11-05-13 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2013
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1 October 2013
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
8:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
MUEHLBERG (Jun)
DAVIS (Mar)
GENG (Apr)
CHARBONNET (May)
GARELICK (Aug)
LABADIE (Sep)
MADDY (Jul)
1. SUMMIT WOODS P.U.D. — CONCEPT STAGE (Continued from 1 October 2013)
Applicant: Homestead Partners
Location: 23040 Summit Avenue
2. 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — INTERIM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A BICYCLE REPAIR BUSINESS
Applicant: James Steinwand
Location: 5680 County Road 19
3. DISCUSS ATTENDANCE
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
7. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
SLUC
Other
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2013
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:29P.M.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet (arrived at 7:28 P.M. and departed at 9:45
P.M.), Davis, Labadie, and Muehlberg (arrived at 7:28 P.M.); Planning Director Nielsen;
and Council Liaison Woodruff
Absent: Commissioners Garelick and Maddv
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Davis moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda for October 1, 2013, as presented. Motion
passed 510.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 17, 2013
Davis moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
September 17, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 510.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — SUMMIT WOODS P.U.D. — CONCEPT STAGE
Applicant: Homestead Partners
Location: 23040 Summit Avenue
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:31 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He noted that the Planning Commission is a recommending body only. He stated this evening the
Commission is going to consider a request for a Summit Woods planned unit development (P.U.D.) for
Homestead Partners LLC to be located at 23040 Summit Avenue. He asked those in the audience who
Nvant to speak to this item to keep their comments to three minutes each. He stated if a previous speaker
has alreadv addressed a point and the new speaker is in agreement he asked that the speaker address other
points that have not vet been made. He noted if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this
evening this item Nvill go before the City Council on October 28, 2013.
Director Nielsen explained that Homestead Partners LLC (Homestead) has arranged to purchase the
property at 23040 Summit Avenue and proposes to develop it into six, single - family residential lots. The
subject property consists of two parcels of land containing 4.2 acres, zoned R -1C, Single - Family
Residential. The property is currently occupied by a single family home and a small detached garage. The
property abuts the Shorewood /Chanhassen border. Homestead has also arranged to purchase 1.7 acres in
the City of Chanhassen south of the border; two more lots are proposed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 2 of 18
The property is characterized by a high, relatively level area on the Nvest side. It drops off quite steeply
toward Ma -,-flower Road and toNvard Galpin Lake Road. The steeply sloped area is heavily Nvooded. The
difference in elevation between the high point and low points on the property is approximately 86 feet.
The applicant first considered a traditional six -lot plat; four of them up on Summit Avenue and two
overlooking Galpin Lake Road. Due to the unique physical characteristics of the property, Homestead has
proposed clustering the six homes on the top of the site (the more buildable portion of the lot) by means
of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). That is what is being considered this evening.
The Shorewood P.U.D. zoning tool allows for some flexibility from current zoning standards. The intent
of the P.U.D. is to preserve sensitive areas. In this case, the steep slopes on the site and the heavily
Nvooded areas. The developer is not altering density that is alloNved. In fact the density is loNver than Nvhat
ShoreNvood's Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) suggests, which is 1 to 2 units per acre. The proposal is
for about 1.42 units. The R -1C district Nvould allow 2 units per acre. Additional streets are not proposed as
part of this project. Access Nvill be from Summit Avenue. There is seNver in Summit Avenue. There is
Nvater in Hummingbird Road south of the subject property in Chanhassen. Homestead Nvill request
Chanhassen to extend its Nvatermain to serve the project.
The current R1 -C zoning of the site allows for single - family residential lots containing a minimum of
20,000 square feet of area and 100 feet in Nvidth. Required building setbacks are: front — 35 feet, side — 10
feet, and rear — 40 feet. The Residential Single Family (RSF) zoning south of the border in Chanhassen
allows 15,000 square -foot lots, 90 feet in Nvidth Nvith 30 -foot front yard setbacks and 10 -foot side yard
setbacks. Much of the existing development to the south of the subject property consists of larger, deep
lots Nvith substantial front yard setbacks (Nvell over 100 feet in some cases).
For the plat being proposed the developer is asking for flexibility Nvith regard to the front and side yard
setbacks. Thev are proposing for the houses to be built 25 feet from the street right- of -N-my (ROW). The
street ROW is extraordinary, it is 80 feet N ide. In Shorewood the standard for local streets is 50 feet. The
developer has also asked for a side yard setback of 7.5 feet Nvhich Nvould result in 15 feet between
buildings. The intent is to avoid massive alteration of the steep, Nvooded slopes. The developer proposes
to grant the City a conservation easement over the easterIv and northerIv half of the site. It is close to half
of the property. This Nvould ensure that nothing Nvill be built on just over two acres of the site, and that no
alteration (grading or tree removal) Nvill occur on the most sensitive portion of the property.
ShoreNvood's P.U.D. process is a three -step process which includes a Concept Stage, a Development
Stage, and a Final Plan Stage. The Concept Stage is intended to get people familiar Nvith the proposal and
the property, to identify issues the Planning Commission and public may have Nvith the property, and to
give the developer some direction as it goes into the Development Stage. Most of the details are Nvorked
out in the Development Stage and a preliminary plat is submitted.
Nielsen revieNved how the proposed development relates to the basic elements of ShoreNvood's
Comprehensive Plan.
Natural Resources — With regard to natural resources, this project is considered to be consistent
Nvith the policies, goals and objectives of the Comp Plan. It Nvould preserve the steep slopes and
Nvooded areas. The Concept Plan shows a small ponding area in the northeast corner of the site.
The City Engineer thinks that corner is unsuitable for a pond because that Nvould be contrary to
protecting the steep - sloped, Nvooded area. The developer is looking at doing something on the top
level portion of the site to address the drainage issues.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 3 of 18
Land Use — The property is zoned for single - family houses and that is what is proposed. The
Land Use chapter of the Comp Plan talks about compatibility Nvith surrounding land uses. In this
case, the proposed development is more compact than much of the surrounding development,
particularly to the south in Chanhassen where there are several large homes on very large lots. It
is quite consistent Nvith the zoning south of the city border.
During staff s review of the Concept Plan there Nvas discussion about Nvays to mitigate the
compact character of the proposed development. Staff prepared an illustrative site sketch shoNving
alternative building locations on the first four lots being placed back beyond the R -1C 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 Nviden to the rear. Pushing the buildings back transitions better to the
development to the south. Staff recommends that side yard setbacks be no less than 10 feet (20
feet between buildings) instead of 7.5 feet as requested. Some additional side yard separation
could be achieved if some of the garages Nvere designed to be side loading. It Nvould also provide
some variety in design.
A lot of the breaking up of massing of buildings could be done Nvith landscaping.
Transportation — Summit Avenue is an extremely narrow road; it is approximately 13 feet Nvide. It
does not meet the fire code standard of 20 feet Nvide. The ROW for Summit Avenue is 80 feet
wide while the Citv's standard city street requirement is only 50 feet. Staff has suggested that as
part of this project the developer be responsible for N idening the paved surface of Summit
Avenue in front of the subject property to at least the fire code standard of 20 feet. It's anticipated
that Chanhassen Nvould not Nviden Hummingbird Road; Summit Avenue turns into Hummingbird
Road when it crosses the Shorewood /Chanhassen border. Therefore, there Nvould be a need to
transition from the Nvider to narrower roadwaN-. If Shorewood Nvere ever to do something Nvith
Summit Avenue as it heads doN -,n the hill toward Murra -,T Hill Road it Nvould be brought to fire
code standard. At this time there are no plans to do that.
Access to Lots 1 and 2 Nvill be a challenge. Serious consideration should be given to one shared
driveway to serve those two lots to minimize as much site alteration as possible.
Community Facilities (Utilities) — Sanitary sewer alreadv exists in Summit Avenue and is
available to this development. Shorewood does not have municipal Nvater service in this area.
Chanhassen's Nvater system stops just short of the subject property. The developer has been in
contact Nvith Chanhassen staff about extending its Nvater service for the project. Failing that, the
lots Nvould be served by individual Nvells.
Nielsen stated the concept of clustering homes on good ground to preserve environmentally sensitive
portions (trees and steep slopes) of the site is generally consistent Nvith Shorewood's Comp Plan and
Zoning requirements. Staff believes certain issues deserve further attention before proceeding to the
Development Stage of the process. Specifically, the developer should provide some real Nvorld examples
of the types of houses being proposed. Design alternatives, such as side loading garages, as Nvell as
landscaping should also be considered to mitigate the concern of lost open space. An alternative to
ponding at the bottom of the hill on MayfloNver Road should be explored.
Nielsen noted that staff recommends the Concept Plan be continued to the November Planning
Commission meeting based on the suggestions just reviewed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 4 of 18
Steven Bona, Nvith Homestead Partners located at 525 15 "' Avenue South, Hopkins, explained Homestead
started out Nvith a Concept Plan that met the City s Ordinances. The plan included a couple of custom
built houses that Nvould be located doN -,n on the lower side of the bluff Homestead has an affiliated
company that is a builder. There are many neighborhoods in the southwestern part of the metro area
N-,-here Homestead develops lots and has the affiliate company build the houses or Homestead Nvill sell the
lots to other builders. After meeting Nvith Director Nielsen to discuss the Concept Plan there Nvas a
decision to go Nvith a P.U.D rather than straight zoning and to move the two houses that Nvould have been
located doN -,n the slope up to the top. They Nvould still be custom style houses. Homestead had to
determine what size lots Nvould Nvork along Summit Avenue. Homestead created a revised Concept Plan.
The Plan has been refined a couple of times after meeting Nvith Shorewood staff and Chanhassen staff.
The Plan being discussed this evening is the last revision of Homestead's Concept Plan. He noted the
main reason for redesigning the Concept Plan Nvas because the site is heavily Nvooded and there is a desire
to preserve trees.
Mr. Bona noted Homestead has a project at Rainbow Drive and Minnetonka Boulevard, another at
Gleason Lake in the City of Minnetonka, and a couple in the City of Eden Prairie. People can go to those
areas and look at Homestead's Nvork or its builders' Nvork.
Mr. Bona explained the conservation easement Nvould be for the entire eastern and northern sides of the
property. That Nvould preserve the trees forever. If Shorewood constructs a Galpin Lake Road trail
segment Homestead Nvould Nvant to be involved Nvith that if the trail Nvould be on the Nvest side of the road.
If that is not done, it Nvould consider some other amenities. Homestead Nvould put in landscaping that is
larger and more extensive than required by the City Code. The landscaping Nvould have great curb appeal.
Chanhassen's municipal Nvater system ends at a stub at the Chanhassen/Shorewood border. Chanhassen
Nvould like to resolve a stagnant Nvater issue there. If Shorewood Nvere to have a road reconstruction
project in the area or if there is any political Nvill to extend the Nvatermain from the border into Shorewood
Chanhassen Nvould loop it around Summit Avenue and to the Nvest and back into Chanhassen's Nvater
system to the Nvest. He clarified that Chanhassen has not committed to that happening, but as part of this
project it Nvould like to know if Shorewood is open to that happening. In the short term that Nvatermain
Nvould not be looped.
