit
development to Hunter Drive.
The following summarizes our position regarding the impact of this option on our property. I sincerely
appreciate the fact that I know that you will consider these arguments carefully and hopefully you will
support them in your decision.
We strongly oppose any plan for a future "through -road" from the Enclave project to Hunter Drive
through our property. Our parcel is very small; only about 2.5 buildable acres, as nearly half of the site
consists of wetlands. It is guided for mid -density residential, which can be challenging on such a small
parcel of buildable land. Despite this, we have laid out a basic concept plan that shows how the parcel
can accommodate up to 9 single-family lots, which is sufficient to meet the projected mid -density zoning
requirement. Requiring a through -road would place a significant burden on the parcel making density
conformance significantly more challenging, if not impossible.
We also believe that this road extension option places a large and inequitable burden on our property for
which there is no benefit to us or Lennar and very little benefit, if any, to the City. It is clear that once we
develop our parcel, this access point will become the PRIMARY entrance to the Enclave project, as
traffic will naturally flow north to access Highway 55.
We do not believe it is fair to ask us, as a family which owns the property, to bear the heavy burden of
another (substantially larger) project's traffic flow. I understand the City's overall desire to eliminate cul
de sacs. We believe in this instance, the small benefit to the City is dramatically outweighed by the
significant impact you are asking us (and the neighbors who live directly across the street from such an
access) to bear.
In addition to the substantial impact of the traffic, the City would be tying the future opportunity of our
property to the success or failure of the Lennar project; a significant potential impact over which we have
no influence or control. My family's property sitting at the primary entrance and exit to the Lennar project
obviously makes it impossible to differentiate our project from theirs. In essence you are inadvertently
allowing them to control our property without compensation. Clearly no other buyer would have interest.
Therefore, we ask you to support the alternative that we believe is a good, yet fair, solution for all parties.
In this proposed option, Lennar would build, as part of their Phase 1, a public road accessing Hunter
Drive directly adjacent to our property. This public road will serve as their northernmost access point and
will also allow access to/from our property at some point in the future.
315 Manitoba Avenue, Suite 300 • Wayzata, MN 55391 • (952) 767 7500
NOLAN
C O M P A N Y
There are several reasons why this proposed solution is a better alternative:
a. Indefinite cul de sac. If the through -road is required on the Nolan property- an indefinite cul de
sac will be created from the Lennar project in their Phase 1 (as the Nolan property has no
timeline for being developed). So the very scenario you would be attempting to avoid will
actually be created on a larger scale.
b. Eliminates 1 access point from Hunter: With the through -road option there are 3 proposed
access points onto Hunter Drive (2 from the Enclave project, 1 proposed through the Nolan
parcel). A realigned road without access through the Nolan property, will eliminate 1
unnecessary access point onto Hunter.
c. Limit impact on existing residents: The optional access point through the Nolan parcel will
have a significant direct and negative impact on 3 existing single-family homes across Hunter
Drive from the proposed through -road. The alternative locates the access point across from an
existing wetland eliminating any potential negative impacts on current residents.
d. Other cul de sacs: The City has consistently allowed other cul de sacs throughout its history
with far less compelling reasons. In fact the current Lennar plan (although admittedly not
approved) shows an identical cul de sac within the project.
e. Road re -alignment: There is no compelling reason for the exit to be aligned across from Elm
Creek Drive. The majority of the traffic exiting this neighborhood will do so through the north
exit. Additionally, the City recently approved a similar alignment of an intersection with less
compelling reasons.
f. Certainty: By requiring the north exit within the Lennar plan the City has certainty regarding
the local circulation rather than the uncertainty of some unknown project for our property at
some unknown point in the future that would then provide access.
g.
Concept Plan for 5 -acre parcel: By reviewing the Enclave's impact on my family's property
and the through -road option, we have done some preliminary planning for our parcel. This
preferred solution shows a cohesive plan for the area, without tying my family's parcel so
directly to a project that we am not party to. This way my family can proceed in the future
without relying on the success or timing of a project that we cannot control.
Thank you for considering my family's concerns and we hope that you support the no future through -road
alternative for the reasons stated above.
Sine
s D. o an, r.
