Rutherford Station

8/12/2019 Rutherford Station

1/20

I I I A ` f I I I i

REPORT DATE: June 5, 2014 CASE NO.: 2014-20

HEARING DATES: Planning Commission June 11, 2014Joint Planning Board June 18, 2014Park Commission June 23, 2014Cty Council July 1 , 2014

APPLICANT: Chris Aamodt, Settler' s Pines, LLCREQUEST: 1) Conceptual Approval of Annexation

2) Rezoning to RB, Two -Family Residential3) Setback Variances4) Preliminary Plat approval of Rutherford Station, a 55 lot

Residential Subdivision

LOCATION: 8335, 8355, 8401 & 8455 Manning AvenueCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LMDR, Low/ Medium Density ResidentialREVIEWERS: Cty Engineer, Fire Marshal, Cty Attorney, Cty Forester,

Browns Creek Watershed District, Washington Co. Public WorksPREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director

BACKGROUND

Chris Aamodt, Settler' s Pines, LLC, pians to develop 17.5 acres of land in the southeast quadranto f the intersection of McKusick R oa d a nd Manning Avenue. Currently the land exists as fourparcels with a home on each. Three of the parce ls are located within Stillwater Township and arebeing petitioned for annexation as part of this development process. The fourth is already in theCty of Stillwater.55 lots are proposed as part of this plat, tobe known as Rutherford Station, and all would gainaccess to Marylane Avenue via local streets to be constructed by the developer. Sidewalks will bebuilt along one s ide of each local street an d out to th e County trail along Manning Avenue. Inaddition, the Browns Creek State Trail runs along the northern edge of the development and

The total site encompasses 19 . 9 8 a cres . 17 . 5 will be developed while 2. 48 have already been purchased byWashington County for additional right-of-way along CSAR 15 ( Manning Avenue).


2/20

Rutherford StationJune 5, 2014Page 2

access will be possible from Rutherford Station either via the County trail or off of MarylaneAvenue.

SPECIFIC REQUEST

In order to develop the property as proposed, Chris Aamodt has requested approval o f th efollowing:

1 . Conceptual Approval of Annexation of the development property and of the abuttingMarylane Avenue.

2. Rezoning to RB, Two -Family Residential.3. Variance of 50 feet for Lots 3- 6, Block 5 to allowhomes tobe built 50 feet from the

Manning Avenue right-of-way rather than the 100 foot minimum required.4. Variance of 5 feet for Lots 7-12, Block 5 to allowhomes to bebuilt with a combined side

yard setback of 10 feet rather than 15 feet.5. Preliminary Plat of Rutherford Station, a 55 lot single family development.

EVALUATION OF REQUESTI. ANNEXATION

The petition to a nn ex th e site into the Cty is for a total of 14.98 acres plus the abutting segment o fMarylane Avenue. The total site encompasses 19.98 acres plus Marylane Avenue. But, thesouthern 5 . 00 acre parcel of this pro jec t is already located in the Cty of Stillwater. Of theprivately owned 14 . 98 acres that are petitioned for annexation, 13 . 14 acres will be developed intolo ts a nd outlots. The remaining 1 . 84 acres have already been purchased by Washington Countyfor additional CSAR 15 ( Manning Avenue) right-of-way.According to the Orderly Annexation Agreement, the subjec t property is located in the Phase IVannexation area. This area is not scheduled for annexation until after January 1 , 2015. But, theinfill provision of the agreement (Section 4.09) would allow the request to be approved, sinceeach of the following criteria is satisf ied:

0 100% of the subject landowners have signed an annexation petitionThis has not occurred yet, but will occur prior to final approval by the CtyCouncil. The developer has controlling interest in the northern three of thesite' s four parcels, and has an agreement with the bankruptcy trustee onthe fourth parcel. However, gaining controlling interest in the fourthparcel is a month or so away from being transferred.o The property is adjacent to property within the Cty' s corporate limitsThe southern of the four parcels is already in the Cty of Stillwater.o Th e level of growth in the entire area regulated by the agreement has not exceeded

120 permits per yearThis is true

o Utilities are immediately available to the propertyBoth sanitary s e we r a nd municipal water are available in the MarylaneAvenue right-of-way.


3/20


The requested annexation is found acceptable as reviewed agains t the Orderly AnnexationAgreement. However, at this point only conceptual approval should be given. Formal approvalof the annexationpetition should not occur until the final plat is approved, and a developmentagreement is executed.