Mr. Bona then explained the front yard setbacks Nvere originally proposed to be 25 feet. That Nvas
primaril -T because of the trees immediatel�T in the back of all of the proposed houses. It would also allow
for some usable backyard space. He noted the 80- foot -Nvide ROW is not typical. Because it is so Nvide and
the edge so far back from the pavement that Nvas some of the impetus for considering 25 -foot front yard
setbacks. He stated after looking at Director Nielsen's proposed alternative building locations plan there
Nvould be some flexibility. The shorter setback on Lots 1, 2 and 3 is necessary because of the steep slope,
the trees and the topography. There is flexibility on the 3 lots on the south; the houses could be located
further back to at a minimum comply Nvith Shorewood's 35 -foot front yard setback requirement. To have
the houses setback 60 feet Nvould push them back into the trees and Nvould not allow for any usable
backyard. Shorewood staff Nvould prefer compliance Nvith Shorewood's 10- foot -Nvide side yard setback.
To do that the houses Nvould have to be a little narrower (from 55 feet Nvide to 50 feet Nvide). The footage
loss makes a big difference when it comes to the square footage of the house. It Nvould be relatively easy
to bring the houses doN -,n to a 54-foot-Nvide standard on the same plan Nvithout much impact. Homestead
Nvill have to determine what the impact of going to a 50- foot -Nvide house Nvould be on the layout of the
homes. Or, ma-,-be something in between can be agreed upon.
Commissioner Muehlberg asked if extending Chanhassen's Nvatermain Nvould result in a stagnant Nvater
issue being pushed into Shorewood. Mr. Bona stated the engineer did not say how big of a problem it
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 5 of 18
Nvould be. He explained that engineers consider any Nvatermain that does not go any,vvhere to be a
problem. Engineers ahvaN-s Nvant to loop a Nvatermain where possible.
Chair Geng asked if Nvell Nvater is still being considered for each of the properties. Mr. Bona stated that
could be done, but to date there has not been a lot of support for that. Geng stated he has the same concern
about pushing the stagnant Nvater issue into Shorewood. Mr. Bona stated he Nvould talk to Chanhassen to
find out if the residents have complaints about Nvater at the border. Mr. Bona noted that Homestead
originally proposed Nvells.
Geng then asked Mr. Bona to elaborate on what additional amenities Homestead Nvould consider if the
trail segment does not come to fruition. Geng clarified he Nvould not hold Homestead to doing that. Mr.
Bona stated Homestead realIv likes the trail option because the trail Nvould be used by current residents
and the residents in the new houses. If it is not a trail connection there may be a connection somewhere
else.
Director Nielsen stated the potential trail could be tied to the proposed development in some fashion. He
noted that physically it Nvould be better to construct the potential trail on the east side of Galpin Lake
Road. The trail in Chanhassen is on the east side of the Road. He explained the slope gets steeper to the
south on the Nvest side and having it on the Nvest requires more roadwa -,T crossings. He stated the Planning
Commission Nvill have some neighborhood meetings on potential trails next month.
Chair Geng stated the construction of six new homes Nvill create additional stormwater runoff onto
Summit Avenue. He asked what Neill be done to mitigate that.
Pete Knaeble, Nvith Terra Engineering N -,hich is the engineer for the project, explained the engineers
considered a number of possibilities Nvith regard to drainage. The one shoN -,n on the Concept Plan is an
infiltration basin rain garden type structure that Nvould be more on the bottom of the hill. Now more
individual rain gardens are being considered that Nvould be located in the front yards at the top of the hill.
The individual rain gardens Nvould be oN -,ned and maintained by the property- ovmers. The street Nvould get
Nvidened as part of the development to a 20- foot -Nvide minimum to compIv Nvith the fire code. That
additional impervious surface Neill result in more stormwater runoff The roof drainage and driveway
drainage Nvould be designed to route the stormwater off to the side onto the grass areas and then toward
the back of the properties or into the rain gardens. He noted that has been designed different than it
normalIv have been designed.
Mr. Knaeble reiterated that Chanhassen has concerns about stagnant Nvater at the end of the Nvatermain.
He stated every city has Nvatermains that do not flow through. He noted that the bigger issue for
Chanhassen is the additional maintenance of the Nvatermain. A dead end Nvatermain has to be flushed out
more often and that Nvill cost more. He explained that extending Nvatermain 200 feet around the corner
isn't going to solve the stagnant Nvater issue yet it Nvon't make it any Nvorse. But, it Nvill get Chanhassen
closer to its goal of looping that Nvater main. The connection at Murrav Hill Road is about 800 — 900 feet
past the project area.
Mr. Knaeble stated the engineers think the shared drivewa -,T for Lots 1 and 2 is a good idea. That has been
done for other developments. The issue on Lots 1 and 2, which are below the street level, is ensuring that
the houses are architecturally designed to Nvork Nvith the lots.
Mr. Bona stated Homestead's affiliated building company is called JMS Custom Homes. JMS had five
custom homes in the recent Parade of Homes event. Some of the houses Nvere located in the Cities of
Minnetonka, Eden Prairie and Edina. For projects like this when Homestead uses JMS it sets building
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 6 of 18
standards. For this P.U.D. he proposed increased architectural standards. Homestead Nvould set standards
for the houses up front. He noted a set of plans Nvas prepared for this meeting to show people.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:11 P.M.
Chair Geng again asked people to keep their comments to 3 — 4 minutes apiece and not to repeat points
made previously by someone who spoke before them other than to indicate agreement or disagreement
With the point.
Sondra Travlor, 23115 Summit Avenue, ShoreNvood, stated she lives directIv across the street from the
proposed development. She noted she is on Chanhassen's Nvater system and that you cannot flush the
mucky dead end Nvaterline. From the last hydrant all the Nvav to her property there is no opening. She has
to use a Nvater filter in the kitchen for her drinking Nvater because the Nvater is so bad. She then stated that
most of the people in the audience have homes that are back to the tree line, they do not have a usable
back yard. The homes being located back on the property give the neighborhood character. She Nvent on
to state the north side of Summit Avenue is a sheer drop. The drop is 800 feet from the top to the bottom
of Summit Avenue, that drop is in one -tenth of a mile.
Ms. Traylor displayed some pictures of the area. She noted that there are six children who live in the area
that are home schooled. Thev Nvalk around the block very frequently to take study breaks during the day.
Thev can cover the entire Nvidth of the 13- foot -N ide roadways in the neighborhood. The road is a quiet
road. The roadways are part of the character of the neighborhood. The residents like the quaint country
feel of the neighborhood. It's a peaceful area up there. Residents Nvalk their pets 2 — 5 times a daV
throughout the Near. More vehicle traffic in the area is a cause for concern about resident safety.
Ms. Travlor stated traffic on Summit Avenue is a real problem because the roadvmv is so narrow. She
displayed pictures of vehicles on the roadvmy. She explained that from the edge of the pavement on the
south side to the relatively new lip on the other side it is 11 feet 3 inches. A little further doN -,n it is 1 inch
Nvider. It makes it very tight when vehicles pass each other. There Nvas a situation Nvhere a driver Nvas
taring to go around a stopped car and the vehicle Nvent over her land a little. In one area there is an
embankment on the right and a drop -off on the left. She then stated the section of Summit Avenue in the
project area is proposed to be Nvidened by 7 feet. The Nvidening Nvill end at the blind curve. A lot of trees
Nvill have to be removed to do that. She explained the incline at the bottom of Summit Avenue is about 7
degrees. At the second telephone pole it is about 10 degrees.
Ms. Traylor explained if a driver can get past the second telephone pole alongside of Summit Avenue
during the Nvinter they can make it all the Nvay up the steep roadvmv. If not, the driver can back doN -,n or
slide doN -,n and then drive around and enter on Hummingbird Road. The burden of N inter traffic ends up
on Hummingbird Road. Summit Avenue turns into Hummingbird Road at the Chanhassen border Nvhich
is also very narrow. Residents put up barriers along the side of Hummingbird Road to keep vehicles on
the roadvmv s surface and off of their property. It is difficult to stay totally on the street surface when
passing because there are mailboxes on one side. She commented the residents had to adjust their
mailboxes a few Nears ago so she knows they are at postal standards. She stated neither roadvmy can
handle much more traffic. More traffic is a cause for concern about the safety of the children in the
neighborhood.
Ms. Traylor then explained there are 16 children who live along the two roadvmys and there are 4
grandchildren who frequently visit their grandparents. That amounts to 20 children in two blocks. There
are 16 driveNvays along the two roadvmys. The proposed development Nvould add six more homes in
ShoreNvood and two more in Chanhassen resulting in a 50 percent increase in traffic. Residents in the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 7 of 18
neighborhood feel that is not safe for the children. She commented that a visitor to her home stated she
has difficulty getting up the roadvmy during the Nyinter and that the roadNvays cannot take that much more
traffic.
Ms. Travlor stated the residents in the area love the beauty of the land. And, they do not feel the proposed
development matches the character of the neighborhood. She noted that the surveyor that came out the
previous Nyeek could only find markers on the other side of the roadvmy from the proposed P.U.D. She
informed that person that the neighbors are hopping mad about the P.U.D. and she suggested he dot his Is
and cross his Ts. The surveyor also indicated to her that he did not think the proposed development Nyould
match the character of the neighborhood.
Ms. Travlor noted there had been an exceptionally Nyell- attended and passionate neighborhood meeting
about this project. She explained that she had a small part-time business that she operates out of her home.
She applied for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to have a part-time employee that Nyould help her Nyith
her paper Nyork. Her request Nyas denied because it Nyould bring too much traffic to the neighborhood.
Elizabeth Birldand Daub, 6180 Murrav Hill Road, ShoreNvood, stated her property is located at the corner
of Chaska Road and Murrav Hill Road. Her property intersects N ith the steep incline on Summit Avenue
Ms. Traylor spoke about. She noted she believes in progress, in community, and in spirit. She loved the
passionate Nyav Ms. Travlor Nyas able to describe the neighborhood. She stated from her perspective the
area around Summit Avenue is one of the most quaint, hidden charms in the entire area. She explained her
property is about 2.75 acres in size. She lives in ShoreNvood, Excelsior and Chanhassen; her property is
located in all three cities.
Ms. Daub explained N-,-hen the property on the top of Murray Hill Road Nyas developed Nyater found its
path of least resistance into her basement. It flooded three times. Shorevyood made some drainage
improvements to Chaska Road Nyhich helped mitigate storinwater runoff She stated the developer has
provided no evidence or facts about Nyhere the storinwater is going to go. She does not Nyant the
stormNyater to flood her property again. She is concerned that the Nyater coming doN -,n Summit Avenue is
going to find the loNy spot Nyhich is her property. She explained during the Nyinter cars coming doN -,n
Summit Avenue Neill slide onto her property. She stated she believes in sharing the beauty of the
community. She then stated Nyhat is being proposed looks beautiful. But, it has an ambience of the City of
Edina Nyhere houses are side by side. To her Nyhat is being proposed looks like "track homes", Shorevyood
does not have track homes. She commented that she has lost numerous mail boxes to vehicles. She stated
the proposed Concept Plan is disturbing to her. She encouraged people to Nyalk Summit Avenue. She
stated she found the area to be one of the treasures in the community and that she Nyould not Nyant to have
it destroyed.
