10-01-13 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2013 7:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
MADDY (Jul) ______
MUEHLBERG (Jun) ______
DAVIS (Mar) ______
GENG (Apr) ______
CHARBONNET (May) ______
GARELICK (Aug) ______
LABADIE (Sep) ______
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
17 September 2013
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – SUMMIT WOODS P.U.D. – CONCEPT STAGE
Applicant: Homestead Partners
Location: 23040 Summit Avenue
2. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Margaret Prehall
Location: 4828 Rustic Way
3. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Tom and Kelly Cooper
Location: 22630 Murray Street
4. DISCUSS START TIME FOR THE 5 NOVEMBER 2013 MEETING
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 COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2013 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Garelick, Davis, Labadie, Maddy and
Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison Woodruff; and, Engineer Hornby
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Davis moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda for September 17, 2013, as presented.
Motion passed 7/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 6, 2013
Davis moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
August 6, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 7/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING
ZONING PERMITS
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained that earlier this year the City adopted an ordinance establishing a system of
zoning permits for various items regulated by the Zoning Code that were not addressed in the Building
Code. In adopting the ordinance, three items were removed from the amendment – fences, patios and
sidewalks, and temporary signs. During its July 2, 2013, meeting the Planning Commission held a public
hearing to consider changes to the fence regulations and made its recommendation to the City Council.
This public hearing is to consider revisions to the Code relative to patios, sidewalks and temporary signs.
This item will likely be on Council’s October 14, 2013, meeting agenda. He highlighted the proposed
changes to the Code.
The City already requires a building permit for temporary signs. Therefore the only change that has to be
made to Zoning Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.f(1) is to add the following statement “Temporary signs
as provided for in c.4. of this Subdivision, shall require a zoning permit pursuant to Section 1201.07 of
this Code.” The fee for the zoning permit will be $20. The change simply moves the permit to the zoning
permit category. Two temporary signs per year for ten days at a time are allowed for every property. The
maximum size is 32 square feet.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 17, 2013
Page 2 of 8
The second change involves adding definitions for patio and sidewalk to Zoning Code Section 1201.02.
The proposed definition for patio is “A paved space that adjoins a residence and is used for dining or
recreation.” The proposed definition for sidewalk is “A pedestrian way, public or private, designed or
intended for the principal use of pedestrians.” Sidewalks are an allowable encroachment in the side yard
setback for a single-family property. Patios are subject to setback and hardcover regulations per the
Zoning Code not the Building Code. Both would not be subject to zoning permits.
Seeing no one present to comment on the case Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M.
Commissioner Davis stated if a person were to get a building permit to build an addition on to their home
and construct a sidewalk as part of the project she asked if the sidewalk would covered by the building
permit. Director Nielsen responded it is.
Commissioner Muehlberg asked what the definition for patio means where it says the paved space adjoins
the residence? Director Nielsen explained most often they are not connected to the house.
Commissioner Davis asked Council Liaison Woodruff if the changes proposed would be adequate for
Council. Woodruff explained that he had asked for more clarification and he thought what is being
proposed would be adequate.
Council Liaison Woodruff asked if the definition for patio is sufficient should a person want to construct
the patio in the middle of the back yard. Director Nielsen responded he thinks it is and noted that adjoined
does not mean connected. Commissioner Davis stated a person could argue that the patio is not adjoined
to their house. Nielsen noted if it had to be up against the house the word abutting would have been used
instead.
Davis moved, Garelick seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code text amendment
relative to patios, sidewalks and temporary signs. Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M.
2. DISCUSS TRAIL FEASIBILITY REPORTS
Mill Street Trail Segment and Galpin Lake Road Trail Segment
Director Nielsen noted that WSB & Associates did the feasibility studies for the Mill Street and Galpin
Lake Road trail segments. A copy of each of the study reports is included in the meeting packet. The two
segments are the next priorities in the Trail Implementation Plan for 2014. He also noted that Engineer
Hornby, an employee of WSB who is providing contract engineering services to the City, is present to
talk about the studies. He then noted the Planning Commission drove the area where the two segments
would be located prior to this meeting.
Nielsen explained the Mill Street trail segment would start at the Chanhassen/Shorewood border on the
south and end at the Excelsior/Shorewood boarder on the north. It would be located on the east side of
Mill Street. The trail in the City of Chanhassen stops about one half of a block before the border.
Hennepin County and Chanhassen appear to be interested in extending it to the border if Shorewood
decides to construct this segment. Excelsior has decided not to conduct a feasibility study for building a
Mill Street segment of this trail in Excelsior at this time.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 17, 2013
Page 3 of 8
In response to a question from Commissioner Garelick, Director Nielsen explained the City would pay for
the permanent easements that are needed and if the City cannot reach an agreement with the property
owners to acquire the easements within a specified time the City will start the process of acquiring them
through the process of eminent domain. Garelick then asked how the purchase price is determined.
Nielsen explained for the Smithtown Road west sidewalk easements the City hired an appraiser and then
made offers based on the appraisals. The amount paid varied. For the County Road 19 trail segment the
City was able to get the two required easements for free.
Engineer Hornby explained that currently there is what Hennepin County calls an on-street trail along
Mill Street. The County would prefer to have that trail separated from vehicle traffic. Mill Street is
considered an arterial roadway in the County’s system. Staff worked with County representatives to
identify minimum requirements the County would find acceptable to separate pedestrian and bicycle
traffic from the vehicle traffic lane. The County would allow the City to reduce the size of the shoulder in
order to fit the trail in provided the City meets the County’s design requirements. Curb and gutter would
be installed along the east side of Mill Street. The County would allow the roadway to have an 11 to 12-
foot driving lane and 4-foot-wide shoulder on the east side in order to keep a 5-foot separation between
the face of the curb and the edge of the 8-foot-wide trail. Where possible, there will be a 2-foot-wide
buffer between the edge of the trail and the right-of-way (ROW) line. The terrain in the project area
varies. In some areas the slope is above the roadway on the side of the trail. In other areas the yard area
continues to slope away. The areas that slope away are primarily where retaining walls would be
constructed. Only one design alternative was considered during the feasibility study; an 8-foot-wide
bituminous trail.
