Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.q. Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, Inc PUD Master Development Plan and Final Site and Building Plan and Preliminary PlatCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date March 15, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Case 05 -12 -PUD and Case 05 -08 -PP AGENDA SECTION: Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, Inc PUD Master Development Plan (with Rezoning) CONSENT and Final Site and Building Plan and Preliminary Plat PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, A I C P A N Assistant City Planner ATTACHMENTS Draft Resolution, Draft Ordinance, Draft 02/22/05 PC Minutes, Location Map, Lot APPRO Y: Illustrations, Existing Conditions and Tree Preservation Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Motion to approve a resolution granting Master Development Plan and Final Site and Building Plan approval and preliminary plat approval for the property located at 4101 143 Street West to allow subdivision of the existing 184 acre property into three single family lots, subject to conditions 2. Motion to approve an ordinance rezoning the property at 4101 143 Street West from R -1, Low Density Residential to R -1, Low Density Residential PUD ACTION: SUMMARY Applicant Property Owner(s): Location Area in Acres Number of Lots Density Comp Guide Plan Desig� Current Zoning Requested Zoning. Planning Commission Action Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, 1 4101 143 Street West (Lot 11, 1 84 Acres (80,205 square feet) 3 Lots 163 Units /Acres Urban Residential R -1, Single Family Residential PUD R -1 Recommended approval 4 to 1 nc Block 2 Hawkins Pond) The applicant, Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, requests Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan and Final Site and Building Plan approvals for the Hawkins property located at 4101 143 Street West Currently, this site contains a single family home on 1 84 acres The applicant is also requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide this site into three single family lots Lot 1 would retain the existing home while Lots 2 and 3 would each contain a new single family home BACKGROUND As you may recall, the City amended the Planned Unit Development review standards late in 2004 This is the first application processed under the new standards The new standards require all PUD applications to include a Master Development Plan (with rezoning) and a Final Site and Building Plan while leaving the Concept Plan as optional The new standards also allow applicants to process the Master Development Plan (with rezoning) and the Final Site and Building Plan applications simultaneously In this case, the applicant has elected to pass on the Concept Plan and combined the Master Development Plan (with rezoning) and the Final Site and Building Plan into one application Preliminary plat approval is also required If approved, the development will still require Final Plat approval The factors necessitating the use of a PUD for this development include the applicant's desire to create 3 separate single family lots containing homes with substantial building pad area while preserving the site's existing trees, topography, and single family home Given these factors, the applicant submits the attached design To its credit, this design creates three lots with a density that meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is lower than the surrounding developments, while preserving the site's existing trees, topography and single family home By contrast, the large homes and lot design selected by the applicant combined with preserving the site's existing single family home produces a site design requiring a flag lot which is atypical of the neighborhood development pattern PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this item during their February 22, 2005 regular meeting During the hearing, residents expressed support for the proposal but raised several concerns including landscaping, tree preservation, house setbacks and architecture compatibility, as well as access and driveway design In addition to these concerns, the Commission raised the issues of lot design, the location of and connection to city utilities and runoff from Lot 2 Both the applicant and staff attempted to respond to these questions First, the applicant expressed the desire to preserve as many trees as possible while working with staff and the neighbors to create a quality development Staff noted that many of the issued raised were addressed by the conditions of approval including meeting the Engineering and Fire Marshall requirements for driveway design, submitting a detailed landscaping and tree preservation plan, and shifting the northern lot line on Lot 3 to the north to expand the backyard After some minor clarifications to the conditions of approval, the Commission recommended the City Council approve this application 4 to 1 Changes made to the proposal as a result of the Commission's conditions of approval