Loading...
01-06-15 Planning Comm Mtg AgendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 6 JANUARY 2015 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2 December 2014 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE LABADIE (Dec) MADDY (Jan' I5) MUEHLBERG (TBD) DAVIS (Feb' 15) GENG (Nov) 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — C.U.P. FOR FILL IN EXCESS OF 1200 CU YDS Location: 25025 Yellowstone Trail Applicant: Jesse Kath 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — C.U.P. FOR BUILDING TRADE CONTRACTOR Location: 23425 Smithtown Road (Co. Rd. 19) Applicant: SKD Architects, Inc. (on behalf of Cambria, Inc.) 3. SITE PLAN REVIEW — PLUMBING / HEATING CONTRACTOR Location: 5680 County Road 19 Applicant: Tharaldson Plumbing and Heating 4. PREAPPLICATION — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Location: 24575 Smithtown Road (Minnetonka Country Club property) Applicant: Mattamy Homes 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 8. REPORTS Liaison to Council SLUC Other 9. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2014 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Labadie, Maddy and Muehlberg; Council Liaison Sialcel; and, Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for December 2, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 510. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 18, 2014 Commissioner Muehlberg asked Director Nielsen to clarIA- a couple of things in the minutes because he had not attended that meeting. A two Nvord clarification Nvas made in the minutes. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2014, as amended in Item 1, Page 3, Paragraph 2 change "... planning consultant to assist people" to "... planning consultant to assist the City ". Motion passed 510. STUDY SESSION DISCUSS GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM — TREE CITY USA Director Nielsen explained there is a Best Practice (BP) under the Urban Forests section in the GreenStep Cities Program that the City could relatively easily implement. It is to become a Tree City USA community. The City used to be qualified as such. He does not think it takes a lot of effort to be in it. The Tree City USA Program does provide technical assistance. It may also make a community more eligible for grant programs. It produces a newsletter that includes information about tree care. He has ordered the application packet. To qualify as a Tree City USA community the City has to meet four standards established by the Arbor Dav Foundation and the National Association of State Foresters. One is it must have a community forestry program N ith an annual budget of at least $2 per capita. He thinks in the future the City Nvill easily spend that. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has slated money for the purchase of a boom truck and Nvood chipper in 2016. Between what the City spends on tree trimming services and on Public Works personnel doing tree Nvorks that should come to about $14,800 Nvorth of in kind costs for 2015. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 2, 2014 Page 2of6 Council Liaison Siakel asked if the City's participation in the City of Minnetonka's tree purchasing program counts toward that in any Nvay. Director Nielsen stated staff time Nvould count. Nielsen stated if the Planning Commission agrees Nth his recommendation to move fonvard Nvith this he asked that it make that recommendation to Council. Commissioner Davis stated the Park Commission could plan a park related event around Arbor Day. Commissioner Maddy asked if buckthorn removal counts toNvard the spending amount. Director Nielsen responded yes. Commissioner Davis asked if the cost of purchasing more Nveed v Tenches could also count. Director Nielsen stated he does not think there is a need for more. Commissioner Labadie stated she thought she heard that tree services, Public Works personnel, equipment purchases and trees all count toNvards the funding threshold. She noted that Arbor Day is April 24, 2015. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending Shorewood become a Tree City USA community. Motion passed 510. Commissioner Labadie asked if the requirement for an Arbor Day observance and proclamation has to be done annually or just in the year the City establishes itself as a Tree City USA community. Director Nielsen stated he thought it must be done annually. 2. CONTINUED DISCUSSION — ZONING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Director Nielsen explained one of the things a planned unit development (PUD) is supposed to help do is preserve natural features. That Nvas evidenced Nvith the Summit Woods PUD. He stated during the Planning Commission's November 18, 2014, meeting he displayed a graph shoNving the locations of the various PUDs in the City (it did not show Summit Woods) and briefly described each PUD. As explained in the last meeting, the Waterford Development on the east end of the City is an example of a classic mixed use PUD. That project had three elements — fairly large, single - family residential lots; a tier of twin homes between the residential and commercial sites to serve as a transition; and, a commercial tier along Highway 7. The project also included the construction of the intersection at Old Market Road and Highway 7. He thought the commercial component could have been much nicer. Unfortunately, the City did not assert itself in terms of Nvhat it Nvanted in the commercial development. The Boulder Bridge PUD Nvas constructed in the early 1980s. As explained in the last meeting, the lots are all standard lots. The PUD has a fair amount of common open space. There is a small lagoon on the Nvest end of that development and 43 out of the 56 lots Nvere able to have boat slips. Some of the lots Nvere able to have multiple slips and some lots that don't front the lake have slips. He noted additional features in the PUD. As explained in the last meeting the Marsh Pointe PUD has R -lA zoning Nth a density of one unit per 40,000 square feet. The City alloNved for some smaller lots. The lots Nvere treated more like R -1C lots Nvhich are one -half acre lots Nvith smaller setbacks. Because of the smaller lots the Citv obtained various sized setbacks around the Nvetland area; in some instances as much as 75 feet. The natural area Nvas protected by letting the houses be closer to the street. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 2, 2014 Page 3of6 He highlighted things in the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan relative to the benefits of PUDs. • The contractual agreement between the developer and the City actually provides the City more control than traditional subdivisions. • Thev are conducive to more efficient circulation patterns than piecemeal development. (When lots are developed in small chunks it is difficult to get thru streets.) • It provides for better land use transitions particularly in the mixed use of it. • It encourages the preservation of natural features through clustering. • The applicant has to provide clear and convincing evidence that the project meets PUD criteria and provides benefit over traditional zoning. He read the items included in Zoning Code Section 1201.25 Subd. 1 relative to the purpose of a PUD District. a. Innovations in residential development to the end that the groNving demands for housing at all economic levels may be met by greater variety in tenure, type, design and siting of dwellings and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in the developments; b. Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and experienced land planners, architects and landscape architects; c. More convenience in location of commercial and service areas Nvithin a given project or area, alloNving more efficient and desirable transitions between residential and nonresidential land uses; d. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; e. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly transition of land from rural to urban uses; f An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby loNvering housing costs and public investments; g. A development pattern in harmony Nvith the objectives of the City Comprehensive Plan; h. A more desirable environment than Nvould be possible through the strict application of zoning and subdivision regulations of the city, i. To give the landoN -,ner and developer reasonable assurance of ultimate approval before expending complete design monies while providing city officials Nvith assurances that the project Nvill retain the character envisioned at the time of concurrence; j. To allow variation from the provisions of this chapter, including setbacks, height, lot area, N-, dth and depth, yards and the like internally within the project. Provisions of this chapter shall generally be maintained at the periphery of the project area. He explained there are two types of PUDs — a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) and the PUD Zoning District. Most of the PUDs in the City fell into the C.U.P. category, the use does not change. The use for the Summit Woods project Nvas the use that Nvas allowed in that single - family residential zoning district. Instead of the strict setback requirements of the R -1C zoning district the setbacks Nvere reduced on a couple of the lots and increased on a couple of the lots. The City also got a conservation easement as part of that project If it is a commercial PUD whatever is allowed in the commercial district is an allowable use in the PUD. For a PUD Zoning District the zoning of the property is changed. That allows for different uses or a mixture of uses. It could be a mixture of residential uses or a mixture of residential uses and commercial use. The Near Mountain project Nvas done as a PUD Zoning District. When it Nvas originally approved CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 2, 2014 Page 4of6 there Nyas to be a mixture of residential uses. As the project moved along the developer found out there Nyas a bigger demand for single - family houses so the developer asked for the density to be reduced. It ended up being developed as all single - family. Chair Geng asked Nyhere the PUD originated. Director Nielsen stated he thought it came about Nth projects out in Reston, Virginia. Nielsen then stated one of the biggest and earliest PUDs in Minnesota Nyas the Planned Community of Jonathan in the City of Chaska. The first PUD in Shorevyood Nyas Amesburv. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There Nyere no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated for the Planning Commission's January 6, 2015, meeting there Nyill a site plan revievy for the American Legion's old gas station property, consideration of a conditional use permit for a property along Yellovystone Trail to bring in excess fill, and discussion about the Commission's 2015 Nyork program. He commented that much of the Commission's time next Near Neill be consumed by the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property redevelopment project. 6. REPORTS Liaison to Council Chair Geng reported on the November 24, 2014, City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Director Nielsen stated the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project is going to move to the next phase. He noted that a good share of that sideNyallc is frontage for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property. He stated because of the redevelopment of the MCC property the extension could possibly be delayed. He then stated that the improvements to Badger Park have been pushed out to at least 2016. Again, that delay is tied to the MCC property. There is funding for the first phase of the Park improvements but not the second phase at this time. Council Liaison Sialcel stated Council Nyants to have a solid plan for the City Hall campus, the MCC property and all sections of the SmithtoN -,n Crossing area as a v hole rather than developing it piece meal. She then stated that Council Nyants to hire a planning consultant to assist Nyith identifying options for the entire area. Director Nielsen stated two members of Council and staff Neill interview two consultants for that effort and make a recommendation to Council. A selection NN111 be made in early Januarv. Director Nielsen stated the MCC property is zoned R -IA, Single - Family Residential. The first thing a developer NN 11 have to do is submit an application for the City to amend the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. That process is a two -stage process — a pre - application stage and the formal application. During the pre - application stage the developer Nyill informally come before the Planning Commission and Council and CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 2, 2014 Page 5of6 present what they are considering, what the process might look like and what issues they Nvill be faced Nvith during development. It does not require a public hearing. The formal application Nvill be to change the zoning of the MCC property. From his perspective it is a given the property NN 11 be redeveloped as a planned unit development (PUD). Because of bad soils on some part of the site the houses Neill be clustered together. Chair Geng stated it is his understanding that the Comp Plan amendment has to be approved by the Metropolitan (Met) Council. Director Nielsen confirmed that and stated that Met Council can take as much as 60 days to consider the amendment. Nielsen stated the redevelopment of the MCC site is not significant to the metro area. He then stated he anticipates the Met Council Neill disagree Nvith the density being proposed but he does not think it has any power over that. Director Nielsen stated the size of the project Nvill likely not reach the threshold that Nvould mandate an environmental assessment be done through the Environmental Quality Board. Only 25 people, not necessarily residents, need to petition to have that done and that could take 60 days or more to get done. He noted that the developer has told the City it does not plan to start construction in 2015. They Nvould like to obtain conceptual approval in six to seven months. Commissioner Maddv asked if the developer has control of the site. Director Nielsen responded yes and they have brought the City a copy of a letter of intent and Nvill bring the City of a copy of a purchase agreement. The City has received a letter from the current ov'ners saying the developer has permission to make application. The purchase agreement has to extend long enough to get through the process. Director Nielsen explained the City already requires escrows to cover the cost of the City s expenditures for processing a request. But, for the size of the MCC project it is not enough. Therefore, the Shorewood City Attornev Neill develop a predevelopment agreement to ensure the developer covers the Citv's cost of processing a request. SLUC Commissioner Davis stated she attended the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) Roundtables of Knowledge. The one she found most interesting Nvas a man who tries to get communities to h -,Tdro seed Nvith Nvildflowers. He gave those who came to that roundtable a bag of his seed which is all floNvers. The pictures he showed of communities who are doing it are spectacular. The first Near annuals are planted. The second Near the seeds take hold and after that the plants self seed. Another roundtable Nvas Minneapolis Park Board and it Nvas about parldets. She found the concept very interesting. Parldets are something communities the size of Shorewood could do to create instant public spaces for a period of time. People Nvere there talking about upcoming National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormNvater management requirements. WSB & Associates talked about Nvind farms. Other Commissioner Davis stated she recollects a simple lot split of a property located between Highwa -,T 7 and Eureka Road across from Freeman Park had been approved. The price of the lot has been reduced twice. She asked if anyone else has noticed the junk in the front of the house there. There are numerous trucks and plows there and there is alwa -,Ts something for sale. It is clear a business is being run out of there. Director Nielsen stated he Neill drive by the site. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 2, 2014 Page 6of6 7. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Maddie seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of December 2, 2014, at 8:02 P.M. Motion passed 510. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Memorandum Re: Kath CUP 30 December 2014 ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Shorewood's Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit whenever more than 100 cubic yards of material is brought on to a site. This equates to approximately 10 dump truck loads of dirt. Exhibit B is the proposed grading plan for the property. Issues related to the grading plan are as follow: Grading. From a City Code perspective, the main issue is the effect of the grading and filling on the existing trees on the site. The applicant has already removed a considerable amount of underbrush and buckthorn from the site. The proposed soil correction area is limited to the area that was disturbed as part of the earlier grading activity. The applicant will erect tree protection fencing /erosion control as shown on Exhibit B, preventing disturbance of remaining vegetation on the site. Proposed fill will be compacted to provide a suitable building pad for the proposed home. While the use of the excavated material for a landscape berm would reduce the amount of material that needs to be removed from the site, it would also involve disturbance of additional vegetation on the site. If this is proposed, the applicant should submit a revised grading plan and a tree preservation/reforestation plan for the additional area to be disturbed. Drainage. The proposed excavation/fill area does not adversely affect drainage on the property. If, as mentioned above, the landscape berm is proposed, it should be subject to review and recommendation by the City Engineer. Any approval of the conditional use permit should be subject to the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed and the City Engineer. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Tim Keane Larry Brown Jesse Kath -2- LMEMO Bonn M Em M -000 M Freeman Park Subject, Property Or U Minnetonka Country Club N A 0 300 600 1,200 Feet 1601 nt Legal Description Provided by Client 979.1 orx s The West 185 feet of that part of Lots 6 and 7, MINNEWASHTA PARK according to the recorded plat thereof Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lying Northerly of the I C_ Northerly right of way line of State Highway No. 7. Also Lot 61, Auditor Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Except that part platted in BOYER LAKE 9797 9 s 977.90 MINNEWASHTA ADDITION and except highway. Address: 25025 Yellowstone Trail, Shorewood, Minnesota I 50 / 981.9 k ... °,0 s za House Model: Elevation: - \��'� r / • sxrt • 78 80 / u Buyer: Kath r- 989.3 ss7s .... ... s• 976. x •\ a N Construction Notes: "'�" =.. . . .. "9810 979.51 / x 979.4 I 984.6 984.0 983,3' ' ' ' 1, Install rock construction entrance. N �I v x sas.�" � . � ". " . ". � i. �m . or �' �• 9776 2. Install silt fence as needed for erosion control. say: '.<"r."...'...". `` 980. 6 0�1 / ... r v ( X 976. •� f� 3. Sidewalks shall drain away from house a minimum of 1.0 %. 819 ��� "'' .� r•' / 4. Contractor must verify driveway design. �` / 9s5.o� '; \�.'/ �<' \ `\'•• ` /X975 �H a v .... ..... " O •fit' • pr 976.4/ 5. Contractor must verify service elevation prior to construction. 1J` F .ii." / .... • . �� � ss1.t "^� If�lAi �•ra �� n ,� >li Q �� / U.'�.... r \J.f• \ IvillvL_vv 1911 AF) 6. Add or remove foundation ledge as required. (� J� / sss.2 ' ��1 / 981.4 00 ' 978 i x 974.3 �\J ..98"4:6. .. V� \ Zi • ' /• ` / <`�,, ' a r X979 / 974.6; '� X 97 General Notes: r �C�JJ / 1./' ..... j ` al.� ss2.o X9981.2 \ \�s �8/� . °�� ; XI 3.6 1. Grading plan by last dated was used to determine I X9-91.3 �.... X 98 \ ° 980.5 �� / 9 •7 t� proposed elevations shown herein. ` /... 9a .a X 989.3 9s4) sso.ss \ `Z � _ / A y80.4 �,• 997:8 989.4 982.3 /' �.'.'. s l.9 \ /� s 2. This survey does not purport to show improvements ��� / � • / i \ . \ 6 � 9�3• 9I X 971.3 or encroachments, except as shown, as surveyed by me I c' / 9989' '.', ��" �n X 982. - - -_.X 980.lg2 2.2 �(^ �.- / •. 982.7 !iS 2 O• ,? i or under my direct supervision. r o % /•� vJ / l 96.5 0,,�° 5 / e T\ 3, Proposed building dimensions shown are for /,� sss•si,�, ... "" s 4` x 979.4 009` fo�9 P r loo v horizontal location of structures on the lot only. / sss.2 i' �'m 'x a i/ \ 971 a 60 J 9 ..a,.. / '• % 979.3 / _ c� 18 971A %� Contact builder prior to construction for approved 981.2 x x 9809 ;p v ' r construction plans, / i .1 s s.a _ _ - -' ose° ,, s x 998.4 996.3 / .. -- .� 979-7 X P pV o i 4. No specific soils investigation has been performed on ��� s x979.8__ X: �;' 976• �F�; /9999. m.a��f this lot by the surveyor. The suitability of soils to / 9908 /i.�. ' " 9�a•6 981.2 _ti82,�- • X9 8,3 X9769 / 9 _ i x y- 0 f 978.9 X X 97$f3 : 18 i O d` O support the specific house proposed is not the i. ` 5Q, l . Qo ;x 969.5 _ o responsibility of the surveyor. 