IL REZONING

Mr. Aamodt is proposing to rezone the property to RB, Two -Family Residential. Th eComprehensive Plan' s guided us e for the property is Low/ Medium Density Residential. Inorder to create the density envisioned by this classif ication, RB zoning is necessary at a minimum.III. VARIANCES & PRELIMINARY PLAT

A. Variances

Minimum Dimensional Standards: RB District

Standard Sngle Family Two -Family ProposedLot area 7,500 sf 10, 000 sf 8, 658 sf 17,338 sfLotwidth 50 ft2 75 ft2 65 105 ftCorner lot width 70 ft 100 ft 80 87 feetFrontage 35 ft 35 ft 39 85 ftFront setback 20 ft 20 ft okFront setback garage 30 ft 30 ft unknownSide setback 15 ft total both sides

5 ftmin on each side15 ft total both sides5 ftmin on each side

okSide setl$ack garage 5 ft (3 ft detached) 5 ft (3 ft detached) okSetback' from Manning 100 ft 100 ft 50 ft

Th e table compares the minimum standards of the proposed RB zoning district with theminimum standards proposed for RutherfordStation. As can be seen, each minimum standard issatisf ied with one exception, which is the setback from Manning Avenue for Lots 3 - 6 , Block 5 .Avariance was already approved for most of theproposed lots along Manning Avenue, but atthat time the developer only had ownership o f th re e of the four parcels within the developmentsite. Now that he has an agreement to purchase the fourth parcel, a variance is being requestedfor lots that will be developed on that property. The variance request is reviewed in a sectionbelow.

Acomment should be made about garage setbacks in the RB Zoning District. In this districtgarages are intended to be set 10 feet further back from the street than the front wall of the house.This relieves streetscapes from garage dominance. So, the minimum setback of the house is 20feet a nd th e garage is 30 feet. But, several design options allow for variety. For example, if aroofed (but open) porch is at the 20 foot setback line, and the front door is at the 30 foot setback

2 D i s ta n c e b e t w e e n s i d e lot l i n e s m e a s u r e d a t right a n g le s to lot d e p t h a t a point midway b e t w e e n front a n d r e a r lot l i n e s


4/20


line, the garage doors could be flush with the front wall of the house. And, if the porch or frontof the house is at a 30 foot setback, the garage could be at the same setback.COMMENTSON REQUEST FOR VARIANCES

1 . Setback from Manning AvenueRequest: Variance of 50 feet for Lot 3-6, Block 5 to allowhomes to be built 50 feet from theManning Avenue right-of-way rather than the 100 foot minimum required.In January 2014 the Planning Commission granted variances for the northern three of thesubject four parcels. The variance was approved since it would create a setback f rom ManningAvenue similar to the other single family (SFR) parce ls adjacent to the eastern boundary of ManningAvenue, as seen below:

Subdivision Address Apx. SetbackSettler' s ( Townhome) 3690 Ambercrombie Ln. 100'Liber ( Townhome) 7225 Manning 40'Liberty West (SFR) 3726 Planting Green 50'Liberty (SFR) 456 Harvest Green 35'Stillwater Crossing ( SFR) 602 Eben Court 50'

Since this is the fourth and final parcel in the proposeddevelopment, it is reasonable to grantthe same variance for this parcel as well.

2. Side Yard Setback

Request:Variance of 5 feet for Lots 7-12, Block 5 to allow homes tobebuilt with a combinedside yard setback of 10 feet rather than 15 feet. The side yard setback requirement for the RBZoning District is a minimum of 5 feet from each side lot line, but there needs to be acombined total setback from side lot lines of 15 feet. In practice this allows a 10 foot wide sideyard on one side of the lot and a 5 foot side yard on the other. The extra space on one side ofth e h ouse g ives th e option of constructing a driveway for a detached garage in a rear yard.The purpose of the request is to allow an extra 5 feet of width so a home builder could havethe option of constructing an attached garage.Th e alternative to granting s ide setback variances for these lots would be to make them 5 feetwider. But, that would require the loss of a lot. Normally eliminating a lot would be thepreferred alternative. However, the proposed development density of 3 . 2 homes/ acre is lowcompared to the Comprehensive Plans target for this property. Th e target is a minimum of4.4 homes/ acre. Therefore, the loss of a lot exacerbates the density issue and consequentlyCty staff finds this variance reques t to be a reasonable solution to keeping the extra lot.


5/20


B. Civil EngineeringTh e Cty Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plans and o ffers the followingcommens:

1 . This development will be responsible for paying development impact fees.A) Trout Stream Mitigation Fee of $10,277.72 per acre for 17.5 acres =

179,860. 10. B) The Transportation Adequacy Fee of $17,600.20 per acre for17.5 acres = $ 308,003.50. C) Trunk sewer and water fees at a combinedcost of $13,338.53 per acre for 17.5 acres = $ 233,424.28. These fees will bedue prior to release of the final plat for recording with WashingtonCounty.

