HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-14-2010MEDINA
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER. 14, 2010
7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24)
1. Call to Order
2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
3. Update from City Council proceedings
4. Planning Department Report
5. Approval of August 11, 2010 Planning Commission minutes
6. Public Hearing — Ronald & Kimberly Carlson — 1382 Hunter Drive
(PID #25-118-23-13-0007) — Preliminary Plat to subdivide one
existing parcel into two lots to be known as Hunter Ridge Farm.
7. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment — Section 827 of the City
Code with regards to the process of appealing information within the
City's Open Space Report related to development in the Conservation
Design district.
8. City Council Meeting Schedule
9. Adjourn
N CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 10, 20
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Crosby and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Adams
DATE: September 2, 2010
SUBJ: Planning Department Updates for September 7, 2010 City Council Meeting
Ordinance Updates
A) Staging Point System — The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June 8 and
recommended approval with a number of changes. The City Council reviewed the
ordinance on July 6, July 20, and adopted the ordinance on August 17. The ordinance has
been published by title and summary and is in effect.
B) Re -zonings — as a result of the new zoning ordinances created by the City and because of
changes to the future use of a number of properties in the Comprehensive Plan, the City
needs to rezone a number of properties. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing
on 11 ordinances at their August 11 meeting and recommended approval. The ordinances
will be presented to the City Council on September 7.
C) Driveway setback regulations — during the review of the Lennar project, staff has noted an
inconsistency between the 5 -foot setback in the R-2 zoning district, and the requirement that
driveways be setback 10 feet from property lines. The Planning Commission recommended
that staff consider amendments to the driveway setback requirement.
D) Procedures for Appealing Open Space data — during discussion of the Conservation Design
ordinance, the City Council discussed a process by which a property owner can appeal Open
Space data which is referenced in the regulations. Staff is preparing an ordinance containing
such procedures and intends to present the ordinance for a Public Hearing at the September
Planning Commission meeting.
Land Use Application Reviews
A) Enclave of Medina Subdivision — 3212 Hunter Drive — Lennar has submitted for
preliminary plat and Comp Plan Amendment for the Holasek property. The plat currently
identifies 135 single family homes and 41 townhomes. The applicant has requested to shift
the MUSA to the south to include an additional 6.5 net acres and is excluding 6.5 net acres
of the wooded area from development. A Public Hearing was held at the July 13 Planning
Commission meeting, and the Commission raised a number of concerns with the plan. The
Commission tabled the matter and urged the developer to update plans consistent with their
comments. Staff has been in contact with the developer, who is working on revised plans.
B) Hunter Ridge Farm Plat — 1382 Hunter Drive — Ron Carlson has requested subdivision of
an existing 13.9 acres parcels into two lots. The request contests the Hennepin County Soils
Survey in order to show adequate suitable soils for a subdivision. Staff has scheduled the
application for a Public Hearing at the September Planning Commission meeting.
C) Fortuna Farms Plat — 1425 Tamarack Drive — Helmuth von Bluecher has requested
subdivision of an existing 44.2 acre parcel into three lots. The request contests the
Planning Department Update
Page 1 of 2 September 7, 2010
City Council Meeting
Hennepin County Soils Survey in order to show adequate suitable soils for a subdivision.
Staff has began a preliminary review, and the application will be scheduled for a Public
Hearing when it is determined to be complete.
D) Hennepin County PUD Amendment — 1600 Prairie Drive — Hennepin County has requested
Final PUD Plan approval to construct the 397 -foot wind turbine at its Public Works facility.
Staff is reviewing submitted material. If it is determined that the conditions of the PUD
approval are met, staff will prepare a PUD agreement for City Council approval.
E) Appeal of Administrative Decision — 2590 Keller Road — The City Council heard the
property owner's and contractor's appeal of the denial of a permit to construct a pair of
4'x4' monuments within the City right-of-way adjacent to 2590 Keller at the January 5
meeting and adopted a resolution ordering the removal of the improvements on February 3.
Staff provided an additional notice, and the monuments have not been removed. Staff will
begin discussing options and prepare for a hearing for the Council to determine what action
to take.
F) Bradley Leawood 3rd Addn Plat — 3415 Leawood Drive — the City Council approved a
resolution for preliminary plat on July 6. The City will await an application for Final Plat.
G) Holy Name Cemetery — The City Council approved resolutions for the lot combination,
CUP/Site Plan, Interim Use Permit and easement vacation. Staff is working with the
applicant to get all necessary documents recorded correctly.
H) Wrangler's Restaurant — 32 Hamel Road — the Council approved resolutions at the July 21
meeting. Staff has been in contact with the applicant regarding recording of the plat and
requirements for submitting building permits. The City Council granted until September 11,
2010 for the applicant to final the plat. The applicant has requested an additional extension.
Staff recommends approval of an extension and has prepared a resolution for Council action
on September 7.
Additional Projects
A) Zoning Enforcement (Hamel Station tree removal) — the City Council approved the
agreement with the developer related to the remediation of the violations of the tree
preservation ordinance and the shoreland overlay district. The property owner signed the
agreement, but work was not completed by the August 31 deadline. Staff made contact with
the developer, who stated that they have contracted with a company to complete the work,
and it is planned to begin next week. Staff recommends continuing to monitor the progress
next week and not taking action at this point. If progress is not made and the planting is not
completed by the end of September, the City may wish to consider action under the
agreement.
B) Wetland Enforcement — Staff assisted with the investigation of a small amount of wetland
disturbance on a property on Phillips Drive. Staff will continue working with Hennepin
County Environmental Services to remediate the disturbance.
C) Municipal State Aid (MSA) mapping — Staff has finalized the map as approved by the City
Council and completed required documentation in order to submit the proposed MSA routes
for MnDOT review.
Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 September 7, 2010
City Council Meeting
1 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
2 Draft Meeting Minutes
3 Wednesday, August 11, 2010
4
5
6 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
7
8 Present: Planning Commissioners, Victoria Reid, Robin Reid, John Anderson,
9 Kathleen Martin, Kent Williams, Charles Nolan and Beth Nielsen.
10
11 Absent: none
12
13 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke
14
15
16 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda
17
18 No public comments.
19
20
21 3. Update from City Council proceedings
22
23 Council member Weir presented City Council update.
24
25
26 4. Planning Department Report
27
28 Finke informed the Commission that staff currently has three land use applications.
29 One of the applications is Lennar, which the Commission has already seen but will
30 have revised plans. The other two applications are land subdivisions within the Rural
31 Residential Zoning District. The three applications will go to the Commission in
32 September.
33
34 5. Approval of July 13, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes
35
36 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Anderson to approve the July 13, 2010 minutes
37 with recommended changes. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None)
38
39
40 6. Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment — An ordinance rezoning various
41 properties to the Uptown Hamel 1 (UH-1) or Uptown Hamel 2 (UH-2) zoning
42 districts.