The estimated cost for the project is just under $700,000. That amount includes construction costs plus a
10 percent contingency for construction costs plus 24 percent of that combined amount for indirect costs
(that amount is typical in a feasibility report). There is approximately $145,000 slated for this project in
the capital improvement program (CIP) for 2014. The project includes storm sewer improvements to
convey stormwater runoff from the roadway to the existing wetlands and low lands. Some utility poles
will have to be relocated in the County ROW.
Director Nielsen noted the Trail Implementation Plan does not specify the design for any of the trail
segments but it did recommend a 6-foot-wide bituminous surface as the base design. The width and
surface of segments will be determined on a case by case basis.
Engineer Hornby stated in those areas where the retaining wall will be close to the trail a pedestrian fence
will be installed behind the wall and the width of the trail will be increased to 10 feet wide. Even with the
amount of impervious surface that is being added for the Mill Street project the City will still be
underneath the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s (MCWD’s) threshold for stormwater volume
control. Therefore, the City will not need a pond. Staff is still looking into measures (e.g., a manhole or
water quality structure) to reduce the transmission of some sediment downstream.
Commissioner Garelick asked if there have been any studies that show what impact trails have on
property values. Director Nielsen stated he assumes there have been studies.
Director Nielsen stated the Mill Street and Galpin Lake Road trail segments were in part prioritized as a
higher priority because of neighborhood demand.
Commissioner Charbonnet stated it is a little bit concerning that there could potentially be a segment of
trail that is not connected to both Chanhassen and Excelsior. He asked what the likelihood is that the trail
would at least be connected to the trail in Chanhassen. Director Nielsen reiterated that there appears to be
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 17, 2013
Page 4 of 8
a desire on the parts of Hennepin County and Chanhassen to make that connection. Nielsen stated
Shorewood has as much if not more to gain than Chanhassen from this trail segment. In response to
another question, Nielsen stated he does not know why Chanhassen stopped its trail short of the
Chanhassen/Shorewood border. Maybe because the wetland in that area might have been problematic to
deal with and there was no trail to connect to. In response to another question, Nielsen stated he would
not think Shorewood would help pay for the short extension in Chanhassen. Nielsen then stated the worst
case would be that people would have to go onto the on-street trail for that short distance in Chanhassen
before getting onto the trail in Chanhassen.
Council Liaison Woodruff asked staff to provide some type of property count for areas near the trial
segments to use has a way to try and estimate what the use of the trails might be. He then asked Engineer
Hornby what the grass buffer and boulevard would be planted with for the Mill Street project and how
would it be maintained. Hornby stated that typically it would be sod but other alternatives (e.g., seed or
prairie plantings) could be considered. With regard to maintenance, Hornby stated staff will have to
discuss that. Director Nielsen stated Council has discussed its desire to have a policy regarding the level
of maintenance for public areas.
Commissioner Maddy asked if there will be an opportunity to plant trees in the boulevard area. Engineer
Hornby stated the City needs to provide an area for the utilities in the public ROWs between the trail and
the curb. Anything planted there would have to be lower in height. Hornby then stated sight distance has
to be taken into account; people need to be able to see in both directions when coming out of their
driveways. Director Nielsen noted that staff in general discourages planting trees in the public ROW.
Maddy then asked if curb cuts were going to be put in. Hornby stated they would be. Also, filtrations are
being considered to help reduce phosphorous loading and the amount of storm sewer that would be
needed.
In response to a question from Council Liaison Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated that through its
adoption of the Trail Implementation Plan Council indicated that trails are a priority for the City. The Plan
identifies the priorities for the various trail segments. The Planning Commission recommends what the
design of the individual segments should be and what side of the road they should be located on based on
information and recommendations found in the feasibility reports. Director Nielsen noted the
recommendations found in the feasibility reports are well founded.
Engineer Hornby stated if the City is looking for funding to help pay for the feasibility study it has to
meet Hennepin County requirements. Therefore, the width of the trail has to be a minimum of 8 feet wide.
He noted the width of the trail could be increased if the City wanted to. The County would likely prefer
that.
In response to a question from Council Liaison Woodruff, Engineer Hornby explained that the trail in
Chanhassen that the Mill Street trail segment would get close to is 8 feet wide and it has a bituminous
surface.
Director Nielsen stated there is an alternative that has not been presented and that is to simply leave what
Hennepin County calls an on-street trail in that location. That basically means doing nothing. He then
stated he thought the residents who were involved in developing the Trail Implementation Plan would be
quite disappointed if a separate trail is not constructed. And, the County prefers to have a separated trail.
He went on to state that although the City cannot count on being awarded grants to help fund the
construction there is some hope that the County will help fund it. Commissioner Davis asked how much
the grant would be for. Nielsen responded the most he is aware of is about 25 percent of the cost to
construct the trail. Engineer Hornby stated there are a couple of different grants the City can pursue but it
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 17, 2013
Page 5 of 8
would need Chanhassen to fill the gap in the trail. Hornby then stated the maximum County grant for this
project would be $100,000 while noting the County does some have discretion.
Commissioner Davis commented the construction of retaining walls is quite costly. For the Mill Street
project the estimated cost is $119,000 and for the Galpin Lake Road project it is $143,500.
Engineer Hornby stated if there is a possibility of acquiring slope easements. But, there is a cost for doing
that and filling in the area also.
Commissioner Davis stated earlier in the day the stretch of trail in Chanhassen from Lake Lucy Road
along Highway 41 to close to the border with Shorewood was very heavily used with people traveling
north. She found it rewarding to see something that was expensive to build being heavily used.
Director Nielsen stated the new County Road 19 trail segment is being heavily used.
Engineer Hornby explained the Galpin Lake Road trail segment project is the more difficult of the two
projects to do, noting both are difficult. The terrain is very difficult to deal with on both sides of the
roadway. There needs to be a lot of retaining walls because of the grades. There is a large obstacle on the
north end and the south end of the project area. On the south end there is a Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) protected wetland and there would be a lot of retaining wall needed in that area
to try and help reduce impacts. There would be a lot of retaining wall needed on the west side because of
the steep slopes on that side. If the trail were on the east side the number of crossings people would have
to take would be reduced. On the north end there is a Metropolitan Council Environmental Services’
(MCES) lift station and Galpin Lake. It appears Galpin Lake would be easy to work around. But, there
would some retaining wall needed near Excelsior but the rest can be dealt with by sloping. For the lift
station Galpin Lake Road would have to be widened on the west side and narrowed on the east side in
order to fit a 6-foot-wide bituminous walkway past the lift station.
