HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 08/08/2022AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 8, 2022 - 7:00 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION John Kirk, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Carole Mette, William
MEMBERS: Gooding, Rachel Markos, Robert Taylor, Daniel Grote, Frank
Sherwood
STAFF MEMBERS: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Matt
Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
IIi. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. MINUTES
A. Approval of the Minutes for the June 27, 2022 meeting
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. OLYMPIC HILLS 8th ADDITION
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 0.19 acres
• Planned Unit Development Amendment on 0.19 acres
• Preliminary Plat on 0.19 acres
B. CODE AMENDMENT FOR BUILDING MATERIALS
Request for:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 related to exterior building materials
C. CODE AMENDMENT FOR SIGNS
Request for:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to incidental and other corrective language.
D. CODE AMENDMENT FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Request for:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.55 related to stormwater management.
VI. PLANNERS' REPORT
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
I.
II.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2022
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
7:00 PM —CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed
Farr, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette, William
Gooding, Robert Taylor, Dan Grote
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, Community Development Director;
Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Rod Rue, City
Engineer; Matt Bourne, Parks & Natural Resources
Manager Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary
CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Vice Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — ROLL CALL
Absent was commission member Pieper.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 8-0.
[Mette arrived at 7:01 p.m.]
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by Taylor to approve the minutes of June 13,
2022. MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. EDEN PRAIRIE MULTI FAMILY
EDEN PRAIRIE MULTI FAMILY
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium High Density Residential
on 7.01 acres
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.01 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.01 acres
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2022
Page 2
• Zoning Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 7.01 acres
• Site Plan Review on 7.01 acres
• Preliminary Plat on 7.01 acres
Tony Barranco, President of Ryan Companies, north region, introduced Josh
Ekstrand, Joe Conway, MaKinnah Collins, Justin Baggenstoss, and Chad
Lockwood. Josh Ekstrand displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He
stated the site was bordered by Valley View Road and Topview Road east of the
Home Depot north of Menards. The applicant proposed to construct 211 units on
the seven-acre property with 268 parking stalls resulting in 1.3 stalls/unit. The
Site Plan showed a natural setting with many amenities including walking trails in
this heavily wooded site. 47 trees were to be removed and 49 would remain, and
224 trees were to be planted. There would be one access from Valley View Road
which would be a right in right out only. Ekstrand displayed trip generation data
and traffic impacts to compare with how the site was guided in the
Comprehensive Plan. The multifamily building would be 35,000 square feet.
Ekstrand displayed renderings of how the development met the neighborhood.
There would be common spaces within the lobby connecting to the natural spaces
outside. The materials were cement panel lap siding and brick, which would
extend all the way around the building on three stories to the bump-outs. The plan
incorporated variation in height and scale, and the pitched roof was designed to
give a residential feel. Ekstrand displayed the view overlooking the pool deck and
the walking trails northeast side of project, which also had a pet exercise area and
space for outdoor sporting/games areas.
Barranco stated his team worked with staff on the landscaping plan to incorporate
the wetlands and stated this project had a comparable parking ratio of 1.3. He
displayed several of these comparable sites which included Ironwood, The
Fenley, The Barnum, and Eden Glen Apartments.
Mette expressed concern that this was the lowest parking count on average and
asked if there was a perpetual agreement with neighbor. Barranco replied his staff
was in discussions with the neighboring office, which was interested in utilizing
the trails. However a perpetual lease would be difficult to secure and he could not
guarantee one. Mette recommended using the neighboring property for
overnight/overflow parking only, and to incorporate this in the lease. She added
she understood this would be challenging. Mette noted drivers coming in and out
needing to make a U-Turn on Valley View Road and asked the developer to
consider gaining access through the neighboring traffic light near Home Depot.
Chad Lockwood, Associate Director, stated the traffic study did include analysis
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2022
Page 3
of the turns. There were substantial constraints on site and cutting through the
neighboring property was not a benefit as it would require them to negotiate
easements. Mette asked if the eastbound left hand turn light on Valley View was a
blinking yellow and Lockwood replied it was.
Gooding stated he had looked at the site today around rush hour and many drivers
making U-turns waited for 20-25 seconds after light changed with no one behind
him. This was a concern, especially if there would be two or three cars in a queue.
The alternative route across from the pet store seemed a better choice. He urged
this issue be addressed. The data chart cited other projects in Hopkins and
Bloomington but gave no data in relation to public transportation which is not a
strong point of Eden Prairie. Joe Conway stated the only project with significant
transit around it is among the examples was the Fenway; all the rest just had local
buses.
Taylor stated there was only one entrance in and out of the development and
asked if there were plans to build another entrance. Lockwood replied there were
numerous site plan revisions, but this site had a significant topography challenge
with a 20-foot hill, and with county spacing guidelines only one entrance was
possible at that point. Taylor asked how emergency vehicles would enter while
people were trying to exit, and Lockwood replied upon review, one entrance was
found to be acceptable. Taylor urged the Fire Marshall look at this development,
and Lockwood replied Emergency Services did look at the plan.
Farr asked for another look at the views, and Conway reviewed the site sections
and property lines with the commission members, also showing the roofline
views.
Farr noted the traffic report identified a potential issue of the U-Turn at Valley
View and Topview Roads and recommended that Valley View Road be widened
to create a left-turn lane. Lockwood replied the County did not want the left-turn
lane and found the existing arrangement to be acceptable.
Mette asked why the window trim was white compared to the dark balconies.
Barranco replied this was to break up the façade, and they wished to minimize the
number of different window colors. Dark trim looked more jarring against the
lighter background areas whereas the white was similar to a single-family scale.
Mette asked if the HVAC vent was also white, and Conway replied it was a tan
color close to the cement board siding. Mette asked for an explanation of how to
deter people from cutting across the grass median at the firetruck left turn.
Lockwood replied that was addressed by signage and an insurmountable curb.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2022
Page 4
Farr asked for a summary of the neighborhood meeting. Barranco replied there
was one neighborhood meeting and one person attended who spoke about the
project.
Klima presented the staff report. The applicant proposed to construct a 211-unit,
five-story multifamily apartment building with one level of underground parking
and some surface parking on a seven-acre property located in the northwest
quadrant of the intersection of Valley View Road and Topview Road. The
property was currently guided Office in the Aspire 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant was requesting an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to
reguide the property to Medium High Density Residential, which allowed 14 to
40 units per acre. The density of the project was proposed at 30 units per acre.
The property was currently zoned Rural. The applicant is requesting to rezone the
property to RM-2.5. Provided the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was
approved, the RM-2.5 zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The project also met and exceeded the open space requirement of the multi-family
district. The building materials complied with requirements. The original
submittal did not include as much brick; the applicant worked with staff on
incorporating more brick.
Staff recommended visitor parking be provided off-site in the neighboring office
park. Staff also recommended at least one stall be provided per unit. This
application requested TIF financing with 20 percent units affordable at 50 percent
AMI, with an inclusionary housing requirement at 80 percent AMI. Staff
recommended additional review of the site be done to identify areas where
structured parking under or aboveground could be provided. Klima noted the staff
report had been written before the plans were revised to include the additional 16
parking stalls, bringing the ratio to 1.3 instead of 1.2. The applicant sought a wall
signage waiver for one sign of 12 square feet. Staff recommended approval of the
application.
Mette asked for and received confirmation the building setback did not encroach
on the wetland or trails. Grote noted younger people often did not have cars so he
was not as concerned about the parking and asked if the development was
targeted at any age or income demographic. Klima replied the project as proposed
had no age restriction but was a market-driven general occupancy development.
Mette asked for a parking comparison to the other projects given in the
presentation. Klima replied her conversations with the applicant did explore the
questions the commission members have asked. This site was unique in its
constraints. Parking standards being applied to this project did reflect the recent
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2022
Page 5
standard adopted in the last year, which was one parking stall per studio, and there
were no plans to revise that downward.
Gooding asked for and received clarification City recommended at least one stall
per unit attached to a lease. He noted the applicant’s financial risk versus risk in
providing less parking than usual. Kirk stated the City did have a concern
regarding the parking because residents might have multiple vehicles and expect
more parking. He worried about the impact to City streets in the area which were
no-parking streets.
Markos asked for and received the allowed height of 45 feet; the applicant was
requesting a waiver 65 feet. If a story were added to provide additional parking
below the building, she did not know if that would be requested and more
research would be needed to know the consequences from a design standpoint.
Grote asked how a building’s height was calculated and Klima replied it was
measured from the grade plane of the building to the height of the midpoint of the
roof .
Mette asked if three parking islands could be eliminated to free up more parking,
and Klima this could not be done without another waiver.
Farr asked if staff agreed with the traffic study SRF, and Rue said they did. He did
look at the U-turn at the flashing yellow arrow and said that traffic light’s timing
could be programed to be protected (made green) at some times during the day if
needed. Farr asked if there were potential negative impacts to City infrastructure
or utilities, and Rue replied there were not. Farr asked for and received
confirmation from Klima there were no concerns with the tandem parking layout.
City Code did not distinguish or provide different standards for compact car stalls.
Farr asked if stormwater pond consolidation was possible. Rue replied that had
not been explored in detail but discussions with water resources staff discouraged
this as too challenging. Farr asked what process there would be to allow the
neighboring property to the west to provide easement parking. Klima replied the
intention would be for visitor parking to be provided only during when the
neighboring lot was vacant since that was an office space (for example, overnight,
weekends). This would not be a nonconforming issue but an agreement, and
therefore would not come before the commission.
Gooding asked how Eden Prairie’s standard for parking compared to other
jurisdictions, and Klima replied two stalls per unit per bedrooms was in line with
other jurisdictions, though some offered even less. The City of Eden Prairie would
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2022
Page 6
not monitor a private property for compliance in the case of this agreement with
the neighboring property; remedy would be sought from the property
owner/manager. Farr asked if eviction would be the solution in the case of
noncompliance, and Klima replied she would need further research to answer.
Eric Vinson, 12771 Vina Lane
Vinson stated he was a 23-year resident of Eden Prairie. He lives across the street
from this property. He encouraged the commission members to pull the previous
minutes regarding traffic in the area and expressed concern about the number of
units proposed. Further there was lack of neighborhood input with short notice of
a neighborhood meeting, and with only property owners within 500 feet receiving
a notification despite it affecting the entire neighborhood. This was a dangerous
intersection and he feared for children in the development. Height was also a
concern as he would be forced to look at a five-story building next to a residential
neighborhood. Also, 220 residents with an outdoor swimming pool was a concern
when he presently he could hear even a flock of turkeys in his yard. The
neighboring office space was very quiet and he feared the development would not
be.
Karen Keeley, 11447 Anderson Lakes Parkway
Keeley stated this was a historic area and the development would contribute more
carbon dioxide, result in the loss of trees, with “replacement” only with smaller
trees. She lamented the destruction of prairie land and forest and the
encroachment of a concrete jungle. She added the developers were from out of
town and disagreed Eden Prairie needed more growth. She opposed the project
and the rezoning, and the removal of heritage trees, and warned more
development brought more cars. She asked if an EAW had been done.
Megan Dowtal-Olson 12781 Vina Lane
Dowtal-Olson expressed concerned about pool when she hears church activities
and asked if there would be noise restrictions. The view from Roberts looked
impressive but her property and her neighbors’ were elevated, so the new
development would become part of the horizon. She added larger lots were a big
draw to this area and this development was not in keeping with the neighborhood.
She also expressed concerned about lighting and asked for an estimate or
rendering of potential light pollution. She asked where extra cars would park. She
had moved from Minneapolis a few years ago and the first couple of blocks
around light rail there were inundated with parked cars. She also asked what
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2022
Page 7
“acceptable” meant in terms of the U-turn: a number, or some other metric? This
was a vague answer to a very serious question. She feared people would park on
Topview were the no-parking area stopped. Regarding the entrance, drivers
entering the area from Highway 494 almost never obeyed the yield as it was and
she found the U-turn to be in a terrible place. She also asked for a construction
timeline, and if there would be noise from the construction.
MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Sherwood to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 8-0.
Farr asked Rue to explain the SRF traffic reports. Rue quoted from the traffic
study. The intersection running west was uncontrolled and without a signal. There
were nine U-turns during the peak hour, west to east, in the morning and during
evening peak hours. The Intersection at Plaza saw two U-turns during the
morning peak hour and eight during the evening peak. 2024 future conditions
projected 30 western intersection U-turns in the morning peak hour to 40 in the
evening peak, and at Plaza these ranged from ten in the morning peak hour to 30
in the evening peak hours. U-turns were based on sightlines, requiring a minimum
of 460 feet. There was no ultimate number for a metric. Another diagram showed
the amount of U-turn vehicles caused by this development: at the west
intersection, there were 165 per day. Farr stated the impact to the neighborhood
would be felt at the intersection of Topview and Valley View but would still be
safe, and there would be no impact north of this intersection. Rue agreed. There
was a marked crosswalk and pedestrian indicators on the east side, though not on
the west.
Farr asked what could trigger an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) or
EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). Klima replied the Minnesota State Statute
threshold for an EAW had not been met in this case, and the EIS had an even
higher threshold. A Phase One Environmental Review had been completed. Farr
suggested that noise complaints (such as a loud party) could go through the proper
channels, and Klima agreed. Farr noted this was a private property development.
The City had strategic plans for open space and allowed for private development,
which could include tree removal, impacts to small animals, et cetera, that still fit
the City’s Vision and Plan. He encouraged the public to study the Plan and
documents.
Farr noted the site lighting plan in the commission packet which called for
downcast pole LED lighting, minimizing light pollution. Conway confirmed this,
and added the lights were lower than the tree line. Farr stated property owners on
high ground were not guaranteed to have or expect certain views. The zoning
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2022
Page 8
change under discussion was part of the regular work of the commission to
discuss. Residents of this development would probably park in the aisles rather
than drive around the neighborhood, but if so such behavior would become a
nuisance and would be dealt with accordingly. Mette asked how long residents
could park on any Eden Prairie street and Rue replied one could park up to 24
hours in parking areas on the street.
Taylor asked if there was data on accidents at the intersection of Topview and
Valley View Road, and Rue there was but this required research. Mette stated she
was a real estate multifamily developer and wished she had looked more into the
parking ratios of this development. The average parking ratio was 1.3. She
wondered how well the owner could educate his tenants to turn left or go straight
to avoid U-turns. Gooding stated parking was a concern, however the younger
generation did not buy as many cars and the commission had to be careful not to
plan for an inappropriate tenant group. The U-turn was a concern but could be
solved by a controlled turn if it became an issue.
Kirk stated he was on the fence regarding this development. He saw some good
ideas to develop this awkward piece of property, and all remaining buildable
properties in Eden Prairie were awkward. He commended the creation of 55
affordable units and the effort to save trees. He was not as worried about traffic
impact and thought the City did good job with planning infrastructure in general
so no disasters arose. Parking was the main concern if it overlapped the City
streets and neighborhoods with car with residents having no other place to park.