98 7 a3` _ X 97 5. This certificate does not purport to show easements % �6�` �� x 1 - •1 0 P P h / ,��� ' s� l' �' •'/ • X 964.5 other than those shown on the recorded plat. ° / 80.2 / ��oo r' • �6 X 596k 6. Bearings shown are based on an assumed datum. / sa3al x 8.6 X 985� / t f %f �( 973.0 • ••�� / X 965.8 /T� '962 a AU b 40 20 0 40 / / ° / q� • • c�`w'"'_' - • . • • . • . • • �� D � Ufa W t I I r / 3 a •• I / / can 960 Scale In Feet / 991.8 / __ - - -� 3'- I 6k X 97,8:7 5 / --- 970- -- "o • • 1- / / m o� X 958.5 X982.9 976 i� ! �.''.(D �9 �.. ° 1 ^968.1 0 �' - __ _ 2 �X 957.6 Lot Area =56273 SF J °�� r I / - sss s I x 964. 9a 1 / 'L_�J I v i X- _9b_ o X 995.3 ./� � � rn House Area -2410 SF n � �r�l- r-�• -> � �� jr� n, il;^I�n I r�i� � � / % - - - -- - a, === -- -- y66'" X 9E Driveway Area =1462 SF x 990.3 r,vvl I v�� vL,v�, v I �IV1 v i vu. ,; ; - --- T-- 7- _c=- -- - - -'X 959.6 ; /X 957.9 i / D 1' / / 96A� _ 85.0 - -- - -- 3 X946.5 97/4.2 / /X 96 _�-- -- -----�- --------------------.�_' X 980.5 978.3 ` 'r-I\ I n jr--)IN I / 956 g O1 • •••••• Denotes proposed erosion control / / / / ;' �g62 4 X959.3 �lL_I VI VL_i II w -� vU, IVIII VI V.ttm ^0 X 975.9 >/ / / / X 961.1 '�I y °�- Denotes proposed rock construction entrance �oh� / Nor herl f' of S /f I Q 955.5 X 955.2 N ew 97x.2 / �- Y Ine oh / 6 7 / monumented) 'H' N2,'7 999.4 / X954.7 X 000.00 Denotes existing elevation 1 �0 � r I ( 000.00 ) Denotes proposed elevation 6 3 Qty 0/h % oh Denotes drainage flow direction / X 989:5 \Oh 958• 0n Denotes spike X 2.0 `--� �� \�6 y62- p�6' 9 _955.4 °' C,,L �0 (4 x 51.4 Q � 96g966� oh 4-95 4.3 952. 950 X 951.9 953.99._- ( 54.2 A -r House elevations elevations iPrOPOSed) / AS -built 975.3 973.ZTs, -� \ �� M'I-L� r7ri �A� / .v _` 1GHi \AY �32�g56 93.9 Lowest Floor Elevation :(975.3) / 9.., . ?�_ 971 s- -� �� \ - • i i To Of Foundation Elev. :984.0 �` 9sd� . . X.975.8. ".X 975.0 ...... 972 ... - 7 969. P :(984.0) / �. ........ .. ..... 9\ ... . ... .. . ... .... . .... .............X970 .. ........... X... 9.6.9..3.. ..s..s..s. ..o . ......" s � 966.2 _ ..X '973.0 Garage Slab Elev. @ Door : (983.5) ... 96 967.9 -M- 'a y 111 .... . ' 9...... 9 964.6 925.4 .................... ........ \ ...................... - 0.........................X 96 .2 "...........965.8 We hereby certify to J Koth LLC. that this survey, plan or ` - �- Y Y Y P / . .......... ....." . _ ..... e...... ... \ X.96 .o'.. ....... ...... 95.2 -� i7 ............ ........ 9 repo was re ared b me or under m direct su ervlslon s x.999,3. P P P Y Y P 8 ........................... and that 1 am a duly licensed Land Surveyor under the x 9759 .....X 979,2. .'..'.'.'... -max s7�s_ ....... .... ssQ .. x• 999:8 ,__.. . laws of the State of Minnesota, dated 10/29/14. -'' •" • . a ........X,973:4.. "....� ......... Signed: Pioneer Engineering, P.A. x 971:5- - ........... ... ............... ...... ..'."..... ".............................. 996.1 .. ..... ..x•9700 .... .. ... ...........� .. ..... ....... ......... ... ....... . X ....... �. _ ...X 966.1 -- X968.5.•,.,• .. BY: L," i L_ \' L -nf \L_ IVII�VI VL_1VV r1 IT A /.. X•9B7 `+ Exhibit B Peter J. Minnesota kisota Professional Land Surveyor rl I ���� i ivi v PROPOSED GRADING PLAN Minnesota License No. 42299 email- phawkinson @pioneereng.com 0•7 Memorandum Re: Cambria Support Building — C.U.P. 29 December 2014 As part of the renovation, SKD proposes to relocate the parking lot currently in front of the building to the rear (see Exhibit D). This redesign will be accompanied by a significant amount of landscaping as illustrated on Exhibit E. As shown on Exhibit F, the size of the building will remain the same. Drastic improvements are proposed for the exterior of the building as shown on Exhibit G. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Following is how the applicant's request complies with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code: A. Land Use. Section 1201.23 Subd. 4.e. of the Shorewood Zoning Code provides for "building trade contractor's shop" as a conditional use in the C -2 zoning district. The proposed use of the property is consistent with this description in a very low -key way. According to the architect, the building is not occupied on a daily basis. Rather, it is used to store up to three passenger vans that are used to take clients to various sites and functions. Half of the building will house a display area for Cambria products. This showroom is not open to the public and is occupied on an appointment basis. No fabricating or outdoor storage is proposed for the site. With respect to the conditions in Subd. 4.e., following is how the request complies with the Code: 1. Cambria products are installed on construction sites. Fabrication occurs at their manufacturing facility in LeSeur, Minnesota. 2. No outdoor storage, including the vans, is proposed for the site. 3. Proposed landscaping, shown on Exhibit E, is substantial and is consistent with the design recommendations of the County Road 19 Corridor Study, which has been adopted into the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposed use and site design are considered to be a relatively drastic improvement to the property and are consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. B. Building Setbacks. The existing building is slightly nonconforming with respect to required setbacks. While it complies with front and rear setbacks (30 feet each), the northwest corner of the building, due to the angle at which it sits, is only 13 feet instead of the required 20 feet. This nonconformity is mitigated by the location of proposed evergreen trees in front of the building. -2- Memorandum Re: Cambria Support Building — C.U.P. 29 December 2014 C. Building Height. The C -2 District allows buildings to be two stories or 25 feet in height. As shown on Exhibit G, the proposed building is one story, and only 12 feet in height. D. Parking. The current paved parking area in front of the building is nonconforming with respect to the front setback (six feet vs. fifteen feet). This area will be removed in favor of parking at the rear of the building. Similarly, an existing nonconforming gravel parking /storage area in back will be replaced by the new parking lot. The net effect of these changes is compliance with setback requirements and a significant reduction in hardcover on the site. Impervious surface on the property is reduced from 61.6 percent to 36.5 percent. The total number of parking spaces required for the proposed use is six, which are provided behind the building. Three additional indoor spaces are also provided for the vans. The new parking area and driveway leading to it will have concrete perimeter curbing. Since the parking improvements will not likely occur until next spring, it is recommended that the applicant be required to submit a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee that the work will be done by the end of next summer. E. Building Construction. The exterior surfaces will be clad in stone on all sides of the building, which easily satisfies construction materials provisions in the Zoning Code. F. Landscaping. As mentioned above, landscaping improvements are considerable and comply with the design requirements recommended in the County Road 19 Corridor Study. It is worth noting that the proposed evergreen trees at the rear of the site screen the property from residential uses to the south. In time, they will also provide the green "backdrop" for commercial properties along County Road 19. G. Grading and Drainage. The site currently drains toward the drainage and utility easement at the rear of the site. This pattern will be maintained and the significant reduction in hardcover will reduce impact on the pond to the south. Subject to the recommendations contained herein, it is recommended that the applicant's plans be approved. Any signage proposed for the property is subject to a zoning permit approved administratively by staff. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Dan Mulrennan Joe Pazandalc Larry Brown Steve Kleineman Tim Keane -3- r j• {�1 0 nom r Minnetonka Country Club td � Z cra nt L N Project Description for the Cambria Support Building and Garage The current building is unoccupied. It is one story with concrete block bearing walls, and a wood framed shallow pitched roof. The exterior is exposed concrete block, approximately 3,136 square feet. The current condition of the building is poor and is in need of significant repairs and updating. There is a block demising wall splitting the space in half. It appears the building was used as storage with limited heat and few wall partitions. There are 3 garage doors for vehicle access. The owner plans to renovate the building, inside and out, and rework the landscaping and driveways creating a more pleasing building, as it relates to the street and private views. The building will be refinished with a stone exterior. To maintain security and privacy, there are no windows in this building. Intent is to develop a nicely landscaped property, yet be private and discrete with limited business operations. Cambria is in the building trades. They manufacture, fabricate and install specialized quartz stone countertops used in both residential and commercial buildings. This building will be used to conduct business on a very limited basis as support to their main operation in Le Sueur. There will be no manufacturing or fabrication in this facility. This is not a public retail building. Its primary use is to store 3 tour vans that are used for transporting customers and, on a limited private basis, show customers their products and how their material can be used. Much of the space will be devoted to displays and vignettes showing ways that Cambria can be utilized in daily lives. As noted, the facility will see only limited use, but when used, customers will be in very small groups, typically 2 -6 people. Exhibit B PROJECT DESCRIPTION LEGEND O IRON SET • IRON FOUND / ® JUDICIAL LAND I / jf POWER POLE X LIGHT POLE © ELECTRIC METER m TELEPHONE PEDI ® WELL SIGN SANITARY CLEAN O MANHOLE CATCH BASIN W E) CATCH BASIN HYDRANT D4 GATE VALVE TC TOP OF CURB RIM TOP OF CASTING X900 EXISTING ELEVAT 93s 1 ASPHALT SURFAC - ` CONCRETE SURF1 GRAVEL SURFACF - 1000 - - -- EXISTING CONTOI \ o OHR OVERHEAD POIVE:I n- FENCE LINE SANITARY SEINER n,1 v rl �1 A A, \ I'll 0x11 1248 936.6 1249 936.5 1250 935.5 1251 935.6 1252 935.6 1253 935.0 1254 934.9 1255 934.7 1256 934.7 1257 934.7 1258 934.4 1259 934.1 1260 934.0 1261 933.7 1262 933.9 1263 933.9 1264 933.6 1265 933.3 1266 933.2 1267 MA 1268 934.0 1269 933.8 1270 933.3 1271 933.4 1272 934.3 1273 932,8 1274 934.5 1275 934.5 1276 934.5 1277 934.0 1278 933.8 1279 933.5 1280 034.1 1281 933.7 1282 934.2 1283 934.0 1284 934.8 1309 934.7 1310 934.3 1311 934.0 1312 933.3 1313 933.3 1314 933.3 1315 932.6 1316 933.7 1317 932.8 1318 932.8 d309 Q 1311 156 EAST - \`" 1316 1315 �`\ 287.00 EAST 1317 -THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT A, ---' INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF LOT 214, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 436 AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 135 AND THE NORTH LINE ('.