Marilyn Zupnik, 6200 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated her and her husband Lea Foli's property is
the first in Chanhassen and it is somevyhat diagonally across from the proposed P.U.D. site. The land to
be developed in Chanhassen is directly across the street from her property. She noted they built their
house in 1990. She stated they love the area they live in. She noted she does not Nyant to live across the
street from a development. She stated since they built their home 4 — 5 other houses have been built Nyith
most of them being across the street from them on Hummingbird Road. Each of those other houses has
been a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. There is a lot of space betvyeen the houses. There is
minimum traffic on Hummingbird Road at this time. For the proposed project there are too man-- houses
that are too close together and too close to the street. She noted you cannot see the driveNvays along
Summit Avenue from the curve. It is very dangerous on that hill. She is concerned about the impact the
P.U.D. Nyould have on the value of their property. She routed pictures of the area. She stated she could
envision 2 — 3 beautiful houses that Nyould be Nyonderful additions to the area. She noted you can't see
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 8 of 18
some of the houses in the area from the road. Thev are setback on the property and there are a lot of trees.
That is what she hopes for when the area across the street from them is built.
Karen Fitzer, 6090 Galpin Lake Road, Shorewood, stated her property is located at the bottom of the hill
below all of the trees where the steep grade is. Their property is close to an acre in size and it is close to
the marsh. She explained when the water runs off the hill in the spring a Volkswagen could fall into the
potholes in the roadvmy before they are filled in. During the winter months the runoff freezes on the
roadvmv and cars slide into the woods on their property before the roadvmy is sanded. She expressed
concern about the amount of impervious surface that would be added as part of the project creating
additional stormNvater runoff issues onto all of the surrounding roads. She stated there is already a
dangerous situation in the area N ith the steepness of the hill and she does not want it exacerbated.
Gary Connel, 6201 Murrav Hill Road, Chanhassen, stated his property is located in Shorewood and
Chanhassen at the bottom of Summit Avenue where it intersects N ith Murrav Hill Road. He noted they
also hear tires spinning during the winter months. He also noted he finds the neighborhood charming. He
asked the Planning Commission to help the residents in the area keep that charm. It would be nice for new
residents to be able to enJoy that charm as well. He stated doing the development as a six -lot P.U.D. is
much less desirable than Homestead's original conforming plat proposal. He noted that he N fished the
residents would have had an opportunity to be involved earlier in the process. He clarified the residents
focus is on the P.U.D
Mr. Connel routed a couple of graphics he prepared. He explained one Nvas a color coding of how
property ovmers feel about the proposed P.U.D. There are not any that do not care. Most, if not all, do not
want the P.U.D. to happen. One graphic showed the density of the existing houses in the area and the
density of the proposed P.U.D. The P.U.D. density would be too great; it would change the character of
the neighborhood. He noted there is nothing in the P.U.D. that requires the developer to properly
landscape the area to preserve the atmosphere of the neighborhood. He stated it's important to save trees
along Summit Avenue in order to maintain the feel of the neighborhood. That Neill not happen if there are
25 -foot front yard setbacks. He suggested keeping the width of Summit Avenue close to what it is to
maintain the character of the area. He stated N ith the increased density from the proposed project in
Shorewood and the proposed two -lot development in Chanhassen there Neill likely come a time when the
roadvmvs in the area will have to be upgraded in Shorewood and Chanhassen. He anticipates that at some
time the residents may have to be assessed for that. He stated that eventually Summit Avenue may have to
be widened to 20 feet to support whatever is developed on that site.
Mr. Connel stated for Lots 1 and 2 which are on the north end of the P.U.D. site there is a topographical
challenge to put the driveNvays in for those two lots. He stated because of how the driveNvays would be
configured, a driver will have to give the vehicle more gas to get there while being ready to instantly
break for pedestrians. He requested going back to the conforming plat for the site.
Ms. Travlor stated the impact of traffic in Chanhassen from the eight new residential properties has to be
considered as well.
Shelli Kargela, 23040 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, stated she rents the house on the subject property and
she loves living there. The reason she lives there is because of the peacefulness of the area and the
serenity there. She commented that the previous morning there were nine deer outside of her door. She
asked where all of the turkeys and deer are going to go after the site is developed. She stated she did not
know Ted Rix, the former oN -,ner of the property, but she heard his wish for the property Nvas for it to be a
wildlife refuge. Don Rix, the person who oN -,ns the property, knows that if she had the money she would
buy the property and keep it the Nvay it is.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 9 of 18
Charles Liedtke, 6231 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated his property is next to the horse pasture
which is Carver County s lots. He noted that he is not opposed to development as long as it is intelligent.
He also noted his comments Nvill be specific to this P.U.D. He does have concerns about what is being
proposed. He stated after looking at his current house and property and the neighborhood it is in for
fifteen minutes he knew he Nvanted to live there. He then stated the proposed P.U.D. Nvill decrease the
value of the intangible assets of the area.
Mr. Liedtke asked how many zoning standards Nvill be allowed to be violated Nvith the P.U.D. He asked
how many tons of dirt and rock Nvill have to be hauled in to make Lots 1 and 2 (the lots on the blind curve
on the north of the P.U.D.) buildable. He applauded the developer on its proposed effort to preserve trees.
He stated the conservation easement confuses him because in order to preserve the Nvoods there needs to
be significant clear cutting of the Nvoods. He asked how many trees Nvould need to be clear cut. He stated
he also thinks the P.U.D. Nvould be inconsistent Nvith the character of the neighborhood. He noted that he
looks fonvard to getting ansNvers to his questions.
Vicki Frazen, 6260 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, noted that Greg Fisher, 2340 Hummingbird Road,
asked her to read a letter he N rote to the City of Shorewood Planning Department. The letter read as
follov'-s.
`I am asking my good neighbors Vicki and Terry Franzen to read this statement as I am unable
to attend tonight's meeting.
I moved to Hummingbird Road about 11 years ago. The main attractions were the narrow road,
lack of sidewalks and curbs, large lots, and well - spaced homes, which offered privacy and a safe
serene environment to raise kids.
First off, I am extremely disappointed and offended that the City of Shorewood decided to only
notify residents within S00 feet of the property in question. I only learned of this because of the
good neighbors who were kind enough to share the PUD notice. The City should have the
decency and responsibility to notify any and all residents who could be affected by such a drastic
and radical change to their neighborhood.
I grew up in S'outhwestMinneapolis where the houses are as close to each other as the proposed
PUD. I chose to live here because I wanted a quieter, safer, and more private setting to live and
raise my children. The current set -backs and rules should not be waived so someone who doesn't
live here can profit at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood.
I am emphatically against the proposed PUD. I have no issue with the property being developed,
as long as it follows the existing planning rules and set -backs already in place. There is no logic
or thought put into preserving the feel of the neighborhood. The proposed PUD violates every
aspect of what our neighborhood means to everyone who lives here
I believe the proposed PUD would be an absolute travesty to the residents who live directly
across and adjacent to the property. It would also negatively affect every other resident on
Summit and Hummingbird directly. Just look at the longevity of the residents We live here
because it allows us to enjoy a quality of life and raise our families in a safe, quiet setting. This
needs to be considered for any fixture development.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 10 of 18
I respectfully ask the Planning Department to enforce the existing guidelines already established,
and reject the proposed PUD. Any fixture development should not be allowed to negatively affect
the existing resident's quality of life.
Sincerely,
Greg Fischer"
Marl. Sass, 6275 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated he had lived on Murrav Street for 25 Nears
before he built his dream house 10 — 12 Nears ago. His home is situated about 200 feet from the roadvmv
just like most of the houses in the neighborhood are. He noted he also has concerns about safety, fire
access, density, Nvidening part of the 13- foot -Nvide road [Summit Avenue] and hardcover at the top of
roadvmv. If the P.U.D. is going to move forward all costs need to be paid for by the developer. He noted
that he has been a remodeler by trade. He stated the row of houses being proposed does not fit in Nsith the
neighborhood. From his perspective it Nvould be a track -home development in the middle of the existing
beautiful environment. He noted that he understands that the oNsner of the property has the rights to
develop it in some fashion. But, they must give some consideration to the neighborhood. He suggested
developing feNver but larger homes that Nvould match the neighborhood. He stated he thought the
buildability of Lots 1 and 2 on the north end of the site is a big joke. He clarified it can be done but to try
and get up the hill to those lots Nvill be problematic. He noted when he built his house he had to move it
further back because of a bluff ordinance; he has 600 feet to the roadvmv. He stated he still does not know
how mariv houses the developer Nvants to build on the Chanhassen side. He commented it is a challenging
area to build on. He stated the residents love their neighborhood.
Krisan Osteberg, 6271 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, noted her property is located between Mr.
Sass's property and Mr. Liedtke's property. She expressed her appreciation for the Chanhassen residents
being given an opportunity to speak this evening. She noted that she and a number of residents in the
neighborhood understand development because of their backgrounds in development. She stated she is a
landscape architect and planner. She Nvorks around the country planning developments. She has done that
for over 30 Nears. She asked the Planning Commission and staff to consider the standard that people are
held to by the City of Chanhassen for this. She stated the public health, safety and Nvelfare for the
residents of that street to a large part comes from Chanhassen's Zoning Code restrictions. She noted it
Nvould be difficult to do the proposed development in Chanhassen because of the topography. Lots 1 and
2 Nvould be considered outlots.
Ms. Osterberg stated there are drainage issues in the soil and on the hill. She is not sure if the engineers
have had a chance to look into that. She then stated she thought it Nvould be difficult to develop in the
subject property area Nvithout having a good understanding of the soil conditions. And, how the
underground Nvater flows though the higher property and comes out of the sides of the hills while keeping
the Summit Avenue, Murrav Hill Road and Ma -,- flower Road surfaces intact. She noted she thought the
conservation easement idea is important especialIv if it matches land form and the value of the trees. She
stated when she is planning development cities often hold her to a maximum incline of 7 degrees for short
distances only especially in a Nvinter climate. She questioned if the driveNvays Nvould even be feasible. She
stated Nsithout seeing a grading plan at a concept level it is difficult to understand Nvhat the crovming of
the roadvmv Nvould be for those lots. The ripple effect for the grading of the houses is also unknovm at
this time.
Michael Daub, 6180 Murrav Hill Road, stated he thought the question of density Nvill come up about the
neighborhood periodically. He noted the subject property is not in the sight line from his and his N fife's
property. He stated they Nvill be affected by stormNvater flow and traffic. He explained that on the site
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 11 of 18
location exhibit immediately north of his property there is the type of development along Oakview Court
that is likely to come up for consideration in the future. BST his count there are six structures built there.
He is not sure if they are all twin homes. That development seems to fit in that area from his perspective.
He thought opportunities for a development Nvith the proposed type of density in the neighborhood Nvould
be between north of Chaska Road and north of Ma -,- flower Road and Highvmv 7. But, not Nvhere it is
being proposed. He stated he thought 20 Nears from now the neighborhood Nvould be a little different. He
did not think it could change much on the south side of Chaska Road and MayfloNver Road. The roadways
could handle the traffic better on the north side. The topography is generally flat.
