HomeMy Public PortalAbout05-11-2010MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2010
Immediately Following Adjournment of
7:00 p.m. Concurrent Meeting
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Ca11 to Order
2. Public Hearing - Robert Bradley — 3415 Leawood Drive (PID 09-118-
23-32-0002) — Preliminary Plat to subdivide one existing lot into two
3. Public Hearing - Stauber/Rosati - 705 Hamel Road (12-118-23-32-
0001) Concept Plan Review to construct a six unit townhome
building.
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of April 13, 2010 Planning Commission minutes
6. City Council Meeting Schedule
7. Adjourn
L 1 T Y
Comment Card Public Forum
Agenda Item ✓
MEDINA
Name of Speaker: Q I N /4 1
(please pent) �y
Address: ! q 5 �SF�OIZewoo if+ i -, Vvi eI II'J 4-
I /
Telephone (optional): (C) 61? - cig f
y5-7-
Representing: YS elir. .1) 4 L *, ' IN 1/0il3UF✓� LL e.
Agenda Item (list number and letter): 3
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
4
AGENDA ITEM: 2
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Otson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Medina Mayor and City Council
Medina Planning Commission
FROM: Laurie Smith
DATE: May 4, 2010
RE: Medina — Leawood 3rd Addition; Preliminary Plat
NAC FILE: 306.02 — 10.02 CITY FILE: L-10-053
BACKGROUND
The property requested to be subdivided is 3415 Leawood Drive, legally known as Lot
2, Block 1 Leawood Farm. The applicant is requesting to replat the existing parcel,
which currently contains approximately 37.5 gross acres into two single family lots, one
of which will contain the existing single family home currently located on the southern
half of Lot 2, Block 1, Leadwood Farm. The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential
and is guided for Rural Residential uses by the Comprehensive Plan.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C - Buffer Easement
Exhibit D — Soils and Topography
Exhibit E — Suitable Soils Narrative
ANALYSIS
Zoning/Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is zoned RR, Rural Residential and is
guided for rural residential uses by the City of Medina's Comprehensive Plan. No urban
services are planned to serve this property in the future.
Lot Area/Setbacks. All new lots created in the City shall meet the required lot area and
setback provisions outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Lots within the Rural Residential
District must contain at least five (5) acres of contiguous soils suitable for a standard
sewage disposal system.
Section 826.25, Subd. 2(a) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that lots within the RR
District contain at least five (5) acres of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage
disposal system. Suitable soils must be consistent with the Medina Soils List as
outlined in Section 820.29, Subd. 4(a) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
R-1 District Standards
Required
Proposed
Lot 1
Lot 2
Net Lot Area (suitable
soils)
5 acres
5.12 acres
5.14 acres
Lot Width
300 feet
461 feet
697 feet
Front Yard Setback
50 feet
340 feet
50 feet
Side Yard Setback (north)
50 feet
50 feet
50 feet
Side Yard Setback (south)
50 feet
225 feet
50 feet
The proposed subdivision would result in two lots which are compliant with all required
lot area and setback standards for the RR District.
Suitable Soils. Section 820.29, Subd. 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance lists the
acceptable soil types for determining required lot area for parcels served by private
sewage disposal systems. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that the applicant
demonstrate that existing soil types are consistent with the most recent Hennepin
County Soil Survey. An applicant can submit additional information related to
inaccuracies in the type or location of soils within the Soil Survey if they are of the
opinion that such inaccuracies exist.
In this instance, the applicant has submitted additional information related to certain
adjustments for soil slopes. The applicant has used the most current Hennepin County
Soils Survey and then adjusted for the topography on the site according to the Markhurd
aerial topography that was used for the original plat of Leawood Farm. The soils have
been adjusted to match "C" slopes where there are 6-12% existing slopes and "D"
slopes where there are existing 12-18% slopes on the ground. "C" slopes are
considered to be suitable, while "D" slopes are not. The demonstrated type, location
and amount of suitable soils are consistent with those approved in 2005 as part of the
Leawood Farm subdivision.
Septic System. The primary and secondary locations for private septic systems have
been shown for both the existing lot (Lot 1) and the proposed lot (Lot 2) as required.
The City Building Official has reviewed the proposal and found it to be consistent with
code requirements.
2
Access. The existing parcel accesses off of Leadwood Drive, a private road. An
additional access off of Leawood Drive for the proposed new lot will be required. The
existing private road agreement for access to Leawood Drive will have to be amended,
subject to approval of the Leawood Farm Homeowner's Association. Proof of access
for the additional lot shall be required as a condition of final plat approval.
Easements. Ten foot drainage and utility easements are shown along the outer
perimeters of the proposed lots. A ten foot easement shall also be shown along the
proposed common lot line (five feet on either side) as a condition of approval.
Wetlands. The proposed plat contains two wetlands, one within the northwest corner of
Lot 1 and Lot 2 and one within the southwest corner of Lot 1. No impacts to the existing
wetlands are being proposed with the proposed plat. The City Engineer's office has
reviewed the proposal and notes that the wetland buffer easement along the larger
wetland in the northwest corner of the properties (wetland 09-001) must be expanded to
the minimum required buffer of 30 feet in all areas. The buffer easement around
wetland 09-001 was recorded with the original plat in 2005, however, the City's
ordinances related to wetland buffers have since changed and, as such, an additional
easement surrounding wetland 09-001 is necessary to be consistent with the 30 foot
buffer requirement. As a condition of preliminary plat approval and prior to
consideration of a final plat, the preliminary plat must be revised to be consistent with
current wetland buffer requirements.
Additionally, the City Engineer's office notes that if any turf exists within the required
buffer area of wetland 09-001, the applicant shall be required to convert the turf to
native vegetation as required in Section 828.43, Subd. 8 of the Zoning Ordinance as a
condition of final plat approval.
Park Dedication. The creation of an additional lot triggers park dedication
requirements as outlined in Section 820.31 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant
is not proposing to dedicate any land for park purposes as a part of the preliminary plat.
Therefore, the applicant shall be required to pay a cash fee in lieu of land to satisfy park
dedication requirements for the proposed plat. A cash contribution of $8,000 for the
additional lot shall be required at the time of final plat.
CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Leawood 3rd Addition preliminary plat has been found to be generally
consistent with Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Staff recommends
approval of the Leawood 3rd Addition preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
1. An additional wetland buffer easement along the wetland 09-001 shall be
required to meet the mandatory minimum buffer of 30 feet in all areas. The
preliminary plat shall be revised to provide for this required buffer
easement. As an alternative, the applicant may submit information
3
consistent with Subd. 5 (f) of Section 828.43 in order to reduce the
minimum width to 22.5 feet.
2. Vegetation along wetland 09-001 shall be consistent with Section 828.43,
Subd.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Proof of legal access to Leadwood Drive shall be provided prior to final
plat approval.
4. The preliminary plat shall be revised to illustrate all easements as required
by Section 820.39 of the Subdivision Ordinance, subject to approval by
the City Engineer.
5. Park dedication requirements shall be satisfied at the time of final plat
approval.
6. It is acknowledged that the shed in the northeast corner of Lot 1 does not
meet the setback required for animal structures. This structure shall not
be utilized to house, exercise or accommodate animals.
7. The applicant shall meet the requirements of the City Attorney with
regards to title issues and platting procedures.
8. 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 null
and void, unless a written request for an extension has been submitted
and approved by the City Council.
9. 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.
c. Chad Adams
Ron Batty
Dusty Finke
Debra Peterson-Dufresene
4
ATTACHMENT: Building Official Comments
METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.
Loren Kohnen, Pres. (763) 479-1720
FAX (763) 479-3090
March 2, 2010
TO: Debra Peterson -Dufresne
FROM: Loren Kohnen
RE: 3415 Leawood Drive
Medina, Minnesota
LOT SPLIT REVIEW
Mr. Bradley wishes to subdivide a 37.55 acre parcel into two (2)
parcels:
Lot 1: 28.06 acres w/buildings located on it.
Lot 2: 9.49 acres.
Lot l;with home and out buildings should show location of existing
septic system.and a secondary septic site.
Lot 2 does show two (2) future septic sites which appear to be
conforming.
Both lots appear acceptable for the proposed lot split.
LK:jk
Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357
ATTACHMENT: City Engineer Comments
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
April 19, 2010
Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: L-10-053
3415 Leawood Drive
City of Medina
Bonestroo File No.: 000190-10000-1
Dear Dusty,
' Bonestroo
We have reviewed the plans dated 4-7-10 for the proposed lot split at 3415 Leawood
Drive. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters.
• The plat should show 5 foot wide drainage and utility easements along each side of
the proposed dividing lot line.
• John Smyth's comments from his memo dated 2-19-10 still apply to this submittal.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894.
Sincerely,
BONESTROO
Darren Amundsen
Cc: Tom Kellogg
Deb Peterson -Dufresne
John Smyth
Memorandum Bonestroo
To; Debra Peterson Project: Bradley 3415 Leawood
Dufresne, Darren Dr. /Lot Split
Amundsen, Tom Kellogg
From: John Smyth Client: City of Medina
Date: 2-19-1
Re: Wetland Review
File No: 190-10000
Wetland Conservation Act Review
Wetland Delineation: Wetland appears to have been delineated but Bonestroo was
not involved in review of delineation and we do not have delineation on file at our
office. If grading is proposed dose (within 100 feet) to the wetland boundary as
depicted on the drawing in the future a wetland delineation may be required if the
original is older then 3 years.
Wetland Impacts: No wetland impacts proposed.
Proposed project is in compliance with Wetland Conservation Act.
Section 828.43. Wetland Conservation Compliance
Subp. 3. General Provisions
The project involves a lot split for the Leawood Farm Third Addition. Due the
proposed lot split this project is subject to the Wetland Conservation Section 828.43 of
the City Code. The site contains two wetlands and a stream that flows across the
south half of the site.
Subd. 5. Upland Buffer Zone and Required Buffer Setback
The largest wetland (Wetland Management Classification ID# 09-001) is called the
Thompson Lake Wetland. It is encompasses much of the northwest portion of the lot
and includes a shallow open water basin (pond) that is separate from the wetland on
the survey but included as part of Basin 09-001 on the classification map. Wetland
09-001 is a Preserve basin and is within a DNR mapped area on the City Wetland
Management Map. The wetland requires an average buffer of 50 feet and a minimum
buffer of 30 feet. There is also a smaller wetland (Wetland Management
Classification ID # 9-017) located in the southwest portion of the lot which has a
Manage 2 classification. This classification requires an average buffer of 25 feet and a
minimum buffer of 20 feet. Both wetlands require a principal structure setback of 15
feet and accessory structure setback of 5 feet from the proposed buffer.
Wetland 09-001 currently has a buffer under easement that ranges from 50 — 100 feet
in width along most of its length, except for the portion of the wetland that is a
shallow open water basin (pond) along the southwest portion of the wetland. This
portion of the wetland has a buffer of 25 feet. This is not in compliance with the City
Code which requires a minimum buffer of 30 feet. The buffer easement will need to
F:tBoziestoo Tern atrs\5t Pnulytemorandjm.det fCRW 9.2001)
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651636.1311
www.aonesiroa.con,
be expanded 5 feet in this location to meet the minimal width requirement of 30 feet.
The overall average appears to be met with the current buffer under easement
because it is expanded out to 100 feet along most of the wetland.
Wetland 09-012 currently has a 25 foot buffer under easement. This meets the buffer
requirement of the City Code.
All structures within the property currently meet the required setback from the buffer
for both of the wetlands.
Subd. 8. Vegetation Performance Standards
An aerial photograph was used to determine vegetative conditions of the buffer. A
field visit during the growing season may be required to verify air photo interpretation.
Wetland 09-001 is wooded within the buffer, with the exception of the shallow open
water basin (pond) located in the southwest portion of the basin. This area of buffer
along the east side of the pond appears to be maintained turf. Turf is not considered
acceptable per Subp. 8. (a) ill of Section 828.43. The applicant will need to follow the
requirements of Subd. 8. (b) of Section 828.43 for establishment of native vegetation
within the turf area of the buffer.
Wetland 09-017 Is wooded within the buffer and appears to meet the Vegetative
Performance Standards.
Summary of Compliance Issues for Section 828.43 of the City Code
1. Upland buffer easement need to be expanded to the minimum of 30 feet
along wetland 09-001.
2. If turf exists within the buffer of wetland 09-001 the applicant will need to
convert the turf to native vegetation and follow the requirements of Subd. 8.
(b) (11) of Section 828.43.
Page 2of2
d ; -6721
0
a : Iaa an asnay onw 4a
EXISTING LEM OESCRIP110R
Lai Block 1. LEAWOOD MU
7N.$,$$. 'low owoi WM$$ * Mt Om oWuw.m.
wah�bu lldog," o oacn+T atd seta gawky
Kama wo p ,yewm ww.e r ta w. Kmpo .. news nana.eb.•en.
aiN
w er•rar 1 anal
I
1!' _
f
h iJ'
444.
LOT 2
nneraaen MEP ME
LO T 1" ,
Suwon
VICINITY M AP
0 100 200 400
i—�
SCALE *1 FEET
BUFFER EASEMENT L OCATION IN
LEAWOOD FARM THIRD ADDITION
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR
ROBERT BRADLEY
OF L OT 2, BLOCK 1, LE AW OOD FAR M
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
L OT AREAS
EXISTING LOT 2, BLOCK 1, LEAWOOD FARM 37.55+- ACRES
PROPOSED LOT AREAS
PROPOSED L OT 1 29.05+. ACRES TOTAL
5.12+. ACRES SUITABLE SOIL
PROPOSED LOT 2 9 .49 +. ACRES TOTAL
5 .14+- ACRES SUITABLE S OIL
EXISTING ZONING -RURAL RESIDENTIAL
OWNER & DEVELOPER
BRADLEY PROPERTIES L L C
12855 HWY 191 S
JACKSON, WY 83001
SURVEYOR & DESIGNER
MARK S. GRONBERG
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE
LO NG LAKE MN 55356
Ay;
V I�S LI;
— zT
uiR
O rg-
g.
ca ct3EA
(92
i 4Q
L7
1.0 IV
I
3625
3705
3705
3705
80
3312
4000
3712 3622
80
2935
2935
80
12 .321.2---
80
4007.
