The URL can be used to link to this page

1g-1. Minnewashta Landings Final PlatI ro. FROM DATE: I SUBJ: f CITY OF I J-1' CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Don Ashworth, City Manager Kate Aanenson, Planning Director Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer June 2, 1994 Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Subdivision No. 94 -1, Project No BACKGROUND 94 -4 k"M by M AdrfifiilMM +Endo u)A ModMe Date Submitted io Commis*a Defe S, ! to Gmldl G 1-5 - At their March 28, 1994 meeting the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat #94 -1, Minnewashta Landings for 27 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 9, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All disturbed areas with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood - fiber blanket. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 7 MEMORANDUM "00 Vwo STEF Clq c 6600 y � 6800 WUN'Rj D 5 RO 6800 w Q � 7000 0 U Q V ILA E non p p yy r 57./OE V _ 7200, ( l 7300 rbO 700 'r rho 1700 '800 IO 100 000 ' BM_ 200 40 0 / L AKE r � LAKE N E W A S N T A � REGIONAL PARK �D � pp3� DRIVE O� I \ 1 �MO STAT E 4T 41 W �E 0 M UV _ ezMD STREET iOMD 4 wApdr,$0# `N I I JN R IID / L AKE r � LAKE N E W A S N T A � REGIONAL PARK �D � pp3� DRIVE O� I \ 1 �MO STAT E 4T 41 W �E 0 M UV _ ezMD STREET iOMD 4 wApdr,$0# `N I I u Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review June 2, 1994 Page 2 ' 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development ' contract. 6. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. 7. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. ' 8. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance with the construction plans. 9. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall ' be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. ' 10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance PP P with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be City for formal ' submitted to the review and approval 11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way. 12. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of the rambler house located on Lot 12, Block 1 should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level. This may ' raise the house elevation to 971 or greater requiring a very steep driveway. Staff recommends the applicant re- evaluate this and include exterior draintile around the house foundation. The draintile shall be connected to the proposed storm sewer along the ' property line. 13. The house pads south of Landings Drive, along the lake, should be a minimum of one ' foot above the road elevation. All low points should be located between lots to route overland flow around the houses. Also, catch basins should be located at the low point between homes to help route surface flow away from Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 2. ' 14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet and no more than 3:1 thereafter for safety and water quality purposes. 20. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessment ' Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review units. The rate per unit is $760.00. June 2, 1994 Staff recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of Page 3 right -of -way from the center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1. 15. The driveway entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right -of- ' way. In addition, a drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood The final grading plan shall be revised to reflect proposed grading on Lots 1 through 8, drainage from the east of this development into the easterly proposed pond. Block 2. 16. Existing wells and /or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned. ' 17. Landings Court intersection should be redesigned to be perpendicular with Landings Drive and the median deleted. A cross access agreement needs to be established between the applicant and the residents ' 18. The alignment of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway should be refined to provide more of a intersection in accordance with the City's ordinance. perpendicular ' 19. All lots shall take direct access from the interior streets and not Minnewashta Parkway or Highway 7. 20. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessment 1 units. The rate per unit is $760.00. 21. Staff recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of right -of -way from the center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1. 22. The final grading plan shall be revised to reflect proposed grading on Lots 1 through 8, Block 2. ' 23. A cross access agreement needs to be established between the applicant and the residents of Ironwood for the use of Outlot B. 24. Lot 7, Block 2 needs to have a 90 foot lot width. ' 25. Variance from the side yard setback to 10 feet on flag lots located on Lots 11 and 16, Block 1 and Lot 8, Block 2. 26. Landscaping plans for the larger berm along Trunk Highway 7, as well as streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway needs to be provided. ' 27. Park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction at the rate in force at the time of building permit application with one -third of the park and trail fees paid at the time of final plat. 29. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit. Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review ' June 2, 1994 Page 4 ' 30. "No Parking" signs shall be posted on the inside and outside of the landscaped islands of the cul -de -sacs. I 31. The developer shall provide for a homeowners association to maintain the landscaped islands. 32. The developer will work to achieve a 45 degree view of the lake from the center of the Hoelke's home. 33. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include additional overstory shade trees along , Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7 along with an additional 3 trees on every non treed lot. The Planning Commission reviewed the final landscaping plan at their May 18, 1994 meeting and recommended approval of the revised landscaping plan dated May 2, 1994 with the following condition: 1. One conifer shall replace the deciduous tree on Lot 1, Block 1. ANALYSIS OF FINAL PLAT The applicant is requesting to final plat the entire 27 lots and two outlots. Outlot A contains a storm water pond. Outlot B is the access to the four residences that live on Ironwood Drive. The plat has been revised to meet the condition from the city council of maintaining a 45 degree view from the center of the Hoelke home. Lot 9, Block 2 has been redesigned and maintains the , 45 degree view from the Hoelkes. A final landscape plan has been prepared by a registered landscape architect. The landscaping plan meets the conditions that the City Council required with the preliminary plat approval. Staff is recommending that the tree preservation be done as indicated on the landscaping plan dated May 4, 1994. Trees indicated to be saved are shown on the landscaping plan but species are identified on the tree survey dated March 21, 1994. STREETS The City has received construction plans and specifications for streets and utility improvements ' in the subdivision. The streets are designed in accordance with the City's standards. Both cul- de- sacs are proposed to have landscaped islands. This will require the cul -de -sac areas to be signed to prohibit parking. The City Council will have to consider adopting a resolution , prohibiting parking in these areas. The plans also provide access to the residents immediately east of the development through Outlot B. This outlot is proposed to be paved 20 -feet wide to 1 Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review June 2, 1994 Page 5 r 7 -ton design. Ironwood, which is the existin,; 'rivate drive out to Trunk Highway 7, will remain until such time as the residents decide to e=i. guish the rights to that access in which they will have access through Outlot B. Until Ironwood is terminated at Trunk Highway 7, a traffic barricade shall be placed at the east end of Outlot B indicating that this driveway may be ' extended in the future. It is the intent of Outlot B to only serve the four existing residents on Ironwood Drive. Staff does not perceive this access being connected to Trunk Highway 7 in the ' future since there technically is not street right -of -way nor is the driveway being built to City urban standards. The applicant has demonstrated to Public Safety and Engineering staff that the island proposed in the easterly cul -de -sac will function and not impede turning movements of emergency vehicles onto the private driveway access ( Outlot B). Therefore, staff and Public Safety have no r objections to the landscaped islands as proposed. It is understood that these landscaped islands will be maintained by the homeowners association. Should in the future the association fails to maintain these landscaped islands, the City shall have the right to eliminate the landscaped ' islands if they are not well - maintained. The final plat does provide adequate road right -of -way along Minnewashta Parkway and Trunk Highway 7 as requested with the preliminary plat. Detailed construction plans and specifications have been submitted and are currently being r considered for approval at this time. GRADING AND DRAINAGE r The grading plans have been revised pursuant to the preliminary plat conditions of approval. Lot 6, Block 2 has not been labeled with an elevation due to the custom grading proposed. Staff recommends