There would be a steel plate beam guard rail that goes from the lift station around the corner a little way
and then transitions into cable type of guard rail. For the cable guard rail there has to be a 7-foot-wide
buffer between it and a pedestrian way. With a plate beam guard the buffer only has to be 4 feet wide.
For this project both an 8-foot-wide trail alternative and a 6-foot-wide trail alternative were considered.
The 6-foot-wide alternative is the lower cost alternative and it does reduce impact, but it does not provide
adequate space for combined pedestrian and bicycle use. There are some properties that drop off quickly.
In some areas the trail will be close to the curb and in other areas it will be closer to the property line; the
preference is to keep it further away from the curb to give the pedestrians more buffer from the traffic.
Staff recommends going with the 6-foot-wide trail alternative.
Chair Geng stated that one of the items discussed during the tour of the sites before the meeting was that
if there were to be an 8-foot-wide trail along Galpin Lake Road it would require some additional ponding.
That would likely require the City to acquire the entire adjacent property at a significant cost. That is a
strong point in favor of the 6-foot-wide trail.
Engineer Hornby stated with an 8-foot-wide trail, additional impervious area would trip a MCWD
threshold and therefore would require volume control. That is not necessary with a 6-foot-wide trail, but
the City will have to provide some water quality treatments. There would be a water quality structure for
Galpin Lake discharge and one that would discharge to the wetland to the south.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 17, 2013
Page 6 of 8
In response to a question from Director Nielsen, Engineer Hornby explained the 10,000 square foot
threshold rule applies to a linear project. If a linear project exceeds an additional 10,000 square feet of
impervious surface then the project has to provide for volume control. If part of the project were done one
year and the rest another year the permitting agencies would consider it one project.
Chair Geng stated the feasibility report talks about the need to move private utility poles. He asked if the
poles are owned by Xcel Energy or by property owners. Engineer Hornby explained private utilities are
sometimes called small utilities. They would include power, telephone, cable television and so forth. They
are generally owned by a utility company. Typically irrigation systems are not allowed in the ROW. If
they are present they are typically moved out as part of the project.
Geng stated based on this evening’s tour it is his understanding that along Mill Street Hennepin County
could tell the utilities to move their poles. He asked if that would be the case along Galpin Lake Road.
Engineer Hornby stated the City would do the exact same thing the County does because the City controls
the ROW. The City would have the utilities relocate the poles because they are in conflict with a public
improvement project. But, the City has to provide a place for them to be. He does not think the City has to
pay for that to be done. Geng noted that it is his understanding that Xcel charges about $20,000 to
relocate one of its utility poles. Hornby stated in all of the years he has done this type of work he has yet
to see a bill for relocating utility poles.
Director Nielsen stated the realignment of Galpin Lake Road as it connects to Highway 7 is included in
the City’s Comprehensive Plan as a roadway project. The intent is to straighten Galpin Lake Road out
somewhat so it is more of a 90 degree intersection with Highway 7. Engineer Hornby stated staff will
look into the possibility of a safety grant through the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
to help fund the realignment. He clarified that currently for this project the only thing that will be done is
to widen one side of the roadway and narrow the other side. If there are some safety dollars available then
maybe additional work on Galpin Lake Road can be done.
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending Council accept the Mill Street Trail Improvements
Feasibility Report as presented.
Commissioner Garelick stated if these two trail segments were constructed he asked how many miles of
trails there would be in Shorewood. Director Nielsen stated he thought that information could possibly be
found in the Trail Implementation Plan. Nielsen then stated these two segments amount to about one mile
of trail.
Commissioner Maddy asked if it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to weigh in on things such
as curb cuts, swales and natural plantings. Director Nielsen stated the basic stuff is the location, the width
and the materials. Nielsen suggested providing other input if they have it. Commissioner Davis stated she
thought that the property owners living along the trail should weigh in on that.
Chair Geng clarified that basically the Planning Commission is recommending approval of the
recommendations for the trail location, the trail width and the trail surface at this time.
Motion passed 7/0.
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending Council accept the Galpin Lake Road Trail
Improvements Feasibility Report for the 6-foot-wide bituminous trail option as presented. Motion
passed 7/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 17, 2013
Page 7 of 8
Commissioner Davis commented that the City of Lakeville has over 100 miles of trail.
In response to a question from Commissioner Charbonnet, Engineer Hornby explained that for the
realignment of Galpin Lake Road at County Road 19, Hennepin County considers the number of vehicle-
to-vehicle crashes and pedestrian incidents to be a big factor for the County when considering safety grant
applications. Hornby stated he would have to look up incident information for that skewed intersection.
Engineer Hornby stated the difficulty with Galpin Lake Road is the way the access to it is modified on
Highway 7; it becomes a collector northbound during the morning peak hour and Chaska Road takes the
southbound traffic in the afternoon. He noted that Galpin Lake Road is now classified as a Minnesota
State Aid (MSA) roadway.
Chair Geng thanked Engineer Hornby for joining the Planning Commission on the trail tour and for
coming to this meeting.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
None.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there are two minor subdivisions slated for the October 1, 2013, Planning
Commission meeting. Also slated is a small planned unit development (P.U.D.). The noise ordinance will
also be on that meeting agenda.
6. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Council Liaison Woodruff reported on the August 12, August 26, and September 9, 2013, Council
meetings (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings).
Commissioner Maddy stated during the Planning Commission’s August 6, 2013 meeting it discussed the
site plan for the property located at 448 Lafayette Avenue. During that discussion it was noted there were
two docks located on the property. He asked how that issue was resolved. Director Nielsen explained the
applicant was able to provide an aerial photograph from May 1956, which predates Shorewood’s
existence as a city, showing two docks on that property. Therefore, the property owners do not have to
remove one of the two docks.
Council Liaison Woodruff asked Director Nielsen when the Mill Street and Galpin Lake Road trail
segments feasibility studies will be considered by Council. Nielsen responded he originally thought it
would be on Council’s October 14 meeting agenda so Council would be able to read the minutes of this
meeting. Because there was pretty good consensus among the Planning Commissioner’s about what is
being proposed it’s possible they will be placed on Council’s September 23 meeting agenda. Nielsen
asked Woodruff what his perspective is on that. Woodruff stated it would be better if Council had the
opportunity to read the minutes; but, he does not want to compromise the schedule. Engineer Hornby
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 17, 2013
Page 8 of 8
stated he does not think that having it on Council’s October 14 agenda is an issue. Woodruff stated he
thought it would be useful for Council to have the minutes. He suggested revising the schedule
accordingly.