Alex Petrosian, 850 Saddlebrook Pass, Chanhassen, explained he is a unique resident of the
neighborhood. In addition to his property located at 23130 Summit Avenue in Shorewood he also oNsns a
property located at 6300 Hummingbird Road in Chanhassen. He commented that he had spent four Nears
hunting for his first property. He Nvas Nvaiting for this Shorewood property to be put up for sale and he
flnalIv Nvas able to purchase it at a price he thought Nvas reasonable. He noted his two children attend
schools in the Minnetonka School District. He stated he fell in love Nvith his Shorewood property and
decided that is Nvhere he Nvants to live even though it is run doNsn property. He plans to build a house on
the 23130 Summit Avenue property. He commented that people in the neighborhood bought their
properties because they Nvanted privaev and they lilted the trees. He noted that he bought his 6300
Hummingbird Road property for his N fife's parents. He Nvants to move them closer to him. To a
neighborhood that is safe to Nvalk in. He stated he does not Nvant the neighborhood around Summit
Avenue to change. It is not a row -house neighborhood. He then stated from his perspective it is almost
impossible to build on Lots 1 and 2, the northerly two lots. He suggested leaving them for conservation.
He noted he is not opposed to developing the other four lots. He also noted his building plans comply
Nvith the Shorewood Zoning Code. He asked that the developer be reasonable. He recommended the
developer determine how the soil could handle Nvhat is being proposed.
Heidi Wellberg, 6291 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, explained she moved into the neighborhood 15
Nears ago. She moved in because it Nvas a unique neighborhood. When she moved in there Nvere horses in
the area. She expressed concern that people Nvill not be able to get up the Summit Avenue hill to the
proposed development during Nvinter. Instead they Nvill come doNsn her street past her house and go
around to avoid the hill. Her children, like many others, run across that street regularly. She explained
there are oniv 16 houses in the neighborhood. With the proposed development in both Shorewood and
Chanhassen traffic Nvill be increased by 50 percent in front of her house during the Nvinter. She stated from
her perspective the neighborhood cannot support the addition of that many houses. She then stated she,
and manv others, Nvould like to have some beautiful development in the area, but not that many houses.
Ms. Daub commented she moved into her current home 12 Nears ago. At that time she Nvas a single mom
raising a son. She read an excerpt from the staff report Nvhich states "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."
Another states "Shorewood has historically placed a high value on natural resources that help define the
community shoreland, wetlands, steep slopes and vegetation. As you read through the national
Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan, you will note that much is made of protecting these
features." She stated from her perspective the destruction of the Summit Avenue hill area does not match
up Nvith that.
Lea Foli, 6200 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated his north lot line is the Carver County/Hennepin
County border. His property is located across the roadvmv from the two vacant lots in Chanhassen that
Nvill be built upon. He then stated the subject property is a beautiful piece of land. He noted he is surprised
that an upscale developer does not have a little more imagination than to Nvant to stick in four row houses.
He expressed concern that the proposed development could depress the value of his property. He stated he
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 12 of 18
cannot imagine four houses each N ith a drivevyav side by side at the top of the hill. He noted that he does
not think that N-,-hat is being proposed is a good idea. He stated he Nyould like to see tNyo beautiful homes
on Lots 3 — 6 and one on the vacant property across from him. He noted there is an underground stream
that runs underneath the proposed P.U.D. over to his property.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:13 P.M.
Chair Geng noted that staff's recommendation is to continue this Public Hearing to November 5, 2013,
Planning Commission meeting even though the developer is still in the Concept Stage. He stated there are
some issues that need to be addressed. He asked if there is Planning Commission consensus to continue
the hearing to its November meeting. If there is, he suggested holding off the Commission's discussion
about this until that meeting.
Commissioner Davis stated she did not think the Planning Commission should hold off on its discussion.
She noted that she Nyorks for civil engineers but she is not one. She asked N-,-here Summit Avenue is on the
City's 20 -Year Pavement Improvement Plan (PMP). She also asked N-,-hat improvements could be made to
it. It is 13 feet Nyide Nyhich is almost the Nyidth of a driveNyay. She stated she thinks there are too many
homes proposed for this area. The amount of grading that Nyould have to be done Nyould be very
destructive. The erosion control Neill be terrible. She noted she has seen Ma- ,- floNyer Road under Nyater and
she appreciates the ice and snoNy situation. She stated she thought drainage Nyill be a big problem. She
expressed concern about having that magnitude of houses so close together. It Nyould not be very
aesthetic. She expressed concern about the increase in traffic on Summit Avenue because of the
development. She noted that the City Engineer addressed some of the issues identified this evening in his
staff report. She stated she thinks this proposal needs some serious thought. She stated she Nyould like to
knoNy N-,-hat it Nyould look like if there Nyere only four lots.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated the PMP oniv includes resurfacing Summit Avenue at some point.
Commissioner Labadie noted she agreed Nyith many of the points Commissioner Davis made. She
expressed concern about drainage. She asked if there has been a count of the number and types of trees
that Nyill have to be cut doN -,n for the houses alone. She stated she appreciates there is a concern about
safety for everyone especially small children playing on roadNya -,Ts. The roadwaN-s are currently loNy
traveled but if the development moves fonyard the traffic Nyill increase a lot. She thought the proposed
houses Nyould be very close together and out of character N ith the neighborhood. She stated she Nyould
like to discuss this more during the November 5 Planning Commission meeting when the Commission
Nyill hopefully have been provided Nyith more engineering information. She asked for information about
the soils on the site.
Commissioner Charbonnet stated he echoed the concerns just expressed by the other Commissioners. His
tNyo biggest concerns are Summit Avenue and drainage. He Nyould like more information about that and
the safety issues during the Nyinter on Summit Avenue.
Chair Geng stated in addition to concerns raised by the other Commissioners he noted he is very
concerned about the substandard Nyidth of Summit Avenue and the problems it presents. Adding eight
neNy houses (tNyo in Chanhassen and six for the P.U.D.) increases the number of houses in the
neighborhood substantially and they have to be served by the roadNya -,T. He noted he is concerned about
the increase in the volume of traffic but not the traffic speed. He expressed concern about the proposed
tNyo northerly lots (Lots 1 and 2) and N-,-hat the slope of the shared drivevyav Nyould have to be. He also
expressed concern about the aesthetic effects of the P.U.D. The Concept Plan does not appear to be in
character N ith the existing neighborhood. He commented that he applauded all of the members of the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 13 of 18
audience N-,-ho spoke, and noted that almost all conveyed they had no opposition to some amount of
development. They just Nyant development that comports Nv th the neighborhood.
Mr. Bona stated Homestead Partners does not Nyant to come to the next meeting Nyith the same proposal as
a P.U.D. if the overall count of six houses is the problem. He explained Homestead knoNys it can satisfy
code requirements by coming in Nyith a plat Nyith a total of six houses Nv th four in Shorevyood and tNyo in
Chanhassen. If that is the direction that Nyould make more sense it Nyould be helpful to knovy that noNy. He
stated no matter what additional engineering information is brought back that Nyill not mitigate concerns
about traffic from there being six neNy houses along Summit Avenue. He asked for some direction from
staff and the Planning Commission.
Chair Geng stated he appreciates that Homestead is Nyilling to contribute to the improvement of Summit
Avenue Nyhich is alongside of the project area. But, that is only part of the roadvmy. That Nyill not alleviate
the concerns he has or those expressed this evening about the Nyidth of Summit Avenue as a Nyhole. He
then stated he is not sure Nyhere even-one is relative to a P.U.D. or a standard plat. He did hear a lot of
concern expressed about there being six houses in that small proposed P.U.D. area; there are too many too
close together. He explained although the area is 4.2 acres in size the amount of area along Summit
Avenue is relatively small.
Mr. Bona stated if Homestead goes back to a standard plat for four houses in Shorevyood it Nyould not
require any variances. It Nyould be a plan for straight zoning. He then stated if there are any improvements
that could be made to the P.U.D. that Nyould make the P.U.D. acceptable he Nyould like to hear Nyhat they
are. If people are leaning to the standard plat he Nyould like to knovy that also.
Commissioner Labadie reiterated Nyhat Chair Geng noted earlier and that is the Planning Commission is a
recommending body only. She stated it is easier to get things passed N-,-hen a plan is conforming. But, the
Planning Commission cannot give a definitive answer this evening.
Commissioner Davis stated part of the Planning Commission's job is to ask the hard questions for
Council and to gather as much information as is useful including various perspectives. She then stated the
property oN -,ner has a right to develop their property. Hopefully, they Nyould take the neighborhood into
consideration. She commented that the subject property is a gorgeous piece of property. If tNyo lots Nyere
to be put in the loNy area on the north side the amount of grading and retaining Nyall needed Nyould be
substantial. She noted that from her perspective the Summit Avenue roadvmy is the deciding factor.
Mr. Bona concurred that Summit Avenue is very narroNy. He noted Homestead has had the City Engineer
involved in discussions about the Concept Plan.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated that this evening the Planning Commission is discussing the Concept
Plan P.U.D. Nyhile noting the meeting packet contains a copy of a six -lot conforming R -1C plat Nv th four
of the lots being in ShoreNyood. If the Commission is going to consider something else from Homestead it
needs the facts about it. He noted that this evening he has heard some people say a conforming plan
Nyould be more acceptable. He stated he personally Nyould like to hear more about the option for tNyo lots
along Galpin Lake Road and the four lots along Summit Avenue. He then stated for the residents of
Chanhassen in the audience he noted he appreciated their comments but their property issues need to be
addressed to Chanhassen's Planning Department and Council. He commented the Shorevyood Council has
nothing to say about what happens in Chanhassen.
Mr. Petrosian asked hoNy the public Nyill knovy about discussions about this subject property. He then
asked hoNy Chanhassen residents Nyill find out about what has or has not been decided or proposed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 14 of 18
Chair Geng explained that is what this Public Hearing is about. Discussions between developers and staff
are informal. Decisions about the P.U.D. or a conforming proposal are made by the City Council. He
noted there is nothing nefarious going on behind closed doors. The outcome of discussions so far is
reflected in the Concept Plan being discussed this evening.
Mr. Petrosian asked if the City's Nvebsite Nvill contain information about changes to this proposal or any
other proposal.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated the meeting packet for this meeting Nvith the exhibits Nvas placed on the
City's Nvebsite the end of last Nveek. The packet for the next meeting Nvill be out on the Nvebsite by
Thursday evening the Nveek before the meeting. The draft minutes Nvill be included in the meeting packet.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen explained the developer has the
option under the City's P.U.D. Ordinance to submit a Concept Plan and Development Stage Plan at the
same time.
Director Nielsen stated he understood Mr. Bona to be asking if Homestead should scrap the P.U.D. and
go to standard zoning and submit a preliminary plat for that. That Nvould require its oN -,n public hearing.
Davis moved, Charbonnet seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for the Summit Woods Planned
Unit Development Concept Plan to the Planning Commission's November 5, 2013, meeting. Motion
passed 510.
Director Nielsen noted it is the Planning Commission's prerogative as to whether or not it Nvants to reopen
the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing on November 5 because that has been closed. If the
Commission Nvants to take testimony on new information that is up to the Commission to decide.
Council Liaison Woodruff commented the Planning Commission has not denied the P.U.D. nor asked the
developer to bring back an alternative proposal. He reiterated Director Nielsen's clarification that a
preliminary plat Nvould require its oN -,n public hearing. He stated the Commission has to make some
recommendation on the P.U.D. proposal unless the applicant N-, thdraws it.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 9:45 P.M.
