Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-2013 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 19, 2013 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: May 15, 2013 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2013-003 Variance for Reduced Front Setback of a New House Address: 7313 Spring Lake Road Applicant: Ron Santanni, Santanni Custom Homes (builder/property owner) 6. Other Planning Activity A. County Road 10 Corridor Discussion 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Tuesday, July 9, 2013 (Note week & date change) B. Wednesday, July 24, 2013 (Note week & date change) 8. Review Minutes: A. June 5, 2013 9. Staff Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner’s Reports 11. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 5, 2013 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for June 5, 2013. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Carvelli-Yu, Elofson, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Smith. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Oath of Office: Planning Associate Heller administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Love. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2013-00. Consideration of a Variance Extension for Reduced 2 Driveway Setbacks Renewable Energy Code Amendment Discussion 3 County Road 10 Corridor Discussion 5 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes May 1, 2013. Mounds View Planning Commission June 5, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Carvelli-Yu/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the May 1 , 2013 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2011-002, VR2011-004, VR2011-005 Consideration of a Variance Extension for Reduced Driveway Setbacks Applicant: Mike Kinyon, property owner Address: 5338-5340, 5372-5374, 5380-5382 Raymond Avenue Planning Associate Heller indicated in 2011, property owner Michael Kinyon was granted variances to allow the new driveways at five of his duplexes on Raymond Avenue to have one and three foot setbacks. Mr. Kinyon will be adding attached garages to these duplexes, along with new driveways to replace the existing gravel. The lots are only wide enough for a single car garage on each unit, but the new driveways will be wide enough for two cars. Associate Heller explained Mr. Kinyon applied for all five property’s driveway variances in 2011 because the City was reconstructing Raymond Avenue that year, which included installing curbs and driveway aprons. Mr. Kinyon knew he would not have all five driveways completed for several years, but wanted to have the wider driveway aprons installed during the street project. She indicated Mr. Kinyon was granted a 1-year extension in 2012 and was now asking for three of the variances to be extended for another year. The Planning Commission was supportive in the past as long as Mr. Kinyon continued to make progress on installing the driveways. It was noted Mr. Kinyon fully remodeled one of the buildings and installed driveways on another building in 2012. She commented he intends to remodel another duplex and install driveways on a second building this year, and would only have one building’s driveways remaining in 2014. Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the one- year extensions for the reduced driveway setback variances. Chair Stevenson commended Mr. Kinyon for the investment and improvements he was making to his duplex units. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Carvelli-Yu. To approve Resolutions 981-13, 982-13 and 983-13, Resolutions Approving Variance Extensions for Reduced Driveway Setbacks; Planning Case No. VR2011-002, VR2011-004, VR2011-005. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission June 5, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Renewable Energy Code Amendment Discussion Planning Associate Heller explained the Commission started a discussion on the Zoning Code in regards to renewable energy system installations, such as solar energy, wind generators and geothermal systems. She commented the City should update the City Code to help promote renewable energy systems and not make it difficult for a property owner to install a system. There is now a lot more information available about these systems, and the City can make better decisions about how and where renewable energy system installations are done. Associate Heller stated at the May 15, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, Brian Ross with CR Planning gave a presentation about renewable energy and how cities are important partners in helping more systems get installed. She reviewed several example ordinances with the Commission stating this language will assist staff in developing new policies, applications and fees for these systems. She questions what the Commission were willing to allow and how they wanted to proceed with the code amendment. Chair Stevenson recommended staff proceed with the geothermal information that was in the other ordinances since there isn’t much language needed, and that further guidance be provided for the wind and solar systems. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu commented she did not know enough about wind systems, but did not feel a traditional wind turbine would fit into a Mounds View residential neighborhood. Associate Heller stated that at the last meeting, Brian Ross had stated that wind generators typically don’t work well in urban areas. He commented that unless wind turbines are at least 200 feet from any other structure, they usually aren’t productive, and can cost more to operate than the amount of electricity they generate. She indicated there would be very few properties within the City where wind turbines could be far enough away from other structures to work, and they can generate a great deal of noise as well. She recommended a minimum lot size standard be set for wind turbines. She stated MedTronic and Sysco were possible candidates as they are large properties. Chair Stevenson stated the wind turbines could be slated only for certain zoning districts. Commissioner Rundle questioned if there would be enough open space available to generate enough power for these businesses. Discussion ensued regarding the wind turbines located in North St. Paul and Maple Grove. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu supported wind turbines if the system did not interfere with neighboring properties and space allowed, 10+ acres. Mounds View Planning Commission June 5, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Associate Heller suggested that wind turbines also are required to be at least 300 feet from residential properties. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu suggested the noise ordinance be reviewed. Associate Heller indicated she could use language from other ordinances to address noise standards. Commissioner Love questioned if a geothermal system was considered an accessory building. Associate Planner Heller explained these systems were considered an accessory use as associated with the property. She further reviewed the proposed geothermal language from other ordinances. The Commission supported the geothermal language examples. Associate Heller discussed the solar technology options proposed for the code amendment in detail with the Commission. She noted that approximately two-thirds of the homes in the City face east and west, and solar panels must face south so they would usually be on the side of the house rather than the front. Chair Stevenson recommended the St. Paul language be used concerning solar system line of sight, visibility and design standards. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu agreed and inquired if staff was aware of any installed solar units within the City of Mounds View. Associate Planner Heller stated she was not aware of any solar panels within the City. The Commission further discussed the need for sunlight easements. The Commission agreed that these issues would be worked out between property owners and was something that the City did not need to address at this time. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu recommended the number of rack panels be limited to three along a roofline. Associate Heller indicated this number may be too restrictive. Chair Stevenson referred to the screening language in the Maplewood code stating this would be valuable for ground mounted systems. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu suggested that inoperable solar units be removed after 12 months. She also asked that roofs be properly maintained even if solar panels are installed. Associate Heller stated this would be difficult to enforce as the City does not require other homeowners to properly maintain their roofs. Mounds View Planning Commission June 5, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson recommended the St. Paul language be used to address raised panels and that panels be no higher than three feet from the highest point on a roofline. The Commission was not in favor of allowing expanded systems beyond the existing roof edge. Associate Heller asked if the Commission supported ground mounted units and if so, if they should be considered an accessory structure. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu recommended the units be considered accessory structures; however, she did not want to see these units become 18 feet in height. She commented she would need to review images of ground mounds. Associate Heller provided several photos for the Commission to review. Chair Stevenson agreed that 18 feet seemed high for the residential zoning district. Commissioner Schiltgen stated the Maplewood code allows for solar panels to be the same height as accessory structures. The Commission agreed to leave the language as is and allow for units to be no more than 18 feet in height and be screened from view as much as possible. In addition, ground mounted solar panels would not be allowed to exceed the square footage within the language for accessory structures. The panel would have to be set back five feet from rear and side yard lot lines as well. The Commission was not in favor of allowing ground mounted units on a vacant lot. Associate Heller thanked the Commission for their input this evening. She indicated she would begin pulling together language for a Code amendment and would report back to the Commission at a future meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ B. County Road 10 Corridor Discussion Planning Associate Heller stated the corridor is the Council’s priority this year and the Commission has been asked to review the Zoning Code in order to better promote and accommodate development along County Road 10. This topic has been discussed previously by the Commission. Some of the ideas that have been talked about include: - Reduce the minimum required acreage amounts for PUD developments. - Reduce parking space requirements. - Require parking lots be placed behind buildings. - Reduce setbacks for parking lots and buildings. - Allow higher density (more housing units per acre) - Increase building height limits - Create a Corridor Overlay Zoning District - Sign changes Mounds View Planning Commission June 5, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Associate Heller commented since this is an extensive list, the Commission should start by focusing on a couple of the ideas. Reducing the acreage size requirements for PUD’s seemed to be one of the ideas that were most important, especially since the City was in the process of purchasing some key properties along the corridor to redevelop. Associate Heller discussed the minimum size requirements for PUD’s at this time, and requested the Commission continue discussion on the proposed code amendment and direct staff on how to proceed. Associate Heller reviewed maps of the properties in the Premium Stop redevelopment area and discussed the size of each site in detail. At this time, a senior housing PUD required 2 acres, a residential development PUD required three acres and a commercial PUD would require 5 acres. She stated the City would benefit by reducing these minimum PUD size requirements. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned the size of the Walgreens redevelopment. Chair Stevenson stated with the wetland outlot, the property was approximately 10 acres in size. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu stated the combined Roberts/Premium Stop/Taiko properties were approximately 3.5 acres in size. She noted the commercial requirements would have to be reduced in order to allow for a PUD for these parcels. Further discussion ensued regarding public transportation needs along with the walkability of the community. Commissioner Love questioned if the City would consider any mixed use developments. Associate Heller explained this has not always been successful in other areas, but the current code does allow mixed-use development on a minimum 5 acre parcel. Chair Stevenson recommended the PUD requirements only be changed along the County Road 10 corridor. He recommended that an overlay district be created which would allow for PUD’s of 2+ acres only along the corridor as this would spur redevelopment. He noted the standards for the overlay district corridor should be separate from all other PUD requirements. Associate Heller thanked the Commission for their input this evening and noted she would report back to the Commission with more ideas. She noted she would speak with City Administrator Ericson also regarding this matter and would report back to the Commission at a future meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. June 19, 2013 B. Tuesday, July 9, 2013 (Note day and date change) ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission June 5, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. May 15, 2013 The Commission discussed the May 15, 2013 meeting minutes and made no changes. 9. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports None. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: June 19, 2013 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to allow a 30.5-foot Front Setback at 7313 Spring Lake Road; Planning Case VR2013-003 Introduction: The applicant, Ron Santanni, with Santanni Custom Homes, one of the property owners of 7313 Spring Lake Road is requesting a variance to allow a new house to have a 30.5-foot front setback, which is 6.5 feet less than the prevailing setback on the block. The City Code requires a minimum 30-foot, or the prevailing setback on the block for new homes, without a variance. Discussion: 7313 Spring Lake Road is a vacant lot on the northeast corner of Spring Lake Road and County Road H2. The applicant is part of an investment group that recently purchased the property and he plans to build a new home. This lot was originally combined with the property to the north, but the parcel was subdivided in 2011 creating two lots, one with the existing house and this vacant lot. At the time of the subdivision, it was discussed that the prevailing front setbacks on both Spring Lake Road and County Road H2 were larger and would make it more difficult to place a house and meet all the setbacks on this new vacant lot. The parcel is 0.40 acres (162’ wide x 107’ deep), but since it is a corner lot, it has two front yards. New homes must meet the front setbacks for both streets, along with the rear setback. The City Code requires that front setbacks be a minimum of 30 feet or what the prevailing setback is on the block, and rear setbacks are a minimum of 30 feet. The proposed house cannot meet both the front prevailing setback of 37 feet and the code required 30 foot rear setback. The house is placed facing Spring Lake Road since it has much less traffic than County Road H2, and is planned to have a front setback of 30.5 feet and a rear setback of 30.6 feet. The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner’s land. This is true for all variance requests. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: 7313 Spring Lake Rad Variance Report June 19, 2013 Page 2 a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code requires minimum setbacks for aesthetics along the street and to provide separation from the street and between neighbors. The required setbacks typically can be met, but this lot is on a corner and both streets have larger than normal front prevailing setbacks which is causing the difficulty in meeting the front and rear setbacks. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports improvements to properties, and certainly encourages new home construction. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant requests that the new house meet the 30-foot City Code minimum front setback requirement instead of the larger prevailing setbacks that are on both Spring Lake Road and County Road H2. If the front setbacks on the streets were the typical 30 feet, there would not be a problem meeting the setback. The applicant wants the house to face Spring Lake Road since County Road H2 is a high traffic street. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased the property as is, and all of the surrounding homes have existed for many years. Both Spring Lake Road and County Road H2 have larger than usual front setbacks since almost all of the lots on these streets are very deep. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed house will still have a 30 feet setback, which is the minimum code required amount. The house directly across Spring Lake Road from the applicant’s property is setback less than 30 feet. This area of both Spring Lake Road and County Road H2 have deep lots so the front setbacks vary for many of the houses. Neither street has a consistent front setback for all the homes, so a new house with a different front setback will not alter the neighborhood character. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 6.5 foot variance is the minimum variance needed since the Zoning Code requires the prevailing setback, which in this case is 37 feet, for a front setback. 7313 Spring Lake Rad Variance Report June 19, 2013 Page 3 g. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff does not have any suggested conditions. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on Thursday, June 6, 2013. Staff has not received any comments as of June 14, 2013. Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public. The Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variances as requested. Resolution 984-13 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variances. The Commission should direct staff to draft resolutions of denial with findings appropriate to support the denials. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Proposed House Elevation 4. Survey showing proposed house on the lot 5. Resolution 984-13 7313 ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N 7337 Aerial View Approx. location of new house Red lines show the prevailing setbacks for each street 37 ft 42 ft 30.5 ft 65 ft 26 ft 30.6 ft Proposed New House Elevation Survey of New House Location MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 984-13 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A 6.5-FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT SETBACK OF A NEW HOUSE AT 7313 SPRING LAKE ROAD; PLANNING CASE VR2012-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Ron Santanni of Santanni Custom Homes, property owner of 7313 Spring Lake Road, has applied for a variance to allow a new house to have a 30.5- foot front setback, 6.5 feet less than the prevailing front setback on Spring Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, 7313 Spring Lake Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: That part of Lot 90, SPRING LAKE PARK KNOLLS, Ramsey County, Minnesota which lies southerly of the north 202.50 feet thereof. PIN 07-30-23-23-0039 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Site Plan 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this request on June 19, 2013; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 7313 Spring Lake Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 984-13 Page 2 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between homes for aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. The requested setback is not exceeding the minimum amount that the City Code requires. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property and adding new housing to the city. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because of the large front setbacks on both Spring Lake Road and County Road H2. 4. The unique feature of this property is that it is a corner lot so both prevailing front setbacks must be met, but both streets have large setbacks making it difficult for a house to meet both the front and rear setback. 5. The setbacks on all the homes in the area vary, so there will be no change to the existing neighborhood character from this house having a different front setback. 6. The 6.5-foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since for this property the zoning code requires the prevailing front setback on the block, which is 37 feet. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Ron Santanni, Santanni Custom Homes, property owner of 7313 Spring Lake Road, to allow a new house to have a 30.5-foot front setback. Adopted this 19th day of June, 2013. _________________________________ Paul Schiltgen, Vice Chair ATTEST: __________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: June 19, 2013 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: County Road 10 Corridor Discussion The corridor is the City Council’s priority this year and the Planning Commission has been asked to review the Zoning Code in order to better promote and accommodate development along County Road 10. The Commission has started by focusing on creating a PUD Corridor Overlay District and reducing the acreage size requirements for the projects on the corridor. Staff has started putting together language for a PUD overlay district for the Commission to review and discuss. Recommendation Continue the discussion about County Road 10 Corridor District amendments that would promote and support development on the corridor. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Proposed PUD language for County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District 1120.03 Subd. 4. County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District a. Purpose: The PUD District is an overlay zoning technique, whereby the basic underlying zoning district establishes the basic allowable uses and the general standards for development and the approved PUD plan establishes the specific regulations for development and shall govern and take precedence over the underlying Zoning District regulations. If a zoning change is required to accommodate the uses or general intensity of development in the PUD, an application for a Rezoning shall be made concurrently with the PUD application and, if approved, the Zoning Map shall be changed both as to the underlying zoning district and designation as a PUD district. b. Special Requirements for the County Road 10 Corridor District: The County Road 10 Corridor District is the primary gateway through the City. The aesthetic impacts from new developments and redevelopments must be evaluated to help ensure the long-term viability and success of the District. Accomplishing the purpose of the County Road 10 Corridor District requires particular concern for the site layout, building materials, site features (such as landscaping, lighting and signage) and other related design elements. To that end, new development and redevelopment shall conform to the standards in this and related zoning requirements. In reviewing and approving land use applications, the City Council shall make the final determination in the compatibility and consistency with all provisions in this and related sections of the Zoning Ordinance. (1) Procedure. To further accomplish the stated purpose of the County Road 10 Corridor District, the following procedures shall be used: (a) Proposals for new construction, redevelopment of a site and significant modifications to existing sites shall use the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. The PUD proposal shall identify any requested modifications from the applicable zoning requirements and from the County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District guidelines as well as the reasons why the modifications would be in the public interest and would be consistent with the purpose of the County Road 10 Corridor District. Modifications to these requirements may be granted by the City without a variance through the PUD process. Conditional Use Permits may also be required for the uses listed in each zoning district. (b) Conditional Use Permits, Site Plans, and other development agreements that were approved for development before ______________, 2013, shall remain in effect but shall use the PUD process for future site amendments. (c) The following items shall not be considered significant modifications to an existing site and shall be exempt from the PUD process but shall be subject to administrative review and approval: 1. Internal alterations to buildings that do not result in a change to the building height, roof line, or footprint unless the changes will have a notable increase in traffic and/or parking needs as determined by the City Administrator or their designee; 2. Replacement, maintenance, or repair of existing materials, including exterior finishes, signage, landscaping, and parking lots. 3. Minor modifications to the exterior of a building or site as determined by the City Administrator or their designee. c. District Area: The following area is hereby established as being within the County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District: (1) All parcels that have frontage on County Road 10, (2) All parcels that are within 200 feet of the County Road 10 right-of-way, (3) The City may determine that a specific development area will not benefit from the PUD process and can exclude that project area from the PUD requirement. d. Minimum Project Size: The tract of land for which a planned unit development, County Road 10 Corridor District is proposed and permit requested shall contain not less than two (2) acres of land. e. The building and/or parking setback of the planned unit development site shall be ______________