Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 07-22-13 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 747-3900 www.lakeelmo.org NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. June 24, 2013 4. Public Hearing a. PRELIMINARY PLAT – LENNAR HOMES. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for a Preliminary Plat application submitted by Lennar Homes. The application includes a proposed 311 unit residential development in the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. 5. Business a. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. The Planning Commission will review a draft ordinance pertaining to landscape requirements for all platting and development activity. 6. Updates a. City Council Updates i. The City Council approved the Administrative and Enforcement Ordinance at the meeting on July 2nd. ii. The City Council approved the Fence Ordinance with amendments at the meeting on July16th. iii. The City Council approved plans and specifications for the Section 34 Utility Extension Project on July 16th. b. Staff Updates i. Upcoming Meetings: • July 29, 2013 – Special Meeting c. Commission Concerns 7. Adjourn City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2013 Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:01 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Reeves, Larson, Dorschner, Dodson and Kreimer; COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Morreale and Haggard; and STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson Approve Agenda: The Planning Commission accepted the agenda as presented. Approve Minutes: June 10, 2013 M/S/P: Larson/Dorschner, move to accept the minutes of June 10, 2013 as presented; Vote: 5-0, Motion Carried, with Reeves not voting. Public Hearing: Variance Request – 4719 Olson Lake Trail North Johnson presented an overview of the Variance request at 4719 Olson Lake Trail. The variance is a request to allow a covered porch within the 100 foot Shoreland setback. Staff found that all four criteria required for a variance were met. Dodson asked about the height of the covered porch. Johnson noted that height is typically reviewed when a building permit is submitted. Kreimer asked if there is any chance that sewer would not be going to this property. Johnson explained that we have a joint powers agreement with Oakdale and they project that there is capacity and we have put it in our Comprehensive Plan. Timing will depend on when the road project is done by Washington County. Dorchner asked if the applicant intends to rebuild with the same footprint or will be moving it closer to the lake. Johnson replied that it is his understanding that it will be in the same place and if the porch was not covered, there would be no need for the variance as decks are a permitted encroachment. Mary Florence Brink addressed the Planning Commission by further describing the physical considerations of the site and locating the new single family home. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-24-13 2 Public Hearing opened at 7:20pm. No one spoke. Johnson noted that the application materials were submitted to the DNR and Valley Branch Watershed District for comment. These organizations did not comment on the request. Public Hearing closed at 7:21pm. Williams stated that this seems to be a reasonable request and are trying to keep the encroachment to a minimum. They are also trying to preserve some nice trees. M/S/P: Dorschner/Larson, move to recommend approval of the variance at 4719 Olson Lake Trail; Vote: 6-0, Motion Carried. Public Hearing: Country Sun Farm and Greenhouses Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Interim Use Permit Renewal. Klatt presented an overview of the request by Country Sun Farm and Greenhouses. The request includes an amendment of the applicant’s Conditional Use Permit, as well as a renewal of the applicant’s Interim Use Permit. To clarify, only the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit requires a public hearing. Klatt began by providing a history of the site, specifically related to the different activities that occur on the site. He noted that the family/business have applied for various permits as they have expanded their business. For example, they have added agricultural entertainment and sale of off- premises goods. Moving forward, Klatt provided an aerial map and highlighted all of the structures and uses on the site. Next, Klatt noted that the amendment that is requested is to allow inflatable jump/bounce houses to the allowed activities as governed by the Conditional Use Permit. In addition, Kyle highlighted the considerations of the Interim Use Permit renewal. Klatt provided a copy of the draft resolution to the Planning Commission. One of the requirements of the IUP resolution was to conduct traffic generation study. The applicants completed the study, monitoring traffic to the site. Klatt noted that the baseline data stayed within the required amounts with the exception of two days in the year. Given it was only two days, Staff does not feel that the amount of traffic warrants not renewing the Interim Use Permit. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to amend the Conditional Use Permit. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-24-13 3 Reeves asked Klatt about the applicant’s previous use of inflatable bounce houses. Klatt noted that the applicants previously had this activity on their property when the requirements of the CUP were not as detailed. Once the City reviewed some of these activities, the added greater specificity to what activities are allowed. As time has gone on, the applicants have amended the CUP to allow greater variety of activities. Reeves asked if there were any concerns about safety or traffic. Klatt noted that there was not a lot of concern about the amount of traffic. The issue was compliance with the Code. Dorschner asked if MnDOT has weighed in on this request due to the fact that the site is accessed from TH-36. In addition, why did the City require a traffic study? Klatt noted that the Council felt it was important to monitor the amount of traffic in terms of the ag sales and entertainment activities. Williams asked about the zoning and tax classification of the property. Klatt noted that the site is zoned mostly RR and AG. Portions of the property are taxed at the commercial rate during certain times of the year. Keith Bergman stated that one of their requirements was to count traffic into and out of the site, and that he had purchased this equipment to do the counting rather than hiring an engineer. He described the process of how their Conditional Use Permit evolved over time. Mr. Bergman also addressed the question about the tax classification of the property. He noted that some of the site is taxed commercial, but he is not sure how the assessor makes the tax determination. Public Hearing opened at 7:55pm. No one spoke. Public Hearing closed at 7:55pm. Williams noted that the tax issue does concern him because he feels that the operation is turning into a commercial operation, whereas the tax classification may not reflect the impact of the use. Larson noted that the commercial activity is quite limited and small in scale. Reeves noted that he shares the Chairman’s concern about the tax classification, but he does not think that this activity is a source of large revenue. Keith Bergman stated that they probably only make a couple thousand dollars per year on the jump houses. Dorschner noted that it is important for the City to support these types of uses because it is part of the City’s character and a unique activity in the metro area. Williams asked if time limitations for the activities associated with the CUP was possible or appropriate. The applicant noted that the activity is only utilized around Halloween when there are more children present at the farm. Klatt noted that he is not aware of a time limitation. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-24-13 4 Larson noted that the business is also subject to sales tax. He asked if there were any tax considerations for the amount of business that is conducted. He also noted that he supports the Country Sun Farm and Greenhouse because it promotes the community’s character. Reeves noted that he intends to support the action, but noted that there will be scenarios in the future where the City should become involved in terms of managing various uses and their impacts on adjacent properties. Klatt noted that the City’s ordinance pertaining to Ag sales and entertainment businesses sets the requirements at a level that does not allow a full-blown commercial activity that has no real connection to agriculture. Klatt wrapped up by stating that the bounce houses are not the main source of business activity happening on the site, so he feels it’s appropriate to allow additional flexibility for these types of uses. Williams asked about the timing of this activity. Mr. Bergman noted that they are used around Halloween and they are taken down at the end of every business day. Williams noted that he thinks it’s prudent to set a condition on the CUP amendment that would set a time limitation. He recommended from the end of September to the end of October. The other members of the Planning Commission did not support a time limitation M/S/P: Dorschner/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit; Vote: 6-0, Motion Carried. The Planning Commission turned their attention back to the renewal of the Interim Use Permit. Williams noted that Staff is recommending that the IUP last five years, whereas the applicant has requested a renewal for 20 years. Mr. Bergman noted that five years is a short window of time in terms of long range planning for a business. Dorschner asked about the other Interim Use Permits in the community. Klatt highlighted the Christmas tree businesses located on Manning and Lake Elmo Avenue. Klatt noted that the impacts and site characteristics drive the time limit of an Interim Use Permit. For example, the transportation characteristics of TH-36 is likely to change greatly in the coming years. Reeves asked Kyle to elaborate on the 5-year recommendation. Klatt noted that the time limit coincides with the planned improvements of TH-36. The City has a responsibility to evaluate a use that may create some safety concerns depending on the site characteristics. Mr. Bergman wanted to clarify the difference between his Interim Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit. The only change without the IUP would be that all produce would need to be grown on site, which doesn’t really change the business itself. Dorschner noted that he does not understand why the 5-year recommendation. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-24-13 5 Klatt noted that the recommendation is linked to the fact that the City has determined to address this request through the IUP, which recommends that these uses be evaluated on an interim basis. M/S/P: Dorschner/Reeves, move to recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit for a period of 10 years; Vote: 6-0, Motion Carries. Business Item: Hammes Estates Sketch Plan Review Nick Johnson presented an overview of a sketch plan for 173 units that has been submitted to the City for Hammes Estates from Hammes Estates, LLC. He noted that the proposed site is 78 acres and is guided for public sanitary sewer services and located within the I-94 Corridor planning area. Dorschner asked about the mining operation and when it would cease. Johnson stated that Staff has indicated that the mining would need to stop once a final plat has been approved by the City, and in particular, when public improvements have been installed on the property. It was noted that the mining of the east side would be able to continue since it is physically separated from the proposed subdivision site. Kreimer questioned the ability to construct a trail within the County right-of-way. Johnson noted that the City will continue to work with the County on trail planning and construction with the County right-of-way. Tim Freeman and Todd Erickson of Folz, Freeman and Erickson, reviewed the proposed sketch plan for the property and presented a modified version based on recent meetings with City Staff. He noted that the plan is in the preliminary stages of development and is still undergoing revisions. He noted that the trail system has been a major consideration in the subdivision design, with the intent of connecting to the surrounding neighborhoods and regional park system. A specific neighborhood park location has not been identified on the plan. There was a general discussion concerning the location of an access to an adjoining property. Johnson noted that two rights-of-way in the Stonegate subdivision have been vacated and cannot be used for access. Dodson questioned the alignment of the streets and asked whether or not the roads could be designed to help reduce traffic speeds. Erickson responded that the width of the road will have a greater impact on speed than whether or not the road curves. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-24-13 6 Kreimer asked about the lack of buffering being provided along Highway 19. Freeman replied that the County right-of-way was fairly wide in this location and should provide adequate separation for the actual driving lanes. There was a question asked about the trail system and how this would function with the existing Stonegate Trails. Freeman stated that the connection between these two areas would be reviewed as the plans are further developed. Kreimer stated that the City’s future land use map was drafted so that the residential densities would decrease the further away from I-94 corridor that development would be located, and expressed concern that the proposed plan was not consistent with this general framework. Freeman explained that the lots in general were larger than planned in the development to the south, both in terms of size and width. Williams commented that overall the development appeared consistent with the City’s requirements, but expressed concern with the length of one cul-de-sac as noted by Staff from a fire protection stand point. Dorschner asked about a time frame for bringing this plan forward. Tim Freeman stated that they want it in the ground as quickly as possible. It would benefit them if they were on track at the same time as Lennar. Updates and Concerns Council Update – The City Council adopted the sign ordinance with some minor changes at the June 18th meeting. The fence ordinance and administration and enforcement ordinance were postponed until their next meeting. Staff Update – The July 8th meeting has another concept sketch plan and a comprehensive plan amendment. Staff is also looking to scheduling a special meeting July 15th for a Preliminary Plat application for Lennar. Meeting adjourned at 9:14pm Respectfully submitted, Nick Johnson Planner Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-24-13 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 7/22/13 AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2013-22 ITEM: Savona Residential Subdivision – Preliminary Plat SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Preliminary Plat request from Lennar Corporation for a 310 unit residential development to be located on 112.6 acres west of Keats Avenue and within the City’s I-94 corridor planning area. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with a series of conditions as noted in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: U.S. Home Corporation, D/B/A Lennar, 16305 36th Avenue North, Suite 600, Plymouth, MN Property Owners: Dale Properties, LLC and Frandsen Bank and Trust Location: Part of Section 34 in Lake Elmo, north of I-94, west of Keats Avenue, and south of Goose Lake. PID Numbers 34.029.21.34.0003; 34.029.21.34.0001; 34.029.21.31.0001; 34.029.21.42.0001; 34.023.21.41.0004 Request: Application for preliminary plat approval of a 310 unit residential subdivision to be named Savona. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Agricultural land, closed and abandoned golf driving range and practice facility. Current Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional Zoning District; Proposed Zoning: LDR and MDR Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North – active mining and gravel operation; west, south and east – agricultural land Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 – 4 units per acre) and Urban Medium Density Residential (4.5 – 7 units per acre) History: Sketch Plan review by Planning Commission on 12/10/12. EAW approved by the City Council on 7/2/13. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 7/14/13 60 Day Deadline – 8/13/13 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 10/12/13 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM 2 Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations Article 10 – Urban Residential Districts (LDR) §150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Lennar Corporation for a preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 113 acres of land located within the I-94 Corridor planning area into 310 single family and multi-family housing sites. The proposed plat would be located on property currently owned by two different entities, including Dale Properties and the Frandsen Bank and Trust, and would be located immediately west of Keats Avenue roughly 1/4 of a mile north of the I- 94 right-of-way. The 40-acre parcel currently owned by the Frandsen Bank that is included in the preliminary plat was formerly used as a golf driving range and practice facility. This facility ceased operation over five years ago and has sat vacant ever since. The remainder of the area to be platted is currently owned by Dale Properties and is currently used for agricultural purposes. The preliminary plat has been developed in response to the City’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, which identifies the bulk of the applicant’s property for urban low density residential development with a small portion that is guided for medium density residential development. The plat incorporates 188 single family lots, most of which are designed with a width of 65 or 75 feet, and 122 single family attached residential units that would be constructed in buildings with four to eight connected units. The multi-family area is located adjacent to Keats Avenue and would be located on the southern half of the Frandsen site while the single family lots would extend throughout the rest of the platted area. The preliminary plat also includes a major portion of the proposed 5th Street Minor Collector road as planned in the City’s Transportation Plan. This minor collector road will serve as the primary access for the Savona Subdivision, and will also act as the dividing point between the planned low density residential and the medium density residential/commercial areas along the corridor. The plat incorporates all of 5th Street adjacent to the Savona subdivision, which represents the first segment of a major roadway that is planned to eventually connect Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) to Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13). Consistent with the City’s specifications for this roadway segment, the applicant has provided for a 120-foot wide right-of-way, which will provide sufficient room for the construction of a parkway with turning lanes, 10-foot bituminous trail, sidewalk, trees, lighting, and other design elements as planned by the City. This subdivision is the City’s first subdivision that will receive public sanitary sewer service, and because it is the first subdivision to be platted after adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan, there are several ongoing planning efforts that are happening concurrent with this request. Most importantly, the applicant and several other property owners within the immediate area have petitioned the City to extend sewer and water services to the area. The planned improvements include a new sewer lift station to be sited on the property north of the proposed plat, the construction of a sewer main that will connect to the regional sewer interceptor within the Eagle Point Business Park, and the extension of water lines that will provide a connection to the City’s water system. At present, the City’s water for this area is provided by the City of Oakdale; however, Lake Elmo’s long-range water plans call for an eventual connection to the City’s water system via a new line along Inwood Avenue. There is enough capacity in the Oakdale system to provide water to the Lennar development, and a significant portion of the area around the proposed plat, until Lake Elmo can make the needed connections to its system. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c – ACTION ITEM 3 One of the other major features of the proposed subdivision is a series of outlots that will provide for open space, trails, and storm water management throughout the development area. Based on an initial review of the proposed park system with the Lake Elmo Park Commission, the applicant is proposing one smaller neighborhood park near the center of the development with a series of trails providing connections in all directions outside of the platted area. The development also incorporates a buffer/greenway area along the northern boundary of the plat adjacent to an existing RE – Residential Estates subdivision as required in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. All outlots that are planned for park land or storm water use will be deeded to the City, while the future home owner’s association will retain ownership of the remaining outlots. Please note that since the application for a preliminary plat was deemed complete by the City, the applicant has submitted a reviewed preliminary plat document in order to respond to review comments from the City related to the extreme western portion of the site. In particular, the plat as submitted did not properly provide for future trail connections around an exception parcel and the proposed road connections to the west did not line up with current concept plans for the adjacent property. Because the revised plat was submitted recently, the applicant has not gone back an updated the corresponding construction documents accordingly. Because the affected area is relatively small and does not result in any significant deviations from the construction plans, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission proceed with its review with the understanding that the construction plans will need to be updated in advance of any further City reviews. The number of proposed residential units did trigger a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) under State law, and the City has recently approved this study. The end result of the EAW was that there are no major environmental impacts that are anticipated with the proposed development. The City did receive several comments regarding the proposed development from the reviewing agencies and will continue to review these comments as the development progresses towards final plat approval. The applicant is proposing to bring forward a final plat for the Savona development in stages, starting with the single family portion of the site adjacent to Keats Avenue and then working westward on the site. At this time, the applicant anticipates that the multi-family area will be the last portion of the site to be constructed. In addition, the applicant has requested a rezoning of the site in order to remove the current transitional zoning that is in place and to zone the site in a manner consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that the zoning action be delayed by the City until after the preliminary plat approval (and either before or in conjunction with any final platting of the subdivision) since the boundary between the LDR and MDR areas will not be defined until 5th Street is platted. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES The Savona site is guided for urban low density and urban medium density development in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant has proposed to zone the corresponding portions of the site LDR – Low Density Residential and MRD – Medium Density Residential respectively. The plans labeled as “site context” in the included packet of information depict the exact areas that will be zoned in this manner. The overall subdivision plan has therefore been prepared in order to comply with the district standards for the LDR and MDR districts in terms of lot size, lot widths, building setbacks, and other design criteria. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c – ACTION ITEM 4 The arrangement of lots and blocks follows a very loose grid pattern as one moves from east to west through the subdivision, but with a considerable amount of curving throughout the road network. A significant feature of the subdivision is a north/south trail connection that follows an old fence row dividing the site, with the streets and lots in this portion of the site looping around the trail. This allows for the placement of a smaller park area in the middle of plat that is able to take advantage of one of the few areas on the site with any significant trees. The subdivision has also been designed in a manner to provide for future connections to the properties to the north and to the west either through local streets or trough access to the 5th Street Minor Collector road. All streets have been designed to comply with the City’s current street standards, which exceed the minimum levels required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Sidewalks and trails are planned throughout the subdivision, and Staff is recommending that sidewalks be installed on at least one side of all streets in the single family portion of the plat. The proposed plans provide for sidewalks consistent with the Staff recommendation. Within the multi- family area Staff has asked that the developer provide sidewalk on both sides of the street, in which case the plans need to be updated in order to comply with this expectation. In addition to the internal trails and sidewalks that are proposed by the developer, the City has asked that the 5th Street Corridor include a 10-foot bituminous trail on one side of the road and a six-foot sidewalk on the opposite side. The proposed plans conform to this request as well. A typical lot building plan (detail) is included as part of the attached subdivision packet, and each lot as depicted in the plans includes a description of the lot size, dimensions, and all required setbacks. There are two general lot sizes proposed for the single family area with average dimensions of 65 by 140 feet and 75 by 140 feet. All of the lots meet the City’s minimum area requirement of 8,000 for single family lots in a LDR district, with the smallest lot proposed at 8,451 square feet. The site plans further illustrate that throughout the single family area the lots will average 11, 175 square feet, which exceeds the minimum requirements by a fairly wide margin. There is not as much detail provided for the multi-family area, which will be subject to additional reviews in order be developed as planned. In particular, the City’s MDR zoning district standards specify that certain situations require a conditional use permit, including the construction of single family attached dwellings without frontage on a public street. Because the applicant is proposing to utilize private streets to serve the proposed multi-family buildings, a conditional use permit will need to be submitted along with the final plat request for this portion of the site. There are other standards associated with the MDR zoning district that will require the submission of more detailed plans for the buildings that are proposed in the multi-family portion of the plat. The following is a general summary of the subdivision design elements that have proposed as part of the Savona preliminary plat and plans: Zoning and Site Information: • Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional • Proposed Zoning: LDR (92 acres) and MDR (21 acres) • Total Site Area: 113 acres (not including Outlot M) • Total Residential Units: 310 • Proposed Density (Net): 3 units per acre – Single Family area 6.7 units per acre – Multi-Family area • REC Units from Comp Plan: 286 (covers less area than proposed plat) PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c – ACTION ITEM 5 Proposed Lot Dimensional Standards: • Min. Lot Width: 65 ft. • Lot Depth: 128 ft. (140 ft. typical) • Lot Area: 8,000 sq. ft. (8,451 min.) • Front Yard Setback: 25 ft. • Side Yard Setback: 7.5 ft. (average) • Rear Yard Setback: 20 ft. Proposed Street Standards: • ROW Width – Local 60 ft. (per Subdivision Ordinance) • ROW Width – Minor Collector 120 feet • Street Widths – Local: 28 ft.