that a detailed grading and drainage and erosion control plan be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Along the easterly 20 feet of Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 1, the final plat should reflect a drainage and utility easement r to convey backyard runoff and act as emergency overflow for the pond located on Lot 16, Block 1. r The proposed stormwater ponds located in the development except for Outlot A are designed with 3:1 side slopes. The previous conditions of approval indicated the ponds shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first 10 feet and no more than a 3:1 slope thereafter for safety and water quality ' purposes. Staff has reviewed this condition and feels comfortable in revising or leaving the option up to the applicant's engineer to either design it as previously indicated or to redesign the ponds with a 4:1 slope overall. The proposed water quality pond located on Outlot A is designed to discharge into Lake r Minnewashta's outlet stream located immediately west of Outlot A. The discharge point is actually outside the plat boundaries and will require a permanent utility and drainage easement to be dedicated to the City. Another option exists for the applicant to redesign the outlet Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review r June 2, 1994 Page 6 structure to outlet into Lake Minnewashta on the south side of Outlot A. This will not require any additional easements. ' The City is still in the process of adopting the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The grading plan does provide a network of ponds on the site. The water quality pond is located on Outlot A which will satisfy the needs of the development. Therefore, there will be no water quality fees assessed against this development. The applicant's grading plan also provides additional storm water ponding for quantity purposes. Staff is still in the process of determining ' the credits available to the applicant based on a final pond design plan. Staff will determine the excess capacity the applicant is providing and credit the applicant the SWMP fees accordingly for quantity basis once ponding revised ponding calculations are submitted for review and approval. The applicant has expressed a desire to commence site grading and tree transplanting as soon as ' possible. Staff is comfortable in granting a notice to proceed with this phase of development once the final plat, construction plans and specifications, and development contract are approved by the City Council and the applicant executes the development contract and supplies the city with the security and administration fees. Staff requests the City Council grant staff the flexibility to administratively approve commencement of the site grading once the applicant enters into the development contract and supplies the city with financial security and administration fees. ' UTILITIES The applicant's engineer has supplied detailed construction plans for the utility improvements proposed within the development. The utility plans and specifications have been reviewed by staff and are concurrently before the City Council for approval with the final plat. Staff recommends approval of the construction plans for the utility and street portion of the project. , COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT ' Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 26,726 275 140 ' Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review June 2, 1994 Page 7 Lot 2 19,310 100 197 Lot 3 23,301 165 206 DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO LANDING CT Lot 4 18,774 95 179 Lot 5 19,039 90 166 Lot 6 18,437 102 178 Lot 7 35,508 90* 218 Lot 8 24,776 90* 183 Lot 9 23,455 90* 204 Lot 10 18,630 90* 115 Lot 11 25,314 100 176 FLAG LOT Lot 12 18,457 175 174 Lot 13 17,216 100 162* Lot 14 30,441 90 166* Lot 15 29,851 100 220* Lot 16 66,321 100 215* FLAG LOT Lot Lot Lot Home Shoreland Area Width Depth Setback Setback Ordinance 20,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 75' 10' sides 13LOCK 2 Lot 1 20,539 143 177 Lot 2 20,214 120 234 Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review June 2, 1994 Page 8 Lot 3 20,231 109 193 Lot 4 20,057 125 177 Lot 5 20,061 122 173 Lot 6 20,051 113 215 Lot 7 22,408 92 178 Lot 8 28,556 90* 172 Lot Lot Lot Home Shoreland Area Width Depth Setback Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 75' 10' sides Lot 9 38,801 90* 200+ Lot 10 16,362 95 161 Lot 11 16,002 100 147 Outlot A 37,183 112 208 *Measured at front setback line Staff has reviewed the conditions of the preliminary plat and have findings as to whether or not the conditions have been met. 1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. This condition is still applicable. 2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review June 2, 1994 Page 9 All disturbed areas with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood -fiber blanket. This condition is still applicable. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility ' plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. This condition has been partially met and detailed street and utility construction ' plans have been submitted and are being considered for approval by the City Council. ' 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. This condition is still applicable. ' S. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development ' contract. This condition is still applicable. 6. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. This condition has been partially met. The applicant's engineer still needs to revise ' some of the pond designs and submit revised ponding calculations in accordance with the city's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve. 7. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. ' This condition has been met. 8. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance with the construction plans. Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review June 2, 1994 Page 10 This condition is still applicable. 9. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. This condition is still applicable. 10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. This condition has been met. 11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way. This condition is still applicable. 12. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of the rambler house located on Lot 12, Block 1 should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level. This may raise the house elevation to 971 or greater requiring a very steep driveway. Staff recommends the applicant re- evaluate this and include exterior draintile around the house foundation. The draintile shall be connected to the proposed storm sewer along the property line. This condition has been met. 13. The house pads south of Landings Dr., along the lake, should be a minimum of one foot above the road elevation. All low points should be located between lots to route overland flow around the houses. Also, catch basins should be located at the low point between homes to help route surface flow away from Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 2. This condition has been partially met. The plans have been modified to incorporate most of these changes. Lot 6, Block 2 will need to have a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan submitted to the city for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. r 14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet and no more than 3:1 thereafter for safety and water quality purposes. Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review June 2, 1994 Page 11 This condition has been partially met. The applicant may elect to redesign and construct the stormwater pond with overall 4:1 slopes in lieu of the 10:1 slope for the first 10 feet. 15. The driveway entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right -of- way. In addition, a drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood drainage from the east of this development into the easterly proposed pond. ' This condition has been modified. Outlot B will be deeded to the city for future access to the Ironwood residents when they decide to eliminate their access to T. H. ' 41. 16. Existing wells and /or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned. This condition is still applicable. 17. Landings Court intersection should be redesigned to be perpendicular with Landings Drive and the median deleted. This condition has been met. 18. The alignment of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway should be refined to provide more of a perpendicular intersection in accordance with the City's ordinance. 1 This condition has been met. 19. All lots shall take direct access from the interior streets and not Minnewashta Parkway or Highway 7. This condition is still applicable. ' 20. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessments units. The rate per unit is $760.00. ' This condition is still applicable. ' 21. Staff recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of right -of -way from the center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1. This condition has been met. f Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review June 2, 1994 Page 12 22. The final grading plan shall be revised to reflect proposed grading on Lots 1 through 8, Block 2. This condition has been met. 23. A cross access agreement needs to be established between the applicant and the residents of Ironwood for the use of Outlot B. ' This condition has been modified. The applicant shall deed Outlot B to the City for the residents of Ironwood to use when access to Trunk Highway 7 is removed. The , intent of Outlot B is to only service the existing lots which currently use Ironwood. 24. Lot 7, Block 2 needs to have a 90 -foot lot width. This condition has been met. 25. Variance from the side yard setback to 10 feet on flag lots located on Lots 11 and 16, .... ..................... ........................... Block 1' nd Loot 8, . Variances are still applicable on Lots 11 and 16, Block 1 to allow the home to be placed closer to the street. Lot 8, Block 2 no longer needs a variance with the redesign of Lot 9. ' 26. Landscaping plans for the larger berm along Trunk Highway. 7, as well as streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway needs to be provided. This condition has been met. A landscaping plan has been prepared by a registered landscape architect. 27. Park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction at the rate in force at the time of building permit application with one -third of the park and trail fees paid , at the time of final plat. This condition is still applicable. , 29. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit. , This condition is still applicable. 30. "No Parking" signs shall be posted on the inside and outside of the landscaped islands of ' the cul -de -sacs. I Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review June 2, 1994 Page 13 This condition has been modified. The City Council shall consider adopting a formal resolution prohibiting parking in the cul -de -sacs with islands. 31. The developer shall provide for a homeowners association to maintain the landscaped islands. This condition has been modified to include decorative street lights. 32. The developer er will work to achieve a 45 degree view of the lake from the center of the 1 Hoelke's home. This condition has been met. The plat has been revised . Lot 9, Block 2 is now the lot adjacent to the Hoelkes. This lot maintains the 45 degree view. 33. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include additional overstory shade trees along Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7 along with an additional 3 trees on every non treed lot. ' This condition has been met. RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: 1 The City Council approves the final plat for Minnewashta Landings ( #94 -1 SUB) to subdivide 19.7 Acres into 27 Single Family Lots and 2 Outlots, Variance from the Flag Lot Setback for Lot 8, Block 2 and Lots 11 and 16, Block 1 as shown on the plans dated May 2, 1994, subject to the ' following conditions: 1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street ' improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. ' 2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of site grading ' unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All disturbed areas with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood -fiber blanket. ' 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. t Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review June 2, 1994 Page 14 , 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the , necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 6. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain file system in accordance with the construction plans. ' 7. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 8. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way. 9. The proposed stormwater ponds shall be designed and constructed with side slopes of ' 10:1 for the first ten feet and no more than 3:1 thereafter for safety and water quality purposes. The applicant may elect to design and construct the stormwater ponds with overall 4:1 slopes in lieu of the 10:1 slopes for the first 10 feet. Revised ponding ' calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 10. Existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned. , 11. All lots shall take direct access from the interior streets and not Minnewashta Parkway ' or Highway 7. 12. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessments , units. The rate per unit is $760.00. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 6, Block 2, a grading and drainage and ' erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 14. Outlot B shall be deeded to the city for future access to the Ironwood residents. A traffic , barricade shall be placed at the east end of Outlot B with a sign indicating this driveway may be extended in the future. 15. Variance from the side yard setback requirement shall be reduced to 10 feet on flag lots located on Lots 11 and 16, Block 1. Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review June 2, 1994 Page 15 16. Park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction at the rate in force ' at the time of building permit application with one -third of the park and trail fees paid at the time of final plat. 1 17. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit. L n 18. "No Parking" signs shall be posted on the inside and outside of the landscaped islands of the cul -de -sacs. The City Council shall consider adopting a resolution prohibiting parking in these areas. 19. The developer shall provide for a homeowners association to maintain the landscaped islands and decorative street lights. If the homeowners association fails to properly maintain these areas, the city shall have the right to remove the islands. The city shall not be responsible for damage to the islands as a result of maintenance of the city's right - of -way. 20. The developer shall develop landscaping and tree preservation in compliance with the landscaping plan dated May 2, 1994. Trees to be preserved on the landscaping plan are identified on the tree survey dated September 14, 1992 and revised March 21, 1994. 21. The driveway access to Lot 3, Block 1 shall be limited to either Landings Drive or Landings Court but not both. 22. The final plat shall be revised to include drainage and utility easements over the following areas: A. The easterly 20 feet of Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 2. B. A 20 -foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over the existing sanitary sewer line which encroaches over Lots 1 through 9, Block 2 and Outlot A. 23. The storm sewer outlet from Outlot A pond shall be redirected into Lake Minnewashta unless a drainage and utility easement is provided over the "reservation" strip of land adjacent to Outlot A. 24. The Surface Water Management water quantity fees will be determined upon review of the final pond designed to be prepared by the applicant's engineer. The applicant will be required to escrow with the City by letter of credit or cash escrow the water quantity fees until such time as the City Council formally adopts the Surface Water Management Plan. Minnewashta Landings Final Plat Review June 2, 1994 Page 16 25. The applicant may be authorized by staff to commence site grading and tree removal after executing the development contract and supplying the city with the required financial security and administration fees." ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council minutes dated March 28, 1994. 2. Final plat dated May 2, 1994. City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 28 foot wide street, barrier curb and careful consideration given to tree removal and replacement; and to authorize advertising for bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 19.7 ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS. Public Present: Name Address Kenneth Durr Applicant ' Rick Sathre Sathre- Bergtust Dave & Donna Hoelke 3621 Ironwood Road Ann Zweig 3601 Ironwood Road Tom & Sharon Wright 3611 Ironwood Road Bob Haibesen 3607 Ironwood Road Kate Aanenson: The applicant Ken Durr is proposing to subdivide 19 acres into 27 single family lots. Originally there were four underlying parcels of land and three homes located on the site. Currently there's still one home located on the property. This plan has some modifications ... preliminary approval from the Planning Commission. You do have a revised plat since the Planning Commission. Also Lot 7 was redesigned to meet the regulations with the 90 foot frontage and 30 foot setback. And then also we took out the variance-.for Lot 8. Mr. Durr proposes to use this plat as part of the 1995 Street of Dreams. As indicated, this lot is adjacent to Highway 7 and Lake Minnewashta so all the lots on Lake Minnewashta have to meet the 20,000 square foot for ' the DNR shoreland regulations and have a minimum setback of 75 feet. The average lot size for the subdivision is in excess of 24,000 with the smallest lot being 16,500... standard lot size in the RSF zone is 15,000. On Outlot A, which is next to the Schmid's Acres reservation over here on Minnewashta Parkway. This is Outlot A. The applicant may in the future propose a beachlot. That would require a separate conditional use. That's not part of the application at this time. Just to make you aware. It does meet standards of the 200 feet of shoreline plus the square footage requirements. The applicant is requesting two variances for Lots 11 and 16. Lot 11 is this lot right here and 16 is up here. This lot is a double frontage lot. It has access from the cul-de -sac, which would be our preference. This lot...pushing it further back. All it does is keep away from the rear yard and it drops off ...And Lot 16, this is the large pond. In pushing that back, it doesn't meet the requirements on that lot. Again what you're doing is taking away their rear yard. So the staff did go through the variance requirements ' and is recommending approval on those two lots. As far as storm water issues, this pond is maybe redesigned and maybe even combined with the pond over in this area here. That will have to go through the evaluation of the storm water calculation before final plat. The other pond is proposed for Outlot A. Access to this site is from a long cul-de-sac. Normally we don't like to see cul-de-sacs in excess of 600 feet. This one is well in excess of 1,000 feet. What this proposed site is trying to accomplish is to pick up, there is 4 homes that exist off of Ironwood Lane. This is Ironwood Drive right here. Tbere are 4 homes that have access directly off of Highway 7...wish to eliminate those access and it is a safety concern. And what Mr. Durr would propose with ' this lot is to provide an outlot for a drive. This would be just a drive, which the ordinance does allow 4 homes off of, to provide access to these homes through the cul-de-sac. Again, giving them direct access onto Minnewashta Parkway as opposed to direct access onto Highway 7, which we feel meets a lot of safety concerns. Fire Marshal would still like to see the possibility of leaving this as a secondary access. Just put hard 69 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 be but we need to take a look ' surface. Obviously in the winter it probably would maintained that's something at. There is a tree survey was prepared for this site. The plat map's been designed to provide for maximum tree preservation. A majority of the trees along the lakeshore, obviously they're saved behind the lots. Trees which would be significant will be taken off, or on this ridge line on Lot 2. As far as streetscape on Minnewashta , Parkway, the ordinance requires streetscape along Highway 7, which is proposed in this planted beam but there was not streetscape proposed. There is existing trees along Minnewashta Parkway and a berm may not work in trying to preserve the integrity of existing trees but staff feels like additional trees can be planted in that area ' The plan ... maximum of 35 to 38 trees and just with the streetscape plan and the replacement of 1 tree per lot an additional 50 trees will be replaced. Staff has asked for additional trees. When this went to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission was concerned with the landscaping plan and asked that it come back to review the plan specifically. They were still concerned at that point that the landscaping plan was not prepared by a professional landscape person. What we are particularly the Planning Commission is that normally we don't look at final landscape plans until it's the very final plat. But they did request that before final plat.-they have an opportunity to review that landscape plan. I do have a letter in your packet that was given by Mr. , Zweig who is one of the neighbors on Ironwood that was concerned about the tree removal and felt that additional trees should be placed on the site to accommodate for the removal. And the other issue that's a concern of the neighbors, especially the neighbors right here—are concerned about the view on Lot 8. As we ' indicated, the setback from the shoreland regulations is 75 feet. This plat proposes... their home, Mr. Durr has a map showing where their home is located. Currently they have a 180 degree view across. Their home is set approximately 5 feet from the property line so right now any home located in this area, and they're set back about 200 feet, would block their view. Staff has indicated... beyond the 75 foot setback and what we've done is asked Mr. Durr to work with the neighbors to try to resolve the best way to accomplish maximizing their views and retain the integrity of the value of the lot. And I'm certain they want to discuss that with you. I mentioned the existing ponds. There is a storm water issue. There is one right now that runs through the back of this lot and cuts down through this neighborhood The city's been in there fixing some problems. What we're hoping with this pond, as I've indicated, these may be tied together, is try to resolve a.. work with the developer to try to resolve some storm water issues. As far as compliance-Lot 8. In looking at that lot, frontage, where you meet 100 feet is set here. As this pad is shown here, it meets setback requirements. In meeting with the neighbors, I think they're going to come and ask for a different proposal on that lot that we can discuss. Park and Recreation, the Park and Recreation has asked for park and trail fees in lieu of park dedication with this plat. As indicated, in the Planning Commission's review, this did comply and again they do want to see the, Planning Commission wants to see the final landscape plan before the final plat approval. So the staff recommends approval of the subdivision with the 31 conditions in the report. Planning Commission added 27 thru 31 conditions... ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. Is the developer here this evening? ' Rick Sathre: Your Honor, members of Council. My name is Rick Sathre. I'm the planner and engineer for Mr. Durr. Mr. Kenneth Durr is here tonight as well as a consultant that he uses frequently, Steve Keifer from Davies Tree Company. They'll each be available for questions or whatever you wish. I have five things I'd like to discuss with the Council. I think the staff has done a terrific job in I think helping you understand the proposal so I'll deal with those 5 things and try to keep it brief in light of the late hour. I'll pass three pictures around. First issue or fast comment briefly is, there's been a discussion with the neighbors and the Planning Commission about tree removal and whether it was clear cutting and what Mr. Durr has done a couple of years ago is, what ' his intent was to clean up dead fallen material. Trees that were dying or dead and some of the scrub trees that were under the specimen trees and he did render or had a contractor go in and take out trees that he thought 70 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 were substandard and small and the saplings. And that's been an issue. That he did that Again, when we did our tree survey we tried to identify those grade of trees that are on the site and we did the tree survey so that we could design the subdivision to preserve the best of the trees with the idea that this site is heavily impacted by Highway 7 and we have to do a good job of screening the view of the traffic that's on Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7. To that end we've committed to the Planning Commission and just to the project we've committed to significant tree plantings. Ken knows he has to do a good job if he's going to market these homes ' in the upper bracket, which he intends to. So in his earlier removal of trees he took out a lot of the dead and dying trees. The pictures that I sent around show some more that are, there are any number of spruce that are out there... There's many other trees on the site which are ... and smaller trees that he intends to spade move. We'll move as many trees as we can that are in the way. Going on to the number two item I wanted to talk ' about. That's Minnewashta Parkway assessments. The staff report identifies that the city should collect assessments for Minnewashta Parkway for all 27 lots. The site was previously assessed for 8 units with the original assessment roll. We'd like your consideration and not assessing the rest of these sites. All of the land that directly fronted on Minnewashta Parkway was assessed for the road. We're going to some trouble to direct all the traffic to Minnewashta Parkway, even though there is two present accesses out to Highway 7. The driveways from the old homes. We're moving the traffic to Minnewashta Parkway for health, safety and welfare reasons. We think it's a safer place than Highway 7 to put the traffic. Now to penalize potentially the project with the additional assessments would seem to contradict the goal of promoting safety. So we're trying to do our part to be safe and we'd like not to be penalized for doing that. So we would prefer that only the 8 assessments be collected, not 27. Third item, staff has and the Planning Commission recommended additional ' right -of -way dedication for Minnewashta Parkway. Minnewashta Parkway slightly encroaches into the property. Staff is asking that 33 feet of right -of -way be dedicated from the center of the road. If you need the land, you should take it. The problem from our standpoint, and I want you to know that we have to dedicate about 10 extra feet of right -of -way to accommodate the staffs wishes. What that realistically does is it takes away 10 feet of rear yards from the lots that abut the northwest corner of the site. And so that, it will lessen the berm height by a couple feet. Maybe it's not the end of the world. It probably isn't What we would ask you to do, if you take that land as, to prevent, to agree to prohibit any motorized vehicles from using the boulevard in that area. To keep the snowmobilers or the three wheelers or whatever that might use that boulevard area out of there. We hope that you would do that. Fourth item we wish to address is park fees. There's three existing tax parcels there. There's been three houses on the property for a long time. Two are removed and another one's going to be taken down. Staff is asking for 27 new park and trail fees to be collected We'd ask that you credit us for the three, for the three existing tax parcels. And lastly, the issue of the Hoelke's. I've got a graph, a couple graphics and they're free to use them as well. I hope you can still hear if I talk from here. This is the eastern ' line of the Durr property and this is Hoelke's house and Wright's house and Haibesen's and Zweig's. It's half on and half off the page. So you can see they're set quite a ways back from the lake and they're staggered so they're getting closer to the lake as you go west. Zeroing in more, the ordinance would allow the structures to be 75 feet from the shoreline and you can see how much closer that is than your home. After a lot of back and forth, Ken Durr has committed to Hoelke's that he would hold this house back 105 feet at least from the lakeshore and at least 25 feet from the common property boundary. But we need an accommodation from the city to be able to accomplish that. That is we need to be able to put the house 10 feet fi m this lot line and I think that might be a problem now because Kate's considering this a front lot line? So we'd have a 20 foot variance I guess, wouldn't we? Or 25. Kate Aanenson: 20. Rick Sathre: 20 foot variance so if this has to be 30 then this house is 20 feet farther south if it's that same home. I guess this would require a variance that we haven't applied for and I guess we could work that out at r 71 \1 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 the final plat stage if that worked for the Council. There'd have to be a hearing I suppose. But if this can work, then we can go partly at least in solving the Hoelke's objections. The other way that we could solve the problem, we understand they'd like to have a 45 degree sight angle across this sight, not 32 degrees which is what we're showing here. The only way we could accommodate that, practically speaking, is to eliminate the , access. The outlot. The driveway access that would tie this subdivision to the Ironwood neighborhood. If I could use the sight plan there. In order to pull that house. If we were to pull this house farther north, we need driveway to shift these other lots farther north too and the only way to really free up the space is to take this ' outlot back out of there. But that would mean that their access would continue out to Highway 7 as it does now and so that I don't know which is the lesser of evils but. But we've been trying to get their access through this plat with a common goal of improving the safety. That's where we're at and that's my—five issues and I'd be ' happy to answer questions. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wanting to address this at this time? I think that we all have had an opportunity to review the letter and know some of the points. Maybe if you'd just briefly bring us ' up to date as to your thinking right now with this 105 feet. If we were able to give that a variance. Dave Hoelke: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members. I'm Dave Hoelke and this is my wife Donna ' Hoelke. We live at 3621 Ironwood, which is a picture—of the property there. As I walk around here I see all the pictures of the lakes. I trust that we all take, I know that we're all very proud of the lakes and trying to maintain the beauty and integrity... and trust that we'll make a decision here that's along reasonable lines. For the record I sent a package to you on Friday. To each of you and I spoke to you over the weekend. Asking you ' if you had any questions and I want to say that I'm very much in support of the development. And Mr. Durr I think he'll put together and do a terrific job of putting a high quality buildings in and a high quality Durr development. Our particular issue is with the placement of the house on Lot 8. In all due respect 1, if Mr. ' or somebody else lives on the property, I don't really want to see them shaving in the morning when I look out to the lake. I think it's reasonable for us to want to protect the aesthetic quality and the ... value that we paid dearly for to move there in the first place. What we've got, what I've seen is really two points of, that work in our favor. What we don't have is an ordinance that works in our favor because they are meeting the 75 degree setback. But from a logical standpoint, there's a beautiful ridge, just at the north two lot lines of Lot 8. Directly west of our property. It's the ridge that would naturally, that we would assume people would build into when we moved into the property. It's elevated 6 or 8 feet above the lake. In order to build a house forward of that ' there'd have to be considerable filling and changing of the elevations. And the other logical point of view is that other cities around the community have set an ordinance that says that you can't build in front of your neighbors and cover up lakefront views. Chanhassen is one of the few cities that doesn't have an ordinance like that and , regardless of how we come out here today, I would ask that you take a look at that for future consideration. For future developments because this is going to happen more and more as other houses are torn down. As people try to get closer to the lakes. All of the things that happen over time. The other point is, a precedence that was set, our neighbors two houses to the east of us. When they subdivided the lot in 1977 they were told by the City ' Council and the Attorney that they could not build or they had to build in line with the two houses on either side, which is the same as what Excelsior and any other communities that you are in require. And so that precedence is the type of thing that I'm looking for so it seems that there's common sense and there's ' precedence but what we don't have is an ordinance. And so I'm asking for help at this point in trying to allow, try to get something that we can work with. I'm asking for 45 degrees of clear view from our property. Mr. Durr has come back with a 32 degree assurance and we'd like to see what we can do to maintain that 45 ' degrees. We feel like we're compromising in asking for 45 degrees. I'm not sure what the alternatives would be. Whether they'd be to move the house further west by changing the lots to the west our by moving it further to the north and changing Lots 9, 10 and 11 or changing the Outlot B to coming in from the south of 11 instead 1 72 I I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 of the north of 11. There are a number of different things that might work. I'm not a planner so I don't know exactly what will work. But I guess what I would ask is if that ordinance were there, if it had been there when we started the property, it would be, it would still be a developable property and worthwhile project and so I ' would ask you to consider that next. It's not something that is...in the project and feasible. That's all I have, thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Bob Haibmn: Mayor, Council members. My name is Bob Haibesen. I live at 3607 Ironwood Road. I think I'm the last person to build out there and that was 16 years ago. At the time 1 built there was a restriction that said that I had to build basically at the same distance from the lake as the other homes on both sides of me. I felt it was a reasonable request at the time and...I guess I would ask that you put yourself in Mr. Hoelke's position. He's lived there for some time and I think that the view of the lake is very critical to the value of his ' property. Secondly ... to Mr. Durr, I'd like to personally say thank you very much for cleaning up that piece of property that you have. We've been looking at 16 years of over growth and it's been a real eyesore and he's cleaned it up and it's improved it considerably. Thank you. Tom Wright: My name is Tom Wright and I'm at 3611 Ironwood Road. My wife Sharon is here with me this evening. I guess I would make just a couple of comments, so we don't get redundant with our comments here this evening. We have generally been very strong supporters of the project as it's been outlined to us. Mr. Durr has done I think a good job of bringing us in the loop. I think we're all convinced that what he's proposing here is basically better than what we've got and certainly a lot better than what could be proposed there. I think the issue for us, for a lot of us who have been going out to Highway 7. We've been a neighborhood down there. We're happy with what we've got. With what we have. We really hadn't considered any other egress out of ' our property other than Ironwood Road going up to Highway 7. As this was proposed, and the work that he was doing, the quality of development, we thought that that would be to our benefit. To be able to cut into that cul- de -sac and go on out. So I think generally all of us have been supportive of this project. As it's evolved, I think that Dave and Donna have gone from saying gee, I didn't like this. As they thought about it more, I think they realistically, they spent more time and they thought about the placement of this house, it's become more and more objectionable to them. And I have to say that we support that as well. If it's your house and if you're there where they are, having a house built in front of you. Only one time in my experience out at Lake Minnewashta has that happened and that was down at a house further down on the Shore Drive and they built a big addition swimming pool out the front and I mean it was just, how it ever got done I don't know but I think that being a good neighbor along this line says yeah, we are concerned about where the houses go and I know that that's going to work some hardship on him, the way they've got that development drawn but I think in fairness, that that's a reasonable position. So thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Ann Zweig: My name is Ann Zweig and I live at 3601 Ironwood Road and I'm in agreement with the rest of my neighbors. My husband and I basically agree with the development. We have ... going down to Outlot B. But we also strongly urge that the city put restrictions on the Durr property so that the house proposed for Lot 8 stay in alignment with the rest of the neighborhood. We feel it really is important that Hoelke's get that relief that they request. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Richard. Do you have any questions? FAI A -. City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Wing: Any comments at this time? Kate, the 33 foot easement. Minnewashta Parkway right now, , and I don't know why this happened and I don't know why we didn't correct it before. Minnewashta Parkway comes up and then we had that gentleman who that danced that little jig for us. Minnewashta Parkway comes ' in and makes a very abrupt turn just before it hits Highway 7. And it's almost dysfunctional if you will. I mean it's a wide road. Something, you're trying to T it off or make a 90 into Highway 7. It seems to me that road or when MnDot comes through with a stop light, that road's going to have to swing to the east and be, that curve coming up to TH 7 is going to have to be graded into a little more of a gentle approach to Highway 7. So I , guess I see that 33 feet as really critical because I think that road's got to rebuilt. That 300 feet as it comes up to Highway 7 is really abrupt and extreme and I don't know how it happened. I remember Bill Engelhardt trying to justify his position but it didn't make sense then and it makes less sense now and we didn't have the money to buy it. On the other hand you can't T a road up and a road that doesn't exist. So what are we going to do with that, that 33 feet I think we need and I respect his right to protect it until such time as we use it. I think they have a legitimate concern that that's going to be abused with snowmobiles and that's a veal issue that I think he has a right to have an answer to. But what are we going to do with that road Charles? ' Charles Folch: You're absolutely correct. We do need the 33 feet. The reason that the road exists or the connection to TH 7 exists as it does today is when the plans were actually drawn up 2 years ago for that project. At that time MnDot's schedule was to install the traffic signal at Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway in 1994 and the one down at Highway 5 in '95. All of those schedules, as we keep hearing the story on every highway project, have all been pushed back. So basically that was designed because it was ... a one to two year interim situation until MnDot would come back through and realign it with the intersection. Now it looks like it's going to end up having a useful life with a little bit longer than what we had hoped but it will be remedied and we certainly do need the additional right -of -way. Councilman Wing: Alright. On the assessments, item 3. I think what did it say there? Three that were on the W rolls? Charles Folch: It was actually 8. We made the, as Mr. Sad= pointed out, the property currently has two access ' points out onto Highway 7. And as we have done with similar properties like that, we've tried to basically estimate at that point in time, what's the fair and reasonable amount of lots that would probably make use of Minnewashta Parkway. And that accesses to TH 7 are giving up and their sole access is to the parkway, we don't see it as a penalty to the developer. We see it as the lots paying their fair share for use and benefit of the operation. We don't see it as a penalty and we don't intend it as a penalty. Councilman Wing: So you stick with the 20? ' Charles Folch: That's correct. , Councilman Wing: Alright. On the Hoelke issue, it seems like maybe we have actually no recourse here and I'll wait for final comment of the other members. It seems to me that this is platted out with that is an issue. On the other hand, if we delete Lot 9, 10 or 11. or we cut those lots down in size, Lot 8 then could in fact be adjusted to go north a few feet. I mean everything sort of take it or leave it and I guess as it was drawn out, there wasn't much leeway. Either it's going to be your way or not at all and we have to give a 20 foot variance to do this and do that. It seems like this plat maybe has one too many lots in it then if that's the case. Outlot B. ' I'd be real hesitant to approve this without giving that Ironwood access off. I think that's a hazard and I think MnDot would support that. I think it's the proper way to go but we can hit that later. On the Outlot B access. Mr. Sathre, they've had the aerial truck out driving cul-de -sacs. Well actually the engines this week with 74 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Charles. And with that island in there, the trucks come in and they back out. There's absolutely no maneuvering possible whatsoever. And I don't think that even the engines could make the cut with that island in there so either, on that one cul-de -sac. The island needs to be deleted or there needs to be a major curb cut of a sizeable portion cut out to allow the equipment to get around that comer. And fire access to those four lots is a major issue because they're going to be pretty isolated and access is going to be really critical. So I don't know what your final outcome is there but you have to look at the wide breadth this aerial truck takes and I think the aerial truck ought to be able to get in there and I'm going to just trust you that with the Fire Marshal, that's going to be worked out. But as I'm looking at it, what we have Pere, there's no way the island could be in there and I don't know, have you corrected that? Rick Sathre: We took, excuse me for having to speak...I was hoping not to. We took the fire department's turning radius little diagram and made it the same scale as that outlot B and the cul-de -sac with the intention that we would show you, or could show you that, how that works. The little red thing on there is the fire truck going out presumably. And the green lines are the actual wheels of the fire truck and the blue line is the ' overhang of the basket in the front. And so that radius that exists there is adequate to make the tum with the truck. It also works at the intersection of Minnewashta Parkway, although we'd have to tweak the island a little. We have to make the island a little smaller. So I think it works to get the truck in and out and have the is land ' there. But the engineering department's issue, whether the island belongs there I guess is. Kate Aanenson: What the Fire Marshal recommended is that they be posted no parking on the interior. Both sides of the, around the island and around the outside of the curb too. Councilman Wing: I don't think that's even practical to discuss. That wouldn't be an option, I would think. It's sort of humorous to even state that. Alright. Rick Sathre: Or the island could be smaller. We'd like to have some green space. Councilman Wing: Okay. And I agree. I happened that I just flew over an area and I was looking down and I said geez. They stick out like a sore thumb the other day and I just noticed. I happen to like them but that's a preference and the Fire Marshal, I don't want him to hear me say that. Kate, on the landscaping issue. Mr. Durr I think is well known for having come in and cut illegally and he wasn't tagged I think the city's been cooperative and as I mentioned, it was the best thing that could have happened because it maybe gives us, because this isn't a PUD, a chance to strong arm just a little bit. And we talked about all the landscaping in here. I don't see any. There are some existing trees but a lot of those existing aren't much. Kate Aanenson: This isn't the final landscaping plan. Councilman Wing: Well I understand Here's specifically what I would request if it was to come back on the final. That each lot have 3 trees on the 13 lots that aren't treed Now there are, I won't argue with the ones that have any trees on them but for the 13 that aren't, I'd like to see boulevard trees in front so that out of these ' 3 trees, 2 would be in the front yard and 1 in the back, and I don't care how the placement went but to get some boulevard effect in here. But more important, along Highway 7 we've got just a scattering of pine trees and I'd like to see 50 to 75 foot shade trees dispersed along that section too. So that we get some shade, some overstory ' shade trees in there and I guess, I was looking at 50 foot centers and I came up with what, 12 or I can't remember. 20. I don't have my number in front of me. I guess I counted an additional 26 shade trees along the entire frontage of Highway 7 and then running down Minnewashta Parkway to that, let's see it'd be Lot 2, 3, ' 75 J City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 i 4 and 5, as I saw it. And the reason I bring that up is that this is an enormous area and the church that came through last time, and a very small area, we suggested 13 trees and they said what an excellent idea. They put in 16. And then they're a very small area. So that asking for 26 trees in an area this big is just nothing. I mean they're barely even noticeable at that point because of the spread on them. So that would be my request to Council to consider that as a landscaping plan comes in, I would ask that there'd be, along with existing pine trees. I don't ask for any more of those, that we get some of the overstory shade trees we've been talking about all these years on Highway 7 running down the parkway and then these non treed lots, given the fact that we ' don't know what was removed, at least 3 go back into those blank lots. That would be my request. I think that's a reasonable request and then with that, I wouldn't bring up the other issue of what happened and what got cut and what got lost. I think that's all I had on that. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Councilman Mason: Looks good. My concern is with the Hoelke's. I can only, well. I know how I'd feel if I ' was being told or ... I wonder Kate, I mean can some things be juggled around so that doesn't have to happen? Mayor Chmiel: That 105 feet that would go back totally, we're talking 75 feet back from the shoreline. With ' an additional 30 feet, does that give us that 42% or the 45 %? Councilman Senn: Yeah, it'd be an additional 30 feet so you'd be 135 feet back for the 45%. Councilman Wing: But then we get into all these crazy variances and I'd just as soon avoid that if we could. Councilman Senn: Well I mean by the time, the problem is once you bring it back to, yikes. Once you bring it I back 135 feet. That's taking over half the lot. Councilman Mason: You're saying it's not doable... Mayor Chmiel: Anything more Michael? Councilman Mason: No. Richard pretty much covered anything else I had to say. I mean it's a good deal. It's a good project. Councilman Wing: So what do you want to do about 8? ' Councilman Mason: Well that, yeah. I'm not done yet because I think we need to help out the existing neighbors. But I want to hear what Mark has to say. Mayor Chmiel: Mark. Councilman Senn: I don't know. Overall I think it's a good project. I don't have a whole lot of problems with it. I keep coming back to how do we solve the problem on 8. I wish I had some wonderful ideas. I'm willing to say that I, I don't appreciate or I guess I don't in one sense like the fact that the shape of the house platted on Lot 8 is now all of a sudden changed real dramatically to elongated, which makes it even worse. Everything , else on here is the same that it was on the plat but Lot 8 all of a sudden has changed shape in terms of the house configuration. 1� 76 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 ' Mayor Chmiel: What was the footprint of that? Rick Sathre: Can I speak to that Your Honor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Rick Sathre: Well now I guess blame me. I'm a dumb engineer and I'm not a house designer. My company drew houses on those lots which are just very simple representations of a house. All we were really intended to show was does it make more sense to have the garage on one side or the other. And the truth of it is, the people that will help to design the houses on these lots are the ultimate buyers and Ken and the other builders that go in there will work with architects and with those buyers to try to design a house that fits that family's needs. And that, the home that Ken is illustrating on Lot 8 is one that he's just building now. He thought that that might be representative of the type of house that you'd see on the lot. And if that's true, the houses that I illustrated are ' undersized. Councilman Senn: Well I guess that's my point. I mean if you take this house and put it on any one of your other lots, there may be problems elsewhere. Not just on this lot. Kate Aanenson: What the intent of this, with these elevations, we require what's code and that's to review the grading plan. What the intention is to get the elevation of these pads such that the drain ... so that's the requirement. It's just a footprint to see what the lowest elevation and we also.. just to see whether they're ambler or walkouts or whether they're splits. And we've indicated where there's a problem and in the staff report we've identified some that we'll have to raise these up to get the proper drainage towards the street. So the intent of this is, obviously there's a setback variance that they've asked for but...otherwise they're requiring to go through and meet the setbacks... Most people don't build perfectly square houses. ' Councilman Senn: I understand that. The only other. Mayor Chmiel: Mark, Don's got something here. Don Ashworth: I was just going to ask Mr. Sathre. What if the City Council just comes back and say you figure it out as long as you maintain a 45 degree angle? It seems like there's a lot of options in that we're going to spend a lot of time trying to engineer something that you should be doing. Councilman Senn: Well Don, I want to add something. I mean when I went out there and drove this and really looked around and then came back and looked at the plat again and stuff. I mean to me it seems like the ' obvious solution is not to look to the north. I mean to me the obvious solution is to look towards Minnewashm Parkway. We've got Outlot A there. We've got ponding there. You know maybe there's some give and take there but I mean maybe we can downsize the requirements of that lot and still let it meet a beachlot type of thing. I don't know. I mean to me there's, yeah Dick's choking. But he wore a tie tonight so he deserves it but. I don't know. You've got the reservation next to it. I mean to me there's enough there that it seems to me that there's something there that could work. ' Councilman Mason: If I could just interject. That would still meet what Don said. We don't care how they do it, as long as Hoelke's get their 45 degrees. Councilman Senn: Well and I, and I really sympathize with Hoelke's and I'd like to see the 45 percent but at 77 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 the same time I have a real hard time going back and telling the other people that they have to lose over 50% of their lot. I mean I think there's some compromise there other than a hard and fast say, you know... Councilman Mason: I look at all these lot sizes here and I don't know that anybody has to lose 50% of any lot size with some juggling around, that they would treed to do. Councilman Senn: If you looked at the lot lines. Okay lot lines you generally look at as it relates to being perpendicular from the lake. Everything here makes sense. It's pretty much ... until you get down to the end. See that's not a problem to Mr. Durr has caused himself. That's being caused in effect by a neighboring property lying with houses very close to the neighboring property. I mean a lot closer than any of us would allow them nowadays and stuff so the thing is, I think I'd like to get as close to that 45 as we can but I don't think we should give direction that don't come back until you get 45. I think that let's get as close to it as we can but let's shift down, let's see what we can shift down there and accommodate from the two ends and see if we can accomplish something. Councilman Wing: Without a variance. Councilman Senn: Well, I'd rather see, you know. And I know Dick could choke on this again. I mean I'd rather see us vary on something like the lot down here where we can put some tight controls on it than I would like to vary screwing around with the lots where we can't put the tight controls on it. And that's just a personal thing. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. In other words what you're saying is basically to shift from Lot 1, 2, 3 and move that all back to the west. Because that would then extend Lot number 8 right along with it. Councilman Senn: Well I mean the other option is, maybe the whole thing should shift and maybe Lot 8 can be a common lot. I don't know. I mean if it's. You get into us start trying to design a project and you're asking for trouble. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I don't have any intention of doing that. But I do think it's legitimate to ask that the existing neighbors are compatible. Are impinged upon as little as possible. Councilman Wing: And I like Don's idea of just saying, you know I think in the preliminary approval that's the Council's request that you try and work that out and engineer to the best of your ability and figure something... final. End of discussion or whatever. Mayor Chmiel: I would say that would be exactly what it should be. Yes. Kenneth Durr: Can I ask one thing? I'm Ken Durr. Your comment about adjusting and possibly making the beachlot smaller, is that something that this body would approve? Councilman Senn: I said it's something that I'm willing to consider but I'd like you to show me you know how that works. I'm not sure Dick will accept that because Dick's pretty, he's a lot more stringent on that than I am but. I mean I'd like to see some alternatives. Now I'm not saying come up with a dozen of them but I think it'd be nice to see a few different alternatives. Kind of like on Byerly's. I would have loved to have seen a few alternatives other than just... 78 t I 1 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah because it's strictly in the preliminary stages, as you're well aware and before the final stage comes back, the Council will really look at it strongly to make sure that that is being addressed. Kenneth Durr: We feel however that to make the lakeside lots narrower than they are to accommodate even a wider lot than Lot 8. Lot 8 is the largest site that we have. And we wish to do whatever we can to accommodate the Hoelke's. I've been really trying very, very hard to get as much sight angle guaranteed to ' them as possible. It started out with 18 degrees and then we have it at 32. I know it's a ways from 45 which they would like but I would not want to devalue the lake lots in making those narrower. But I think it was possible for us to have a beachlot that would be something narrower than 200 feet. That would certainly be a viable consideration for us. We could work along with you on that. The other alternative of moving the lot line on 8 further north. That is possible if we do not have to have the Outlot B as an access because if we move that lot line northerly, then we don't have enough land there. So we're kind of boxed in on that side if we want to maintain an access for the people to the east. And yet we really don't want to devalue our lake lots either. Councilman Senn: But Ken what I was just saying though is you might just kind of look at and try to tighten things up a little bit both north and to the west. I mean and you can leave the road in Outlot B but maybe move things a little bit. Again, I mean if that causes a variance, then I mean to me that's a little easier variance to deal with in your lot size up there where it's not affecting anybody. I don't know. I mean again it comes down to options in terms of. Rick Sathre: We respect what you're saying very much. I think it's wonderful that ... We're not designing this subdivision to meet the ordinance. We're designing it to meet the expectations of a higher market. ' Councilman Senn: You guys have done a great job that way. I mean I can't say enough. We just reviewed another one out there a couple weeks ago that. Mayor Chmiel: We turned down. Councilman Senn: It isn't even comparable. ' Rick Sathre: What we really did, and you know you've never seen the proposal ... but to get this Outlot B corridor in here we squeezed those lots down and we went to what we thought was a practical... It is a problem. Councilman Mason: Well this is preliminary. This is preliminary plat right? Mayor Chmiel: I would entertain a motion. Councilman Mason: Dick, tell me. You didn't make any major changes in 1 thtu 31 did you? Councilman Senn: I'd really like to see them go back and work on it a little bat. Councilman Mason: Well I'm going to add, I want to add condition 32 to this. I mean it's preliminary plat. ' We can always... Mayor Chmiel: Right. Put that additional on it. 79 1 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 Councilman Mason: I mean that's. ,! Councilman Senn: Well if you're comfortable with that but I mean we're talking about potentially about some significant changes. I mean it may even change the variances, I mean is what I'm saying. Councilman Mason: Well then it has to come back before us again anyway. Kate Aanenson: Can I make a point of clarification on—variance. If there's a condition that it maintain a 45 degree and the applicant does come back and now needs variances to accommodate that, does that have to go back to the Planning Commission and then come back to this body for the variance request? Roger Knutson: Yeah. Councilman Wing: But we created it. Councilman Senn: If we create it? Kate Aanenson: The applicant has a hard time meeting the 45 degrees ... some relief from the ordinance, he needs a variance. He would have to go to the Planning Commission first and then come to the... Mayor Chmiel: When can this be put back on Planning Commission? Kate Aanenson: Once they come up with a proposal, we'll put them on the next meeting. Don Ashworth: But don't to have it somehow considered by this body to make sure. , you want Kate Aanenson: In the motion tonight, as a part of that they need to seek a variance, I just wanted to make clear that they do have to back to the Planning Commission... go Councilman Senn: I thought they were advisory. Why can't we just do the variance? Roger Knutson: Because you have an ordinance that says if you're going to grant a variance, here's the process. This type of variance. This type of variance needs a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Councilman Senn: Rather than a public hearing before us? Roger Knutson: Correct. ' Councilman Senn: Okay. Roger Knutson: It's your right to ignore their advice. I Councilman Wing: I'd be happy with 1 thru 21 with the exception of the landscaping plan to include additional shade trees along the parkway and Highway 7 and the non treed lots be increased to 3. And then I would take , Mike's number 32 which is. Councilman Mason: The developer will work to achieve 45 percent. 80 I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 I Mayor Chmiel: 45 degree. Councilman Mason: 45 degree, excuse me. 45 degree view of Hoelke's. Somebody help me out. It's 1:00. Roger Knutson: 45 degree view of the lake from center of his property. Kate Aanenson: From the center of their home. Councilman Mason: Is that your motion or my motion then? Councilman Wing: I'll second your's. Councilman Mason: Okay. I made the motion. He seconded it. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll call the question. ' Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat #94-1, Minnewashta Landings for 27 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 9, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood - fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All disturbed areas with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall ' be restored with sod or seed and wood -fiber blanket. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's ' Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed ' District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 6. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. 7. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 81 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 8. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain the system in accordance 1 with the construction plans. 9. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval 11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way. 12. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of the rambler house located on Lot 12, Block 1 should be a ' minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level. This may raise the house elevation to 971 or greater requiring a very steep driveway. Staff recommends the applicant re- evaluate this and include exterior draintile around the house foundation. The draintile shall be connected to the proposed storm sewer along the property line. ' 13. The house pads south of Landings Dr., along the lake, should be a minimum of one foot above the road elevation. All low points should be located between lots to route overland flow around the houses. Also, catch basins should be located at the low point between homes to help route surface flow away from Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 2. 14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the fast ten feet and no more than 3:1 thereafter for safety and water quality purposes. 15. The driveway entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right -of -way. In addition, a ' drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood drainage from the east of this development into the easterly proposed pond. 16. Existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned. 17. Landings Court intersection should be redesigned to be perpendicular with Landings Drive and the median deleted. ' 18. The alignment of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway should be refined to provide more of a perpendicular intersection in accordance with the City's ordinance. 19. All lots shall take direct access from the interior streets and not Ntinnewashta Parkway or Highway 7. 20. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessments units. The rate per unit is $760.00. 21. Staff recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of right - of-way from the center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1. 82 ra I ' City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 22. The final grading plan shall be revised to reflect proposed grading on Lots 1 through 8. Block 2. ' 23. A cross access agreement needs to be established between the applicant and the residents of Ironwood for the use of Outlot B. 24. Lot 7, Block 2 needs to have a 90 foot lot width. 25. Variance from the side yard setback to 10 feet on flag lots located on Lots 11 and 16, Block 1 and Lot 8, Block 2. ' 26. Landscaping plans for the larger berm along Hwy. 7. as well as streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway needs to be provided." ' 27. Park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction at the rate in force at the time of building permit application with one -third of the park and trail fees paid at the time of final plat. 29. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit. 30. "No Parking" signs shall be posted on the inside and outside of the landscaped islands of the cul-de -sacs. 31. The developer shall provide for a homeowners association to maintain the landscaped islands. 32. The developer will work to achieve a 45 degree view of the lake from the center of the Hoelke's home. 33. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include additional overstory shade trees along Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7 along with an additional 3 trees on every non treed lot. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth ' City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 83