are described below First, to address the concern over lot design, the Commission added a condition requiring the applicant to submit a revised preliminary plat shifting the northern lot line on Lot 3 to expand the backyard area The applicant agreed to this condition and has revised the preliminary 2 I plat accordingly. While this change reduces the size of Lot 2, it adds desirable backyard space to Lot 3. Second, the Commission required the applicant to redesign the site to conform with the access standards outlined by the City Engineer and Fire Marshall As originally proposed, Lots 1 and 2 would have access through a common driveway from 143` Street while Lot 3 would have its own separate access to 143` Street The applicant states that this design is necessary given slope of the subject property Staff concedes the topography of the subject property creates access challenges for this site Typically, the Fire Marshall requires any driveway over 150 feet to be a minimum of 20 feet wide, have a slope of 9 percent or less, extend to within 150 feet of all buildings, support the load of a fire truck, and provide sufficient area for turning around a fire truck Given the design and topography of this site, conforming to all the Fire Marshall's access design standards may be problematic As a result, staff offered the applicant two options Option one would be to design the shared driveway to conform with the 9 percent slope standard and record an agreement against each property relieving any emergency service provider from liability should their vehicles damage a private driveway The second option would be to sprinkle the homes on Lots 1 and 2 while building the shared driveway to meet the typical Engineering Department 10 percent slope standard The applicant has elected to meet the 9 percent standard and has redrawn the preliminary plat accordingly The applicant still must submit an agreement relieving any emergency service provider from liability should their vehicles damage a private driveway Third, since tree preservation was a key factor for granting a PUD for this site, the Commission recommended submission of a detailed landscaping and trees preservation plan According to the applicant's tree preservation plan, 10 of the site's 55 trees (or 18 percent) will be removed as a result of construction These trees include four 8" Birch, three 6" Birch, two 10" Crabapple, one 24" Pine, one 20" Oak, and one 14" Oak With the exception of the two Oaks, these trees are located on the southern half of Lots 2 and 3 and must be removed for driveway and home construction By ordinance, the applicant can remove up to 25 percent of the significant trees on site before being required to replace trees However, staff is concerned about the long term maintenance of the preserved trees and recommends the recording a conservation easement over the southern 10 feet of all three properties and the western 80 feet of Lot 1 to maintain the significant tree massing as illustrated on the tree preservation plan Finally, the Commission had some concerns regarding drainage from Lot 2 (the flag lot) across Lot 3 To address this concern, the Engineering Department recommends that all lots provide positive drainage away from each individual home PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT In general, the purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to allow flexibility from typical zoning performance standards to encourage higher quality development This process involves an exchange in which the City eases certain performance standards in return for an enhanced development Section 12 6 A outlines the specific types of development the City wishes to encourage through the PUD process Those applicable to this development are listed below 3 Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including, but not limited to, steep slopes, trees and poor spoils In this case, the developer requests relief from the lot width and access performance standards to allow the creation of three single family lots in exchange for preservation of the existing topography and trees. Section 12 6 C 1 of the new PUD standards contains criteria for the City Council to weigh when considering a PUD application These criteria are listed below 1 Compatibility of the proposed plan with this Chapter and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan 2 Effect of the proposed plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities, circulation and parking facilities, public facilities, recreation areas, open spaces, screening and landscaping 4 Consistency with the standards of Section 12 3 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to site and budding plan review 5. Such other factors as the Planning Commission or City Council deems relevant A detailed review of this proposal is provided below Staff requests the Council consider the advantages and challenges of this proposal and determine if it meets the PUD review criteria listed above The Planning Commission and City Council may attach such conditions to their actions as they determine necessary or convenient to better accomplish the purposes of this Chapter PROJECT ANALYSIS When combing the Master Development Plan (with rezoning) and the Final Site and Budding Plan applications, the project is subject to the standards outlined in Sections 12 3 (Site and Building Design Review), 12 6 B (PUD Development Standards), and 12 11 (Amendments) The standards for these sections are included in the following analysis Rezoning All Master Development Plan applications shall include a rezoning to a specific PUD Distnct The district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" and the designation of the underlying zoning district In this case, the applicant requests rezoning the property from R- 1, Low Density Residential to PUD R -1 The primary issue to consider for a rezoning application is compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding zoning designations Currently, the site and surrounding area are guided for Urban Residential use Similarly, the site and surrounding area are zoned R -1, Low Density Residential. In addition, the adjacent Country Hills and M Hawkins Pond subdivisions were developed as PUD's Given these findings and the design of the proposed development, staff finds the proposed PUD R -1 zoning classification compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning designations PUD and Site Design Review Development of this project is constrained by the desire of the City and the applicant to achieve certain goals in the overall design. The applicant's interest in preserving the existing home and vegetation lead to a solution like the proposal If the house was removed three lots could easily be accommodated without creation of a flag lot This would also provide for a development pattern more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood which has longer, somewhat narrower lots When staff first discussed the proposal there were two ways to approach processing the application One would be to process a subdivision application with variance for the flag lot requiring a lot width variance The second option was to use the PUD process which allows flexibility for city standards Because of the hardship standards associated with granting of a variance, staff recommended use of the PUD process In either event, the Commission and Council should be aware that through a very simple lot line adjustment, the flag lot can be made conforming and the existing subdivision layout and location of budding pads would remain unchanged Because the development pattern would remain unchanged, staff is supportive of the layout in the current configuration Area Each PUD shall have a minimum area often (10) acres, excluding areas within a designated wetlands, flood plain or shoreland district or right of way, unless the applicant can demonstrate the development as a PUD will preserve natural features or will appear similar to an adjacent PUD In this case, the subject property is only 1 84 acres However, the applicant intends to preserve the site's existing topography and trees In addition, this site is surrounded by the Country Hills and Hawkins Pond PUD's As designed, with the exception of the flag lot, the development would appear and function as an extension of the surrounding PUD developments while preserving the site's existing topography and trees Density Each residential PUD shall have a density within the range specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the PUD site The density of individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided the density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards The table below compares the proposed density for Highlands of Hawkins Pond and the two adjacent PUD subdivisions with the density requirements for the Urban Residential and R -1 designations It shows that the net density for the proposed development meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is lower than the surrounding developments Density Analysis for Highlands of Hawkins Pond Subdivision Size (Acres) Number of Lots Density Units /Acre Status Required Proposed Count Hills 250 567 >3 22 Conformin Hawkins Pond 34 71 >3 20 Conformin Subject Pro pert 1 84 3 >3 1 6 Conformm 5 Streets, Utilities, Public Facilities and Subdivisions The City ordinances governing the specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be modified based upon the unique characteristics of the PUD The City Council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions that are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this Chapter or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the City as a whole. While this development will not require new streets or public facilities, it will necessitate new utilities and subdivision of the existing property At 80,205 square feet, the subject property could accommodate up to eight standard 10,000 square foot lots However, with only 300 feet of frontage along 143r Street, the site can only accommodate three standard 80 foot wide lots (4 X 80' =320') The table below compares the required and proposed lot subdivision performance standards for properties in the Urban Residential and R -1 districts It illustrates that while each lot exceeds the minimum lot size, only two meet the minimum lot width standard and only one has direct access to a public street Lot Anal sis for Highlands of Hawkins Pond Lot Lot Sizes ft. Lot Width feet Lot Access Status Required Proposed Required Proposed Required Pro osed 1 1 1 10,000 44,082 80 161 Direct Shared Nonconformin 2 10,000 25,021 80 50 Direct Shared Nonconformm 3 10,000 11,132 80 89 Direct Direct Conformin Setbacks, Buffers and Greenspace Setbacks, buffers and greenspace within a PUD shall be consistent with applicable sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of screening treatments or other mitigative measures The table below illustrates that, as designed, the principal buildings on the subject property meet the minimum required setbacks for properties in the R -1 District However, it should be noted that the existing accessory structure on Lot 1 encroaches approximately two feet into the required 30 foot rear yard setback Since this development does not increase the nonconformity of the existing accessory structure, it is considered an existing nonconforming use which is allowed to continue until it is expanded Principal Building Setback Analysis for Highlands of Hawkins Pond Lot Front feet Side feet Rear feet Required Proposed Required Proposed Required I Proposed Status 1 30 ft 127 ft. loft 98110 ft 30 ft 1 90 ft Conformin 2 30 ft 155 ft loft 28/10 ft. 30 ft 32 ft. Conforming 3 30 ft 30 ft loft 10/10 ft 30 ft L 4 3 ft Conforming Covenants All applicants for a PUD shall establish an association to oversee the maintenance of commonly held properties and review of architectural modifications to the A approved plans This is a fairly small project and there is no commonly held property proposed For these two reasons, staff is not requiring establishment of a HOA However, staff is recommending as a condition of approval that a cross access easement and maintenance agreement be recorded against the two properties that will share a driveway Architectural and Landscape Design All residential PUD applicants shall demonstrate that the architectural and landscape design will provide privacy for both internal and exterior living areas This provision shall include, but not be limited to, landscape and fence screens and the location of structures relative to adjacent homes Given that tree preservation was a key factor in granting a PUD for this site, the Commission and staff required the applicant submit a detailed tree preservation plan According to the applicant's tree preservation plan, 10 of the site's 55 trees (or 18 percent) will be removed as a result of construction These trees include four 8" Birch, three 6" Birch, 2 10" Crabapple, one 24" Pine, one 20" Oak, and one 14" Oak With the exception of the two Oaks, these trees are located on the southern half of Lots 2 and 3 and must be removed for driveway and home construction By ordinance, the applicant can remove up to 25 percent of the significant trees on site before being required to replace trees However, staff is concerned about the long term maintenance of the preserved trees and recommends the recording a conservation easement over the southern 10 feet of all three properties and the western 80 feet of Lot 1 to maintain the significant tree massing as illustrated on the tree preservation plan During the Planning Commission hearing, one resident expressed concern regarding the architecture of the proposed and existing houses and their compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood The applicant expressed a desire to meet or exceed the architecture style of the surrounding neighborhood with the two new homes but does not plan to make improvements to the existing house PUD Discussion. After reviewing these plans, staff finds that the location of the existing house and the dimension of all three houses necessitate a subdivision design which creates a flag lot that is inconsistent with the zoning and subdivision standards and the design of the surrounding PUD neighborhoods First, the existing house is located lust to the west of the center of the property After creating a lot for the existing house with the required setbacks, the remaining parcel is approximately 36,153 square feet in size with 139 feet of frontage. This parcel is large enough to accommodate three additional single family lots, however, all three lots could not meet the required 80' wide dimensional standard Second, neither the existing or proposed homes could fit on a standard 80 foot wide lot The existing house is just over 60 feet wide while the proposed houses are 70 feet wide The dimensions of the existing and proposed houses combined with the location of the existing house are key to the design of this subdivision and the need for a flag lot Engineering, Grading and Drainage The existing topography and preservation of the existing trees create development challenges for this site The lot gains 28 feet of elevation from the southern to the northern property lines with the majority of the elevation change occurring over the south half of the site The grade change is steepest on the west side 7 These factors combined with the maximum driveway slope of 10 percent force access points to the southeast corner of the site This design promotes preservation of the existing trees along the southwest and western property lines The Engineering Department has estimated the following fees for this development. 1. Trunk Sewer Area Charges 1 84 AC x $1,045 /AC $1,922 80 2 Trunk Water Area Charge 1 84 AC x $4,210 /AC $7,746 40 3. Trunk Storm Area Charge 1 84 AC x $6,015/AC $11,067 60 4 Sewer Connection Fees SAC units are calculated by MCES a MCES Fee $1,450 /SAC b City Fee $1,160 1SAC 5 Water Connection (WAC), Single Family Residential $1,410 6 Storm Connection (STAC) $670 per lot The Commission had some concerns regarding drainage from Lot 2 (the flag lot) across Lot 3 To address this concern, the Engineering Department recommends that all lots provide positive drainage away from each individual home Access This development proposes to access Lots 1 and 2 through a common driveway from 143` Street while Lot 3 would have its own separate access to 143` Street The applicant states that this design is necessary given slope of the subject property Staff concedes the topography of the subject property creates access challenges for this site While the Engineering Department requires driveway to have a maximum 10 percent slope the Fire Marshall requires a maximum 9 percent slope When two standards conflict, the ordinance directs staff to apply the more stringent standard Typically, the Fire Marshall would also require any driveway over 150 feet to be a minimum of 20 feet wide, extend to within 150 feet of all buildings, support the load of a fire truck, and provide sufficient area for turning around a fire truck Given the design and topography of this site, conforming to all the Fire Marshall's access design standards may be problematic As a result, staff offered the applicant two options Option one would be to design the shared driveway to conform with the 9 percent slope standard and record an agreement against each property relieving any emergency service provider from liability should their vehicles damage a private driveway The second option would be to sprinkle the homes on Lots 1 and 2 and building the driveways to meet the typical Engineering Department standards Given these options, the applicant elected to meet the 9 percent standard and submit the agreement releasing the City from liability Parks and Open Space After reviewing the Kathy Trimble Custom Homes proposal, the Parks and Recreation Department recommends parks dedication is collected in the form of cash for two units The parks dedication fees for two units using the current 2005 Fee Schedule would be $6,000 (2 x $3,000) The parks dedication fees are to be paid based on the fee at the time of final plat approval CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, Master Development Plan (with rezoning) and Final Site and Building Plan for the Hawkins Pond 3 lot subdivision subject to conditions This recommendation is based on the plans submitted by the applicant and the findings made in this report The applicant's proposal creates a three lot development that preserves the existing topography, trees, and single family home and is consistent with the use, density, lot size, and setback standards for the Urban Residential and R -1 designations as well as the surrounding PUD neighborhoods To achieve this development, the City must grant the applicant relief from the 80 foot lot width standard to permit the flag lot Even with the flag lot, the PUD application gives the Council the ability to approve this development if it finds strict adherence to the lot width standard is not required to meet the intent of the PUD Ordinance or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the City as a whole Should the Council believe that a flag lot is not the appropriate subdivision design for the project the Council should continue the request to allow time for the applicant to adjust lot lines to remove the variation from the lot width requirement As stated previously, this can be accomplished without substantially altering the layout and house pad locations of the current proposal A final question for the Council is the flag lot issue This plat creates a lot which can meet all ordinance criteria and still have the effect of placing a house behind another house The flag lot situation is the atypical development pattern but has occurred in the Uitdenbogerd plat and is proposed in the subject application Staff is asking for direction from the Council as to whether amendments to the zoning ordinance should be made to preclude this type of pattern even if lot dimensional standards are met 0 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2005- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLAN FOR HIGHLANDS OF HAWKINS PONDS WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, Inc requesting Preliminary Plat, Master Development Plan, and Final Site and Building Plan concerning property located at 4101 14P Street West to allow subdivision of the existing 1 84 acre property into three single family lots, legally described as Lot 11, Block 2, Hawkins Pond, Dakota County WHEREAS, on February 22, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Preliminary Plat, Master Development Plan, and Final Site and Building Plan for Highlands of Hawkins Pond, and WHEREAS, on February 22, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a public hearing for review of the Preliminary Plat, Master Development Plan, and Final Site and Building Plan application as required by Ordinance B, the Zoning Regulations, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat, Master Development Plan, and Final Site and Building Plan subject to conditions, and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2005, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Preliminary Plat, Master Development Plan, and Final Site and Building Plan applications for Highlands of Hawkins Pond and adopted a motion for approval b) this resolution subject to conditions NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat to the Highlands of Hawkins Pond, subdividing Lot 11, Block 2, Hawkins Pond, Dakota County into Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1, Highlands of Hawkins Pond, Dakota County, subject to Design the shared driveway for Lots 1 and 2 to conform to the Fire Marshall's 9 percent slope standard and record an agreement against Lots 1 and 2 relieving any emergency service provider from liability should their vehicles damage a private driveway or sprinkle the homes on Lots 1 and 2 while building the shared driveway to meet the typical Engineering Department standards including a 10 percent maximum slope 2. Payment of all applicable development fees including 2 units of park dedication calculated using the current fee schedule at the time of Final Plat RESOLUTION 2005 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Master Development Plan and Final Site Plan and Building Plan of Highlands of Hawkins Pond, subject to 1 Submission of a detailed landscape and tree preservation plan illustrating all new and preserved plants and retaining walls prior to City Council action 2 Execution of a Planned Unit Development Agreement between the applicant and the City Dedication of cross access easements and recording of a maintenance agreement for shared access to Lots 1 and 2 4 Issuance of a building permit 5 Recording of a conservation easement over the southern 10 feet of all three lots and the western 80 feet of Lot 1 to maintain the significant trees missing as illustrated on the tree preservation plan ADOPTED this 15 day of March, 2005 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentmk, City Clerk Motion by_ Voted in favor Voted against._ Member absent Second by: City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B -152 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE Highlands of Hawkins Pond THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS Section 1 Ordinance B. adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone the property at 4103 143` Street West from RI, Low Density Residential, to PUD RI, Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, legally described as follows Existing Legal Description Lot 11, Block 2, Hawkins Pond, Dakota County Proposed Legal Description Lots 1, 2, and 3, Highlands of Hawkins Pond, Dakota County Section 2 The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount, referred to and described in said Ordinance No B as that certain map entitled "Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount," shall not be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning map on file in the Clerk's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning heremabove provided for in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance Section 3 This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 15"' day of March, 2005. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H Droste, Mayor ATTEST Linda Jentink, City Clerk Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 2005. Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 2005 Public Hearing: 5B. Case 05 -12 -PUD and 05 -08 -PP Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, Inc. PUD Master Development Plan (with Rezoning) and Final Site and Building Plan and Preliminary Plat. City Planner Lmdahl reviewed the staff report Kathy Trimble Custom Homes, Inc requests Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan and Final Site and Building Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals for the Hawkins property located at 4101 143` Street West Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr Lmdahl. Commissioner Powell questioned the utility plan having four sets of services to this lot and if it is known which of the set of services the existing house is connected to which would require a utility easement and wanted to make sure there wasn't service connection crossing over on to another lot Mr Lindahl stated he would confirm that with the engineering department Mr Powell also asked staff to follow through if this approved that the runoff from Lot 2 be confined to Lot 2 and doesn't cross over to Lot 3 or a drainage easement may be needed if it can't be confided to that single lot Chairperson Messner asked if the applicant would like to come forward Kathy Trimble, 1566 Wexford Court, Eagan, stated the brief history of her company and her interest in the Hawkins' site Ms Trimble said she intended to work with the City on the driveway issues Ms Trimble also stated she plans to save as many trees as possible and the current driveway plan would only cause the loss of two trees Her intentions are to create something the neighbors and the Hawkins can be proud of Chairperson Messner asked the applicant if she knew with the existing home which of any existing services is tied into the home Ms Trimble stated that Ed McMenomy believes the utilities on the west side of the property were the ones that were brought into the house The four utilities were requested by the Hawkins thinking that some day this property may be developed Commissioner Humphrey asked which of the houses on Lot 2 will be built Ms Trimble stated she was hoping to move the lot lines as shown in the artist's rendering so the rear lot would be 148 feet wide which would give a nice yard once built on If able to angle the rear lot line of 3 you could give Lot 3 a little nicer backyard Chairperson Messner wanted clarification if she has switched the lot lines between Lots 1 and 2 Ms Trimble stated that line pretty much has to stay there in order to meet the setbacks Ms Trimble also stated she was not opposed to the staff proposed 80 foot lot setback but that she wanted to save as many evergreens as possible. Chairperson Messner asked City Planner Pearson if the preliminary plat portion would be approving the lot lines as drawn Mr Pearson talked about shifting the lot line across the lot and stated this would come back as a final plat and would solidify the final location of the property lines, Chairperson Messner had a question about the specific location of the house on Lot 2 Mr Pearson stated if it is a PUD they have the ability to influence the location of the house With the PUD process, the City can require conservation easements and deed restrictions Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing Ed McMenomy, 1422 143 Street West, Rosemount, stated that Kathy has done a wonderful fob to meet the land topography Mr McMenomy questioned if there would be a retaining wall by the driveway based upon the slope Mr McMenomy suggested there be a condition that would include landscaping to make the driveway work Mr McMenomy would like the plan to stay the same and didn't approve of the 80 foot frontage Mr McMenomy would like to see all the evergreens in a conversation agreement Vicki Gophn, 14106 Dearborn Path, Rosemount. stated she has been in the area for 15 years and is pleased to see the intent of Kathy to keep the trees as is and encouraged the Commission to pass the item Dan Huberty, 4212 143 St Rosemount, was concerned about the house and existing property being tied in with the continuity of the neighborhood Mr Huberty was glad to see the trees would be preserved Mr Huberty questioned the driveways not being far apart and suggested all three homes share one driveway Michelle Huberty, 4212 143 St., Rosemount, was concerned about the setbacks of the current homes and the setback of proposed Lot 3 Ms Huberty also questioned how close the house would be to the evergreens on Lot 3. Mr Pearson stated that setbacks are 30 feet from the property line which makes them about 45 feet back from the curb Mr Pearson stated that Lot 3 is the minimum 30 foot setback and the evergreens appear to either straddle or are dust inside the property line Dan Huberty, 4212 143 St, Rosemount, expressed concern about the setbacks in Hawkins Pond and if Lot 3 is going to be too close to the street Chairperson Messner stated that using a rough scale it suggests that that other lots are not setback much more than 30 feet Mr Pearson stated a fairly consistent setback is shown at about 35 feet. Dan Huberty, 4212 143 St Rosemount, again expressed concern about the setback with the lone house not architecturally tied into the development Kathy Trimble addressed the concerns about the driveway but the lot width to the lot on the front is 89 feet wide She explained as far as setbacks, she prefers to show more home than garage Chairperson Messner asked Ms. Trimble to answer the question about the architecture of the current home Ms Trimble stated it was not her plan to change anything with the existing home The existing home is white with maintenance free siding and black shutters with the large pillars in front with a colonial feel Ms Trimble feels the home