• SLUC
Commissioner Davis stated she attended the most recent Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) session.
She noted she was surprised by how much it cost to attend. She explained the session was about the state
of the aquifers. She found the session to be very good. She suggested the City get the DVD of that
session. She stated the take away is immediate action has to be taken on things such as irrigation. She
noted there is a free book that people can get.
• Other
Commissioner Davis noted that on September 18, 2013, there is the first 2014 Arctic Fever planning
committee meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Garelick moved, Muehlberg seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of
September 17, 2013, at 8:26 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Memorandum
Re: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Concept Plan
24 September 2014
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
A. Current Zoning. The current zoning of the site provides for single - family residential lots
containing a minimum of 20,000 square feet of area and 100 feet in width. Required
building setbacks are as follows:
Front: 35 feet Side: 10 feet Rear: 40 feet
By comparison, the zoning in Chanhassen allows 15,000 square -foot lots, 90 feet in width
and with 30 -foot front yard setbacks and 10 -foot side yard setbacks. It is worth noting ,
that much of the existing development to the south of the subject property consists of
larger lots with rather spacious front yards (well over 100 feet in some cases).
A plat sketch (Exhibit D) showing how six lots, meeting or exceeding the R -1 C
requirements would work on the subject property. As mentioned in the preceding section,
the applicant has proposed to develop the property as a Planned Unit Development (see
Exhibit E). This zoning tool allows for variation from the established standards,
particularly where natural features can be preserved through design flexibility. Although
all of the proposed lots are at least 20,000 square feet in area, the developer has asked for
reductions in lot width down to 70 feet: In addition, he proposes building setbacks as
follows:
Front: 25 feet Side: 7.5 feet Rear: 40 feet
The developer's expressed intent is to avoid massive site alteration of the steep, wooded
slopes on the east and north sides of the property.
B. Planned Unit Development.
Each zoning district in our Zoning Code provides a conditional use process for planned
unit development (P,U.D.). Very simply, P.U.D. allows for some flexibility from
traditional zoning standards (e.g. lot area, lot width, setbacks, etc.) in exchange for greater
control or protection of natural features. In this case; the developer proposes to grant the
City a conservation easement over the westerly and northerly half of the site. This not
only ensures that nothing will be built on just over two acres of the site, but also that no
alteration (grading or tree removal) will occur on the most sensitive portion of the
property. in exchange he proposes lots that are narrower than what would otherwise be
allowed in the R -1C district. It must be realized that the overall density of the project is
proposed to be 1.42 per acre, whereas the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan provides for
1 -2 units per acre in this area.
Section 1201.25 of the City Code sets forth the provisions for Planned Unit Development,
starting with the purpose for P.U.D. The provisions of Section 1201.25 establish the
mechanisms for establishing protective covenants that are recorded against the lots,
putting future lot owners on notice as to what rules govern the property. Since traditional
zoning requirements (in this case, building setbacks and lot width) are being relaxed, the
-2-
Memorandum
Re: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Concept Plan
24 September 2014
requirements negotiated between the developer and the City are set forth in a
development agreement that is also recorded against the land.
One of the main purposes of P.U.D. is "The preservation and enhancement of desirable
site characteristic such as natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of
soil erosion." In the past few years the City has asked for a demonstration of "what is in
this for the City ?" where P.U.D. is proposed to be used. In this case over two acres of a
4.23-acre- site will remain untouched. This is considered to be consistent with the goals
and objectives of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan.
C. Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Following is how the proposed development relates to
the various chapters of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan:
1. Natural Resources. Shorewood has historically placed high value on preserving the
natural features that help define the community — shoreland, wetlands, steep slopes
and vegetation. As you read through the Natural Resources section of the
Comprehensive Plan, you will note that much is made of protecting these features.
One component of the developer's concept plan that deserves attention is the small
ponding area shown in the northeast corner of the site. As noted in a separate
memorandum from the City Engineer, this is a very questionable location for a pond.
This has been discussed with the developer and he is considering other options to
handle site drainage.
2. Land Use. Single - family homes are consistent with the Land Use chapter of the
Comp Plan. An important premise of that chapter is that land uses should be
compatible with surrounding land uses. In this case, the proposed development is
more compact than much of the surrounding development, particularly to the south in
Chanhassen. As mentioned, that area has several large homes on very large lots.
These are actually somewhat inconsistent with the existing zoning for that area, which
allows lot sizes. down to 15,000 square feet in area. Some of this has already occurred
farther to the south where three lots were created from one acre of land. Nearby
residents are concerned that the proposed development will adversely affect the open
character of the existing properties. Spacing of the proposed buildings has been cited
as a concern.
As we review the layout of the proposed buildings, realizing that these are illustrative
of what might be built on the site, it appears possible to mitigate some of the rather
tight building relationships while still preserving trees and steep slopes. An
alternative layout of the homes is shown on Exhibit F. In this sketch, buildings on the
first four lots are actually placed back beyond the R -1 C front setback, as much as 60
feet from the front property line. This allows the buildings to be spread out a bit as
the lots widen to the rear. Staff recommends that side yard setbacks be no less than
10 feet (20 feet between buildings) instead of 7.5 feet as requested. The buildings
shown on Lots 1 and 2 are in the same place as the developer's plan.
-3-
Memorandum
Re: Summit Woods P.U:D
24 September 2014
— Concept Plan
It is worth noting that the illustrative buildings display three -car garages, a reasonable
expectation in today's market. Some additional side yard separation'could be
achieved, however, if some of the garages were designed to be side loading. This
would also provide some variety in design.
3. Transportation. On a positive note, the proposed plan includes no new driveway
access onto. Galplin Lake Road — a relatively busy street. At the same time, six new
homes would be placed on Summit Avenue — an extremely substandard roadway. We
have mentioned that the right -of -way for Summit is 80 feet wide, whereas our
standard city street requirement is only 50 feet. The existing paved surface is as
narrow as 13 feet. New city streets are required to be 24 feet wide.
Staff has suggested that the developer be responsible for widening the paved surface.
of Summit Avenue in front of his property. At minimum, the width should meet the
Fire Code standard of 20 feet. As suggested by the City Engineer, the pavement
would be widened on the plat side of the street. Ultimately, the City will have to
decide what, if anything, might be done about the portion of Summit that heads down
the hill toward Murray Hill Road.