80 400 ,4005
HAMEL RD
3195 3085
2950
!2822
2782
2700
41251
$9„#045
2666
80 0
0
80
PIONEER TRLj
2715 2625
2662
2664
3300 2832 2752 80
80
3003
2702
0
t0'
2835 2725 2633'.
2505
4300
80
2605
2392 2390 2382
2,392
2135 085
2635
1985
2185 80
2235
2285
80
PRAIRIE DR:
80
2265
2325
2672 2820 2860 80
80-2840
80
2092
1982
1975
80
1772
N 89' 42'22" W 1671.93
1 \
;ETL\�
658+. $
WETLAND D
t;
,4\
/ n�
—NC \\\<,5)\\;. \.
/
/447
•
I C�_
— —_-z-
LOT 1 �\
(0 r �\
sta2garw
serail* 32522
N a0. 30YT W 1130. 93
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIO N:
Lot 2, Block 1, LEAWOOD FARM
This survey shows the boundedas of the above described pro perty,
tour existing buildings, topography and soils overlay thereon.
It does not purport to show any other Improvements or encroachments.
o : Denotes iron monument
Wimp •ri Jay .nor nr b i 77 3.r
10
I._J
Biro 101.r In r.11h rd . Oro lot w, r,4
I:: fat Irr itlah .45.,, 0r OA.
right
4's
+Q .
N-ej N��1
tig
LOT 2
\i PRO POSED DIMING UNE
)\\\
• \q, \ BUILDING
`'{ SETBACK
\ \" LINES
\\
\\
\ \
i
L_
9
47
Mi nna ...m..
/
VICINITY MAP
38. 41
i
/
/
0 100 200
1111
SCALE IN FEET
400
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
DRAINA GE EASEM ENT LOCATION IN
av LEAWOOD FARM THIRD ADDITION
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR
ROBERT BRADLEY
OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, LEAWOOD FARM
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
LOT AREAS
EXISTING LOT 2, BLOCK 1, LEAWOOD FARM 37.55+- ACRES
PROPOSED LOT AREAS
PROPOSED LOT 1 28.06+- ACRES TOTAL
5.12 +- ACRES SUITABLE SOIL
PROPOSED LOT 2 9 .49+- ACRES TOTAL
5.14 +- ACRES SUITABLE SOIL
EXISTING Z ONING -RURAL RESIDENTIAL
OWNER & DEVELOPER
BRADLEY PROPERTIES L L C
12655 HWY 191 S
JACKSON, WY 83001
SURVEYOR & DESIGNER
MARK S. GRONBERG
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE
LONG LAKE MN 55356
APR 9f ZOfo
k
V
w a
.,Jz60
— ZaZ1"
Wipm
ae
a�ga
0
°OEr
y J
CO N W 1—
D �
o55rt
og3t
pewio
m25Z
ZWZO
Oo4 a=
T
af
bi
ti
(./-)
z
0
V)
>>
w
>-
co
_ C
on�
LIJ
09-244
50
656+ -
B Br2rJ4' ENrr3isor
EP
72
BUFFER EABFME NT
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
.+
N 89' 42'22" W 1671.92
1:
/
.0 1 �_--
� =
LOT 1 i
1015+ -
LOT 2
ED DIVIDING UNE
\ \ \
BUILDING
SEBA C
\\ / LINETS K\
\.��\
..,�.,. .a.n
BUFFER EASEMENT —\
�� w1
— — "w;r.•,•
�I 89° 38'14'
Lot 2, Block 1, LEAWOOD FARM
This survey slows the boundaries of the above described property,
four existing buildings, topography and soils ov erlay thereon.
It does no t purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
o : Denotes Iron monument
D eerq end eddy r tro Mown then'
1 -
1 1
Berg t O feet in w lr, .a .dprq IM In d., .nd
Woer Mown an 8. Net dim
i
SITE
VICINITY MAP
/+
./
0 100 200
-.4e1, -
SCALE IN FEET
400
BUFFER EA SEMENT LOCATION IN
LEAWOOD FARM THIRD ADDITION
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR
ROBERT BRADLEY
OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, LEAWOOD FARM
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
LOT AREAS
EXISTING LOT 2, BLOCK 1, LEAWOOD FARM 37.55+- ACRES
PROPOSED LOT AREAS
PROPOSED LOT 1
28.06+- ACRES TOTAL
5 .12+- ACRES SUITABLE SOIL
PROPOSED LOT 2 9 .49+- ACRES TOTAL
5 .14 +- ACRES SUITABLE SOIL
EXISTING ZONING -RURAL RESIDENTIAL
OWNER & DEVELOPER
BRADLEY PROPERTIES L L C
12655 HWY 191 S
JACKSON, WY 83001
SURVEYOR & DESIGNER
MARK S. GRONBERG
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE
LONG LAKE MN 55356
c0
w▪ 10M
oirq
Zg
COZ▪ mc
Lugar,
ite o a
oa
O>oLL
J
wow;
O r,
065153
WON
MOW
zwzg
0
1
i5
R emotes., ,.. Fe+ . 7.10
nQ.'nd
a n
n
PROPOSED LOT 2 9.49+- ACRES TOTAL
5.14+- ACRES SUITABLE SOIL
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot $ Block 1, LEAWOOD FARM
This survey shows the bound aries of the above described property,
fo ur existing buildings, topography and soils ov erlay thereon.
It doss not purport to show any other Impro ve men ts or encro achments.
o : Denotes Iron monument
: Existing contour (from aerial topography)
l I -
VICINITY MAP
f
0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
400
SOILS A ND TOPOGRAPHY IN
LEAWOOD FARM THIRD ADDITION
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR
ROBERT BRADLEY
OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, LEAWOOD FAR M
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
LOT AREAS
EXISTING LOT 2, BLOCK 1, LEAWOOD FARM 37.55+- ACRES
PROPOSED LOT AREAS
PROPOSED LOT 1 28.06+- ACRES TOTAL
5 .12 +- ACRES SUITABLE SOIL
EXISTING ZONING -RURAL RESIDENTIAL
OWNER & DEVELOPER
BRADLEY PROPERTIES L L C
12655 HWY 191 S
JACKSON, WY 83001
SURVEYOR & DESIGNER
MARK S. GRONBERG
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC .
445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE
LONG LAKE MN 55356
'PR 2O
lo
CLCD
W M M
di27
Z_ J
U fi
W5Wo,
O>oo0-621`co w
(nJ
T
Nfg0to
W w I0
ox
ZWZO
rev*a
~W WW Cli NO Tfl L,.,U
3
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
SURVEYING, ENGINEERING AND LAND PLANNING
445 N. WILLOW DRIVE
LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA 55356
952-473-4141
FAX: 952.473-4435
4-21-10
City of Medina
2052 Co. Rd. No. 24
Medina, MN 55340
Attn: Dusty Finke
Dear Mr. Finke:
I spoke with Laurie Smith from Northwest Associated Consultants yesterday regarding the Robert
Bradley Subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, LEAWOOD FARM into two lots. This letter is to explain the soils
overlay for the proposed subdivision. The soils overlay shown was taken from the current Hennepin
County soils survey and then adjusted for the topography on the site according to the Markhurd aerial
topography used for the original plat of LEAWOOD FARM. In other words, the soils were only adjusted
to match the C slopes where there are 6-12% slopes on the ground and D slopes where there are 12-
18% slopes on the ground. No other changes were made except for the slope of the land. The total
acceptable soils of 10.26 acres for the two proposed lots is the same that was shown for the original Lot
2, Block 1, LEAWOOD FARM.
Sincerely,
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mark S. Gronberg, PE & LS
AGENDA ITEM: 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: May 5, 2010
MEETING: May 11, 2010 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Stauber/Rosati LLC — 705 Hamel Road — Concept Plan for construction
of a six -unit townhome building — Public Hearing
Background
The applicant has requested review of the attached Concept Plan to construct a six -unit
townhome structure at 705 Hamel Road. The same applicant previously received Site Plan
approval in 2008 to construct a three -unit townhome on the property, but never completed this
project. Since the 2008 approval, the City has adopted the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan
(Comp Plan) and has created new zoning districts related to higher density residential
development. The City has not yet rezoned the subject property and it remains zoned Multi -
Family Residential (MR).
According to Sections 825.61 through 825.71 of the City Code, Concept Plan Review "serves as
the basis for informal conceptual discussion between the city and the applicant regarding a
specific land use proposal. It is designed to assist the applicant in preparing a formal land use
application for the city's consideration. The purpose of the concept plan review is to identify
significant issues, suggest design considerations and discuss requirements of the city's official
controls." Concept Plan Review "is for the purpose of discussion and comment only. Any
opinions, comments or observations provided to the applicant by the city staff, planning
commission or city council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding
decision on the proposed project."
Existing Conditions
The existing property is located south of Hamel Road, west of Pinto Drive. The aerial at the top
of the next page shows the location of the property. The property is approximately an acre in
size and is currently vacant, but had previously been occupied by a single-family home. Elm
Creek runs to the south of the property, and the southern portion of the lot includes wetlands and
floodplains adjacent to the creek.
There are fairly significant topography changes across the lot both north -to -south (from Hamel
Road down to the wetlands) and also west -to -east. There are trees along the property lines, some
of which are likely to be impacted by construction. Development will be subject to the Tree
Preservation ordinance and the Wetland Buffer ordinance (and any additional buffer required by
the Elm Creek Watershed for Elm Creek).
Stauber/Rosati, LLC Page 1 of 5 May 11, 2010
Concept Plan (705 Hamel Road) Planning Commission Meeting
C oprne?•_• C )O P:crometn. Intemational Corp
Land Use
The Comp Plan identifies the property for High Density Residential (HDR) with a net density of
7-30 units/acre. HDR development "includes duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, apartment
buildings, and condominiums which should incorporate some open space or an active park." The
property is within the current Staging Period and eligible for development.
The property includes 0.743 net acres, so the six unit concept would result in a net density of
8.1 units/acre. For the sake of comparison, a five -unit building would achieve a net density of
6.7 units/acre, which would fall slightly short of the minimum density. During discussions when
the three -unit project was approved on this lot back in 2008, some members of the City Council
had expressed interest in more density on this lot which the proposed concept plan provides.
The following table summarizes the existing and planned land uses of the surrounding area:
Existing Land Use
Future Land Use
North
Business/Industrial
Commercial
South
Wetlands/Open Space
Wetlands/Open Space
East
Multiple Family Res. and Institutional
High Density Res. and Institutional
West
Multiple Family Residential
High Density Residential
Stauber/Rosati, LLC
Concept Plan (705 Hamel Road)
Page 2 of 5
May 11, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting
Zoning
The primary reason the applicant has applied for a Concept Plan Review is because the zoning of
the property may potentially be transitioning in the coming months, and the applicant seeks
direction on which regulations to follow.
The property is currently zoned Multiple -Family Residential (MR, see Section 826.37 of the
Code), and has been for a significant amount of time. The MR district allows for a wide range of
density, including density below what the City has identified for HDR development. As a result,
the City may look to rezone the property to R-4 sometime in the future. The R-4 district was
created by the City last year with the intention of rezoning HDR properties into the R-4 district.
The R-4 regulations are found in Section 841 of the City Code. These regulations are attached
for those who did not receive a new Code Book this year.
The regulations of the R-4 district contemplate development occurring on larger tracts of land.
There are setbacks and buffer yards required from the exterior of a development in order to
reduce potential impacts on surrounding property. The property is located within an area of
similarly guided property, although property to the east and west was developed at a slightly
lower density. The following table summarizes the differences between the districts:
MR District
R-4 District
Proposed Concept
Front Setback
50 feet
50 feet
66 feet
Side Setback
15 ft (+ if taller than 30 feet)
20 ft (40 ft next to less intensive)
15 feet
Rear Setback
40 feet
20 feet
180 feet
Parking Setback
Front
50 feet
50 feet
10 feet
Side
15 feet
20 feet
17 feet (stalls)
9 feet ("turn -around")
Buffer yard
No specific regs.
0.2 opacity
None
Landscaping
No specific regs.
Decided on Site Plan Review
16 overstory;
10 ornamental; 32 shrubs
2 overstory;
1 ornamental; 31 shrubs
Staff would be comfortable reviewing the proposed development under the existing MR zoning
regulations because the other four-plexes along Hamel Road were reviewed under these
regulations. This would seem to provide consistency in development in the area. If the Planning
Commission and Council agree, staff recommends that the applicant be held to the density
requirements of the Comp Plan in addition to the lot size standards of the MR district. The
proposed concept does meet this requirement.
Even if the City decides not to rezone the property and to review the future application under the
MR district, the concept as presented would require two potential variances. The applicant was
also hoping for feedback on the following:
■ Reduction of parking setbacks from Hamel Road (9 feet instead of 50 feet) and the "turn-
arounds" from the side yard (10 feet instead of 15 feet)
• Maximum Hardcover in the Shoreland Overlay (26% instead of 25%)
At staff's urging, the applicant included 18 parking spaces (6 enclosed) in the concept. Because
no overnight parking is allowed on Hamel Road for almost half of the year, the proposed concept
Stauber/Rosati, LLC
Concept Plan (705 Hamel Road) Planning Commission Meeting
Page 3 of 5 May 11, 2010
includes three- and two -bedroom apartments and in order to accommodate guest parking, staff
believes adequate parking is very important. The existing parking code would only require 2
parking spaces per dwelling unit. Staff also recognizes that the topography of the site makes if
difficult to construct a flat area for parking. As the parking lot is pushed back from Hamel Road,
the 13' tall retaining wall on the east side of the lot would need to become even taller. Also, in
order to place parking behind the building, a large portion (20%) of lot's width would be
occupied to accommodate a driveway. As proposed, the parking is 9' from the front property
line, and 29' from the driving surface of Hamel Road.