is relatively attractive MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zum. Ayes. Schultz, Zum, Messner, Humphrey and Powell Nayes None Motion carried Chairperson Messner asked for any follow -up questions or discussion. Chairperson Messner asked if a tree preservation plan will address the tree conservation easement Mr Pearson stated that the grading plan shows a lot about the impact of the property and that grading follows the driveway to get it to a manageable grade Mr Pearson suggested that everything downhill of this line can be preserved and that restrictive covenants or conversation easements could be recorded against the property to require preservation of the trees Community Development Director Lindquist stated three conditions of approval the Commission could add if they so desired One would be to shift the northern lot line on Lot 3 to provide more backyard space which would address Ms Trimble's proposal. A Condition 8 could be that the applicant would dedicate a tree preservation easement over the coniferous trees over the front property line Ms Lindquist stated the condition could then address the concerns brought forward tonight Ms Lindquist also suggested that Mr McMenomy's concern be addressed with stating the applicant install additional vegetation south of the retaining wall or within the graded area necessary for the construction of the driveway on Lot 1 regardless of the tree preservation requirements Commissioner Powell questioned the shifting of the north line of Lot 3 and if there was a specific dimension or amount Ms Trimble stated she did it based it on the trees in the rear comer and she wanted to retain a significant amount of the backyard Commissioner Powell suggested a Condition 7 to shift the northern lot line on Lot 3 consisted with the alternate lot line identified on the Trimble drawing MOTION by Powell to recommend the City Council approve the Master Development Plan (with rezoning) and Final Site and Building Plan and preliminary plat approval for the property located at 4101 143` Street West to allow subdivision of the existing 1 84 acre property into three single family lots, subject to the following I Issuance of a building permit 2 Execution of a Planned Unit Development Agreement between the applicant and the City 3 Submission of a detailed landscape and tree preservation plan illustrating all new and preserved plants and retaining walls prior to City Council action 4. Redesign of all access driveways to meet the performance standards outlined by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal 5 Dedication of cross access easements and recording of a maintenance agreement for shared access to Lots 1 and 2 6 Payment of all applicable development fees including 2 units of park dedication calculated using the current fee schedule at the time of Final Plat 7 Shift the northern lot line on Lot 3 consistent with the alternate lot line shown on the Trimble drawing Second by Zorn Ayes Schultz, Zum, Humphrey and Powell. Nayes Messner. Motion approved 4 -1 Mr McMenomy questioned if there was anything in the motion about the conservation easement Chairperson Messner stated there was not. HIGHLANDS OFHAWKINS POND 1108 City of Rosemount e Dakota County, Minnesota .E s i t 3 4 I I r 11 I V I 1 I fi ii i�t I I II II_ a5jy a IT A I PKELIMIMAKY J-LAI I I :..`..u. 1 i.' I a •ii a II 1`rt II uralrr PLAN .Lilo i' MAR 102005 t `.�i T 14 t C I 1 e`er ®0 I l j Y I °M eW°wwavmxmw.¢ v uA ti I I sETSCC REDV(sErxrrs Il I IT'"� 1 nw4 .0 "17l .w mo�Wow nw.Xc I u. `I i I II Itvl II I I I I 4 L NOI I hUtt L'ONSTttUCT1Uh ms vu ♦u° .wo W9%XWS PW NC.S .vm ryn .W W nvuwc� xrcac�xawN�£ %N OHN. N.11Y 14 t SITE DATE I 1 e`er wf J C- I l j Y I °M eW°wwavmxmw.¢ v uA ti it m N ruxiro.Ttn n ore .ovwnr sETSCC REDV(sErxrrs Il I I- C SITE PLAN X 4- 1 e`er wf J C- I l j Y I ti it m N ruxiro.Ttn n ore .ovwnr tur 1II//IIIIII 9 IF I I- C nw4 .0 "17l .w mo�Wow nw.Xc SITE PLAN GRADING EROSION CONTROL PLAN CSNEA CDNSTNOMON NOTES 1 4- 1 e`er wf J C- I l j Y I ti it m N ruxiro.Ttn n ore .ovwnr tur I, Ill I lr'VV I I- C i10 1[ `Wlv¢ 41 me rtn wry X w�u rrr wn X� mva �`„;M mm�i er uxe um r w,a' mX �1 °�tX PREUMIN/�RY w�oun nn .snug, NOI I hUtt L'ONSTttUCT1Uh ms vu ♦u° .wo GRADING EROSION CONTROL PLAN CSNEA CDNSTNOMON NOTES L Y w°uYn.u.. �l uwrw wx wnwm wi c rmrcm.r arc v.mdosn gn it m N ruxiro.Ttn n ore .ovwnr tur ­5 v al nr�iux w rerun nrwox. mz m¢�a nw wmua a A.a `Wlv¢ CSN£SIL CA,DING NOTES �Q+ �l uwrw wx wnwm wi c rmrcm.r arc v.mdosn it m N ruxiro.Ttn n ore .ovwnr ­5 v al nr�iux w rerun nrwox. mz m¢�a nw wmua `Wlv¢ 41 me rtn wry X w�u rrr wn X� mva �`„;M mm�i er uxe um r w,a' mX �1 °�tX PREUMIN/�RY w�oun nn .snug, NOI I hUtt L'ONSTttUCT1Uh ms vu ♦u° .wo W9%XWS PW NC.S .vm ryn .W W nvuwc� ,MIUML IVOS OF HAWK /NS POND City of Rosemount Dalrota County, Minnesota `,v EXISTING CONDITIONS WILT FFNC6 TYPICAL xw $w 4Zk< p p F Wg 4 qb �O A� �y Rl� 3 I PRELIMINARYI NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION) 2 TREE PRESERVATION of Hans pond plane ed ment N lYlur 1Jnit Develop �s