2. The pians do not show improvements to Marylane Avenue. But the streetis currently a gravel road and must be upgraded to a 30 foot paved widthwith this subdivision. The $308, 003 .50 Transportation Adequacy Feepayment can be credited for a large portion of the cost of the MarylaneAvenue improvements. The exact amount will be included in theDevelopment Agreement that will be part of the Final Plat review.

3. Th e Marylane sanitary sewer must be extended to the north en d of theproject site for future development in the area.

4. Stormwater Ponds 3P and 5P have 100 year elevations higher than theEOF. This must be corrected.

5. Stormwater Pond 1P must be redesigned.a. 100 yr High Water Level (HWL) is higher than the street elevation.The HWL must be lower than the street elevation by at least 1 . 5 feet.

b. The pond HWL must be a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of theroad (35 feet from centerline of Marylane).

6. Stormwater pond design must be based upon NOAA Atlas 14 statistics.7. Drainage maps must be submitted for areas outside of the project.

Previously published reports show that the drainage area to thedevelopment site is 40 plus acres, which is more than the stormwaterinfiltration improvements are designed to handle.

8. All of the stormwater infiltration basins must be privately maintained. AHome Owner' s Association will be required as will associated maintenancedocuments that will have to be filed in chain of title. These must besubmitted to th e Cty for approval of form an d content together with finalpatappicationmaterials

9. Street widths must be 30 feet from face of curb to face of curb.10. Th e grading pian needs to be revised to show a 2% minimum slope in all

backyard drainage swales.11. Replace the 12 cmp culvert under Marylanewith a rcp pipe. This will

match the n value used in the pond calculations.12. Consider extending pipe and outlet south and east from south side of

Summit Court.13. Washington County will have to approve any work along Manning

Avenue and McKusick Road.


6/20


Washington County Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary plat an dmade the following comments:1 . AWashington County right-of-way permit is required for an y work in theCSAR 15 ( Manning Avenue) right-of-way. This would include thelandscaping berms.2. AWashington County right-of-way permit is required in order to m a ke th econnection between the development trails a nd th e County' s regional trail

along Manning Avenue.3. The developer must submit the drainage report an d calculations to the County

for review of potential downstream impacts to the county drainage system.C. Tree Preservation & Landscaping

The Cty Forester, Kathy Widin, reviewed the grading and tree removal plan. Shenotes that most of the trees on this site were planted or are volunteer trees, and thesite does not constitute a native woodland. She o ffers the following comments:1 . Tree Removal and Replacement - 307 trees were surveyed on the property.Almost all trees o n th e list are defined by Cty Code as significant and thereforesubject to replacement. Of these trees, 215 are proposed to be removed (70%), 34trees are to be saved, and 58 trees are to be transplanted (mainly to the constructedberm along Manning Avenue). These last two categories represent trees to besaved' and make up 3 0 % of the trees on the site. The Tree and Forest Protectionordinance (31- 522) in the zoning code of the Cty of Stillwater, states that privatedevelopment may remove up to 35% of the existing tree cover withoutreplacement. Over 35% removal requires 1: 1 replacement. These trees wouldbeover and above any o ther trees required to be planted as part o f the sub -divisionordinance language. 35% removal would allow 108 trees to be removed, whereas215 are proposed for removal. Therefore 107 removed trees must be mitigated. Inaddition, the landscaping requirements for subdivision require three trees pe r lot,which means 165 trees for the 55 proposed lots. So both the tree replacement andlandscaping requirements equal a total developer obligation of 27 2 trees. Then otes o n th e preliminary plat submittal state that the developer an d builder wouldplant 4 trees/ lot for a total of 220 trees. In addition there will be 47 trees trans-planted o n th e Manning Avenueberm. This is a total of 267, which is sufficient tomeet the 272 tree planting requirement for both the tree protection and sub-division ordinances.