The Planning Commission and City Council should first discuss if they concur with staff about
the importance of having more than 12 parking stalls. If the applicant were to remove the
parking stalls, or the parking area in front of each garage, there would be an additional 20 feet of
setback. If the Commission and Council agree with the additional parking, it should be
discussed how much of a variance there may be support for. Staff suggested that the applicant
attempt to set the parking back 25 feet (45 feet from the driving surface of Hamel Road). This
would cause the eastern retaining wall to increase 2-3 feet in height.
Depending on the Planning Commission and City Council's discussion about the parking
setback, the Shoreland Overlay hardcover variance may be increased (if the parking is pushed
further back, the hardcover will increase). The City has approved a number of variances to this
standard in recent years, but has required a condition that additional BMPs are incorporated into
the design to improve water quality and to reduce volume. Staff believes this could be justified
in this case in order to meet the density requirements of the City.
Building Desisn
The applicant did not submit details regarding the proposed building in terms of layout or
elevations. Staff believes these items should be reviewed carefully during an official application,
especially if the City grants parking setback variances. Staff has also noted that all of the four-
plexes in the area have tuck -under garages. Architectural elements and building design will be
important to minimize the impact of a long string of garage doors facing the street.
The applicant did submit a cross-section of the possible building. The height of the proposed
structure will be very important. If it is over 30 feet in height, the MR district requires additional
setbacks, and the concept currently shows the minimum of 15 feet on both sides.
The Fire Marshal's comments (attached) state that the building should be sprinkled because of
the size of the structure, and also because of the difficulty of accessing the rear of the building.
Staff has some concern about the applicant's plan to require the units to store individual trash
and recycling containers. The proposed garages appear to be 11-12 feet in width. This leaves
very little spaces for containers. Additionally, on trash/recycling days, there will be a dozen
containers all lined up along Hamel Road.
Stauber/Rosati, LLC
Concept Plan (705 Hamel Road) Planning Commission Meeting
Page 4 of 5 May 11, 2010
4
LID and Sustainability
Instead of standard stormwater ponding, the applicant has proposed a biofiltration basin in the
back yard in order to treat stormwater. Additionally, stormwater is directed to the basin through
overland swales instead of pipes. Proposed hardcover is fairly low compared to what would be
allowed in the zoning district (leaving aside the shoreland overlay district). Allowing a front
setback variance would assist in a reduction of hardcover.
In terms of sustainability, the large area in the back yard allows an opportunity for recreation and
open space for the residents. A possible improvement may be a covered area for bike racks
(since it will be tight to fit bikes in the garages). Staff would like to support a reduction in
parking, but does not do so since there is no access to transit.
Parks/Trails/Open Space
If the applicant proposes to not subdivide or CIC plat the property, the City will be unable to
require park dedication on this project.
No park study areas have been identified in this area, and as noted above, the large back yard
will hopefully allow opportunity for private recreation. The Trail Plan shows a high priority trail
along Hamel Road, but describes it along the north side of the road (continuing from Rainwater
Nature Area to Pinto Drive).
Affordable Housing
The applicant suggests in their narrative that the units may qualify as affordable housing. In
discussion with staff, the applicant stated that they would be interested in discussing what
potential incentives may be available if they agree to place covenants on the rents of the property
to maintain them as affordable housing.
Staff believes credits for City sewer and water connection fees are a potential incentive in this
case. The concept does not qualify for Met Council's "apartment credit" for Sewer Access
Charge (SAC) fees because they are planned to have individual laundry facilities. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council discuss the possibility of granting a
20% credit for the City's Sewer and Water Connection fees if a portion of the units are protected
as affordable housing.
Attachments
1. City Engineer comments dated 4/21/2010
2. Fire Marshal comments dated 4/23/2010
3. Applicant Narrative
4. Concept plan drawings
Stauber/Rosati, LLC
Concept Plan (705 Hamel Road) Planning Commission Meeting
Page 5 of 5 May 11, 2010
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
April 21, 2010
Mr. Dusty Finke
Planner
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340
Re: Medina Apartments
Bonestroo File No. 000190-10000-1
Plat No. L-10-056
Dear Dusty,
Bonestroo
We have reviewed the concept plans for the proposed 6 -unit apartment building at 705 Hamel Road,
dated 4-12-10. The plans propose to construct a 6 -unit apartment building, small parking lot, and a
rain garden. We have the following preliminary comments with regards to engineering matters:
Streets/Parking Lot
• A geotechnical report, R -value recommendation, and pavement design should be submitted
for review and approval.
• The parking lot layout should be submitted to the fire marshal for review.
• Curb and gutter should be shown around the entire perimeter of the parking area.
Grading/Drainage/Wetlands
• Final plans should include a detailed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for
review and approval.
• Engineered retaining wall design and details should be submitted for all retaining walls
greater than 4 feet in height. Wall design must take into consideration storm sewer pipes
passing through or under their foundations.
• A 10' wide drainage and utility easement over the proposed storm sewer should be provided.
• Additional spot elevations should be shown at critical elevations in the parking lot and on
sidewalks.
• It appears the retaining wall at the southeast corner of the building should be extended to
the north.
• The plans should identify areas to be seeded and sodded.
• The grading will impact the floodplain of Elm Creek. Permits may be required by FEMA.
• The proposed improvements will disturb more than one acre. This will require a NPDES
permit from the MPCA.
• All permits (Watershed, NPDES, FEMA, etc.) should be submitted to the City prior to
construction.
• Storm sewer/rain garden calculations should be submitted for review and approval.
• Please see John Smyth's memo for the wetland review and comments.
Utilities
• Details should be provided for the storm sewer, and sewer and water services. This includes
pipe size and type, as well as invert and rim elevations.
• There should be a minimum 10' horizontal separation between the sewer and water services.
" T h e e x i s t i n g s a n i t a r y s e w e r s e r v i c e o f f t h e M C E S s e w e r l i n e s h o u l d b e a b a n d o n e d p r o p e r l y
w i t h t h i s p r o j e c t .
" D e p e n d i n g o n t h e p r o p o s e d w a t e r s e r v i c e s i z e a n d t h e p o t e n t i a l n e e d f o r f i r e p r o t e c t i o n i n
t h e b u i l d i n g , t h e P u b l i c W o r k s S u p e r i n t e n d e n t a n d F i r e M a r s h a l s h o u l d c o m m e n t o n t h e n e e d
f o r a h y d r a n t o n s i t e .
" T h e m e t h o d o f i n s t a l l i n g t h e w a t e r m a i n u n d e r H a m e l R o a d s h o u l d b e i n d i c a t e d o n t h e p l a n s .
G e n e r a l
" T h e H a m e l R o a d r i g h t - o f - w a y s h o u l d b e c l e a r l y l a b e l e d o n a l l s h e e t s . D e p e n d i n g o n t h e
r i g h t - o f - w a y l o c a t i o n , a n e a s e m e n t m a y b e n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e s e w e r c o n n e c t i o n .
" F i n a l p l a n s s h o u l d i n c l u d e a l l a p p l i c a b l e M e d i n a C i t y S t a n d a r d D e t a i l s .
" P l a n s s h o u l d b e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e F i r e M a r s h a l f o r r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l .
" P l a n s s h o u l d i d e n t i f y s n o w s t o r a g e a r e a s .
" W h e n t h e f i n a l p l a n s a r e c o m p l e t e d , w e w i l l p r e p a r e a n e s t i m a t e d c o s t f o r t h e s i t e
i m p r o v e m e n t s a s a b a s i s f o r t h e f i n a n c i a l g u a r a n t e e n e c e s s a r y .
I f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s p l e a s e f e e l f r e e t o c o n t a c t m e a t ( 6 5 1 ) 6 0 4 - 4 8 9 4 .
S i n c e r e l y ,
B O N E S T R O O
D a r r e n A m u n d s e n
C c : T o m K e l l o g g
D e b P e t e r s o n - D u f r e s n e
J o h n S m y t h
Bonestroo
Wetland Review
705 Hamel Road, Medina
The below tables represent the wetland review based on the Alliant Engineering, Inc. plans dated 4-12-10.
Table 1. Summary of Comments by Wetland Conservation Section of City Code Section 828.43.
Ordinance
Section
Description
Status
Comments
Subp. 4 (c)
Wetland Delineation
Provided
Approved 7/20/07
Subp. 4 (g)
Legal Descriptions of Wetlands and Upland
Buffer Zones
Not Provided
This should be provided at the time of final plat approval.
Subp. 6
Infiltration
City Approval
Required
Infiltration area in upland buffer allowed per Subp. 6. if
approved by City.
Subp. 7
Buffer Markers
Provided
Location shown on Preliminary Site Plan and Landscape Plan
Subp. 8
Upland Buffer Landscape Plan
Not Provided
Upland Buffer Zones that do not meet the Vegetation
Performance Standards in Subd.8. will be required to have
an Upland Buffer Landscape plan that meets the
requirements of Subd. 8. Landscape plan not provided.
Reviewed by John Smyth 4-26-10
METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.
Loren Kohnen, Pres. (763) 479-1720
FAX (763) 479-3090
April 23, 2010
TO: Debra Peterson -Dufresne
FROM: Loren Kohnen
RE: 705 Hamel Road
Medina, Minnesota
Proposed 6 Unit Townhome Building
CONCEPT REVIEW
The proposed building is required to be sprinklered. It will have
to be sprinklered to N.F.P.A. 13 standard.
There is no easy access to the rear of the building except over a
retainingwall that could be 6' - 7' high. The access would be
for fire fighting equipment and personnel.
At the front of the building there will have to be a clear area for
the Fire Department sprinkler connection and a small sprinkler valve
room:
Please call with any questions.
LK:jk
Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357
April 10, 2010
Dusty Finke
City Planner
Dusty,
ApR 12200
Stauber/Rosati LLC was approved for a 3 unit townhome project at 705 Hamel Road in 2008. The project
that was approved by the City Council in 2008 was a 3 unit townhouse featuring tuck under garages with
a driveway along the East side and back, or South, of the building. The cost associated with this plan in a
great housing market was built into the cost of the homes. However, due to the crash in the housing
market, this plan is no longer viable.
As a result of the economic downturn, Stauber/Rosati is submitting a concept plan for comments on a 6
unit rental building that will better meet the needs of the community. If approved, Stauber/Rosati
would like start construction upon approval, with completion occurring no later than spring of 2011.
With this new plan, we are positioning the garages on the front of the building facing Hamel Road, or.
the North side. By having the garages positioned in the front, it makes for more green space in the rear
of the building. Furthermore, Renters that have children will feel much safer if the rear (backyard) is the
play area, not the front yard. If a drive -way was required along the East Side we would lose units, along
with funding for the project. Our new plan maximizes density.
Due to the 50 foot building and parking setback, we are seeking a variance for the exterior parking
spaces. We are providing two parking spaces per unit, plus an additional six stalls. There are many single
family homes no more than two blocks, east and west, of the proposed 6 unit building which include
garages that face the North (Hamel Road). It is our belief that the proposed design will assimilate with
the surrounding properties.
We understand the importance of sight lines from Hamel Road. Therefore, we are proposing to provide
evergreen hedges and berming to screen parked vehicles. Additionally, the apartment building will not
provide a dumpster on the property, as they are an eyesore. As an alternative, we will require the
renters to manage their own garbage pickup with Randy's Sanitation.
The building will consist of: two one -bedroom units, two two -bedroom units, and two three -bedroom
units. The anticipated rent for the one bedroom units will be $550 per month. At this pricing, it may
qualify for Affordable Housing. The two -bedroom anticipated rent will be $950 per month. The three
bedroom units will rent for $1250 per month. The projected rents are either lower or consistent with
other local rental properties.
Dusty, I hope we have covered all of the items for the concept plan review process. As I have said to you
many times in our discussions we are excited about starting a project on 705 Hamel Road.
The concept plan that we have submitted for comments is the plan that we believe better serves the
local community.
Yours Truly,
Robb Stauber
President: Stauber/Rosati LLC
ALLIANT
ENGINEERIN G, INC.
238 PARK AVE. SOU TH, SUITE 360
MINNEAPO LIS. MN 51415
P HONE (612) 7663060
FAX (612) 7693099
GENERAL NO TES
CCI W
W
E.
1O_, I
I.
0
0
CC
MM OMM
IEXISTING
TREE TO
REMAIN
2 -AUTUMN BLAZE
MAPLE, 2.5": DIAL
22-TECHNY GLOBE
ARBORVITAE, 24" HT.
9 -NE FLASH
SPIREA, 18" HT.
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
B612 CURB AND
GUTTER
�1111�1111111�111
PROPOSED
6 -UNIT
BUILDING
300' SNORELAND
OVERLAY BOUNDARY'
LINE
1
MODULAR BLOCK
RETAINING W ALL WITH
42" GUARD RAIL
MODULAR BLOCK
RETAINING W ALL WITH
42" GUARD RAIL
N01" 2511"E 34850
13"-EDILDINCi SETBACK
PROPOSED
RAIN GARDEN
PERMANENT
W ETLAND
BUFFER
M ARKER
EDGE OF
OVERHEAD
DECK (TYP. )
EDGE OF
OVERH EAD .
DECK (TYP.)