Chair Geng thanked the members of the audience for coming this evening and sharing their views.
Commissioner Charbonnet departed the meeting at 9:46 P.M.
2. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Margaret Prehall
Location: 4828 Rustic Way
Director Nielsen explained Margaret Prehall oN -,ns the property at 4828 Rustic Way. Her son, Sam, has
applied on her behalf for a minor subdivision to divide the property into two lots. As part of this request,
Mr. Prehall has requested that the City vacate 10 feet of the right -of -N ay (ROW) 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. The property abuts Lake William on the Nvest side. A lot of the property sits on
a bluff overlooking the Lake. It is currently occupied by the ovmer's single - family residence; the
residence is located on the Nvest side of the property closer to the Lake.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 15 of 18
The proposed partial street vacation contains an additional 1610 square feet in area, bringing the total area
of the property to 36,984. The proposed Nvesterly lot Nvould contain 26,977 square feet in area and the
easterly lot Nvould contain 10,007 square feet of area. The proposed house Nvould be located on the high
part of the new lot. The lot Nvith the existing home on it continues to drop in elevation toward Lake
William. An existing utility easement cuts across the Nvesterly portion of the property and a city "fire
lane" borders the south side of the lot (the fire lane is a platted city street that has never been developed).
With regard to the proposed partial street vacation, Nielsen noted it Nvould be subject to a public hearing
at the City Council level. That Nvill occur later this month. He explained that the existing ROW for Rustic
Wav is 60 feet No de; ShoreNvood's standard for city streets is 50 feet. Mr. Prehall has requested that the
northerIv 10 feet of ROW be vacated and combined Nvith the subject property. The applicant has spoken
With the neighbors to the south. The travelled surface of Rustic Way is situated on the southerly portion of
the existing ROW. The City has no plans to move that roadvmy further to the north or Nviden it. The City
Engineer has revieNved the request and indicated no utilities are located in the portion of the ROW to be
vacated, and that there Nvould be ample room for utilities in the smaller ROW. There is seNver under the
roadvmv. CurrentIv there is no municipal Nvater in the area. Staff recommends, as a matter of policy, that
the City reserve an easement for drainage and utilities over the vacated portion of the ROW.
With regard to the proposed subdivision, Nielsen explained the Nvesterly lot Nvould be 2.5 times larger
than the minimum lot size for the R -11) zoning district. The new easterly lot Nvould comply Nvith zoning
standards and is a suitable location for the new house intended to be built by Mr. Prehall. The location of
the new house takes advantage of the "average setback rule" provided in ShoreNvood's Zoning Code. That
provision recognizes the setbacks of adjoining lots. Where the adjoining houses are less than the
minimum front setback, the new house may be built at the average between the two. In this case, the
average setback is 21.7 feet. The proposed house on the new lot Nvould comply Nvith the 25 percent
maximum hardcover requirement for a Shoreland lot.
He noted that there is some precedent for the partial vacation of excess ROW. The same thing Nvas done
for four lots approximately one block Nvest of the subject property.
Based on the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision
subject to the folloNving.
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 -Nvay. (The surveyor has submitted
them.)
2. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (Nvithin 30 days) title opinion for review by the City
Attornev.
Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park
dedication fee ($5000) and one local sanitary seNver access charge ($1200). Credit is given for the
lot Nvith the existing house on it.
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.
Nielsen noted that Mr. Prehall and his Nvife are present this evening.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 16 of 18
Geng moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Margaret
Prehall, 4828 Rustic Way, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated he added up the hardcover listed on one of the exhibits in the meeting
packet. It comes out exactly 2500 square feet Nvhich is okay. But, the surveyor comes up Nth 2503 square
feet. That is over by about one -half a square foot of hardcover on the survey. He asked Nvhich is right.
Director Nielsen noted the exhibit Nvas an earlier draNving and it Nvas used because it Nvas a cleaner
draNving. Commissioner Davis noted that 2503 is 25 percent of 10,011 square feet.
Sam. Prehall, 4820 Rustic Wav, stated if the subdivision gets approved he knows he Nvill have to do some
detailed Nvork on Nvhat the actual house and driveway Nvould be like. He stated the draNvings provided
Nvere intended to show that the new lot is buildable.
Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Geng noted that the Planning Commission is a recommending body only. And, that this item Nvill be
placed on the October 28, 2013, Council meeting agenda.
3. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Tom and Kelly Cooper
Location: 22630 Murray Street
Director Nielsen explained Tom and Kelly Cooper oN -,n the property located at 22630 Murray Street.
They have applied for a minor subdivision to divide the property into two lots. The property is located in
the R -1C /S, Single - Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. That district requires a minimum lot
size of 20,000 square feet and it is subject to shoreland management requirements. The property contains
81,973 square feet of area and is occupied by the applicants' home, Nvhich sits back on the highest portion
of the lot. The property is situated between Murray Street on the south and Galpin Lane (a private road)
on the north. The proposed Nvesterly lot Nvould be 37,657 square feet in area and the easterly lot Nvould be
20,915 square feet in area.
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained both of the proposed lots meet or exceed the
requirements of the R -1C /S zoning district. The only right -of -N ay issue is Murray Street is somewhat
substandard in right- of -N -my (ROW) N idth adjoining the southeasterly corner of the subject property. As
part of the subdivision the applicant is dedicating additional ROW to make that portion of the street the
required 50 feet Nvide. The applicants had considered having the existing driveNvay serve both lots. They
have decided to keep the current driveNvay for the new lot. They Nvill build a new driveway for their house
N-,-hen a new house is built on the new lot. There is an existing sanitan- seNver line that runs through the
property, but not doN -,n the property line. Therefore, the Nvesterly lot Nvill Nviden somewhat at the north end
to make up for a Nader- than - normal seNver easement located on the Nvest side of the lot.
Based on the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision
subject to the following.
1. The applicants must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10
feet around each lot. The easement on the Nvest side of the property Nvill be somewhat Nvider so as
to have 10 feet on the east side of the existing seNver line located there.
2. The applicants must provide a legal description for the proposed additional road easement in the
southeast corner of the property.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 17 of 18
3. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City
Attornev.
4. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park
dedication fee ($5000) and one local sanitary seNver access charge ($1200). Credit is alloNved for
the previous home on the site.
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.
Nielsen noted the Coopers are present.
Davis moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Tom and
Kelly Cooper, 22630 Murray Street, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion
passed 4/0.
Chair Geng noted this item Nvill be placed on the October 28, 2013, Council meeting agenda
4. DISCUSS START TIME FOR THE NOVEMBER _5, 2013, MEETING
Director Nielsen explained November 5, 2013, is an election day. Staff considered rescheduling the
meeting for November 19. Staff is recommending changing the start of the time of the November 5
meeting to 8:00 P.M. Nvhich is when the polls close.
There Nvas Planning Commission consensus to start its November 5, 2013, at 8:00 P.M
Council Liaison Woodruff stated because of the delayed start time for the meeting he asked if it Nvould be
possible to again send a mailing to the same people notified of the Summit Woods public hearing.
Director Nielsen stated for sure it could be posted on the City's Nvebsite and depending on the number of
properties to notify a postcard mailing could possibly be sent.
_5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There Nvere no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
Director Nielsen stated he needs a Planning Commission liaison for the October City Council meetings.
Chair Geng offered to be the liaison.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated the public hearing for the Summit Woods has been continued to the November 5,
2013, Planning Commission meeting. There is a site plan review and an interim conditional use permit for
the 5680 County Road 19 property (the old gas station / bait shop) also slated for that meeting agenda.
Chair Geng suggested having a discussion about meeting attendance on the November 5, 2013, meeting
agenda.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 1, 2013
Page 18 of 18
8. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Commissioner Labadie reported on the September 23, 2013, Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes
of that meeting). Council Liaison Woodruff elaborated on her report.
SLUC
Commissioner Davis stated the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) session on October 30, 2013, is a
Roundtable of Knowledge. She thought that session is the most fun SLUC session she has ever attended.
She encouraged the Planning Commissioners to try and attend that meeting.
Director Nielsen stated the budget for SLUC sessions may have been used up. He Nvill check on that.
Other
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Labadie moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 1, 2013,
at 10:22 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
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
i
F
j
MEMORANDUM
i
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 31 October 2013
RE: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Revised Concept Plan
FILE NO. 405(13:09)
The Planning Commission held a public hearing at its October meeting to consider a concept
plan for a proposed subdivision called Summit Woods P.U.D. The staff report for that proposal,
dated 24 September 2013, while generally supportive of the concept, raised a number of issues
relative to the development of the subject property. Neighboring property owners also expressed
a number of concerns as to how the project affects their neighborhood. Based on these inputs,
and at the request of the developer, the Planning Commission voted to continue the hearing to its
November meeting. Since then, Homestead Partners has submitted a revised concept plan in
response to the issues raised at the hearing (see Exhibits A -I, attached).
Summary of Proposed Revisions The developer's revised concept plan is explained in detail in
Exhibit A, attached. Following is a summary of the revisions:
1. The project has been reduced in size. The northerly of the two parcels that made up the
initial concept plan has been removed from proposal. This will remain as an existing lot
of record and left for future development of a single - family residence. As such, no
conservation easement will be dedicated over the northerly half of the parcel. The
attached exhibits are based on the reduced project area.
2. The number of homes proposed has been reduced from six to four (see Exhibit C), noting
that an additional home can still be built on the parcel that is removed from the project.
3. The revised concept plan includes' increased front yard setbacks. The original plan asked
for 25 -foot front setbacks, whereas the revised plan shows front yard setbacks 'from 40
feet for the southerly lot to 20 feet on the northerly lot.
f.,* ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Summit Woods'P.U.D. — Revised Concept Plan
31 October 2013
4.' The revised plan asks for eight -foot side yard setbacks versus the 7.5 -foot setbacks from
the initial plan.
5. Instead of a ponding area at the bottom of the site, near Mayflower Road, the developer is
proposing to construct rain gardens on each lot to handle site drainage.
6. Staff has asked the developer to elaborate on what a straight R -1 C plat might look like,
including the site alteration required to accomplish such a development. Exhibits E and F
show how five lots, conforming to R -1C zoning standards would affect the site.
Analysis/Recommendations As mentioned at the beginning of this report, staff was generally
supportive of the initial P.U.D. concept, based on its consistency with Shorewood development
regulations and goals, objectives and policies of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Following
is how the revised plan addresses issues raised by staff:
a. The removal of the northerly parcel and reduction of project area has positive and
negative implications. Leaving the existing lot of record to future development
eliminates any conservation easement for that portion of the property. This is mitigated
however, by the fact that only one home on the resulting large lot makes it somewhat
easier to overcome the challenges of the terrain.
b. The elimination of one lot /home from the project results in only one additional home
being proposed on Summit Avenue. The trade -off is two less driveways on Galpin Lake
Road if the proj ect was simply an R -1 C plat. Even more significantly, the value of the
conservation easement proposed over more than half of the site cannot be
overemphasized.
c. The developer has moved the proposed building pads back, based on staff's earlier
suggestions. Although he suggests that the buildings are staggered, the revised plan still
shows a relatively straight line of structures. With the possible exception of Lots 1 and 2,
it is recommended that the front setbacks be a minimum of 40 feet for a number of
reasons:
(1) The increased setback increases the width of the lot at the building line, allowing for
compliance with side yard setback requirements (see paragraph (2), below).