43
44 Finke presented the request for the Zoning Map Amendment. He informed the
45 Commission that staff had received a number of calls and comments (they were
46 distributed to the Commission). The foundation for the discussion has already been
1
1 completed through the Comprehensive Plan through 2010-2030. Over the past two
2 years staff has worked diligently to change the zoning ordinance to make it consistent
3 with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. He explained both districts allow a mix
4 of residential, but the UH-1 district requires any new development or redevelopment
5 to have a net density of at least 10 units/acre. This distinction was made so that the
6 City would be able to ensure that some of the property would develop with high
7 density residential uses. Finke explained staff recommended 18.5 net acres of UH-1,
8 which would result in a minimum of 185 units.
9
10 V. Reid asked if just a residential complex could be constructed in UH-2. Finke said
11 yes. He said if the units per acre were to be under 7 units/acre then it would have to
12 be combined with a Commercial use. The first floor would be Commercial and the
13 upper units would be Residential. V. Reid asked if just Residential could be done and
14 Finke answered yes, as long as the project is at least 7 units/acre.
15
16 Finke provided an overview of the proposed zoning map. He said there are only four
17 Mixed Use Business parcels that are not in the Uptown Hamel area. He said staff is
18 recommending these four properties be zoned MU -B, which will be discussed under a
19 separate public hearing. He said these properties are different from the Uptown
20 Hamel area. He said the four MU -B parcels and the UH-1 and UH-2 parcels together
21 should help the City achieve their goals for housing. Staff feels there is some room to
22 switch some parcels from UH-1 to UH-2.
23
24 Nolan stated the UH-1 requires High Density Residential, but doesn't preclude
25 Commercial. Finke concurred. Williams asked how it would work if all the initial
26 development is Commercial; does it than mean the balance would have to be
27 Residential. Finke said that is what they started with as an assumption. He said it
28 was assumed no Residential would be in the UH-2. V. Reid asked if the properties
29 currently in the UH-1 district were duplexes. Finke clarified on map that the areas
30 were single family homes.
31
32 Public Hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m.
33
34 No public comment with public hearing left open.
35
36 Nolan asked the Commission if there are any particular parcels that should be
37 changed from what is recommended. Finke explained no written comments were
38 provided for this public hearing.
39
40 Nolan said it is not ideal for Commercial to be located along Comanche Trail and 29.
41 Since the properties are already guided for UH, he asked what the City has in the way
42 of tools to help the people living adjacent to Commercial in their back yard. Finke
43 said the City has the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and a Site Plan Review
44 approval would be a good practice to make the right decisions on transition locations
45 such as this, which would also help applicants through the process.
2
1 Nolan explained the public hearing would remain open until the end of all the public
2 hearings of the evening in case comments were requested by the public.
3
4 Public Hearing closed at 10:06 p.m.
5
6 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Martin to approve the Zoning Map Amendment.
7 Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None )
8
9
10 7. Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment — An ordinance rezoning various
11 properties to the Commercial -Highway (CH), Commercial Highwav-Railroad
12 (CH -RR), Commercial -General (CG), or Rural Commercial Holding (RCH)
13 zoning districts.
14
15 Finke explained the hearing included the most properties, with five Commercial
16 zoning districts to be matched up with the Comprehensive Plan. He said the maps
17 identify the Commercial areas and where properties are proposed to be rezoned. The
18 CH zoning district is for properties with highway frontage or easy access to the
19 highway. The CH -RR district is for properties that front both a major highway and
20 railroad tracks. The CH -RR district properties would have a lesser setback than the
21 CH zoning district.
22
23 CG is a zoning district that allows more uses than just services and retail. It allows
24 some warehousing and distributing. The CG district allows more warehousing and
25 distributing than would the CH district. The RCH is to be applied for properties that
26 have been identified for development, but the staging plan won't be until 2016 or
27 later. Two comments were received from Three Rivers Park District and Blue Water
28 Partners. Finke said that a change in tenancy is allowed, but a nonconformity
29 couldn't be increased. He said staff is not recommending any properties be zoned
30 into Commercial Neighborhood.
31
32 Finke said staff received two comments. Three Rivers Park District commented on
33 parcels 246 - 250 located at 1432 and 1472 County Road 29 and Blue Water Partners
34 sent a letter related to parcels 125 and 236.
35
36 A five minute recess was given for Commission to review comments from the Three
37 Rivers Park District and Blue Water Partners.
38
39 R. Reid asked what was on the properties and why the Three Rivers Park District had
40 concerns with the rezoning. Finke replied that there was a Holiday Gas Station and a
41 strip mall, as well as two adjacent homes (parcels 246 and 247).
42
43 Finke said parcels numbers 125 and 236 would be legal nonconforming, but would be
44 allowed to continue use or change of use as long as it wasn't intensified. He further
45 said he spoke with the property owner of the parcels and supported the rezoning.
46
3
"
1 N o l a n a s k e d a b o u t t h e p r o p e r t y a t t h e N W c o r n e r o f 1 1 6 a n d S t a t e H i g h w a y 5 5 .
2 F i n k e s a i d t h e a r e a h e w a s r e f e r r i n g t o w a s r i g h t - o f - w a y f o r a f u t u r e r o a d w a y . F i n k e
3 s t a t e d t h e C i t y w a s n o t p r o p o s i n g t o r e z o n e t h o s e p a r c e l s a n d t h e y w o u l d b e u s e d f o r
4 f u t u r e r o a d w a y .
5
6 N o l a n a s k e d f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f p r o p e r t i e s i n r e d a l o n g C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 1 t h a t w e r e
7 z o n e d P U D . F i n k e s a i d t h e C i t y w a s n o t p r o p o s i n g t o r e z o n e t h e P U D p r o p e r t i e s i n
8 t h i s a r e a .
9
1 0 P u b l i c H e a r i n g o p e n e d a t 7 : 5 6 p . m .
1 1
1 2 R e g P e d e r s o n o f H w y 5 5 R e n t a l s a i d h e w a s a t t h e m e e t i n g r e g a r d i n g p a r c e l s # 2 3 5
1 3 a n d # 2 3 4 a n d a s k e d i f t h e r e w a s a n y t h i n g d i f f e r e n t b e t w e e n t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n
1 4 l a n d u s e a n d t h e R e z o n i n g t h a t ' s h a p p e n i n g . H e a l s o a s k e d w h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e w a s
1 5 b e t w e e n U C a n d C H z o n i n g a n d w h a t t h e t i m i n g o f t h e r e z o n i n g w o u l d b e . F i n k e
1 6 e x p l a i n e d t h e h o l d i n g z o n e s w e r e t o b e a p p l i e d t o p r o p e r t i e s i n f u t u r e s t a g i n g p e r i o d s .
1 7
1 8 N o l a n a s k e d F i n k e a b o u t h o w p r o p e r t i e s a r e l o o k e d a t r e l a t e d t o a s s e s s e d v a l u e a n d i f
1 9 t h e c h a n g e w o u l d i m p a c t t h e A s s e s s o r s v i e w o f v a l u e o n t h e p r o p e r t y . F i n k e s a i d h e
2 0 c o n t a c t e d t h e C i t y A s s e s s o r a n d h e s a i d z o n i n g b y i t s e l f d o e s n ' t g e t f a c t o r e d i n t o t h e
2 1 c a l c u l a t i o n , b u t r a t h e r t h e p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e u s e a n d t h e e x i s t i n g u s e . S i n c e t h e
2 2 p r o p e r t i e s a r e w i t h i n a h o l d i n g z o n e , t h e A s s e s s o r w o u l d l o o k a t w h a t c o u l d b e t h e r e
2 3 a n d w h a t p r e s e n t l y e x i s t s , w i t h t i m i n g n o t p a r t o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f v a l u e .