(per City standard) • Street Width – Minor Collector Varies – parkway design proposed The standards listed above are all in compliance with the applicable requirements from the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations. Based on Staff’s review of the preliminary plat, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable code requirements at the level of detail that is required for a preliminary plat. As with any new subdivision the City Code requires that a portion of the plat be set aside for public park use. In this case, the applicant has indicated that certain outlot areas will be dedicated to the City for this purpose, including Outlots A and F and a portion of Outlot E. Since a large portion these areas represent green belt or trail corridors and are not suitable for other types of active recreation usage, it is Staff’s recommendation that the City only accept the trail corridors as part of the park land dedication requirements if the developer constructs the planned trail over these areas in conjunction with other required infrastructure improvements. As a general policy, Staff is recommending that the City consider accepting smaller land dedications in exchange for a more robust and connected trail system that will provide access to the City’s numerous parks (including the regional park preserve). The Subdivision Ordinance requires 10% of the land in urban residential districts to be set aside as open space, which totals 11.3 acres. The areas to be dedicated for public use add up to 6.4 acres, which leaves the applicant 4.9 acres short of the required land dedication. If the City chooses to accept smaller amount of land dedication, the developer will be required to pay a fee equivalent to the fair market value of this 4.9 acres. This payment would be places in the City’s park land fund, and could be used to acquire new park land or trail corridors or for the improvement of existing park areas. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS City Staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat, which has gone through several versions in advance of the formal application being accepted as complete by the City. During the course of these reviews, several of the issues and concerns that were pointed out by Staff have been addressed by the applicant with updated submission documents; however, there are other elements of the plat that must still be addressed or corrected by the applicant. In general, the proposed plat will meet all applicable City requirements for approval, and any deficiencies or additional work that is needed is noted as part of the review record. As the initial subdivision to be developed within one of the City’s PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c – ACTION ITEM 6 urban service areas, there are several things happening in and around the Savona subdivision that will have an impact on the project, including the larger assessment project that will bring water and sewer services into this area, the ongoing work to plan for a significant minor collector road to meet the transportation needs of this area, and the plans from adjacent property owners to develop their properties. Given the location of the subdivision in an area that will be seeing significant changes in the near future, Staff recognizes that this initial plat will have a number of issues that will need to be resolved in the future. The City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer and the Washington County concerning the proposed subdivision, in addition to general comments from the Valley Branch Watershed District, Building Official, and the Fire Chief, all of which are attached for consideration by the Commission. In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report, Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the issues and comments related to the following discussion areas as well: • Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan for this area and with the densities that were approved as part of this plan. The net densities for the development fall within the ranges allowed for the urban low density and urban medium density land use categories. Furthermore, the overall number of REC units planned matches the overall numbers that were used for projecting the unit counts in this area. Other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan relate to the Savona subdivision as follows: o Transportation. The City’s transportation plan calls for the construction of a minor collector road that will connect the eastern and western portions of the I-94 Corridor. Staff views this road as a critical piece of the transportation infrastructure that is needed to serve the densities that have been planned for this area. Lennar has incorporated the right-of-way at the width necessary to construct the minor collector as part of its preliminary plat. o Parks. The City’s park plan identifies proposed locations for neighborhood parks based on the anticipated population that should be served by each park. In addition to the existing Stonegate Park, the plan calls for at least two additional parks in the vicinity of the Savona Plat, one in the middle of the proposed development area and one off the applicant’s site closer to Goose Lake. As noted earlier by Staff, the Park Commission did review the Savona sketch plan and generally agreed with concept of having a smaller “pocket/neighborhood” park serve the subdivision along with a series of trails providing connections to the Stonegate Park and other local and regional parks and trails. o Water. Water will eventually be provided to this area via a future extension of the system along Inwood Avenue. The Savona subdivision will be able to be served under the City’s current agreement with the City of Oakdale until the Inwood extension is completed. o Sanitary Sewer. Lennar will be required to connect to the sewer main being constructed as part of the Section 34 area wide assessment project. In this case, all of the property owners that are planned to be served by sanitary sewer have petitioned PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c – ACTION ITEM 7 the City to construct the required sewer and water mains to serve the area. The utility plans for Savona are consistent with the proposed assessment project. o Phasing. The Savona subdivision is located within the Stage 1 phasing area for the I- 94 Corridor and therefore the proposed development is acceptable as the first development within the planned urban residential areas. • Zoning. The proposed zoning for the Savona site will be split between the LDR – Low Density Residential and the MDR – Medium Density Residential zoning districts. The submitted development plans demonstrate compliance with the City’s urban residential zoning requirements; however, additional details will need to be provided for the multi- family area in order to fully review the plans for this area. Single family detached housing is a permitted use under the code, while certain aspects of the multi-family project may require a conditional use permit (CUP). If a CUP is required for the multi-family portion of the project, this request may be submitted in conjunction with a final plat for this part of the site. The applicant has indicated that the multi-family development will comply with the City’s requirements for open space for such developments. • Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance includes a fairly lengthy list of standards that must be met by all new subdivisions, and include requirements for blocks, lots, easements, erosion and sediment control, drainage systems, monuments, sanitary sewer and water facilities, streets, and other aspects of the plans. For instance, the Ordinance includes limitations on the maximum length of a block (1,800 feet), and based on the spacing of the proposed streets, the Savona plat complies with this requirement. The majority of these requirements have been addressed as part of the City Engineer’s comments (which are summarized below) or have been reviewed as part of Staff’s ongoing communications with the applicant regarding the project. • Infrastructure. The developer will be required to construct all streets, sewer, water, storm water ponds, and other infrastructure necessary to serve the development. Because the Savona subdivision is not adjacent to any existing utilities, the developer has joined a petition with other property owners in the area to have the City undertake a project to build the required water and sewer mains (and required sewer lift station) and then assess the cost of this work back to the benefiting property owners. Because the installation of the infrastructure covered under the assessment project is critical to providing services to Savona, Staff has included a condition on the approval of the preliminary plat what requires this project to be ordered before the applicant may proceed with a final plat. • Landscaping. The Planning Department has completed a detailed review of the City’s landscaping requirements for the project, and due to the length of these particular comments, has attached this review as a separate document. In general, the landscape plans does meet the City’s requirements; however, Staff is recommending that this plan be reviewed by a landscape architect prior to approval of the final plat. • Tree Preservation and Protection. The City recently adopted a tree preservation and protection ordinance; however, this ordinance was not effective at the time the applicant submitted its plat. The applicant did prepare a woodland evaluation report (attached) that indicates there are not a large number of significant trees on the site. Most of the remaining PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c – ACTION ITEM 8 trees are located along a fence row that will be preserved as part of a trail corridor through the middle of the project. Other