15' BUILDING SETBACK
N0125'11 E 348.50 ""`�
MODULAR BLOCK
RETAINING WALL WITH
42" GUARD RAIL
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS
PERMANEN T
WETLAND
BUFFER
MARKER
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND LANDSAPE PLAN
1. PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION. THE CON TRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE
SURE THAT ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND AP- PROVALS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. NO
CON STRUCTION OR FABRICATION SHAL L BEGIN UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR HAS RECEIVED
AND THOROUGHLY REVIEWED ALL PLANS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS APPROVED BY ALL OF
THE PERMITTING AUTHORITIES.
2. ALL W ORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PLA NS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND THE REQUIREM ENTS AND STANDARDS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY.
3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEMOLITION & REMOVAL OF ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES
W HICH IN TERFERE W ITH NEW W ORK A5 SHOWN.
4. CONCRETE SIDEW ALK AND CURB & GUTTER SH ALL BE REMOVED TO NEAREST
CONSTRUCTION JOIN T OUTSIDE THE REMO VAL LIMITS.
5. ALL DIMENSIONS, GRA DES, EXISTING AND PROPOSED INFORMATION SHO WN ON THE PLANS
SH ALL BE FIELD VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTR UC TION. CONTRACTOR
SHALL NOTIFY TH E CON STRUCTION MANAGER IF ANY DISCREPANCIES EX IST PRIOR TO
PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRICTION FOR NECESSARY PLAN OR GRADE CHANGES. NO EXTRA
COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR W ORK HAVING TO BE REDONE
DUE TO INFORMATION SHOWN INCORRECTLY ON THESE P1A1JS IF SUCH NOTIFICATION HAS
NOT BEEN GIVEN.
6. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOW N ARE TO EDGE OF PAVEMENT, CENTER OF STRUCTURE, EDGE OF
SIDEW ALK OR EXTERIOR OF BUILDING.
7. ALL CONCRETE SIDEW ALK ADJACENT TO BUILDING SHALL BE SEPERATED BY A 1/2"
EXPANSION JOINT.
8. PROTECT EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEW ALKS DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION.
CONTRACTOR TO REPLACE ANY CRACKED OR BROKEN PANELS CAUSED BY SITE
CONSTRUCTION.
9. CON TRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL & DISPOSAL OF THE EXISTING
BITUMINOUS. BITUMINOUS SHALL BE SAW CUT OR JACK HAMMERED FOR STRAIGHT EDGES .
TA CK 5HALL BE USED ON BITUMINOUS EDGE PRIOR TO PATC HING . MATCH EXISTING
GRADES.
10. CON TRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ADJOINING PROPERTIES & STRUCTURES FROM HAZARDS
ASSOCIATED W ITH HIS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES & SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL
DAMAGES TO PROPERTIES & STRUCTURES THAT OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THESE ACTIVITIES.
11. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT IMPEDE EXISTING TRAFFIC CIRCUL ATION TO ADJACENT BUSINESSES.
12. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM S WEEPING ON PRIVATE PARKING AREAS AND PUBLIC STREETS
AT LEA ST ONCE A WEEK. ONCE A DAY IF NEEDED .
13. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD FULLY RESPONSIBLE TO PREVENT AND EUMINATE ANY DUST
NU ISANCE OCCASIONED BY AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, U NTIL THE PROJECT HAS BEEN
COM PLETED AND HANDED OVER.
SITE PLAN N OTE S
1. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR CONCRETE STOOPS ADJACENT TO PROPOSED
BUILDING .
2. ALL WORK WITHIN THE R.O .W. STALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY ENGINEERING DESIGN
STANDARDS .
3. BUILDING DIMENSIONS REFER TO OUTSIDE DF BUILDING. FACE (TYP.) UNLESS OTHER WISE
NOTED.
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES
AND TOPOGR APHIC FEATURES, SUCH AS EXISTING STREET GRADES AT THE PROP OSED
DRIVEWAYS, PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL.
IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OF VARIATIO NS F ROM THE
PLANS .
5. ALL CONCRETE PADS TO 8E 3000 PSI AIR ENTRAINED 6" CONCRETE WITH 14 BARS 0 12"
0 .C. AND BROOM FINISHED .
6. ALL RETAINING WALLS TO 8E MODULAR CO NCRETE BLOCK .
SITE DATA:
EXISTING ZONING - MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (MR)
PROPOSED ZONING - MULTI -FA MILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT (MR)
LOT ARE A
E XISTING LOT AREA - 43,436 SO. FT .; 0 .997 AC
STREET E ASEMENT - 4,113 SO. FT.; 0.094 AC
PROPOSED LOT AREA - 39,323 50. FT .; 0.903 AC
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA - 10.393 SO. FT .; 0.26%
TOTAL BUILDING FOOT PRINT AREA - 4,587 SQ . FT.
DWELLING UNITS - 6 UNITS
PARKING DATA:
REQUIRED PARKING - 12
2 S PACES PER UNIT
PROVIDED EXTERIOR PARKING - 12
PROVIDED INTERIOR PAR KING - 6
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED - 18
SITE LEGEND:
XX
LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING RIGHT-OF- WAY
PROPOSED SETBACKS
NAT NE VEGETATIVE BUFFER
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEME NT
STREET EASEMENT DEDICATION AREA TO BE
CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF MEDINA
0' 20' 40' 80'
SCALE IN FEET
•
!lit!
0
MEDINA APARTMENTS
Ha"
00
1.1
0 Z
_
wi
X
<
2 Z
W
0 X
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND LANDSAPE PLAN
REVISIONS
DESIGNED BY MK
DRAWN BY DE
CHECKED BY MK
DATE ISSUED 4-12-10
SCALE 1" = 20 '
JOB NO. 207-0039 .0
C-2
NORTH
SHEET 3 of 7
BENCH MARK
N0. 2
999. 1
0
C.
1000.8
RIM
TREE
PROTECTION
FENCE.
SEE DETAIL
DRIP LINE
4' SNOW FENCE W ITH
POSTS B' 0.C. AT DRIP
LNE OF OUTER MOST
BRANCHES
ELEVATION
PLAN
997:0 TW
994. 0 BW
EXISTING A SH
TREE TO
REMAIN.
NOTE: TREE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY CON TRACTOR AS REQUIRED
SHALL BE STORED
TO 0 81146 THE EXISTING
TREESTO
85RDESIGN ATED ABOVE.IN NO HEAV Y EWIPMEM
6'
MIN.
3:1 SLOPE
BOTTOM
� WIDTH VARII -'
1.05 SLO PE
TOWARDS
CENTER
STANDARD DETAILS
BIOINFILTRATION BASIN
PROPOSED WATERAND
SANITARY SERVICE
1,00.``TW
987.2 BW
INLET.
PROTECTION ..
990.0
GFE 1001. 0
E 990.0 '.
996.0 TW
992.5 138 .
NATIVE VEGETATION
(SEE PLANTING NOTES)
3:1 SLOPE
986.5 TW
981.0 BW
PLANTING M EDIUM
UNDISTURBED AN D
UNCOMPACTED
IN5TU 501L
SILT FENCE (TYP.)
890 TW- -_ _ ' EXISTING
989.0 BW BOXELDER
TREES TO
R EMAIN, TYP.
Plan ting
976 TOP OF RNNGARDEN
974 -BOTTOM OF RAINGARDEN
GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
STANDARD DETAILS
DRAINTILE INSTALLATION
Finished grade
r ow., 4
Course Filler Aggregate
,- MNDOT (3149.2H)
306' Pe rfo rated. rigid,
Thermo plastic (TP) Drain tile.
MNDOT (2502).
a "- Geotestile fabric
MNDOT (3733-TypeyI)
on thebotto m d
n sides f trenc h
ERO SIO N AND SED IMENT CO NTROL MAINTENANCE PROG RAM
1. INSPECT SILT FENCES IMM EDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AN D AT LEAST DAILY DURIN G
PROLONGED RAINFALL. IMM EDIATELY REPAIR FAILED OR FAILING SILT FENCE.
2. REPLACEMENT - FABRIC SHALL BE REPLACED PROMPTLY WHEN IT DECOMPOSES OR BECOMES
INEFFECTIVE BEFORE THE BARRIER 15 NO LONGER NECESSARY.
3. SEDIMENT REMOVAL - THEY MUST 8E REMOVED SEDIM ENT SHOULD
WHEN DEPOSITS REACHAPPROXIMATELY ONE-STORMEVENT.
HALF THE HEIGHT OF
THE BARRIER.
4. ANY SEDIMENT REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER THE SILT FENCE OR FILTER FABRIC 15 NO
LONGER REQUIRED SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM WITH EXISTING GRADE. PREPARED, AND
SEEDED WITH THE APPROPRIATE SEED MIX, AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
5. REMOVAL OF SILT FENCE - SILT FENCES SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY H AVE SERVED
THEIR USEFUL PURPOSE, BUT NO T BEFORE THE UPWARD SLOPING AREA HAS BEEN
PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. IF THE UPWA RD SLOPING AREA IS TO BE EXPOSED LO NGER THAN
SIX (6) MONTHS. THAT AREA SHALL BE COVERED W ITH TEMPORARY VEGETATION WHEN FIRST
NOTE EXPOSED.
Do not wrap pipes
in geo -fabric,
or place geo -fa bric
o ver top of drains.
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN - 977.0
PROVIDED BY: TOM KELLOGG
BONESTROO-CITY ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
ELM CREEK FLOODPLAIN CALCULATIONS:
FILL WITHIN EXISTING FLOODPLAIN - 81 C.F.
COMPENSATORY FLOODPLAIN VOLUME - 1,782 C .F .
NET INCREASE OF FLOODPLAIN VOLUME - 1,701 C .F.
EROSION CO NTROL SCHEDULE
1. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION. SILT FENCE AND FILTERS SHALL BE
INSTALLED AS SHOWN TO INTERCEPT RUNOFF.
2. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING GRADING OF SIDE SLOPES, W OOD FIBER BLANKET (OR OTHER
SLOPE STABILIZING METHOD APPROV ED BY EN GINEER) SHALL BE APPLIED OVER APPROVED
SEED MIXTURE AND A MINIMUM OF 4' TOPSOIL
3. ALL EROSION CONTROL IN STALLATIONS SHALL REM AIN IN PLACE A ND BE MAINTAINED
IN GOOD CONDMON BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL THE SITE HAS BEEN RE -VEGETATED.
CON TRACTOR MAY REMOVE NECESSA RY SILT FENCING/FILTERS TO CONSTRUCT ROADWAYS.
W HILE MAINTAINING ADEQUATE EROSION CONTROL IN ADJACENT AREA
4. SUFFICIENT TOPSOIL SHALL 8E STOCKPILED TO ALLOW FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF 4' OF
TOPSOIL FOR DISTURBED AREAS TO BE RE -VEGETATED.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE SITE GRADING, UTILRY INSTALLATION AND ROADWAY
CONSTRUCTION 50 TH AT THE GENERAL SITE CAN 8E MULCHED AND RE -SEEDED SOON
AFTER DISTURBANCE. AREAS THAT W ILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC S HALL
BE SEEDED AND MULCHED OR SODDED WITHIN THREE (3) DAYS OF BEING DIST URBED.
6. THE GRASSES UTILIZED IN THE SEED AND SOD AREAS SHALL BE OF A SHADE TOLERANT
TYPE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTM ENT OF TRANSPORTATION .
GRADING NO TES:
1. ALL PA VEMENTS SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM PR OPOSED BUILDING AT 2.05 GRADE .
2. THE CON TRACTO R SHALL KEEP THE ADJACENT ROADWAYS FREE OF DEBRIS AND PREVENT
THE OFF -SITE TRACKING OF SOIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CITY/COUNTY.
3. NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, AT (800)252-1166, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF
CONSTRUCTION.
4. ALL IMPROVEMENTS TO CONFORM WITH CITY AND COUNTY CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
SPECIFICATION . LATEST EDITION .
5. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
POINTS .
6. CONTRACTOR TO SEED ALL ROUGH GRADED AREAS & FUTURE PAD SITES W/ APPROVED
MNDOT TE MPORARY SEED MIX .
7. SURVEYOR TO VERIFY BE NCH MARK ELEVATION PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION.
8. REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND PROJECT MANUAL, FOR SOIL CO RRECTION
REQUIREMENTS AND TESTING REQUIRE ME NTS.
9. STRIP TOPSOIL PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. REUSE STOCKPILE ON SITE.
10. REFER TO SITE DESIGN CRITERIA SECTION OF PROJECT MANUAL FOR ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS .
11. CONTRACTOR TO LOOSEN SUBSOIL WITHIN ALL PROPOSED INFILTRATION ARE AS TO A
DEPTH OF 24 INCHES OR GREATER. TO A MAXIMUM COMPACTION OF 1355 STANDARD
PROCTOR DENSITY.
12. PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO
MACE SURE T HAT ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. NO
CONSTRUCTION OR FABRICATION SHALL BEGIN UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR HAS RECEIVED
AND THOROUGHLY REVIEWED ALL PLANS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS APPROVED BY ALL OF
THE PERMITTING AUTHORITIES.
13. RETAINING WALLS GREATER THAN 4' IN HEIGHT SHALL BE DESI GNED BY A QUALIFIED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WITH
CO NSIDERATION FO UTILITIES PASSING THROUGH OR UNDER THEIR FOUNDATIONS.
GRADING LEGEND
-789 -
DD
XXX TW
/001
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONTOUR
DRAINAGE MADE
SURFACE ELEVATION
TOP OF WALL ELEVATION
BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION
PROPOSED CATCH BASINS
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
FIRST FLOOR ELE VATION
GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION
BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION
SILT FENCE
INLET PROTECTION
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
BENCHMARKS:
1. MNDOT BRASS DISK STAMPED 2722 X LAS AN ELEVATION OF 995.21 FEET NGVD 29.
2. TOP N UT OF HYDRANT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF HAMEL ROAD AND
T OWER DRIVE HAS AN ELE VATION OF 998.52 FEET NGVD 29.