On Behalf of Nolan Brothers, In
Nolan Company
315 Manitoba Avenue, Suite 300
Wayzata, MN 55391
Office: 952.767.7500
315 Manitoba Avenue, Suite 300 • Wayzata, MN 55391 • (952) 767 7500
7 --hr
ENCLAVE NOL/N P/PC I- O7 -O -10
1,�`
1
{
t c
_ -
JO
I_
—
1 -
1
---
f --
_
N�
\/ -
A.�..,C
'9�4-.
•� '4
__ _'''1,4
1 - '.
\-
k
,1.
_ \---`----- I
(j
� t/ zip (
Jv �
vn
•
-t a.
,�.
_
_
_��---
fir.—
\ j
— —
I � \
CI
TA
C`�
F
A
_ �
r
' N.
I \ `ik
/ l
', )
Ay.r
P
dr
/
/
%
r
L
I
7—'4.
OIL
I,
L_)
.,., - �
--
P f
t
I
r 1
a I
\ I
REVISIONS
Bv1
L E N N A IZ
vYtvaNE Exn1011
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
0
0=10
IS'1SOUTH BROADWAY WAVZ070 M.Y. 51391 (953)a)66000 LENNAR CORPORATION
935 East Wayzata Boulevard Land Development Manager.
952-24 Carole Toohe
Wayzata, Mlnnesola 55391 y. 33012
W1Projecls\5401-634 THE ENCLAVE -PRELIMINARY 't 1" = 100'
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.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Medina Mayor and City Council
Medina Planning Commission
Laurie Smith / Steve Grittman
RE: Medina — LENNAR/Enclave; Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Rezoning and Preliminary Plat
NAC FILE: 306.02 — 10.03 CITY FILE: L-10-055
BACKGROUND
LENNAR is requesting approval for a preliminary plat to allow for 175 residential units
on a 109 acre site located east of Hunter Drive, north of Medina Road and south of
Hamel Road and Uptown Hamel. The property currently consists of farmland with one
homestead located in the northern half of the site. The subdivision is to be known as
The Enclave and is proposed include 134 single family dwelling units and 41 townhome
units.
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 that on the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. A
decision on the comprehensive plan amendment is a policy decision. An applicant is
not entitled to a change in future land use guiding or MUSA location. 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.
s
Exhibits:
1. Draft Findings of Fact
2. City Engineer's Report(s)
3. City Forester's Report
4. City Attorney's Plat Opinion
5. EAW
6. Project Narrative (booklet)
7. Proposed Land Use and Zoning Information
a. MUSA Amendment Exhibit
b. Future Land Use Plan Exhibit
c. Proposed Rezoning
8. Preliminary Plat and Development Plans
9. Additional Details from Lennar
a. Monument Sign
b. Garage Detail
c. Townhome Turning Radius Exhibit
d. Townhome Landscaping Plan
e. Developer's Tree Health Narrative
10. Public Comment Received
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.
LENNAR revised the preliminary plat to reflect several of the comments made during
the concept plan review including, offering additional future access points to adjacent
properties, including higher density/more diverse housing, and keeping the overall
density of the subdivision on the lower end of the acceptable range.
Comprehensive Plan. 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
2
in a graduated fashion from the north to the south. The northern portion of the site is
guided for medium density residential uses contains 24.02 net acres and would support
a residential development of 84 to 168 units. The middle portion of the site, guided for
low density residential uses, contains 29.16 net acres and could be developed with a
low density residential development containing 58 to 102 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 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 53.18 net acres within the Metropolitan Urban Service
Area (MUSA) and would be allowed to develop within the range of 142 units to 270 units
to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has proposed 41
townhome units, 121 R-2 single family lots and 13 R-1 single family lots.
Issue #1 — Is the proposal of 175 units adequately low to meet the City's previous
direction to "be on the low end" of the allowed density range for this property?
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The applicant is proposing a comprehensive plan
amendment to change the land use designation of approximately 6.4 acres of property
from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential (as shown in the attached "MUSA
Amendment Plan"). The amendment would allow for the area to be developed with 20
new single family residential homes. The resulting net density of the proposed
development within the amendment area will be three units per acre. The applicant is
also requesting to extend the MUSA line approximately 300 feet to the south to
encompass the amendment area. In exchange for extending the MUSA line, the
applicant is proposing to preserve a 7.82 acre wooded area (6.4 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
developable acres available in the MUSA.