(2) While the developer does not want longer driveways and utility services than
necessary, the increased front yards and longer driveways provide more room for
on -site parking. This is important with respect to the substandard width of Summit
Avenue, where no on- street parking should be allowed. It also allows more room
for construction of driveway turn -outs that can allow cars to be turned around so as
to access Summit Avenue going forward, eliminating the need to back out onto the
substandard street.
-2-
Memorandum
Re: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Revised Concept Plan
31 October 2013
(3) The increased front setback allows more room for the rain gardens that are proposed
as the drainage solution for the site.
It is important to point out that this recommendation exceeds the requirements of the
R -1C zoning district as well as the requirements of Chanhassen's zoning south of the site
For Lots 1 and 2, lesser setbacks are warranted so as to not push houses back over the
hill. The 20 feet shown for Lot 1 is considered acceptable, especially considering the_
extraordinary right -of -way in front of it. The setback for Lot 2 is recommended to be 35
feet.
d. Staff's maintains its earlier recommendation that side yard setbacks be no less than 10
feet. This provides for standard drainage and utility easements along lot lines and should
be relatively easy to accomplish in conjunction with the front setback recommendations
in c., above.
e. The ponding area in the earlier proposal was never a very viable option. Conversely, as
mentioned in the City Engineer's staff report, dated 28 October 2013, the proposed rain
gardens are the preferred means of handling drainage for this site.
f. Perhaps the most significant element of the proposed P.U.D. is the preservation of the
steeply wooded slopes on the easterly and northerly portions of the site. As shown on
Exhibit C, 1.85 acres (shown in green) is proposed to be set aside as conservation open
space — over half of the site. What this means is that the conservation area will not be
graded, large trees on that portion of the site will remain and no buildings will be
constructed.
By comparison, a conforming R -1C plat would result in substantial site alteration
(grading and tree removal) of that same area (shown in orange on Exhibit E), in order to
overcome topography. Also, the homes that would be built on Summit Avenue could be
built at the 35 -foot front yard setback, closer than what can be imposed in the P.U.D.
The Summit Woods project is exactly the type of project for which the planned unit development
(P.U.D) tool was intended. It must be remembered that the property owner has a right to develop
his property under the rules established by the City. In this instance, the P.U.D. approach is
considered to be far superior to traditional platting:
Cc: Bill Joynes
Paul Hornby
Larry Brown
Tim Keane
Bruce DeJong
Tom Strohm
Peter Knaeble
-3-
Brad,
Thanks again for your time with us last week. We have carefully considered the neighborhood
comments, in addition to your comments and feedback. We have revised our approach and concept
plans, with the following considerations in mind:
1. Our concept plan only includes the 3.3 acre parcel. The other parcel to the north will remain a
single parcel (eligible for 1 building permit) and not part of this concept submission.
2. PUD changes
a. Reduce lot count from 6 total in original PUD Concept, to 4 lots
b. Staggered front setbacks; two conforming - deeper setbacks as you move towards
existing homes to the south
c. Increased the side setbacks from 7.5' to 8' to create a little more space between homes,
and views to the bluffs per Staff and neighborhood comments
d. Located small rain gardens at the top of the hill, in front of the homes to better manage
stormwater onsite, as well as to provide additional landscaping
e. Continue with some sort of participation relating to extending the trail along Galpin
f. Continue with tree preservation in conservation easement
3. Conforming
a. We show proposed driveways and building footprints on conforming lots
b. Located grading limits
c. Significant tree loss
d. Significant grading on the hillside
Please see the attached, updated concept plans for your review. Please let us know if you have any
comments prior to submitting the PC packets.
Thanks,
Tom Strohm
Project Manager
AINHOMESTEAD
VJW
PART N'ERS
525 -15th Avenue South, Hopkins, MN 55343
p 952.294.21131 c 612.695.2275 1 e toms @homestead - partners.com
Exhibit A
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
Below are some additional comments and thoughts to review regarding our revised PUD Concept. We
appreciate the suggestions and feedback from the Planning Commission and the neighbors. We believe
this 4 lot PUD Concept Plan addresses a majority of the neighbors' concerns, and will be a wonderful
addition to the neighborhood and the City. The significant 1.85 acre Tree Conservation Area will be a
lasting legacy from the Rix Family to this neighborhood.
issues per the Planning Commission meeting and how we addressed them:
Drainage:
• Moved rain garden from lower area to upper area.
• Reduced impervious area by 20% (1 less lot)
• Rain gardens will reduce the volume and runoff rates of stormwater to Summit Ave.
Traffic:
• Existing plat shows 4 lots fronting on Summit Ave., therefore original street was capable of
handling these 4 homes. Only 1 additional home on Summit Ave.
• We believe one additional home will not significantly cause more traffic or a worse safety
condition.
Street Width:
• Surveyed existing Summit Ave. at 15' -20' wide. If adequate for existing conditions, 1 additional
lot should also be acceptable.
• We will widen Summit Ave. to 20' minimum fire safety standard, per Shorewood's
recommendation.
Trees:
• Substantially increased Tree Conservation Area width from 150' to 175' (17% increase).
• Only 9 trees will be removed out of 184 significant trees surveyed on site (only a 5% tree loss).
• 140 significant trees will be permanently protected within the Tree Conservation Area (76% of
all trees).
• 5 lot Conforming Plat requires approximately 111 significant trees removed (60% tree loss).
• Conforming Plat would not have any Tree Conservation Area.
Home Design:
• Per recommendation of Shorewood City Planner, we now show staggered front setbacks to
provide a more interesting streetscape, and allows more visibility between the new homes.
• Homes will be custom designed for all four new homes.
Safety:
4 lot PUD Concept Plan is safer than the 5 lot Conforming Plan due to less overall traffic and no
driveways proposed on the busier Galpin Lake Road.
• Widening Summit Ave. will provide a safer street design for emergency vehicles, than the
existing substandard street width.
Site Planning:
• 4 lot PUD Concept Plan disturbed area is 0.9 acres vs. 2.6 acres for the 5 lot Conforming Plan.
• 4 lot PUD Concept Plan has an average lot size of 35,400 sf vs. 28,300 sf for the 5 lot Conforming
Plan.
• 4 lot PUD Concept Plan removes only 9 trees (5 %) vs. 111 trees (60 %) for the 5 lot Conforming
Plan.
• 4 lot PUD Concept Plan shows 1.85 acres of Tree Conservation Area vs. 0 acres for the 5 lot
Conforming Plan.
m No variances are required for the 5 lot Conforming Plan.
Tom Strohm
Project Manager
ANHOMESTEAD
VJW
PAS "IN S
525 -15th Avenue South, Hopkins, MN 55343
p 952.294.2113 1 c612.695.2275 I etoms@homestead-partners.com
/ P9
�P
G�
X23130 O
%6075
%6070
O X6090 �q.
0 0 MAYFLDVCR
° 3 7 ROAD A, e
252.493 Qti?
,t vP
° 125.5 °
O 0 ° 0 O
O p O %92885
n THEDBGRE RIX 0 ° a °
PiN 34- 11] -23 -43 -0012 0 O
SHOREVOGI, MN (HENN. CG) 0 O O
0.930 AC. (40,532 SF) p O p 0
N p
141,4$3 SF ° o p ° o° .0 _ SYb:rn
v 3248 AC, 0 0 0 0
N 0 0 ° �0
°O o p ° o
O O
O ° 0 0 0° O O O°0
O 0
O 0
p 0 O O O O O O
720
b o
OS o o 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0 00 z
u 0 0
o
° 0 184 TREES v
0 0
[IN-SITE
° 0
i�•t
u.E G.NALU R tx 8 °
0
IN 34 -117- 23043 -0013 00 C
0 23040 SUMMIT AVE. 0
SHEREVGED, Mp� (HENN. 8U.)
O 03.248 AC. (141,Y93 SF) O O
66' V
0 0
III -_ -
%6t60 /
WETLAND
OOO s
E
N
rc�
as
[I
Z
A
O
a ° �
D O
0 D
°
J
EL
N
z
O
TO
o
HnoF
o o N
0 ° 0 o O
F
Xzatts
O oz
IN
° ° 0
U 30
w
>
H-
oA
o o
00
o
OuTeuILOiN
o
0
0 C 8
0
° o
°
o °0 0
z
SHREW❑ ❑D
N 90
E
0
°°
0
° 0 00
o DD° O °
W U)
(HENN, CO.)
P
°
0
° ° ° 0
- - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT
DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
2 25.34 0
0° 164.00 0 °
CHANHASSEN
T 1p5�
EXISTING CONDITIONS
- TREE(
EOF
CCA
VER CO.)
9'
A
GV
R W
�_
Z
X6269
�
m
r
z
f
f
�
o
X6240
I
IGHALT Rix
PIN 255450020
6221 HUMMINGBIRD R0,
CHANHASSEN, NN (CARVER C0.)
d
1.710 AC. (74,499 SF)
v
REV
III -_ -
%6t60 /
WETLAND
OOO s
E
N
rc�
as
[I
Z
X6190
Q
J
EL
N
z
O
F
O oz
\\ W E
U 30
� 3
~
s
z
40 0 40 90
(n (]
SCALE IN FEET
W U)
LEGEND:
9 -5 DENOTES SOIL BORING
- - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT
DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
-1056- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS
Y DENOTE
E Exhibit B
EXISTING CONDITIONS
- TREE(
EOF
Oe4 X60"
X607G
u� X6090 �4a'
� � w
MAYF IO -
WE
377 9 R READ
252.4
725.5 1
a Os
6085 R
4p' RS8 022885 �9 �
N , \ RS
141,493 SF \
N 3248 AC. CONSERVATION EASEMENT �`
_ 80,532 SF (1.85 ACI 8
X23130 O 125' CONSE-TION EAS[, r 57% OF SITE 6
1 1 _ PROJECT DATA-
72o I 51,139 SF TOTAL SITE 3.248 AC. (141,493 SF)
2Q 05 - 1 NO. OF LOTS 4 LOTS
DENSITY 1.23 UNITS /AC.
X614° MIN. LOT SIZE 26,227 SF M
AVG, LOT SIZE 35,373 SF
I CONSERV. EASE. 1.85 AC. (577 OF SITE)
DISTURBED AREA 0.9 AC.
TREE LOSS 9 TREES (57. TREE LOSS)
ol� I v
SHOREWOOD ZONED R -1C
20,000 SF MIN. LOT SIZE
SJ u .°•I l0 2 ty 100' MIN. LOT WIDTH (AT 35' FSB) -
sr 120 MIN. LOT DEPTH = <a
mI I 35' FRONT SETBACK mat?