0' 20'
SCALE IN FEET
40' 80'
NORTH
ALLIANT
BNGLNEEBING, INC.
233 PAAK AVE. SOUTH, 511TTE 300
MINNEAPOLIS. MN 60416
PHONE (612) 768. 3060
FAX(612)768-3099
ry
•
MEDINA APARTMENTS
GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN
REVISIONS
DESIGNED BY MK
DRAWN BY DE
CHECKED BY MK
DATE ISSUED 4-12-10
SCALE 1' = 20'
JOB N0 . 207-0039.0
C-3
SHEET
HAMEL ROAD
SECTION / ELEVATION A -A'
RIGHT
SCALE: 1" = 10'
—\
L —
—33---
— 33 — — —
\
L —
L 1
J
ya .
"yn1;a\ry a
4
X
I di
A
0
in
MEDINA APARTMENTS
MEDINA, MINNESOTA
0
0
LIJ
r.
0
0
I
PLAN VIE W
I 1 I
A/C
GFE 1001.(
SCALE: 1" = 20'
/C
GARAGE
GFE 1001
ALLIANT
ENGINEERING
I M C O R P O R A I E D
Minneapolis, MN • 612-758-3080
Engin eer s • S ur veyors • L andscape Architects
DATE: 4-9-10
DRA WN BY: MK
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Adams
DATE: April 29, 2010
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates for April 20, 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 — the City Council and
Planning Commission provided direction at the concurrent meeting on March 16, and Barr
Engineering also coordinated fairly well attended Open House on March 23 to get additional
feedback. The Planning Commission and Park Commission reviewed the ordinance on
April 13, requested additional information, and will review again on May 11.
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. Staff intends
to present the point system at the June Planning Commission meeting, in order to complete
work on the Conservation Design regulations.
Land Use Application Reviews
A) OSI Plat, Site Plan Review, CUP, Rezoning — NW corner of Arrowhead and Hwy 55 — The
City Council adopted resolutions of approval and an ordinances for rezoning on March 16
and April 6. The applicant is looking to construct 8,400 additional square feet on the
building because construction bids came in very competitive. The Planning Commission
recommended approval at the April 13 meeting. The City Council is scheduled to review
the amended Site Plan along with the Final Plat at the May 4 meeting.
B) Strand Lot Combination and Easement Vacation — 1985 Hamel Road — the applicant has
requested a lot combination in order to attach an adjacent 30 -foot Outlot onto their lot. The
request is also to vacate the existing drainage and utility easement which would run through
the interior of the new lot if the parcels are combined. A Public Hearing is scheduled for the
May 4 City Council meeting for the Vacation, as is review of the lot combination as well.
C) Apartment Concept Plan — 705 Hamel Road — Robb Stauber has requested a Concept Plan
Review for a 6 -unit apartment building at 705 Hamel Road. The City had previously
approved a 4 -unit townhome building on this site in 2007. The applicant seeks feedback on
which zoning district to develop by and a potential parking setback variance. The Planning
Commission is scheduled to review this request at their May meeting.
D) Bradley Leawood 3rd Addn Plat — 3415 Leawood Drive — the applicant has applied to split
the existing lot into two parcels. A Public Hearing has been scheduled for the May Planning
Commission meeting.
E) Bryson/LeMond Lot Line Rearrangement — 3000 and 3082 Willow Drive — the applicants
have withdrawn their request, so staff will close out the file.
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 May 4, 2010
City Council Meeting
F) Enclave of Medina Subdivision — 3212 Hunter Drive — Lennar has submitted for
preliminary plat and Comp Plan Amendment for the Holasek property. The plat identifies
140 single family homes and 42 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 has began a preliminary review
and will schedule the application for a Public Hearing when complete.
G) 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 will inspect the property on June 1 to verify removal.
H) Septic System Wetland Setback Variance — 1255 Medina Road —The City Council
approved the resolution at the January 5 Council meeting. Staff is working with the
applicant regarding the conditions of the approval.
I) 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.
J) 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 applicant has requested an additional
extension to file the plat, and staff has prepared a resolution granting another 6 months.
Additional Projects
A) Extension to complete update of Official Controls — Staff has projected that the City will
have difficulty completing the remaining three items necessary to make the City's official
controls consistent with the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan prior to the July 14 deadline.
The Met Council stated that the City is making good progress and expressed support for
granting the City an extension. Staff intends to request such an extension in order to allow
sufficient time to carefully complete the remaining matters.
B) Zoning Enforcement (Hamel Station tree removal) — Staff has obtained a cost estimate of
$3,850 to prepare a remediation plan and has requested the developer to submit a deposit in
this amount to complete the plan. Staff has given the developer a deadline of May 7, 2010
to respond.
C) Zoning Enforcement (Manure Management) — staff continues inspections of manure
management consistent with procedures set forth in the City's Manure Management Policy
(80.10). Staff intends to complete initial inspections in the month of April.
D) Zoning Enforcement (General) — staff continues to monitor a number of complaints related
to outside storage on residential properties to see that property owners remove the stored
materials within a reasonable time. Numerous property owners have worked hard to clean
up their property, and a lot of unlicensed "junk" vehicles have been hauled away. Staff will
consult with Medina Police for potential next steps on a few property owners who have not
made progress.
Planning Department Update
Page 2 of 2 May 4, 2010
City Council Meeting
Medina Planning Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
2 Draft Meeting Minutes
3 Tuesday, April 13, 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, John Anderson, Kathleen Martin, Kent
9 Williams, and Beth Nielsen.
10
11 Absent: Robin Reid
12
13 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne
14
15 2. Public Hearing — Open Systems International (OSI) — Northwest corner of Arrowhead
16 Drive and State Highway 55 (PID 03-118-23-44-0001) — Amendment of previously
17 approved Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to increase the building size from
18 92,000 square feet to 100,400 square feet.
19
20 Finke provided a brief presentation of the changes from the previous CUP application approval.
21
22 OSI representative gave a brief project overview.
23
24 Anderson asked if the size of the building was large enough. Ed Fitzpatrick, OSI representative
25 said the increased square footage meets their expectations for size and would not expand the
26 building beyond the new proposed square footage. He said if they need additional space they
27 would construct another building on a separate lot.
28
29 Finke said the site plan did change significantly in that the applicant is purchasing wetland
30 credits off -site which would reduce the amount of on -site grading needed. He further explained
31 how the exterior materials changed with increased brick as suggested by Commission during the
32 initial CUP.
33
34 The Public Hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m.
35 The Public Hearing was Closed at 9:26 p.m.
36
37 Williams said the modifications made a good plan even better. Nolan said he was not able to be
38 at the original meeting for approval and he embraces staff's idea of the trees along the north
39 boundary. He recommended the trees be placed closer to the building. Fitzpatrick said they
40 were willing to increase the caliper of the trees rather than move them closer to the building
41 since moving trees closer to the building causes the roots to get too close to the building and the
42 trees block fire accessibility.
43
44 Fitzpatrick said they understand the screening requirements and they are committed to providing
45 additional screening based on what develops to the north. He asked for the ability to work with
46 staff to finalize the plan. Nolan said he respects that OSI didn't want trees next to building.
1
Medina Planning Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1
2 Nolan further raised concern with loading docks being visible from state hwy 55 and residential
3 homes. He recommended a wing wall be built on the corner of the building to screen.
4 Fitzpatrick said they intended to bring a small 2-4 foot wing wall extension and that they would
5 not have trucks parked over night and would never support adding trucks to be parked in this
6 area. He noted the loading dock area is proposed to be submerged four feet below the grade.
7
8 Nolan said he still recommended screening the loading dock area since it would improve
9 aesthetics and shouldn't cost more than $10,000 to construct.
10
11 V. Reid said she drives by the property every day and does not have an issue with the originally
12 approved plan nor the proposed plan.
13
14 Williams asked Nolan if it would help to extend the trees around that area rather than expanding
15 the wall. Nolan said the east side of the building is the most visible from state highway 55 and a
16 screen wall would be the best solution.
17
18 OSI representative said they wouldn't ever own tractor trailers, they hire local hauling companies
19 to make their deliveries.
20
21 V. Reid commented that by requesting this type of change was treating the applicant unfairly
22 since the city previously approved the loading dock area as is.
23
24 Weir commented that the land to the east would develop some time in the future which could
25 screen the loading area being discussed.
26
27 Nolan suggested rearranging landscaping to better screen the area rather than a wall extension.
28
29 Williams said their may be other ways to screen the area and would be open to suggestions.
30
31 Nielsen said she disagrees with requiring the new screen wall for the loading dock area since this
32 area of the building was already previously acceptable to the commission.
33
34 Motion by Nielsen, seconded by V. Reid to approve the CUP Amendment with staffs
35 recommended conditions. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
36
37
38 3. Planning Department Report
39
40 Finke updated the Commission.
41
42
43 4. Approval of March 9, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes:
44
45 Motion by Williams, seconded by Nielsen to approve the March 9, 2010 minutes as written.
46 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
47
2
Medina Planning Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1 5. Approval of March 16, 2010 minutes of concurrent meeting with the City Council:
2
3 Motion by Williams, seconded by V. Reid to approve the March 16, 2010 minutes as written.
4 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
5
6 6. Discussion — Rescheduling of August 10th meeting date
7
8 Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to move the Tuesday August 10, 2010 Planning
9 Commission meeting date to Wednesday August 11, 2010. Motion carried unanimously.
10 (Absent: R. Reid)
11
12 7. City Council Meeting Schedule: Discussion of representation at Council meeting.
13
14
15 8. Adjourn: Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Anderson to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Motion
16 carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
17
3
MEDINA
CONCURRENT MEETING AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION AND
PARK COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2010
7:00 p.m.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Ca11 to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Approval of April 13, 2010 Concurrent Planning Commission & Park
Commission minutes
5. Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Chapter 8 of
Medina's City Code pertaining to the creation of regulations for
Conservation Design and Open Space Protection.
6. Adjourn
POSTED IN CITY HALL May 5, 2010
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
CITY OF MEDINA
CONCURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION
& PARK COMMISSION
Draft Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
1. Call to Order: Planning Commissioner Chair, Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m.
Present: Planning Commissioners, Victoria Reid, John Anderson, Kent Williams, Beth Nielsen,
Charles Nolan and Kathleen Martin.
Park Commissioners Ben Benson, Madeleine Linck, Bill Waytas, Janet White and Ann Thies.
Absent: Planning Commissioner Robin Reid and Park Commissioners Paul Jaeb and Chris
Hilberg.
Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke, Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne, and City
Planning Consultant Dan Petrik of Barr Engineering Company.
2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda:
No public comments.
3. Update from City Council Proceedings:
Weir presented the Council update.
4. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8 of Medina's City Code pertaining
to the creation of regulations for Conservation Design and Open Space Protection.
Dan Petrik of Barr Engineering reviewed the conservation design ordinance, highlighting:
• How the overall plan would integrate resources within the community and to meet goals
of the community
• How it would assist in maintaining land values
• Protection of natural resources in exchange for increased density
• The ordinance utilizes the underlying zoning districts to determine density
• How it would be utilized by offering incentives as a voluntary program
• Anticipated schedule of ordinance approval
• Ordinance flexibility and incentives in exchange for increased density.
• The overall approach would be through an overlay district and implemented under a
planned unit development which could be established as a CD-PUD
• 40 acre minimum development size in rural areas and 20 acre minimum in sewered areas
with different design standards and incentives for each
1
1
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
• Base density was explained
Williams asked if a 40 acre parcel currently allows a maximum of four buildable lots, would the
proposed ordinance allow eight. He asked what the limitation was on how it could be configured
and asked if the eight houses could be condensed into a corner of the 40 acres. He further asked
if there would be a minimum lot size requirement. Petrik explained the comprehensive plan
doesn't have specific minimum lot sizes or lot widths identified. He said the developer would
have complete flexibility with the lot sizes and widths as long as septic requirements could be
met. Williams asked if the five contiguous acres was related to septic requirements. Weir
clarified it is a way of controlling lot sizes and keeping them large. She further said the Met
Council intends after 2030 before density increases too much to sewer the entire southern portion
of Medina (Minnehaha Creek Watershed). She said the Met Council wants to keep the average
density to no more than one unit per 10 acres, because if we had greater density it would be
harder for them to sewer the area in the future.
The commission then discussed the cost to provide infrastructure for developments proposed that
are clustered. Benson said he thought it would be difficult for a developer to get density
increased by 100 percent because of all the wetlands and terrain in the community. He said a
developer's infrastructure costs would be down by clustering, but density would be closer to 50
percent increases rather than the full 100 percent.
Petrik reviewed other incentives that he wanted the commission to discuss such as lot size, lot
width, setbacks, housing types, landscaping, and screening. He clarified what buildable areas
meant by subtracting areas such as wetlands, lakes, hydric soils, slopes over 18%, requiring
wetland buffers, and the 100 -year flood plain. He said the idea is to provide a range of flexibility
for developers.
Petrik reviewed the City's top priorities such as sensitive ecological resources, views from vistas,
and habitat corridors. He then explained the optional elements such as the land stewardship plan
and how it involved a four -step process. He explained the current process for a land use project
can be two to three steps and implementing this program would create a fourth step towards
approval if a developer wanted to increase density. He said that the program would initially
determine if there would be ecological resources that would want to be preserved in exchange for
the increased density.