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 proposed amendment would result in essentially a density 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 on the existing wetland to the south and the
removal of additional trees to accommodate the homes. However, allowing extension of
3
the MUSA and therefore permanently preserving a large number of trees would likely be
considered a benefit to the City.
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. If the Planning Commission and Council are
amenable to extending the MUSA to the south, but preserving this significant
environmental feature, the applicant should be given the direction to submit a new plan
that is reflective of this recommendation.
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.
Issue #2 — Has the applicant provided adequate evidence that the potential
environmental, traffic, and other impacts of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment are consistent with the City's overall land use goals and objectives?
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
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.
4
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.
The Zoning Ordinance states that the purpose of the R-1 District is to implement the low
density residential land use guiding set forth by the Comprehensive Plan. The R-2
District is designed to implement the objectives of the medium density residential land
use in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning to the R-2 district within the
low density residential area is in conflict with the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements.
The applicant has stated that in order to obtain the required density, R-2 District
standards must be applied. The applicant is proposing 87 single family units at a density
of 2.98 units per acre. To be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, a net density of
at least 2.0 units per acre is required. Based on a preliminary estimate conducted by
staff, it appears as though the portion of the site guided for low -density residential could
be designed with lots meeting the R-1 standards and still be consistent with the net
density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The number of lots would need to be
reduced slightly, but would still appear to easily exceed 2.0 units/net acre requirement.
It is important to point out that the R-2 District also allows two-family homes as a
permitted use. Lot area and lot width requirements are slightly larger for
accommodation of two-family homes, however, it appears as though several of the
proposed R-2 lots would be large enough to accommodate two-family homes. Once the
property is zoned R-2, there is nothing to prohibit a property owner from constructing a
two-family home on their lot if lot area and setback standards can be met.
The Planning Commission and Council should comment on the proposed R-2 District
zoning for the single family lots located in the portion of the site guided for low density
residential uses. If feasible, it may be more appropriate to zone that portion R-1 and
require lots to meet those standards. While it would result in fewer units, R-1 District
lots would allow for more yard space for each lot and more building separation due to
the slightly larger lot area and setback requirements. Rezoning this area to R-1 would
also eliminate the potential for two-family dwellings.
5
( a
Issue #3 — The proposed rezoning to R-2 District within the area guided for low
density residential uses is in conflict with Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Issue #4 — How does the Planning Commission and Council feel about the
potential for two-family homes in this subdivision?
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
Outlot A 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
(Outlot A, as noted above). 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.
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
proposing 41 units within an area containing 7.87 net acres for a net area per unit of
8,361 square feet. The applicant is requesting a density bonus of 0.25 units per acre for
construction of the community building and swimming pool. The community building
and swimming pool are proposed to be located within the single family area, which is
proposed to be within a different zoning classification. However, a trail has been
provided Section 841.1.05, Subd. 4(g) allows for a maximum density bonus of 0.25 units
per acre for inclusion of common open space and shared recreational facilities. The
density bonus allows the applicant to construct two additional dwelling units based on
the maximum bonus allowed. Upon application of the density bonus, the net area per
unit increases to approximately 8,790 square feet which is consistent with Zoning
Ordinance requirements.
Issue #5 — Should the density bonus apply to this design? If not, the applicant
must be required to either relocate the amenity or reduce townhome units to 39.
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.
Issue #6 — Is this building separation too close? It compares to typical face-to-
face dimensions of 110-120 feet in urban single family subdivisions.
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
6
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.
Single Access Cul-de-sac. The applicant is proposing 41 townhome units off of a single
access cul-de-sac. Section 820.29, Subd. 2(g) of the Subdivision Ordinance limits the
length of all streets terminating in a cul-de-sac to 750 feet or a maximum of 20 lots,
whichever is shorter. The proposed cul-de-sac within the townhome development is
less than 750 feet in length, however, it provides access to 41 residential units.
Issue #7 — The proposed single access cul-de-sac for 41 units is in conflict with
Section 820.29, Subd. 2(g) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Private Streets. All streets serving the townhome development are proposed to be
private streets. The main street extending north into the townhome development is
proposed to be 24 -feet wide. Eight townhome units will access directly off of this main
private street. A network of four other private streets which are 20 -feet wide serving the
remaining 33 units extending to the east, west and north.
