Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 10/24/2016 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 24, 2016, 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Jon Stoltz, Charles Weber, Travis Wuttke, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark Freiberg, Tom Poul STAFF MEMBERS: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES A. Approval of the Minutes for the October 10, 2016 meeting IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS V. PUBLIC MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CODE AMENDMENT-BUILDING MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURE Request to: • Amend the City Code Chapter 11 relating to Building Materials and Architecture VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT VIII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS X. NEW BUSINESS XI. ADJOURNMENT ANNOTATED AGENDA TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner RE: Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, October 24, 2016 _______________________________________________________________________________ MONDAY, October 24, 2016 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Move to approve the Planning Commission minutes: A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC MEETINGS VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CODE AMENDMENT-BUILDING MATERIALS & ARCHITECTURE Request to: • Amend the City Code Chapter 11 relating to Building Materials and Architecture. City staff has had ongoing discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the Design Standards initiative. As a part of this effort, the City is reviewing various sections of the zoning chapter, including but not limited to, the landscaping and building requirements. Staff has contracted with Hay Dobbs & Associates to help create Design Guidelines to communicate the City’s intent and expectations for development within the City, as well as, drafting amendments to the City Code to convey the requirements associated with development objectives. The primary proposed changes include: • Allows for the use proof of parking subject to conditions; • Provides a purpose statement to the architectural standards section of the Code; • Provides clarifications regarding allowable building materials; and • Establishes architectural requirements such as façade articulation, roofline variation, and façade transparency; Other housekeeping changes reflecting current practices and correcting grammatical or ANNOTATED AGENDA October 24, 2016 Page 2 typographical errors are also proposed as a part of the update. Staff recommends approval. MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing. MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval to amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Building Materials and Architecture based on the information included in the staff report dated October 20, 2016. VIII. PLANNERS’ REPORT IX. MEMBERS’ REPORT X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Move to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2016 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Jon Stoltz, John Kirk, Travis Wuttke, Ann Higgins, Charles Weber, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark Freiberg, Tom Poul CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner Rod Rue, City Engineer Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Vice Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Kirk, Poul, Stoltz, and Weber were absent. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Wuttke wanted to change the order of the public hearings. He would like it in this order; Commercial Kennels, Automotive Services, Screening and Landscape, Tree Replacement. Klima suggested if the concern was to have the tree replacement and screening and landscaping discussion occur sequentially, then another option would be to move the tree replacement discussion as the second public hearing. Wuttke stated his revised order would be preferred. MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by Farr, to approve the amended agenda. Motion carried 5-0. III. MINUTES A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 Wuttke had the following changes to the minutes: Page 2, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke commented the City should be written as exempt from these requirements or that transparency in any issue by the City is paramount. Page 2, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence; he would like .05 changed to .50. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 2 Page 2, 3rd, 4th sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke commented this replacement factor change would alleviate maintenance and overcrowding. Page 2, 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke asked what the test was for the health of Heritage trees, because the nature of large trees in certain circumstances could pose significant cost and risk long term after site improvements and alterations occur. Page 3, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke asked what historically developer agreements state in regards to tree replacement. Page 3, 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke asked who would be responsible for the tree replacement many years later and/or owners later; would the current homeowner pay for tree replacement. Page 3, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke asked members and representatives what type of involvement developers have had with the drafting of these potential language changes. Page 3, 5th paragraph, 3rd sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke asked if the City could meet with members of the private sector prior to this public hearing and get their feedback. Page 3, 8th paragraph, 1st sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke asked, in regards to tree replacement, can we find a way to substitute land dedication versus paying a fee for caliper inch replacement and could these costs be offset when this occurs. Page 4, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke said he would like cottonwood and basswood trees put on the list of exceptions because of the extensive shedding they do and the risks associated, respectively. MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the amended Planning Commission Minutes. Motion carried 5-0. IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS V. PUBLIC MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CODE AMENDMENT – COMMERCIAL KENNELS Request to: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 3 • Amend the City Code Chapter 11 Section 11.02 to add a definition of “commercial kennel” and Section 11.30 to add “commercial kennel” as a permitted use in the Industrial Zoning Districts. Klima said in Eden Prairie commercial kennels have occurred in the Industrial Zoning Districts and in the Commercial Zoning Districts. Research regionally and nationally has shown it common and generally accepted for the commercial kennel to be located in the Industrial Zoning Districts. To remove any ambiguity from the Eden Prairie Code staff believes a code amendment to clarify location of commercial kennels in a specific zoning district is prudent. Staff recommendation is for approval. Freiberg asked if a person in a residential area breeds for profit, is that allowed. Klima said the commercial operations should occur in an industrial district and not residential. Wuttke asked if it could be allowed to breed once a year or something comparable in a residential area. Klima said the definition for a private kennel is where 2 cats or dogs over 6 months are allowed, to be in compliance with the ordinance. Higgins asked if it is possible to arrange it in reverse order, that the birth and raising be done off site. Klima said that would be acceptable. Wuttke asked what the City Council did regarding recreation fires this summer. Did the residents not have an opportunity to go on survey monkey and give their opinion? Wuttke stated this could be done with the dog breeders. Farr said he does agree with City Staff and feels we may be developing a problem that is not there. Klima said since her time at the City, she has not received complaints of this type of activity. Wuttke asked if there have been any issues with the garage sale ordinance. Klima said there have been no complaints with the garage sale revision. Higgins said she is fine with going ahead with staff recommendations. Wuttke said he does have some reservations approving this code amendment, but will move it forward. Vice Chair Pieper opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Farr, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Freiberg, to recommend approval of the amendment to City Code Chapter 11 to add a definition of commercial kennel and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 4 to add commercial kennel as a permitted use in the Industrial Zoning District based on the information in the staff report dated October 4, 2016. Motion carried 5-0. B. CODE AMENDMENT – AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES Request to: • Amend the City Code Chapter 11 to add a definition of “Automotive Repair- Major and Automotive Repair – Minor”; to add “Automotive Repair-Minor” as a permitted use in the Commercial Zoning District and “Automotive Repair- Major as a permitted use on the effective date of the code amendment; to add “Automotive Repair-Major” as a permitted use in the Industrial Zoning District. Klima said many communities do acknowledge the difference between major and minor automotive repairs and what zoning districts they should occur in. The purpose of the proposed code amendment would be to: • Remove ambiguity surrounding automotive repair service uses and the appropriate zoning district to location. • Will support policy that automotive repair services Major or Minor are not permitted in the TC or TOD zoning districts. • Provide for existing Automotive Repair Service establishments with “minor” characteristics to remain in the Commercial Districts. • Provide for existing Automotive Repair Services establishments with “Major” characteristics to remain in the Commercial Zoning Districts by an established date. The use does not become non-conforming. • Provide for existing and future automotive repair services with “major” characteristics to locate in the Industrial Zoning Districts and remove ambiguity on the uses within the Industrial Zoning District. Staff recommendation is for approval of the code amendment. Freiberg asked where car washes would fall. Klima stated they would be classified as retail operation. Vice Chair Pieper opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Higgins, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Frieberg, to recommend approval to amend the City Code Chapter 11 to add a definition of “Automotive Repair-Major and Automotive Repair – Minor”; to add “Automotive Repair-Minor” as a permitted use in the Commercial Zoning District and “Automotive Repair-Major as a permitted use on the effective date of the code amendment; to add “Automotive Repair- Major” as a permitted use in the Industrial Zoning District based on the information included in the staff report dated October 4, 2016. Motion carried 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 5 C. CODE AMENDMENT – SCREENING & LANDSCAPE Request to: • Amend the City Code Chapter 11 relating to screening and landscape requirements. Klima said the purpose of this code amendment is to apply consistency. Staff has contracted with Hay Dobbs & Associates to work to create Design Guidelines to communicate the City’s intent and expectations for development within the City, as well as, drafting amendments to the City Code to convey the requirements associated with development objectives. The proposed changes include: • Provide a purpose statement to the screening and landscaping section of the Code • Defines public art • Clarifies minimum size requirements for landscaping materials • Requires inclusion of planting beds and/or decorative containers • Provides a holistic and flexible approach to meeting the landscape requirements • Requires species diversity and use of native species • Establishes standards for parking lot islands • Requires parking lots to be designed to enable safe pedestrian movements between the parking areas and the building(s) it serves Staff recommendation is for approval of the amendment. Farr said on page 2 of the staff report, under screening in (m), he would like the word “all” eliminated to provide consistency with the 75% opacity language elsewhere in City Code. Farr said in regards to containers, he would like The language revised to require seasonal planting of containers. Wuttke asked if the term bare soil is taken “as is” or can it be clarified. He stated he would like to see more clarification on what is meant by bare soil in the landscape application. Farr asked, on page 4, under e, if the unit is required. Bourne said it could be changed to caliper inches. Farr commented under h, Parking Lot Islands, he sees some conflict with the stated purposes and code requirements. He suggested staff review this language. Farr also stated he felt the 60 feet in width requirement is excessive and he would exempt single aisle parking lots. Klima said they are also working on design guidelines and stated this feedback is very helpful. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 6 Farr said on pages 5-6, under Mechanical Equipment Screening, under 1, there is not guidance on the level of screening and asked how that would be satisfied He also asked, under item 2, what does differing land use mean. Klima said land uses are addressed in the comprehensive plan. Farr stated, in regard to corridors, such as at Eden Prairie Center between Sears and Wild Fire, parking is diagonally striped and he said as an architect he would design it so get people could safely across the area. If individuals are walking perpendicular, they could walk over 3 diagonals to reasonably walk safely. In regards to walking parallel, it should be no more than 200 feet. Wuttke asked, in regard to public art, how different is this from the public sculpture code amendment adopted in 2013. Klima said the 2013 amendment addressed private property issues and this one addresses public art. Wuttke asked if public art has to be in the right of way. Klima said it just has to be visible in public spaces. Wuttke said on page 7, under s, it says public art should be situated in a way that it can be viewed from an adjacent right-of-way. Wuttke asked if there needs to be some clarification with this, to something like, “it could be viewed from public property”. Klima asked Wuttke if he would like to see maximum signage stay the same. Wuttke said we should not refrain a developer from using public art and also not have it interfere with signage. Klima clarified the intent is that public art has no correlation with the signage. Farr asked if rooftop gardens are considered art as they cannot be visible from public way. Klima said, Projects may include public art on a rooftop as the area may be visible from public right of ways Freiberg said, in regards to public art, it is personal interpretation of what is good taste. He believes public art is good but would hope there is a safeguard in place. Klima said the City does work closely with the art staff when public art is proposed. Wuttke asked on page 3, under 5-b-ii, does it mean the minimum 6 feet standard applies everywhere. Klima said this is existing language that is being relocated within the City Code. No changes to current practice of this issue are proposed. Farr commented on page 3, in regards to calculating caliper inches on trees, he stated that 20 feet is hard to stay below. He askid if the City has received any challenges to this requirement. Klima said staff has not received any challenge on this. Wuttke asked what increase costs would developers incur because of these proposed changes. Klima said the ordinance changes are not necessarily new in practice as the City has been working already with developers to accomplish these goals over the years. She stated staff is are trying to accomplish with these PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 7 amendment changes is to ensure the design standards are universally applied. This is not new practice but rather documentation of what the City has largely been doing. Vice Chair Pieper opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Vice Chair Pieper commented he saw many concerns raised tonight in regards to the amendments and asked if the Commission should see the changes first before approving them. Wuttke agreed. Vice Chair Pieper asked if this should be continued and brought back with changes. Klima said the changes are very straight forward. She also noted the Planning Commission minutes are provided to the City Council and there Will be a cover report provided with the feedback from Planning Commission to the Council. Wuttke asked if we should keep this public hearing open until the tree amendment is discussed. Klima said the landscaping amendment addresses new development whereas the tree amendment addresses existing development. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Freiberg, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Higgins, to recommend approval to amend City Code Chapter 11 based on the information included in the staff report dated October 4, 2016 as well as multiple items of discussion relayed to City Staff. Motion carried 5-0. D. CODE AMENDMENT – TREE REPLACEMENT Request to: • Amend the City Code Chapter 11 relating to tree replacement requirements. Klima said there are significate changes to this amendment. They are: • The definition of Heritage Tree and replacement requirements for Heritage Trees • Language that would allow tree replacement requirements to be met through a restitution program • Exempting the TOD and Town Center zoning districts from the tree replacement requirements due to the type of development expected in these districts. Other housekeeping changes reflecting current practices and correcting grammatical or typographical errors are also proposed as part of the update. Staff recommendation is for approval. Higgins asked why the cottonwood tree is on the list of Heritage trees. Bourne said because it is native to Minnesota and it is a very hardy tree. He pointed out the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 8 female tree is the only one that sheds. Farr asked Bourne how many landscaping plans he has seen that contain cottonwood trees. Bourne said there have not been any. Wuttke asked what the average size of a cottonwood tree is. Bourne said it is hard to say because there are so many out there ranging from 4 inches to 50 inches. Wuttke asked why some trees, such as a cottonwood tree, could not be replaced with more pleasing trees. He also asked what changed from last meeting to this meeting. Bourne said in the tree inventory section, under subsection 4, most of the changes came about because of developers’ feedback over the years. The changes that are being proposed are for a reduction in the amount of tree replacement and not adding to it. Wuttke commented the Heritage trees were added and now there is a delta on that and he is not particularly sold on that change. Wuttke asked what the adopted fee proposal is all about. Bourne said this fee would be set by City Council and is typically $100 to $125 per caliper inch of tree. Vice Chair Pieper asked, in regards to restitution, could someone buy their way out of replacing trees. Bourne said yes, that would be an option but would have to go through the approval process. Klima said the language in the code amendment is intended to supply flexibility to the developer. Vice Chair Pieper asked what the restitution fund is used for. Bourne said it could be used for planting trees or other natural resources elsewhere. Farr said in regards to the fee, it would be nice if it was set high enough to deter the developer from going that route. He also asked, in regards to tree quality versus quantity, was there any discussion on that. Bourne said it was discussed And the language was proposed as it is to allow for review on a case by case basis. Wuttke commented he is not completely sold on the concept of heritage trees. Farr said at the last meeting there was a discussion regarding removing heritage trees and it was discussed how homeowners could possibly take down significant trees before they become heritage trees. Farr said he is fine now with how the ordinance is written. Higgins commented, in regards to global warming, some of these heritage trees may be needed or it could possibly cut their life short. Wuttke asked under B, Tree Replacement/Restitution Requirements, what lost and damaged meant. Bourne said the definition of “lost” is under Inventory. Vice Chair Pieper opened the meeting up for public input. Chris Bunn, of 9815 Eden Prairie Road commented he has lived at his location for over 20 years and asked why the City is making these changes now in regards to heritage trees. He stated where he lives now there are at least two heritage trees. From his understanding, if he were to subdivide his lot, he could not because of the heritage trees. He also commented he would not be able to replace with other trees because it would add up to way too many trees on his land and because of that, he PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 9 feels he is losing control of his property. He said it seems like the City did not care before when the development was taking place. Bourne responded by stating the “why now” came about now because there are a large number of significant and heritage trees. One distinction Bourne did want to make was that as a private property owner, you would be gaining more flexibility with the proposed language. Bunn said he does not understand how he could be gaining rights. Bourne said as a single family dwelling, they are removing some of the requirements for removing trees. Bunn said if he wanted to develop his property, this amendment would impact him. Bourne said in one development the requirements went down and they had heritage trees on their land. Bunn asked why restitution would have to be paid. Klima said to allow flexibility as a part of the development process. It provides options for both the City and developers. Bunn stated he still does not understand why he would pay the City. Klima said the City would like to see the heritage trees saved, but this restitution gives an option for the developer if the tree has to be removed and the site does not have the capacity ot replace trees. Vice Chair Pieper asked if the City was exempt from this requirement. Bourne said yes, the City is exempt from this requirement. Bunn asked if he has to pay for taking the tree down why he would not be compensated by the City for keeping it. Bourne said tree replacement is an option and not just restitution. Bourne reiterated the fee schedule is set by City Council and Klima said that is reviewed annually. Farr commented that the City is significantly reducing the number of significant trees on property, so that could be a benefit to the homeowner. Bunn commented this is frustrating on all levels because he has heritage trees on his property. Freiberg stated he has not been on the Commission very long but he would support heritage trees. Freiberg commented this sounds like a hardship for the homeowners and pointed out it may be hard to say that one design fits all. He said this is a very difficult situation for this resident and asked City Staff if an appeal process or variances from code requirements could be put into place. Klima said there are opportunities to seek waivers. Farr commented the City is only trying to protect the trees and not take anything away. Wuttke commented the City should be very transparent in what they do in regards to improvements and the City being exempt from tree replacement. Rue said the concern is with a lot of public projects and they are definitely trying to meet those requirements. He stated every project has gotten replacement features. Vice Chair Pieper asked if the City could put money into the fund and have it put to something else if they cannot replaces the trees. Bourne said the tree replacement fund is new and that suggestion is something to take into account. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 10 Wuttke asked about C-3, General Exemptions, what about homeowners with platted land. Bourne said this was written to protect them. Freiberg said there should be an avenue for hardship. Vice Chair Pieper said that does exist and would be the variance or waiver process. Wuttke commented he does not like how this paragraph is worded. Bourne said on December 1st, 1990, this is the date the first tree ordinance went into place, so anything prior to that would not have had anything done in regards to tree replacement. Vice Chair Pieper asked what Wuttke was opposing. Wuttke stated it was the private property rights and cost of limitations. Freiberg said he is not in favor of moving this forward without a process for hardship. Vice Chair Pieper asked if Freiberg was comfortable with the variance/waiver process. Freiberg said he was comfortable with the waiver/variance process and would move forward with this amendment. Higgins said the waiver process could be a hurdle for the homeowner. She is uncertain about moving forward with this code amendment as is. Vice Chair Pieper clarified there is a waiver process in place. Higgins said when it is just one parcel there are issues with it because it is hard to finance that if you are a single property owner. Klima said if there are undue hardships they can go through the PUD process or variance process. She pointed out this is and always has been available to homeowners and developers. Vice Chair Pieper asked if someone cannot meet the tree replacement or cannot pay restitution, what would happen. Klima said it would be a variance or PUD waiver. Farr stated he had listened to everything tonight and can see the City is valuing their natural resources and he is in favor of the code amendment. Vice Chair Pieper said he thinks the City should be held to the same standard as anyone else. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Freiberg, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Freiberg, to recommend approval to amend City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.55 based on the information included in the staff report dated October 4, 2016 and note Commission has concerns about discrimination of certain property owners’ rights. Motion carried 4-1, Wuttke opposed. VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 11 VIII. MEMBERS’ REPORT IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS X. NEW BUSINESS XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by Farr, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Vice Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m. STAFF REPORT: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner DATE: October 20, 2016 SUBJECT: Code Change – Building Materials & Architecture BACKGROUND City staff has had ongoing discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the Design Standards initiative. As a part of this effort, the City is reviewing various sections of the zoning chapter, including but not limited to, the landscaping and building requirements. Staff has contracted with Hay Dobbs & Associates to work with staff to create Design Guidelines to communicate the City’s intent and expectations for development within the City, as well as, drafting amendments to the City Code to convey the requirements associated with development objectives. As part of this overall effort, staff is proposing amendments related to building materials and architecture requirements of Chapter 11. The Commission previously discussed proposed changes to the landscaping and screening provisions of Chapter 11. Hay Dobbs and staff have collaborated to prepare draft text language for the Commission to consider based on the work session feedback and direction. The redlined version of these changes is attached for the Commission’s reference. The primary proposed changes include: • Allows for the use proof of parking subject to conditions; • Provides a purpose statement to the architectural standards section of the Code; • Provides clarifications regarding allowable building materials; and • Establishes architectural requirements such as façade articulation, roofline variation, and façade transparency; Other housekeeping changes reflecting current practices and correcting grammatical or typographical errors are also proposed as a part of the update. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendments to Chapter 11 as represented in the October 20, 2016 staff report and the draft language. 1 6. Special Requirements. (a) Each parking space shall have an unobstructed access from a street or aisle without moving another vehicle. Exception is in an R1-44, R1-22, R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 District where parking in driveways is permitted. (b) Bumper rails and curbs shall be provided as determined by the City Manager. (c) No servicing of vehicles shall take place in any off-street parking area. (d) The City may allow no more than fifteen percent (15%) of parking required pursuant to City Code Section 11.03 to be constructed at a date subsequent to the time at which it would have otherwise been required to be constructed under the City Code. The portion to be constructed as a later date is referred to as “Proof of Parking”. Proof of parking shall be allowed if: i. Applicant demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Planner that the proposed development does not require the amount of parking required under City Code; ii. Applicant identifies on the site and landscape plans the location(s) in which the Proof of Parking can be built in the future; iii. Landscaping and structures associated with landscaping are allowed in the area identified for Proof of Parking, but no other structures shall be allowed in the Proof of Parking area; iv. Applicant enters into a binding agreement recorded as a covenant against real property to construct as a later date all or a portion of the Proof of Parking spaces as required by notice in writing from the City Planner. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 7. Connecting Parking Areas with Streets. (a) Vehicular traffic generated by any use shall be channeled and controlled so as to avoid congestion and traffic hazards. (b) The adequacy of any proposed traffic pattern shall be determined by the City Manager. Traffic control measures such as warning signs, directional signs, turn lanes, channelization, illumination, etc., may be required. (c) All driveways abutting public streets shall be subject to the following regulations: Minimum distance between driveways - 20 feet. Minimum driveway angle to street - 30 degrees for one way streets and 60 degrees for two way streets. Driveway widths at street curb are: DRIVEWAY WIDTH MAXIMUM MINIMUM One Way 20 feet 12 feet Two Way 30 feet 24 feet Minimum Driveway Return Radius - 6 feet Minimum distances between the end of a driveway at the intersection of a right of way line and the property line shall be 10 feet. 2 Source: Ordinance No. 9-87 Effective Date: 5-7-87 (d) Parking areas, loading areas and driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous; concrete; pavers of brick, natural stone, or concrete placed with gaps not exceeding 1/4 inch; turf block; or grasscrete; and graded to dispose of or infiltrate all area surface water without damage to private or public properties, streets, or alleys. The use of gravel, crushed rock, sand, or dirt is prohibited except when used as gap material with pavers. Source: Ordinance No. 16-2010 Effective Date: 11-25-2010 I. Off-Street Loading Facilities. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Subparagraph is to provide a sufficient number of off-street loading facilities so as to allow the safe and convenient movement of traffic along the streets. 2. Basic Requirements. (a) Off-street loading berths shall be provided at the time of initial occupancy or enlargement of a structure. The exact number of berths shall depend on the type of transport service utilized and the nature of the use itself. (b) A loading facility includes the dock, the berth for the vehicle, maneuvering areas and the necessary screening walls. (c) No loading facility shall be located on a street frontage nor within the required side or rear yard requirements. 3. Special Requirements. (a) All docks shall be located within the perimeter of the structure housing the principal or accessory use and shall be completely enclosed. (b) All berths shall be screened from views on the property's street frontages or from the district's boundary by solid wall earth berms or plant materials of at least a height of 10 feet. Such walls must be designed so as to be harmonious with the structure having the loading facility. (c) Each loading berth shall have an unobstructed access from a trafficway without moving another vehicle. (d) Parking areas, loading areas and driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete, pavers of brick, natural stone, or concrete placed with gaps not exceeding 1/4 inch, turf block, or grasscrete, and graded to dispose of or infiltrate all area surface water without damage to private or public properties, streets, or alleys. The use of gravel, crushed rock, sand, or dirt is prohibited except when used as gap material with pavers. Source: Ordinance No. 16-2010 Effective Date: 11-25-2010 (e) Bumper rails and curbs shall be provided at locations described by the City Manager when needed for safety or to protect property. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 3 J. Outside Storage and Displays. 1. In all Districts except I-General, all raw materials, supplies, finished or semi-finished products and equipment shall be stored within a completely enclosed building; provided, however, that motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use and of not more than three-quarter ton capacity may be stored or parked within the permitted parking lot areas. In I-Gen Districts, outside storage is permitted provided it is screened in accordance with this Section. Source: Ordinance No. 3-91 Effective Date: 4-4-91 2. In all Commercial Districts, all materials, supplies, merchandise or other similar matter shall be stored within a completely enclosed building, except merchandise or equipment offered for sale, rental or lease displayed in accordance with the following limitations: (a) Temporary outdoor display area. Merchandise or equipment may be displayed and offered for sale, rental or lease outside the confines of a completely enclosed building ("temporary outdoor display area") for a combined time period of sixty (60) days or less of a calendar year provided the temporary outdoor display area: (1) Is screened from public roads and adjacent land uses. (2) Does not encompass an area greater than two percent (2%) of the base area of an enclosed building located on the lot on which the temporary outdoor display area is situated. (3) Does not obstruct pedestrian use of a private sidewalk at least 5’ wide. (4) Is not located within the required front, rear or side yard setback of the lot on which it is located. (5) Is not located in the required parking except: a. Not more than one-half of one percent (.005) of the required parking stalls may be utilized for the temporary outdoor display area. b. No drive isle is utilized for the temporary outdoor display area. (6) Is not located on public sidewalks or streets. (7) Is not located on a vacant lot. (b) Permanent outdoor display area. Merchandise or equipment may be displayed and offered for sale, rental or lease within, but outside the confines of that part of the completely enclosed building, of which it is a part ("permanent outdoor display area") for a combined time period of sixty (60) days or greater of a calendar year provided: (1) The building of which the permanent outdoor display area is a part does not exceed the base area ratio or floor area ratio permitted in the Commercial District. (2) Material or equipment must be screened from public roads and adjacent land uses with a wall of the building. (3) The permanent outdoor display area may not encompass an area greater than six percent (6%) of the base area of the completely enclosed building. 4 (c) A temporary outdoor display area and permanent outdoor display area may not encompass an area greater than seven percent (7%) of the base area of the completely enclosed building. Source: Ordinance No. 51-94 Effective Date: 1-26-95 Prev. Ordinance No. 3-91 Effective Date: 4-4-91 (d) Exemption. The 60 day time period in this Section shall not apply to farmers who sell produce from the farm on land occupied and cultivated by themselves. For the purpose of this Section only, "farmer" shall be defined as one who engages, as an occupation, in farming operations as a distinct activity for the purpose of producing a farm crop. Source: Ordinance No. 12-2003 Effective Date: 5-15-03 3. The parking or storing of recreational vehicles outside of an enclosed building or structure in all One-Family Residential Districts and all Multi-Family Residential Districts is prohibited, except as hereafter provided. (a) No more than 2 recreational vehicles may be stored or parked outside upon a lot. (b) Recreational vehicles not greater than 12 feet in height may be parked or stored on (i) that part of a front yard of a lot occupied by a driveway, provided no part of a recreational vehicle may be closer than 15 feet from the traveled portion of a street, (ii) that part of a side yard or rear yard of a lot not situated within 10 feet of a lot line, or (iii) that part of a side yard within 10 feet of a lot line which (a) abuts a front yard, (b) is occupied by a driveway, and (c) is not within 15 feet of the traveled portion of a street. In addition to the general 12-foot height permitted, minor portions of accessory equipment not exceeding four square feet in vertical cross-section as viewed from the adjacent lot line is permitted. (c) Recreational vehicles parked or stored outside for a period in excess of 14 days must be owned by a person residing on the lot. (d) All recreation vehicles parked or stored outside must be in a safe, operable condition and exhibit current license or registration plates or tags if the vehicle is one for which a license or registration plate or tag is required by law for its operation. (e) No recreational vehicle shall be used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes when parked or stored in a One-Family Residential District or a Multi-Family Residential District. (f) A recreational vehicle must not be parked or stored over or upon a bikeway, pathway, or sidewalk. Source: Ordinance No. 22-88 Effective Date: 4-27-89 4. No storage or display of any type is permitted in any Commercial or Industrial District within the one-half of the front or side street setback nearest the street nor within any side or rear setback. Source: Ordinance No. 3-91 Effective Date: 4-5-91 5 K. Architectural Standards. All structures within all districts except Rural, R1-44, R1-22, R1-13.5, R1-9.5 and RM-6.5 shall be developed in accordance with the following design standards: 1. Purpose: The intent of the architectural standards is to promote a high standard of development in the City. This section applies to all building facades and exterior walls that are visible from adjoining properties or public streets. Buildings should be high quality in both visual and functional terms. The standards encourage creativity and diversity of design and construction in order to: (a) Create architecture that endures over time, functionally and aesthetically, through attention to quality of material, adaptability to changing uses, and durability; (b) Protect and enhance positive visual qualities of the City; (c) Encourage the use of more sustainable building materials and patterns; (d) Incorporate design characteristics that improve the site at human-scale. The City’s Design Guidelines provide further architectural design intent and should be used as a reference. 2. 1. 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 Effective Date: 9-17-82 3. 2. Exterior Building Materials: (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 1 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) 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 serveral 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 substrait 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), Office, TC, TOD, and PUB districts, only Class 1 materials shall be used in the ground level of the building. Source: Ordinance No. 3-2013 Effective Date: 1-17-2013 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0.5" 6 Source: Ordinance No. 7-2011 Effective Date: 5-26-2011 3. (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 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 of the two materials, the other material is required to have no less than two (2) distinct color variations. Source: Ordinance No. 7-2011 Effective Date: 5-26-2011 Source: Ordinance No. 1-90 Effective Date: 2-1-90 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 substrait 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 1 materials shall be used in the ground level of the building. 4. (c) In all districts except Rural, R1-44, R1-22, R1-13.5, R1-9.5, and RM-6.5, all other materials including but not limited to the following Class II materials: wood, stucco, vinyl, metal, plastic, External Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) or a combination of all these materials, 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. Source: Ordinance No. 9-87 Effective Date: 5-7-87 Prev. Ordinance No. 72-84 Effective Date: 4-5-84 4. Building Articulation: In addition to the materials requirements as listed in this section, architectural design elements will be considered 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 inches (4”) 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. Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5" 7 (b) Distinct Ground Level. The ground level of any three-story or taller structure (or a structure over thirty- two (32) feet in height) shall be visually distinct from the upper stories, articulated by at least one 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 transparent windows and/or doors to minimize expanses of blank walls. 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 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 within one hundred forty (140) feet of a public right of way are exempt from these requirements pertaining to the remaining fifty percent (50%) of the façade. (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 structure. Roofline variation shall be achieved using one 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 v. Any other technique approved by the City that achieves the intent of this section. L. Garage Sales shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Garage sales may occur only on properties zoned Rural, R1 and RM that are improved with a dwelling unit or units erected and which have been issued a Certificate of Occupancy. 2. No more than four (4) garage sales may occur at a dwelling in a twelve (12) month period. 3. No sale shall exceed a period of four (4) consecutive days. 4. Garage sale signs must comply with Section 11.70 entitled sign permits. Source: Ordinance No. 9-2009 Effective Date: 10-15-2009 M. Trash and Recycling. Implementation of a trash enclosure plan shall be required prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for a property located in zoning districts RM-2.5, OFC, I-2, I-5, I-Gen and TC. This Section 11.03 Subd. 3, M is applicable to applicable to all properties which have been issued a building permit for new construction after the effective date of the ordinance. 1. Trash and Recycling Enclosure: All recyclable waste shall be kept within a completely enclosed building or within a trash enclosure constructed with face brick or natural stone to match the building with solid wood or metal gates that completely screen the interior of the enclosure. 2. Trash and Recycling Location: All trash, trash receptacles and recycling bins shall meet the setbacks for the underlying zoning district. Source: Ordinance No. 10-2010 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5" 8 Effective Date: 06-24-2010 N. Sculptures and Statuary. 1. Setbacks. In all zoning districts accessory structures must meet the required setbacks, except for the following: (a) The front yard setback for sculptures and statuary is 10 feet in the residential, office, industrial, golf course, airport and public districts. (b) The front yard setback for statuary and sculptures is 20 feet in the commercial districts. 2. Height. In all zoning districts the maximum height allowed for sculptures and statuary is 15 feet. 3. One sculpture or statuary per street frontage in the commercial, office, industrial, public, and airport zoning districts. Source: Ordinance No. 20-2013 Effective Date: 12-12-2013 Subd. 4. Performance Standards. Uses which because of the nature of their operation are accompanied by an excess of noise, vibration, dust, dirt, smoke, odor, noxious gases, glare or wastes shall not be permitted. These standards shall be considered "excessive when they exceed or deviate from the limitations set forth in the following performance specifications: A. Vibration. No activity or operation shall at any time cause earth vibrations perceptible beyond the limits of the immediate site on which the operation is located. B. Dust and Dirt. Solid or liquid particles shall not be emitted at any point in concentrations exceeding 0.3 grains per cubic foot of the conveying gas or air. For measurement of the amount of particles in gases resulting from combustion, standard corrections shall be applied to a stack temperature of 500 degrees Fahrenheit and 50% excess air. C. Smoke. Measurement shall be at the point of emission. The Ringelman Smoke Chart published by the United States Bureau of Mines shall be used for the measurement of smoke. Smoke not darker or more opaque than No. 1 of said chart may be emitted, provided that smoke not darker or more opaque than No. 2 of said chart may be emitted for periods not longer than four minutes in any 30-minute period. These provisions, applicable to visible grey smoke, shall also apply to visible smoke of a different color but with an equivalent apparent opacity. D. Odor. No activity or operation shall cause at any time the discharge of toxic, noxious, or odorous matter beyond the limited of the immediate site where it is located in such concentrations as to be detrimental to or endanger the public health, welfare, comfort or safety or cause injury to property or business. E. Glare. Glare, whether direct or reflected, such as from spotlights or high temperature processes, and as differentiated from general illumination, shall not be visible beyond the limits of the immediate site from which it originates. F. Wastes. All solid waste material, debris, refuse, or garbage shall be kept within a completely enclosed building or properly contained in a closed container designed for such purpose. All liquid wastes containing any organic or toxic matter shall be discharged with into a public sanitary sewer or treated in a manner prescribed by the City. The rate of liquid waste discharge into the City sanitary sewerage system shall not exceed 200 gallons per site acre per hour between the hours of 9:00 o'clock a.m. and noon. Use for the dumping or storage above ground or under the surface of chemical waste and other hazardous waste products will not be permitted because of the potential hazards that may be created to public health, safety, and welfare in all Districts. 9 Source: Ordinance No. 35-94 Effective Date: 9-30-94 Subd. 5. Performance Standards - Tests. A. By Owner. In order to assure compliance with the performance standards set forth above, the Council may require the owner or operator of any permitted use to have made such investigations and tests as may be required to show adherence to the performance standards. Such investigation and tests as are required to be made shall be carried out by an independent testing organization as may be agreed upon by all parties concerned, or if there is failure to agree, by such independent testing organization as may be selected by the Council after 30 days notice. The costs incurred in having such investigations and tests conducted shall be shared equally by the owner or operator and the City, unless the investigation and tests disclose noncompliance with the performance standards, in which event the entire investigation or testing cost shall be paid by the owner or operator. B. By City. The procedure above stated shall not preclude the City from making any tests and investigations it finds appropriate to determine compliance with these performance standards. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 Subd. 6. Site Plan and Architectural Design Review. A. Approval Required. No building permit, or land alteration permit for a parking lot, shall be issued for the construction of any (i) building, structure or parking area situated or to be constructed within any District, except, (a) those within the Rural District or One-Family Residential Districts, and (b) duplexes (dwellings designed for or occupied by two families), or (ii) building or structure constituting a public infrastructure, situated or to be constructed within any District, including but not limited to Rural and One-Family Residential Districts, unless it shall conform to a Site Plan and Architectural Design as described in C. hereof, or an amendment thereof, which has been approved by the Council and such approval is effective as hereinafter provided. No building permit, or land alteration permit for a parking lot, shall be issued for the construction of an alteration or enlargement of a (i) building, structure or parking area situated within any District, except, (a) those within the Rural District or One-Family Residential Districts, and (b) duplexes (dwellings designed for or occupied by two families), or (ii) building or structure constituting a public infrastructure, including but not limited to Rural and One-Family Residential Districts, unless it shall conform to a Site Plan and Architectural Design as described in C. hereof, or an amendment thereof, which has been approved by the Council or the City Planner in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 11.03, Subd 6. D and such approval is effective as herein after provided. Source: Ordinance No. 1-16 Effective Date: 1-14-16 Source: Ordinance No. 25-89 Effective Date: 8-17-89 Source: Ordinance No. 1-89 Effective Date: 3-9-89 B. Exceptions. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the issuance of a building permit for (a) a building or structure to be built or constructed on land in conformity with a Site Plan approved prior to February 21, 1989, but not more than two years prior to issuance of the building permit by the City Council in connection with the rezoning or platting of the land, or (b) the building or alteration of an antenna or tower except an antenna or tower which is greater than eighty (80) feet in height. Source: Ordinance No. 1-16 Effective Date: 1-14-16 10 Source: Ordinance No. 27-97 Effective Date: 6-13-97 Source: Ordinance No. 1-89 Effective Date: 3-9-89 C. The terms "Site Plan and Architectural Design" as used in this subdivision mean a plan produced in written, graphic and/or pictorial form prepared by a registered architect, landscape architect or engineer which shall include the following: (1) a detailed natural systems analysis which documents existing physical features such as vegetation, soil types, slopes, hydrologic systems, wildlife, and ecology, (2) proposed construction of all site alterations including grading, drainage, utilities, and storm sewer, (3) building locations, (4) landscaping and screening, (5) lighting, (6) plans for all pylon, monument, and building signs, (7) an architectural plan of the exterior of the building or structure intended to be constructed, altered, or enlarged situated on the site depicting the building elevation, including its height from the surface of the ground in its altered or finished condition; its width and depth, its location in relation to the land on which it is situated, and its external appearance such as materials, texture and color, and (8) such other information as may reasonably be required by the City. D. The owner of property for which approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Design is required by this subdivision may apply for Site Plan and Architectural Design review and approval by filing an application with the City Planner on the form provided by the City Planner and containing the information required by such form accompanied by a Site Plan and Architectural Design, together with such further information as may reasonably be required by the City Planner. The City Planner shall determine the level of review required for a new or amended Site Plan and Architectural Design based on the criteria set forth below. The City Planner may determine to refer an application to the City multi-department staff “Development Review Committee” for review and recommendation to the City Planner: 1. The following are considered administrative amendments to an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Planner. a. Reduction of parking which meets City Code requirements for size, number and aisle width. Reconfiguration of parking meeting City Code requirements for size, number and aisle width. b. Changes to landscaping type, location and species that do not fall below the site requirements. 2. The following are considered Minor Amendments to an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design and shall be subject to review and consideration for approval by the City Council only without referral to the Planning Commission: a. Alterations which are code compliant and are 10% or less of the Gross Floor Area of a building or 2,000 square feet whichever is less. The expansion or reduction shall be the cumulative total and/or cumulative reduction after adoption of this amendment to this Section 11.03, Subd. 6. D. 2. A. b. Façade remodels which are code compliant. 3. All other amendments and alterations to an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design, are considered Major Amendments and are subject to review in accordance with Section 11.03, Subd. 6, E and F. 4. All new buildings, structures, and parking areas and all alterations to existing buildings, structures and parking areas that do not have an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design are subject to 11 review in accordance with Section 11.03, Subd. 6, E and F. A Zoning Certificate and Certificate of Occupancy shall be required in accordance with City Code Section 11.77. Source: Ordinance No. 1-2016 Effective Date: 1-14-2016 E. A Site Plan and Architectural Design may be evaluated according to its compliance with the following standards and provisions: 1. Adherence to, and consistency with, the City's policies and objectives as reflected in the Comprehensive Guide Plan and City Design Guidelines; 2. Adherence to, and consistency with, the City's Code relating to zoning and the subdivision of land. 3. The preservation and enhancement of the natural and built environment as well as those modifications already effected by development and construction upon the land, including the minimization of: tree loss, soil removal, wetland, floodplain, lake and creek encroachment; and the maintenance of the general natural topography or physical grade of the land consistent with that of adjoining properties. 4. Maintenance of open space to provide a desirable environment both for occupants of the site and the general public. 5. Transitions where there are differences in land use, building mass, height, densities, and site intensity, in proximity to that which is the subject of the Site Plan and Architectural Design. Transitions may be accomplished by increased setbacks, berming, plantings, larger lot sizes, lower densities, lower flood area ratios, and smaller buildings. 6. Provision for safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian traffic, including interior drives and parking arrangements which facilitate clear access to public streets, appropriate widths for drives and access points, and the separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 7. The minimization of negative impacts upon other land uses of surface water run-off, noise, glare, odors, vibrations, dust, loading areas, parking areas, and refuse areas. 8. Compatibility of materials, textures, colors, and other construction details with other structures and uses in the vicinity. 9. Such other conditions and criteria as are reasonably related to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City and to preservation of the environment. Source: Ordinance No. 1-89 Effective Date: 3-9-89 10. Preservation of Heritage Preservation Sites as designated by the Council pursuant to Section 11.05 and adherence to, and consistency with, the City's policies and objectives as reflected in the Heritage Preservation Site Program. Source: Ordinance No. 38-90 Effective Date: 12-7-90 1 PROJECT PROFILE – OCTOBER 24, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 24, 2016 1. CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO BUILDING MATERIALS & ARCHITECTURE (2016-17) (JULIE) Public Hearing amending City Code, Chapter 11 relating to Building Materials & Architecture Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489 Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 09/30/16 Date Complete N/A 120 Day Deadline N/A Initial DRC review N/A Notice to Paper Date 10/06/16 Resident Notice Date N/A Meeting Date 10/24/16 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16 Resident Notice Date N/A 1st Meeting Date 00/00/16 2nd Meeting Date CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING – NOVEMBER 1, 2016 1. CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO COMMERCIAL KENNELS (2016-13) (STEVE) Public Hearing amending City Code, Chapter 11 to address commercial kennels. Contact: Steve Durham, 952-949-8491 Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 09/19/16 Date Complete N/A 120 Day Deadline N/A Initial DRC review N/A Notice to Paper Date 09/22/16 Resident Notice Date N/A Meeting Date 10/10/16 Notice to Paper Date 10/13/16 Resident Notice Date N/A 1st Meeting Date 11/01/16 2nd Meeting Date 2. CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE (2016-14) (STEVE) Public Hearing amending City Code, Chapter 11, to address automotive services Contact: Steve Durham, 952-949-8491 Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 09/19/16 Date Complete N/A 120 Day Deadline N/A Initial DRC review N/A Notice to Paper Date 09/22/16 Resident Notice Date N/A Meeting Date 10/10/16 Notice to Paper Date 10/13/16 Resident Notice Date N/A 1st Meeting Date 11/01/16 2nd Meeting Date 2 3. CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO SCREENING & LANDSCAPE (2016-15) (JULIE) Public Hearing amending City Code, Chapter 11, relating to screening and landscape requirements Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489 Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 09/19/16 Date Complete N/A 120 Day Deadline N/A Initial DRC review N/A Notice to Paper Date 09/22/16 Resident Notice Date N/A Meeting Date 10/10/16 Notice to Paper Date 10/13/16 Resident Notice Date N/A 1st Meeting Date 11/01/16 2nd Meeting Date 4. CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO TREE REPLACEMENT (2016-16) (JULIE) Public Hearing amending City Code, Chapter 11relating to tree replacement requirement Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489 Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 09/19/16 Date Complete N/A 120 Day Deadline N/A Initial DRC review N/A Notice to Paper Date 09/22/16 Resident Notice Date N/A Meeting Date 10/10/16 Notice to Paper Date 10/13/16 Resident Notice Date N/A 1st Meeting Date 11/01/16 2nd Meeting Date PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 14, 2016 CONSERVATION COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 15, 2016 (Date Change from November 8 Due to Election Day) CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING – NOVEMBER 15, 2016 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 21, 2016 3 PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 28, 2016 1. ERS ESTATES LAKE ACCESS & DOCK (2016-18) by ERS Development LLC (JULIE) Application to appeal staff determination regarding non-conforming status of a dock Location: 12551 Beach Circle Contact: Peter Beck 612-991-1350 Request for: • Appeal of staff determination that legal non-conforming status has ceased Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 10/11/16 Date Complete 00/00/16 120 Day Deadline 00/00/17 Initial DRC review 10/13/16 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16 Resident Notice Date 00/00/16 Meeting Date 00/00/16 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16 Resident Notice Date 00/00/16 1st Meeting Date 00/00/16 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/16 CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – TBD 1. PRAIRIE BLUFFS SENIOR LIVING (2015-17) by Albert Miller (BETH) Proposal to develop a 3 and 4 story, 138 unit senior housing and assisted living project Location: 10217, 10220, 10240, 10280 Hennepin Town Road and two additional parcels (PID 36 -116-22-11-0026 & 36-116-22-11-0003) Contact: Albert Miller – 612-386-6260 Request for: • Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Office to High Density Residential on 4.74 acres. • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.74 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.74 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural and Office to RM-2.5 on 4.74 acres • Site Plan Review on 4.74 acres • Preliminary Plat of six lots into one lot and one outlot on 4.74 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 07/13/16 Date Complete 08/02/16 120 Day Deadline 11/30/16 Initial DRC review 07/28/16 Notice to Paper Date 08/04/16 Resident Notice Date 08/05/16 Meeting Date 08/22/16 Notice to Paper Date 09/22/16 Resident Notice Date 09/23/16 1st Meeting Date 10/4/16 2nd Meeting Date 4 IN BUT NOT SCHEDULED 1. SOUTHWEST STATION PUD AMENDMENT (2015-23) by SW Metro Transit Commission (JULIE) Proposal for additional parking structure at southwest station Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489 Request for: • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 11.38 acres • Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 11.38 acres • Site Plan Review on 11.38 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 00/00/15 Date Complete 00/00/15 120 Day Deadline 00/00/15 Initial DRC review 00/00/15 Notice to Paper Date 11/19/15 Resident Notice Date 11/20/15 Meeting Date 12/07/15 Notice to Paper Date 12/17/15 Resident Notice Date 12/18/15 1st Meeting Date 01/05/16 2nd Meeting Date 2. MARTIN BLU TRAIL (2015-21) by Eden Prairie Development, LLC (JULIE) Proposal for relocation of a trail. Location: 14301 Martin Drive Contact: Rob Bader, 952-540-8643 Request to: • Amend Development Agreement to reflect revised trail location within the Martin Blu project Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 10/28/15 Date Complete 10/28/15 120 Day Deadline N/A Initial DRC review 11/05/15 Notice to Paper Date 11/19/15 Resident Notice Date 11/20/15 Meeting Date 12/07/15 Notice to Paper Date 12/17/15 Resident Notice Date 12/18/15 1st Meeting Date 01/05/16 2nd Meeting Date 5 3. HY-VEE CONVENIENCE STORE (2016-11) by Hy-Vee, Inc. (BETH) Proposal to construct a 7,905 square foot convenience store with gas pumps and drive thru for a coffee shop Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road. Contact: John Brehm – 515-267-2800, jbrehm@hy-vee.com Request for: • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 3.96 acres • Site Plan Review on 3.96 acres • Preliminary Plat to combine one lot and one outlot on 3.96 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 08/26/16 Date Complete 00/00/16 120 Day Deadline 00/00/16 Initial DRC review 09/01/16 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16 Resident Notice Date 00/00/16 Meeting Date 00/00/16 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16 Resident Notice Date 00/00/16 1st Meeting Date 00/00/16 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/16 4. PRESTIGE DAYCARE (2016-12) by Shingobee (ANGIE) Proposal to construct a daycare facility Location: 15219 Pioneer Trail – Southeast Quadrant of Mitchell/Spring Rd & Pioneer Trl Contact: Stacy Gleason 763-479-5647, sgleason@shingobee.com Request for: • Site Plan Review on 3 acres of un-platted land within the 35 acre parcel Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 08/26/16 Date Complete 09/13/16 120 Day Deadline 01/11/17 Initial DRC review 09/01/16 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16 Resident Notice Date 00/00/16 Meeting Date 00/00/16 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16 Resident Notice Date 00/00/16 1st Meeting Date 00/00/16 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/16 APPROVED VARIANCES TELECOMMUNICATION PROJECTS