Finally, access to Lots 1 and 2 will be a challenge. Serious consideration should be
given to one, shared driveway to serve these two lots.
4. Community Facilities (Utilities). Sanitary sewer already exists in Summit Avenue
and is available to this development. Shorewood does not have municipal water
service in this area, but Chanhassen's water system stops just short of the subject
property. The developer has been in contact with Chanhassen staff about extending
its water service for the project. Failing that, the lots would be served by individual
wells.
RECOMMENDATION
Shorewood's P.U.D. process includes three steps: 1) Concept Stage; 2) Development Stage;
and 3) Final Plan Stage. The concept of clustering homes on good ground to preserve
environmentally sensitive portions (trees and steep slopes) of the site is generally consistent
with Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning requirements. Having said that, staff
suggests that certain issues deserve further attention, even before proceeding to the
Development Stage of the process. Specifically, the developer should provide some real
world examples of the types of homes being proposed. Design alternatives, such as side
loading garages, as well as landscaping should also be considered to mitigate the concern of
lost open space. Finally, some alternative to ponding at the bottom of the hill on Mayflower
Road should be explored. With these suggestions, it is recommended that the Concept Plan
be continued to the November Planning Commission meeting.
Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hoifiby Larry Brown Tim Keane Bruce DeJong
Tom Strom Peter Knaeble
0
OCD
LL
oCD
e
0
N
0
-0
c
Q-
.Q�
u
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
0 Summit Woods — P.U.D.
�P
G�
#6085
SER
#2313 0
#6075
THEODORE RIX
34- 117 -23 -43 -0012
SHOREWOOD, MN (HENN. CO.)
0.903 AC. (39,320 SF)
elm
5y
MH 43 -15
O
X EX SERV.
c HOUSE
a
N
V. U
a N
PP
Lj X GAR.
23115 > w
I—
H
0' ROW
SHOREWOOD
(HENN. CO,) PPa
MH
HASSEN 106.1.8 13-14 RIM
<CA VER C❑, >15.9ON /105 6S G
0'RW
#6200
c —
EX. SE V.
Q a
X
pq 0 3 m
L7 U D
Z a
MH 1
46240 1067.1 RIM
1052.1 /10551
HYD /G
a
#6070
NAYF� pw
ER RpAD
390'
DONALD RIX
34- 117 -23 -43 -0013
23040 SUMMIT AVE.
SHOREWOOD, MN (HENN, C0.)
3.330 AC. (145,070 SF)
389'
417'
#6090
10
DONALD RIX
255450020
6221 HUMMINGBIRD RD.
CHANHASSEN, MN (CARVER C0.)
1.710 AC, (74,488 SF)
v
Ll
D
r-
0
H
Z
r
m
d
0
G)
D
r
"D
Z
td
d
V n
70
I d
J
v
(" ROW
#22885
#6140
#6160 /
WETLAND
P❑NL
#6180
ti
ti
N cl
L
Lo
o ti
C N
C li
c_
o Lo
o _ CA
3 y m
c = M
N o co
C7 m 0)
a 10
M
la
c
M
a
DESIM" P-M
MAW HAL
CAMUD P..11L
0
nEeRa
$9Tg8 0 "vim � rc
$ep ;e d
Zvi
Eel'. ap
°cam
°o a. E
3 Eo$ �
ero —moo
- 8 — �
5 -— DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING OMIT �
_
— 9/l/13
—1056— — DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
—1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS Pcr Na
�) Exhibit B
X 1056 23 EXISTING SITE CONDITION
.
X 1056
EOF4ftta
Z
g
CL
N
N
Z
0
W
02
E
0
0 C
6
°30
�3
S
Z
40 0 40 80
(n
20
SCALE IN FEET
L (yj
0 N
- 8 — �
5 -— DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING OMIT �
_
— 9/l/13
—1056— — DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
—1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS Pcr Na
�) Exhibit B
X 1056 23 EXISTING SITE CONDITION
.
X 1056
EOF4ftta
ti
0
°
nOP
N N
c
In m
o ti
#6070
to
o
_ N
y M
06090
0 m m
��'
O M
m
v
e
ti
00
A
lm
#22885
D
#2313
g
G
d
#6140
A?1VN ILV..
CYECA'fD P-M
o`e
DN D X
e
-23 43 003
2 40 UM T A E
;u
d
HDU E
H EW OD, M H D)
/
Kum W
3. 3 AC. (1 5 )
S e ^m,$gd d
6 RD #6160 /
oE°9 c8 °o:2
a
o'
v � 5
°3Eo�
WETLAND
�. .m
ero -8o
Ba
tGgg xo
P❑NL
- e 1 :5 a 8
2 115
j n
Q
H
N
�
#6180
t�
0' ROW
}
SH
REW❑❑
(HE
N. ,)
N.`
a
z
HAS N
3 9
-
o
�' 2
CC
VE CO.)
w E
LL
01 OW
o
0 0
A
3
#620
s
Z
m
Lo
40 0 40 aD
cn
20
H
SCALE IN FEET
X
W
_
iII
A
2 0 21
MOIL
#62
J6 B -5
DENOTES SOIL BORING
�^
1. 1
- - - - - - -
DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT
+
9/l/13
R W
— —1056- -
DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
—1056—
DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS
Exhibit C
X
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
1056.23
X 1056.0
1
EOF 4n1059.0 I
#2313 0
SHREW❑ ❑D
(HENN, CO,)
GHA HASSEN
XAi.OVER CO,)
#6240
ti
#6075
ti
N C4
cl C4
V ci
u) Lo
to
#6070
°
c
c
o �
#6090
'�'
!? rn
MAYFL pWeR
co
RO AD o
E
c
v
o c m
�
264'
390'
b
1 35 FSg'
#22865
W
cQ
�
r
44,610 SF
1
35,390 SF
0
1p),
�
mt 1
g
27,270 SF 1 :
#6140
T.
aca= P-M
i
r
�
216' 151'
D
_
i
1
I
70
d
voo rte°
a o c
d
Z
I
/
Eo 0
o°
o
~
`I
I
66' RO
#6160
/
$j
d
N I
22,1030 SF 1
I
SH❑REWO ❑D ZONED R -1C
3
Y
1
WETLAND
20,000 SF MIN, LOT SIZE
a
w
:
"f
22
I
POND
100' MIN, LOT WIDTH (AT 35' FSB)
1
— �y
c
120' MIN, LOT DEPTH
IN
35' FRONT SETBACK
°° 40' REAR SETBACK
0
5
I
10' SIDE SETBACK (35' CORNER)
1"
of
° 1 30,180 SF
#6180
(n
23,220 SF
I
0' ROW 1
�
I
I
238'
N
--
—�
151'
z
389'
z
1
\�
a.
o' ROW
I
I
W E
0 Q
ul
35,620 SF I A
�o
\
z
Q�S�
3 p
m 41
I m
�
H W
L'i
m I
���
R� Z
I.