1 66' R #6160 / 40' REAR SETBACK 3 a
0 T—�- �--. - _�,_ 10' SIDE SETBACK 035' CORNER) Kim Y-
m _ I _ —_ —_ WETLAND Kim
o
1 3 PROPOSED PUB STANDARDS
k23115 N " ,1 1 I Ip
z6,2z7 5E -
-� POND 20,000 SF MIN. LOT SIZE
> 11 �°' - ( 70 MIN. LOT WIDTH (AT FSB)
¢ _1 aeo_ _ ) 120 MIN. LOT DEPTH
_ -- -- - X61B13 \ \\ VARIABLE FRONT SETBACK (SEE PLAN)
i' 4 40' REAR SETBACK
o r I \ 8' SIDE SETBACK
SHREW❑ ❑D ti B° T 26,91% SF
(HENN, CO.) — nl i — — oo I N
__22534__JB• 559 1TrP. sv1 Z
CHANHASSEN 389 -34 a z
CCA VER CO.) R w b o
a o
a6z°G a ` W E V 3 0
0
< 13
p , s L)
Z O 1 40 o 4G BG
g ¢
j ,Z1 \ SCALE IN FEET a VI fn
d
86240 v lL g
RqV jj� B -5 DENOTES SOIL BORING
- - - - -- - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING EMIT X/1/13
DENOTES .-NO CONTOURS
417'
—105X— OENOIES PROPOSED CONTOURS
DENOTES STORM 5E15ER
pENOTFG sANrtbRr uw�R 1 Z_1112
Exhibit C
X6231 X'056.° °` REVISED CONCEPT PLAN
EOF 2059.0 °f
�P,
Q-
#6210
:-#23115 �
#60]5
M60]0
lz p
#22Ba5 F� • f
X6140 dd
_r
Ra °
#6160
WETLAND
A� g.4EBd`
�. 1 IJPOND
F, N ZO
a. Z
p a. U) M
Ua o0
Z
30
Ua HW
1
Ow 0 40 a0
A \ SCAIE IN FEET
t7
LE90ML
6 BOy 0 B -5 DENOTES SOL BORING
- - - - - -- CENDiES SILT FENCE /GRADING UMIT 9/1/13
— — - - — DENOTES ENS11NG CONTOURS
417' —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS
DENOTES STORM KKRF
0 17_11 F.
Exhibit D
#6231 K 0056
«1 AERIAL PHOTO w/ REVISE]
CONCEPT OVERLAY
Qq a6m5
a6U]0
g
a609a �q' } _
3 >7 MAYFLOWER ROAD
9
252.4
i 125.5
6065 /
_ as' FSD \ azzees F • �5
9 \
n % GARN99l, \ \\
/ 1ST 1002 7\
N2ND 1013 ��\
/ 141,493 SIF \ >;
PROJECT DATA,
g2313a O �` r N _ TOTAL SITE 3,248 AC. (141,493 SF) 4
.. \ NO. OF LOTS 5 LOTS "
pA DENSITY 1.54 UNITS /AC.
MIN. LOT SIZE 22,198 SF
�2p-p5 �r� \\ +�� °P � AVG. LOT SIZE 28,299 SF�^
CONSERV. EASE. NONE�"'"r
uAEROUT \ I DISTURBED AREA 2.6 AC.
GAR 1060 051
\� ml �� TREE LOSS 111 TREES (60 %)
BSHT 1 t i
22,2]4 SF. Z
'111T 11
19T999 m r� NO VARIANCES REQUIRED x
`nLooaour In al �1 °° �
l GAR 1065 I° ela �I / �at =s �'
BSHT 1056 Iz1� � I a � o
2 m ~'
/ SHOREWOOD ZONED R -1C
O zz9
R2,198 SF I 11b WETLAND I 20,000 SF MIN. LOT SIZE
N 100' MIN. LOT WIDTH (AT 35' FSB)
2z3' I g. F: I. O 120' MIN. LOT DEPTH
X23us tv N ����� —����� i '� POND 35' FRONT SETBACK
I 40' REAR SETBACK
GAeKmbi I 3 I A \ 1 X61Ga 10' SIDE SETBACK (35' CORNER) Z
F- DSHT lase I 82189 SF I
! 39,]]5 SF%I, �BpPO` d
SHREW❑ ❑D N Ba' Ra o
i �``
a
(HENN, CO.) i W
la• ssH arw U
_225 Q.����JRR6' � � 64.00 163' � Z
HASSEN 389.34 \ U
L y
CCA VER CO.) a °
B•R�
W E Z 30
a6ROO
S O I.- W
w d g w
Z 40 0 40 Z = _
f 1 SCAIE IN FEET (� V) VI
= A \
—40 ! g
B -5 DENOTES SOIL ROBING m / /
G L - - - - - -- DENDIES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT 9 1 13
DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
417' 1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS
�— DENOTES STORM SEWER
Exhibit E
.—I � I X'°56.8 0l TRADITIONAL R -IC PLAT
EOF4-1059.0 oI
E-- 4
\
23130� t a i\ -
N.4 5 \® .
f \1
i
•,S i W i 1 f,,_ �...
_ 6 +3
kHASSE 2 t
x
x6240
41]'
X6231
Q
Fy �Qy
wzzees
x6140
x6160 /
WETLAND I
W.
3 � �
d 1
� 0 1
d \
6 RDV �
�0�•2•w
L S
.a t J�
m
5
CL
N
O
U
EL
U
Om
w E
Za
o
3p
s
oa.9
ea
Z
40 0 40
Emosmiiiiii
V
? _
SCALE IN FEET
`�
(1) N
lEC>£dOt
B -5 DENOTES SOIL BORING
- - - - - -- DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRACING UMIT
DENOTES E STING CONTOURS
—1058— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS
X9/1/'13
DENOTES STORK
ceuirecv SEWE crR
— Exhibit F
AERIAL PHOTO w/ TRADITIONAL
E(
= R -1C PLAT OVERLAY
i
Q9 M6015
�O
�P�' a6Dlo
G
Mq�WE �
Rp
141,493 SF
3.248 AC.
x23130 O
1
2
ei
3
x23115
W
Q rz
4
SHREW❑ ❑D ` D
(HENN, CO.) P
HASSEN
(CA VER CO.) ' B' R 4"
Fl
a620D �
K �
� � u
L7
F
E m rr>P
x
u6z4x
411'
x6231
x6090
v
Q
xzze65
IJ
x6160 /
WETLAND I
C�
a�ft�
iS
rv�
x6380 1
N Q
J
a Z
� o
z
3 W E F O
w 0
s ~ ili
ao 0
4. eD 5 m 0
scA1E w —T d Cn N
d
J
�' R -5 DENOTES SOIL BDRING
- - - - DENOTES 9LT FENCE/GRADING LIMIT
EXISTING CDNTOBRS
-1056- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTDURS
N DENOTES STORM SEWER
—6'— Exhibit G
x'°ll PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
EOF0 -1
115
/ HENR -C6)
AS EN
(CA VE Co.) R W
Fi
p6200 �
q
K
L�
Z
f
z
%6240
#so>a
Mgy�E�
Rp
T ,
Eml
41 >'
#6231
P
Iz �� \
VP
x 1
�� M61d0
b
�c•`8
yCy�
d�
i�
Sao
Z
aZ
N a d
J
zZ �
W E o
Qp 0O
wo gp
S :i 2
40 C 40 BO W 0 Q
�0 m2
RCAIE IN FEET d W N V)
LFGEND:
. -D DENOTES SOIL ..RING
DENOTES SLT FENCE /GRADING UNIT 9/l/13
-- - " - -- DENOTES E%ISTNG CONTOURS
1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS
DENOTES STORM SEER
eov crwcv � 2— 1 � C
-$' Exhibit Hu
E� PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
1
#6160
/
WETLAND
POND
#6180
x
\
\
m
1
d
1
n
0
1
d
. Rav
�c•`8
yCy�
d�
i�
Sao
Z
aZ
N a d
J
zZ �
W E o
Qp 0O
wo gp
S :i 2
40 C 40 BO W 0 Q
�0 m2
RCAIE IN FEET d W N V)
LFGEND:
. -D DENOTES SOIL ..RING
DENOTES SLT FENCE /GRADING UNIT 9/l/13
-- - " - -- DENOTES E%ISTNG CONTOURS
1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS
DENOTES STORM SEER
eov crwcv � 2— 1 � C
-$' Exhibit Hu
E� PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
OP9
Q-
S�P
,ZP
G
naaa:>_7
m
#23130 O
JN`d`1S
0
o °
/ i O
#23115
W
Q
SHREW❑ ❑D " BD RB
(HENN, CO.)
HASSEN
CCA VER C❑,) a, R
ca
#62DO �
q
D!
z
2
#6290
t!Y �
#6090 Iq'
�4v
P
Q
O `J
p ° C
O 0
°
0 °
D
° D
0 ° ° O °
Sbl,4a SF ° p ° °
°
3.248 AC° Y ° D
G&,SEp ° E WT
00 80,532 F 61 %5 AR)
o 5 57% OF iE°
° o
p ° ,
0SD1'0' " 0
°
o
°
_ -
_
'I t o
° b ° o o °
p ° I o °p 0
0
1\ p ° p ° °
0 o
° O p0
o z
184 TREES o o
ON -SITE m
�1m� °Ia a ° °p .L
d
P o
°
e 1 D > 66
- - -�— ° °
0 °
1 ° °`� -0 ° o° °
1 0
------ Lb--a� +- -o�- -- --ate --
1 ° p I °° ° O
0p o 0 ° 0 ° o
o ' ° o ° o D
— — L ° 02 °
I— _— D
417'
#6231
#22895
#61
WE
s -
arm�
F2
PROJECT DATA:
TOTAL SITE 3.248 AC. (141,493 SF) G 0
CONSERV, EASE. 1.85 AC, (57% OF SITE)
EXISTING TREES ON -SITE 184 TREES
TREE LOSS 9 TREES (5% TREE LOSS)��
TREES WITHIN CONSERV, AREA 140 TREES (76% OF ON -SITE TREES
E3o'
#61E
J
a
z
O
N
V) o�
z
W E
a 00
m
W
d
s
?= mod'
40 o ao Bo
m O
O
SCALE IN EEET
(n (n
Lo
J
..._ u' D
a
B -5 DENOTES SOIL BORING
RDW
- - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADWG LIMIT
9/1/13
- - _ - - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
—1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS
��
>- DENOTES STORM SE1YN
— >— DENOTES SAN' - ""
4 z_ I l C.
—8'— — D " °� WA' Exhibit I
X 7056.0 DE�11D1E5 PRf PRELIMINARY
TREE
EOF«+1059.0 DENoms oat
Wse
& Associates, Inc. engineering • planning - environmental- construction
Memorandum
To: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
From: Paul Hornby, City Engineer
Date: October 28, 2013
Re: Summit Woods Concept Plan
WSB Project No. 01459 -83
477 Temperance Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Tel: 651 - 286 -8450
Fax: 651 - 286 -8488
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, respectively.
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 to 15 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 a number of rain gardens instead of a single pond
on each parcel. This is a preferred method to treat storm water runoff to reduce land
disturbance on this proposed project site. The storm water requirements will need to
comply with the City surface water management plan.
St. Cloud - Minneapolis - St. Paul
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
KA01459 -830V dmin\DmsVU1EM0 - PTH_Welsea- 102813- Concept plat miew.dmx
Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
October 28, 2013
Page 2
6. Extension of the Chanhassen water system is proposed as 8 -inch watermain to serve four
newly created lots in the PUD Concept Plan The City of Chanhassen would like to see
this water system looped back to Galpin Lake Road or Murray Hill Road sometime in the
future.