2 4
2 5 N e i l C a m p i o n o f 4 5 8 5 P i o n e e r T r a i l a s k e d f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n C H a n d C G a n d
2 6 h o w i t r e l a t e s t o t h e R B H d i s t r i c t . H e s t a t e d h i s p r o p e r t y b o a r d e r s p a r c e l 8 1 a n d 8 2
2 7 a n d q u e s t i o n e d i f t h e p r o p e r t i e s c o u l d e v e r b e z o n e d C H o r C G . F i n k e e x p l a i n e d t h a t
2 8 w h e n t h e p r o p e r t y i s a b l e t o d e v e l o p , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 0 2 6 , t h e C i t y w o u l d e v a l u a t e
2 9 e i t h e r t h e B u s i n e s s D i s t r i c t o r t h e B u s i n e s s P a r k D i s t r i c t .
3 0
3 1 A m e m b e r f r o m t h e p u b l i c ( u n a b l e t o g e t n a m e ) a s k e d w h y p a r c e l s # 5 1 a n d # 5 4 w e r e
3 2 R C H . F i n k e s a i d i t w a s v a c a n t p r o p e r t y a n d w o u l d b e p h a s e d i n t o d e v e l o p i n g i n
3 3 2 0 1 6 .
3 4
3 5 N o l a n a s k e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n i f t h e r e a r e a n y p a r c e l s t h a t s h o u l d b e f l a g g e d t o b e
3 6 z o n e d s o m e t h i n g d i f f e r e n t t h a n w h a t i s r e c o m m e n d e d b y s t a f f .
3 7
3 8 K e p t p u b l i c h e a r i n g o p e n u n t i l e n d o f a l l r e z o n i n g s .
3 9
4 0 P u b l i c H e a r i n g c l o s e d a t 1 0 : 0 7 p . m .
4 1
4 2 M o t i o n b y M a r t i n , s e c o n d e d b y R . R e i d t o a p p r o v e t h e Z o n i n g M a p A m e n d m e n t .
4 3 M o t i o n c a r r i e d u n a n i m o u s l y . ( A b s e n t : N o n e )
4 4
4 5
4
1 8. Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment — An ordinance rezoning various
2 properties to the Business (B), Industrial Park (IP) or
3 Rural Business Holding (RBH) zoning districts.
4
5 Finke explained the reason for the rezoning process and why there are specific
6 designations.
7
8 The land owners were requesting that their property be included in the Business
9 District.
10
11 Public Hearing opened at 8:18 p.m.
12
13 Todd Rapp, representing the land owner of the property east of parcel #81, said the
14 property should be rezoned to Commercial, rather than the Rural Residential it is
15 zoned. He said the property sits between Pioneer Trail and State Hwy 55 which is
16 prime for Commercial zoning. He said the property is currently a Commercial riding
17 stable, yet zoned RR. The property owner he represents is Gary Kirt.
18
19 Finke explained the property is currently zoned PUD RR -2, and guided Rural
20 Residential.
21
22 Rapp said he was present at the 2007 Comprehensive Plan review and requested the
23 property be changed at that time. He said he clearly doesn't see the property to be
24 residential in nature and yet the future zoning of the property continues to be shown
25 as Rural Residential. He looks at the MUSA line and it covers everything, with the
26 exception of the Kirt parcel. He felt the City appears to be going out of its way to not
27 change the zoning of the property and they have been inquiring since 2007 as to why,
28 with no answers. He said the parcel is Commercial in nature and asks for
29 consideration. He said the property has always been a Commercial horse facility
30 since Mr. Kirt purchased it. He said in 2007 he asked for the property to be rezoned
31 and doesn't understand why nothing was ever done to make the requested change.
32 He asked the Commission to do the right thing and to consider a change. Nolan said
33 the Commission can't make a zoning change at the hearing, since their objective
34 through the process is to make the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning match. Nolan
35 further stated that the property is clearly guided Rural Residential and in order for a
36 change to occur at this point, the land owner would have to submit for a
37 Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
38
39 Jack Hurley said he lived off of Rolling Hills Road and had questions regarding
40 parcels #67-69 which abut up to residential and also parcels #79-80 which abut
41 Corcoran. He asked if the zoning is consistent with Corcoran's zoning. Finke
42 explained the properties are Rural Commercial now, and would be Rural Business in
43 the future. Finke said a Business zoning classification would be more consistent with
44 Corcoran's zoning.
45
46 Public Hearing closed at 10:07 p.m.
5
1
2 Motion by Anderson, Seconded by Williams to adopt the ordinance per staffs
3 recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None)
4
5
6 9. Public Hearing — Zoning Map Amendment — An ordinance rezoning various
7 properties to the Mixed Use (MU), Rural Residential -Urban Reserve (RR-UR),
8 or Rural Residential (RR) zoning district.
9
10 Finke explained the parcels within the proposed Zoning Map Amendment were more
11 scattered throughout the City. He explained staff recommended the MU district for
12 six properties at this time. Two of the properties, located in the 500 block of Hamel
13 Road, are guided Mixed Use. Four of the properties are guided Mixed Use -Business
14 and were discussed in the memo related to the Uptown Hamel -1 and Uptown Hamel -
15 2 district. He said these properties are very different from the Uptown Hamel area,
16 and staff does not feel the UH-1 or UH-2 district would be a good fit. The MU district
17 would allow for a mix of uses in order to be consistent with the Comp Plan, but the
18 required residential development is at a lower density. Staff felt an MU zoning would
19 still be consistent with the Comp Plan, since the Mixed Use -Business density is
20 averaged across all property in the land use.
21
22 He further stated staff recommended the RR-UR district for properties which have
23 been guided for Mixed Use or sewered residential development, but are currently not
24 served by City services. These properties were all previously guided for Business
25 Park development, but changed during the recent Comp Plan update. Staff
26 recommended the RR-UR district even for properties within the current Phasing
27 period, because these properties are all currently utilized for agriculture or rural
28 residential uses and could not be developed consistent with their future land use
29 without being further subdivided. He said the current zoning map shows many other
30 parcels which are already zoned RR-UR in the current Phasing period.
31
32 He said staff recommended the RR district for the seven properties which were re -
33 guided to the Rural Residential land use in the updated Comp Plan. Three of the
34 parcels had previously been guided Urban Reserve, and four of the parcels had
35 previously been guided Agricultural Preserve.
36
37 V. Reid said she had concerns that the process of rezoning the properties doesn't take
38 into account the school districts needs. She said the Wayzata School district currently
39 is struggling with the large number of students in the district.
40
41 Public Hearing opened at 8:50 p.m.
42
43 Joe Cavanaugh of 275 Lakeview Road said parcel tt'13 was 40.8 acres and guided
44 mixed use and consists of two parcels. He said he would like to have the north piece
45 zoned R2 and southern piece zoned HC. The southern parcel is bordered by
46 Commercial. He said his request would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
6
1 Finke said the 40.8 acre parcel had a lot split through Hennepin County which gave
2 the property two different PID numbers.