`11318 OF TRACT A. REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 436 \„J r I L-1 \ L_ V L _/ 11 V V V I Exhibit C EXISTING SURVEY �1 ADJACENT BUILINGS Al NO SCALE N s ,93 i / / / / / / / s / LEGEND- / i X 9355 O IRON SET S IRON FOUND W JUDICIAL LAND )MARKER A POWER POLE m LIGHT E ECTRIC L METER v TELEPHONE PEDESTAL WELL COMMON AREA (0) SANIHOLE TARY CLEAN OUT t) IMAIy 0 o CATCH BASIN MANHOLE CATCH BASIN J r7 HYDRANT GATE YALYE bt TOP OF CURB COMMON AREA TOP OF CASTING PRODUCTAREA EXISTING ELEVATION L.�� ASPHALT SURFACE TOTAL• CONCRETE SURFACE TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD: EXISTING CONTOURS ... - - -' _— x_...__...K...__ OVERHEAD POWER LINE FENCE LINE __�.._..._._,,._.._ NARY SEVER N 156.03 EAST 25100 EAST Z6 OF INTERSECTION DI THE W THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT A EST LINE OF LOT 214, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION ND. 135 AND THE NORTH LINE REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 43 OF TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO_436 SHEET INDEX Al SITE PLAN/ BLDG. DATA Cl EXISTING SITE PLAN A2 DEMO/ CONSTRUCTION PLANS A3 ELECTRICAL/ REFLECTED CLG. A4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5 SECTIONS/ DETAILS Sl STRUCTURAL/ FOUNDATION PLANS 1of3 BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 2of3 GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING & DIM. PLAN 3of3 DETAIL SHEET L100 LANDSCAPE PLAN TENANT BLDG, DATA 1. OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: GROUP: B. S -1, S -2 2. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V.N NON- SPRINKLERED 3. GROSS TENANT AREA: COMMON AREA (0) 525 S.F. PRODUCTAREA(S-2) 1,101 S.F. GARAGE (S -1) 7,511 S.F. TOTAL 3,137 S.F. 4.00CUPANTLOAD: COMMON AREA 5251100. 5.30CC. PRODUCTAREA 1,1011500- 2.20CC. GARAGE 1,5111200 =7.6 OCC, TOTAL• 15.1 OCC. TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD: 16 OCC. 5. FIRE PROTECTION: NONE 6. EXITING: EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE: OCC. B W/O SPRINKER SYSTEM 200 FT. ACTUAL DISTANCE TO EXIT: 81.0 FT. EGRESS WIDTH: 6VIOSPRINKER SYSTEM 12x9.2= 2.4IN. ACTUAL WIDTH PROVIDED: 361N. EXISTING HARDCOVER DATA 1. EXISTING HARDCOVER: LOT AREA 28.370 S.F. EXISTING BUILDING 3,136 S.F. EXISTING PAVEMENT 51600 S.F. EXISTING GRAVEL AREA B.T26 S.F. TOTAL• 17'462 S .F. TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 17,462/28,370 = 61,55% PROPOSED HARDCOVER DATA 1. HARDCOVER LOT AREA 28,370 S.F. EXISTING BUILDING 3.136S.F. NENV DRIVE 6,541 S.F. NEW PATIO 671 S.F. TOTAL• 10,348 S.F. TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 10.348/28,370= 36.48% EXISTING PARKING DATA 1, EXISTING PARKING STALLS: TOTAL EXISTING PARKING STALLS: 10 STALLS PROPOSED PARKING DATA 1, PARKING STALLS REQUIRED: COMMON AREA 5261200 = 2,6 STALLS PRODUCTAREA 1,101 /1000 =1,1 STALLS GARAGE 1.511/1000 =14 STALLS TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: 5.2 STALLS 6 STALLS 2. HANDICAPPED PARKING STALLS REQUIRED: TOTAL HANDICAPPED REQUIRED: 1 STALLS (BASED ON 1 -25 STALLS REQUIRED) 3. PARKING STALLS PROVIDED: STANDARD PARKING STALLS: 5 STALLS HANDICAPPED PARKING STALLS: 1STALLS INTERIOR PARKING: 3 STALLS TOTAL PARKING: 9 STALLS REGISTERED LAND SURVEY N0. 436 Zp SITE PLAN Al 1116'=1'-0' I� arc iltec� 11140 HIWgi%MW 55, 9Utf8 A Plytnouti1,78 5016115 Propored ,by me or under my ppS��� i o e� deyeea n ehcie� r the lads of the State of Nome. 6tavan A. Klelneanan Rea. No. 14164 `.w i V ca 0 ad _ O m� 0 d Crj a �_ N C C: C C 0) Y A �� Ua Q C CL Ir Q Q. 45, LU %M p t C '% E (fCa V Comm 126LOO Dote 12103A4 DrO*m BD, Checked - -- Exhibit D PROPOSED SITE PLAN G� PROPERTY CORNER 6 (4) WHITE PINE (i) PAGODA DOGWOOD i 36 x 18' LIMESTONE STEP"I 9' SET AS SPLASHBLOCK. SEE DETAIL 7/1.100 ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE MULCHED WITH 3' DARK SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (1) ARBORVITAE 'HOLMSTRUP' c (19) HOSTA a- *off I M 1 POTENTIAL BUFFER TREE TO REMAIN, TYP. I Ins BED EDGE ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE MULCHED WITH 3" DARK SHREDDED HARDWOOD Oj tt MULCH n F 36 x 18" LIMESTONE STEP SET AS SPLASHBLOCK, SEE DETAIL 7 /L 100 1 10 CONCRETE PAVERS LL I $ (3) BIRCH (CLUMP) (1) MUGHO PINE I Ili (5) SPIREA'SNOWMOUND' - a syl.zNl. POTENTIAL BUFFER TREE TO REMAIN, TYP. ^ I. �y.942I0 t /I 1 EXTENTS OF GRAVEL -F DRIVEWAY 4 I (10) WHITE PINE BED EDGE ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE MULCHED WITH 3" DARK SHREDDED HARDWOOD r MULCH �K PROPERTY) CORNER 1 LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE= 1 "= 16' -0" G SOD / e PROPELCORNE�R o"• � ...B• . x 435:5 i 1 • \ 9•Sh ; . l � X935.1 •:::;::y`;:_ \ 36 x 18" LIMESTONE STEP SET AS SPLASHBLOCK. SEE DETAIL 7/1-100 ` \ (11) TAUNTON YEW x�END 6 HGT PRIVACY FENCE 1 (35) ARBORVITAE HOLMSTRUP' 95 \ \BIT. PAVING (3) ARBORVITAE'HOLMSTRUP' �I 1•c 1 1 \ (9) TAUNTON YEW 1 I 1 \/ ALL PLANTING BEDS TO 9 \ BE MULCHED WITH f \ 3" DARK SHREDDED SOD'\ HARDWOOD MULCH 9 \ 1 SOD k934.4 Plant Schedule -aw CODUON N.. NoTANIPAL NANR StZrt COIIT REUIIRXS 0000 +a. c.rapy rrw. .3 .•EM \ Bk ✓,ProyNw w dupe Gre•ai,alr me. 9 _ Cb' ' _. veooe•Gw,xd co,ra,.e.auan. a r,nDE � EwrarwnTrn• -41 ,o M dmarup' hp.. iq• Ta0aa6N.'b HamW,q' a bb fa wNav:,. nw,bean a bb (1) ARBORVITAE'HOLMSTRUP' N Twngn Te+ r.a,.,aGiN,• q eo,s t woNa vx• v.,a,++rtl�• ,s rrt O,ad.... 111-b. S Eph. bno•aovnf Spn+nlyv.'•+'Swmand EJ fwmNa. N XOA• No,.'•,p if cool Gru, Xal F.,nIM fJ+ngon•+elSU•lW fo�YM .1 cool PLANT SCHEDULE 1\ NOTE: ALL PLANTED AREAS ARE 2 SCALE = NTS TO BE IRRIGATED. SOD AREAS TO 7 1 • \ 9•Sh ; . l � X935.1 •:::;::y`;:_ \ 36 x 18" LIMESTONE STEP SET AS SPLASHBLOCK. SEE DETAIL 7/1-100 ` \ (11) TAUNTON YEW x�END 6 HGT PRIVACY FENCE 1 (35) ARBORVITAE HOLMSTRUP' 95 \ \BIT. PAVING (3) ARBORVITAE'HOLMSTRUP' �I 1•c 1 1 \ (9) TAUNTON YEW 1 I 1 \/ ALL PLANTING BEDS TO 9 \ BE MULCHED WITH f \ 3" DARK SHREDDED SOD'\ HARDWOOD MULCH 9 \ 1 SOD k934.4 1 i i PROPERTY CORNER TRIM OUT BROKEN Et DEAD STEMS ONLY. SPACE PLANTS ACCORDING TO PLANT SCHEDULE. 2' DARK SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. PULL MULCH AWAY FROM STEMS OF PLANTS TO PREVENT ROTTING. PLANTING SOIL- ( 1/2 MNDOT 3877.2 SELECT BORROW TOPSOIL- Y NATIVE SOILS ON SITE. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOILS. DIAMETER OF POTS TO BE PLAt 4' PIT 2' ROOTBALL EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAIL � SCALE= NTS STAKING: GUY ASSEMBLY NOT MANDATORY BUT, CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TREE IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE ONE YEAR GUARANTEE PERIOD. TREES WITH BE REJECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: -POOR FORM -DAMAGED TRUNK -BURIED ROOT FLARES -ENCIRCLING TRANSPORT ROOTS -UNCONSOLIDATED ROOTBALL SOIL(DUETO EXCESSIVE HANDLING) AFTER INSTALLATION, TRIM OUT DEADWOOD AND /OR DEFORMED TWIGS. DO NOT CUT LEADER, STAKES AND GUY WIRES - SEE NOTES BELOW FLARE, SET AT 1'-2" ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE. SEE NOTE ABOVE DISH PLANTING PIT. SCARIFY �\ BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PIT \ UNDISTURBED SOIL OR COMPACTED SUBGRADE %.I 1 DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL � SCALE = NTS TRIM OUT BROKEN & DEAD STEMS ONLY. PULL MULCH AWAY FROM ALL STEMS TO PREVENT ROTTING. 2" DEPTH, DARK SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. FINISHED GRADE PLANTING SOIL- ( 1/2 MNDOT 3877 -2 SELECT BORROW TOPSOIL+ Y2 NATIVE SOILS ON SITE. SCARIFIY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOILS NOTES: 1. LOCATE FLARE OF TRUNK PRIOR TO EXCAVATING PLANTING PIT, REMOVE ROOTBALL SOIL TO EXPOSE TOP OF FLARE. 2 AFTER SETTING ROOTBALL IN PLANTING PIT, REMOVE ALL NOWBIODEGRABLE WRAP MATERIAL AND /OR CORD. BACKFILL PIT TO i DEPTH AND WATER THOROUGHLY. CUT AND REMOVE AT MINIMUM TOP i OF BURLAP AND TWINE. COMPLETE BACKFILLING AND WATER UNTIL SATURATED. MULCH TO 4' DEPTH ON DAY OF PLANTING. 3. GUY ASSEMBLY IS OPTIONAL, HOWEVER CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FORMAINTAINING TREE IN UPRIGHT POSITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. 4. AFTER INSTALLATION, TRIM OUT DEAD OR DEFORMED MATERIAL. DO NOT PRUNE CENTRAL LEADER. OPTIONAL- GUY WIRES SHALL BE s` DIA.. GALV. STEEL CABLE. WIRES SHALL ATTACH TO 2" WIDE MIN. NYLON MESH SLINGS AROUND TREE TRUNK. SLINGS SHALL BE PLACED A MIN. OF 31 UP TRUNK OF TREE. GUY WIRES SHALL BE SET INTO GROUND WITH DUCK -BILL EARTH ANCHOR OR APPROVED EQUAL. 3' SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH PLANTING PIT SHALL BE TWICE THE WIDTH OF THE ROOTBALL. SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING PIT. EXISTING NATIVE SOILS NOTES: 1) CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE WITH PIN THE ROOT FLARE OF EACH TREE PRIOR TO DIGGING THE PLANTING PIT. (THE FLARE IS THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN THE MAIN STEM AND THE ROOT SYSTEM.) 2) REMOVE SOIL FROM TOP OF ROOTBALL TO EXPOSE TOP OF FLARE. TREES WITH MORE THAN 2" OF EXCESS SOIL ABOVE THE FLARE WILL BE REJECTED. MEASURE DISTANCE BETWEEN FLARE AND BOTTOM OF ROOTBALL. SUBTRACT 10% TO DETERMINE DEPTH OF PLANTING PIT. 3) DIG PIT TO DEPTH DETERMINED ABOVE. PIT SHALL BE DISHED WITH SIDEWALLS AS SHOWN BELOW. SCARIFY WALLS AND BOTTOM OF PIT. 4.) SET TREE IN PIT SO THAT FLARE IS ONE -TWO INCHES ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE. 5) IN ALL AREAS WITH HEAVY CLAY OR POORLY DRAINED SOILS (MOTTLING), CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. TREE MAY BE RELOCATED OR ROOTBALL FURTHER ELEVATED. RODENT TRUNK PROTECTION: CORRUGATED POLYETHYENE DRAINAGE PIPE SLIT VERTICALLY OR 1 /2' HARDWIRE -CLOTH MESH CYLINDER. DIMENSIONS: 4" DIAMETER (OR GREATER) X 36" HGT. SEE SPECIFICATION 'DARK' SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH - 2' DEPTH X 5 FT DIAMETER PULL AWAY FROM TRUNK OF TREE BACKFILL PLANTING SOIL- ( 1/2 MNDOT 3877 -2 SELECT BORROW 0 T PSOIL + Y NATIVE SOILS ON SITE. AFTER SETTING ROOT BALL IN PIT, BACKFILL TO WITHIN 12' OF TOP OF ROOTBALL AND SATURATE WITH WATER. -CUT AND REMOVE TO BACKFILL LINE ALL TWINE, WIRE AND /OR BURLAP. -BACKFILL UNTIL PIT 15 FULL, WATER AGAIN. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE INSPECTION BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 48 HOURS PRIOR TO PLACING MULCH AROUND THE TREE PLANTINGS. 18"X 36" CHILTON LIMESTONE STEP SET A 2% SLOPE SET END OF LIMESTONE IN GRADE i SPLASHBLOCK DETAIL SCALE= NTS CAMBRIA SUPPORT BLDG. SHOREWOOD, hW ben erkksory lardscape arrhllecl benQbalaMdesgm.com .belanddesgm.