Taylor stated he was also torn. Parking was the big issue and he warned against
asking residents and neighbors to administer traffic patterns and to wait to see
what happened as a result. He wanted to see the accident data and feared more
accidents without suitable engineering. He urged there be another neighborhood
meeting.
Farr noted the density of units and traffic were concerns cited by residents. The
building height was fine as he was concerned as demonstrated by cross-sectional
views. The units were well screened and this zoning change was a better zoning
transition to the neighborhood than office zoning. He agreed the City had a
concern here with the number of parking stalls. The applicant was taking a
financial risk that could impact the neighborhood and he wished the applicant
success but that came with a caution: problems on the property had to stay on the
property. Architecturally he found this to be a nice project.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2022
Page 9
Markos stated she was also on the fence but thought this could be a positive
addition to the neighborhood. She was a frequent user of this intersection and the
U-turn was a concern as people flew through the intersection. She agreed with
Taylor not to wait for something to happen and wished the developer would add
underground parking. She agreed the development fit well into the forested
neighborhood. Mette replied the staff report did reference a development
agreement requirement for parking, and if the commission recommended approval
these conditions would be included as well. Conversations with staff about
solutions would continue and perhaps a few more stalls could be squeezed in.
Kirk commented for the public’s benefit: commission members were volunteer,
unpaid and charged to advise the City Council, who was also an audience member
to this discussion. The commission members in holding their meetings want the
City Council to understand the concerns, strengths and weaknesses of a project so
that when the City Council made the final decision it had all the relevant
information.
MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Gooding to recommend approval of
the Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium High Density Residential on 7.01
acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.01 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 7.01 acres; Zoning Change from
Rural to RM-2.5 on 7.01 acres; Site Plan Review on 7.01 acres; Preliminary Plat
on 7.01 acres based on the conditions in plans stamp dated June 1, 2022, and the
staff report June 23, 2022. Motion carried 6-1 (Grote nay) with one abstention
(Kirk).
PLANNERS’ REPORT
Klima introduced Jeremy Barnhart, new City Planner.
MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Kirk to adjourn. Motion carried 8-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sarah Strain, Planner II
DATE: August 8, 2022
SUBJECT: Olympic Hills 8th Addition
LOCATION: PID 24-116-22-34-0040 (Outlot C, Olympic Hills Second Addition)
REQUEST: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 0.19 acres
• Planned Unit Development Amendment with waivers on 0.19 acres
• Preliminary Plat on 0.19 acres
120 DAY REVIEW
PERIOD
DEADLINE:
November 2, 2022
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting approval to plat Outlot C, Olympic Hills Second Addition in order to
develop a single-family home. The property is 0.19 acres and is along Overlook Trail. The subject
parcel is currently vacant and maintain by Olympic Hills Golf Course. The property is bordered by
single-family development on all sides.
The Olympic Hills Second Addition project, which consists of 12 duplexes and 21 single family
homes, all on Overlook Trail, designated Outlot C to a be tot lot for the neighborhood in 1976.
However, a tot lot was never constructed. Olympic Hills Golf Course has owned and maintained this
property since the development was constructed.
GUIDING AND ZONING
The property is currently zoned RM-6.5. The lots
on Overlook Trail were all platted and zoned RM-
6.5 prior to the City having small lot single family
zoning districts. To accommodate smaller single
family lot sizes, these properties were all approved
as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD
notes these properties are allowed smaller lot sizes
consistent with the RM-6.5 zoning district but are
to develop as single family homes or duplexes.
The property is guided Low Density Residential,
which allows a maximum of five (5) dwelling units
per acre. The Comprehensive Plan notes there are
areas of the City, like the Overlook Trail PUD, that
Staff Report – Olympic Hills 8th Addition
August 8, 2022
Page 2
2
are zoned RM-6.5 but guided Low Density Residential. This development was approved through a
PUD process, and the Comprehensive Plan affirms the PUD zoning is consistent with the Low
Density Residential guiding in the Comprehensive Plan.
The addition of one (1) unit to this PUD will make the Overlook Trail project density 2.5 units per
acre, consistent with current guiding.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The proposed preliminary plat replats Outlot C into
a lot and block legal description. City Code does not
allow a dwelling unit, or any structure, to be
constructed on an outlot. To build a home on the
property, the property must be replatted into a lot
and block to meet City Code standards.
There are existing drainage and utility easements on
this property to accommodate the storm sewer line
that is located in the northwestern-most point of the
property. The plat continues the existing drainage
and utility easement along the front of the property.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WAIVERS
The purpose of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) as stated in the City Code is to provide for
a more creative and efficient approach to the use of land within the City; to allow variety in the
types of environment available to people and distribution of overall density of population and
intensity of land use where desirable and feasible; and provide for greater creativity and
flexibility in environmental design.
As a part of the PUD process, the applicant is seeking waivers to City Code requirements as
outlined below.
A. Lot Depth – City Code requires a minimum lot depth of 100 feet in the RM-6.5 zoning
district. The lot depth is based on the average distance between the front lot line and the
rear lot line. The average depth of Outlot C is 95 feet. The waiver would allow Lot 1,
Block 1, Olympic Hills 8th Addition to have a lot depth of 95 feet.
B. Front Yard Setback - City Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in the
RM-6.5 zoning district. The lot has a long frontage on Overlook Trail and is not a deep
lot. These factors would make it difficult to construct a single family home that would fit
Staff Report – Olympic Hills 8th Addition
August 8, 2022
Page 3
3
with the character of the existing neighborhood.
Additionally, there is a large expanse of right-of-way that will make the house appear to
have a larger front yard setback. At its widest point, the right-of-way between the curb
and the property line is about 82 feet. There is about 11 feet of right-of-way between the
east property line and the curb and about 18 feet of right-of-way between the north lot
line and the curb. At this time, the City does not wish to vacate the right-of-way. This
right-of-way may be needed for future road reconstruction or stormwater management
projects, either reconstructing Overlook Trail or upgrading the landscaped area as part of
other project off-sets.
The waiver would allow Lot 1, Block 1, Olympic Hills 8th Addition to have a 20 foot
front yard setback.
LANDSCAPING AND TREE REPLACEMENT
The applicant is proposing to remove one (1) significant tree as part of this development. The
removal of one (1) significant tree within a five (5) year period is permitted by City Code in all
residential districts before tree replacement is required. As such, no tree replacement is required for
this project.
Landscaping is required for this project as the property is zoned RM-6.5. Landscaping requirements
are based on the square footage of the structure. The exact square footage of the structure cannot be
determined until the time of building permit application, meaning the landscaping requirement
cannot be determined until the time of building permit application. Staff is recommending that a
code complaint landscape plan be provided at the time of building permit application as a condition
of building permit approval.
The owner of the new lot will be responsible for the maintenance of the sod and landscaping in the
adjacent right-of-way.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on July 13, 2022. The discussion included the size of the
lot, neighborhood crowding, and traffic.
As of August 3, 2022, staff has received comments from two (2) residents on the proposed project.
Both residents expressed concern about the size of the lot and potential home matching the existing
neighborhood. Emailed comments are included as an attachment to this memo.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the following:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 0.19 acres
Staff Report – Olympic Hills 8th Addition
August 8, 2022
Page 4
4
• Planned Unit Development Amendment with waivers on 0.19 acres
• Preliminary Plat on 0.19 acres
This is based on plans dated July 22, 2022, and staff report dated August 8, 2022 and the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the 1st reading at City Council, the applicant shall:
A. Submit revised erosion control plans including all disturbances and erosion
control measures.
B. Submit revised civil plans providing additional information about the proposed
sewer connection and how the watermain and stormwater lines will be protected
during construction.
2. Prior to land alteration permit issuance, the applicant shall:
A. Submit detailed stormwater runoff, wetland, utility, street, and erosion control
plans for review and approval by the City Engineer.
B. Obtain and provide documentation of Watershed District approval.
C. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading.
D. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and
approval by the City.
E. Submit a land alteration bond, letter of credit, or escrow surety equivalent to
125% of the cost of the land alteration.
4. Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the applicant shall:
A. Submit a code compliant landscape plan to the Planning Division.
B. Submit a landscaping letter of credit or escrow surety equivalent to 150% of the
cost of the landscaping.
C. Pay the appropriate cash park fees.
5. The following waivers are granted through the PUD for the project as indicated in the
plans dated July 22, 2022.
A. Lot Depth – City Code requires a minimum lot depth of 100 feet in the RM-6.5
zoning district. The lot depth is based on the average distance between the front lot
line and the rear lot line. The average depth of Outlot C is 95 feet. The waiver allows
Lot 1, Block 1, Olympic Hills 8th Addition to have a lot depth of 95 feet.
B. Front Yard Setback - City Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in
the RM-6.5 zoning district. The lot has a large frontage on Overlook Trail and is not a
deep lot. There is also a large expanse of right-of-way along the property’s front yard.
The waiver allows Lot 1, Block 1, Olympic Hills 8th Addition to have a 20 foot front
yard setback.
1
Sarah Strain
From:Jerry Pitzrick <jpitzrick@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, July 28, 2022 11:33 AM
To:Sarah Strain
Subject:Re: Olympic Hills 8th Addition - Planning Commission Meeting
Thank you! See you on 8/8.
> On Jul 28, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Sarah Strain <sstrain@edenprairie.org> wrote:
>
> If the tot lot had been built in the 1970s, the developer would have been responsible for paying for the installation,
unless another arrangement was made. Maintenance would have then been transferred to the property owner unless
another arrangement was made. If built today, the responsibility would that of Olympic Hills as the property owner.
>
> Thank you,
> Sarah Strain, AICP
> She/her
> Planner II
> City of Eden Prairie
> 8080 Mitchell Road | Eden Prairie, MN 55344‐4485
> 952‐949‐8413 | sstrain@edenprairie.org |||edenprairie.org
> Please consider the environment before printing
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
> From: Jerry Pitzrick <jpitzrick@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 9:05 AM
> To: Sarah Strain <sstrain@edenprairie.org>
> Subject: Re: Olympic Hills 8th Addition ‐ Planning Commission Meeting
>
> Hi Ms. Strain,
>
> One final question. If the “tot lot” had been developed in the 70’s, who would have paid for that and who would have
maintained it? If the “tot lot” were developed today, who would pay and be responsible to maintain?
>
> Thank you for your help and patience!
> Jerry
>
>> On Jul 27, 2022, at 12:47 PM, Sarah Strain <sstrain@edenprairie.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mr. Pitzrick,
>>
>> All of the properties along Overlook Trail are zoned RM‐6.5. The zoning was established when the lots went through
the platting process back in the mid/late 1970s.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Sarah Strain, AICP
>> She/her
>> Planner II
>> City of Eden Prairie
2
>> 8080 Mitchell Road | Eden Prairie, MN 55344‐4485
>> 952‐949‐8413 | sstrain@edenprairie.org |||edenprairie.org
>> Please consider the environment before printing
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
>> From: Jerry Pitzrick <jpitzrick@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 11:34 AM
>> To: Sarah Strain <sstrain@edenprairie.org>
>> Subject: Re: Olympic Hills 8th Addition ‐ Planning Commission Meeting
>>
>> Hi Ms. Strain,
>>
>> Thank you for your very helpful response. One question, if the outlet is zoned RM‐6.5, what are the neighboring lots
zone, and if there is a difference, why?
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 2022, at 11:05 AM, Sarah Strain <sstrain@edenprairie.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you for your comments and questions about Olympic Hills 8th Addition. I will share your concerns and
questions with the Planning Commission.
>>>
>>> Outlot C, the subject property, was originally planned to be a "tot lot" for the neighborhood. This use for the lot is
outlined in the agreement between the City and the developer. It is my understanding that the developer proposed the
outlot. The developer was responsible for installing a small play area, which was never constructed. Costs of
maintenance for the lot have since shifted from the developer to the property owner, which is Olympic Hills Golf Course.
Olympic Hills is responsible for the maintenance of this lot and would remain responsible until they sold the lot. They
would also need to maintain the lot if no changes are made. The property owner of Outlot C/the new lot will be
responsible for the maintenance of the large right‐of‐way. This will be stated clearly in any resolution that approves this
development, which will be recorded against the property to ensure any potential buyers are aware of the maintenance
requirement. Olympic Hills is currently responsible for the maintenance of this area as the property owner.
>>>
>>> Outlot C is zoned RM‐6.5. Front yard setbacks in the RM‐6.5 zoning district are 30 feet, side yard setbacks 10 feet
per side, and rear yard setbacks are 20 feet. The applicant is requesting a waiver from front yard setbacks to allow 20
foot setbacks as well as a waiver for lot depth. There is no minimum dwelling unit size from a Zoning perspective. I am
not as familiar with Building Code if there is a minimum dwelling unit size.
>>>
>>> In all of the City's communications with Olympic Hills, they have shared with staff that they plan to sell the lot for
the construction of a single family home, not keep it for their use. Any property not occupied by the owner must register
with the City as a rental property and follow all rental regulations. City Code allows up to 5 non‐related individuals to live
together, so long as all building code and fire occupancy regulations are met.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Sarah Strain, AICP
>>> She/her
>>> Planner II
>>> City of Eden Prairie
>>> 8080 Mitchell Road | Eden Prairie, MN 55344‐4485
>>> 952‐949‐8413 | sstrain@edenprairie.org |||edenprairie.org
>>> Please consider the environment before printing
>>>
>>> ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
>>> From: Jerry Pitzrick <jpitzrick@gmail.com>
3
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 5:01 PM
>>> To: Sarah Strain <sstrain@edenprairie.org>
>>> Subject: Olympic Hills 8th Addition ‐ Planning Commission Meeting
>>>
>>> Hello Ms. Strain,
>>>
>>> When I first heard about the possibility of the outlet being sold for the construction of a single family home I
thought that it could be a good idea. Now that we can see the size of the easement at the corner of the road, and the
impact this has on the size of the buildable lot, this does not make sense. I have a few concerns about the land area
being considered for the change:
>>>
>>> 1. When OH 8th Addition was initially platted, what was the intended use for the outlot? Who had authority to
make decisions about use of the lot, and who was responsible for any costs associated with the improvement or
maintenance of the lot? Since that initial platting, has any of this authority or responsibility change? If so, when and why
did it change? Who is the current owner and what are their responsibilities related to maintenance of the lot, both now
and into the future if no changes are made?
>>>
>>> 2.The proposed lot would be .19 acres. The adjacent lots are .28 and .32 acres. The lot directly across the street is
.36 acres. All of the single family lots on this street appear to be 25% or more, larger than the proposed lot. If this were a
transition lot on at the end of a development I can see that it would be considered. But, this substantial a difference in
the middle of a development, would be extremely unusual and would typically be sent back to the proposer for revision
without further review.
>>>
>>> 3. What would be the set back requirements for a structure on this lot? What would be the minimum size house
that could be permitted for the proposed lot?