3
4 R. Reid asked where the property was in the Staging Plan. Finke said the property
5 was in the 2011 Staging Plan.
6
7 Martin asked for clarification of the lot split and the Commission discussed. Nolan
8 asked about the Commercial part of a Mixed Use development. Finke explained 90
9 percent of the MU ordinance was taken from other district language created by staff
10 and Commission.
11
12 Finke explained the MU district allows for more of a planned transition between uses,
13 such as Commercial and Residential; and the district allows more discretion for those
14 transitions. The Commercial uses may be similar to other zoning districts within the
15 MU district, but does have a development process that is very different. The MU
16 district requires a three stage process and helps to conceptually lay out both
17 Residential and Commercial uses and how they will integrate or be separate from
18 each other.
19
20 Nolan asked Finke which district would give the City better control, and Finke
21 responded the MU district helps assure the City will be able to get the desired uses
22 and have more control over the layout of the development.
23
24 Finke explained both parcels are guided MU. He said the text in the MU zoning
25 ordinance requires the need for transitions between uses, so theoretically both parcels
26 could have Commercial or Residential.
27
28 Williams said he thought the idea of the MU designation was to give more flexibility
29 to the developer and the City. Cavanaugh replied by saying he originally liked the
30 MU zoning designation prior to splitting the lot. He said now that there are two
31 parcels, due to multiple family members involved, they would like to see the R2
32 zoning designation applied to the property to the north.
33
34 Williams asked Mr. Cavanaugh if he currently has plans for the northern parcel and
35 would the two parcels develop at the same time or separately. Cavanaugh said they
36 would develop separately and would like to develop the northern piece Residential
37 and the southern piece Commercial, which is more consistent with what is out there
38 today.
39
40 Nolan said he would have concerns with doing a straight zone on each property,
41 rather than the MU district. Finke said the text of the MU speaks more to the
42 transitioning. Nolan asked if both parcels would have to have Commercial. Finke
43 said Commercial would not be required on both parcels. Finke said all of this is
44 really development driven.
45
7
1 Nolan said if the Commission recommended the northern parcel be zoned R2, the
2 middle parcel MU, and the southern parcel Commercial they would effectively satisfy
3 the request of the Cavanaugh family. He asked if it would be acceptable to staff.
4 Finke said staff would still recommend RR-UR for both parcels. He said any future
5 R2 or MU zoning is being recommended to be RR-UR at this time.
6
7 Nolan thinks the MU gives the City more opportunity for transition. He said
8 Cavanaugh is offering Residential on the north which is consistent. Cavanaugh said
9 they would like the area to the south Commercial, so a large box user could develop
10 there. Nolan said he only speaks for himself, but the MU allows for a lot of
11 opportunity that appears to be similar to what the Cavanaugh's are wanting.
12
13 R. Reid asked why not leave the properties RR-UR at the present time since it has
14 sewer availability. Cavanaugh said the intention is to not put the Commercial to the
15 north. They don't want to be required to put Residential on the southern portion of the
16 property near State Hwy 55 since it is too busy of a roadway for Residential and
17 they'd rather capture Commercial in this area. Cavanaugh said they would put 100%
18 Residential to the north. Cavanaugh explained the ownership is in the family, but the
19 ownership is separated, which makes it more difficult to take the property lines away.
20
21 The Commission discussed with Cavanaugh which piece it was he wanted to sell
22 now, and Cavanaugh said it was the northern piece for Residential.
23
24 Reg Pederson explained that he owned the two parcels addressed as 1472 State Hwy
25 55. He originally thought MU was the most appropriate zoning for his property. His
26 thought was to develop a service station on the southern parcel and retail/apartments
27 on the northern parcel, which would serve as a transition. He said his properties are
28 the first two pieces when turning off Arrowhead eastbound. He said it seems the MU
29 district makes the most sense since it's not a large parcel and wouldn't get as many
30 units per acre. Finke asked for clarification on if he was talking about RR-UR; and
31 he explained the RR-UR is really a holding district until the property is ready to
32 develop and then it would be rezoned into MU. Pederson said the presumption is the
33 northern parcel be MU zoning and the southern parcel be zoned Commercial.
34
35 Nolan asked what part of the piece is wetland. Pederson said the SW corner to the
36 NE corner on the northern parcel, and the western portion of the southern parcel. He
37 said he wasn't sure why it was being recommended to rezone the properties into a
38 holding zone. He requested he have the flexibility so he can develop.
39
40 Pederson also stated he really thought the southern portion of the Cavanaugh's
41 property should be zoned Commercial as requested. He felt the larger parcel is an
42 important parcel to retain as Commercial. He felt the City has missed opportunities
43 in the past and doesn't want to see that happen again, especially since there aren't
44 other properties of this size along State Highway 55 in the City.
45
8
1 Nolan asked Finke if it really starts with MU and Residential being put into the RR -
2 UR district. Finke said when each property develops they would be pulled out of the
3 RR-UR district with a rezoning request. Nolan asked why have the properties go
4 through rezoning if they are ready to develop. Finke said the parcels standing on their
5 own can not conform to any of the physical confines of any of the zoning districts.
6
7 Finke said in the case of properties that are 5 acre homesteads, if rezoned we'd
8 instantly make them legal nonconforming. He said vacant land areas would not be
9 impacted the same as under -developed homesteads, rather it is in the interest of being
10 consistent by putting all properties into the RR-UR zoning designation.
11 Martin asked if a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be required if the
12 Commission agreed with what the Cavanaugh's were requesting. Finke said staffs
13 opinion was that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would not be required.
14
15 R. Reid felt it was a reasonable request of the Cavanaugh's.
16
17 Martin disagreed with the request and didn't feel it was appropriate at this time for
18 lack of public notice. He would prefer to see a master plan completed and possibly a
19 land swap may be in their best interest. She said she opposed the rezoning at this
20 time, but agreed with what they were requesting, which isn't much different than
21 what the City envisions for the property. She said not properly notifying all property
22 owners of the change in zoning was a concern. Cavanaugh explained his uncle was
23 sick and in the hospital and couldn't be present, but his uncle was agreeable to the
24 rezoning. Martin said she would not be comfortable recommending a change without
25 the proper notification to neighboring landowners.
26
27 Anderson shared Martin's concerns. He said in the interest of the Cavanaugh's
28 property, he suggested the Cavanaugh's have an attorney that represented all family
29 members and their properties. Martin suggested a letter and map be submitted
30 identifying their request, which could be provided at a future meeting.
31
32 R. Reid said she is not opposed to the Cavanaugh's request.
33
34 Weir asked what the Cavanaugh's request would do to Residential density. Finke
35 said it would increase the amount of residential units in the City's projection for
36 residential units.
37
38 Martin said she would like to see a development plan be brought in prior to making a
39 change. Williams said the Cavanaugh's do have a plan. Nolan said this meeting was
40 not the appropriate time to review their plan for the land.