<om 612.382.0902 i1 x110 I hereby ttvllly lhal ihh plm was prepared by me or under my d've,I uPenisian d that 1 om a duty Stole.. J.Muwe mchitec! 7n the .yaa ire ragis4olkm number 50130 date (ssvad: 12/05/2014 &a by. BE CITY REVIEW SUBMITTAL ISSUED 12/05/14 LANDSCAPE PLAN m Exhibit E LANDSCAPE PLAN \ .933.7 9 _ Cb' ' � -41 (1) ARBORVITAE'HOLMSTRUP' 5 36 x 18 LIMESTONE STEP • q SET AS SPLASHBLOCK. ../;.......... SEE 7 /1_100 "' x933.F `.i1;; SOD::::::: 1\ NOTE: ALL PLANTED AREAS ARE TO BE IRRIGATED. SOD AREAS TO 7 \ BE WATERED WITH SPRAY POP-UP - •.•••• \ HEADS & SHRUB BEDS TO BE WATERED 933 \ WITH DRIP LINES. CONTRACTOR TO (7) GRASS FOERSTER' \\ SUBMIT SHOP DWGS PRIOR TO X 93M1.0 \ INSTALLATION. COORDINATE WATER SOURCE WITH PLUMBING. o 1 _ \ EXTENTS OF GRAVEL \ x93 DRIVEWAY 1 \ END 6' HGT PRIVACY FENCE x 9 4.1 yh 3: REMOVE EXTG. GRAVEL �. l3 INSTALL SOD WITH MIN. 4" - • •::•:..... : �':::�',t!t _�::;. l TOPSOIL 1 i i PROPERTY CORNER TRIM OUT BROKEN Et DEAD STEMS ONLY. SPACE PLANTS ACCORDING TO PLANT SCHEDULE. 2' DARK SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. PULL MULCH AWAY FROM STEMS OF PLANTS TO PREVENT ROTTING. PLANTING SOIL- ( 1/2 MNDOT 3877.2 SELECT BORROW TOPSOIL- Y NATIVE SOILS ON SITE. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOILS. DIAMETER OF POTS TO BE PLAt 4' PIT 2' ROOTBALL EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAIL � SCALE= NTS STAKING: GUY ASSEMBLY NOT MANDATORY BUT, CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TREE IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE ONE YEAR GUARANTEE PERIOD. TREES WITH BE REJECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: -POOR FORM -DAMAGED TRUNK -BURIED ROOT FLARES -ENCIRCLING TRANSPORT ROOTS -UNCONSOLIDATED ROOTBALL SOIL(DUETO EXCESSIVE HANDLING) AFTER INSTALLATION, TRIM OUT DEADWOOD AND /OR DEFORMED TWIGS. DO NOT CUT LEADER, STAKES AND GUY WIRES - SEE NOTES BELOW FLARE, SET AT 1'-2" ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE. SEE NOTE ABOVE DISH PLANTING PIT. SCARIFY �\ BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PIT \ UNDISTURBED SOIL OR COMPACTED SUBGRADE %.I 1 DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL � SCALE = NTS TRIM OUT BROKEN & DEAD STEMS ONLY. PULL MULCH AWAY FROM ALL STEMS TO PREVENT ROTTING. 2" DEPTH, DARK SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. FINISHED GRADE PLANTING SOIL- ( 1/2 MNDOT 3877 -2 SELECT BORROW TOPSOIL+ Y2 NATIVE SOILS ON SITE. SCARIFIY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOILS NOTES: 1. LOCATE FLARE OF TRUNK PRIOR TO EXCAVATING PLANTING PIT, REMOVE ROOTBALL SOIL TO EXPOSE TOP OF FLARE. 2 AFTER SETTING ROOTBALL IN PLANTING PIT, REMOVE ALL NOWBIODEGRABLE WRAP MATERIAL AND /OR CORD. BACKFILL PIT TO i DEPTH AND WATER THOROUGHLY. CUT AND REMOVE AT MINIMUM TOP i OF BURLAP AND TWINE. COMPLETE BACKFILLING AND WATER UNTIL SATURATED. MULCH TO 4' DEPTH ON DAY OF PLANTING. 3. GUY ASSEMBLY IS OPTIONAL, HOWEVER CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FORMAINTAINING TREE IN UPRIGHT POSITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. 4. AFTER INSTALLATION, TRIM OUT DEAD OR DEFORMED MATERIAL. DO NOT PRUNE CENTRAL LEADER. OPTIONAL- GUY WIRES SHALL BE s` DIA.. GALV. STEEL CABLE. WIRES SHALL ATTACH TO 2" WIDE MIN. NYLON MESH SLINGS AROUND TREE TRUNK. SLINGS SHALL BE PLACED A MIN. OF 31 UP TRUNK OF TREE. GUY WIRES SHALL BE SET INTO GROUND WITH DUCK -BILL EARTH ANCHOR OR APPROVED EQUAL. 3' SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH PLANTING PIT SHALL BE TWICE THE WIDTH OF THE ROOTBALL. SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING PIT. EXISTING NATIVE SOILS NOTES: 1) CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE WITH PIN THE ROOT FLARE OF EACH TREE PRIOR TO DIGGING THE PLANTING PIT. (THE FLARE IS THE TRANSITION ZONE BETWEEN THE MAIN STEM AND THE ROOT SYSTEM.) 2) REMOVE SOIL FROM TOP OF ROOTBALL TO EXPOSE TOP OF FLARE. TREES WITH MORE THAN 2" OF EXCESS SOIL ABOVE THE FLARE WILL BE REJECTED. MEASURE DISTANCE BETWEEN FLARE AND BOTTOM OF ROOTBALL. SUBTRACT 10% TO DETERMINE DEPTH OF PLANTING PIT. 3) DIG PIT TO DEPTH DETERMINED ABOVE. PIT SHALL BE DISHED WITH SIDEWALLS AS SHOWN BELOW. SCARIFY WALLS AND BOTTOM OF PIT. 4.) SET TREE IN PIT SO THAT FLARE IS ONE -TWO INCHES ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE. 5) IN ALL AREAS WITH HEAVY CLAY OR POORLY DRAINED SOILS (MOTTLING), CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. TREE MAY BE RELOCATED OR ROOTBALL FURTHER ELEVATED. RODENT TRUNK PROTECTION: CORRUGATED POLYETHYENE DRAINAGE PIPE SLIT VERTICALLY OR 1 /2' HARDWIRE -CLOTH MESH CYLINDER. DIMENSIONS: 4" DIAMETER (OR GREATER) X 36" HGT. SEE SPECIFICATION 'DARK' SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH - 2' DEPTH X 5 FT DIAMETER PULL AWAY FROM TRUNK OF TREE BACKFILL PLANTING SOIL- ( 1/2 MNDOT 3877 -2 SELECT BORROW 0 T PSOIL + Y NATIVE SOILS ON SITE. AFTER SETTING ROOT BALL IN PIT, BACKFILL TO WITHIN 12' OF TOP OF ROOTBALL AND SATURATE WITH WATER. -CUT AND REMOVE TO BACKFILL LINE ALL TWINE, WIRE AND /OR BURLAP. -BACKFILL UNTIL PIT 15 FULL, WATER AGAIN. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE INSPECTION BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 48 HOURS PRIOR TO PLACING MULCH AROUND THE TREE PLANTINGS. 18"X 36" CHILTON LIMESTONE STEP SET A 2% SLOPE SET END OF LIMESTONE IN GRADE i SPLASHBLOCK DETAIL SCALE= NTS CAMBRIA SUPPORT BLDG. SHOREWOOD, hW ben erkksory lardscape arrhllecl benQbalaMdesgm.com .belanddesgm.<om 612.382.0902 i1 x110 I hereby ttvllly lhal ihh plm was prepared by me or under my d've,I uPenisian d that 1 om a duty Stole.. J.Muwe mchitec! 7n the .yaa ire ragis4olkm number 50130 date (ssvad: 12/05/2014 &a by. BE CITY REVIEW SUBMITTAL ISSUED 12/05/14 LANDSCAPE PLAN m Exhibit E LANDSCAPE PLAN E s NEW FASCIA GUTTER r R GUTTER VERIFY DA LOON- 5' -�• 5' -im' NEW FAWIA IB M GUTTER r RAM14AIN fEh10vE EX15ThY GUTTER e FASCIA Bde -- TYP m S �X —1 1 1 1 I 1 �fd= �— IT rl T f— l T f—I T f1 T W 1'IOYE EXISTING ' C A -c INFILL ILL A5 Rq'D ADD 7x13 JaiST o EACH END ' NEW.11 ROOFIN.a OVER ENTIRE ROOF REMOVE EXI5TW. ' Ra m NEW FASCIA BoQ GUTTER r DUWSPL11T8 "'WNCE FASCIA BD'i- TYP ._.. NORTH 4�4 ROOF PLAN A4 11ji -11-W L__J L__J L__J L__J U U 21 SIDE (EAMELEVATION A4 1/4-11-0- Li LJ—t.J 22 REAR (SOUTH) ELEVATION A4 114-10-W EXIST, O}1, I4' BTGNE CAP BA.CAP EL IU'.O 4E VENEER STONE I I f 2a SIDE (hiM ELEVATION A4 1/45.1'-0. arc cts 11140 HlgFN/ay 55, 9uRe q PWouth, MN 66441 763.691.6116 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report Was prepared by me ar under my o V Licensed Architect p�der the IaNs of the State of M�%in— nQ�ejsott.a,, I` 1 Tr' t — Name. Steven A. K1.1 —an Reg. No 444 Date.. 8 De—ber I014 CO ��L_{ cY 0 crj rn� � 0 —I 0-0 ; a'�m c cm c� cc 0 Is Q C CL a CL d. CO = N O CO 03 'L E/�.� `a 0 Comm 1761.00 Dale 11 10!IM Dro*n BD. Checked - -- Re IaTon J ]rp u JE111IN kXL EEEVA _t _IONS z4 FRONT(NORTH) El A4 114-1'W Memorandum Re: Tharaldson Site Plan Review 31 December 2014 The current parking lot does not conform to Shorewood zoning standards with respect to the requirement of concrete perimeter curbing. The applicant proposes to add curbing as shown on Exhibit C. The applicant proposes to make repairs to the existing building and remodel to accommodate his plumbing and heating business. Part of the remodeling includes the addition of an overhead door on the east side of the of the building as illustrated on Exhibit D. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. Land Use. Plumbing, heating, ventilation and air conditioning businesses, without fabrication or manufacturing, are allowed as permitted uses in the C -1 zoning district. It is worth noting that the overhead door will accommodate the indoor parking /storage of a company vehicle. The applicant has indicated that there will be no outdoor storage, which would require a C.U.P. The permit should expressly state that outdoor storage of any kind is not allowed. Along with that, the applicant's plans should address where the trash enclosure will be located. It must be mentioned that the proposed use is not what was intended in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study, which was adopted as part of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. The Study states, however, that individual sites will be reviewed under current code requirements. It is not known what the terns of the lease are. It is assumed that the American Legion will place a limit on the length of the lease so as to be in a position to accommodate the ultimate redevelopment of the area when it occurs. B. Site Requirements. The applicant's plans are consistent with the plans approved last year for the bicycle repair shop. The current applicant proposes to make the necessary improvements to the parking lot, so as to avoid an interim conditional use permit. Following are highlights of the proposal: 1. The applicant proposes to retain both driveways on the property. 2. The applicant has not submitted a sign plan, however, the site plan indicates that the pylon sign on the corner will be removed. The applicant's intention is to simply display a wall sign on the building. This is subject to administrative approval of a sign permit. 3. A condition of approval should state that the use of business vehicles as signage will not be allowed. Commercial vehicles must be screened from view, particularly outside of business hours. 4. Current setback requirements are illustrated on Exhibit C. As can be seen, the existing building complies with C -1 district setback requirements, but the current -2- Memorandum Re: Tharaldson Site Plan Review 31 December 2014 parking lot does not. The applicant's plans propose to modify the parking lot and use the driveways as they currently exist, patching in where asphalt has previously been removed. Concrete perimeter curbing will be installed as shown on Exhibit C. Since this work will not be able to be completed until next spring, the applicant should submit bids for the work, from which an escrow agreement will be based. The escrow may be cash or a letter of credit for one and one -half times the amount of the work. Landscaping. The applicant proposes to use the landscape plan previously approved for the bicycle repair shop (see Exhibit E). The landscaping at the rear of the building was not required as part of the previous approval. The applicant has also agreed to replace the landscaping in the northeast corner of the site with three six -foot evergreen trees. As with the parking improvements, the work will not be completed until next spring. The landscaping should be included in the escrow agreement referenced in 4. above. The amount will be based upon the bid submitted by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION The applicant's plans are'consistent with the previous approvals for the site. Subject to the requirement of an escrow agreement covering parking and landscape improvements, approval is recommended. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Larry Brown Paul Hornby Erik Tharaldson -3- Tonka Bay IL Es 0 300 600 1,200 Feet ,ac C- L- THAI LDSON 12- 4jvj 'V, FULL SERVICE PLUMBING AND HEATING FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS RESIDENTIAL SERVICES Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning • NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION • REMODELING • SERVICE WORK • PLUMBING SYSTEM INSPECTIONS (ie: Purchasing a used home) • PROFESIONAL CONSULTING COMMERCIAL SERVICES Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning • DESIGN BUILD PLUMBING PLANS FOR RESTAURANTS, APARTMENTS AUTO DEALERS, DOCTORS OFFICES, SUPERMARKETS, STRIP MALLS, ETC. - - -NEW OR REMODEL • MAINTAINANCE AGREEMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES • SERVICE WORK RESIDENTIAL HEATING SERVICES • NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION • REMODELING • SERVICE WORKGAS PIPING • HEATING SYSTEM INSPECTIONS • IN FLOOR HEATING • HYDRONIC RADIANT SYSTEMS • FURNACE OR BOILER CHANGE OUTS At Tharaldson Plumbing and Heating, we offer a full range of residential and commercial plumbing services, and we are committed to providing professional, honest and affordable service on every job. Exhibit B BUSINESS DESCRIPTION APDC-N,p UA -M 6,15-5N MA V&s /\I-/- 4flbf+ op F3ujLoW6 lit zz 414 ; 1 AND �.j 6WT -riA 157 i III 6 ac- PAWtAvo w AA"IA)6 Cat, ir Lj tj e� eeD utic A p peb ca eD 99 Exhibit C SITE PLAN THA LDS,QN,, woo C), (AN ImIj. 6-x,T-5706 N Ir-W (4 1 1) 6 Ovf�gml�-.hp DOOK m Exhibit D FLOOR PLAN 3 Approximate Location Existing Planting Area FT- Edv�.ing� Shredded Hardwood MUlch(TYP) ,i 99 `(100\PER/uEE S81'06 4� — Existlr wn Area , it LxistingCurb Symbol e ^: Size Quantity Hemerocallis 'Stella de Oro' 'Stella 35 de Oro'Doylily Spirea x bumoldo 'Crisps' #2 Pot 3 CN C4..: 6 Syringe vulgaris #5 Pot 90ry• �cisting Lawn Common Purple Lilac .7 Area / Thujo occidentolis 'Techny' 3' B &B 10 • Existing halt & B Rock v� P base A proximate Location To Be Removed YIExisting Planting Install Topsoil and Mulch Area - MEVARING WING �TREETftVIDC G VWIRE STARE PLAN VIEW rf15DIHOF ROatRDL. EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING Normscrvr: J rRdrMro� �J uvias+�vuEae !- roaaz:riunr: uvuiorww! u,soe_rnv rroea vxxnmor RWI9ALL TYR SHRUB PLANTING: INDIVIDUAL PLANTING HOLE PLANT SCHEDULE Symbol Description Size Quantity Hemerocallis 'Stella de Oro' 'Stella #1 Pot 35 de Oro'Doylily Spirea x bumoldo 'Crisps' #2 Pot 3 Crisp Leaf Spirea Syringe vulgaris #5 Pot 8 Common Purple Lilac Thujo occidentolis 'Techny' 3' B &B 10 Techny Arborvitae Piceo glauca var. densato 6' B &B 3 Black Hills Spruce ° Molus 'Red Splendor' 2 Cal. 2 Red Splendor Crabapple d Q Acer freemanii 'Jeffsred' 2 1/2" Cal. 2 Autumn Blaze Maple TREE PLANTING 13 UII.UE_RS.tii.c 1 U76 Johnson Memorial Dr. Shakopee, MN 55379 . WwW.bellavloodhuildere.com @52.277.6667 South LaLln Ccle DRAWING DE5CRIPTION: Landscape Plan REVISIONS PAGE Jim Steinwand, M9 Car Guy,LLC .DSA ✓South Lake Cycle 141 5680 County Road 19 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Bob Wallace Shorewood, MN DATE: 9-30-15 DISWIMEn: Nl Weas tlesyns: wranjeR•@!+1 @,µ:ns and SDac!t:at:nns md:Calc4 w+epras -.need cry tn94 �n3 a +eov+nei by end the D'oDVt1Y Dt MWn`s Eenauap ng lS Da C ims v.ere sealed, aiolved or daieloped for use pn and mcam,eF� nwnh lha sGeohod pelf. tkm !V. 1p¢as.. desyni; aN" ;nontd pan; aM Spltil! olWnb chq;1 tm 1!584 Q1 di5F4$od td anY pQ �', Lrm o� t» +DNr,!an for any ptkMSe'YMnI sp ever SYIMUI the m,;lon pStryisSY}� of Aebm lligiscapna 3 t16s Jn, 1l G. Gmiar.( W, {h ines0 Mans M sDec�liEarbn6 snarl cons,LnNe fo -up"ye e,do,t W otteOlaoco of k"So t 0.1`01 WrAftn dodosloos oo alldraYra,q Shah have p!DdaddM@OyBt 5CO!ad QnWn5 Pn9: ConVaCias 0.1,11onlY; Odd bd l@sQOn5�0101.1 aN ol000 .6 and wod.;ws on I". pb Tht@ DIl c.-51 be nobbw To, 9nY vadafi0n5 bol. d,oe snn's and cb,kLDbhs sMAn by Inasa dravntu}a - -. © toloWood. BVddrrs end Men, U.41S mq P- pesAd, UC 11MOMS L.�L2tLDSC.aPi3� �DESIG?� M76 Johnson Mem. oraal Dr, Shakopee, MN 55579 wvAV.martialendecepingcom 952.277 -6667 J k Exhibit E LANDSCAPE PLAN 1V11`j1V1"XVtVlr L V 1V1 TO: Planning. Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 January 2015 RE: Mattamy Homes - Preapplication for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Minnetonka Country Club FILE NO.: 405(14.20) BACKGROUND Mattamy Homes has arranged to purchase the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property, located at 24575 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map Exhibit A, attached). As described and illustrated in the attached exhibits, the developer proposes to subdivide the property into single-family residential lots. To do so requires an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and, ultimately, approval of a planned unit development (P.U.D ) The proposed development is described in Exhibit B and illustrated in Exhibit C. Mattamy proposes to build 121 single - family homes on 116.9 acres of land that is currently zoned R -IA, Single - Family Residential, but guided as "Semi - Public' in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan (see Exhibit F). The developer requests that the Proposed'Land Use Plan 2030, be amended to designate the property as "Low Density Residential (1 -2 units per acre) ". At this time the developer has submitted a preapplication for a, comprehensive plan amendment that would change the land use classification. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: f ®10® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Mattamy Homes — Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1 January 2015 North: single- family homes, zoned R -IA and R -1C (across Smithtown Road); plus commercial development, zoned C -1, General Commercial (Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area) East: commercial development, zoned C -1; public (City Hall /Badger Park) and single - family homes, zoned R -1C and R -1A South: single - family homes, zoned R -1C and R -IA West: single - family homes, zoned R -IA The Minnetonka Country Club golf course, including clubhouse facilities, driving range and tennis facilities, currently occupy the site (see Exhibt D). As can be seen on Exhibits D and E, the topography of the property is rolling, with elevations as high as 999 near the existing clubhouse, dropping to as low as 956 in the southerly low flat areas. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION A. Amendment Process. Shorewood has adopted a two -step process for considering amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The preapplication stage allows the applicant to appear before the Planning Commission and Council on an informal basis. The applicant can show his basic intent and the general nature of the proposal without incurring substantial cost. The purpose of the preapplication stage is to: 1. Familiarize the Commission and Council with the proposal. 2. Review required information and identify any additional information necessary for proper request evaluation. 3. Refer to appropriate commissions and outside agencies (e.g. parks, watershed district, etc.) 4. Provide direction for the applicant (e.g. indication of priorities, etc.). 5. Determine a schedule for review of a formal application. It must be realized that no decisions are required at the preapplication stage. The applicant should, however, leave with enough direction to make a determination as to whether a formal application is worthwhile and, if so, what issues he must address in a formal application. If the applicant decides to move forward, a public hearing would then be held to consider a formal application. In some instances the applicant will make an application for any necessary zoning action in conjunction with the formal application. B. Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Classifications. As mentioned earlier in this report the land use classification for the subject property is "Semi- Public ", a designation which includes churches, cemeteries, the Xcel Energy site, and the golf course property. The developer requests re- designation of the site to "Low -2- Memorandum Re: Mattamy Homes — Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1 January 2015 Density Residential ", which allows density as high as two units per acre. It is worth noting that Shorewood's development regulations are actually expressed in units per 40,000 square feet, the so- called "Shorewood acre ". Allowable density is based on net developable area — the area remaining after road right -of -way, park land, and City - designated wetland areas are subtracted. Without knowing how much land area is devoted to public right -of -way, it appears that the plan shown on Exhibit C may be approximately 1.1 units per 40,000 square feet (net). The current R -IA zoning of the property is consistent with the "Low Density Residential" classification requested by the developer. It also appears to be consistent with the "Minimum Density Residential (0 -1 units per acre)" provided for in the Land Use Plan. One of the requirements of the process is that the applicant must provide a written description of the amendment, showing its relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and including factual information supporting the request to change the plan. This description is included in Exhibit B. C. Development Issues. Aside from the density /zoning issues, staff has identified a number of issues relative to any development of the subject property: 1. Perhaps the most significant single issue has to do with traffic /circulation. Single - family residential development generates approximately 8 -10 trips per day. The number of units proposed would therefore generate 968 to 1210 trips per day. Smithtown Road, along the north side of the project and Country Club Road, along the east side of the site, are both designated as collector streets. The Country Club /Yellowstone Trail /Lake Linden Drive route is not only substandard as a collector route, but it leads to the Highway 7/41 intersection which is severely congested. On the north end of Country Club Road, its intersection with Smithtown Road should be examined also. Staff suggests that a traffic study be done that addresses ways to direct the new traffic to County Road 19, while minimizing the volume of traffic that goes to the south. Internally, the proposed site plan on Exhibit C shows only one connection to Smithtown Road, leaving what amounts to a very long dead -end circulation pattern. Although it does not show well on the site plan, the developer has indicated a willingness to construct some sort of, perimeter trail system for the property that would be available for public use. The City Council, at its January retreat, will -3- Memorandum Re: Mattamy Homes — Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1 January 2015 consider whether to delay the Smithtown East Trail project, pending review and approval of the MCC plans. 