>>>
>>> 4. Who would be responsible for maintenance of the large adjacent easement area? If it would be the lot owner,
this should be clearly stated in the plat for the lot. The easement area and associated maintenance is almost as large as
the lot. If the easement is not the responsibility of the lot owner, would the city be responsible? If the city is, how will
the city perform weekly mowing and annual maintenance for trees, shrubs, and planting areas? This is what is expected
of all other home owners in the area.
>>>
>>> 5. There is a “rumor” in our neighborhood that Olympic Hills is considering building a residence that would be used
to house their seasonal workers. What specific legal assurances can the city provide that this will not happen?
>>>
>>> 6. My final question is not as a resident of Overlook Trail, but as a citizen of E.P. If the city makes a specific decision
that results in the lowering of property values for an area, is the city liable for this outcome?
>>>
>>> I hope the city staff will provide specific responses to each of these questions as part of their recommendation for
action on this item. That specific information would be very helpful for the Planning Commission and later for the City
Council to make an informed decision.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Jerry Pitzrick
>>> 9322 Overlook Trail
>>> 952‐944‐11
>>
>
13605 1st Avenue North Suite 100, Plymouth, MN 55441 P 763.412.4000 F 763.412.4090 ae-mn.com
Narrative:
Outlot C was created as part of the development of Olympic Hills 2nd Addition about 1978. The lot has been unused and
maintained by Olympic Hills during that time period. Olympic Hills wishes to replat this lot for development of a single-
family home. The site is zoned as RM-6.5 multi-family residential. The utilities running through the west edge of lot will
not be affected in the development. The existing 5 ft. side D&U easement and 10 ft. front D&U easement will remain.
Our understanding is that a PUD Amendment is needed to accomplish this. Do to the unique circumstance of this lot,
two waivers have been requested.
1. Front setback reduced from 30 feet to 20 feet
a. The right of way along Overlook Trail is very wide in front of this lot; being more than 80 feet from
property line to back of curb. Typical properties along Overlook Trail have right of ways varying from 12
to 15 feet wide.
2. Lot Depth
a. The rear lot depth is 100-foot minimum based on the average from each side. Outlot C has a 90.00 foot
and 100.89 foot rear lot depth, equaling an average of 95 feet.
PLOTTED:COMM. NO.
DRAWING NO.
----16486
OLYMPIC HILLS
8TH ADDITION
1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e n u e N . #1 0 0
P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 | a e -m n .c o m
P 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 9 0
A n d e r s o n E n g i n e e r i n g o f M i n n e s o t a , L L C
DRAWING TITLE
CHECKED BY:DRAWN:DESIGNED:
GRJJPDJPD
JUNE 20, 2022
REVISION LOG
DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONSNO.DATE
OVERLOOK TRAIL
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN
OLYMPIC HILLS
PRELIMINARY PLAT/PUD
AMENDMENT
1 7/22/22 REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
SURVEY
S001
20' BLDG SB PROPOSED30' BLDG SB RM-6.510' D&U ESMT PROPOSED17' PLTO BCEX. 5' D&U EASEMENTEX. 5' D&U EASEMENTEX. 5' D&U EASEMENT
EX. 5' D&U EASEMENT EX. 10' D&U ESMT82' PLTO BC865 SFGARAGEFFE = 8551800± SF FOUNDATION/MAIN LEVEL FFE = 857BASEMENT FFE = 847POTENTIAL HOUSE PAD(FINAL DESIGN TBD)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEOVERLOOK TRAILOVERLOOK TRAIL
10' SIDE BLDG SB 10' SIDE BLDG SBPLOTTED:COMM. NO.DRAWING NO.----16486OLYMPIC HILLS8TH ADDITION13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCDRAWING TITLECHECKED BY:DRAWN:DESIGNED:GRJJPDJPDJUNE 20, 2022REVISION LOGDESCRIPTION OF REVISIONSNO.DATEOVERLOOK TRAILEDEN PRAIRIE, MNOLYMPIC HILLSPRELIMINARY PLAT/PUDAMENDMENTGARY R. JOHNSON, PE42010PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.6/20/2022NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION17/22/22REVISED PER CITY COMMENTSPRELIMINARYPLATS002N010'20'PRELIMINARY PLAT OF: OLYMPIC HILLS 8TH ADDITIONLEGENDPROPERTY LIMITSADJACENT PROPERTYBUILDING SETBACKSPARKING SETBACKSEXISTING DRAINAGE ANDUTILITY EASEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE ANDUTILITY EASEMENTPROPOSED BITUMINOUSPAVEMENTPROPOSED CONCRETEPAVEMENTSITE DATAEXISTINGPROPERTY ADDRESS:PID:EX. PARCEL AREA:ZONING:2040 COMP. PLAN:PROPOSEDZONING:LOT SIZEWIDTH:DEPTH:AREA:BUILDING SETBACKSFRONT YARD:REAR YARD:SIDE YARD NORTH:SIDE YARD SOUTH:PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONEXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONUNASSIGNED, OVERLOOK TRAIL24116223400400.20 ACRERM-6.5 MULTI-FAMILY-6.7 U.P.A. MAX.LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,0.1 TO 5 UNITS/ACREP.U.D.-RM-6.5MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIALPROPOSEDRM-6.590 FEET24 FEET (MIN.)95 FEET (AVG.)100 FEET (MIN. AVG.)8,541 SF3,000 SF (MIN.)20 FEET30 FEET20 FEET20 FEET10 FEET10 FEET10 FEET10 FEETLOCATION MAPN.T.S.S001S002C001C002INDEXSHEETEXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEYPRELIMINARY PLATGRADING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITY PLANEROSION CONTROL PLANDESCRIPTIONOWNERSURVEY / ENGINEERANDERSON ENGINEERING OF MN, LLC13605 1ST AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 100PLYMOUTH, MN 55441OLYMPIC HILLS GOLF CLUB10625 MOUNT CURVE ROADEDEN PRAIRIE, MN 553475'5'10'1S002DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTSNTSDRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:BEING 10' IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED,AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND 10' IN WIDTH UNLESSOTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOININGRIGHT-OF-WAY LINES AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT.SITEGENERAL NOTES1.THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED RM-6.5. A LANDSCAPE PLANWILL BE SUBMITTED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT.
865 SFGARAGEFFE = 8551800± SF FOUNDATION/MAIN LEVEL FFE = 857BASEMENT FFE = 847POTENTIAL HOUSE PAD(FINAL DESIGN TBD)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE845846847849850851852853854855856855854853852849848847848850851844843 844
845
846OVERLOOK TRAILOVERLOOK TRAIL
8
4
5 8508558
4
2
843
844846 8478488498518528538548
4
5
8
5
0 85584
6
8
4
7
8
4
8
8
4
9
851
8
5
2
8
5
3 8548562.5%1" C901 PE OR COPPER TYPE K53 LF 4" PVC SDR 26 @ 2.0%INSTALL 8"X4"SADDLE WYE W/9' RISER PERCITY STANDARDSINV. 829.12±RETAININGWALLME 853.07ME 854.904
.
2%STUB 1INV. 839.0INSTALL 45° BEND& EXTENSION PERCITY DETAIL S-930' WIDE DRIVEWAY
FG 844.2830840850827830835840845850852.12
852.10+00851.38
851.4
850.76
850.80+6444 LF 4" PVC ST @ 2.0%9 LF 4" PVC
S
T
@
1
0
0
.
0
%STUB - 1INV 839.0 (W)RISER 45° BENDINV 838.12 (E)INV 838.12 (W)EXISTING 8" SANITARYINV. 829.12±EXISTING 18"RCP STORMEXISTING 6"WATERMAIN1:1 MAXSLOPEEXISTINGGRADEPROPOSEDGRADE18" MININSTALL PIPEINSULATION851.60
852.10
45° BEND &EXTENSION TOINV. 841PLOTTED:COMM. NO.DRAWING NO.----16486OLYMPIC HILLS8TH ADDITION13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCDRAWING TITLECHECKED BY:DRAWN:DESIGNED:GRJJPDJPDJUNE 20, 2022REVISION LOGDESCRIPTION OF REVISIONSNO.DATEOVERLOOK TRAILEDEN PRAIRIE, MNOLYMPIC HILLSPRELIMINARY PLAT/PUDAMENDMENTGARY R. JOHNSON, PE42010PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.6/20/2022NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION17/22/22REVISED PER CITY COMMENTSGRADING,DRAINAGE, &UTILITY PLANC001N010'20'LEGENDPROPERTY LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONDRAINAGE ARROWPROPOSED RETAINING WALLPROPOSED CONCRETE C&GFINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONRIM ELEVATIONTOP OF WALLBOTTOM OF WALL966965966965R 800.1TW 800.1BW 800.1EXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING LANDSCAPE AREAKEY NOTESLOWER WATER SERVICE BELOW EXISTING STORMSEWER. MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATIONBETWEEN WATER SERVICE & EXISTING STORMSEWER. INSULATE PER DETAIL 1/C001INSULATE 4" PVC SDR 26 AT STORM SEWERCROSSINGCONNECT TO EXISTING 6" WATERMAIN VIA WETTAP & SADDLE.11MINIMUM TWO 2" POLYSTYRENEINSULATION LAYERS WITH JOINTSSTAGGERED AND EXTENDING 4' EACHWAY FROM WATER SERVICE C/LSEWER18" MINMECH. COMPACTEDBACKFILL6"3"SCALE:1WATER SERVICE OFFSETN.T.S.12' MINFG 800.1SCALE:2UTILITY PROFILE: STUB 1 TO EX SAN.1" = 20'2233GENERAL NOTES1.CONCEPT GRADING ONLY. FINAL BUILDING FLOORPLAN & GRADING TO BE DESIGNED/CONSTRUCTEDBY BUILDER.2.PROTECT EXISTING UTILITY LINES DURINGINSTALLATION OF PROPOSED SANITARY ANDWATER SERVICE.
865 SFGARAGEFFE = 8551800± SF FOUNDATION/MAIN LEVEL FFE = 857BASEMENT FFE = 847POTENTIAL HOUSE PAD(FINAL DESIGN TBD)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE845846847849850851852853854855856855854853852849848847848850851844843 844
845
846OVERLOOK TRAILOVERLOOK TRAIL
8
4
5 8508558
4
2
843
844846 8478488498518528538548
4
5
8
5
0 85584
6
8
4
7
8
4
8
8
4
9
851
8
5
2
8
5
3 854856RETAININGWALL30' WIDE DRIVEWAY
PLOTTED:COMM. NO.DRAWING NO.----16486OLYMPIC HILLS8TH ADDITION13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCDRAWING TITLECHECKED BY:DRAWN:DESIGNED:GRJJPDJPDJUNE 20, 2022REVISION LOGDESCRIPTION OF REVISIONSNO.DATEOVERLOOK TRAILEDEN PRAIRIE, MNOLYMPIC HILLSPRELIMINARY PLAT/PUDAMENDMENTGARY R. JOHNSON, PE42010PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.6/20/2022NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION17/22/22REVISED PER CITY COMMENTSEROSIONCONTROL PLANC002N010'20'LEGENDPROPERTY LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOURPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONDRAINAGE ARROWPROPOSED RETAINING WALLPROPOSED CONCRETE C&GSILT FENCEINLET SEDIMENT PROTECTIONEROSION CONTROL BLANKET966965966965KEY NOTES1INSTALL & MAINTAIN SILT FENCE PERIMETER SEDIMENTPROTECTION IN TURF AREAS. USE BIO-ROLLS AS NEEDED INPAVED AREAS FOR PHASING PURPOSES.INSTALL AND MAINTAIN INLET SEDIMENT PROTECTION.AREAS WITH SLOPES 4:1 OR STEEPER TO HAVE EROSIONCONTROL BLANKET & SEED INSTALLED. EROSION CONTROLBLANKET TO BE " NATURAL NET" CATEGORY 3N PER MNDOTSPEC 3885.23GRADING & DRAINAGE NOTES1.NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY AND SOIL CONDITIONS MUST BEPROTECTED, INCLUDING RETENTION ONSITE OF NATIVE TOPSOILTO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.2.ADDITIONAL MEASURES, SUCH AS HYDRAULIC MULCHING ANDOTHER PRACTICES AS SPECIFIED BY THE DISTRICT MUST BE USEDON SLOPES OF 3:1 (H:V) OR STEEPER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATESTABILIZATION.3.ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS MUSTBE REMOVED UPON FINAL STABILIZATION.4.ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 7 CALENDARDAYS AFTER LAND-DISTURBING WORK HAS TEMPORARILY ORPERMANENTLY CEASED.5.THE PERMITTEE MUST, AT A MINIMUM, INSPECT, MAINTAIN ANDREPAIR ALL DISTURBED SURFACES AND ALL EROSION ANDSEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND SOIL STABILIZATIONMEASURES EVERY DAY WORK IS PERFORMED ON THE SITE AND ATLEAST WEEKLY UNTIL LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY HAS CEASED.THEREAFTER, THE PERMITTEE MUST PERFORM THESERESPONSIBILITIES AT LEAST WEEKLY UNTIL VEGETATIVE COVER ISESTABLISHED. THE PERMITEE WILL MAINTAIN A LOG OF ACTIVITIESUNDER THIS SECTION FOR INSPECTION BY THE DISTRICT ONREQUEST.6.A MINIMUM OF 1 CONSTRUCTION ROCK ENTRANCE IS TO BE USEDAND PLACED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR. ROCKENTRANCE MAY BE INSTALLED ON TOP OF EXISTING BITUMINOUSPAVEMENT.7.EROSION CONTROL THROUGHOUT THE JOB-SITE TO BE INSTALLED& MAINTAINED DURING THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.1111" (25 mm) REBARFOR BAG REMOVALFROM INLETEXPANSION RESTRAINT[1/4" (6 mm) NYLONROPE, 2" (51 mm) FLATWASHERS]2 EACH DUMPSTRAPSDUMP STRAPSILT SACK1INLET PROTECTION SEDIMENT FILTER SACKNTSFOLD UNDER 6"6" WIRE STAPLES 3'OC USING DIAMONDPATTERN6" WIRE STAPLES 1'SPACING ON UPPEREND4" OVERLAP OF MATS6" WIRESTAPLES 1'SPACING ONLOWER END3' MIN LEVEL2FIBER MULCH BLANKETNTS2EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA333
STAFF REPORT:
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ben Schneider, Planner I
DATE: August 8, 2022
SUBJECT: Code Amendment –Exterior Building Materials
REQUEST: Recommendation for Zoning Code Amendment related to Exterior Building
Materials
BACKGROUND:
City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 3 (K) establishes the City’s architectural standards. This section
was most recently amended in 2016 in conjunction with the Council’s approval of the City’s
Design Guidelines.
Staff is proposing a housekeeping amendment to the Code’s Architectural Standards Section to
clarify provisions related to fiber cement usage, painted brick, and class I material usage on single-
story buildings.