The commission discussed sewage treatment within developments that may have clustered
housing with smaller lots and how the ordinance would allow flexibility by possibly allowing
drain fields in the conservation open space easement areas, but the actual tanks would always be
required to be installed on each individual lot. Petrik explained the ordinance may require
revisions to allow the drain fields within the easement areas.
Petrik explained the Collaboration and Traditional processes of the ordinance. Thies said she
worked with conservation design easements and said she is very familiar with many of them in
Lake Elmo.
2
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Linck asked if there was a property with 150 acres and was used only for cropland and wasn't
that great of property to preserve, if they would be eligible for increased density. Petrik said
increased density would only be increased for properties that provide some natural resource to
preserve, but if a property in the past had a natural prairie or woodland that was worth restoring
back to its natural state, the developer could increase their density. Petrik said the natural
resources around a proposed property to be developed would always be taken into consideration.
Thies said Wild Meadows was a good example of a conservation design with a conservation
easement.
Anderson asked why and how the acreage was decided as 20 acres for sewered properties and 40
acres for rural properties. Petrik explained a larger parcel is necessary in order to capture
protection of ecological resources.
V. Reid asked if the Met Council could bring infrastructure into the conservation easement areas.
Thies clarified it would be difficult for the Met Council to do and typically they won't.
V. Reid asked if a conservation design easement could be converted to an agricultural use.
Petrik explained the commission would have discretion through the process of designing the
ordinance, what the conservation easement could be used for, and have it defined and written
into the easement.
V. Reid said she is concerned with trails that don't connect to a city wide system and would like
to make sure it is a goal to require trails to connect or be part of an overall plan to connect as part
of the ordinance. She said she didn't see trails as part of a conservation easement, but rather a by
product. She asked if it could be stated in the ordinance that trails be required to connect to other
trails.
Thies said the commission should discuss and require the use of stewardship fees. She said the
money should be required to be put into a fund to manage the property. She also felt that
reducing the amount of homes that back up to the open space is better, since it is the homes that
back up to the open space that creates issues such as dumping and mowing into the open space
areas and is difficult to monitor.
The commission discussed examples of 40 acre corn fields with no natural resource benefits to
the City. Petrik explained the City doesn't have to allow benefits to a developer if the property
doesn't have any ecological benefits to preserve.
Martin asked for clarification of the joint steering committee meetings and suggested staff
discusses the meeting laws with the city attorney. She further suggested adding language under
the purpose statement that the development should enhance what would otherwise have been
allowed.
Nolan asked about the role of the steering committee and if it's a way to give the applicant
assurance from the City. He raised concern with the creation of the committee and how it would
give certain amount of authority or control over what would be suggested to an
3
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
applicant/developer; and if the right people weren't designated, the developer could run into
problems.
Petrik explained the steering committee process and how it has been used in the City of Hanover.
The commissioners discussed the process of the future steering committee and discussed their
concern of feeling some sort of obligation to the developer if they were part of the steering
committee.
V. Reid asked staff if they had looked nation wide at other communities. Petrik said he knows
other states have these types of open space ordinances and communities from lectures he's
attended, but wasn't sure where they were developed beyond the state of Minnesota.
Nolan asked for historical data on how density standards had been established. He asked how
often in the elective process would it be utilized and why would the City want to do it with the
possibility of such high density numbers. He further asked if the City had to allow such a high
percentage of increased density. He understands the use of clustering, but was unsure why the
City would want to double the density. He questioned whether the City would be going forward
or backwards; and therefore needed some historical background to better understand.
Petrik said Lake Elmo allows up to 200% density incentives, which worked well for them to get
the development they wanted. Their incentive was to protect key views and not allow housing to
be visible from roadways.
Petrik said other communities range from 100-200% increased density incentives. He said Hugo
developed three projects prior to eliminating the conservation design and open space protection
area ordinance to gain density. The community was satisfied with the ordinance, but eliminated
it since the Met Council thought the City was developing with too high of a density than they
liked. Other cities 6-7 Lino Lakes did two programs and felt it wasn't very effective and didn't
have very many incentives.
Nolan asked why not make it a mandatory program and get 100 percent participation and
establish some sort of environmental value. Petrik said all the communities, except Hanover are
voluntary. Nolan asked why not make it mandatory for participation. Benson asked if it was a
goal of the City to have the program be mandatory. He said he likes the idea for some
developments, but doesn't think that all properties need to be the same. He thinks the City has
done a good job with current rural standards, but does not think the open space program would
apply to all properties. He said we may find a few developers who would go through the process
and can think of one property in particular that would be beneficial to be developed under the
program. Nolan said he had not taken a position on the issue, but rather is gathering information
to make an informative decision.
Petrik said the program is voluntary as referenced in the comprehensive plan. He said if it was
made mandatory it would go against the comprehensive plan and residents would question why
the City wasn't following their comprehensive plan. He suggested that if the commissioners felt
strongly about one or two properties in particular they could be identified as an area that should
4
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
go through the process. He said he would be concerned with the political fall -out of making the
ordinance mandatory.
Nolan asked what percentage of Medina qualifies to develop under the conservation ordinance.
Weir asked if staff had looked at the 20 and 40 acre parcels to evaluate which properties possibly
qualified. Finke said they had discussed putting together a map of the parcels, but hadn't
completed one. The commission requested staff to prepare a map for the next concurrent
meeting so they could make further recommendations.
Nolan asked within the higher density and the lower density is there higher participation in one
or the other. Petrik said the density incentive would have higher value in the rural areas than
other market standards would have more market value in the sewered areas.
The public hearing was opened at 8:42 p.m.
Martha Van de Ven, 1765 Medina Road, thanked the commission for all the good questions they
had pertaining to the proposed ordinance and said she really appreciated it. She said she has a
question dealing with the exception to the 40 acres in the rural residential district areas. She
asked for clarification of the regulation on page two subdivision 1.(b). Petrik said he thought it
would be a good idea to provide some flexibility in the event someone could prove their project
wouldn't visually impair visibility and protect resources. He said they want to allow some
flexibility but also provide an incentive, and that is why density is being recommended to be able
to increase either 2 or 1.5 percent dependant on zoning. He said it is all discretionary. Van de
Van raised concern with property being able to develop beyond the five contiguous suitable soil
acre requirements today if the site had wetlands.
Williams asked Van de Ven what her concern was. Van de Ven said she is concerned with
doubling the density and was also concerned with law suits from builders being allowed this kind
of discretion.
Petrik said if the 40 acre minimum requirement is unlikely to be used; maybe the regulation
should be taken out.
Susan Seeland, owner of a 200 acre farm near County Road 6 and Homestead Trail said she
thought it looked like the City has given the ordinance a lot of thought and asked the
commissioners to really think about what their goal was. She said if it is to prevent sewer hook-
ups then keeping the acreage at 40 acres probably wouldn't work and they may want to think
about reducing the minimum size requirement. She asked for the definition of hydric soils and
what the goal relating to soils really is. Petrik explained the different soil classifications. Seeland
asked the commissioners to consider community wastewater technology, since requiring
everyone to have their own septic would be impeding the ability to develop.
Nolan asked for pros and cons to community sewer developments. Petrik suggested if the
commissioners were interested in this type of community, the City should bring in experts and
examples so the commissioners could understand this type of development.
5
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Seeland asked about establishing 50% into conservation easements. She asked the
commissioners to think about how it should be designed since there are open space areas where
you want people to come to and it benefits the community and other open space areas that may
be better left private.
Public hearing closed at 8:54p.m.
Thies asked what the goal was of staff for a motion. Finke explained the reason for a concurrent
meeting.
Carolyn Smith explained the reason for the opportunity for the park commission to be part of the
ordinance and that it wasn't just about creating trails within the open spaces areas.
Nolan asked Thies for her opinion on the negatives of conservation design easements. She
explained they are not just blanket plans and there are so many different ways to set them up, and
how open space could be used. She said there are a number of issues when homes back up to
open space areas, since over time the properties that back up to the open space areas start to
dump and mow into these areas.
The Park Commission - Motion by Janet White, seconded by Ann Thies, to approve
continuance of the public hearing to the May 11, 2010 meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Absent: (Paul Jaeb and Chris Hilberg)
Nolan recommended a small steering committee for the program. He said he was interested in
knowing more about what properties qualify, particularly how many 20 and 40 acres are existing
out there today.
V. Reid asked about parcels joining together. Finke explained that the mapping plan they would
put together would not be able to anticipate smaller acreage parcels getting put together. V. Reid
said she also wanted to know the positive and negatives of community systems.
Nolan commented on the general approach of the process and raised concern with how a
commissioner would gauge what they were allowing with such arbitrary regulations. He said he
would be concerned with setting a pattern and then someone new comes in and pushes the
envelope and suddenly a much higher precedence is set. He questioned how these things would
get measured. He asked what the measuring stick is, and what the City is really giving up.
Anderson asked if the process puts into question the need for a specific ordinance rather than
flexibility. Weir said she didn't think there was support for mandating an ordinance.
Finke suggested the commission consider looking at a sketch in an informal meeting instead of a
creating a steering committee.
Nielsen explained how her job involved collaborative process and how they turn out a better
product. She said she supported the steering committee process.
Weir said she is in support of the collaborative process.
6
Medina Planning Commission and Park Commission Draft April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Williams said he didn't have an issue with not agreeing with staff's recommendations if he were
on a steering committee, but would have more of an issue with representing other planning
commissioners.
Conclusion of discussion was:
• Density incentives — staff would create mapping with acreage parcels
• Open space ranges — the commission said their focus wasn't on the quantity, but rather
the quality of areas preserved
• Optional elements — the commission wanted to know more about how open space would
be arrived at, and how it would be preserved by utilizing the four step process. The
developer would need to show proof as to what they were thinking in the early stages of
design for a development project.
• Stewardship plan was also part of it.
• Sewage treatment — pros and cons of a community sewage
• Collaboration process — requested staff to look at sewered community's nation wide.
• Other incentives — pg 5 of the ordinance
• Rural residential districts suggest no minimum lot sizes and the commission suggested
flexibility of lot size and width (may be reduced language).
• Sewered Residential — flexibility as it applies to platted lots. Finke said there are some
people concerned with wetland buffers and tree areas.
Motion to continue public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission - Motion to reopen and continue the public hearing at the May
11, 2010 meeting by V. Reid, seconded by Anderson. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent:
R. Reid)
5. Adjourn: Motion by Anderson, seconded by Nielsen to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously. (Absent: R. Reid)
7
Barr Engineering Company
4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803
Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 • www.barr.com An EEO Employer
BARR
Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO • Bismarck, ND
Memorandum
To: Medina Planning Commission
From: Dan Petrik
Subject: May 11 Planning and Park Commissions meeting. Continuation of discussion regarding
development of a Conservation Design Ordinance
Date: May 6, 2010
Project: 23 27 1104.00 001 DRP
Revised CD Ordinance
Attached is a revised ordinance based on discussion at the last Planning and Parks Commission meeting.
Changes were only made if the intent of the discussion was clear. Additional Commission discussion is
suggested to clarify policy intent, especially in the following areas:
• Density incentives
• Additional incentives to encourage conservation design
• Required open space
• Collaborative process (see section below)
Geographical Applicability of the CD Ordinance
A spatial analysis was completed to show which parcels would be eligible for CD development under the
language reviewed by the Commission at the last meeting. The attached map shows the eligible parcels
which are:
Rural Residential and over 40 acres
Rural Residential and over 20 acres
Guided for sewered residential and over 20 acres
Development Potential
An analysis of the development potential of the Rural Residential lots was completed. This analysis shows
the number of units that could be developed under the standard regulations (five acres of suitable
contiguous soils) compared to a scenario where they received the maximum CD bonus of 100%. The total
number of potential new lots goes from 250 under standard regulations to 419 if they all received the
maximum bonus. It is unlikely that every eligible parcel would receive the maximum density allowed.
Note that there are 750 rural households today. A summary of the development potential is included in the
following table.
Rural Residential Parcels:
Units Available
Standard Regulations
At Maximum Density Bonus
20 — 39 acres
110
143
40 acres and greater
140
276
Total
250
419
At the last meeting there was general agreement to not allow CD development on parcels less than 40
acres. Language allowing development on parcels less than 40 acres was removed on the revised
ordinance draft (attached).
An analysis of the development potential for the residential sewered areas was not completed. This would
require the development of a "yield plan" for each parcel, a process that would occur during the initial
stages of application processing.
Priority Areas
Note that there are many developable parcels that are not within the high quality natural areas. The
Commission should consider whether parcels (of any size) should be eligible for CD development if they
do not have high priority natural resources to preserve. Preservation of important views or lesser quality
natural resources may be valid reasons for including all the mapped parcels.
Collaboration
Two local communities, Minnetrista and Hanover have been using a collaborative approach for
development review of current applications. Both communities have offered to speak to the City of
Medina about their recent experience with collaboration. Following is a summary of each community's
experience.
Minnetrista.
Minnetrista is developing a new PUD ordinance that includes a collaborative processing stage prior to the
concept review stage. Ordinance development has occurred concurrently with the review of the Woodland
Cove subdivision application, a 1000 unit development. The City is incorporating their "learnings" from
the experience of reviewing and approving this "real" PUD application into the new PUD ordinance. The
PUD ordinance has been approved by the Planning Commission and is expected to be acted on by the City
Council in May or June. The Woodland Cove application is currently in the concept review stage. The
main feature of Minnetrista's collaborative process is a joint work session by the City Council, Planning
Commission and Parks Commission early in the process to develop a public values statement. This
statement is intended to provide a vision for guiding concept plan development.
The Minnetrista "Collaborative Stage" PUD language follows:
(a) Collaborative process and project goal setting
1) The applicant shall meet with the city staff for a pre -application conference prior to
submittal of a concept to the city. The primary purpose of the conference is to allow the applicant
and staff an opportunity to review the comprehensive plan and to make a preliminary
determination if the proposal is conducive to a PUD rezoning.