7. The proposed watermain extension is shown throughout the plat boundary. IF the
conforming concept plan moves forward, extension of a water service or the potential for
a well will need to be evaluated for Lot 5.
8. Sewer and water services need to be located toward the house side of the lot. The City
may want to consider including a service to the west side of Summit Avenue with
potential to service an existing house with this project.
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.
KA01459- 83044dmin\DO sNfEMO -PTH BNic-102813- Concept plat roiew.d-
r
CI'TY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 (952) 960 -7900 .
FAX (952) 474 -0128 ^ www.ci,shorewood . mn.us cityhallOci.shorewood.mn.us ,
i
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 1 November 2013
RE: My Car Guy; LLC - Interim Conditional Use Permit
FILE NO. 405 (13.03) I
I
Earlier this year the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a request by
James Steinwand for a conditional use permit for a bicycle repair and auto detailing business
at 5680 County Road 19: The staff report for that- application, dated 30 May 2013, listed a
number of issues and recommendations relative to the request and the Commission voted to
continue the matter to its next meeting. At the hearing, staff suggested that the nature of the
applicant's request might best be handled by an interim conditional use permit, pursuant to
Section 1201.04 Subd. 4 of the Zoning Code.
The applicant took issue with a number of staff s recommendations and, at one point,
withdrew his application. After discussions with the applicant, it was determined that he
would drop the auto- oriented business from the application and revise his original request
from a conditional use permit to an interim conditional use permit. Two items of information
were required for the new application - an up -to -date survey of the property and a landscape
plan. We have now received both items (see Exhibits A and B) and a new public hearing is
scheduled for 5 November. f
i
Interim Conditional Use Permit. One of the primary reasons the applicant objected to 'staff "
recommendations was that neither he, nor the owner of the property (the American Legion),
were willing to make any substantial investments in the property, given -the uncertainty of i
plans for redevelopment of the area. For example, the applicant was unwilling to 'install
curbing around the parking lot or remove the extra curb cut on County Road 19., This is
understandable if the proposed use will ultimately be'replaced by some other use:
A few years ago the City adopted a zoning tool called "interim use permit" intended very
much for situations such as this. One of the purposes of interim C.U.P. is "(2) To allow a use
®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -
Memorandum
Re: My Car Guy — Interim Conditional Use Permit
1 November 2013
that is presently judged acceptable by the City Council, but with anticipated development or
redevelopment, will not be acceptable in the future; or.... ". The Code also allows for
changes to nonconforming uses contingent upon a plan for cessation of the nonconforming
use within ,a specified period of time.
What is suggested for this application is that the curbing around the parking lot and the
removal of the County Road 19 driveway access be delayed for a time. This does not
include, however, delay of the paving and striping of the parking lot. Nor does it waive any
requirement for landscaping.
Exhibit B is the landscape plan prepared by the applicant's landscape architect. In addition to
proposed landscaping, the plan shows how the parking lot for the interim use would be laid
out. A small portion of nonconforming pavement to the west of the southerly driveway will
be removed in favor of landscaping in that area. The plan shows three parking spaces on the
south side of the building with ample room on the site for at least three additional spaces. Six
spaces is consistent with zoning requirements for the proposed bicycle repair use.
The landscaping proposed is also consistent with the Shorewood Zoning Code and the
County Road 19 Corridor Study.
It is recommended that an interim conditional use permit be granted subject to the following
conditions:
I. The initial approval should extend for three years, after which the property will be
reviewed for its relationship to redevelopment activity in the Smithtown Crossing.
redevelopment area. If redevelopment is not eminent at that time, the permit would be
extended for an additional two years, after which the nonconformities listed in the 30
May staff report would be brought into conformance or the use would be removed from
the site.
2. By the time the City Council reviews this application, it will be too late to do any paving.
It is recommended that the applicant obtain a bid for paving the gravel portion of the
parking lot and removal of the small area of bituminous mentioned above. From that bid,
a letter of credit or cash escrow for one and one half times the amount of the bid should
be required in order to ensure that the work will be done no later than 1 June 2014.
3. Similar to 2. above, landscaping will not be able to be done until next spring. Again a
letter of credit or cash escrow should be required to guarantee that the landscape plan is
implemented by 1 June 2014.
4. Any proposed signage for the site must comply with the requirements of the Shorewood
Zoning Code.
-2-
Memorandum
Re: My Car Guy — Interim Conditional Use Permit
1 November 2013
5. No outdoor storage, display or service is allowed on the site. All service work is to be
performed within the building. Parking or storage of commercial vehicles or trailers is �
not allowed on the property.
f
6. The proposed use of the property is subject to the provisions of Section 1201.04 Subd. 4.
of the Shorewood Zoning Code.
The preceding is considered to be a reasonable approach to allowing a temporary use of the
land pending some, longer term redevelopment of the area.
l
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Larry Brown I
Paul Hornby
James Steinwand
i
-3-
PREPARED FOR:
EXCELSIOR AMERICAN LEGION
CLARENCE CLOFER POST #259
24450 SMITHTOWN ROAD
SHOREWOOD, MN 55331
C��btr1.
+ I•d d
o.C7�`-
5.4
�N
H+.
T �
BFNf:HMARK'. TOP NUT OF
HYDRANT ELEVATION
983.89 FEET ��
I
I
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
33 r
G
I1 — EXCEPTON-
00 �Ity�P,%
'
N81'O6'49rE :.�E ENO ,33 t�9
® I /
CENIERUNE OF SMPRT UA DITOR S
(OL HIGHWAY 7) 133
w I I i
SUBDIVISION NO
II
33 —{
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (PER DOC, NO. 5868728):
THAT PART OF LOT 25, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 133, HENNEPIN
COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A
POINT IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25 AT THE
INTERSECTION OF OLD STATE HIGHWAY NO. 7 AND HENNEPIN COUNTY
HIGHWAY NO. 19, ALONG, ADJONING, AND PARALLEL TO SAID COUNTY
HIGHWAY NO. 19 IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION 150 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE IN A SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION 100 FEET ON A LINE
PARALLEL TO OLD STATE HIGHWAY NO. 7 TO A POINT; THENCE IN A
SOUTHERLY DIRECTION 150 FEET ON A LINE PARALLEL TO COUNTY
HIGHWAY NO. 19 TO A POINT ON THE RIGHT —OF —WAY OF OLD STATE
HIGHWAY NO. 7; THENCE IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION 100 FEET
PARALLEL TO OLD STATE HIGHWAY NO. 7 TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING
(MEMORIALIZED ON CERTIFICATE OF TITLE N0, 697194):
THAT PART OF THE ABOVE— DESCRIBED PARCEL WHICH LIES EASTERLY
AND SOUTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
NOTES:
1) THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF A TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT,
2) ADDRESS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5680
COUNTY ROAD 19, SHOREWOOD, MN 55331
P.I. D.:33- 117 -23 -13 -0005
3) PARCEL AREA: 13,403 SQ. FT.
4) BEARING BASIS IS ASSUMED.
5) DATE OF LAST FIELDWORK: B -24 -2013
6) ELEVATION DATUM: NGVD 29
BENCHMARK: TOP NUT OF HYDRANT AS
SHOWN ON MAP ELEVATION = 983.89
ScdR !n Fi•!
0 20
IIFRFND:
FOUND IRON PIPE
(AS NOTED)
O
SEr
W /CAP j�447 9R
®
0
WASHER 4 14
R 9
POWER POLE (WITH GUY ANCHOR)
Cr
FIRE HYDRANT
N
CITE VALVE
I'
SIGN
LICHT POLE
W
CATCH BASIN
Q
COMMUNICATIONS MANHOLE
®
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
ELECTRIC MANHOLE
fQ
t j
DECIDUOUS TREE (SIZE IN INCHES)
- "OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
/p7
WOOD FENCE
CONCRETE SURFACE
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land
Surveyor under the laws of the state of
Minnesota.
T-1. W. Van Nat•, Mlnn• W Pm-1-1 S`, 109
MIaN an Pr f—l.d Su e95
JOBS 2013055 ISSUED: 8 -25 -2013
DRAWN BY: TWVN REV:
SCALE: 1• - 20 PUT
VAN NESTE SURVEYING
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING SERVICES V S
85 AVILDHURST ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
PHONE (952) 686 -3055 TOLL—FREE FAX (686) 473 -0120
WWW.VANNESTESURVEfING.COM SHEET 1 OF 1
eZa(Aoal"'
BUILDERS,LLC
12276 Johnson Memorial Dr,
Shakopee, MN 55379
www.ballawoodbuildors..com 562.277.6667
In5ta11 Topsoil and Mulch
'x
EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING
J
r*js,� i� sour
TYR SHRUB PLANTING: INDIVIDUAL PLANTING HOLE
PR�EU4S.b W.10
�Ff1WS3C
GWNWE
PHE
PLAN VIEW
TREE PLANTING
PLANT SCHEDULE
Symbol
Description
Size
Quantity
Hemerocallis 'Stella de Oro'
'Stella
#1 Pot
35
de Oro'Daylily
Spirea x bumalda 'Crispa'
#2 Pot
3
Crisp Leaf Spirea
Syringo vulgaris
#5 Pot
8
Common Purple Lilac
rs..r
Thu'a occidentalis 'Techn y '
3' B &B
10
r 4'
Techny Arborvitae
Picea glauca var. densata
6' B &B
3
Black Hills Spruce
tiao
Malus 'Red Splendor'
2" Cal.
2
Red Splendor Crabapple
d
Acer freemanii 'Jeffsred'
2 1/2" Cal.
2
Autumn Blaze Maple
REVISIONS PAGE
South Lake C C e DRAWING DESCRIPTION: Landscape Plan
Datq of I
Jim Steinwand, My Car Guy,LLC .DBA South Lake Cycle
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Sob Wallace
5680 County Road 19
Shorewood, MN DATE: 9 -30 -13
CISCLAIMEA:
Alf idaes.desfpns, anangemonts, plan9 and spant,catlnns tnmcsl•;d of lep'Mented by the orne mg Ate owned by Anil the property of Atom's, Landswp:ng L Oe59n,, i LC and were oeatod, oV.ked oo, daa :loppecd for ugo on and nt aemtecLM with the specified ptojed, Nona at the Ideas,
deing" enA gamonls, plahs and opac[✓:afans shntl he used or disctosad to any patson,k on or amp nines tot any putpasa who so ever wthout the "hum perm ssPon, of Mom's Ordsa p g 3 es1gn, LLC. Conmm with [base mans or afmoTollvna shall consub le copOul e
a6donod of occaplanco of thosa toslrictiona� Wnlfed dlmonsion; on a4 drpwmp sha0 have Dtocodanca over ccelad dmansmns: contn clore shelf venly, and be tespons;ble for ,all dnnon,lons and condfons on the y b T1M1Is olfco must be nol[ed for ally cailauono horn dimensions
I
L.At- llSCAPIX,9� DESIG
12276 Johnson Memorial
Shakopee, MN 55379
www.momsiandscEiping.com 952
`�.�.
a
. + , C, pi off v
t,S t�4 R
0 \l\
Exhibit B
SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN