Loading...
12-04-12 Planning Comm AgendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2012 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 20 November 2012 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE HUTCHINS (Dec) CHARBONNET (May) GARELICK (Oct) MUEHLBERG (Jul) DAVIS (Aug) GENG (Sep) 1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE IN EXCESS OF 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Robert Finke Location: 6060 Seamans Drive 2. REVIEW ASHLAND WOODS FINAL PLAT Applicant: Ashland Woods, LLC Location: 6045 Strawberry Lane 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 6. REPORTS Liaison to Council SLUC Other 7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2012 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, l Liaison Zerby; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Hutchins APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Chair Geng recommended Item 2 on the agenda be discussed before Item 1. Davis moved, Muehlberg seconded, Motion passed 510. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • October 2, 2012 Garelick moved, Davis seconded, apj 2, 2012, as presented. Motion passed' Discussion moved to Item 2: on the age 1. ZONING CODE This was discussed after Item 2 on the agenda. Muehlberg; Council agenda for November 20, 2012, as amended. the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October Director Nielsen noted that he does not have anything specific for this item this evening. He explained when a draft noise ordinance was discussed during the Planning Commission's October 2, 2012, meeting there was a great deal of discussion about an individual who is extremely inconsiderate of his neighbors with respect to noise. The residents that were present to complain about that problem asked if there was some way the City could help. He stated he thought at least some of them understood that a noise ordinance would not address that extreme situation; it would be intended to address normal situations. He noted the City is trying to address that problem in a different manor. Nielsen suggested that for the December 4, 2012, Planning Commission meeting the Commission go back to discussing the draft ordinance reviewed during the October 2nd Planning Commission meeting with a focus on normal situations. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 2 of 9 Commissioner Davis stated in her neighborhood children are riding mini -bikes and all- terrain vehicles (ATVs) on the street and that is very dangerous. Director Nielsen noted there are rules to address that if police can catch them in the act. Zoning Permits Director Nielsen explained Council and the Planning Commission had a joint meeting on June 11, 2012. During that meeting Council agreed to reconsider an ordinance establishing zoning permits for various activities that are regulated by the City's Zoning Code but not currently covered by building permits. The Commission provided Council with a short list of potential items that would be addressed by the ordinance amendment. It was somewhat based on the City of Chanhassen's ordinance regarding zoning permits. The list of projects proposed to require a zoning permit were: accessory buildings less than 120 square feet in floor area; fences; driveways; temporary signs; sport and tennis courts; patios and sidewalks; retaining walls higher than three feet (no separate permit required when a building permit is required for grading); and, above - ground fireplaces and cooking facilities (not including portable appliances). Nielsen then explained that in 2010 the then Planning Commission recommended Council adopt an ordinance amendment to establish a system for zoning permits on a 4/2 vote. That failed at the Council level for lack of a motion. During the June 2011 joint meeting Council directed the Commission to reassess what items the Commission thinks should require a zoning permit. Once it agrees on a list of items Council can discuss the possibility of establishing a system for zoning permits. He noted that he thinks the original items on the original list are still appropriate. Nielsen reviewed additiona: discussed during the joint n type playground systems); be basketball hoops on drivewa thing the City should do is e decide where to plant it,_ and He noted that essentially th property owner can trim it at t explained garden fences would not proven to be much of a pre zoning permit for an invisible systems should be added to the Chair Geng clarified He stated he assumed ,ms that could potentially be considered to add to the list that were ng. They include: irrigation systems; large playground systems (timber lary line trees (trees planted too close to the property line); garden fences; and, invisible fences. With regard to trees, he stated he thought the first irage people to think ahead about how large a tree will grow before they share the City's knowledge about trees that extend over the property line. torneys have said that if a tree comes on to an abutting property that property line but it is crucial they don't trim over the property line. He )e covered under fences technically. Basketball hoops on driveways have lem. He stated he did not think there would be much value in requiring a ence. He noted that he thought irrigation systems and large playground sst. He also noted that a large playground system needs to be defined. would not be policing the items on the final list that are already in place. will be addressed on a complaint basis. Director Nielsen agreed. Director Nielsen stated a zoning permit process would give the City an opportunity to let residents know what the rules in the Zoning Code are relative to items on the final list. He explained there would be at least one inspection for a new fence to ensure it will be located on the property of the person applying for a permit. He stated from his vantage point zoning permits will save a lot of heartache for people. Chair Geng asked if temporary signs will be included. Director Nielsen explained the City already has a temporary sign permit that has specific regulations, and that there is nothing in the Building Code that deals with temporary signs. Other structural signs require a building permit. He recommended having a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 3 of 9 separate sign permit under the category of zoning permits. Geng asked what the nature of a temporary sign is. Nielsen explained it is usually a commercial business' temporary sign such as a banner. Commissioner Davis noted a permit is required in the Cities of Excelsior and Tonka Bay to put up banners for the Arctic Fever event. Nielsen noted that the City removes signs placed in the public right - of -way. Commissioner Davis stated large playground systems are not safe unless they have footings. She asked if there should be a square footage stipulation for patios and sidewalks. For example, someone may just be replacing a small area of sidewalk or patio. Director Nielsen stated repairing is different than new. Davis suggested adding the word new. Chair Geng suggested a permit be required if a sidewalk is being relocated. Director Nielsen suggested it should be for new or replaced patios or sidewalks. There was Planning Commission consensus to support the Director Nielsen stated the updated list will be forwarded to 2. DISCUSS SMITHTOWN WEST TRAIL This was discussed before Item 1 on the agenda Director Nielsen stated he was pleased with the turnout at the open hou Trail that was held on November 15, 2012, at the Minnewashta Elemer present the Feasibility Report for the Smithtown West Trail Shorewood/Victoria border to the Minnewashta Elementary School then Rail Trail (LRT) at Eureka Road. There were a lot of good comments during the open house. Staff has compiled a list of them, almost vei include the individuals' name. Nielsen suggested the Planning C evening. The revised responses 26, 2012, meeting, Nielsen noted that the intent is to comments and the questions and Report can be found there. fee of $20. cons e regarding the Smithtown West Lary School. The purpose was to which would go from the :)n to the Lake Minnetonka Light made and good questions asked )atim, and intentionally did not review the responses to the questions Staff has proposed this warded to Council for its consideration during its November ;parate section on the City's website devoted to trails. The ould be placed in that area. The Trail Plan Implementation Nielsen reviewed the questions and the answers proposed by Staff. The questions (with a few minor grammatical changes) and the answers (in italics) that will be presented to the City Council are as follows. Is the proposed trail cross section the safest and least costly possible? Will other important linkages be installed at no cost to residents as well? Safety along Smithtown Road is the predominant factor in this project. The project could potentially be done for less money, but it would involve a different material and additional crossings of a collector street. These aspects have been factored in to the decision to build a concrete trail on the south side of the road. To suggest that the road comes at no costs to residents would be somewhat deceiving. That is, the project will not be assessed to adjoining property owners. There are obviously costs to the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 4 of 9 project, the majority of which are planned to come from the City's Infrastructure Fund, a significant portion of which came from the sale of the liquor operations a few years ago. Other money will come from MSA (Minnesota State Aid) transportation money. This is money the City receives back from the taxes on motor fuel to do transportation related projects. Yet another source of money is the Stormwater Management Fund, since a portion of the project includes correction of existing drainage issues. Finally, the City will aggressively pursue grant opportunities. 2. Will homeowners be compensated for landscaping /tree replacement? Any assessments? Other costs to residents along the trail and/or residents throughout city? Project plans attempt to avoid disruption of landscaping to the extent possible. In cases where the City has to acquire easements on properties and landscaping restoration is involved, that will be factored in to the acquisition costs. See above re: assessments. The City has included the trail program in its 5-year Capital Improvement Program. Proposed funding sources are as described above and future trail segments are subject to funding availability. 3. How soon can it be done — before my kids are in college? The current plan is to construct the Smithtown West Trail segment in 2013 4. I understand you will replant some trees, but will you reimburse homeowners for diminished property value after losing their screening when trees are lost? Even if trees are not removed for trail construction, cutting down 18 inches for trail construction will result in tree loss due to root interference. How long will you remove trees and replace them after the trail is constructed? What is the cost of construction for both sides of the road? There is currently no plan to 'reimburse for vegetation located in the public right -of -way (see above re: easement acquisition). The City Council will have to adopt a policy regarding reimbursement for, or replacement of tree damage done to vegetation beyond the right -of -way. The trail is only proposed to go on the south side of the road. Estimated costs pertain to the south side of the road. 5. Suggest a unified FAQ (frequently asked questions) posted on the website: 1) Where is the funding coming from? 2) How much will it cost/any additional costs? 3) Define the scope of Phase I, II, III, costs, implementation dates, decision making process (e.g. council vote). 4) Background should be provided on the "why ", including safety studies, etc. Good idea! See above 're: funding sources. Additional costs will include easement acquisition where public right - -of -way is inadequate. The cost of easements will be determined in the easement acquisition phase (the next phase of the project). The impetus for the Shorewood Trail Plan is safety and health, which are explained in the Trail Plan Implementation Report adopted in 2011 as an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. 6. Are taxes increasing for year -round maintenance? There are likely to be some initial up front costs (e.g., snow plow equipment). Beyond that, the intent is to provide for trail maintenance with existing resources. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 5 of 9 7. What is the liability for homeowners if the trail is in front of their yard? Who will clear trails of snow? No plans to switch to north side? Since the sidewalk is being located on public right -of -way or on public easements, the property owner would not be liable. The City's policy on trails and sidewalks is that the City is responsible for maintenance, including snow plowing. The current plan is to build the trail on the south side of the road. 8. Why not use recycled tires as an overlay over concrete (could get by with a thinner layer of concrete). As an alternative to concrete, do the same as above by putting an overlay of blacktop over the concrete. You will get the durability of the concrete, but the comfort of rubber or asphalt. Interesting thoughts. The plan for Smithtown Road is to simply extend the same type of trail that was constructed in Victoria. This does not preclude the use of alternatives for other trail segments in Shorewood. 9. Is there any chance that any of the "Phase II" segments will be completed sooner than in 5 — 10 years? I'd like to know what criteria were used to determine how these areas were prioritized. Can costs /taxes be shared by the city /cities and neighborhoods, not just those properties affected? Construction of all segments includ funding, as well as neighborhood der arriving at the current Plan (e.g. s constraints, etc.). See the Trail Plan i is no intent for individual property construction. The Trail Plan is consid 10. What are taxpayers? See 11. Is it possible to furl Lake Road project ( limits to the State H 2 projects — one that situation bringing p segment into those support that move. s? Who ?d in the trail plan will be subject to the availability of and and support. A number of criteria were considered in afety, expected use, availability of right -of -way, physical `mplementation Report, 2011 for further information. There owners or even neighborhoods to be assessed for trail eyed to be a community -wide system. the trail in winter? What cost will we incur to do it as kdown some of these projects into even smaller sections? The Galpin y appears to be one project that stretches from the Chanhassen city 7 /County Road 19 intersection. I would be in favor of breaking it into 'om the Chanhassen city limits to Highway 7, and one that handles the ns and bikers across Highway 7. If breaking the Galpin Lake Road )jects would fast -track a crossing area on Highway 7, then I would The proposed segments are not carved in stone. In other words, yes, it may be possible to break up segments, or to enlarge other segments. Galpin Lake Road may be such a segment. The portion along Highway 7 may have a different character (bikes and pedestrians) and a different funding source (e.g., a cooperative agreement with the MnDOT) than the portion connecting from Highway 7 to Chanhassen. The Galpin Lake Road project is scheduled for discussion in 2013 and construction in 2014. It is anticipated that any crossing would take advantage of the existing crossing at County Road 19. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 6 of 9 12. Wonder why the power lines on the school side can't be placed underground in order to beautify the area and make room for sidewalks on the school property. Any way to place group mailboxes on the south side of the street? The City attempts to look at power lines in conjunction with street projects, however, the costs of that are relatively high and are either assessed to homeowners or spread out to the customers of the city being served. Mailboxes are subject to Post Office rules. If homeowners were interested in grouping mailboxes, it seems likely the Post Office would cooperate. Director Nielsen noted there were differing comments made about traffic controls and the amount of them. He explained the City will have signage that complies with the 'requirements in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Nielsen stated he is not sure if the City has data on the number of accidents on Smithtown Road. He does know there is no data on close calls. Commissioner Muehlberg noted there was a lot of concern expressed about safety during the open house. Nielsen stated from his personal perspective Shorewood may be a great city but it is not a good place to walk or ride a bike. COMMISSIONER CHARBONNET stated the Feasibility Report for Smithtown West talks about relocating mailboxes to the north side of the street. He cautioned against doing that for safety reasons. Director Nielsen concurred, and stated especially because Smithtown Road is a collector street. Nielsen noted the United States Postal Service has rules about where mailboxes can be; for example, how far from the street. Nielsen stated it is only beneficial to group' mailboxes if that is what residents want. Director Nielsen addressed a couple of miscellaneous questions he took out of residents' comments. He explained that he did try to call the assessor earlier in the day 'regarding a resident's question about whether or not having a trail across a property will negatively impact the property's value. He stated that hopefully drainage issues along the trails route will be addressed as part of the project. He explained a comment was received expressing concern that the use of the LRT may increase after the trail is constructed. That same individual questioned what hours the LRT can be used. Another resident had a comment about dog droppings and trash along the trail. Director Nielsen asked the Commission for feedback on the proposed responses Garelick stated he thought the responses to the questions were nicely done. Chair Geng thanked Planning Assistant Helgesen for compiling all of the comments and questions and for doing it so expeditiously. COMMISSIONER CHARBONNET stated the way he read the comment on the negative impact on the property value he interpreted it to be about the loss of vegetation and not so much about the trail. Director Nielsen stated one comment was specifically about how taking down trees could devalue a property. He explained if trees have to be removed on a residential property then there needs to be some reimbursement for that. Nielsen then stated another person specifically asked him if having a trail in front of their property would devalue it. He is waiting for a response from the assessor on that. Chair Geng stated the concern about loss of trees is valid, but he thought a lot of the trees that would have been impacted were previously removed when Smithtown Road was being redone. He noted that a Project Engineer from WSB & Associates, the firm who conducted the feasibility study, had indicated that there may be six trees at risk along the entire route. Nielsen explained that during the planning and specification CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 7 of 9 process survey work will be done and that is when trees will be identified for removal. Nielsen stated he assumed efforts will be made to work around trees where possible. Chair Geng stated that most of the answers to the questions are either addressed in the Trail Plan Implementation Report or the Smithtown West Trail Feasibility Report. But, it may be difficult for some people to find the answers. Therefore, he thought it would be beneficial to include the comments and the questions and answers on the City's website. Director Nielsen stated he likes the idea of having a summary. If people want additional information they can be referred to the documents on the website. Chair Geng recommended forwarding the questions and answers to Council for consideration. Commissioner Davis suggested combining questions 7 and 1 thing. She stated that the answers make it clear that residents She suggested explaining the priority order for plowing snow about possible assessments for the trail. She suggested it be c will not be assessed for the trail. She also suggested explain] roadways or for example a trail along an MSA route. This weir because they seem to be about the same vill not have to clear snow from the trail. She then stated there was a lot of concern u -ified right up front that property owners MSA funds can only be used for MSA )e a tremendous opportunity to do that. Director Nielsen noted the questions and answers document will be made more concise. Commissioner Davis stated the cost of removin recommended consideration be given to replacin with WSB there is not a specific line item in th( fairly strong contingency line item. Davis stated a hundred dollars. ,n if they are in the ROW is nominal. She rector Nielsen stated per a Project Engineer � Report for tree replacement, but there is a 2 3 inch tree can be purchased for a couple Davis moved, Charbonnet seconded, approving the questions and answers be forwarded to the City Council for consideration to direct Staff to formalize the frequently asked questions and place them on the City's website. Motion passed 510. Commissioner Davis asked how many people came to the open house. Director Nielsen stated he was not sure because not everyone signed the attendance sheet. Director Nielsen stated a number of people provided their email address. He suggested some consideration be given to creating a broadcast list from that information, with the intent of allowing residents to ask that their email address be added to the list. When additional noteworthy information regarding the trail is added to the City's website those residents could be notified with an email blast. Chair Geng stated a number of people told him they liked the process this project was following. People think it is a public process and that the public is being consulted. Some people indicated that this is different than other public processes in the past. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has had really good luck with the open house process in the past from the perspective of being able to talk with groups of residents and provide them with information. He noted he likes to use the open house format. Chair Geng stated more cities are using that format. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 8 of 9 Discussion returned to Item 1 on the agenda. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This was discussed after Item 1 on the agenda. There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. Council Liaison Zerby stated there was a gentleman in the Council Chamt south side of Smithtown Road who expressed some concerns to him about segment. They were about the loss of landscaping when the trail is constructs the south side of the road rather than the north, pedestrian right -of -way, bicy, should, and that it seemed to him that the trail has come about suddenly. Tl could be a better alternative in the winter months because it would get more person's biggest concern was about landscaping. He explained to that person going on for quite some type. Director Nielsen noted that person would be ai trail past the Lake Minnetonka LRT at Eureka Road is constructed. 2 considering having the Trail cross to the north side of Smithtown F School. 4. OLD BUSINESS Council Liaison Zerby suggested the Trail Plan Ii more aggressive time schedule than has been real] revised to include more detail based on experience Planning Commission has been given the responsil Director Nielsen stated he thought it is very bene before having an open house. He then stated the width, surface type). He recommended the Plannit about the type of trail. Council Liaison Zerby stag their desire to move fon Commission's 2013 work pro 2013. Director Nielsen stated various years. Director Nielsen the process. 