2. As with much of Shorewood, drainage is a significant issue that needs to be addressed in the applicant's plans. Mattamy representatives have suggested that the plans will not only address the rate of storm water leaving the site, but also the volume. The intent appears to be to keep as much water on the property as possible. 3. The site is well served with existing utilities, both sanitary sewer and city water. The Public Works Director has recommended that the sanitary sewer be connected to the metro line that extends along Yellowstone Trail. 4. The City Council has delayed plans for Badger Park improvements pending study of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. At minimum, the City will have to determine whether to take land from the project for park improvements, require cash in lieu of land and, if so, whether to take the eight percent of raw land value or the flat fee per lot allowed by the Subdivision Code. D. Planning Consultant. Given the size of the project and its potential impact on surrounding areas, the City Council proposes to enlist the services of an independent planning consultant to oversee the public information process and to offer a "menu of options" for the subject property and its surrounding areas. Interviews have been conducted and the Council will select between two consultants at its 12 January meeting. One of the challenges posed to the consultant candidates is to try to coordinate their efforts with those of the developer. While the developer has indicated that they do not expect to do construction in 2015, they would like to have some sort of concept approval by early summer. As the Planning Commission and Council prepare for the review of the MCC plans, it is recommended that time be devoted to reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, pat icularly the goals, objectives and policies contained therein. Regardless of how the subject property ends up developing, these policies serve as the City's guide. Cc: Bill Joynes Larry Brown Paul Hornby Tim Keane Bruce DeJong Rick Packer MarshiPt + Ct POD n � O � Rd H f+ r � ® 1 0 LBeverly_Dr C H.a .• ;, C .1 0 0 500 1,000 2,000 CD Feet Shorewood Planning Department 1112014 C CD Valle W0d D Y Or O Valley W_od_La- Nelsine.Dr r �a� ' Sunnyvale La 3 � v d 1 6 � \Al�lri Rnco I a �. � Freeman Park ��Nd7 Park Lane Pond View Dr (Lake nnewashta) is I� U� � I Oil Gideon Bay ;1� Frog ad Island Q C P ^je O mmyHoMEs December 2, 2014 Request Mattamy Homes Minneapolis &.Paul Division 00 -1_ AJYIv;h�Mwon Aw,'Ime i:i {7,! #Ii, ``A!Re ;�W iIdh) <i, W "I _A A0 T t')'. }) ; )t3 ;r'. I GO www.maUamyhomes.com Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative (Preapplication) Minnetonka Country Club Shorewood, MN Mattamy (Minneapolis) Partnership (Applicant) has entered into a Letter of Intent with Minnetonka Country Club Association, Inc. (Owner) for the purchase of the Minnetonka Country Club in Shorewood, Minnesota. The proposed purchase contemplates development of the site for single family residential purposes in conformance with the existing zoning (R -1A). The applicant is requesting a change in the Comprehensive Plan from Semi - Public to Low Density Residential. Reason For Request It is the Applicant's desire to develop the site for residential uses utilizing a cluster design leaving 53% of the site in open space, either private or public. A significant portion of this open space is provided as a buffer between the existing surrounding neighborhood and the proposed development. Proposed Concept Plan As mentioned, the site would be designed to allow for significant public /private open spaces incorporating trails, wetland creation, infiltration and stormwater management basins, and potential prairie restoration areas. The lots are proposed to be a minimum of 13,500 square feet (90' X 150') and designed for single family detached residences. No attached dwellings are proposed. Setbacks are proposed to be in conformance with existing zoning district standards. Ultimately, a PUD process will be undertaken for final development approvals. It is the Applicant's desire, as shown by the Concept Plan, to save as many trees and existing natural areas as possible, particularly around the perimeter of the site. Unless necessary to provide additional access to the site, no wetland impacts are proposed. While still under investigation, it is likely that the existing clubhouse will be demolished due to extensive renovations that would be required to meet current (and proposed) building codes and energy requirements. It is also likely that it will be financially unfeasible for the clubhouse to be maintained by such a small neighborhood. Exhibit B PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11 " JAC .C3NVIJ.; P 01,1. ! €'Al)t �, W Mattamy Homes Minneapolis -St, Paul Division The Site Data is as follows: Gross Site Area: 116.9 acres Existing Wetlands (to remain) 5.0 acres Net Developable Area: 111.9 acres Total Open Space: 61.7 acres (53 %) (includes Wetlands, Ponding, Wetland Restoration /Raingardens, Tree Preservation, Wetland Buffers, Screening Buffers, & misc. open spaces) Net Developed Area: 55.2 acres (47 %) Proposed Single Fam. Lots: 121 homes 90' wide x 150' deep typ. 115 lots 70' wide x 150' deep typ. 6 lots Proposed PUD Single Family Standards: Proposed Lot Size: 13,500 sf (min) Front Setback: 40' min. Side Setback: 10'/10' (20' total) Side Corner Setbacks: 30' min. Rear Setbacks: 30' min Code Allowable Density: 121 homes 111.7 ac(net wetland)/ 40,000 sf min lot size (1.1 un /ac) Proposed Gross Density: 1.0 un /ac 121 units/ 116.9 ac Proposed Net Density 1.1 un /ac 121 units /111.7 ac Site Conditions Existing site conditions are shown on the exhibits submitted with this narrative. A comparison of traffic patterns between the existing and proposed use are unavailable at this time; as certain access points to the proposed neighborhood are determined by the City Council, a detailed traffic analysis will likely be required. Mattamy Homes Minneapolis -St. Paul Division Professional Consultants Land Planner Westwood Professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Engineering and Survey Carlson and McCain 248 Apollo Drive, Suite 100 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Environmental Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company 26105 Wild Rose Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Soils Haugo GeoTechnical 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN 55407 Legal Winthrop and Weinstine Capella Tower, Suite 3500 225 S 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Transportation Planning Spack Consulting PO Box 16269 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN I.1. �i -� ��t�i \� ,ria��aL.' '� ,.Y�S.,r" � i:.. _ I �._•� tl1$,41,If 1�' \ � �'•. 1 � '� I- a ;� >;_} f y _ }.• L y � 7 �7X�.� 1 ^ii �\ 1 � /. • � I a •'1 � %� � � ;".f d 1" r �G yi'', I - r t� A ✓ ,fl� �''-'rl `i -' �' ": ►7. it r A � . --7 a1f- < i� 1 . � ` =` - --1 Yi. ' 't! • 1 ' 3 � .1T _i- �''—" 1 1 Ft 1 _ __El i r LJ Ej vt, r 1 ! rjS.• iF/',Z'a �. \ `` _ ,; a , ..1 i :`'., !@'fir" q r _ 1 )i i 4 vk _� �. ��� I _Jr` \ b •Yf ���• L _ KIN j vA LjI -- 0 �' _ - �`,j �:. I • �.. � •`a•� ., \� \ ..��� � -_ \� 1, l�. ,•, -- ,i.. �'.' �—' -.. �_ J'I �y •I ` "V ` Y r / � �•1 `� / r �t �{ /. � �_` ' -. � � s 1 �r� t -j l� ��,\ �I / „ -- ® I _— �. -.. %, \ \ El ��� '�� \ � � 1� l� i'. •_' - r = �, lf'� /�]I \ j , `i I�xL�. ) �, � � `\ Al 1 � 7r, ; ,1 ��� � � '(,` •� 1 III �� r� ;^ �� '� f, , r \� � ) ��� i t1 I ,•� ��22 2 \; .7° I I 1 �,. � I 1 �•4� r I 1 � {.I l' /S�c. �' • ti � \ y CONCEPT DATA t 1. i �?� I > 1 ° \ r 1, IE e Ja •�I•. i.I y Grossblb Area: 1169ac _ y i r r I .r + '1, 1 ! -'+ FAIstlpp Wedapds ro,e -�, 5.9a< ,' �Jy.� '1....� �. 1 `•� -� 1: °: ' ,. .; NSt94SJopable Brea: 1119ac I��,A I- -- _ '+ :' ''.� °, -�1. • 7atal Opeon�'a.Mw.e. -ex�u 61.1ac5t+11 � �•r�•••lY� 1 I� , .� - w1�3•}'j1 -. � � a� Net Developed Area: r, ss.]acL4m .�. 1 � 4 9L All bI.Deoaly: 121 h—, vop,sealgrpssoepelry• looNae -..' y I : I 12` �r�i •;'I P VV Denslly: 1.1 uNac •� I _ I�_1 '9. 1 I 11 -24 -2014 , MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY 0904775 7Nect —d ®. SHOREWOOD, MN p I� �ar 3W 4v Exhibit C PROPOSED SITE PLAN That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33,.Township 117 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at a point of the subdivision line East and West through the center of said Section 33, said point being 876.3 feet West of the Southeast comer of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33; thence north parallel with the East line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 33, 552.5 feet to the center of the Smith Town Road; thence Southwesterly along the center of said road 167 feet; thence south parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, 527.2 feet to the East and West subdivision line through center of said Section 33, thence East along said subdivision line 164.6 feet to the place of beginning, also known as Lot 47, Auditors Subdivision No. 133, according to the duly recorded plat thereof. That part of Lot 38, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast comer of said Lot 38; thence Northerly along the Easterly line thereof a distance of 335.00 feet' thence deflect to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes a distance of 170.00 feet; thence deflect to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes and parallel with the Easterly line of said Lot 38, a distance of 303.80 feet, more or less, to the Southerly right of way line of Smithtown Bay Road; thence Northwesterly along said Southerly right of way line to the Northwest comer of said Lot 38; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 38 to the Southwest comer thereof; thence Easterly along the Southerly line of said Lot 38 to the point of beginning. ALSO Lot 1, Meekers Outlots to Excelsior. That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as fol lows: Commencing at a point on the East line of Meekers Outlots to Excelsior, so called, distant 1,012.2 feet from a point formed by intersection of said East line of said Meekers Outlots with the South line extended of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 33; thence in a straight line in an Easterly direction 628.5 feet to a point where said last mentioned line intersects a straight line drawn through the center of said section, bearing South 66 degrees 57 minutes West and distant 732.6 feet from the center of said section; thence in a straight line in a Northerly direction 637.32 feet to the South line of the Excelsior and Smithtown Road; thence along said South line of said Excelsior and Smithtown Road to a point where said South line of said road intersects the East line of Eureka so called; thence in a straight line in a Southerly direction along said East line of Eureka and said East line of said Meekers Outlets to the place of beginning. The above described premises being also described as Lot 38, Auditors Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, excepting there from, however, the following; That part of Lot 38, Auditors Subdivision No. t33, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeasterly comer of said Lot 38; thence Northerly along the Easterly line thereof a distance of 335.