41
42 Finke asked if the opinion of the Commission was to grant the request of the
43 Cavanaugh's if the City wasn't giving up any residential units.
44
45 Public Hearing closed at 10:09 p.m.
46
9
1 Motion by Anderson, Seconded by Martin to adopt the ordinance per staff's
2 recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None)
3
4
5 10. Discussion of additional Planning Commission meetings
6
7 Finke requested the August 24, 2010 meeting be cancelled.
8
9
10 11. City Council Meeting Schedule
11
12 Martin to attend City Council meeting August 17, 2010.
13
14
15 12. Adjourn
16
17 Motion by Anderson, Seconded by Williams to adjourn the meeting at 10:11 p.m.
18
19
10
v
AGENDA ITEM: 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: September 8, 2010
MEETING: September 14, 2010 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Ron and Kimberly Carlson —1382 Hunter Drive (PID 25-118-23-13-0007) —
Preliminary Plat to subdivide 13.9 acre parcel into two lots — Public Hearing
Review Deadline
Original Application Received: July 8, 2010
Complete Application Received: August 25, 2010
120 -day Review Deadline: December 23, 2010
Overview of Request
Ron and Kimberly Carlson propose to
subdivide their existing 13.75 acre property
at 1382 Hunter Drive into two lots. See the
location map to the right. The preliminary
plat, called "Hunter Ridge Farm" is attached
for review. As part of the request, the
applicants are contesting the Hennepin
County soils data and claiming additional
area should be considered "suitable soils."
Property Description
The subject property is located on Hunter
Drive, south of County Road 24. The
existing parcel is rectangular in shape,
extending from Hunter Drive east to Mooney
Lake. An aerial photograph of the site is
located on the back of this page (top photo).
The west side of the lot is primarily pasture
land. A wooded ravine is located in the
southeast corner of the lot, running down to
Mooney Lake. There are also a number of
significant trees located around the house which is located on the eastern portion of the lot. The
ground cover on this portion of the lot is manicured turf grass. Near the house, improvements
include a pool and tennis court. Additionally, a 3,631 square foot storage building and a 460
square foot loafing shed are located on the property as well as an outdoor riding ring.
C
Subject
Property
City of Orono -
1
BROCKTON LN N
City of Plymouth
I
Molone
(
The property is currently zoned Rural Residential (RR), and guided Rural Residential in the
City's Comprehensive Plan. The property is surrounded on all sides by other RR land uses,
including many 4-10 acre lots.
Ron and Kimberly Carlson
Hunter Ridge Farm Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Page 1 of 8 September 14, 2010
Aerial Photograph of Site
(With propo sed dividing line in pink)
Hennepin Cou nty Soils Data
(Applicant contends that blu e "L22D2"
soils through the cen ter of the lot sho uld be
con sidered suitable soils, except for the
po rtion highlighted in oran ge to the right)
5 .5 acres b^o
0
0
bfJ
Preliminary Plat
The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing 13.75 acre parcel into two lots, one of which is
proposed to be 7.69 acres in size and the other proposed to be 6.06 acres in size. The larger lot is
proposed to sit behind the smaller lot from Hunter Drive and the larger lot is not proposed to
have frontage on Hunter Drive. The preliminary plat is attached, and the top photo on the
previous page is an aerial photograph which shows the approximate location of the proposed
dividing line.
Lot Standards
The proposed characteristics of the proposed lots are summarized in the table below, compared
with the requirements of the RR zoning district.
Rural Residential
Requirements
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot Size (gross)
None
6.06 acres
7.69 acres
Lot Size (suitable soils)
5 -acre contiguous suitable soils
5.01 acres
5.12 acres
Minimum Lot Width
300 feet
325 feet
325 feet
Minimum Lot Depth
200 feet
810 feet
975 feet
Setbacks
Front
50 feet
310' (Pos House Site)
545' (house)
Side
50 feet
95' / 125'
63' / 132'
Rear
50 feet
440' (Pos House Site)
370' (house)
Animal Structure
150 feet
N/A
84' / 233'
74, / 40'
OHW Mooney Lake
75 feet
N/A
290'
Maximum Hardcover
40% (25% in shoreland overlay)
4.3%
11.46% (shoreland)
Grazable Acres
(Maximum animal units)
1 unit/first 2 acres
+ 1 unit/acre
6.0 acres
(5 animal units)
6.4 acres
(5.4 animal units)
As proposed, both Lot 1 and Lot 2 meet the dimensional standards of the RR district. The
animal structures on proposed Lot 2 do not meet the 150 foot setback required in the RR district.
The non -conformity of the small shed near the proposed dividing line is being intensified as a
result of this subdivision. As such, staff is recommending a condition that this structure be
moved to a location 150' from all property lines, or be removed from the site. The larger barn,
while only 84' from the side property line, does meet setbacks from the proposed dividing line.
As such, staff does not believe the non -conformity of this structure is not being increased and
staff does not recommend any action.
Because the lots are 325 feet in width, it will be difficult to locate future animal structures on the
lots. Without a variance, the only place for animal structure would be directly in the middle of
the lot, and the structure could be no more than 25 feet in width. Staff recommends a condition
which states this fact for the purpose of notifying potential buyers.
The applicant has provided designs for two septic sites on each lot which were reviewed by the
building official. Both lots can support a primary and secondary site.
Ron and Kimberly Carlson
Hunter Ridge Farm Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Page 3 of 8 September 14, 2010
Suitable Soils
As mentioned above, the applicant is contesting the Hennepin County soils information on this
property. The bottom photo on page 2 shows the soils information. The soils data shows
2.7 acres of suitable soil (shown in green) near Hunter Drive, and then a swath of soil which is
not classified as suitable heading east up the slope in the pasture. At the top of the slope, around
the buildings and riding ring, the soils map shows another 5.5 acres of suitable soils (shown in
green and purple) before the property begins to fall back towards Mooney Lake.
The applicant is seeking to reclassify a large portion of the soils in the front pasture from
"L22D2" soils (non -suitable) to "L22C2" soils, which are considered suitable. L22D2 and
L22C2 soils share most of their characteristics, and the only difference between the two is the
topography on which they are located. L22C2 soils are less than 12% while L22D2 soils are
12% or greater.
The applicant has submitted topographical information in order to demonstrate that much of this
area is less than 12% in slope. A fair amount of the area is significantly under 12%, while some
areas appear to be 10-12%. Staff consulted with the building official/septic inspector who
agreed that if soils identified as L22D2 are indeed less than 12%, they should be considered
suitable.
It should also be noted that the applicant has excluded some areas which the City's soil
information classify as suitable because when they surveyed the topography, these areas were
greater than 12% in slope. So, in addition to seeking to add some soils as suitable, the applicant
is also subtracting a smaller area.
Streets/Access/Frontage
Staff does not believe the creation of an additional lot requires any type of street improvements
or additional right-of-way since Hunter Drive already exists in front of proposed Lot 1.
The applicant proposes to serve both lots by sharing the existing driveway. Staff recommends a
condition that an access easement and driveway maintenance agreement be recorded against the
properties related to the shared driveway.
As mentioned above, the proposed lot configuration is for the larger lot to sit behind the smaller
lot with no frontage on Hunter Drive. This type of configuration, with a shared driveway across
the front lot, is very common in the area. Since 2001, however, the City has not approved of a
subdivision which resulted in a rural lot with no frontage on either a right-of-way or an outlot
which contains a private road or shared driveway. No regulations were changed around 2001
which would make it clear that this was a purposefully policy change rather than a coincidence.