CODE AMENDMENT:
Attached to this report is a redline of the proposed changes to the Code’s Architectural Standards
Section. Below is a summary of the changes:
1. Fiber Cement Usage. The code amendment in 2016 added fiber cement as a Class I
material in the RM-2.5 district. This code amendment clarifies that all multi-family
dwellings in the all Commercial, Transit-Oriented Development, and Town Center
districts may use fiber cement as a Class I material. The proposed amendment also adds
Fiber Cement Siding
Fiber Cement Panel
language stating that fiber cement may not be the most predominant material on a façade,
even in such instances where it can be characterized as a Class I material. This aligns
with the City’s existing Design Guidelines, which encourage a mix of Class I materials.
Adding this provision will increase efficiency for developers and architects by better
communicating this expectation at the beginning of the land development process.
2. Painted brick. This section of code currently prohibits painted brick. This provision was
added during the 2016 amendment due to potential concerns of the performance and
maintenance of painted brick. Staff has since determined that these are not major
concerns. The draft amendment removes language that prohibits painted brick.
3. Single-story buildings. Subsection 3(a)(iv) of the Code’s Architectural Standards
currently states: “In the Commercial (C), Office, TC, TOD, and PUB districts, only Class
1 materials shall be used in the ground level of the building.” A similar provision is
included in the Industrial District subsection. This could be confusing to owners of single
story buildings. The attached draft language clarifies that this requirement only applies to
the “base” of multi-story buildings and adds a reference to the Design Guidelines, which
includes a visualization of what is meant by the “base,” “middle,” and “top” of a multi-
story building. Note that single-story buildings would still be subject to the general
requirement of having at least 75% Class I materials on each façade.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission move to recommend to the City Council that City Code
Section 11.03, Subd. 3 (K) be amended as represented in the August 8, 2022 staff report and the
attached draft language.
Created: 2021-11-15 12:42:13 [EST]
(Supp. No. 3)
Page 1 of 4
K. Architectural Standards. All structures within all districts, except Rural, R1-44, R1-22, R1-13.5, R1-9.5, RM-
6.5, and Park and Open Space, shall be developed in accordance with the following design standards:
(Source: Ordinance No. 17-2017, 9-28-2017; Ordinance No. 25-2016, 10-27-2016)
1. Purpose. By adoption of Architectural Standards, the City intends to promote high quality development
through aesthetics and functionality. This section applies to all building facades and exterior walls that
are or planned to be visible to neighboring properties or the public. The standards are intended to
encourage creativity and diversity of design and construction so that structures a) endure over time; b)
provide visual enhancement to the City; c) use environmentally sustainable materials a nd patterns; and
d) incorporate design characteristics that enhance the site at the human scale. The City's Design
Guidelines provide further reference to the intent of the Architectural Standards.
(Source: Ordinance No. 29-2016, 12-15-2016)
2. Architectural plans shall be prepared by a registered architect and include:
(1) Elevations of all sides of the building;
(2) Type and color of exterior building materials;
(3) A typical floor plan and dimensions of all structures;
(4) Location of trash containers, heating, air conditioning and ventilation systems;
(5) Proposed screening of trash containers, heating, air conditioning and ventilation systems.
(Source: City Code, 9-17-1982)
3. Exterior Building Materials.
(Source: Ordinance No. 29-2016, 12-15-2016)
(a) In Districts N-Com, C-Com, C-Reg, C-Reg-Ser, C-Hwy, Ofc, Pub, A-C, A-OFC, TC-C, TC-R, TC-MU,
and RM-2.5, TOD-R, TOD-E, TOD-MU, and GC a minimum of seventy-five percent, (75%), of each
façade of the exterior building finish shall consist of at least three (3) contrasting, yet
complementary materials, with at least one (1) color variation therein, materials comparable in
grade and quality to the following Class I1 materials:
(1) Face brick;
(2) Natural stone;
(3) Glass;
(4) Cast Stone;
(5) Cultured Stone;
(6) Architectural Precast;
(7) Precast Concrete Panel with an exposed aggregate of granite, marble, limestone, or other
natural stone material with at least two architectural reveals per panel; and
(8) Fiber Cement is allowed as a Class I material only in multi-family buildings in the RM-2.5,
Town Center, Commercial, and Transit Oriented Development districts that allow multiple
family dwellings as a permitted use. In such instances, fiber cement shall not be the most
predominant building material used on a façade; and
Created: 2021-11-15 12:42:13 [EST]
(Supp. No. 3)
Page 2 of 4
(89) Other materials equal to or better than these listed above, submitted with specifications
for installation and maintenance per industry standard and as approved by the City
Planner. Fiber Cement Siding is allowed as a Class I material in the RM-2.5 district only.
i. Fewer than three (3) materials may be used if three (3) or more color variations
are included in those materials.
ii. Use of brick, natural stone and glass may be considered as one of several
grounds upon which the City Council may grant waivers from Exterior Building
requirements through the PUD process.
iii. Thin brick may be used in place of full brick only when it is integrally cast or
connected to the substrate with mortar or grout, and not applied post -casting.
Painted brick is prohibited. Thin brick is excluded from the waiver opportunity
in Section 3(a)ii.
iv. In the Commercial (C), OFCOffice, TC, TOD, and PUB districts, only Class 1I
materials shall be used on the base in the ground level of the multi-story
buildings, as visualized in the City’s Design Guidelines.
(b) In Districts I-2, I-5, and I-Gen, a minimum of seventy-five percent, (75%), of each façade of the
exterior building finish shall consist of at least two (2) contrasting, yet complementary materials,
with at least one (1) color variation therein, comparable in grade and quality to the following
Class I materials:
(1) Face brick;
(2) Natural stone;
(3) Glass;
(4) Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with
an applied decorative material or texture and smooth concrete block if scored at least
twice;
(5) Rock face;
(6) Cast Stone;
(7) Cultured Stone;
(8) Architectural Precast;
(9) Precast Concrete Panel with an exposed aggregate of granite, marble, limestone, or other
natural stone material with at least two (2) architectural reveals per panel; and
(10) Other materials equal to or better than these listed above, submitted with specifications
for installation and maintenance per industry standard and as approved by the City
Planner.
i. If glass is included as one (1) of the two (2) materials, the other material is
required to have no less than two (2) distinct color variations.
ii. Use of brick, natural stone and glass may be considered as one of several
grounds upon which the City Council may grant waivers from Exterior Building
requirements through the PUD process.
Created: 2021-11-15 12:42:13 [EST]
(Supp. No. 3)
Page 3 of 4
iii. Thin brick may be used in place of full brick only when it is integrally cast or
connected to the substrate with mortar or grout, and not applied post-casting.
Painted brick is prohibited. Thin brick is excluded from the waiver opportunity
in section 3(b)ii.
iv. In the Industrial (I) districts, only Class I1 materials shall be used in the ground
levelon the base of the multi-story buildings, as visualized in the City’s Design
Guidelines.
(c) In all districts except Rural, R1-44, R1-22, R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and RM-6.5, a maximum of twenty-five
percent (25%) of each façade of the exterior building finish other materials including but not
limited to may include the following: the following Class II materials: wood, stucco, vinyl, metal,
plastic, External Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) or a combination of all these materials or
materials equal to or better than these listed above, submitted with specifications for installation
and maintenance per industry standards and as approved by the City Planner, shall not comprise
more than twenty-five percent, (25%), of each façade of a building's exterior finish. Vinyl, plastic,
wood or a combination thereof, shall only be permitted as trim or edging material.
(1) Stucco;
(2) Metal;
(3) External Insulation and Finish System (EIFS)
(4) Wood as trim or edging material only;
(5) Plastic as trim or edging material only;
(6) Vinyl as tirm or edging material only; and
(7) Other materials equal to or better than these listed above submitted with specifications for
installation and maintenance per industry standards and as approved by the City Planner.
4. Building Articulation. In addition to the materials requirements as listed in this section, architectural
design elements will be required in the review of building and site plans.
(a) Façade Articulation. Any building façade exceeding forty (40) feet (80 feet in I-2, I-5, I-Gen) in
length shall be designed with recesses or projections of a minimum of four (4) inches in depth in
the building façade, material changes, or other methods of building articulation that break down
the perceived scale of the building or create visual interest. Rear yard dock walls shall be exempt
from this provision.
(b) Distinct Ground Level(s). The ground level of any three-story structure (or a structure over thirty-
two (32) feet in height) shall be visually distinct from the upper stories. The first two stories of
structures four (4) stories and taller shall be visually distinct from the upper stories. The
distinction shall be articulated by at least one (1) of the following: an intermediate cornice line;
an awning arcade or portico; a change in building materials, texture or detailing; a change in
window shape or treatment; or other elements which meet the objective.
(c) Façade Transparency. In districts N-Com and C-Com fifty percent (50%) of the first floor façade
that is viewed by the public shall be designed to include windows and/or doors to minimize
expanses of blank walls. Windows shall be designed to allow transparency between the interior
of the building and exterior environment. If the building is a one-story design and the first floor
elevation exceeds twelve (12) feet, then only the first twelve (12) feet in building height shall be
included in calculating the façade area. The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the first floor façade
that is viewed by the public shall be designed to include any or all of the following: landscape
Created: 2021-11-15 12:42:13 [EST]
(Supp. No. 3)
Page 4 of 4
materials (plant material, vertical trellis with vines, planter boxes, etc.); and/or architectural
detailing and articulation that provides texture on the façade and/or parking structure openings.
Buildings located more than one hundred fifty (150) feet from a public right-of-way shall be
exempt from these requirements. Facades that provide interior storage areas are also exempt
from these requirements.
(d) Building Entrances. Primary building entrances shall be clearly defined and highly visible utilizing
design features such as protruding or recessed entryways, awnings, canopies, pillars, unique
building materials, exterior lighting, and/or architectural details.
(e) Roofline Variation. Rooflines add visual interest to the streetscape, reduce the mass of the
structure, and create continuity between structures. Roofline variation shall be achieved using
one (1) or more of the following methods:
i. Vertical off-set of parapet, cap, or cornice line;
ii. Horizontal off-set of parapet, cap or cornice line;
iii. Variations of roof pitch;
iv. Gables, dormers, hips, sheds. Vaults or other similar roof forms; or
v. Any other technique approved by the City that achieves the intent of this section.
5. In all districts except Rural, R1-44, R1-22, R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and RM-6.5, wood stucco, vinyl, metal,
plastic or a combination of all these materials, shall not comprise more than twenty -five percent, (25%),
of a building's exterior finish.
(Source: Ordinance No. 9-87, 5-7-1987; Ordinance No. 72-84, 4-5-1984)
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sarah Strain, Planner II
DATE: August 8, 2022
SUBJECT: City Code Chapter 11 Sign Code Amendments
BACKGROUND
In December 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed a code amendment to Chapter 11 relating
to the sign code. This code amendment focused on making the sign code content neutral,
removing all content references to sign regulations, and general housekeeping items.
Inadvertently in this amendment process, the City’s regulations regarding directional signs were
removed due to the content-based definitions and regulations but were never replaced.
This proposed amendment seeks to reinstate the lost sign allowances through content neutral
regulations while providing additional clarification.
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE
The previous definition for directional signs was: “Directional Sign means a sign which is
erected on private property by the owner of such property for the purpose of guiding vehicular
and pedestrian traffic. Such signs bear no advertising information.” Directional signs were
limited to six (6) square feet and did not require a sign permit. The intention of this type of sign
was to provide supplemental information and directions to vehicular and pedestrian traffic onsite
as opposed to guiding off site traffic onto the site or serving as a location marker.
By the very name, directional signs are content based. To permit additional signage onsite in a
content neutral manner, staff is proposing the allowance of incidental signs with the following
definition: “Incidental Sign: An onsite, freestanding sign that is supplemental to the principal use
of the site and is orientated for viewing by vehicular and pedestrians onsite.”
To reinstate these Code allowances, the proposed amendment will allow incidental signs in all
zoning districts except Rural and R-1 zoning districts. Incidental signs will not require a sign
permit.
To provide additional clarification, staff proposes the following dimensional standards: “Incidental
signs shall be no larger than six (6) square feet with a sign base of no more than three (3) square
feet. The maximum height for an incidental sign is six (6) feet.”
Additionally, the following housekeeping amendment is proposed for clarity:
Subd. 4.E: “Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, all non-commercial signs of any
size may be posted forty-six (46) days before the state primary in a state general election year
until ten (10) days following the state general election in any general election year and thirteen
(13) weeks prior to any special election until ten (10) days following the special election.”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the above amendments to City Code.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
From: Patrick Sejkora, Water Resources Engineer
Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator
Date: August 3, 2022
Re: Code Change: Section 11.55 – Land Alteration, Tree Preservation and Stormwater
Management Regulations.
BACKGROUND
Eden Prairie adopted the land alteration, tree preservation and stormwater management section
of code (City Code Section 11.55) on February 16, 2006. This was, in part, in response to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (in 1999) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(in 2005) regulating stormwater discharges in small, urbanized areas like Eden Prairie. The City
applied for its first National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Stormwater Permit (Permit) in 2005. Over the
years, the Permit has been amended to impose new requirements on MS4s. This necessitates
occasional changes in City Code to ensure compliance with Permit requirements.
PROPOSED CODE CHANGES
The proposed revision is in response to the most recent (2020) Permit. Some of the new
provisions include:
• Clarifying that permanent stormwater management also applies to fully reconstructed
impervious surfaces;
• Imposing stormwater management requirements for linear projects (like new or expanded
roads);
• Further delineating infiltration requirements and prohibitions; and
• Providing options and guidelines for off-site stormwater treatment.
Many of these changes have been already in practice in the City as part of the MPCA’s 2018
Construction Stormwater Permit. Staff is also proposing several modifications to make Section
11.55 more user-friendly and to better reflect the format of the Permit. It will be more apparent
that the Permit’s provisions are reflected in City Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission move to recommend to the City Council that City Code be
amended as outlined in the attached ordinance to meet the standards of the Permit.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 1 of 21
SECTION 11.55 LAND ALTERATION, TREE PRESERVATION AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
REGULATIONS.
(Source: Ordinance No. 28-2016, 11-24-2016; Ordinance No. 7-2015, 6-25-2015; Ordinance No. 2-2006, 2-16-2006)
Subd. 1. Declaration of Policy and Purpose.
A. Land Alterations are inherently accompanied by noise and dust, may create hazardous conditions and may
result in lasting disfigurement of the places where they are carried on and thus may affect existing land uses
in nearby areas, discourage further permanent development of the surrounding properties, impair adequate
planning or municipal development, and diminish public health, safety, and general welfare. It is, therefore,
desirable to regulate Land Alterations in the City.