Issue #8 — While the Zoning Ordinance includes language referring to private
street use and allows townhome developments in the R-3 District, there has been
no establishment of a formal process for approving such development apart from
PUD zoning. In discussions with the City Attorney and staff, it is the opinion of
staff that the intent of the ordinance is to allow townhome developments on
private streets as the customary development pattern within the R-3 District
without the need for additional PUD processing.
Guest Parking. Six guest parking stalls are proposed to serve the development. The
stalls are located within the middle of the development and, as such, are not necessarily
convenient to all units. 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. However, due to the proposed width of 20 feet on the private roads and the
need for at least 20 feet of unobstructed area for passage of emergency vehicles, no
on -street parking will be allowed in this area. 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.
Issue #9 - The Planning Commission and Council should comment on the need
for additional guest parking stalls within the townhome area.
Traffic Circulation. When standard turning radii templates for delivery trucks (18 to 35
feet in length) and semi tractor trailer trucks (50 to 55 feet in length) are applied to the
townhome area's proposed private streets, it is evident that these vehicles will have
difficulty maneuvering in and out of the area. It should be noted that a garbage truck, or
any other delivery or service -type vehicle will have to back out of each private road
7
extending off of the main private street entrance. Staff recommends that an additional
ingress/egress access to the public street to the south be considered. Not only would
this additional access allow for easier maneuverability within the development, but it
would provide a second access for emergency vehicles in the event that one entrance is
blocked or if there is a need for multiple responders.
Issue #10 — Staff recommends that at least one additional access point to a public
street be required.
Landscaping. Section 841.4.03 of the Zoning Ordinance The applicant has not
submitted a detailed landscaping plan for the townhome development, however, the
developer has provided information on the typical landscaping package that is included
with their construction of this type of development. The landscaping example provided
appears to be generally consistent with the extent and quality of landscaping that the
City would require. Landscaping details must be provided at the time of final platting for
the townhome units and as a part of the site and building plan review. The applicant
has demonstrated the location of one tree per 60 feet around the perimeter of the site
as required by Section 841.4.03, Subd. 4. Section 841.4.03, Subd. 5 and Subd. 6
require the addition of ornamental trees (one tree per 120 feet) and understory shrubs
(one per 40 feet) around the perimeter of the site. The submitted plans do not
demonstrate compliance with these provisions. As a condition of preliminary plat
approval, the applicant shall be required to submit a detailed landscape plan consistent
with Zoning Ordinance requirements prior to consideration of a final plat for the
townhome development.
Issue #11 — The proposed landscape plan for the townhome development is
inconsistent with zoning ordinance requirements.
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 facade 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.
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
8
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. Certain vehicle types may not be able to fit in the
garage, for example, a 2010 Chevrolet Silverado Extended Cab is 20.7 feet in length.
Issues that result from undersized garages usually include nuisance complaints due to
trash receptacles being stored outside and multiple vehicles and other household
equipment in the driveway.
Issue #12 — A typical two -car garage size is 440 square feet in area or greater in
order to accommodate vehicle length, interior door swing and additional
domestic storage.
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.
The proposed R-1 and R-2 Tots generally appear to meet each district's lot area
requirements. The majority of the proposed lots are consistent with setback
requirements. However, there are two lots that do not demonstrate compliance with
9
rear yard setbacks when shown with an attached deck. Decks are attached to the
principal structure and are required to meet principal structure setbacks.
Issue #13 - Lot 8, Block 2 and Lot 9, Block 11 do not meet rear yard setbacks as
shown and must be revised to be consistent with Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
It should be noted that several lots within the proposed subdivision are located
exceptionally close to the wetland buffer setback and, as such, those particular
properties would not be allowed to construct a deck off of the rear of their home and
would have limited useable space in the rear yard. While it has been demonstrated that
most of the proposed homes meet the required rear yard and buffer setback
requirements, many homes are left with very little useable rear yard area due to the
restrictions placed on what is allowed to occur within the wetland buffers. City staff
points this out because oftentimes property owners will request approval of variances to
allow for decks or other rear yard structures. Encroachments into this buffer area with
manicured lawns or other landscaping can also be an issue. This can be even more of
a problem in the future as the properties turnover and the new buyers are not informed
of these restrictions.
Issue #14 - Several lots within the proposed subdivision are located exceptionally
close to the wetland buffer setback resulting in limited rear yard usability and the
potential for variance requests and other code violations in the future.
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.
Issue #15 — The ordinance requires a ten foot setback for driveways but allows for
five foot interior side yard building setbacks within the R-2 District.
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
10
Drive has been designated in the City's Capital Improvement Plan as in -need of
reconstruction for quite some time. It is unclear how much of the roadway the applicant
is proposing to reconstruct with the development of this subdivision. It has been the
City's policy that an applicant be required to complete the public improvement to the
edge of plat, and sometimes beyond, depending upon the nature of the proposed
project. The City Council will need to determine to what extent the developer should be
required to reconstruct Hunter Drive and how the timing of the City's public
improvement project for the remainder of Hunter Drive can mirror that of the applicant's
plans for build -out of the subdivision.
Issue #16 — The reconstruction of Hunter Drive including the potential for
individual property assessments as is done on other road reconstruction projects
in the City.
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. Future secondary connections are shown at Navajo Road and to the
north at the northwest corner of the proposed plat. The applicant has shown extension
of utilities to the terminus of the cul-de-sacs in those areas so that they may be
extended if and when the adjacent properties develop.
A person with interest in the property to the north (identified on the plat as an exception
parcel) has submitted some information related to a proposed realignment and
rearrangement of the cul-de-sac and future road connection to the north that is being
proposed by the applicant. Staff has not conducted a detailed analysis on the potential
merits of this proposal. The proposal consolidates access to Hunter Drive at the
boundary of the Lennar's proposed development and the neighboring property
(exception parcel). Any proposed realignment of streets and access points would have
to be formally submitted by the applicant as a revised preliminary plat, subject to review
and approval of City staff. See comments related to the "Exception Parcel" below.
Issue #17 — Any proposed realignment or rearrangement to the street layout
within the proposed subdivision must be submitted as a revised preliminary plat
and reviewed by City staff prior to consideration by the Planning Commission
and City Council.
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.
11
Streets. The applicant is proposing 24 -foot 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. 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.
(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.
Issue #18 — Consideration of a variance to allow reduced ROW width to decrease
impervious surfaces within the proposed plat.
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
12
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. Five outlots are proposed within this development ranging in size from 0.49
acres to 32.57 acres. Outlot A is proposed as the common lot for the townhome
development. Outlot B contains 7.83 acres and is designated as the conservation area.
Oulot D, the largest outlot, is located within the rural residential area outside of the
MUSA and is proposed to remain undeveloped at this time. The remaining outlots in
the subdivision primarily encompass wetlands and stormwater ponding areas.
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 to
use a special low moisture fescue grass, which does not require as much watering or
mowing as traditional lawns according to the applicant.
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,
HoneyLocust, Princeton and Valley Forge Elm, Red and Sugar Maple and Red Oak
trees.
Bufferyards. Section 828.31 of the Zoning Ordinance describes the City's buffer yard
requirements. Bufferyards are required along Hunter Drive as well as between zoning
districts with differing intensity of uses. The applicant has proposed a bufferyard along
Hunter Drive with an opacity of 0.3 as required. Another bufferyard is shown between
the proposed townhome development and the proposed single family lots. This
bufferyard is shown as a 0.1 opacity, however, the required bufferyard opacity between
a proposed R-3 development and an adjacent R-2 development is 0.2. Additionally, the
ordinance requires a bufferyard of at least 0.2 opacity where the proposed R-2 District
lots would abut the UR District to the north as well as a bufferyard of at least 0.3 opacity
where the proposed R-2 District lots abut Rural Residential properties to the east. The
bufferyard planting schedule shall be revised to be consistent with ordinance
requirements as a condition of preliminary plat approval.
Issue #19 — Additional bufferyards must be added adjacent to the UR District to
the north and the RR District to the east consistent with Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
13
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. The applicant is proposing to
remove approximately 35 percent of the existing significant trees to allow for
development of the site. 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.
The applicant is proposing to remove 8,585.8 caliper inches of the existing significant
trees on the site (34.8 percent of the total significant trees). As required by the
Ordinance, 4,889 caliper inches of trees must be replaced. The applicant is proposing
to plant four inch caliper trees for a total required replacement of 1,222 trees.
The existing significant trees within the proposed conservation area are counted
towards the percentage of trees saved on the site. The Planning Commission and
Council should discuss whether or not these trees should be counted towards the
percentage saved since this portion of the site is proposed to be used as an exchange
for extension of the MUSA. If the significant trees existing in the conservation area are
not counted towards the overall percentage of trees saved, the applicant would have to
plant additional replacement trees on the site consistent with Section 828.41 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The City's forestry consultant has prepared a report reviewing the applicant's proposed
tree preservation and tree removal plans. The forestry consultant notes that the
proposed four inch caliper replacement trees are less likely to survive than newly
planted two and a half inch caliper trees. The forester's report also points out that there
is a unique maple -basswood forest remnant located within the southeast corner of the
site which is proposed to be removed to accommodate the new development. It
appears as though the majority of this feature is located within the proposed MUSA
extension area. It is his opinion that this feature is unique and significant and should be
preserved. Any recommendations made by the forestry consultant shall be included as
a condition of preliminary plat approval.
Issue #20 - The Planning Commission and Council should discuss whether or not
these trees should be counted towards the percentage saved since this portion of
the site is proposed to be used as an exchange for extension of the MUSA.
Issue #21 — Recommendations of the City's forestry consultant related to tree
removal and tree preservation must be adequately addressed prior to preliminary
plat approval.
Park and Trail Dedication. The addition of 175 residential units requires a park
dedication fee for each unit minus any credit for trail or park land dedications. The
applicant is proposing 5,095 linear feet of eight foot wide trails to be constructed with
14
this subdivision. Section 820.31 of the Subdivision Ordinance outlines the City's park
dedication requirements. In every subdivision, a reasonable portion of the buildable
land, no to exceed 10 percent, shall be dedicated by the applicant for public parks, open
spaces, recreational facilities or trails. The City may also require a combination of land
dedication and a cash contribution equal to the 10 percent requirement. The subject
site contains 53.18 net acres of land and, as such, a land dedication of 5.32 acres or its
cash equivalent is required.
The applicant has designated a 7.83 acre area as a conservation area and is proposing
to preserve this area from development by placing it within a conservation easement or
by dedicating it to the City for a public park. This conservation area is being used as an
exchange for extension of the MUSA, and as such, the Planning Commission and City
Council should discuss whether or not park dedication credit will be given for this parcel.
It is staff's expectation that this area would not be eligible for park dedication credit if
used as an exchange for extension of the MUSA.
Prior to consideration of the preliminary plat by the City Council, the Park Commission
should review the proposed plat and make recommendations on the amount of land, if
any, that should be dedicated for park purposes as well as the proposed trail layout.
Issue #22 — Should park dedication credit be given for the "conservation area"?
Community Building and Swimming Pool. A community swimming pool and building
is proposed within the northern portion of the development. Parks and open space are
permitted uses and private swimming pools are a permitted accessory use within the R-
2 District. This building and pool will be owned and maintained by the homeowner's
association and will be available for use by both the townhome and single family
residents. Staff has questioned the need for a community building in this development
when the Hamel Community Building is very close by.
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.
Wetlands. Several wetlands located on the site are proposed to be impacted by this
development. Review by a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) as required by the
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) occurred on June 8, 2010. The TEP recommended
several changes to the proposed wetland impacts, mainly to the proposed filling of the
2.02 acre wetland within the north central portion of the site (Wetland #4). The
applicant has made revisions consistent with the recommendations made by the TEP,
however, additional details on wetland restoration and wetland protection must be
provided as required by the Section 828.43 of the Zoning Ordinance and the WCA. The
TEP will again review the proposal once the required information is submitted. Any
recommendations by the City Engineer and the TEP with regards to wetland
15
"
r e p l a c e m e n t , r e s t o r a t i o n a n d p r o t e c t i o n s h a l l b e m a d e a c o n d i t i o n o f p r e l i m i n a r y p l a t
a p p r o v a l .
E a s e m e n t s . D r a i n a g e a n d u t i l i t y e a s e m e n t s a r e s h o w n a t t h e p e r i m e t e r o f a l l l o t s a s
w e l l a s o v e r a l l o u t l o t s , w e t l a n d s a n d s t o r m w a t e r p o n d s .