2
2) City staff and the applicant shall work together to schedule a concurrent work session with
policymakers of the city (planning commission, parks commission, and city council) to discuss
the public values on the site, using the established public values in subdivision 6 of this section
as a guideline. The result of this meeting will be a public values statement.
3) At an appropriate point during the process, the applicant shall hold a neighborhood
meeting. The city and all owners or property within 1,000 feet of the PUD (or a larger area as
determined by the city) shall be given notice of the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to
inform the neighborhood of the proposed PUD, discuss the concepts and basis for the plan being
developed and to obtain information and suggestions from the neighborhood.
4) The applicant shall be responsible for the costs incurred by the city for attorney,
engineering, or other consultant fees during these pre -application activities.
Hanover
Hanover is implementing collaboration process as outlined in their recently developed PUD
ordinance and as detailed on the attached city fact sheet. They are using this process for a
commercial PUD and a 200 acre residential subdivision with 250 homes and 43% open space.
3
CONSERVATION DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT
Draft — May 6 2010
Section 826.xx. Conservation Design (CD) — Purpose.
The purpose of this district is to preserve the City's rural character which includes ecological resources,
wildlife corridors, and scenic views, while allowing residential development consistent with the goals
and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and 2007 Open Space Report. The purpose of this
district is to provide development flexibility through greater collaboration with landowners and
developers that reflects the varying market circumstances and the individual characteristics of their
properties
Section 826.xx Intent.
Subd. 1. It is the intent of the City to accomplish the stated purpose of this District by approving a
Planned Unit Development for portions of property in the Rural Residential District and all
residential districts corresponding to residential land uses guided for municipal services and by
adopting the comprehensive regulations contained herein. Parcels lying in these districts may be
developed according to the regulations of the CD Overlay District or the base zoning district.
Comment: City policy in the Open Space Report and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as
the majority of comments received at the two project meetings support conservation
design as a development option.
Subd. 2. In exchange for additional open space. it is the intent of the City to provide flexibility in
development standards including density and to conduct development review through a flexible
process. return for requiring preserved open space as contained herein; it is the intent of the City to
allow dwelling unit density that will provide a development density equal to or greater than the
prior zoning for the Rural Residential District and severed residential districts.
Comment: City policy in the Open Space Report and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as
the majority of comments received at the two project meetings support the use of density
incentives to encourage this development option.
Subd. 3. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses and other regulations set forth in the
underlying zoning districts shall apply unless specifically addressed in this District, the PUD
District, or if determined by the City Council to be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this
District as part of the final PUD plans.
Subd. 4. The procedures and regulations set forth in the PUD District shall apply unless
specifically addressed in this District. If a final PUD plan is approved by the City Council, the
underlying zoning for the subject property shall be rezoned to Conservation Design-PUD District
(CD-PUD). The permitted uses and all other regulations governing uses on the subject land shall
then be those found in the CD-PUD zoning district and documented by the PUD plans and
agreements. The following subsections are requirements for all PUDs in the Conservation Design
Overlay District unless exceptions, as part of a PUD, are otherwise approved by the City Council.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc
1
Section 826.xx Definitions.
Subd. 1. Base Density. The maximum number of units or lots that are allowed on a parcel in
accordance with the standards of the base zoning district and Subdivision Ordinance.
Subd. 12. Buildable Land Area. The total land area in a proposed conservation design
subdivision less the amount of land that includes: hydric soils, slopes greater than 18%, wetlands,
required wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain.
Subd. 23. Conservation Easement. As defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84C: A
nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations
the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open -space values of real
property, assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open -space use, protecting
natural resources, maintaining or enhancing air or water quality, or preserving the historical,
architectural, archaeological, or cultural aspects of real property.
Subd. 4.4 Conservation Design Subdivision. Any development of land that incorporates the
concepts of designated open space and clustering of dwelling units.
Subd. 45. Designated Open Space. Open space that is designated within a conservation design
subdivision to be placed under a conservation easement permanently restricting future
development. Designated open space may be used for agriculture, preservation of ecological
resources, habitat corridors, and/or for passive and active recreational purposes.
Subd. 56. Homeowners Association. A formally constituted non-profit association or corporation
made up of the property owners and/or residents of a development for the purpose of owning,
operating and maintaining common open space and/or other commonly owned facilities.
Comment: Some of these definitions may be appropriate to add to Section 825.07, the
definitions section of the Zoning Code.
Subd. 7. Field Plan. A conceptual layout plan that shows the maximum number of lots that could
be placed on a parcel in accordance with the standards of the base zoninil district and Subdivision
Ordinance. The yield plan shows proposed lots. streets, rights -of -way. and other pertinent features.
Yieldplans shall be drawn to scale. The layout shall be realistic and reflect a development pattern
that could reasonably be expected to be implemented, takinil into account the presence of wetlands.
floodplains. steep slopes. existing easements.
Section 826.xx. General Development Standards.
Subd. 1. Minimum Size of Subdivision.
(a) The minimum land area required for development shall be:
(1) 40 contiguous acres in the Rural Residential District
(2) 20 contiguous acres in sewered residential districts
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc
2
{b)A subdivision in the Rural Residential District of over 20 contiguous acres but less than 40
contiguous acres may apply for approval if they meet all the requirements for CD, plus the
following requirements:
(1) The visual impact of the subdivision -from existing adjacent roadways is mitigated by
ipography and/or existing vegetation.
(''tom —The -m -a ;-owed gross den;ity is 1.5 units per 10 acres.
Comment: The minimum size of the subdivision must be large enough to allow for
creative site design that achieves development priorities. There is little additional green
space to be gained from allowing small parcels to be developed at higher densities
compared to current regulations The additional requirements placed on subdivisions of
smaller parcel size should be used to mitigate the visual and environmental impacts.
Subd. 2. Tract Ownership. The tract of land may be held in single or in multiple ownerships.
However, when a tract is held in multiple ownerships, application shall be made as a single entity
and it shall be planned as a single e y--development with common authority and common
responsibility as demonstrated through all property owners being signatories on the PUD
application.
Subd. 3. Base Density, Density Incentives, and Calculation of Allowed Number of Dwelling
Units.
(a) The base density shall be that established by regulations in the relevant base zoning district.
(1) In the Rural Residential District, base density shall be determined by calculating the
number of 5 -acre areas of contiguous soils suitable for a standard sewage disposal system
that are located on the subject property. This calculation shall be completed during the
"initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application
processing.
(2) In sewered residential districts, a yield plan shall be developed during the "initial
planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application
processing to determine the base density. Regulations of the base district and all other
relevant land use regulations of this Code shall be used for completing the yield plan.
(b) Additional density or density incentives may be granted at the discretion of the City Council
based on the conservation priorities identified for the parcel during the "initial planning stage"
(the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing. The total number
of dwelling units in a CD-PUD development shall be guided by the density limitations
contained in the Comprehensive Plan and shall not be greater than:
(1) 100% of the calculated base density in the Rural Residential District.
(2) 20% of calculated base density in all sewered residential districts.
Comment: The maximum number of dwelling units is a local choice that balances the
city's long term vision as defined in the Comprehensive Plan with an incentive that is
sufficient to encourage landowners/developers to select the conservation design option. A
"percentage" of the base density is used as the incentive framework so as to work with
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc
3
v
existing and familiar requirements for determining allowed number of units. The
language shows that the city will be flexible in granting density and that this flexibility is
tied to the project conservation priorities identified during the "initial planning stage"
(the form of this is yet to be determined) of application processing. A "yield plan" is a
plan that shows how many dwelling units can be placed on a tract of land according to
the regulations pertaining to development of that land. It is produced early in the process
to guide design and density discussions. It is more conceptual and does not require the
level of detail of plans submitted during the preliminary plat stage.
Subd 4. Required Open Space.
(a) The required open space within the CD development shall be determined during the "initial
planning stages" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application processing.
It is the City's intent to preserve open space of:
(1)
At least 30% - 50% of the total buildable land area (see definitions) in the Rural
Residential District.
(2) At least 20% of the total buildable land area (see definition) in sewered residential
districts.
Comment: Defining an open space amount is challenging in an environment with
significant amounts of dispersed wetlands and surface waters. Applying a rigid one size
fits all rule, or requiring too much open space, in this type of landscape may be counter
productive, especially with an incentive based approach.
Since wetlands (and their buffers) are already protected, there is little to be gained (over
existing regulatory requirements) by allowing wetlands in the required open space. For
this reason, required open space is defined as a percentage of "buildable land area"
which excludes wetlands. This approach is considered to be more restrictive than
applying an open space amount to the total parcel area. However, this perceived
"restrictiveness" can be modified by reducing the actual amount required. As such, the
range of required open space is capped at 50%. This amount, however, may still be too
high in this landscape where CD development is to be encouraged.
The city already has lots of open space (as stated by many participants at the 3/23 open
house), so requiring open space for the sake of getting more open space may be
unproductive and difficult to justify to land owners (on top of existing regulations). The
objective is to target the open space in ways that achieve the conservation priorities of
protecting upland ecological resources and views, areas that could otherwise be
developed. This may be achievable through relatively small amounts of "required" open
space, depending on the characteristics and location of each parcel of land. Due to these
site specific variables, flexibility in determining the "required" amount of open space
provides greater opportunities for the city and landowner/developer to both achieve their
individual goals through CD development.
Assessing project goals and methods to achieve them would occur during the proposed
"initial planning stage" (the form of this is yet to be determined) of CD-PUD application
processing. The proposed regulatory language communicates what the City's goals are,
but through reference to the goal planning stage and use of an open space range for the
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc
4
Rural Residential area, the city is indicating its flexibility for considering each project on
its own merits.
For CD developments in urban areas, a 20% minimum is expected. This is considered
the minimum amount needed to protect any existing resources and/or create corridors
that provide differentiation from a conventional suburban subdivision. On some projects,
more open space may be available, but meeting required density minimums and market
demand for saleable lots will effectively limit the amount of open space.
Subd. 5. Priorities for Preserving Open Space.
(a) The total required open space shall be designated and located to incorporate the following areas
listed in order of preservation priority:
(1) Sensitive ecological resources identified as priority areas on the Composite Map of the
2007 Open Space Report.
(2) Land connecting these priority areas to create habitat movement corridors.
(3) Views from roads identified as "Scenic Roads" on the Scenic Roads Map of the 2007
Open Space Report.
Comment: These priorities were identified at the 3/16 meeting of the Council/Planning
Commission and Parks Commission and validated by the participants at the 3/23 open
house. These priorities are also aligned with goals and policies identified in the 2007
Open Space Report and Comprehensive Plan. These priorities are intended to
communicate to landowners and developers what is most important to the city and to
guide discussions during the early planning stage of each CD-PUD application. Applying
these priorities to a specific parcel of land, should inform "initial planning stage" (the
form of this is yet to be determined) discussions on density incentives, the amount of
required open space, and ultimately, the design concept.
Subd. 6. Perimeter Setbacks. Structure setbacks from the perimeter of the subdivision shall be
the same as the underlying zoning district.
Section 826.xx. Additional Incentives to Encourage Conservation Design.
The Council may grant additional project flexibility to encourage conservation design.
Subd. 1. Rural Residential Districts. In the Rural Residential District, flexibility from the
requirements of the base zoning district or other requirements of this code may include lot size. lot
width there is no minimum lot size or width for CD developments. Thcand structure setbacks
regulations for CD development may be reduced from the underlying zoning district provided
setbacks14 ey comply with the following minimums:
(a) Setback from local streets: 35 feet
(b) Setback from Arterial and Collector Streets: 100 feet
(c) Interior structure setbacks: 30 feet
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc
5
Subd 2. Sewered Residential Districts. In all sewered residential districts, flexibility from the
requirements of the base zoning district or other requirements of this code may include:
(a) Front, rear and side yard setbacks
(b) Minimum lot size
(c) Minimum lot width
(d) Housing type
(e) Landscaping
(f) Screening
(g) Wetland buffers
(h) Tree preservation
Comment: Flexibility in these areas is intended to be an incentive to the developer and
to protect ecological features and achieve other project goals. The idea is to assess each
parcel/project individually and achieve the site design that best achieves overall goals.
This approach requires trade offs on individual objectives or requirements in the
achievement of the overall best approach. The city may wish to specify ranges of
flexibility on some or all of these elements.
Section 826.xx. Open Space Protection and Ownership.
Subd. 1. Any land and improvements in areas designated as open space in a CD-PUD shall be
established, protected and owned in accordance with the following guidelines:
(a) Designated open space shall be surveyed and subdivided as separate Outlots.
(b) Designated open space must be restricted from further development by a permanent
conservation easement (in accordance with Chapter 84C.01-05 of Minnesota Statutes) running
with the land. The conservation easement must be submitted with the General Plan of
Development and approved by the City Attorney.
(1) The permanent conservation easement may be held by any combination of the
following entities, but in no case may the holder of the conservation easement be the
same as the owner of the underlying fee:
i. The City of Medina, or other governmental agency
ii. A private nonprofit organization that has been designated by the Internal
Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue
Code.
iii. A common ownership association, which owns open and non -open space land
within the subdivision and in which membership in the association by all
property owners in the subdivision shall be mandatory.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc
6
(2) The permanent conservation easement must specify:
i. The entity that will maintain the designated open space.
ii. The purposes of the conservation easement and the conservation values of the
property.
iii. The legal description of the land under the easement.
iv. The restrictions on the use of the land and from future development.
v. To what standards the open space will be maintained (reference to an approved
land stewardship plan).
vi. Who will have access to the open space.