trees are located in very small clusters on the western portion of the property or were planted as part of the golf facility over ten years ago. Staff is recommending that as a condition of approval the applicant be required to install fencing around all trees to be preserved prior to the commencement of any grading activity. Staff is also asking that the applicant move as many of the existing trees on the golf facility site as possible and incorporate these trees into the landscape plans for Savona. • Green Belt/Buffer. The Comprehensive Plan identifies an area north of the Savona Plat and south of the Stonegate subdivision as a green belt/buffer space with a minimum width of 100 feet. The Savona subdivision includes an area that has been design to comply with this aspect of the Comprehensive Plan; however, there are two areas where the green belt as shown does not appear to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. First, the green space near Lots 1 and 2 or Block 10 does not follow a consistent 100 feet from the Stonegate neighborhood and must be increased in width in order to comply The trail in this portion of the plat must also be pulled away from adjacent property lines and will need to continue into the property to the north. Secondly, the trail that would allow for public dedication of the green belt does not continue around the exception parcel in the extreme northwest portion of the plat. Staff is recommending that the applicant dedicate a minimum width of 30 feet around the exception parcel in order to provide enough room to construct a trail, and must also include the continuation of this trail as part of the plans for the project. With these revisions to the plat/plans, Staff believes that that green belt/buffer requirements of the Comprehensive Plan would be met by the applicant. • Exception Parcel. The depth of exception parcel in the northwest portion of the site is shown on the plat at 250 feet. Staff has received a survey from the applicant for the entire parcel that shows that this measurement should be 262 feet. The applicant will need to update the preliminary plat to reflect the correct measurements for this parcel. • Streets and Transportation. The proposed street system has been designed to comply with all applicable subdivision requirements and City engineering standards. As noted in the City Engineer’s report, Staff is recommending that “Street A” and “Street E” be re-aligned in manner that provides a more direct connection between 5th Street and the eventual development that will take place to the north of Savona. The City Engineer has also requested that additional right-of-way be secured at the intersection of 5th Street and the future street providing a connection to the property to be retained by Dale Properties to the south. Staff further is requesting that the plans for 5th Street include all design elements as requested by the City, including the street trees, landscaping, lighting, signage, median plantings, and fencing proposed as part of the City’s recent theming project with Damon and Farber Associates. A 5th Street concept that has been prepared by the City’s consultant has been provided to the applicant and is attached for review by the Planning Commission. o County Comments. Comments from Washington County, which focus on needed improvements to Keats Avenue (CSAH 19) to serve the development, are noted below. o Temporary Dead End Roads. Because the time table for construction of road improvements on the property to the north in unknown at this point in time, the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c – ACTION ITEM 9 applicant will need to plan for temporary turn-arounds on those streets that will eventually connect to the Hammes site. • Street Names. Staff is continuing to work on implementing a clear and consistent naming system for new streets in the community and has not yet had time to consider street names within the Savona subdivision. As a condition of approval, Staff is asking that the applicant continue to work with the City at developing street names for the project, and that these names be included with the final plat submission. • Adjacent Parcels. The proposed plat provides street and trail connections (with the one exception noted above) to adjacent parcels, and these connection are consistent with the latest plans that Staff has received from the adjoining property owners. Please note that the property owner to the west has requested that 5th Street follow a more southerly alignment in the western portion of the Savona plat. Staff has noted that any re-alignment of this roadway may be considered as an amendment to the plat in the future. At this point in time, Staff is not aware that the property owner (Dale Properties) has consented to a change in this road alignment. • City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has provided the Planning Department with a detailed comment letter as a summary of his preliminary plat review. Staff has incorporated the more significant issues identified by the Engineer as part of the recommended conditions of approval, and has also included a general condition that all issues identified by the City Engineer must be addressed by the applicant prior to approval of a final plat for any portion of the Savona subdivision. The Engineer does note that the proposed plat complies with the City’s standards with one exception related to sidewalk grades, but does recommend approval of this exception due to difficulties that are primarily related to current site conditions. • Fire Department Review. The Fire Chief has reviewed the plat and has requested that any cul-de-sacs (including those with islands) be designed to allow for the efficient turning movement of larger fire vehicles. He has also asked that the spacing of fire hydrants comply with the City’s requirements. The City Engineer will be taking these comments into consideration during its review of future construction plans for this subdivision. • Washington County Review. County Staff has reviewed the Savona plat and provided specific comments to the City in a letter dated July 3, 2013. The most significant of the County’s concerns is that the applicant will need to make improvements to the County road system in order to provide the necessary access to Savona. As a condition of approval, Staff has noted that the applicant will be responsible for including all improvements to TH19 as required by the County as part of the construction plans for the development, and that the developer will be responsible for constructing these improvements, which will include the construction of a new median crossing within the TH19 right-of-way, the removal of the existing median crossing, construction of a trail trough this median, and the installation of turn lanes into the development. • Watershed Districts. The project area lies within two watershed districts, the Valley Branch Watershed District and the South Washington Watershed District. Both entities have previous provided comments to the City as part of the EAW for the project, and the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c – ACTION ITEM 10 developer will need to secure permits from both watershed districts in order to proceed with the development as planned. • EAW Comments. The City of Lake Elmo received comments from eight agencies as part of the EAW review. The City Council provided a response to the comments and ultimately approved the EAW. These comments will be kept on record and will be used to help guide the City’s review of the preliminary and final construction plans for the site. Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with several conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the City’s expectations in order for the developer to move forward with a final plat. The recommended conditions are as follows: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) Within six months of preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall complete the following: a) the applicant shall provide adequate title evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney; b) the applicant shall pay all fees associated with the preliminary plat; c) the applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat and plans meeting all conditions of approval. All of the above conditions shall be met prior to the City accepting an application for final plat and prior to the commencement of any grading activity on the site. 2) The applicant shall dedicate a minimum of 30 feet of land around the “Exception” parcel in the northwest portion of the Savona subdivision to allow for the construction of an eight-foot bituminous trail to the western edge of the subdivision and to allow for sufficient room for drainage and utilities adjacent to “Street A”. 3) The applicant shall provide for a minimum green belt/buffer of 100 feet around all of the adjacent Stonegate subdivision, and must revise the preliminary plat in the vicinity of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 10 to properly account for this buffer. 4) The eight-foot bituminous trail located within Outlot A shall be moved off of the property line of the adjacent Stonegate subdivision and shall be designed to continue into the property to the north and to provide a connection to “Street A” 5) The sidewalk along “Street A” must continue along this street until its termination point at the northern boundary of the subdivision. 6) The applicant shall work with the City and Washington County to identify and reserve sufficient space for a future trail corridor along the western right-of-way line of Keats Avenue. 