B. Tree removal, damage, and destruction tends to endanger the natural character of the land from which the
trees have been removed and surrounding lands, and to diminish and impair the public health, safety and
general welfare. The Council desires to protect the integrity of the natural environment and finds that trees
do so by providing for better air quality, scenic beauty, protection against wind and water erosion, and
natural insulation for energy preservation. Further, the Council finds that trees protect privacy and provide
enhancement of property values. It is, therefore, the further purpose of this section to provide regulations
relating to the cutting, removal or killing of trees, with the consequent damage and destruction of the
wooded and forested areas of the City, to promote the orderly development of such areas and thereby
minimize public and private losses; to insure maintenance of the natural vegetation and topography; to
encourage protection and preservation of the natural environment and beauty of the City; to encourage a
resourceful and prudent approach to urban development of wooded areas which provides for minimal tree
loss and mitigation of tree removal resulting from development; to provide an objective method to evaluate
a development's impact on trees and wooded areas and identify whether and how the impact may be
reduced; to provide incentive for creative land use and good site design which preserves trees while allowing
development in wooded areas with mitigation of tree removal and destruction; and to provide fo r
enforcement and administration thereby promoting and protecting the public health, safety and welfare.
C. The Council seeks to promote, preserve and enhance the natural resources within the City and protect them
from adverse effects of stormwater runoff by providing site design standards that minimize stormwater
runoff to meet the requirements of appropriate regulatory agencies.
Subd. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms, phrases, and words shall have the
meanings stated below.
Applicant means a person submitting an application for a Permit.
Best Management Practices or BMPs (defined under Minnesota Rules 4001.1020, subp. 5) are practices to prevent
or reduce the pollution of the waters of the state, including schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, and
other management practices, and also includes treatment requirements, operation procedures and practices to
control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge, or waste disposal or drainage from raw material storage. BMPs
are effective and practicable means of controlling, preventing, and minimizing degradation of surface water from
Stormwater runoff.
Building Permit is a Permit issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 326, the State Building Code.
Caliper Inches means the length, in inches, of a straight line measured through the Tree Trunk of a certified nursery
raised tree at twelve (12) inches above the ground.
Canopy of a Tree means the horizontal extension of a tree's branches in all directions f rom the Tree Trunk.
Certified Contractor means an individual who has received training and is licensed by the State of Minnesota to
inspect and maintain erosion control practices.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 2 of 21
Construction Activity means a disturbance to the land that results in a change to the topography or existing soil
cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) that may result in accelerated stormwater runoff. Examples of
Construction Activity may include clearing, grading, filling and excavation.
Control Measure means the practice or combination of practices to control Erosion, Sedimentation and Pollution.
Detention Basin is a natural or man-made structure, facility or basin for the temporary storage of Stormwater to
allow settling of Pollutants while delaying Discharge of water so that water slowly empties from the area, including
but not limited to, wetlands, dry ponds, Vegetated Swales, Infiltration trenches and Infiltration basins.
Development Plan means a contiguous area that includes a common plan of development or sale whe re multiple
separate and distinct land disturbing activities, including New Development or Redevelopment, may be taking
place at different times, or different schedules, but under one (1) proposed plan. One (1) Development Plan is
broadly defined to include design, Permit application, advertisement or physical demarcation indicating that land -
disturbing activities may occur.
Diameter, wherever this term is used in reference to the measurement of a tree it shall mean a Tree Trunk as
measured four and one-half (4½) feet above the ground.
Discharge means the conveyance, channeling, runoff, or drainage of Stormwater or any substance which enters a
Stormwater Facility.
DNR Catchment Area means the Hydrologic Unit 08 drainage areas that drain to a river, stream or lake as
delineated and digitized by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Watershed Delineation Project.
The mapping information for the DNR Catchment Areas is available at the DNR Data Deli web site
(deli.dnr.state.mn.us).
Drip Line of a Tree means an imaginary vertical line which extends from the outermost branches of the Canopy of a
Tree to the ground.
Erosion means any process that wears away the surface of the land by the action of water, wind, ice or gravity.
Erosion Control Systems methods, measures or systems employed to prevent soil Erosion.
Filtration means the process by which Pollutants are removed through filtering and settling of stormwater runoff,
biological and microbiological uptake, and/or soil adsorption. Filtering practices include media filters (surface,
underground, perimeter), vegetative filters (filter strips, grass channels), and combination media/vegetative filters
(dry swales).
Final Stabilization means all Land Alteration has been completed and a uniform perennial vegetative cover with a
density of seventy (70) percent of the cover for unpaved areas and areas not covered by permanent structures has
been established on the land or equivalent permanent cover or stabilization measures have been employed as
approved by the City. Sowing grass seed or an annual cover crop is not considered Final Stabilization.
Green Infrastructure means a wide array of practices at multiple scales that manage wet weather and maintains or
restores natural hydrology by infiltrating, evapotranspiring, or harvesting and using stormwater. On a regional
scale, green infrastructure is the preservation or restoration of natural landscape features, such as forests,
floodplains and wetlands, coupled with policies such as infill and redevelopme nt that reduce overall
imperviousness in a watershed. On a local scale, green infrastructure consists of site and neighborhood -specific
practices, such as bioretention, trees, green roofs, permeable pavements and cisterns.
Heritage Tree means any living deciduous tree (except cottonwood, elm, willow, box elder and aspen) measuring
thirty-two (32) inches in Diameter or greater, or a living coniferous tree measuring twenty -four (24) inches in
Diameter or greater.
(Source: Ordinance No. 28-2016, 11-24-2016)
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 3 of 21
Impervious Surface means a constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into
the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than
prior to installation of the hard surface. Examples include rooftops, sidewalks, patios, driveways, parking
lots, and concrete, asphalt, or gravel roads.
Infiltration is the capture and temporary storage of water to allow passage or movement of the water into the soil
through the use of techniques such as Infiltration basins, Infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, underground
Infiltration systems, or natural or enhanced swales.
Land shall mean and include an entire Lot (as defined in Section 11.02 of the City Code) on or within the
boundaries of which Land Alteration has occurred, or is to occur.
Land Alteration means any land disturbing activity, including: excavating, grading, digging, cutting, scraping,
clearing; removal of trees, filling or other change or movement of earth which may result in diversion of a man-
made or natural water course or Erosion of Sediments.
Land Alteration Permit means a Permit to allow Land Alteration. This would include Grading and Filling Permit
referenced in Section 11.50 Subdivision 11.
Maximum Extent Practicable or MEP means the statutory standard (33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii)) that establishes the
level of Pollutant reductions that the Permittee must achieve. Determination of the appropriate BMPs required to
satisfy the Land Alteration Permit requirements to the MEP will be completed by the City Engineer.
New Development means all Construction Activity that is not defined as Redevelopment.
NPDES means the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System as established pursuant to 33 USC § 1342 (b) to
regulate Discharges of Pollutants to waters of the United States.
NPDES Permit means a NPDES stormwater discharge permit that is issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) to regulate Discharges of Pollutants to waters of the United States, whether the permit is
applicable on an individual, group or general area-wide basis.
Owner means any person having a sufficient proprietary interest in the land for which a permit is or may be issued
under this section.
Permit means a Land Alteration Permit or a Building Permit.
Permittee means the holder of a Permit pursuant to this section.
Pollutant means: (i) toxic or hazardous substances, wastes, or contaminants (including, without limitation,
asbestos, urea formaldehyde, the group of organic compounds known as polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum
products including gasoline, fuel oil, crude oil and various constituents of such products, and any hazardous
substance as defined in Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §9601-9657, as amended); (ii) substances that would require a permit for their Discharge
into any water source or system or the air under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S. C. §1251 et Seq.,
or the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et Seq.; (iii) hazardous substances, Pollutants or contaminates defined in
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115B; (iv) litter, yard waste, garbage, liquid and solid wastes, fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides, paints, solvents, automotive fluids, wastes and residues that result from constructing a building or
structure, and (iv) any other similar state law or ordinance. A Pollutant of Concern is a Pollutant specifically
identified in a USEPA-approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report as causing a water quality impairment.
Redevelopment means any Construction Activity where, prior to start of construction, the areas to be disturbed
have fifteen (15%) or more of impervious surface(s).
Retention Basin means a retention basin is a temporary or permanent natural or man -made structure, facility or
basin that provides for storage of Stormwater where water is allowed to empty through evapotranspiration,
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 4 of 21
Infiltration, Filtration or evaporation, including but not limited to wet, dry or National Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) ponds.
Root Zone means the area under a tree which is at and within the Drip Line of a Canopy of a Tree.
Saturated Soil means the highest seasonal elevation in the soil that is in a reduced chemical state because of soil
voids being filled with water. Saturated soil is evidenced by the presence of redoximorphic features or other
information.
Sediment means the product of an Erosion process, including solid matter both mineral and organic, that is in
suspension, is being transported, or has been moved by water, air, gravity or ice and has come to rest on the
earth's surface either above or below the normal water level.
Sedimentation means the process or action of depositing Sediment.
Significant Tree means any living deciduous tree (except elm, willow, box elder and aspen) measuring at least
twelve (12) and less than thirty-two (32) inches in Diameter, or a living coniferous tree measuring at least eight (8)
and less than twenty-four (24) inches in Diameter.
(Source: Ordinance No. 28-2016, 11-24-2016)
Site means the area of Land within which Land Alteration occurs or is to occur.
Stormwater means any form of natural precipitation which causes water to runoff or flow from one (1) place to
another and includes Stormwater runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.
Stormwater Facility means a stationary and permanent Stormwater BMP designed, constructed and operated to
prevent or reduce the Discharge of Pollutants in Stormwater as well as structures built to collect, convey, or store
Stormwater, including but not limited to, inlets, pipes, storm drains, pumping facilities, Retent ion Basins,
Detention Basins, drainage channels, reservoirs, and other drainage structures.
Stormwater Management means the use of structural or non-structural practices that are designed to reduce the
movement of Stormwater, including Stormwater Discharge volumes, and peak flow Discharge rates.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) means a plan described in Subdivision 8.E of this section. A SWPPP
also refers to that SWPPP required by the MPCA under the NPDES Permit program to manage and reduce th e
Discharge of Pollutants in Stormwater.
Tree Trunk means the stem portion of a tree from the ground to the first branch thereof.
Vegetated Swales means a vegetated earthen channel that conveys Stormwater while treating the Stormwater
with biofiltration. Such swales may be designed to pretreat surface runoff by removing Pollutants through
Filtration and Infiltration.
WMZ (Wellhead Management Zone) is the area within a 50-foot radius from any municipal well.
Subd. 3. Permit Requirements and Exemptions.
A. Permit Required. Except as hereafter provided, it is unlawful for any person to use Land for, or to engage
directly or indirectly in, Land Alteration unless such person shall first have applied to and obtained from the
City, in the manner hereinafter provided, a Permit authorizing the same.
B. Single Family Dwelling. At a minimum, a person engaging in Land Alteration in connection with construction
of a Single Family Dwelling must obtain a Building Permit from the City. In addition, a Land Alteration Permit
may be required if the City Engineer or his/her designee determines that site conditions require a Permit or if
a Land Alteration Permit is required in other Sections of the City Code. The Permittee who conducts Land
Alterations pursuant to a Building Permit shall be required to comply with Subdivisions 5, and 7 of this
section. Failure to comply with Subdivisions 5 and 7 of this section if applicable, will subject the Permittee to
the provisions of Subdivision 7.J of this section. The application for the Building Permit shall include a
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 5 of 21
Certificate of Survey, including a map of the Erosion Control Measures which will be provided, and must be
pre-approved in writing by the City. Single Family Dwelling construction includes construction of a single
family dwelling, garage, pool, addition, driveway or deck.
(Source: Ordinance No. 28-2016, 11-24-2016)
C. General Exemptions. The following Land Alterations are exempt from the requirements for a Permit:
1. Any Land Alteration occurring pursuant to a Land Alteration or Building Permit which was approved by
the City prior to April 21, 2015 and which has not expired.
2. Movement of less than one hundred (100) cubic yards of earth.
3. For all lots except residential lots, the cutting, removal or killing of less than ten percent (10%) of the
Significant Trees on any Land within a period of five (5) years. For residential lots, the cutting, removal
or killing of less than ten percent (10%) of the Significant Trees or one (1) Significant Tree, whichever is
greater, on any land within a period of five (5) years.
4. Any destruction or disruption of vegetation covering an area equal to or less than ten percent (10 %) of
any Land.
5. Installation of a fence, sign, telephone or electric poles and other posts or poles which result in less
than one thousand (1,000) square feet of exposed soil.
6. Home gardens, turf or an individual's home landscaping, installation, repairs and/or maintenance work.
7. Retaining walls less than four (4) feet in height and twenty-five (25) feet in length that are constructed
in a manner which does not change the existing Stormwater Drainage. This would include a single or
tiered retaining wall system.
8. Existing agricultural, horticultural or silvicultural operations.
9. Opening and closing graves.
10. Emergency work to prevent or alleviate immediate dangers to life, limb, property or natural resources.
In such an event, if a Permit had been required but for the emergency, the obligations of this section
shall apply and shall be performed at the earliest reasonable time thereafter.
11. Excavations for tunnels, wells, utilities, trails, sidewalks, roads or other public work projects wh ich are
undertaken by the City, unless the disturbance meets the criteria established in Subdivision 6 of this
section.
D. Other Requirements. Neither this section nor any administrative decision made under it exempts a person
from other requirements of this Code, from procuring permits required by other agencies (including but not
limited to the Watershed District, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or the U.S. Army Corps of Engi neers (USACE) or from
complying with the requirements and conditions of such permits. A copy of any permits related to Wetlands,
Land Alteration or Stormwater received from another federal, state or local authority must be provided to
the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Permit from the City.
Subd. 4. Tree Replacement Plan Requirements.
A. Application.
(Source: Ordinance No. 28-2016, 11-24-2016)
1. A Land Alteration Permit or Building Permit shall be further subject to and conditioned upon
compliance by the Permittee with all provisions of this Subdivision 4, if such Permit is issued in
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 6 of 21
connection with (1) a final plat application, (2) a Subdivision application resulting in the creation of one
(1) or more new development parcels, (3) a PUD or (4) a site plan review.
2. In the event paragraph 1 above does not apply, a Land Alteration Permit or Building Permit shall be
subject to the tree replacement requirements in (a) and (b) below if such Permit includes the removal
of a Significant Tree or Heritage Tree as part of the redevelopment of a lot previously platted and
developed.
a. A Significant Tree must be replaced with one (1) tree, subject to the conditions on location, size,
timing, health and source outlined below.
b. A Heritage Tree shall not be removed without the written consent from the City Manager. The
City Manager may condition such consent on replacement of the tree as determined by City staff
subject to the requirements on location, size, timing, health and source of trees as set forth
below.