In 2006, following the moratorium on RR development, the City created a definition of a "flag
lot" where one lot sits behind another from the street, but still has a narrow frontage onto the
street. This definition supports the ability for one lot to sit behind another, but seems to imply
that the rear lot should still have some amount of frontage. However, no specific change was
made to clarify that the rear lot is required to have frontage, or if such a configuration is an
option. Additionally, no minimum width was established for the "flagpole" portion of a lot.
Ron and Kimberly Carlson
Hunter Ridge Farm Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Page 4 of 8 September 14, 2010
Staff suggests the Planning Commission and City Council discuss this matter in general terms
across the City to provide direction on the intent. Staff might then suggest an ordinance
amendment to clarify that intent. In general, staff supports rural lots having some minimum
amount of frontage on either right-of-way or an outlot with a private road.
In this case, the existing lot is 325 feet wide. The minimum lot width in the RR district is
300 feet. Therefore, if the rear lot was designed to be a flag lot, the "flagpole" portion could
only be 25 feet wide in order for the front lot to meet the minimum lot width. With regards to
this application, staff believes the following options exist under current regulations:
• Require that Lot 2 be designed as a flag lot with a 25 -foot wide "flagpole" to Hunter
Drive. The City could also require that an access easement be established over a portion
of the flagpole portion of the lot, even if the applicant wants to continue to utilize the
existing driveway where it is located. This option would require the applicant to shift the
dividing line between the two lots approximately 63 feet to the east in order to maintain
5 -acres of suitable soils in each lot.
• Approve of the subdivision as proposed, with an access easement over Lot 1 in order to
access Lot 2. Staff recommends this alternative, because the 25 foot wide flagpole does
not really serve its intended purpose.
Staff does not believe current regulations support denying the requested subdivision because the
flagpole portion of the lot is not wide enough.
Wetlands/Floodplains
The property owner has submitted a wetland delineation for review and staff has completed a
preliminary review. The property includes a wetland adjacent to Mooney Lake, above the
ordinary high water level. Additionally, a small wetland (approximately 30'x10' in size) is
located in the ditch to the north of the driveway. Additionally, a small area in the northwest
portion of the lot (near the pond on the neighboring parcel) is being studied further and may be
determined to be wetland. Upland buffers will be required adjacent to these wetlands, and it
appears that pasture and turf grass will need to be removed and a more suitable buffer
established. Staff recommends this as a condition of approval.
FEMA floodplain maps also identify a Zone A (1% annual chance) floodplain adjacent to
Mooney Lake. The existing house sits high above the lake and no additional improvements are
proposed nearby.
Stormwater and LID Review
The City Engineer does not recommend requiring stormwater improvements as a condition of
this subdivision. Drainage will be reviewed when a building permit is requested for Lot 1 in
order to mitigate any potential impact of additional run-off on adjacent properties.
In terms of LID practices, the applicant is proposing to utilize a shared driveway, which reduces
the amount of hardcover which would be required for both lots to have individual driveways.
Ron and Kimberly Carlson
Hunter Ridge Farm Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Page 5 of 8 September 14, 2010
Tree Preservation/Landscaping
There are many significant trees on the existing parcel, which will be predominantly located on
Lot 2, along with the existing home and accessory improvements. The vacant lot is primarily
open pasture, so tree removal should be limited when this site develops. Nonetheless, future
construction will be subject to the City's tree preservation ordinance.
The applicant is not proposing landscaping as part of the subdivision. The RR zoning district
does not include specific landscaping requirements, and this division does not trigger a
bufferyard. Existing trees line Hunter Drive approximately every 50 feet, and a dense line of
trees exist along the south property line. Staff believes it is very likely a property owner building
on Lot 1 will wish to install additional landscaping, the location of which is dependent on where
the future home is located. As a result, staff is not recommending additional landscaping as a
condition of approving this subdivision.
As mentioned above, buffers will need to be planted and maintained adjacent to wetlands on the
property.
Easements
The plat states that standard perimeter easements will be granted on the final plat around each
lot. Additionally, drainage and utility easements will be required over all wetlands and
floodplains. Staff has recommended a condition that easements be provided over all upland
buffers around wetlands as well, but these will not be identified on the plat.
Park Dedication
The City's park dedication ordinance allows the City to require "up to 10% of the buildable
land" to be dedicated for parks and trails. As an option, the City may accept a cash fee in -lieu of
dedicated property. Of the 13.75 acres, staff estimates 13.54 acres are buildable, which would
mean the City could require a maximum of 1.35 acres of buildable property to be dedicated. If
the City wished to collect only cash, the maximum fee would be $8,000 (generally, this amount
is 8% of the market value, but $8,000 is the maximum fee in the fee schedule). The City could
also choose a combination of land and cash.
The Trail plan identifies a future moderate -low priority trail along Hunter Drive. The trail plan
does not specify whether this trail should be on the east or west of Hunter Drive, but looking at
the topography along the street, it seems it would be easier to accommodate along the east side.
As a result, staff recommends obtaining a 15 -foot trail easement adjacent to Hunter Drive, which
is an area of 4,875 square feet (8.3% of the maximum land).
Staff recommends requiring the remaining park dedication in the form of cash. As mentioned
above, the maximum cash fee is $8,000.00. The trail easement is equivalent to 8.3% of this
amount, so the remaining park dedication fee would be $7,336.00.
Review Criteria/Findings of Fact
Subd. 10 of Section 820.21 of the City Code describes the criteria for reviewing a subdivision
and states that the City "shall deny approval of a preliminary or final plat based on one or a
combination of the following. findings
Ron and Kimberly Carlson
Hunter Ridge Farm Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Page 6 of 8 September 14, 2010
(a) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the general and specific plans of the city.
(b) That the physical characteristics of this site, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, soils, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, drainage and retention, are
such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development or does not
meet minimum lot size standards.
(d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public or
private streets, easements or right-of-way."
With the conditions recommended below, staff does not believe the proposed subdivision meets
any of the findings above for denial.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions:
(1) No construction or grading is proposed or approved at this time on Lot 1. Future
construction shall be reviewed for compliance with relevant regulations of the City Code
prior to issuance of any building permits.
(2) Future construction shall be subject to City tree preservation regulations.
(3) The applicant acknowledges that construction of any future animal structure is subject to
increased setback requirements. Current City regulations require animal structure to be
set back a minimum of 150 feet from all property lines.
(4) The subdivision shall be subject to park dedication requirements as follows:
(a) The applicant shall dedicate an easement 15 feet in width adjacent to Hunter Drive for
trail purposes.
(b) The applicant shall pay cash -in -lieu of dedicating additional property for parks and
trail purposes. $7,336.00 shall be paid to the City prior to fling the plat with
Hennepin County.
(5)
The applicant shall execute an easement for Lot 2 to receive access over Lot 1, as well as an
agreement related to rights and responsibilities of the driveway.
(6) The applicant shall dedicate easements as recommended by the City Engineer along the
perimeter of the lot and over all wetland and floodplain locations.