I
lj
S
H
_
_ LO �J�� _
40 0 40 80
Z
2 O
m
1
JPOQQ I
I
SCALE IN FEET
V
VI cn
2
1
36,900 SF I
I
v
0 B -5 DENOTES SOIL BORING
A4 Tr
i
6' ROW
- - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT
9/1/13
I
— —1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
417'
—1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS
Exhibit D
��—'"-
CONFORMING
R -1C
PLAT
06231 j�j
I I
X 7056.23
X 1056.0
EOF4411111105!
IOP
#6085
#2313 0
SHOREWOOD
(HENN, CO,)
HASSEN
(CARVER CO,)
#6200
m
#6240
#6075
MAYF� pWE �
RpAD
#6070
#6090
0'
14 \
140' �
20,010 SF _ _ RAIN GARDEN
_ 75 2 _ 35' FSB INFIL, BASIL
�NSERV,47. 33,120 SF
SASE, �
� s
C❑NSERVATI ❑N EASEMENT
/ 5 / 88,330 SF (2,03 AC,)
8l'
5y
Li
H
E
rn
pi
CL
p
D'
ca
L�
z
10
N
m
I39,890 SF \
I4
co 36� I -0
tn Z
0
J r
I I a
rn
I 4 I d
36,530 SF I w
0
373' I 66'
cz
J
j o
I o 5 N
I m 26,400 SF I y
I � :m
6
n nl 26,940 SF I N
Q
V
�PX
#22885
PROJECT DATA
TOTAL SITE 4,230 AC,
N❑. OF LOTS 6 LOTS
DENSITY 1.42 UNITS /AC,
#6140 MIN, LOT SIZE 20,010 SF
AVG. LOT SIZE 34,410 SF d
#6160 /
WETLAND
IPOND
#6180
N
Ica I r \
m 35,620 SF
td
<
d 1
I
d
Z
I
0 36,900 SF I I v
ROW
1 417' i
#6231 F7
SHREW❑ ❑D ZONED R -1C
20,000 SF MIN, LOT SIZE
100' MIN, LOT WIDTH (AT 35' FSB)
120' MIN. LOT DEPTH
35' FRONT SETBACK
40' REAR SETBACK
10' SIDE SETBACK (35' CORNER)
PROPOSED PUD STANDARDS,
20,000 SF MIN, LOT SIZE
70'
MIN. LOT WIDTH (AT FSB)
120'
MIN, LOT DEPTH
25'
FRONT SETBACK
40'
REAR SETBACK
7.5'
SIDE SETBACK
N
W E
S
40 0 40 80
SCALE IN FEET
L
B-5
DENOTES SOIL BORING
- - - - - - -
DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT
- -1056- -
DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
—1056—
DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS
— »-
DENOTES —
�—>—
DENOTE Exhibit E
—6' w—
DENOTE
X1056.23
DENOTE P.U.D. CONCI
X 1056.0 DENOTE
E0F40100.0 DENOTE
r
N o
N N
V .i
U)
c
c
o N
° N m
Q0)
c ro a)
�, T m
C m
°m � ti
c 8`,g
of
P-M
HAL
P.J.
;L� e
Boa
� E-52 ° Z
S'g d
61 5:3
ZZ
Y
ero -8o
Z
a.
v 3°0
O
U H W
cL
a cn N
1 9/1/13 1
APT PLAN
z �-
M W =
0
o �¢
cn X: L l
:C��Av
cu C) M
A 3 Q
'W Cn
M N M
e - �,
uj
�~ _
cl
w ,T9p,
C3 7:: �0
e
r /g,
3
O O
Co
LO
L,
® L)
cu
i N C3 0
j
>
� 1.1
Exhibit F
ALTERNATIVE BUILDING
LOCATIONS
M
M
Memorandum
To: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
From: Paul Hornby, City Enginee
Date: September 25, 2013
Re: Summit Woods Concept Plan
WSB Project No. 01459 -83
The following comments are with regard to engineering review for the Summit Woods PUD
Concept Plan submitted by Homestead Partners. Plans were prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc.
and consist of Cover Sheet, Existing Conditions Plan, Existing Topography Plan, PUD Concept
Plan, Conforming Plan, and preliminary Utility Plan, dated September 1, 2013, with revisions
September 12, 2013.
1. The existing topography plan illustrates significant change in elevation from Summit
Avenue to Mayflower Road and Galpin Lake Road. There is an elevation difference of
74 feet to 91 feet between the right of way line of Summit Avenue and the edge of
Mayflower Road and Galpin Lake Road.
2. Site grading and construction of building pads will be challenging on this site. The City
should expect a need for tree clearing and construction of retaining walls and fill material
to provide building pads that will allow for suitable driveway grades, especially
northwestern portion of the plat.
3. The site may be sensitive to erosion due to the steep slopes, existing heavy wooded area
with limited groundcover. Erosion control for construction will need to be addressed.
4. The existing width of Summit Avenue is approximately 13 feet. The roadway should be
widened to provide fire code access, providing a minimum of a 20 foot wide paved
surface. The street widening is recommended on the plat side of the roadway.
5. The concept plan currently illustrates the Rain garden or infiltration basin along
Mayflower Road (outside of existing right of way). The location of this basin may be
better if relocated along Summit Avenue as a lot feature within the setback areas.
6. A 6 -inch watermain is proposed to be extended from the City of Chanhassen to serve up
to six new lots along Summit Avenue. At minimum, this watermain should be at least 8-
St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
K:U11459.8301Adnwd000stAIENIO - PTILDNiclsen- 092613-Concept Plat mvic�,docs
Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
September 25, 2013
Page 2
inches in diameter since the City of Chanhassen would like to loop their system sometime
in the future to Chaska Road.