3. General Exemptions. The following are exempt from the Tree Replacement Requirements of this
Subdivision 4:
a. For all lots except residential lots, the cutting, removal or killing of less than ten percent (10%) of
the Significant Trees and Heritage Trees on any Land within a period of five (5) years.
b. For residential lots the cutting, removal or killing of less than ten percent (10%) of the Significant
Trees and Heritage Trees or the cutting, removal or killing of one (1) Significant Tree or Heritage
Tree, whichever is greater, on any land within a period of five (5) years.
c. Single Family lots which are less than twenty-two thousand (22,000) square feet in size.
d. Property within the TOD and TC zoning districts.
e. The cutting of trees planted and grown by the owner or owner's predecessor on real estate
which on April 17, 1990 was classified as Class 2b property according to Minnesota Statsutes,
1989 Supplement, Section 273.13, Subdivision 23(b) because it was as of such date real estate,
rural in character, and used exclusively for growing trees for timber, lumber, wood and wood
products as described in clause (1) of said Subdivision 23(b).
4. The requirements of this Subdivision 4 shall be in addition to the requirements in City Code Section
11.03 relating to landscaping. If any of the requirements of this Subdivision 4 apply, a Tree
Replacement Plan shall be submitted to the City in accordance with this subdivision. The Tree
Replacement Plan may be combined with the landscaping plan required by City Code Section 11.03;
provided that if the plans are combined, the combined plan shall identify which trees ar e replacement
trees.
B. Tree Inventory. A Tree Inventory certified by a registered land surveyor, landscape architect or forester must
be provided to the City Forester. The Tree Inventory must depict the following:
1. The size, species, condition and location on the Site of all Heritage Trees and Significant Trees. On large
wooded areas, forest mensuration methods may be used to determine the total Diameter inches of
trees outside the area of the proposed Land Alteration.
(Source: Ordinance No. 28-2016, 11-24-2016)
2. A list of Heritage Trees and Significant Trees which will be lost due to the proposed Land Alteration.
Heritage Trees and Significant Trees shall be considered lost as a result of:
a. Grade change or Land Alteration, whether temporary or permanent, of greater than one (1) foot
measured vertically, affecting forty percent (40%) (as measured on a horizontal plane) or more of
the tree's Root Zone;
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 7 of 21
b. Utility construction (i.e., sewer, water, storm sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV)
resulting in the cutting of forty percent (40%) or more of the tree's roots within the Root Zone;
c. Mechanical injury to the Tree Trunk of a Heritage or Significant Tree causing loss of more than
forty percent (40%) of the bark at any given Diameter location along the trunk; or,
d. Compaction to a depth of six (6) inches or more of forty percent (40%) or more of the surface of
the soil within a Heritage or Significant Tree's Root Zone.
3. The number, type and size of trees required to be replaced pursuant to this section.
4. The location of the replacement trees.
C. Tree Replacement Requirements. The Permittee shall replace Heritage Trees and Significant Trees lost or
reasonably anticipated to be lost as a result of Construction Activity or Land Alteration immediately upon the
occurrence of a loss, whether the loss occurs during Construction Activity, Land Alteration or thereafter, by
the Permittee, his agent, or successor in interest by planting that number of trees (Replacement Trees)
determined in accordance with the following criteria:
(Source: Ordinance No. 28-2016, 11-24-2016)
1. Replacement.
Significant Tree replacement formula:
A = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees Lost as a Result of the Land Alteration
B = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees Situated on the Land
C = Tree Replacement Constant (0.5)
D = Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches)
[(A/B) x C] x A = D
EXAMPLE
A = 337
B = 943
C = 0.5
D = 60
[(337/943) x 0.5] x 337 = 60
Heritage trees that are lost or damaged are to be replaced at a ratio of 2:1, replaced caliper inches to
lost or damaged Diameter-inch. Heritage Tree replacement must include a minimum of twenty percent
(20%) replacement trees equal to or greater than four (4) caliper inches. In the case one (1) or more
Heritage trees are saved, the amount of Diameter-inches of said saved Heritage tree(s) may be
subtracted from the replacement required by Subdivision C.1 of this subdivision, provided however in
no event shall the amount subtracted exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Replacement Trees (Number of
Caliper Inches) as determined by the formula in Subdivision C.1. The not to exceed fifty percent (50%)
limitation shall apply to applications deemed to be complete on or after March 7, 2017.
(Source: Ordinance No. 5-2017, 3-30-2017)
2. Payment.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 8 of 21
Alternatively, if the Permittee demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Manager. that it is not
practical or reasonable to plant all or some of the required replacement tree s on the Land, the
Permittee may request approval to make cash payment to the City to be used for planting of trees and
natural enhancements to the land within the City. Cash payments shall be calculated as set forth in the
adopted fee schedule at the time of issuance of the Land Alteration Permit.
The trees required to be replaced pursuant to this section shall be in addition to any other trees
required to be planted pursuant to any other provision of the Code. A Financial Security is required as
described in Subdivision 12 of this section.
D. Location of Replacement Trees. Replacement Trees shall be planted in one (1) or more of the following areas
on the Land:
1. Restoration areas including steep slopes.
2. Outlots or common areas.
3. Buffer zones between different land uses and/or activities.
4. Project entrance areas.
5. Wetland Buffer Areas.
6. Stormwater BMPs designed according to Subdivision 6.
7. Any other part of the Land except areas dedicated or conveyed to the City, unless the City conse nts in
writing.
E. Sizes and Types of Replacement Trees. Replacement Trees must be no less than the following sizes:
1. Deciduous trees - no less than two and one-half (2½) Caliper Inches.
2. Coniferous trees - no less than six (6) feet high.
(Source: Ordinance No. 28-2016, 11-24-2016)
On steep slopes (i.e., greater than 3:1) deciduous trees may be two (2) Caliper Inches and coniferous
trees may be six (6) feet in height.
Replacement Trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost and shall be pre-approved in
writing by the City.
F. Time to Perform. Replacement trees shall be planted not less than 18 months after the date of issuance of
the Permit.
G. Missing, Dead or Unhealthy Trees. Any Replacement Tree which is not alive or healthy one (1) year after the
date that the last Replacement Tree has been planted shall be removed and a new healthy tree of the same
size and species shall be planted in place of the removed tree. All such plantings shall occur within one (1)
year of the date the tree qualifies as dead, unhealthy or missing.
H. Sources of Trees. Replacement trees shall consist of "certified nursery stock" as defined by Minnesota
Statutes Section 18.46.
Trees planted in place of missing, dead, or unhealthy Replacement Trees shall consist only of "certified
nursery stock" as defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 18.46.
I. Exceptions. The provisions of Subdivision 4 shall not apply to the cutting of trees planted and grown by the
owner or owner's predecessor on real estate which on April 17, 1990 was classified as Class 2b property
according to Minnesota Statutes, 1989 Supplement, Section 273.13, Subdivision 23(b) because it was as of
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 9 of 21
such date real estate, rural in character, and used exclusively for growing trees for timber, lumber, wood and
wood products as described in clause (1) of said Subdivision 23(b).
Subd. 5. General Requirements for Land Alteration. Land Alteration shall be subject to and conditioned upon the
performance by the Permittee or Owner of the following general requirements regardless of whether a Permit is
required:
A. Concrete Truck Wash Out. Designation of an area for wash out of concrete trucks and equipment must be
provided by the Permittee. Sites that are one (1) acre or more must provide on the Site a station for washing
out concrete trucks and equipment. The location of the wash out area or wash out station shall preclude the
drainage of concrete and all other wash out wastes from the washing activities to a Stormwater Facility or
water resource.
B. Corrections. Breaches of the perimeter of the Site by Erosion shall be immediately correc ted, cleaned up and
restored. A right-of-entry from the adjoining property owner(s) must be obtained to implement clean up and
restoration on adjoining properties that were impacted by the Erosion. Erosion breaches must be corrected
within forty-eight (48) hours of obtaining a right-of-entry.
C. Drain Inlet Protection. All storm drain inlets shall be protected during Construction Activities and Land
Alteration with silt fence or other equivalent barrier meeting accepted design criteria, standards and
specifications contained in the MPCA publication "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas”Minnesota
Stormwater Manual" or alternative pre-approved in writing by the City until Final Stabilization is completed.
D. Driveway Construction or Replacement. All driveway construction or replacement that disturbs the
underlying soils shall be installed in accordance with City Code Chapter 11 surface requirements. Driveway
construction shall be completed within one hundred twenty (120) days after the earlier of the follo wing: (i)
completion of the structure(s) for which the driveway is constructed; (ii) a driveway replacement project is
started; or (iii) a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued; unless otherwise approved by the City.
E. Erosion Control Installation. Erosion Control Systems shall be installed prior to commencement of any Land
Alteration activity and maintained during the Land Alteration activities in accordance with the following
parameters:
1. Stormwater channeled from adjacent areas passing through the Site shall be diverted around disturbed
areas during the Land Alteration, if practical. Diverted Stormwater shall be conveyed in a manner that
will not erode the channels.
2. All activities on the Site shall be conducted in a manner which minimizes the area of bare soil exposed
at any one (1) time.
3. Runoff from the Site shall be controlled by meeting subsection a. below and either subsection b. or c.,
depending on the size of the Site.
a. All disturbed earth shall be stabilized by seeding (if prior to September 15), sodding, mulching, or
other equivalent Control Measure pre-approved in writing by the City within fourteen (14) days
of ceasing Construction Activity or Land Alteration, unless required otherwise in a federal, state
or local permit.
b. For sites with more than ten (10) acres disturbed at one time, or if a channel originates in the
disturbed area, one (1) or more temporary and/or permanent Detention or Retention Basins
(Basin) shall be constructed. Each Basin shall have a surface area of at least 1% of the area
draining to the Basin and at least three (3) feet in depth. Each Basin shall be constructed in
accordance with design specifications approved by the City. The Permittee or Owner shall ensure
that Sediment is removed on a regular basis in order to maintain a depth of three (3) feet in
depth. The Basin Discharge rate shall also be sufficiently low as to not cause erosion along the
Discharge channel or the receiving water.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 10 of 21
c. For Sites with less than ten (10) acres disturbed at one (1) time, silt fences, or equivalent Control
Measures shall be placed along the side and down slopes of the Site. If a channel or area of
concentrated runoff passes through the site, silt fences shall be placed along the channel edges
to reduce Sediment reaching the channel.
Erosion Control Systems may be adjusted during dry weather to accommodate short term activities, such as those
that require the passage of very large vehicles. As soon as the activity is finished and in any event prior to the
occurrence of rainfall, the Erosion Control Systems must be returned to the original configuration.
F. Erosion Control Maintenance. All Erosion Control Systems shall be designed to minimize the need for
maintenance and to provide access for maintenance purposes. All Erosion Control Systems shall be
maintained in a functional condition until Final Stabilization of the Site and until all Land Alteration, including
completion of turf and/or structural surfaces used to control soil erosion, is complete. Erosion Control
Systems shall be removed within thirty (30) days following Final Stabilization.
H. Final Stabilization. Upon ceasing operations or upon interrupting Land Alterations for a period of six (6)
months or more, the Permittee or Owner shall complete Final Stabiliza tion of the site. For a Certificate of
Occupancy issued from April 1 to August 31, ground cover shall be established within sixty (60) days of the
issuance of the Certificate. For a Certificate of Occupancy issued between September 1 to March 31, ground
cover shall be established prior to June 1 of the following year.
I. Hours of Operation. No Land Alterations shall be conducted prior to 7:00 a.m. nor after 7:00 p.m. on Monday
through Friday, prior to 9:00 a.m. nor after 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, nor any time on Sundays or legal holidays.
The City may, upon good cause being shown, vary these days and hours in writing.
J. Protection of Adjoining Structures. No Land Alteration shall occur which may endanger the use or support of
adjoining lands or structures.
K. Slope Stabilization. Land contours made in conjunction with Land Alteration shall be sloped on all sides at a
minimum ratio of three (3) horizontal to one (1) vertical (3H:1V) or greater, unless a steeper slope is
approved in writing by the City.
M. Temporary Fencing. Temporary construction fencing must be installed around the Site, if necessary, to
protect the public or natural resources against injury or damage. All temporary construction fencing shall be
removed within ten (10) days following elimination of potential injury or damage or issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. The fencing shall not be used as a permanent installation.
N. Temporary Soil or Dirt Storage. Soil or dirt storage piles containing more than fifty (50) cubic yards of
material shall be stabilized by mulching, vegetative cover, tarps, or other equivalent Control Measures within
fourteen (14) days unless required otherwise in a federal, state or local permit.
O. Tracking or Spilling. BMPs shall be employed to minimize Sediment from being tracked or spilled onto public
or private roadways. The BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the following: frequent cleaning of
streets adjacent to the construction site, rock construction entrances, graveled roads, washing stations, and
parking areas of sufficient width and length. Sediment reaching a sidewalk, trail or public or private road shall
be removed by street cleaning with power sweepers (not flushing) before the end of each workday or as
otherwise ordered by the City in writing. Should eroded soils enter, or entrance appears imminent, into
wetland or other water bodies, clean up and repair shall be immediate. The Permittee or Owner shall be
responsible for signage and other protection measure during clean up operations.
P. Site Dewatering. Water pumped from the Site shall be treated by temporary Sedimentation basins, grit
chambers, sand filters, upflow chambers, hydro-cyclones, swirl concentrators or other controls as
appropriate. Water may not be Discharged in a manner that causes Erosion or flooding that creates an
adverse impact to the Site, abutting property, receiving channels or a wetland.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 11 of 21
Q. Unsafe Conditions. The Permittee shall repair, change, alter, modify or desist from any Land Alteration
deemed by the City Engineer or his/her designee to be the cause of unsanitary, dangerous, or polluted
conditions harmful to the general welfare of the City.
R. Waste and Material Collection and Disposal. All waste and unused building materials (including garbage,
debris, cleaning wastes, litter, wastewater or sewage, toxic materials or hazardous materials) shall be
properly contained while on site, properly disposed of off-site, and not allowed to be carried by water and/or
wind off the site or into a receiving channel or storm sewer system. Waste containers and all construction
materials shall not be placed or stored such that they obstruct, encroach upon, or interfere wholly or in part
with any public right-of-way, including but not limited to, public roadways, trails, sidewalks, parks or other
public properties unless a permit is issued under City Code Section 6.03.
S. Wetlands and Waterways. Stormwater shall not be Discharged directly into any natural water bodies such as
wetlands, lakes or streams without pre-settlement. Wetlands must not be drained or filled, wholly or
partially, unless a permit to replace by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value has
been issued by the local governing unit. The permit and replacement must be in accordance with the
Wetlands Conservation Act [Minnesota Statutes Section 103G.221 et seq. (herein referred to as the WCA)]
and City Code Section 11.51.
Subd. 6. Development Plan Stormwater Management Standards and Design Criteria. Development Plans with
land disturbance of greater than or equal to one (1) acre, including projects of less than one (1) acre that are part
of a larger common plan of development or sale, shall include evaluation of the following provisions. The
evaluation must be provided with the Land Development Application. Variances may not be granted by the City for
the stormwater requirements set forth in Subdivision 6.G.
A. Green Infrastructure Analysis. The use of Green Infrastructure techniques and practices shall be the
preferred BMPs for accomplishing compliance with Subdivision 6.B. and Subdivsion 6.C The following Green
Infrastructure design options or types of features must be considered, consistent with zoning, subdivision
and PUD requirements:
1. Preserving natural vegetation.
2. Preserving and utilizing natural upland swales, depressions and upland storage areas in the post -
development condition to the degree that they can convey, store, infiltrate, filter or retain Stormwater
runoff before Discharge. Preservation requires that no grading or other Construction Activity occurs in
these areas.
3. Minimizing impervious surface.
4. Installing permeable pavement to allow stormwater runoff to filter through surface voids into an
underlying reservoir for temporary storage and/or Infiltration.
5. Utilizing vegetated areas to filter sheet flow, remove Sediment and other Pollutants and in crease time
of concentration to slow Discharge or reduce runoff of Stormwater.
6. Disconnecting impervious areas by allowing runoff from small impervious areas to be directed to
pervious areas where it can be infiltrated or filtered.
7. Installing a green roof to provide an environment for plant growth for treatment of stormwater
through filtering of suspended solids and pollutants and/or for volume and rate control as part of the
roof system for the building.
8. Using irrigation ponds or systems, cisterns, rain barrels and related BMPs to reuse Stormwater runoff.
9. Planting of trees for retention and detention of Stormwater runoff as defined in the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual or State of Minnesota Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS).
10. Utilizing a soil amendment or decompaction process after site disturbance.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 12 of 21
11. Minimizing parking facility size.
12. Increasing buffers around streams, steep slopes and wetlands to protect from flood damage and/or
provide additional water quality treatment.
Development Plans shall be designed to protect and minimize impacts to natural features such as wetlands,
wooded areas, rare and endangered species habitat, preservation areas designated by the Hennepin County
Biological Survey, Metro greenways, and parkland to the MEP.
B. Post-Construction Stormwater Management. Development Plans shall include the following conditions to the
MEP.
1. New Development projects must have no net increase from pre-project conditions on an annual
average basis of:
a. Stormwater Discharge Volume.
b. Stormwater Discharges of Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
c. Stormwater Discharges of Total Phosphorus (TP).
2. Redevelopment projects must have a net reduction from pre-project conditions on an annual average
basis of:
a. Stormwater Discharge volume.
b. Stormwater Discharges of TSS.
c. Stormwater Discharges of TP.
C. Volume Management. Volume Management Measures for Development Plans shall meet the following
standards:
1. Retain a runoff volume equal to one (1) inch times the area of the proposed new and fully
reconstructed impervious surfaces onsite.
2. For linear projects, retain a runoff volume equal to the greater of one (1) inch of runoff
from the new impervious surface or one-half (0.5) inch of runoff from the sum of the new
and fully reconstructed impervious surfaces created by the project.
3. Pretreatment in the form of sump structure, vegetated filter strip, water quality inlet or
other Sediment control method to settle particulates approved by the City shall be
provided for all filtration and infiltration areas.
4. Calculations, modeling and design for and installation of Infiltration BMPs must be
provided.
5. No wetlands or areas below the calculated normal water level of constructed wet ponds
shall be accepted as an Infiltration practice.
1. Retain a runoff volume equal to one (1) inch times the area of the proposed new impervious surfaces
onsite.
2. Pretreatment in the form of sump structure, vegetated filter strip, water quality inlet or other
Sediment control method to settle particulates approved by the City shall be provided for all Infiltration
areas.
3. Calculations, modeling and design for and installation of Infiltration BMPs must be provided.
4. No wetlands or areas below the calculated normal water level of constructed wet ponds shall be
accepted as an Infiltration practice.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 13 of 21
D. Stormwater Discharge Volume Prohibitions. The use of Infiltration is prohibited on sites where the Infiltration
BMP will receive Discharges from, or be constructed in, any of the following areas:
1. Where industrial facilities are not authorized to infiltrate industrial Stormwater under an
NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA).
2. On land where vehicle fueling and maintenance currently occur, regardless of the amount
of new and fully reconstructed impervious surface.
3. Where there is less than three (3) feet vertical feet of separation from the bottom of the
Infiltration BMP to the elevation of seasonally saturated soils or the top of bedrock.
4. Where high levels of contaminants in soil or groundwater will be mobilized by the
infiltrating Stormwater. Documentation regarding type and extent of identified
contaminants identified, such as a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or the MPCA’s
site screening assessment checklist, must be provided.
5. Where predominately Hydrologic Soil Group D (clay) soils exist.
6. Where soil Infiltration rates exceed 8.3 inches per hour, unless soils are amended to slow
the infiltration rate below 8.3 inches per hour.
7. Within one thousand (1,000) feet up-gradient, or one hundred (100) feet down-gradient
of active karst features. The city may require the applicant to perform additional
appropriate geotechnical investigations in areas of suspected active karst or shallow
bedrock.
8. In an Emergency Response Area (ERA) within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area
(DWSMA) as defined in Minn. R. 4720.5100, Subp. 13, classified as high or very high
vulnerability as defined by the Minnesota Department of Health.
9. In an ERA within a DWSMA classified as moderate vulnerability, unless the permittee
performs or approves a higher level of engineering review sufficient to provide a
functioning treatment system and to prevent adverse impacts to groundwater.
10. Outside of an ERA within a DWSMA classified as high or very high vulnerability, unless the
permittee performs or approves a higher level of engineering review sufficient to provide
a functioning treatment system and to prevent adverse impacts to groundwater;
1. Where industrial facilities are not authorized to infiltrate industrial Stormwater under an NPDES/SDS
Industrial Stormwater Permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
2. On Land where vehicle fueling and maintenance currently occur.
3. Where there is less than three (3) feet vertical feet of separation from the bottom of the Infiltration
BMP to the elevation of seasonally saturated soils or the top of bedrock.
4. Where high levels of contaminants in soil or groundwater will be mobilized by the infiltrating
Stormwater. Documentation regarding type and extent of identified contaminants identified, such as a
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, must be provided.
E. Stormwater Discharge Volume Restrictions. The use of Infiltration shall be subject to review and approval by
the City Engineer where the use of Infiltration BMPs are restricted due to Construction Activity occurring on
any of the following sites:
1. Where the bottom of the Infiltration basin will be less than three (3) feet above the
normal water level of any adjacent wetland.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 14 of 21
2. Within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) as defined in Minn. Rules
4720.5100, subp. 13.
3. Within fifty (50) feet of an outdoor salt stockpile or storage area.
4. Where vehicle fueling and maintenance previously occurred.
5. Within the Wellhead Management Zone (WMZ) of any City well.
1. Where predominately Hydrologic Soil Group D (clay) soils exist.
2. Within one thousand (1,000) feet up-gradient, or one hundred (100) feet down-gradient of active karst
features. The city may require the applicant to perform additional appropriate geotechnical
investigations in areas of suspected active karst or shallow bedrock.
3. Where the bottom of the Infiltration basin will be less than three (3) feet above the normal water level
of any adjacent wetland.
4. Within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) as defined in Minn. Rules 4720.5100,
subp. 13.
5. Where soil Infiltration rates exceed 8.3 inches per hour.
6. Within fifty (50) feet of a salt stockpile or storage area.
7. Where vehicle fueling and maintenance previously occurred.
8. Within the Wellhead Management Zone (WMZ) of any City well.
City approval shall be conditioned upon completion of higher engineering review and submittal of the analysis to
the City Engineer in these areas that demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer that the
Infiltration BMPs will perform properly and that groundwater is adequately protected.
F. Stormwater Discharge Volume Exceptions. The use of less Infiltration for volume control on the Site of the
Construction Activity or Land Alteration may be allowed subject to review and approval in writing by the City
where:
1. The Site is precluded from infiltrating Stormwater through a designed system due to any of the
limitations described in Subdivsions 6.D or 6.E of this section.
2. The project is a linear project where the right-of-way precludes the installation of volume control
practices that meet the conditions for post-construction storm water management Subdivisions 6.B or
6.C of this section. A reasonable attempt must be made to obtain right-of-way or easements during the
project planning process.
If the City Engineer determines that Infiltration is restricted or prohibited on site, the Permittee or Owner shall
incorporate to the MEP Stormwater treatment alternatives such as wet sedimentation basins, Filtration systems,
evapotranspiration, reuse, harvesting, conservation design, green roofs, or other similar techniques on the Site to
reduce Stormwater Discharge volume. The City may allow, by an approval in writing, the Permittee or Owner to
provide payment to the City in lieu of the volume reduction upon written approval by the City. The request and
any information and/or calculations required to support the estimated amount of volume reduction and payment
amount must be provided in writing to the City Engineer with the Ap plication for the Land Alteration Permit.
G. Stormwater Management Mitigation. In circumstances where the Permittee cannot cost effectively meet the
post-construction requirements for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) or Total Phosphorus (TP) treatment
established in Subdivision 6.B in this section on the Site, the Permittee must identify locations where
mitigation projects will be completed by the Permittee. The TSS and/or TP not addressed on Site must be
addressed through mitigation approved in writing by the City and, at a minimum, shall ensure the following:
1. Mitigation project areas are selected in the following order of preference:
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 15 of 21
a. Locations that yield benefits to the same receiving water that Stormwater runoff drains to from
the Construction Activity or Land Alteration.
b. Locations with the same Department of Natural Resource (DNR) catchment area as the
Construction Activity or Land Alteration.
c. Locations in the next adjacent DNR catchment area up-stream
d. Locations anywhere within the City.
2. Mitigation projects must be approved by the City in writing and may include either: (i) creation of new
Stormwater Facilities, (ii) retrofit of existing Stormwater Facilities, or (iii) creation or use of a regional
Stormwater Facility. Routine maintenance of Stormwater Facilities already installed cannot be used to
meet mitigation requirements.
3. Mitigation projects must be completed within twenty-four (24) months after the start of the
Construction Activity or Land Alteration. If the permittee determines more time is needed to complete
the treatment project, the permittee must provide the reason(s) and schedule(s) for completing the
project in the annual report.Completed within twenty-four (24) months after the start of the
Construction Activity or Land Alteration.
The Permittee shall determine, document and provide the contact information for the Person who is responsible
for long-term maintenance on all mitigation projects. The Person responsible is subject to approval by the City.
The Permittee may be allowed to provide payment to the City in lieu of the Stormwater Management mitigation
activity upon written approval by the City Engineer. The payment shall include all costs, including but not limited to
the cost of land purchase, analysis, design, construction, monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation site.
H. Stormwater Facility Design Standards. All storm sewer system components, including inlets, outlets, catch
basins, piping and other structures designed to treat or convey Stormwater, shall be designed for a minimum
ten-year frequency event using currently accepted rainfall data with the except ion of storm sewer systems
near critical topographic features such as steep slopes and bluffs which shall be designed for a 100-year
frequency event with a designated overland emergency overflow (EOF). Green Infrastructure required by the
City or other regulatory agency may be considered for reductions in storm sewer design requirements if pre-
approved in writing by the City Engineer.
I. NURP Design Criteria. If Stormwater Facilities are required by the City to meet the requirements of
Subdivsions 6.B and 6.C, the Stormwater Facilities may be required to include a Stormwater pond which shall
be based on NURP Design Criteria with a calculated water elevation for a 100-year frequency event.
Proposals to provide an alternative to the NURP Design Criteria may be considered but must be approved in
writing by the City Engineer. The NURP pond shall be designed by a Professional Engineer licensed in
Minnesota (PE). The following NURP Design Criteria must be incorporated into the design submitted for
review.
1. A permanent pond surface equal to two percent (2%) of the impervious area draining to the pond or
one percent (1%) of the entire area draining to the pond, whichever amount is greater.
2. An average permanent pool depth of four (4) to ten (10) feet.
3. A recommended permanent pool length to width ratio of 3:1 or greater.
4. A minimum protective shelf extending ten (10) feet into the permanent pool with a slope of 10:1,
beyond which slopes shall not exceed 3H:1V.
5. All Stormwater Facilities shall have a device to keep oil, grease, and other water borne material from
moving downstream as a result of normal operations.
Subd. 7. Inspections, Monitoring and Maintenance.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 16 of 21
A. Inspections. Inspections of the Site and Stormwater Facility to determine compliance with the requirements
of this section are the responsibility of the Permittee and/or Owner. Sites which require a NPDES Permit or
are greater than one (1) acre in size must have inspections completed by a Certified Professional in Erosion &
Sediment Control (CPESC) or a Professional Engineer licensed in Minnesota (PE). Inspection results and
maintenance activity reports must be completed and submitted in writing to the City for a minimum of two
(2) years following completion of construction and final acceptance by the City.
B. Right of Entry and Access to Materials. The City shall be entitled to enter and inspect the Site and
Stormwater Facilities as often as may be necessary to determine compliance with this section and shall be
entitled to examine and copy records, wherever they may be kept that must be maintained pursuant to the
Permit or local, state or federal law.
C. Obstructions to Access. Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to a Site or
Stormwater Facility subject to inspection shall be promptly removed by the Permittee or Owner at the
request of the City and shall not be replaced.
D. Monitoring and Testing of Stormwater Discharge and Stormwater Facilities. To assure that the Land
Alteration is being conducted in accordance with the conditions stated on the Permit, the City may order, at
the expense of the Permittee or Owner, monitoring of the Stormwater Discharge and/or Stormwater Facility,
including those field measurements or testing the City deems necessary to assure that t he conditions and
requirements of the Permit are being followed. If the monitoring is not completed, the City shall have the
right to set up on any Site such devices as are necessary in the opinion of the City to conduct monitoring,
testing and/or sampling of the Stormwater and/or Stormwater Facility.
E. Inspections and Maintenance during Land Alteration Activities. During the Land Alteration the
Permittee must inspect each Stormwater Facility and Erosion Control System bi-weekly and
immediately after each rainfall event of one-half (0.5) inches or more. Any Erosion or breach in an
Erosion Control System must be corrected within forty-eight (48) hours of identifying the Erosion
or breach. Correction may include, but is not limited to: rehabilitation of an Infiltration practice;
removal of silt, litter and other debris from catch basins, inlets and drainage pipes; remo val of
noxious or invasive weed species; and/or replacement of landscape vegetation. Inspections shall
include, but are not limited to, evaluation of the following items:
1. Stabilization of exposed soils (including stockpiles);
2. Stabilization of ditch and swale bottoms;
3. Sediment control BMPs on all downgradient perimeters of the project and upgradient of
buffer zones;
4. Storm drain inlet protection;
5. Energy dissipation at pipe outlets;
6. Vehicle tracking BMPs;
7. Preservation of a fifty (50) foot natural buffer or redundant sediment controls where
stormwater flows to a surface water within fifty (50) feet of disturbed soils;
8. Owner/operator of construction activity self-inspection records;
9. Containment for all liquid and solid wastes generated by washout operations (e.g.,
concrete, stucco, paint, form release oils, curing compounds, and other construction
materials); and
10. Maintenance and functionality of BMPs.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 17 of 21
Documentation for each inspection must be provided to the City in a format approved by the City within forty-
eight (48) hours of the inspection. Inspections and Maintenance during Land Alteration Activities. During the
Land Alteration the Permittee must inspect each Stormwater Facility and Erosion Control System bi-weekly
and immediately after each rainfall event of one-half (0.5) inches or more. Any Erosion or breach in an
Erosion Control System must be corrected within forty-eight (48) hours of identifying the Erosion or breach.