I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t e a s e m e n t s w i t h i n s i d e y a r d s l o c a t e d b e t w e e n s i n g l e f a m i l y
h o m e s c a n p o s e p r o b l e m s w h e n h o m e o w n e r s l a n d s c a p e o r f e n c e t h e a r e a . P u b l i c
W o r k s v e h i c l e s n e e d a t l e a s t a 2 0 - f o o t w i d e c l e a r s p a c e t o m a i n t a i n t h e p o n d s a n d
o f t e n t i m e s h o m e o w n e r s a r e u n a w a r e o f t h i s e a s e m e n t a n d p l a c e t h i n g s i n t h e
e a s e m e n t t h a t c a n c a u s e i s s u e s w h e n m a i n t e n a n c e o f s t o r m w a t e r p o n d s a n d w e t l a n d s
i s n e c e s s a r y .
F u r t h e r m o r e , s e v e r a l o f t h e p r o p o s e d s i n g l e f a m i l y l o t s e x t e n d i n t o t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f
e x i s t i n g w e t l a n d s . C i t y s t a f f s t r o n g l y d i s c o u r a g e s a g a i n s t e x t e n s i o n o f l o t l i n e s i n t o
t h e s e w e t l a n d s a s i t t e n d s t o l e a d t o p r o p e r t y o w n e r s e n c r o a c h i n g i n t o t h e w e t l a n d
a r e a s . S t a f f r e c o m m e n d s r e v i s i n g t h e p l a n t o a l l e x i s t i n g a n d p r o p o s e d w e t l a n d s a n d
s t o r m w a t e r p o n d s w i t h i n a d e s i g n a t e d o u t l o t a n d e n c l o s e d w i t h a d r a i n a g e a n d u t i l i t y
e a s e m e n t .
I s s u e # 2 3 S h o u l d t h e p l a t b e r e d e s i g n e d t o e l i m i n a t e l o t l i n e s e x t e n d i n g i n t o t h e
w e t l a n d s , a n d b y c r e a t i n g a n o u t l o t a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n e a s e m e n t o v e r t h e w e t l a n d
a r e a ?
G r a d i n g , d r a i n a g e a n d u t i l i t i e s . T h e e x i s t i n g t o p o g r a p h y o f t h e s i t e i s g e n e r a l l y f l a t
a n d d o e s n o t c o n t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t s l o p e s ( s l o p e s o f 1 2 p e r c e n t o r h i g h e r ) . T h e p r o p o s e d
g r a d i n g o f t h e s i t e w i l l c h a n g e d r a m a t i c a l l y i n s o m e a r e a s . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e g r a d e
s u r r o u n d i n g t h e p r o p o s e d c u l - d e - s a c i n t h e s o u t h e r n h a l f o f t h e s i t e w i l l b e r a i s e d
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0 t o 1 5 f e e t f r o m w h e r e i t i s n o w . T h e a p p l i c a n t i s p r o p o s i n g t o m a s s
g r a d e t h e s i t e a s e a c h p h a s e d e v e l o p s . T h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e s i n g l e f a m i l y h o m e s b e i n g
p r o p o s e d h a v e w a l k - o u t o r l o o k - o u t b a s e m e n t s . T h e a p p l i c a n t i s p r o p o s i n g t o a d d f o u r
i n c h c a l i p e r t r e e s , a s o p p o s e d t o t h e t w o a n d a h a l f i n c h c a l i p e r t r e e s r e q u i r e d b y
O r d i n a n c e , w h i c h w i l l a i d i n t h e s c r e e n i n g o f t h e p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s i n g r a d e a n d t h e
v i e w o f t h e n e w h o m e s f r o m t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y a n d a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t i e s .
I s s u e s r e l a t e d t o g r a d i n g , s t o r m w a t e r , e r o s i o n c o n t r o l , i r r i g a t i o n , w a t e r a n d s e w e r , s u m p
p u m p s a n d o t h e r u t i l i t i e s s h a l l b e s u b j e c t t o t h e r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l o f t h e C i t y
E n g i n e e r a n d s h a l l b e m a d e a c o n d i t i o n o f p r e l i m i n a r y p l a t a p p r o v a l .
I s s u e # 2 4 R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e C i t y E n g i n e e r r e l a t e d t o g r a d i n g , d r a i n a g e
a n d u t i l i t y i s s u e s m u s t b e a d e q u a t e l y a d d r e s s e d p r i o r t o p r e l i m i n a r y p l a t
a p p r o v a l .
L I D a n d S u s t a i n a b i l i t y . T h e a p p l i c a n t p r o p o s e s t o i n s t a l l a n u m b e r o f d e c e n t r a l i z e d
b i o - f i l t r a t i o n b a s i n s i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e t h e C i t y '