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of land to be described; thence deflect to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes a distance of 170.00 feet; thence deflect to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes and parallel with the Easterly line of said Lot 38, a distance 017303.80 feet, more or less, to the Southerly right of way line of Smithtown Bay Road; thence Easterly along said Southerly right of way line a distance of 170.13 feet, more or less, to Ore Easterly line of said Lot 38; thence Southerly along said Easterly line a distance of 302.63 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. The West 478.5 feet of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, together with an easement for ingress and egress appurtenant thereto over and across the North 15 feet to that part of said Lot 40 not hereby conveyed Lot 41, Auditors Subdivision No. 133 except the northerly 110 feet of the easterly 198 feet thereof according to the map or plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and forsaid Hennepin County, Minnesota The rear, or South, 286.5 feet of Lots 48 and 49, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. Lot 36, Auditors Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, ALSO; Lots 48 and 49, EXCEPT the rear or South 286.5 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 37, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Lot 37; thence Southwesterly on the Northerly line thereof a distance of 240 feet; thence at an angle to the left of 87 degrees 53 minutes, a distance of 92.8 feet; thence at an angle to the left of 90 degrees a distance of 192.75 feet, more or less, to the East line of said Lot 37, thence north on the East line of said Lot 37, a distance of 112 feet to the place of beginning. Lot 50 and the North 50 feet of Lot 55 lying East of the West line of Lot 3, Minnewashta Park extended in Auditor's Subdivision 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota LEGEND Denotes Drainage Pattern Denotes Approximate location of Golf Course Drainage Pipe N Exhibit D ° ! EXISTING AERIAL PHOTO IN 1 rya L CAD HTOWN �� (I/ S wE r ONp _ I %-- - - - - -- �� -- J - -- \ �\ X\ \� !� ' { <� a�7 /j � —MANN / /// ��9 �, - � UJEYLAN6�\ l�l III �J� /'' i �✓ Nltz - 1' i'( / / / LANE '� / /// 1�IETLAND '–J) /�� -� W&LyNO\ \� I /� -��) - -_ �` (I (_•, ; \�> �D i I J , (II II ( �,� %�� \ 11 �I `�;J�h / % / it � / /� iWEI-LAND/ I I I }I l III`I1� C WETLAND'\ //% /WETLAND \,I`__ %// '�� kk X / I _ -j (rte �- \ \ \�� \ \\ \ \ z' ( "I , �r \ 1 , /: -rr ° . \\ . ✓/ ! � �'\- ,!I 1---� \ I � % �\ �./ �- ___ =-._._ �� \ \\ \ \�\��\-\" %� \\ l( '��' r`` ----- � �-, �' 1 / / / /Ill %/ /h � / �j - ` �- •17 //i }111 \ \,_�\. / �� l) / ,/ ��/ II ( ✓'J_, J ail �/ \ \K 1 4%\ yq � --'/ /) .„ y 1i �, 'J/,� %/ J/ Ill // � %'j I11 That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter ofSection 33, Township 117 North, Range 23, West of the 51h Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at a point of the subdivision line East and West through the center ofsaid Section 33, said point being 876.3 feet West of the Southeast comer of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 33; thence north parallel with the East line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 33, 552.5 feet to the center of the Smith Town Road; thence Southwesterly along the center of said road 167 feel; thence south parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, 527.2 feet to the East and West subdivision line through center of said Section 33, thence East along said subdivision line 164.6 feet to the place of beginning, also known as Lot 47, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, according . to the duly recorded plat thereof. That part of Lot 38, Auditors Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at die Southeast comer of said Lot 38; thence Northerly along the Easterly line thereof a distance of 335.00 feet' thence deflect to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes a distance of 170.00 feet; thence deflect to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes and parallel with the Easterly line of said Lot 38, a distance of 303.80 feet, more or less, to the Southerly right of way line of Smithtown Bay Road; thence Northwesterly along said Southerly right of way line to the Northwest comer ofsaid Lot 38; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 38 to the Southwest comer thereof; thence Easterly along the Southerly line ofsaid Lot 38 to the point of beginning. ALSO Lot 1, Meekers Outlets to Excelsior. Thatpart of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as follows: Commencing at a point on the East line of Meekers Outlets to Excelsior, so called, distant 1,012.2 feet from a point formed by intersection ofsaid East line ofsaid Meekers Outlets with the South line extended of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter ofsaid Section 33; thence in a straight line in an Easterly direction 628.5 feet to a point where said last mentioned line intersects a straight line drawn through the center ofsaid section, bearing South 66 degrees 57 minutes West and distant 732.6 feet from the center ofsaid section; thence in a straight line in a Northerly direction 637.32 feet to the South line of the Excelsior and Smithtown Road; thence along said South line ofsaid Excelsior and Smithtown Road to a point where said South line ofsaid road intersec is the East line of Eureka so called; thence in a straight line in a Southerly direction along said East line of Eureka and said East line of said Meckcrs Outlets to the place of beginning. The above described premises being also described as Lot 38, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, excepting there from, however, the following: That part of Lo138, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeasterly corner ofsaid Lot 38; thence Northerly along the Easterly line thereof a distance of 335.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of land to be described; thence deflect to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes a distance of 170.00 feet; thence deflect to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes and parallel with the Easterly line ofsaid Lot 38, a distance of 303.80 feel, more or less, to the Southerly right of way line of Smithtown Bay Road; thence Easterly along said Southerly right of way line a distance of 170.13 feet, mom or less, to the Easterly line ofsaid Lot 38; thence Southerly along said Easterly line a distance of 302.63 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. The West 478.5 feel of Lot 40, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, together with an easement for ingress and egress appurtenant thereto over and across the North 15 feet to that part ofsaid Lot 40 not hereby conveyed. Lot 41, Auditors Subdivision No. 133 except the northerly l 10 feet of the easterly 198 feet thereof according to the map or plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Hennepin County, Minnesota. The rear, or South, 286.5 feet of Lots 48 and 49, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. Lot 36, Auditors Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota, ALSO; Lots 48 and 49, EXCEPT the rear or South 286.5 feet thereof, Auditors Subdivision No, 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lot 37, Auditors Subdivision No. 133, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof m file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Lot 37; thence Southwesterly on the Northerly fine thereof a distance of 240 feet; thence at an angle to the left of 87 degrees 53 minutes, a distance of 92.8 feet; thence at an angle to the left of 90 degrees a distance of 192.75 feet, more or less, to the East line ofsaid Lot 37; thence north on the East line ofsaid Lot 37, a distance of 112 feet to the place of beginning. Lot 50 and the North 50 feet of Lot 55 lying East of the West line of Lot 3, Minnewashla Park extended in Auditors Subdivision 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LEGEND 3 Denotes Drainage Pattern Denotes Approximate location ~� of Golf Course Drainage Pipe N 0 75 15 ( IN Fl Exhibit E TOPOGRAPHY/DRAINAGE Ar in -U reeman Park. ti V\ u � L i Cir cc Minnetonka Country flub Yellow Tr � ..a.. D Minimum Density Residential Public (.1 -1 units �er acre) Low Densit� Residential Semi Public (1 -2 units per acre) Low to Mec}ium Density Residential Commercial (2 -3 units per acre) ®Medium Density Residential Designated etland (3 -6 units per acre) X N 0 150 b Exhibit F CURRENT LAND USE PLAN U RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FIR-1A Single- Family (40,000 sq. ft.) R-113 Single - Family (30,000 sq. ft.) ❑ R -1 C Single - Family (20,000 sq. ft.) ❑ R -1 D Single - Family (90,000 sq. ft.) R -2A R -2B R -2C F-1 R -3A R -3B R -C Single/Two- Family (20, 000/30, 000 sq. ft.) Single/Two- Family (95,000/20,000 sq. ft.) Single/Two- Family (90,000195,000 sq.ft.) Two - Family /Multiple (20, 000/30, 000 sq. ft.) Two - Family /Multiple (95,000/20,000 sq. ft.) Residential /Commercial COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS ■ C -1 General Commercial ■ C -2 Service Commercial SPECIAL DISTRICTS ❑ L -R Lakeshore - Recreational ❑ PUD Planned Unit Developm SShoreland GD General Development RD Recreational Development NE Natural Environment ent oL0 Ln L0 z UI N M Y �O Z .V O X L W C W Z J aVZoo Z O o J +N , z um0) W !n i M lr O Z O N W O_ O Q L cc) a N m N J U 0 0 Z a) Z 0 i-t U o O Y 3 N Z C7 0 0 Z F- N W Z N H W C) N N N 7 W In M 07N In L O Q O � a W c W ru G 0 O N REVISIONS 1. z. 3. 4. 5. 6. Dw- BY: C. ISSUE DATE: 12 D2/14 FILE 140: 933 N 0 150 Exhibit G EXISTING ZONING z