(7)
The applicant shall meet the requirements of the City Attorney with regards to title issues
and platting procedures.
Ron and Kimberly Carlson
Hunter Ridge Farm Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Page 7 of 8 September 14, 2010
(8) The applicant shall meet the recommendations of the City Engineer letter dated August 18,
2010 and the City Building Official letter dated July 19, 2010.
(9) The applicant shall provide easements over Upland Buffers as required Section 828.43 of
the City Code. These easements shall be a separate instrument and shall not be shown on
the plat.
(10) The applicant shall install vegetation and signage within the Upland Buffers as required by
Section 828.43 of the City Code.
(11) The applicant shall remove the shed which is near the proposed dividing line between the
proposed lots, or shall move it to a location which meets the 150 foot animal structure
setback requirement before filing the plat with Hennepin County.
(12) The final plat shall abide by the requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
(13) The application for final plat must be submitted to the City within 180 days of preliminary
plat approval or the preliminary plat shall be considered void, unless a written request for
time extension is submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council.
(14) The applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the
cost of reviewing the preliminary plat and other relevant documents.
Attachments
1. City Engineer comments dated August 18, 2010
2. City Building Official comments dated July 19, 2010
3. Preliminary Plat as received by the City on September 9, 2010
4. Additional soils information received by the City on September 9, 2010
Ron and Kimberly Carlson
Hunter Ridge Farm Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Meeting
Page 8 of 8 September 14, 2010
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 651-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
August 18, 2010
Ms. Debra Peterson -Dufresne
Planning Assistant
City of Medina
2052 County Road 24
Medina, MN 55340-9790
Re: L-10-057
Hunter Ridge Farm Preliminary Plat (1382 Hunter Drive)
City of Medina
Bonestroo File No.: 000190-10000-1
Dear Deb,
We have reviewed the preliminary plat dated 8-6-10 for the proposed lot split at 1382
Hunter Drive. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters.
• The applicant has noted that the final plat will show 5 foot wide drainage and utility
easements along each side of the proposed dividing lot line as well as 10 foot wide
perimeter drainage and utility easements.
• A driveway easement should be provided over the existing driveway across Lot 1.
• It appears there is a wetland near the north property line. This wetland should be
delineated and submitted for review.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894.
Sincerely,
BONESTROO
Darren Amundsen
Cc: Tom Kellogg
Dusty Finke
Bonestroo
METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVICES, INC.
Loren Kohnen, Fres.
July 19, 2010
TO: Debra Peterson -Dufresne
Planning Assistant
FROM: Loren Kohnen
RE: 1381 Hunter Drive
Medina, Minnesota
LOT DIVISION
(763) 479-1720
FAX (763) 479-3090
I have reviewed the plan for the above -captioned proposal for Ronald
Carlson. The following items were noted:
>1) I did not see septic sites. Two (2) are required for each site.
Locations must be by a licensed individual.
2) The septic system for the existing home must be a compliant system.
3) The proposed plat shows large areas of steep slopes. The applicant's
surveyor is showing these areas as not steep slopes. This should be
checked by the City Engineer to make sure no mistakes have been made.
LK:Jg
Note: Septic designs for both lots were later submitted and
reviewed by the building official.
Box 248, Loretto, Minnesota 55357
66
—o
z
66 I
N
(1450)
MICHAEL D. DALE & LISA L. DALE
N 89° 58' 50" E I
I
L24A
,hUILDING -"--NOTACRES
ACCEPTABLE
SETBACK
— 1922 --
LINES
BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY
BRICK
PAVERS
BLACKTOP
DRIVEW AY
4024
5.01- ACRES
ACCEPTABLE SOLS
. ` INCLUDING WETLANDS
5. 01= ACRES
— 1042 —
n. +w
BLACKTOP
\ DRIVEWAY
�o
1038
— — —1036-
(1041.0)
EXISTING
HOUSE
#1382
+. w
/
/
HUNTER RIDGE FARM
PRELIMINARY PLAT 8c CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
RONALD J. & KIMBERLY K. CARLSON
OF TRACT A, R.L. S. NO. 680
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
/
.,/ , / /�
/ /PROPOSED' '. I'
DIV 15ING.-.-. .1
1 LINE
1000' SETBACK
LpO 22D2 Cri
e4
/ORIGINALLY CLAS§EIED/AS L22/132; /
/ CHANCED 1�0 ACCEPTABLE BY/ TOPOGRAPHY
CONCTETE
PATIO
—1040
1038
1036 \ \
—1034-
CONCRETE
PATIO
704
7038
CONCRETE PATIO
o (mu)
off`
O
— — -1034— —
/ — —
HARDCOVER DETAIL
/ 452) I
JENNIFER C. HAVICE
ACKTOP DRIVEWAY
(1252)
C.W . & J. H. CROSBY TRUSTEES
1 n0
1::=1/
GRAVEL
DRIVEWAY
TENNIS
COURT
RIDING RING
L22C2
3. 301 ACRES
ACCEPTABLE SOILS
NOTE: PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS TO BE DEDICATED
ON THE FINAL PLAT 10' WIDE ALONG RIGHT OF WAY LINES AND 5' W IDE
(A TOTAL OF 10') ALONG LOT LINES AND OVER WETLANDS AND BUFFERS.
—1042
OPOSE
PTIC
TE "q
—1042
OODED AREA
10
1036
030-
'11030
ORIGNALLY CLASSIFIED AS L22C2; . 1
CHANGED TO T00 STEEP BY TOPOGRAPHY
(1262)
E & E WEIR
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
Lot area of proposed Lot 2 = 334,980 Sq. ft.
House = 4379 sf
Blacktop driveway = 13,637 sf
Paver driveway/wolk = 829 sf
Gravel drivew oy = 4268 sf
Concrete stoops = 104 sf
Stone walk = 80 sf
Pool patio = 2146 sf
Gazebo = 182 sf
Lower patio & steps = 1665 sf
Deck = 510 sf
Tennis court = 6830 sf
Building = 3521 sf
Shed = 451 sf
Well cover nw of shed = 9 sf
Concrete pads = 299 sf
Stepping stones = 22 sf
Walls = 107 sf
(1462)
ROBERT R. MCCLANAHAN/ ET AL
/ / / /
///
Total hardcover = 39,039 Sq. ft.
39,039 / 334,980 x 100 = 11.65%
4-21-10
MOONEY
"E LAKE
/
ORDINARY HGH WATER LEVELt- (988.0)
UNKNO WN
FLOOD ELEVATION Z
-60 0 60 120 180
SCALE I N FEET
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES :
Tract A, Registered Land Survey N o. 680, files of
Registrar of Titles. Hennepin County, Minnesota.
o : den ote s ir on marker
(908.3): denotes existi ng spot elevation, mean sea l evel d atum
— 917_: denotes existi ng c ontour line, mean sea level datum
NOTE: topography was shot by us on 7-7-10
Bearings shown or e bas ed upon an assumed d atum .
OWNERS: RONALD J. & KIMBERLY K. CARLSON
TOTAL AREA: 13 .75 +- ACRES TO O .H.W . (ORDINARY HIGH WATER)
STREET ADDRESS: 1382 HUNTER DRIVE
ZONING : R R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL)
This survey sho ws the bou ndaries of the above describ ed property,
the location of all e xisting buildings thereon. It does not purport
to show any other impr ovements or encroachments .