7) The landscape plan shall be updated to include tree protection fencing in all areas where grading will be near trees intended for preservation. 8) The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by an independent forester or landscape architect in advance of the approval of a final plat and final construction plans. 9) Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of the public street providing access to the multi- family housing portion of the subdivision. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c – ACTION ITEM 11 10) The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of all improvements within the Keats Avenue (CSAH 19) right-of-way as required by Washington County and further described in the review letter received from the County dated July 3, 2013. The required improvements shall include, but not be limited to: construction of a new median crossing, closure and restoration of the existing median crossing in this area, continuation of the planned ten-foot bituminous trail through the median, turn lanes, and other improvements as required by the County. 11) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and shall acquire the needed permits from the appropriate watershed districts prior to the commencement of any grading or development activity on the site. 12) The applicant shall submit revised preliminary plans that incorporate the changes made to the western portion of the preliminary plat, and specifically, the rearrangement of lots around the “Exception” parcel. 13) The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that clarifies the individuals or entities responsible for any landscaping installed in areas outside of land dedicated as public park and open space on the final plat. 14) The developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication equivalent to the fair market value for the amount of land that is required to be dedicated for such purposes in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance less the amount of land that is accepted for park purposes by the City. Any cash payment in lieu of land dedication shall be paid by the applicant prior to the release of the final plat for recording. 15) Any land under which public trails are located will be accepted as park land provided the developer constructs said trails as part of the public improvements for the subdivision. 16) The applicant shall provide for an active recreation area (either public or private) within the multi-family portion of the subdivision. This area shall be sufficient for a small play structure or other similar improvement subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 17) The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to realign “Street A” and “Street E” as one continuous through street with a design that accommodates the anticipated traffic volume. The street should be continuous, but remain curvilinear to mitigate traffic speeds. 18) No more than half of the residential units depicted on the preliminary plat (155) may be approved as part of a final plat until a second access is provided to the subdivision, either via a connection to Hudson Boulevard to the south or Inwood Avenue (CSAH 13) to the west. 19) Any future realignment of 5th Street must be approved by the City as an amendment to the preliminary plat. 20) The applicant must enter into a separate grading agreement with the City prior to the commencement of any grading activity in advance of final plat and plan approval. The City PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c – ACTION ITEM 12 Engineer shall review any grading plan that is submitted in advance of a final plat, and said plan shall document extent of any proposed grading on the site. 21) The preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be revised to address the comments from the City Engineer in his review letter dated July 9, 2013 regarding the size of specific ponds in relation to the drainage areas that are served by these ponds. 22) The preliminary plans must be revised to incorporate all proposed improvements within the 5th Street right-of-way. All improvements as requested by the City shall be included in these plans and the design shall be consistent with City specifications and with the concept plan prepared for the City by Damon Farber and Associates. 23) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter dated July 9, 2013 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to consideration of a final plat. Specific requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The applicant must provide the city a letter of approval to perform the proposed work in the BP Pipeline easement. Work includes installation of storm sewer pipe, grading activities, and relocation of the High Pressure Gas line, if necessary. b. The applicant must provide the city a letter of approval to perform the proposed work in the Electrical Transmission easement areas. Work includes installation of storm sewer pipe, grading activities, and storm water ponding. 24) The preliminary plat and preliminary plans shall only be approved upon the ordering of the 429 public improvement project for Section 34 by the City Council. If the City Council does not order this project, the applicant must revise the preliminary plans to provide adequate utilities to serve the subdivision. Any such plan revisions will be subject to review and approval by the City Council. 25) The applicant shall secure any necessary permits for the multi-family area, including but not limited to a conditional use permit to allow for single family detached residences that do not have frontage on a public street, at the time a final plat is submitted for this area. 26) The applicant is encouraged to preserve or re-use as many trees as possible that are currently located on the former golf facility property and to incorporate these trees as part of the landscape plan for the Savona subdivision. 27) The applicant shall work with the Planning Director to name all streets in the subdivision prior to submission of a final plat. DRAFT FINDINGS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Savona preliminary plat: • That the Savona preliminary plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c – ACTION ITEM 13 • That the Savona preliminary plat complies with the City’s Urban Low Density Residential and Urban Medium Density Residential zoning districts. • That the Savona preliminary plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances. • That the Savona preliminary plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance. • That the Savona preliminary plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards with one exception as noted by the City Engineer in his review comments to the City dated July 9, 2013. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Savona preliminary plat with the 27 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Savona preliminary plat with the 27 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Preliminary Landscape Plan Review Comments 2. Application Form (3) 3. Property Owner Contact Information 4. Woodland Evaluation Report 5. Review Comments: a. City Engineer b. Washington County c. Building Official d. Valley Branch Watershed District 6. 5th Street Concept Plans (Damon Farber Associates) 7. Updated Preliminary Site Plan 8. Preliminary Plat and Plans (23 sheets) ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5c – ACTION ITEM MEMORANDUM Date: March 8, 2013 Re: Lake Elmo Property Woodland Evaluation Report File: 20121161.00 To: Lennar 16305 36th Ave. N., Suite 600 Plymouth, MN 55446 From: Kelly Kunst PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION At the request of Lennar, Westwood Professional Services (Westwood) completed a woodland evaluation of the Lake Elmo Property (Site) which is located in the S ½ of Section 34, T29N, R21W, City of Lake Elmo, Washington county, Minnesota (Exhibit 1). The Site was comprised of approximately 112.5 acres of land located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 94 and Keats Avenue North (CSAH 19). The Site contains all or portions of parcel numbers 34.029.21.41.0004, 34.029.21.42.0001, 34.029.21.34.0001, 34.029.21.34.0003, and 34.029.21.31.0001. The Site was primarily agricultural land which made up approximately 70 acres on the west part of the Site. The eastern 40 acres contains a former golf driving range. Within cropped areas are four uncropped pockets vegetated with mature trees. Approximately seven acres of open meadow is located in the south-central part of the Site. Other concentrations of trees included a wooded fencerow, landscape plantings and two mature white pine stands located on the driving range. The Site was assessed on March 6, 2013. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide sufficient information to assist in the prioritization of significant trees on the Site to be considered in development planning. Exhibit 2 provides an aerial photograph of existing conditions on the Site and the location of features discussed in this report. WOODLAND EVALUATION SUMMARY There are no high-quality, natural woodlands on the Lake Elmo Site. As indicated, the trees that are present consist of landscape plantings and two stands of mature white pine on the driving range portion of the property, and remnant trees on uncropped portions of the west part of the Site. Lake Elmo Property Woodland Evaluation Report March 8, 2013 Page 2 The primary landscape trees on the east part of the Site consist of Norway spruce (Picea abies) Colorado spruce (Picea pungens) and white pine (Pinus strobus). These species make up all of the linear plantings that can be seen in the aerial photograph on the driving range. These trees generally range from 10 to 25 feet in height with a diameter breast height (dbh) between 4 to 8 inches. There are two areas in the north-central and southwest corner of the driving range where there are stands of mature white pine approximately 40 to 50-feet in height with dbh’s between 12 to 20 inches. Scattered saplings of honey locust and box elder were also observed in this part of the Site. The main fencerow, oriented north to south through the center of the cropped part of the Site, was comprised primarily of mature red and bur oak (Quercus rubra and Q. macrocarpa) and included pockets of box elder (Acer negundo). The red and bur oaks were generally greater than 20 inches dbh. Red and bur oak trees that were large (> 14” dbh), structurally sound, had good form, and were relatively disease free were noted and surveyed in the field. The canopy of the uncropped areas in the agricultural field was made up entirely of box elder with the exception of the westernmost area which also contained some red and bur oak. Other observed tree species included scattered eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) in the meadow areas in the west part of the Site, and some mature red pine in the southwest part of the driving range. SUITABILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT There are no natural, high-quality woodland areas on the Lake Elmo Site. Existing woodland consists of landscape plantings and small remnants of native oaks and pines. What exists on the site could be utilized as screens between different portions of the development, or as a structural basis for development of parks or other natural features in the development. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have with regard to the woodland evaluation. You may reach me by phone at (952) 906-7421 or by email at kelly.kunst@westwoodps.com. Sincerely, Kelly Kunst Environmental Scientist Attachments Exhibits ISTH 94 Hudson Blvd 15t h St N Hudson Rd CSAH 10 Keats Ave N S Fro ntag e Rd 4th St N Lake Elmo Ave N 9th St N 4628 Hudson Av e 3574 Inwood Ave N Woodbury Dr 2597 L a n d a u D r J ule p A v e Cottage Grove Dr P ar k si d e D r 3304 W o o d d u c k D r 1 9 1 3 L a k e v i e w D r 3 8 5 1 Holly La N Tamarack Rd 3rd St N Jewel Ave N J a s m i n e A v e N 7 5 0 Rivertown Dr C o m m e r c e D r Radio Dr S p r i n g H i l l D r E as t vi e w Rd 12th St N C o l l e r W a y Heron Ave N 10th St La N Commons Dr 14 t h S t N 1st St N E a g l e P o i n t B l v d L a v e r n e A v e N Layton Ave N 9 t h S t r e e t W a y N L e e w a r d A v e N P e n d r y n H i l l C v Sterling Dr Julep Ct N B luebir d La Imperial Ave N Heron Ct N 3 r d S t r e e t P l N 10t h S t r e et C t N 6034 Woodbury Dr ISTH 94 T a m a r a c k R d Hudson Blvd 9th St N R ad i o D r EXHIBIT 1 Map Document: P:\20121161\GIS\LakeElmo_trees_Ex1.mxd 3/8/2013 1:06:43 PM © 2013 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Site Location & USGS Topography Data Source(s): Westwood Professional Services Survey Data (2012), USGS DRG (ESRI Basemap Accessed 2012) ± Lake Elmo Property Lake Elmo, Minnesota 0 2,000 Feet Legend Site Boundary kjkjkjkjkjkj kjkjkjkjkjkj kjkjkjkjkj kjkjkjkjkjkjkjkjkj kjkjkj kjkjkj kj kjkj kjkj kj Fe n c e r o w Former golf driving range area EXHIBIT 2 Map Document: P:\20121161\GIS\LakeElmo_trees_Ex2.mxd 3/8/2013 1:10:38 PM © 2013 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Existing Conditions Data Source(s): Westwood Professional Services Survey Data (2012), SURRGO Soils of Washington County (2004) USGS DRG (ESRI Basemap, Accessed 2012) ± Lake Elmo Property Lake Elmo, Minnesota 0 400 Feet Legend kj Surveyed Red and Bur Oaks Site Boundary Wooded Pockets Mature White Pine CO M P O S I T E LA K E E L M O - 5 T H S T R E E T C O N C E P T 25 ’ S T R E E T L I G H T S PE R E N N I A L S SH R U B S TU R F IR R I G A T I O N 15 ’ H I S T O R I C L I G H T S @ I N T E R S E C T I O N S FENCEBANNERPOLES ST R E E T T R E E S JUNE 27, 2013 LI G H T I N G + A M E N I T I E S LA K E E L M O - 5 T H S T R E E T C O N C E P T 25 ’ S T R E E T L I G H T JUNE 27, 2013 15 ’ H I S T O R I C L I G H T S @ I N T E R S E C T I O N S FENCEBANNERPOLES GR O U N D P L A N E LA K E E L M O - 5 T H S T R E E T C O N C E P T PE R E N N I A L S SH R U B S TU R F SP E C I A L C O N C R E T E JUNE 27, 2013 TU R F Planning Commission Date: 7/22/13 Item: 5a ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Landscape Requirements Ordinance SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director ______________________________________ SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked review a draft Landscaping Ordinance prepared by Staff. The purpose of the Zoning Text Amendment is to reorganize the landscaping provisions into the City’s Zoning Code, as well as incorporate additional best practices. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Staff is proposing to update and relocate the landscaping provisions in the City Code to Article 6 – Environmental Performance Standards of the new organizational system of the Zoning Code. The current landscaping provisions for development activity are currently located in the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, specifically the requirements related to Preliminary Plat. In addition, the City does have specific landscaping provisions related to development facilitated through the Open Space Preservation (OP) provisions of the City Code. Staff has determined that where the current landscaping provisions are located is not consistent with the new organization structure of the Zoning Code. In addition, there are areas of improvement that should be incorporated into the landscaping requirements, such as landscaping for parking areas. Within the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, there are two landscaping provisions related to the requirements of Preliminary Plat (§153.07). These provisions include the following requirements: 1. Developer shall plant a minimum of 6 trees, 1 inch caliper deciduous, or coniferous trees; 3 feet in height per acre unless a lot within the subdivision is determined by the Zoning Administrator to be naturally wooded which would, at a minimum, consist of the caliper and height of trees required by this chapter; and 2. Developer shall provide spaced or clustered plantings of 1 and 1/2 inch caliper deciduous trees at a rate of 2 per 100 lineal feet on both sides of the street, between 0 feet and 5 feet to the inside of the right-of- way for rural sections and between 5 feet and 10 feet to the inside of right-of-way for urban sections. Four foot conifers may be substituted. In addition to these requirements, the City Code includes specific landscaping provisions for subdivision that occurs through the Open Space Preservation (OP) Ordinance. These provisions are the following: BUSINESS ITEM 5a 2 1. Boulevard landscaping. Boulevard landscaping is required along all streets to consist of at least 1 tree per every 30 feet or placed in dusters at the same ratio. A landscape plan for the entire site is required and shall consist of at least 10 trees per building site; and trees shall not be not less than 1.5 inch in caliper measured at 54 inches above grade level. Instead of locating these landscaping provisions within the Preliminary Plat or OP sections, Staff recommends establishing base landscaping provisions within the Zoning Code that apply to all forms of development activity. For example, under the current provisions, an applicant technically would not be required to include landscaping if they were not platting any land as part of their development proposal. In addition, the City’s current landscaping requirements do not include any provisions for parking lot landscaping and other instances of screening. The proposed ordinance addresses these deficiencies and establishes a protocol to incorporate future screening requirements if necessary. Regarding the draft landscaping ordinance, the proposed ordinance utilizes some similar standards for tree plantings than the previous provisions of the Code. The main highlights of the proposed ordinance can be summarized in the following: • One significant difference remains the minimum allowed size of landscaping material or trees. The previous provisions in the Code allowed for trees of 1” and 1.5” caliper. The proposed ordinance recommends utilizing trees of a minimum of 2.5” caliper, or 6’ in the case of coniferous/evergreen trees. This recommended size is consistent with many other communities that were review as part of conducting research for this proposed ordinance. • Given this increase in size of plant material, the proposed ordinance is recommending to reduce the base number of tree plantings not associated with boulevard plantings from six trees per acre to five trees per acre. Once again, this quantity of trees reflects common best practices shown in other ordinances. • Regarding boulevard trees, the proposed ordinance requires tree plantings at the same rate as the previous standards: one tree per 50 lineal feet of street frontage. • The proposed ordinance includes landscape requirements for the interior of parking lots. The ordinance requires that a minimum of 5% of the interior of parking areas of over 30 spaces be devoted to planting areas. Finally, the ordinance includes a schedule of tree plantings within the parking lot based upon the number of parking spaces. • The proposed ordinance also includes provisions related to perimeter landscaping for parking areas. The planting requirements include landscape frontage strips in between parking areas and public streets or sidewalks. In addition, screening requirements are included via plantings, berms, and other means. Finally, there is a tree planting requirement as part of the landscape strip as well. • Related to screening, the draft ordinance establishes baseline requirements for how screening should be addressed when it is required by other Sections of the Code. • The proposed ordinance does include some base standards related to maintenance and installation of plant materials. • Finally, the draft ordinance includes a provision for a financial security to ensure performance of the Landscape Plan. BUSINESS ITEM 5a 3 In addition to reorganizing the landscaping requirements in a manner that is consistent with the new structure of the Zoning Code, the draft ordinance includes other provisions or considerations that are not currently addressed in the City’s Code. RECCOMENDATION: No formal action is required at this time. If appropriate, Staff will publish a public hearing notice for the Landscape Requirements Ordinance at the next available Planning Commission meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. DRAFT Landscape Requirements Ordinance (§154.258) ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................. Chair & Commission Members - Discussion by the Commission ............................... Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ...................................... Chair & Commission Members BUSINESS ITEM 5a ARTICLE 6. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMACE STANDARDS §154.258 Landscape Requirements § 154.258 Landscape Requirements All development sites shall be landscaped as provided in this section in order to control erosion and runoff, moderate extremes of temperature and provide shade, aid in energy conservation, preserve habitat, and generally enhance the quality of the physical environment within the city. A. Landscape Plan Required. A landscaping plan is required for all new commercial, industrial, institutional and multi-family development, all planned unit developments, and all subdivisions, with the exception of minor subdivisions, as defined in Chapter 154. The landscape plan shall be prepared by a certified landscape architect and include the following: 1. The location, size, quantity and species of all existing and proposed plant materials. 2. Methods for protecting existing trees and other landscape material, consistent with §154.257. 3. Structural and ground cover materials. 4. Provisions for irrigation or other water supplies. 5. Details and cross sections of all required screening. 6. Special planting instructions. B. Design Considerations. The following design concepts and requirements shall be considered when developing a landscape plan. 1. To the maximum extent possible, the landscape plan shall incorporate existing trees and other vegetation on the site. 2. Landscaped areas should be of adequate size to allow proper plant growth, protect plantings from vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and provide adequate areas for plant maintenance. 3. A variety of trees and shrubs should be used to provide visual interest year round. No more than fifty percent (50%) of the required number of trees and shrubs may consist of any one species. A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the required number of trees shall be deciduous shade trees, and a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) shall be coniferous trees. 4. Final slopes greater than 3:1 will not be permitted without special treatment such as terracing, retaining walls, or special ground covers. 5. All plant materials shall meet the following minimum size standards in Table 6-1. Table 6-1. Minimum Size Standards for Landscape Materials Plant Type Minimum size at planting Trees: Evergreen 6 feet in height Deciduous – shade 2.5 inches caliper, measured 6 inches from base Deciduous - ornamental 2 inches caliper, measured 6 inches from base Shrubs: Evergreen # 5 container* Deciduous # 5 container* DRAFT 7/22/13 6-1 Environmental Performance Standards Shrubs used for screening (evergreen or deciduous) # 5 container* * Approximately 5 gallons. See American Standards for Nursery Stock, ANSI 260.1-2004 for exact specifications. 6. As an alternative to the minimum standards for landscape materials, a landscape plan prepared by a qualified professional certifying that said plan will meet the intent of this Section may be submitted. C. Landscaping of Setback Areas. All required setbacks not occupied by buildings, parking, paths or plazas shall be landscaped with turf grass, native grasses, trees, shrubs, vines, perennial flowering plants, and surrounding pervious ground cover. 1. A minimum of one (1) tree shall be planted for every fifty (50) feet of street frontage, lake shore or stream frontage, or fraction thereof. a. Trees adjacent to streets shall be planted within the front yard and may be arranged in a cluster or placed at regular intervals to best complement existing landscape design patterns in the area. b. Where property abuts a lake or stream, trees shall be planted at intervals of no more than fifty (50) feet along the shoreline, except where natural vegetation is sufficient to meet this requirement. 2. In addition to the requirements of C.1 above, a minimum of five (5) trees shall be planted for every one (1) acre of land that is developed or disturbed by development activity. Such trees may be used for parking lot landscaping or screening as specified in subsections D and E below. D. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. The purpose of interior parking lot landscaping is to minimize the expansive appearance of parking lots and provide shaded parking areas. Landscaping shall consist of planting islands and medians, comprising the required planting area specified under item (1) below. 1. At least five (5) percent of the interior area of parking lots with more than thirty (30) spaces shall be devoted to landscape planting areas. Areas may consist of islands or corner planting beds. 2. Shade trees shall be provided within the interior of parking lots (in islands or corner planting beds) in accordance with the following table: Table 6-2. Minimum Required Tree Planting for Parking Lots Number of Parking Spaces Minimum Required Tree Planting 0 – 30 None required 31 - 100 1 tree per 10 spaces or fraction thereof 101+ 1 tree per 15 spaces or fraction thereof E. Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping. Parking areas shall be screened from public streets and sidewalks, public open space, and adjacent residential properties. The perimeter of parking areas shall be screened as follows: 1. A landscaped frontage strip at least five (5) feet wide shall be provided between parking areas and public streets, sidewalks or paths. If a parking area contains over one hundred (100) spaces, the frontage strip shall be increased to eight (8) feet in width. a. Within the frontage strip, screening shall consist of either a masonry wall, fence, berm or hedge or combination that forms a screen a minimum of three and one-half (3.5) and DRAFT 7/22/13 6-2 Environmental Performance Standards a maximum of four (4) feet in height, and not less than fifty percent (50%) opaque on a year-round basis. b. Trees shall be planted at a minimum of one deciduous tree per fifty (50) linear feet within the frontage strip. 2. Along side and rear property lines abutting residential properties or districts, screening shall be provided, consisting of either a masonry wall, fence or berm in combination with landscape material that forms a screen a minimum of four (4) feet in height, a maximum of six (6) feet in height, and not less than ninety percent (90%) opaque on a year-round basis. Landscape material shall include trees, planted at a minimum of one deciduous or coniferous tree per forty (40) linear feet along the property line. F. Screening. Screening shall be used to provide visual and noise separation of intensive uses from less intensive uses. Where screening is required in this Ordinance between uses or districts, it shall consist of either a masonry wall or fence in combination with landscape material that forms a screen at least six (6) feet in height, and not less than ninety percent (90%) opaque on a year-round basis. Landscape material shall include trees, planted at a minimum of one deciduous or coniferous tree per forty (40) linear feet along the property line. Additional landscape material such as shade trees or trellises may be required to partially screen views from above. G. Maintenance and Installation of Materials. Installation and maintenance of all landscape materials shall comply with the following standards: 1. All landscape materials shall be installed to current industry standards. 2. Irrigation or other water supply adequate to support the specified plant materials shall be provided. 3. All required landscaping and screening features shall be kept free of refuse and debris. 4. Any landscape material that dies or becomes diseased within the first year after installation shall be replaced by the developer. 5. Continuing maintenance and replacement of landscape materials shall be the responsibility of the property owner. H. Financial Security. The City will require that a financial security, in a form acceptable to the City, be provided as part of a development agreement or applicable permit to ensure compliance and performance of the Landscape Plan. The financial security will be released to the applicant upon verification by the City that the Landscape Plan was followed, and that all landscape materials are planted and in a reasonable state of health. The financial security may be used to replace any landscape materials that have become damaged or diseased after planting. DRAFT 7/22/13 6-3 Environmental Performance Standards