7. The watermain needs to be extended to the west line of the plat (west line of Lot 1).
Sewer and water services should be located toward the center of each lot. The City may
want to consider including a service to the west side of Summit Avenue with potential to
service an existing house.
The comments made above are from an engineering standpoint with regard to grading, drainage,
erosion control and utilities for the proposed development. Please contact me if you have any
questions or need any additional information regarding this concept plat review.
K :101459- 8301Admin\DwsWEMO -PTH BNWl n -092613- Concept plat reviamd-
AIMHONMESTEAD
V4 V PART NIT SS
September 12, 2013
Brad Nielsen
Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
RE: Summit Woods PUD — Summit Ave
Dear Mr. Brad Nielsen,
It is the intent of Homestead Partners to request the creation of a Planned Unit Development containing
two parcels (PID: 34- 117 -23 -43 -0012 and 34- 117 -23 -43 -0013) currently owned by Mr. Donald Rix. These
two parcels total of about 4.23 acres and are currently zone R -1C, requiring a 100' minimum lot width
and 20,000 sf min. lot size. It is our intent to create six single family lots with 70' min. lot widths, an
average lot size of 34,410 sf and a density of 1.42 units /acre.
The creation of a P.U.D. will provide the City, as well as adjacent residents, with many benefits including:
• The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics. By allowing all the lots to
be built atop of the bluff, a conservation easement will be created to protect the long -term
natural beauty of the bluffs.
• The conservation easement will preserve the large mature trees and woodlands in the rear of
the lots.
• Preserving the bluff will preserve the topography and limit future erosion issues.
• Creating the potential for a trail connection on Galpin Lake Rd and Mayflower Rd.
The homes will be custom built homes; approximately 50' -55' wide and built to a specific set of
covenants to ensure housing quality, consistency and aesthetics.
We look forward to working with the City to create a special project while ensuring the City's goals are
met.
Sincerely,
Tom Strohm
Project Manager of Land Development
Homestead Partners LLC 1952.294.2113 1 toms @homestead- partners.com
CI'T'Y O
SHOREWOOD,
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900.
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.d.shorewood.mn.us • dtyhall @d.shorewood.mn.us
I
I
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission; Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 27 September 2013
RE: Prehall, Sam - Minor Subdivision/Partial Street Vacation
FILE NO.: 405 (13.10)
BACKGROUND
Margaret Prehall owns the, property at 4828 Rustic Way (see Site Location map Exhibit A,
attached). Her son, Sam, has applied on her behalf for a'minor subdivision to divide the propert y
into two lots as shown on Exhibits B and C. As part of this request, Mr. Prehall has requested
that the City vacate 10 feet of the right -of -way of Rustic Way.
The property is located in the R -ID /S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district and
contains 35,374 square feet of area. It is currently occupied by the owner's single- family
residence. The proposed partial street vacation contains an additional 1610 square feet of area,
bringing the total area of the property to 36,984. The proposed lots will be 26,977 square feet
(westerly lot) and 10,007 square feet (easterly lot) in area. As can be seen on Exhibit C, the
proposed new building pad sits on the high portion of the lot. The lot with the existing home on
it continues to drop in elevation toward Lake William. An existing utility easement cuts across
the'westerly portion of the property and a city "fire lane" borders the south side of the lot.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
A. Proposed Partial Street Vacation. The existing right -of -way for Rustic Way is 60 feet
wide, whereas Shorewood's standard for city streets is 50 feet. Mr. Prehall has requested
that the northerly 10 feet of R.O.W. be vacated and combined with the subject property:
As shown on Exhibits B and C, the travelled surface of Rustic way is situated on the
southerly portion of the existing R.O.W. The City Engineer has reviewed the,request and
advises us that no utilities are located in the portion of the R.O.W. to be vacated, and
there are no plans to widen or relocate the current roadway.
®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Prehall - Minor Subdivision/Partial Street Vacation
27 September 2013
As a matter of policy, staff recommends that the City reserve an easement for drainage
and utilities over the vacated portion of R.O.W. A public hearing has been scheduled for
the Council meeting at which this request will be considered.
B. Proposed Subdivision. The westerly lot will be 2.5 times larger than the minimum lot
size for the R -1D zoning district. Although smaller, the new easterly lot complies with
zoning standards and is a suitable location for the new home intended to be built by Mr.
Prehall. The location of the new home takes advantage of the "average setback rule"
provided in Shorewood's Zoning Code. That provision'recognizes the setbacks of
adjoining lots and, where the adjoining homes are less than the minimum front setback,
the new home may be built at the average between the two. In this case, the average
setback is 21.7 feet. The proposed home on the new lot complies with maximum
hardcover (25 %) fora Shoreland lot.
In any subdivision request, staff reviews the buildability of the new lot. In this case, the
grade of the proposed driveway initially appeared to be an issue. The applicant's
engineer has proposed a location for the new driveway, which combined with a
"tuckunder" garage design, results in acceptable grade and separation from the street
intersection at the east end of the property.
There is some precedent for the partial vacation of the excess street right -of -way. The same
thing was done for four lots on the west side of Fenrcroft Drive, approximately 1 block west of
the subject property. Based on the preceding, it is recommended that the minor division be
approved subject to the following:
1. The applicant must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility
easements, 10 feet around each lot, including the vacated portion of right -of -way.
2. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the
City Attorney.
3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park
dedication fee ($5000) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is
given for the lot with the existing home on it.
4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree
preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied
for.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Paul Hornby
Lamy Brown
Tim Keane
Sam Prehall
-2-
(14)
8 (38) 19
(Z7)
18
99 10 1 (37)
250
t�-140 104.87
C.
17
46% (28) (3 6) 290
220.2 EAST - --- -- N
17.09 1 .