0
4
1-
6 • 0
tco
“"Et, y
'Sp
u -5
_a8(n X
J
113
to
N
Z
O
10120.41..
1" = 20' SCALE
VICINITY MAP
2-120
(1450)
MIC HAEL D DAL E & i
LISA L DAL E '\ I I I I I
W ozK1)\ t t 1 I I 10036 .0)
'I 1 A'
F--, \ ) / /
a / D I .,0. 78+— ACRES /
A i . / NO.'S ACCEPTABLE'
TE c v�
TI n 1 -----
6*
C S P AU L & H 1 1 ( -‘6.05.001+--ACRESACRES \7O
1
J R PAUL Z ) 1} \ L22C2--/ ACCEPTABLE C
(415 H UNTER TRAIL) ) (� �` \ \5. 014— ACRES S //
.> ACCE>'TABLE SOILS I
�> Nor IN CtL1YN! WET1Aa1D5 / / / /' ,/
rJV / / /, / \ Ci' ��"°'9 / / /� //
—100 0 100 200 300
SCALE I N FEET
�1.
HUNTER RIDGE FARM
SOILS OVERLAY FOR
RONALD CARLSON
OF TRACT A, R.L.S. NO. 680
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
/ <' ^� %! . 1 (i
L. . ,- ,
i l I / (1452) 1 I
1 / I ✓E NN/FIR C HA W CE I I
N 89`58/,50", E / 160520
ORKR'ED AS L221:02;CHAN89'57' 54" W 1691.80
N Y CLASS
FE D
TO ACCEPTABLE BY TOPOGRAPHY 1252)
1 C W & ✓ H CROSBY TRUSTEES
`` L S.
DENOTES SOIL ORIGINALLY
DESIGNATED AS ACCEPTABLE
CHANGED TO NOT ACCEPTABLE
BY TOPOGRAPHY
DENOTES SOIL ORIGINALLY
DESIGNATED AS NOT ACCEPTABLE
CHANGED TO ACCEPTABLE BY
TOPOGRAPHY
A/ 0
fro
(146 2)
RO BERT B M CCLANA HAN ET AL
ORIGINALLY CLAssFFED AS L22C2.
- CHANGED TO TOO STEEP BY TOPOGR
(1262)
E & E WEIR
9 6
h
S
00„
/, 'LOOD Z ONE A '-
/ AS SHOWN ON
// FEMA MAP
/7 27053C0169E
DATED 9-2-04
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
MOONEY
LAKE
o N w=988
FL000 ELEV UNKNOWN (ZON E A)
Tract A, Registered Land Survey N o. 680, files of Registr ar
of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
This survey sho ws the boundaries of the above described property, and
the location of all existing buildings there on. It does not purport to sh ow
any other impr ovements or encroachments.
. Iron marker
Existing c ontour line, mean sea level datum
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum
OWNERS: RONALD J & KIMBERLY K CARLSON
TOTAL AREA: 13 .75+— ACRES •
STREET ADDRESS: 1382 HUNTER DRIVE
ZONING: R R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL)
4D
• W• 1n
Z
?141
Z
111 gaIgl
H Y
< ><
o LL
O>6
ygo
0!) (1)
Qz>_r
Dog
N
Tr
S3 51
Luz, W 51
m Z S
z
0
Ji
Qd
0
w
w0
0
0
z
0
0
z
0
(n
Z
0
1)
W
cL
a
w
1o1»sa9cv8Ols u
411 4ni
1-
0
AGENDA ITEM: 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner
DATE: September 9, 2010
MEETING: September 14, 2010 Planning Commission
SUBJ: Conservation Design Ordinance; Open Space Composite Map Appeals
Public Hearing
Background
During the review of the Conservation Design ordinance, a property owner expressed concern
that there may be inaccuracies in the City's Minnesota Land Cover Classification System
(MLCCS) information which is utilized in the "Composite Map" in the City's Open Space Plan.
The City Council discussed the need for a process for property owners who disagree with the
information. Staff acknowledged that a process is not currently described within City regulations
to describe how a property owner could present such information. The attached ordinance
provides a process for appealing this information.
The City's Wetland Protection ordinance is similar, because it references a Wetland
Management Classification Map which is maintained by the City and utilized to determine the
required width of upland buffers. This map was created following the assessment of wetlands
completed by WSB & Associates. The Wetland Protection ordinance describes a process by
which an applicant can appeal the classification.
While the Composite Map is not utilized as directly as the Wetland Management Classification
Map to determine City regulations, the map is referenced within the Conservation Design
ordinance, and is meant to provide guidance to the implementation of the ordinance. As such,
staff supports establishing a process to appeal the Composite Map and data sources which the
Map is based on.
The full text of the Conservation Design ordinance as adopted by the City Council can be found
on pages 30-40 of Section 827 of the City Code. This has been updated and can be found on the
City's website (Nv \V \\ .ci.mcdina.mn.u.as) or please contact staff and it can be emailed to you.
Potential Language to Incorporate into Ordinance
The attached ordinance describes a process very similar to the process established within the
Wetland Protection ordinance. The applicant would be responsible for the costs accrued by the
City in reviewing the request to change the map. As written, the ordinance allows an
administrative approval of a change to the Composite Map. Alternatively, the Planning
Commission and City Council may discuss if all appeals should be heard by the City Council.
Attachment
1. DRAFT ordinance
Conservation Design Ordinance Page 1 of 1 September 14, 2010
Appeals Process Planning Commission Meeting
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO. ###
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE PROCESS OF APPEALING
INFORMATION WITHIN THE CITY'S OPEN SPACE REPORT RELATED TO
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONSERVATION DESIGN DISTRICT
ADDING NEW SECTION 827.60
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 827 of the Medina code of ordinances is amended to add new
subsection 827.60 as follows:
Section 827.60 Open Space Report Composite Map Appeal Process. In the event that an
applicant is not in agreement with the Composite Map of the Open Space Report or the data
contained within a report on which the Composite Map is based upon, the applicant may present
an appeal to the city.
Subd. 1. The applicant shall put the appeal in writing, accompanied by the fee as described
by the City's Fee Schedule, and is responsible to provide documentation supporting their
appeal.
Subd. 2. The appeal shall be reviewed by city staff, with the assistance of any technical
consultants which city staff shall determine are appropriate. Such consultants may
include, but are not limited to, environmental engineers, wetland scientists, arborists and
other similar experts. City staff shall make a determination on the appeal within sixty
days of receipt of a complete appeal application.
Subd 3. The applicant may appeal city staff's decision to the city council. The appeal must
be filed within thirty days of staffs determination.
Subd. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs accrued by the City in review of the
appeals described above, including the costs of technical consultants hired by the City.
Ordinance No. ###
1 DRAFT
DATE 9-14-2010 Planning Commission
SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication.
Adopted by the city council of the city of Medina this day of , 2010.
T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk
Published in the South Crow River News this day of , 2010.
Ordinance No. ### 2 DRAFT
DATE 9-14-2010 Planning Commission