(3)
Ownership of the underlying fee of each designated open space parcel, may be held by
any combination of the following entities:
i. A common ownership association, subject to the provisions in the PUD District
ii. An individual who will use the land in accordance with the permanent
conservation easement;
iii. The City of Medina or other government agency.
iv. A private nonprofit organization that has been designated by the Internal
Revenue Service as qualifying under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue
Code.
Comment: The long-term success of a conservation design subdivision lies with
permanently restricted open space. If the restrictions are not permanent, development of
those areas could happen if zoning changes. Conservation easements are a tool that has
been specifically authorized and used in Minnesota to provide for permanent protection
of natural resources. The easement must be held by a separate entity from the underlying
fee. The easement holder is responsible for monitoring the easement parcels to ensure
development does not occur and for enforcing the terms of the easement.
Easements that lie across parcels with different owners are difficult to manage. Open
space parcels should be platted as separate Outlots and held by a single entity, such as
an ownership association.
Section 826.xx. Land Stewardship Plan.
Subd. 1. Plan Objectives. Where a CD-PUD has designated open spaces, a plan for the
development, long-term use, maintenance, and insurance of all open areas or common facilities,
shall be developed. The plan shall:
(a) Define ownership and methods of land protection.
(b) Establish necessary regular and periodic operation and maintenance responsibilities.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc
7
(c) Estimate staffing needs, insurance requirements, and other associated costs associated with plan
implementation and define the means for funding the same on an on -going basis. This shall
include land management fees necessary to fund monitoring and management of the
conservation easement by the easement holder. The fees shall be estimated and validated by the
proposed easement holder.
Subd. 2. Plan Submittal Requirements. A preliminary Land Stewardship Plan shall be
submitted with the General Plan of Development. A Final Land Stewardship Plan shall be
submitted with at the Final Plan Stage of PUD development. The plan shall contain a narrative
describing:
(a) Existing conditions, including all natural, cultural, historic, and scenic elements in the
landscape;
(b) Objectives for each open space area, as agreed to during the "initial planning stage" (the form
of this is yet to be determined) including:
(1) The proposed end state for each area.
(2) Any restoration measures needed to achieve the proposed end state, including:
i. Measures for correcting increasingly destructive conditions, such as erosion.
ii. Measures for restoring historic features (if applicable).
iii. Measures for restoring existing or establishing new landscape types.
A maintenance Plan, including:
(3)
i. Activities needed to maintain the stability of the resources, including mowing
and burning schedules, weed control measures, planting schedules, and clearing
and cleanup measures and schedules.
ii. An estimate of the annual on -going (post restoration) operating and maintenance
costs.
Subd. 3. Fundinti of Operation and Maintenance.l . At the discretion of the City, the
applicant may be required to escrow sufficient funds for the maintenance and operation costs of
common facilities for up to two years. The City may also require establishment of an endowment to
fund the estimated on- Koine operation and maintenance costs.
Subd. 4. Enforcement. In the event that the association established to own and maintain common
areas and facilities, or any successor organization thereto, fails to properly maintain all or any
portion of the aforesaid common areas or facilities, the City may serve written notice upon such
association setting forth the manner in which the association has failed to maintain the aforesaid
common areas and facilities. Such notice shall set forth the nature of corrections required and the
time within which the corrections shall be made. Upon failure to comply within the time specified,
the association, or any successor organization, shall be considered in violation of this Ordinance, in
which case the City shall have the right to enter the premises and take the needed corrective
actions. The costs of corrective actions by the City shall be assessed against the properties that have
the right of enjoyment of the common areas and facilities
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc
8
Comment: Requiring a Land Stewardship Plan is relatively rare in conservation design
and open space ordinances. The City should consider if this is a potential disincentive
(an additional cost) or if there is value in it.
Section 826.xx. Site Design Process.
At the time of PUD Concept Plan development and review, applicants shall demonstrate that the
following design process was performed and influenced the design of the concept site plan.
Subd. 1. Step 1 —Identify Conservation Areas. Identify preservation land in two steps. First
identify primary conservation or "unbuildable" areas which include: hydric soils, slopes greater
than 18%, wetlands, wetland buffers, lakes, and land within the 100 year floodplain. Next, identify
secondary conservation areas which include those priority conservation areas identified in Section
826.xx (General Development Standards) Subd. 5. The remaining land shall be identified as the
potentially buildable land area. The applicant shall identify the quantity of land designated as
primary conservation areas, secondary conservation areas and potentially buildable land areas.
Subd. 2. Step 2 —Locate Housing Sites. Locate the approximate sites of individual houses in
regard to protected views andw-it-h the potentially developable area, l- n l -at e-d,c-lelineation of
eCommon protected open space shall be delineated.
Subd. 3. Step 3 —Align Streets and Trails. Align streets in order to access the lots. New trails
and connections to regional trail systems, if any, should be laid out to create internal and external
connections to existing and/or potential future streets, sidewalks, and trails.
Subd. 4. Step 4 —Lot Lines. Draw in the lot lines.
Comment: This is the process developed and promoted by Randall Arendt. It is included
as a requirement during PUD concept plan review. The intention of including this is to
make the design process visible to the community and to help communicate that the
project design is aligned with and implements the city's conservation priorities. Most
similar regulations do not specify this process to such detail. The City should consider if
there is value in this or if it is outweigh by the cost and time to develop. Being flexible in
allowing variation in this process should be acceptable. The key value is in
communicating where the protected resources are and how their location influences
design, not adherence to specific requirements in each step.
Section 826.xx. Open Space Design Standards.
The following open space design standards shall also be considered in designing the CD-PUD:
Subd. 1. Open space should be interconnected wherever possible to provide a continuous network
of open space land within the PUD and throughout the City. It should coordinate and maximize
boundaries with open space on adjacent tracts.
Subd. 2. Incorporate public trails with connections to existing or planned regional trails..
Incorporate and/or public and/or private open space as designated in the comprehensive plan.
Subd. 3. Designated public access trails shall be protected by an access easement owned by the
city.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc
9
Subd. 4. Open space should be distributed throughout the development to serve and enhance as
many dwelling units as possible. At least 75 percent of the lots shall directly abut or face open
;pace land across a street. Non adjoining lots shall be provided with convenient access to the open
;pace through access strips at least 30 -feet —wide. Access to open space used for agriculture may be
restricted or prohibited for public safety and to prevent interference with agricultural operations.
Subd. 5. Views of new dwellings from exterior roads and abutting properties should be minimized
by the use of changes in topography, existing vegetation, or additional landscaping. Ridge and
hilltops should be contained within designated open space areas wherever possible. Trees should
not be removed from ridges and hilltops.
Subd. 6. The boundaries of designated open space areas shall be clearly delineated and labeled on
CD-PUD plans. These areas shall be delineated in the field with signage or other measures
approved by the city.
Subd. 7. Park dedication requirements may be reduced or waived with protection of upland
ecological resources as part of the approved designated open space.
Subd. 8. Stormwater management facilities may be located in designated open space areas.
Section 826.xx. Landscape Design Standards.
Subd. 1. Street trees may be planted, but are not required, along internal streets passing through
common open space.
Subd. 2. Irregular spacing is encouraged for street trees, to avoid the urban appearance that regular
spacing may invoke.
Subd. 3. The selection of vegetation should be guided by the natural community types identified in
the City's 2008 Natural Resources Inventory.
Subd. 4. Planted buffers between clusters of residential lots are encouraged to enhance privacy and
a rural appearance between lots.
Subd. 5. Buffers consisting of an informal arrangement of native plant species combined with
infrequent mowing are strongly encouraged, to create a low -maintenance, natural landscape.
Subd. 6. Planted buffers are also encouraged along natural drainage areas to minimize erosion.
Subd. 7. Mass grading for open space and other common landscaped areas and stormwater
management areas shall be avoided to reduce compaction and impacting water infiltration rates.
Soil testing and decompaction may be required if site construction activities negatively impact soil
permeability.
Subd. 8. Better Site Design/Low Impact Development practices as identified in the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall be used to design
sites and meet the performance standards.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc
10
Section 826.xx. Subsurface Sewage Treatment Facilities.
Subd. 1. Where city services are not available, CD-PUD developments may be platted to
accommodate home site lots with either individual septic tanks and drainfields located on the lot, or
individual septic tanks located on the lot and drainfields located in the designated open space.
Subd. 2. All septic systems shall conform to the performance standards of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency's standards for sewage treatment systems WPC- 7080 and its appendices, or the
MPCA standards in effect at the time of installation and septic system regulations of the City of
Medina which requires a primary and secondary drainfield site.
Subd. 3. Individual drainfields may be located in tin arca designated us open space provided that:
(a) The dedicated open space parcel containing the drainfield is owned in fee by a common
ownership association which owns non -open space land within the subdivision and in which
membership in the association by all property owners in the subdivision is mandatory.
(b) The individual lot owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the drainfield.
(c) The ground cover over the drainfield is maintained according to the Land Stewardship Plan.
(d) Recreational uses are prohibited within 50 feet of the drainfields.
(e) The conservation easement for the dedicated open space parcel describes the location of
individual drainfields.
Comment: City regulations governing septic systems and drainfields may need to be
modified to allow the location of individual drainfields in designated open space. Due to
uncertainty of long term operation and maintenance of community drainfields and
concern with the potential of the city being requested to take over such systems in the
future, they were not considered. Allowing individual drainfields within designated open
space allows lot size and site design flexibility as an incentive to developers and to
protect ecological resources.
Section 826.xx. CD-PUD Application Processing.
To be determined.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23271104 Conservation Design -Open Space Regs\WorkFiles\Medina CD ordinance -draft 2(May 6).doc
11
Collaboration
achieving better development in Hanover through collaboration
Re -inventing the Development Process in Hanover
Hanover recognizes that preserving its rural character and natural
resources, creating new community amenities and economic viability are
intrinsically -linked elements in achieving the city's vision and goals. Future
development will have a significant impact on whether the vision and goals
are realized. The city recognizes that its use of traditional controls (zoning
and subdivision ordinances) to regulate development has limits in achieving
the vision. Furthermore, the rigid application of these controls often has
unintended consequences and misses opportunities for adding new public
value.
Additionally, in an era of increasingly tight state and local government
budgets, a new way is needed to fund the protection of our natural resources
and the creation of new community assets needed to achieve our community
vision. Lastly, the city's strategy of using conservation design principles
for most new residential development requires non-traditional thinking
and flexibility to implement. Instead of a potentially combative traditional
development process, the city believes that an approach that balances the
needs of the city and developer to achieve win -win outcomes will result
in better development that helps the city preserve its character, protect our
natural resources and become a better place to live and work.
Hanover's Commitment to Being a Good Partner
The city recognizes that being a good partner requires that it provide accountable leadership and clarity in its decision
process. Towards this, the city has developed a project management approach for managing developments.
The city's project management approach includes four
components:
1. City Council appoints the collaboration team and project
manager.
2. A Collaboration Team, to oversee the process and to provide
regular and frequent feedback from key decision -makers.
The collaboration team is generally composed of two council
members, two planning commissioners and the project
manager.
3. A project manager as a single point of contact for the
developer's team.
4. Integration of development issues and resolution of staff/
regulatory conflicts into a form that the developer can
respond to. Where practical, issues and requirements of
other jurisdictions will be considered and coordinated into
city decisions.
City Council
Project Manager
(Collaborative Team)
Staff I Staff
Developer
Staff
Collaborative Process
The city has developed a "collaborative
process" to complement the City's project
management approach. The purpose of this
process is to:
• Facilitate decisions that are consistent
and timely
• Agree on project goals, collaboration
principles and schedule early in the
process to minimize costly design
changes later in the process.
The table describes the initial process
steps for initiating a collaborative process.
Ultimately, the city's project manager and
developer will develop a specific schedule
for each project.
Project manager reports assessment to
City Council at next meeting.
Process Step
Description and Purpose
and City's vision and*learnt
reguladons forflre laacl. Developer's" a
inventory used indiscussion.
• Assess opportunity to execute a shared vision using the
Collaboratiesr Team and developer visit
sitelparce1.
Project manager and developer draft
project guidance document.
Collaboration Team reviews guidance
document, project manager presents to
City Council.
• Assess ojporpmity for mutually beneficial collaborative
ai ►sadP ° •
• Ifpoaitive assessment, Council appoints
kain and may allocate city contribution for
stafllaonsultanttime prior to developer submission of
concept plan appl
• If no opportunity for collaboration, developer may submit
application under standard procedures (e.g. no PUD)
• ; Begin developing relationships and trust.
• Brainstorm and share ideas for project
• Domain establishes and clarifies project expectations:
1. Protect goals
2. Collaboration principles (example provided as a
starting point)
3. Project design & review schedule including key
milestones to achieve apt, pre y and
final plan approvals.
• Builds anma'l support for and ownership of project
Sample Principles of Collaboration
Principles are intended to anchor the city -developer partnership and collaborative
process through mutually agreed upon values and expectations. The following
examples are a starting point for creating specific principles and expectations for
each project.
1. Partnerships should be spearheaded by well-informed and visible leadership.
2. Partnerships should be developed in which the core competencies and
investments of both parties are valued and leveraged.
3. Partnerships should be understood by all stakeholders through a clearly
defined project vision with comprehensive goals and evaluation criteria.
4. Partnerships should establish a clear and rational decision -making process.
5. Both parties should work together to ensure that all of the collaborative
efforts are aimed at meeting identified needs and respect the culture, customs
and structures of the community.
6. Both parties will aim to build knowledge, skills and resources in the context
of their collaborative efforts that will benefit the community.
7. Both parties will work to ensure that they communicate frequently using
clear, consistent and transparent language.
8. Both parties will work together to ensure that their public relations activities
accurately reflect their collaborative efforts and respect affected parties and
the community.
9. Both parties should work together to develop partnerships that are
predictable in nature.
Conservation Design Ordinance
Eligible Properties and Potential Rural Lots