203:72 A 10 16
0 (29)
(35)
(30)
0 A 92/ NO* 9'04(134) ORTH
N
116 (6c
12 99.45
2
LU
(50) m (51111 oN qo 0 147 ---
I Q 11�vl -CP ,A' � j3 w 0�
3 �p (62 IR (33) 277:5
(52) -- ----- 746.3 w
12,66 EAST 128.82 li� - - ------- 0
15- \ 113.33 140
ERNCROFT DR 13.27-1 -
'�,,'RUSTIC WAYWNDE17),�771_
5 112�55 - 219 31.36'•145• Ln
?g�q%
-33.3 OL A 23.5.22 19 QO
60 L
8 50 1
2524 6
216. EAST
05.76 1(065�76 - `r 0, (74)
mg 2 to 49 ly (18)2
2 272.3 1,
a, 'h 25.9< .:.10 150.79
0 66) P 10 3
15 0_1 N! ��, �Oe
108.26 108.2r.' C) 2228 )9 51 11
14 "lll .;r � �26.249 41 (75)
o 4
(94) R 26S.5
110.34
20.3 V 229.69 0 /(19)5
13 ,,(6 7) 4 LL_ 6 1� 6 211.7
4 2 112.43 r 0 233.09 C118
6
12 �11 U
q 5 er (77) 97 o E V)
0
12 A9)4�' 9 19 �Si pp
114.54 236.4 0�,e A 9 6xv.
t,
7 U 8 V8 ;O 95.1
0 239.9 11
65 116.
9 35.24 (7)
12:
227.4
3.76 118.76 0 (3 1) io
173.711,
0 ON Q, 4 10 /8 0 1i Q
?0.87 IR
Ar4 8
H6.3 11 9
12 8 7 21) W (25)
23.37 1, 9 6 ev
ION
22K
23) 41. % 40 (24)
2
)1s-` W, o :a i
7.6 Cp; 10
(0 S.
V
601
Y
A 8
12 7
x4115 492 126.85 (7
) 1; 'to bu (� /. If - - - //10 1
(10 )'8
140.27 140.;7 N 60
--ft ---- q
140. 38
(95) v53 6) 0
10 4A 9
10
- -- _L_
(
�r_
0
P)
Cm):
Ott
C,j
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Prehall - R.O.W. Vacation and Minor
Subdivision
6�
,o °)ti %A
S �1,�� 2�-`� �___ � fin\ q�Z• \ 9 /g /// �\ �
66'6
oN
V� o
\ x
\ / \
1p
R \
^ •9
666
Q I N 04'04'51 W
a \
I / sss a5 ✓
1 �
I \
I I 3
66'6 66• �' v m I \
I It
--Z,,,%-,,,g,
b - - ✓' I ro�
�Yt�• I � I g5
8
Exhibit B
e
PROPOSED DIVISON
Y
`A I I
O,
�6 N I I
d \
✓ ;a � �n�n II
�'l 7
N _
U2 F
N
D
i
www�
w
N
Rd
w Loo
-)
°h
�h yin
N
�W
� �
0 0
w
Irl
o
b
� v
btiHLL�
h
o
aW,
tiprx�Eti
o
h
0
�qa�
ti
�'l 7
N _
U2 F
N
D
Rd
�W
0 0
o
b
� v
v
M
0 0
6h '�
--------- -'---
-- ---'?� \
I� \
a
I�
O
Exhibit C
NEW LOT - SITE PLAN
Memorandum
Re: Cooper -Minor Subdivision
27 September 2013
Murray Street is somewhat substandard in right -of -way width adjoining the southeasterly
corner of the subject property. At staff's direction, the proposed division includes a small
area of road way easement in that corner of the site.
With that, it is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the
following:
i
1. The applicants must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility
easements, 10 feet around each lot. The easement on the west side of the property
will be somewhat wider so as to have 10 feet on the east side of the existing sewer
line located there.
i
2. The applicants must provide alegal description for the proposed additional road C
easement in the southeast corner of the property.
2. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review
by the City Attorney.
k
i
3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay
one park dedication fee ($5000) and one local sanitary sewer access charge
($1200). Credit is allowed for the previous home on the site.
4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the
property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building
permits are applied for.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Paul Homby
Larry Brown
Tim Keane
Tom and Kelly Cooper
-2-
a
I
O\,
a� Q
� a
Sm
cl
.Q
W-
urra
L
72
L
O
C
7
O
U
L
m
m
c
a>
ca
c
cu
U
0
U
L SITE LOCATION
Cooper — Minor Subdivision
zo
[�- 0p w Cy_ r� 00 .t
° r z Zi
066 o N0018'23 "W 352.83 MEAS. / / c 1IN ^
°z z 353 25 (DEED j /� // �� /� / / ssl %� 3NI�� Lsd3•� I M AZ
0 L
'
1 f /
I (D
.�7 - 7
R:
w o � u, w / I o / Z
° N p z 0 L
ai 8 ; o 0
�
wfl
°r
°I� L' 2 � o ;
? � � ' � co
" o �Q o D c o � isa o
� I I� J CL F �J o z I � �
op CY) T Z w N
i I
ON
I \ U 0b'
° o a-
� W z b
f \ 1 0 . N WAY oo r�,9 y w
4.� �' / ° f pRl i O
C11 PC
ISO
Im
J, M ��I Z %�� �0� tl o I ° I o�°o
1 1^ I 01 t� Yv 0.
cI rc e"x� r _ 04313 ' I QI I ' Q 4. LO Y
I r cv I xx rn oo O
OR
Co fn / o , / 9 I opa d rn v
d- I I 1 � ✓ ' 1 C: (n
000- „9 °° og — O
z Q CID
7T X
°'
D ,
- m Z o % m
Q, Q I q w u,
f, z prQ
UL z
LL, I ?' \ Ly .T I I I�"'� 0 r o0 f � � " " � I
OD
Z \LtyI l c� / dJ ° (i7 O 4rn \ 1 ° t
"D z _ - a �+/ �, I �0 r :.�=- DRIVEWAY �� SAN• - (M V)_
X / '' �' I N Zg -- - 00 =9i� i I ;' ROPOS �p'� � A EX. BI,TUMINOU�EX. 9 P, I �•" N
I / o (A I I OR ��Z � 138.8 /I °
DO
I I < - J jF FBAC-IF - \ LINE OF LOT 198 z m I 6t�
/ �/ _J /Ol <- SIB= �WEST �° rn�
/ �r O
` 4 < 14_4.3- ° U v, Z I
Qi J ^ I LO — X381 '0 pE 25 MEAS'
0o rn N cog 43 I o
co
r � $ (n
d._
�" ~ � { � I � Exhibit B
cq Z N PROPOSED DIVISION
O1 o w
rn p CL �� 3`
00 CL
(,) \ j
� =L R
W o `i -
Z =� z U_ `r