5. NEW B None. earlier who lives on the is Smithtown West Trail the trail being located on s not stopping when they person thought the north posure from the sun. The at trail planning has been ,ted when the segment of stated that person suggested at Minnewashta Elementary ort be updated. The Plan included a the process identified in the Plan be -eds to be changed to reflect that the of the implementation. ial for the Commission to walk a proposed trail site [an does not address specifics about the trails (e.g., Commission have some input into initial discussions it has been hearing from the residents along Galpin Lake Road about the first phase of a sidewalk/trail in that area. He asked if the will have an action to walk that area for a possible trail in March Auld. Zerby noted that Plan already has trail projects grouped into comment toward the back of the Report that mentions the need to refine 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated during the December 4, 2012, Planning Commission meeting he would like to complete the review of the General Provisions in the Zoning Code with a focus on the noise ordinance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 9 of 9 The final plat for Ashland Woods will be on the agenda. There will be a conditional use permit for accessory space on the agenda. There will be initial discussion about the Planning Commission's 2013 work program. 7. REPORTS Liaison to Council Commissioner Garelick stated he was the liaison to Council in October. He noted that he brought up the Planning Commission's concern about the noise issue caused by an inconsiderate resident and how to address it. Commissioner Davis noted that during the open house for the Smithtown West Trail segment she repeatedly heard people say they had moved to the country. She then noted she lived in the City for 35 years and things are different. SLUC Commissioner Davis stated she attended a recent Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) road -table session and she found it to be very good. She gave a brief report on the three round -table discussions she visited. One was about urban farming. Another was about apartment development in the City of Minneapolis for the next five years and she thought it was fascinating. The third was about the new River Place and office cubes. She noted that she thought the SLUC should have round -table discussions at least twice a year. Other Director Nielsen asked who planned on attending the GTS training session being hosted by the City of Greenwood on January 12, 2013. Chair Geng and Commissioners Davis, Garelick and Muehlberg plan on attending. Commissioner Charbonnet is not sure. Nielsen stated he will contact Commissioner Hutchins to find out if he plans on attending and noted he will fill out the paper work. Nielsen encouraged the Planning Commissioners to RSVP for attending the appreciation event on December 7, 2012. 8. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Charbonnet seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 20, 2012, at 8:30 P.M. Motion passed 510. Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 November 2012 RE: Finke, Robert - C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet FILE NO.: 405 (12.15) BACKGROUND Mr. Robert Finke has applied for a conditional use permit to construct an attached garage on his property, located at 6060 Seamans Drive (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The floor area of the new garage, when combined with an existing attached garage, brings the total area of accessory space on the property over 1200 square feet. The property is zoned R -lA, Single Family Residential and contains 40,084 square feet of area. Exhibit B shows the location of the existing house, garage, and the proposed garage. The existing house contains approximately 2457 square feet of floor area in the two levels above grade. The existing garage contains 887.4 square feet of floor area. The proposed garage contains 512 square feet, which brings the total area of accessory space on the site to 1399.4 square feet. The proposed garage extends off the south side of the existing garage. is r �M ♦ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Finke CUP 29 November 2012 ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this type of conditional use permit. Following is how the applicants' proposal complies with the Code: a. The total area of accessory space (1399.4 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principal structure (2457square feet). b. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R -IA zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). C. The proposed garage complies with the setback requirements of the R -1 A zoning district. Hardcover is within the maximum amount allowed. Detailed calculations are not available as of this writing, but will be available at the meeting on Tuesday night. At staff's suggestion, the Applicant has submitted a sketch (Exhibit C), illustrating that two existing trees on the south side of the existing garage will be replaced with two new ornamental trees. d. As shown on Exhibits D -F, the new garage addition will be integrated into the architecture of the existing home. As such the roof lines, materials and architectural character of the garage are consistent with the principle dwelling. In light of the preceding, the applicant's request is considered to be consistent with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. It is therefore recommended that the conditional use permit be granted as requested. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Joe Pazandak Robert Finke -2- 416, 'D9 134.58 22 - 1 '09 416; 2oo ------ & OD, (t - - 68-06 20 RODS TT3 20 RODS 169 70 N86-46'4 160 LOT 38 20 RODS t33 21 RODS -- ------------- (24) Q---------------------- - --------------------- - 4 3 2 ----------------------- --------------- Q (23) %b"�� (07 0 20 RODS ----------------------- 5 198 40 40 40 0 R s 21RODS 45,6 19T. I j 4 ME Su ID 10- (30) 197. 2 6 OT 6 3 S) 1. - : �-- 14 0 197. K R'S U' LO TS ttg=N ------- �,5 �4 - -6 6 7 a 7 5 (122,1 1--(13 1. iti (20) 19708 A, (31) � 36,�m5', -,� o (tU - ---- --- 69 (33) TO EXCELSIOW ;Lono 196.5 20 RODS 40 40 40 20 RODS ----------------- :77 T- - - 4 'DOCINO 516892t8 . DOC NO 5168928 t4A ilD (21) 5CI IV !2i (6) , : t7 {o, - ... 34.03, ---------------- - 5' 22 ----------- --- 117 ... (27) i (28) (29) (34) (22) (5) PART OF LOT TG: - ---- ------------------ - 20 RODS ------------- (35) L LOTS 14:& 15 MWEAKERS OITLOT 42 3q 9 b5 (10) 70 (3i No 30.17 589 22'E (25) -1 (36) 332.88 S89'22'E '19 Val 30417 N89-2 .25 2 --- -------- 30.5, [01 T6 PART PART OF 22 RODS 332.88 71 ti X (3) 62 S89*5"30'E 9-5 (32) b 6 2 PART OF LOT 72 5 (25) 75 (24) 329.24 N88 PT OF 2 LOT 60 (2 ,�Wl (51 3) 152.92 344.87 lec ) (26) 57 1,0,5f (54) 4 SID. 25 3 23) it (62) 9. 47� �1"A . 6 .s "N 1 353.73 54 0 5q. 39(76) SEA ANWA 352.28 N88-23'51-W 262.53 14 - KIDS (53 5) 9 3 (tob .09 til j:/0 (22),;� (,&' (59) (60 s ll?18 (42) (39) 360.24 -i " 7 4 e 2 H.1 FA KE81 (57) lr%) 4 V6 (2 21) 112AB 5 PART OF LOT 26 N89 56' 4-W 'D6X 130 8� (31) 39 H89- 56'04 13 (4 (17) T3 'W (W eh 1 14 0 120 (51111) (OUTLOTS Lay- I PART 01 J t' w Wl ' PAR OF LOT 25 LO 25 n (34) Z, !2: D 1L=5 S 2==' 32 30- 1 45 3 ;j-70 61 LC=322 36) 79.1. 2' (10): 6- (38, 133 zo 4) 14 32 31 .1 5: RODS 351 582'38'2N'W 45158 Kj :31 83 2 � 2 RD Acc� r °3~ 20 RODS 5 LINKS TECORD PL LOT 2 144.9235.59 jI .,34.85 - - - - - - - - - 1_,,.__ 'T A PT OF LOT 3 . OF (37 rA (29)LOT 8 �p - w &IIII IMEWASH ry N 0 2 7 6 LOTJ2 CITY OF SO (28) sirATIE (8 LA E LOT �OT 2 2638.64 RES LEGALLY RECORDED MAP. IT COMPILATION OF INFORMATION 200 o 0 400 1 CITY. ('OIINTY ANTI ',TATF N� Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Finke C.U.P. VI ,,jQawwR� r- A r t� s k � � 3 U i i E i 01 mac- C� lu c rCL � j CL cc CL) CT lB . �. � EB' Bc * br }:� r' _ v. h F: �� � Q i —72 z STU 51-t-- CU Z a 0 cc �L;j LL: -f 17 l I w � t 4' v Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY t�eA `7 T7r. r f fv r a CL C i tit � 111VV I 1 N l Ll a cK , e J ` L Ll� "I'llf �OC" >cN0 Uj � I f Q If _ o f z � S i� Exhibit C PROPOSED LANDSCAPING �3 1 C) STEED. }PANEL GARAGE DOORS EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 114" - 1'-0" Iminimini mp�qmrw-llwl irmll�l l 1101 �3 1 C) STEED. }PANEL GARAGE DOORS EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 114" - 1'-0" b o � d r r 0 7 d C�J a r� a r c J G D Op DDD e 50 0 i2E,4R ELEVATION !.0 v z LL ca O 0 z fu d J Q z lu NQ 61L O W Lk ., 'Y _7� CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 30 November 2012 RE: Ashland Woods — Conservation Easement Language FILE NO. 405 (12.09) In August of this year, Ashland Woods, LLC submitted a preliminary plat for a seven -lot subudivision, located on the east side of Strawberry Lane, called Ashland Woods. This plat was a redo of a previously approved plat that was called Wildwood. In recommending approval of this plat, the Planning Commission asked to see the proposed language for a conservation easement that was critical to the drainage solution for the property. The current applicant has chosen to use the language proposed by the previous developer (see attached). Please disregard the highlighting on the text — it came from a modified PDF document. One thing that has changed since the preliminary plat was approved is that the Watershed District is requiring that the property be managed, not only for runoff rate, but also runoff volume. In this regard, it appears that the proposed cul -de -sac will have a center island designed to accomplish that requirement. Staff recommends that an article be added to the Declaration containing the same language as the conservation easement. So doing will make the HOA for the project responsible for ongoing maintenance of the cul -de -sac island. Cc: Tim Keane Larry Brown Cory Lepper 41. �-«� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER DECLARATION For WILDWOOD THIS DECLARATION is made on this day of April, 2009, by Wildwood Development of Shorewood, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ( "Declarant "), for the purpose of creating Wildwood, consisting of detached, single family homes and appurtenant Common Elements. Selected Article for City Review: Article 17 Conservation Easement On , the City Council of the City of Shorewood (the "City ") granted Declarant's application for the final plat for Wildwood for the Property. As a condition of the approval, the City has required that Declarant dedicate a conservation easement over a portion of the Property, legally described on attached Exhibit C (the "Easement Property ") and depicted on attached Exhibit D. In consideration of the City's approval and in satisfaction of the condition imposed, Declarant hereby grants and conveys unto the Association and the City a conservation easement over, under and across the Easement Property. The terms of this easement are as follows: Except as permitted by this Article 17, no action of any kind shall be undertaken to change or disturb the landscaping, ponding, rain garden, swale, open spaces, wetlands, and vegetation existing upon the final development of the Easement Property. No structures may be built, no additional grading may be done, no improvements of any kind may be made, and no earthen material may be removed from or placed on the Easement Property, unless otherwise authorized by the City. The Easement Property shall remain in all respects undisturbed, except that the Declarant may clear any debris including dead vegetation from the Easement Property, may remove invasive non - native vegetation such as European buckthorn, and may engage in other environmental management practices approved by the City. In accordance with the City - approved plans for Wildwood, Declarant may conduct earth removal, grading, tree clearing and landscape improvements as required to construct storm water ponds, rain gardens and utility improvements as necessary to comply with the engineering and utility plans reviewed and approved by the City for the Plat. The Association shall be authorized to undertake at least annual inspection of the Easement Property and survey the same to verify that the topography of the Easement Property is consistent with the City approval requirements. The Association may enter upon the Easement Property for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of this easement, and the Association may take whatever actions are necessary to restore the Easement Property to its undisturbed nature, as modified by Declarant's actions permitted in this Article. The Association shall assess the reasonable costs of this restoration against the all the Lots located within the Wildwood Plat, and the owners of the Lots waive all rights to contest those costs. Further, the Association shall enforce the terms of this easement by any proceeding in law or in equity to restrain violation, to compel compliance, or to recover damages, including attorneys' fees and costs of the enforcement actions. Declarant shall not be liable for the actions of any third party, other than its employees, agents or contractors, which may violate the terms of this easement. The Association is authorized to levy assessments against the Lots for Common Expenses related to the anticipated costs of maintenance of the Easement Property. The Association is authorized to levy assessments against an individual Lot(s) owner, if appropriate, for the repair of the Easement Property if such an individual Lot(s) owner alters the Easement Property in any manner in violation of the terms hereof. Failure to enforce any provision of this easement upon a violation of it shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to do so as to that or any subsequent violation. Invalidation of any of the terms, of this easement shall in no way affect any of the other terms, which shall remain in full force and effect. This easement does not convey a right to the public use of the Easement Property nor does it convey any right of possession in the Easement Property to the public or the Association. Access by the Association to the Easement Property shall be limited to access necessary for purposes of inspection and enforcement as specified in this Article. The Association shall not be entitled to share in any award or other compensation given in connection with a condemnation or negotiated acquisition of all or any part of the Easement Property by any authority having the power of eminent domain. The Association hereby waives any right it may have to such an award or compensation. This easement shall run with the Easement Property and be binding on the owners of the Lots encumbered by the easement, its successors and assigns, and inure to the benefit of the Association, its successors and assigns.