Correction may include, but is not limited to: rehabilitation of an Infiltration practice; removal of silt, litter
and other debris from catch basins, inlets and drainage pipes; removal of noxious or invasive weed species;
and/or replacement of landscape vegetation. Inspections shall include, but are not limited to: reviewing
maintenance and repair records; sampling discharges, surface water, groundwater, and material or water in
drainage control facilities; and evaluating the condition of Erosion Control Systems and other Stormwater
Facilities. Documentation for each inspection must be provided to the City in a format approved by the City
within forty-eight (48) hours of the inspection.
F. Post Activity Inspections. All Stormwater Facilities must undergo, at a minimum, one (1) inspection annually
for two (2) years after completion and final acceptance of the construction. After two (2) annual inspections
are approved by the City in writing, all Stormwater Facilities must undergo, at a minimum, one (1) inspecti on
every five (5) years to document maintenance and repair needs and ensure compliance with the
requirements of this section and all federal, state and local regulations. An inspection report for each
inspection shall be filed with the City within forty-eight ninety (9048) hours days of the inspection. The
inspection frequency may be increased as deemed necessary by the City to ensure proper functioning of the
Stormwater Facility. The requirements of this paragraph pertain only to Stormwater Facilities which are not
subject to an easement or maintenance agreement in favor of the City, Watershed District or other federal,
state or local agency.
G. As-Built Surveys. An as-built survey of every Stormwater Facility must be provided to the City within one (1)
year of final completion of Construction Activity or Land Alteration. “The survey shall be provided in the
Minnesota County Coordinate System, Hennepin County North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) (1996)
projection in U.S. Survey feet. All vertical elevations shall be in North American Datu m 1988 (NAVD88). The
survey shall also be in a format compatible with the City’s current GIS software.”
H. Post Activity Stormwater Facility Maintenance. Owners of Land which includes a Stormwater Facility must
maintain the Stormwater Facility to ensure proper functioning of the Stormwater Facility over time.
Maintenance shall include: restoration or replacement of Stormwater Facilities' function; removal of silt,
litter and other debris from catch basins, inlets and drainage pipes; removal of noxious or in vasive weed
species; or replacement of landscape vegetation if needed. All required maintenance shall be addressed in a
timely manner, as determined by the City. The maintenance requirement may be increased as deemed
necessary by the City to ensure proper functioning of the Stormwater Facility over time. The requirements of
this paragraph pertain only to Stormwater Facilities which are not subject to an easement or maintenance
agreement in favor of the City or Watershed District or other federal, state or local agency.
The City may perform maintenance on any private Stormwater Facility which presents or may present imminent
and substantial danger to the environment, to the health or welfare of persons, or to the storm sewer system or
surface waters. The Owner of the private system shall be responsible for any costs and charges that are associated
with this work.
I. Stormwater Facility Easement. When any new Stormwater Facility is installed on private property where it
receives drainage from a public Stormwater system, the property owner shall grant to the City an easement
in recordable form granting the City the right, but not the obligation, to maintain, reconstruct, repair and
inspect the Stormwater Facility. The easement shall be received by the City prior to completion of the
construction of the Stormwater Facility and shall include the right to enter onto the Site to gain access to the
Stormwater Facility.
J. Failure to Maintain Practices. If a Permittee fails or refuses to meet any of the requirements of this section,
the City, after notice, may inspect the Stormwater Facility to determine if maintenance is required to ensure
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 18 of 21
compliance with this section and/or correct any violations by performing all necessary work to place the Site
in compliance with this section. If the City identifies violations of this section as a result of the inspection, the
City shall notify the Permittee of the violation and a time by which the violations must be corrected. The
notice shall further advise that, should the Permittee fail to correct the violation by the stated date, the City
will cause the violation to be corrected and the expense thereof shall be charged to the Permittee or Owner.
Each violation of this section are deemed and declared a public health and safety h azard and a public
nuisance. Building inspections may be withheld until the violation is abated or corrected. The City may also
issue a stop-work order on any activities that violate the terms of this section.
If payment is not made within thirty (30) days after costs are incurred by the City, payment will be withdrawn from
the Permittee's Financial Security required by this section. If there is an insufficient amount in the Financial
Security to cover the costs incurred by the City or if there is no Financial Security, then the City may assess the
Land for the cost of repair work and any penalties and the amount assessed shall be a lien on the Land and may be
certified to the County Auditor to be placed on the tax statement and collected in the same manner as ordinary
taxes by the county.
Subd. 8. Land Alteration Permit Application Requirements.
A. A person seeking a Land Alteration Permit shall make application to the City on a form provided by the City
and must include information that exhibits compliance with City Code Section 11.55 and other federal, state
and local permit requirements, including the State of Minnesota issued NPDES/SDS General Permit to
Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity or Land Alteration, as applicable.
B. Inspection and Maintenance. All Stormwater Facilities shall be designed to minimize the need for
maintenance, to provide access for maintenance purposes and to be structurally sound. Prior to issuance of
the Permit, the Applicant shall obtain necessary easements or other property interests to allow access to the
Stormwater Facilities for inspection and maintenance. A copy of the easements and/or property interests
must be provided with the Application.
C. Land Alteration/Plan Review Permit Fee. A Land Alteration/Plan Review Fee in an amount set forth in the City
Fee Schedule must be paid at the time of submitting an Application to the City. In the event the Land
Alteration Permit application is denied, fifty percent (50%) of the Permit Fee shall be returned to the
Applicant.
D. Site construction and/or site grading plans. All plans provided shall be at the same scale. The minimum scale
shall be one inch equals fifty (50) feet (1" = 50'). All plans must be signed by a Professional Engineer licensed
in Minnesota (PE) who must verify that the design of all Stormwater Facilities and Erosion Control Systems
meet the requirements contained in this section. The following plans must be included with the application:
1. A topographic map of the Site as it exists prior to the proposed Land Alteration showing ground
elevation contours at two-foot intervals. The map shall include a minimum of two hundred fifty (2500
feet of land abutting the Site on all sides that is sufficient to show on- and off-site drainage.
2. A topographic map of the Site (grading plan) showing the existing and proposed ground elevation
contours at two-foot intervals.
3. Locations and dimensions of all proposed Land Alterations and site features before and after Land
Alteration.
4. A dewatering and basin draining plan.
5. The Emergency Over Flow (EOF) location and elevation for each Stormwater Facility.
65. The location and size of existing and proposed building pads.
76. Locations and dimensions of all temporary or interim soil or dirt stockpiles.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 19 of 21
87. Location, dimensions and plans of all temporary, interim and final Stormwater Facilities and Erosion
Control Systems necessary to meet the requirements of this section.
98. Methods that will be used to inspect, maintain, and stabilize the site during and after construction,
including types, time frames and schedules.
109. A restoration plan for areas disturbed by the Land Alteration, including Final Stabilization measures.
E. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP shall be provided with the application that
describes the control and management of the flow of Stormwater and associated water quality impacts
resulting from the development. A copy of the completed NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General
Permit for the Site if required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) must be provided with the
SWPPP.
F. Stormwater Treatment Calculations. Stormwater treatment calculations used to determine compliance with
Subdivisions 6 or 8 of this section and any federal, state or local regulatory requirements or permits shall be
provided with the application.
G. Runoff Management Plan (RMP). If the proposed project is in the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District
(LMRWD) a Runoff Management Plan (RMP) must be developed by the Applicant for management of
Stormwater runoff in accordance with LMRWD requirements. A copy of the RMP, if required, must be
provided with the application.
Subd. 9. Permit Application Review and Approval.
A. Issuance or Denial. The City Engineer or his/her designee shall review an application for a Land Alteration
Permit to determine its conformance with the provisions of this section. Consistent with Minnesota Statutes
Section 15.99, the City Engineer or his/her designee shall in writing either approve or deny issuance of a
Permit or recommend that the application be forwarded to the City Council for review and denial or
approval. Prior to release of the Land Alteration Permit, the Applicant shall provide written copies of all
required federal, state and local permit approvals.
B. Conditions. Approval, denial, or approval subject to conditions of a Land Alteration Permit shall be based
upon the following factors:
1. Whether, and the extent to which, the Land Alteration may create or exacerbate a safety risk to
surrounding persons, the public or property.
2. Whether, and the extent to which, the Land Alteration may cause undue harm to the environment
including, but not limited to, noise, dust, Erosion, undue destruction of vegetation, and accumulation
of waste materials and Pollutants.
3. Whether the physical characteristics of the Site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation,
susceptibility to Erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage or retention, are such that
the Site is not suitable for Land Alteration or the use proposed.
4. Whether adequate plans have been made for restoring and/or stabilizing the Site upon completion of
the Land Alteration.
5. Whether there is a substantial likelihood that the Applicant will be able to comply with the rules and
regulations of this section, other applicable Sections of the City Code, and all applicable state, federal
and local regulations.
6. Whether the Site proposed for the Land Alteration is zoned for the proposed use.
7. If the City accepts maintenance of the Stormwater Facility, the City may require conveya nce to the City
or other public entity certain lands or interests therein.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 20 of 21
A Land Alteration Permit may be approved subject to conditions which limit the size; kind or character of the
proposed Land Alteration; require the construction of Stormwater Facil ities; require replacement of
vegetation; establish monitoring procedures; require staging the work over time; and/or require buffering.
C. Modifications. A Permittee may submit to the City a written request for modification of a Permit. The City
Engineer or his/her designee shall review the request and in writing either approve or deny the request or
recommend that the request be forwarded to the City Council for review and denial or approval. The City
may require additional reports and data from the Permittee.
D. Expiration. All Land Alteration Permits shall expire twenty-four (24) months after issuance unless otherwise
provided on the Permit.
Subd. 10. Suspension or Revocation of Permit. The City may suspend or revoke a Permit as follows:
A. Suspension. If the City determines any of the following: (i) the Permit was issued in error or on the basis of
incorrect information; or (ii) the Permit or work are in violation of any provision of this section or any federal,
state or local regulation, the City may suspend the Permit and issue a stop work order and the Permittee
shall cease all work on the Site except for work necessary to remedy the cause of the suspension. The
Permittee may request reinstatement of a suspended Permit upon correction of the causes for suspension. If
the conditions of the Permit have been complied with in full, the City shall reinstate the Permit.
B. Revocation. If the Permittee refuses or fails to cease work after the suspension or refuses or fails to correct
the causes for suspension within the time period provided in the stop work order, the City may revoke the
Permit.
Subd. 11. Financial Security. Financial Security is required prior to issuance of a Land Alteration Permit. The
Financial Security may take the form of: (i) a performance bond in a form acceptable to the City; (ii)an irrevocable
letter of credit issued by a financial institution and in a form acceptable to the City; or (iii) cash in United States
currency. The performance bond, letter of credit, or an agreement relating to the deposit of cash with the City
shall provide that the City may make a claim against, draw on or withdraw from the financia l security as
appropriate in order to complete the performance of Applicant's obligations pursuant to the terms of the Permit
and this section, including but not limited to, the Applicant's obligations imposed pursuant to the Permit and this
section and indemnification of the City against any loss, cost or expense, including an amount as and for
reasonable attorney's fees incurred in enforcing the obligations of Applicant pursuant to the Permit or this section.
A. Land Alteration Permit Financial Security. The Financial Surety for a Land Alteration Permit shall be in an
amount of 125 percent (125%) of the cost estimate of the work to be done as stated in the application for a
Land Alteration Permit and as approved by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
B. Tree Replacement Financial Security. In addition, if trees are required to be replaced pursuant to this section
an additional Financial Security shall be provided in the amount of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the
estimated cost to furnish and plant the Replacement Trees as approved by the City Forester or his/her
designee. The estimated cost shall be at least as much as the reasonable amount charged by nurseries for
the furnishing and planting of the Replacement Trees.
In the event the estimated cost submitted by the Applicant to the City is not approved, the City Engineer or his/her
designee shall have the right in his/her sole discretion to determine the estimated cost for purposes of the
Financial Surety.
Subd. 12. Action Against Financial Security. The City may make a claim against, draw on or withdraw from the
appropriate Financial Security in the event of a violation of the terms of the Permit, including but not limited to the
following:
A. The Permittee ceases performing the Land Alteration for a period of thirty (30) days or more prior to
completion of the Land Alteration.
Created: 2022-05-13 10:22:19 [EST]
(Supp. No. 4)
Page 21 of 21
B. The Permittee fails to conform to the Land Alteration Permit as approved, and/or has had its Land Alteration
Permit revoked.
C. The techniques outlined in the Land Alteration Permit fail within one (1) year of installation or before Final
Stabilization is achieved for the Site or portion of the Site, whichever comes later.
D. The City determines that action by the City is necessary to prevent excessive Erosion from occurring on the
Site, or to prevent Sediment from occurring on adjacent or nearby properties.
E. The Permittee ceases working on the Tree Replacement Plan for a period of thirty (30) days or more.
The City may make a claim against, draw on or withdraw from the Financial Security in whole or in part, for
all direct and indirect costs incurred in doing the remedial work undertaken by the City, its employees,
consultants and/or contractors.
Subd. 13. Release of Financial Security. Any remaining Financial Security shall be released to the Person who
deposited the Financial Security upon determination by the City that the requirements of this chapter and the
conditions of the Land Alteration Permit and/or Tree Replacement Plan have been satisfactorily performed. No
portion of the Financial Security shall be released while there are unsatisfied obligations of the Permittee,
including the obligation to indemnify the City for any expenses incurred in enforcing the terms of the Permit or this
section.
When more than half of the Site's maximum exposed soil area achieves Final Stabilization, the City may reduce the
total required amount of the Financial Security, if approved b y the City Engineer.
A portion, in an amount determined by the City Engineer taking into consideration the percentage of completion
of project and the estimated cost to complete the project, of the Financial Security shall be retained to secure the
Permittee's or Owner's obligation to remove and replant Replacement Trees which are dead, unhealthy or missing
as provided for in this section.
Subd. 14. Adopted by Reference. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual and Minnesota’s Construction
Stormwater General Permit published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency are hereby adopted and
incorporated by reference.
Subd. 14. Adopted by Reference. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA's) publications entitled:
"Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" dated 2000, which is currently located at the web site address of
www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/stormwater/stormwater-
management/stormwater-best-management-practices-manual.html and "Minnesota Stormwater Manual", which
is currently located at the web site address of stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Main_Page are hereby
adopted and incorporated by reference.