2. Landscape Plan - A landscape plan for the berm along Manning Ave has beensubmitted with the preliminary plat submittal. Th e plan for the berm looks fineand the new tree species proposed are acceptable. If the cedars listed for the bermare eastern red, Widin recommends the us e of the cultivar 'Techny'. The landscapeplan for the development, which is also the tree replacement plan, will besubmitted at a later date. Both plans should include Planting Detail showing hownew trees, both deciduous andconiferous, are to be planted. Details should alsobe included re: size of tree spade proposed to be used to transplant trees which areto be moved to the berm. Also needed will be text descr ibing how the


7/20


transplanted trees are to be cared for after planting. Species to be planted shouldbe native or 'near -native , and should be hardy and well -adapted to this area.Species should have few serious insect or disease problems which could limit theiruse fu lness and longevity in the landscape. Cultivated varieties may be used. Adiversity of species should be chosen to keep the plan sustainable.3. Tree Transplanting (Re -Location to Berm) - Trees moved from one area toanother on the site are considered 'saved' trees if they are in a healthy condition.They should be inspected before transplanting for any major insect or diseaseproblem which could compromise the tree' s ability to transplant successfully.Since some of the trees are quite large, after-care such as mulching after planting,and watering on a regular basis for several seasons of growth, will be veryimportant to survival of these trees. Several ash on site are proposed to betransplanted, but due to the presence of emerald ash borer in the Twin Cities area,these shouldNOT be transplanted. It has not been confirmed in WashingtonCounty yet, but it is only a matter of timebefore it' s here. Any as h trees nottreated with insecticide to protect them will be killed during the infestation.4. Tree Preservation - Trees to be saved (preserved) on the site should beevaluated for health and any potential risk factors before preservation. A treeprotection plan showing how these trees are to be protected during constructionshould be included in a later plan submittal.

The County ha s agreed that the developer will be permitted to continue thelandscaping berm and plantings found to the south. These will lie within theextra right-of-way purchased by the County.D. Park and Trail Dedication

The Comprehensive Plan' s park element shows no planned parks on or throughthe property. So, the contribution to the park system would likely have to be inthe form of a fee, which would be $2,000 per lot (a total of $110,000).

In terms of trails and sidewalks, sidewalks will be built throughout thesubdivision on one s ide of each street. These sidewalks will tie into the County' sregional trail along Manning Avenue. The developer will still be responsiblehowever for a 500 contribution pe r lot to the city' s public trail system. Though, itm ay be possible for the developer to construct a trail connection along MarylaneAvenue from the Brown' s Creek State Trail to the point where the development' ssidewalk system would terminate. If this were found desirable by the ParkCommission, the cost of this trail segment could be credited against the requiredtrail fee. The Park Commission will review the plans on June 23, 2014.

E. Environmental Issues

Wetlands - Th e property has no wetlands.


8/20


BCWD - Karen Kill, Brown' s Creek Watershed DistrictAdministrator, and theDistrict' s engineer have completed a preliminary pre -permit plan review of thedevelopment plans. Their comments follow:

Rule 2 . 0 - Stormwater Management triggered because the activity consists ofresidential subdivision or development of four or more lots.Rule 3 . 0 - Erosion Control triggered because the activity will involve grading orother land disturbing activities which will involve the movement of m ore than 50cubic yards of earth or removal of vegetative cover on 5,000 square feet or more ofland.

Rule 6.0 - Watercourse andBasin Crossings MAY be triggered if the culvertsunder Mary lane are being replaced as part of the project.Rule 7.0 - Floodplain and Drainage Alterations triggered because changes in landcontours will alter stormwater flows at the property boundaries, the diversion orobstruction of surface or charnel flowand the creation of basin outlets. As a result,the lowest floor elevations will have to be evaluatedagainst the 100 -year HWL ofall stormwater management facilities.Rule 8. 0 - Fees triggered because this is a private development.

Rule 9 . 0 - Sureties triggered by this activity.While conducting this preliminary review, the District Engineer also notedadditional i tems that will n ee d to be addressed by the Permit Applicant in order todemonstrate compliance with the District Rules. These items include:

1 . Th e soil m ap provided does not match the soils information containedin the Brown' s Creek Watershed Management Plan. This mappingdiscrepancy will have to be rectified.2 . Stormwater calculations have been run using the old TP 40 information.The HydroCAD model will have to be re -run using the recently publishedNOAAAtlas 14 Precipitation Frequency documents.3 . There appear to be some inconsistencies between the proposedconditions routing diagram and the grading plan. Is the raingarden in thenorthwestern corner of the grading plan included in the HydroCADmode?4. If the culvert under Marylane is not being replaced as part of thisproject , i ts exist ing hydraulic capacity will have to be evaluated to ensurethat it is being modeled in HydroCAD correctly.5 . Given the reliance on stormwater infiltration,a geotechnical evaluationmust be conducted and include soil borings in the location of allinfiltration basins an d raingardens being proposed on site.

Fo r all stormwater management facilities an d waterbody crossings to beconstructed and relied on by the applicant for compliance with Brown s CreekWatershed District regulatory requirements, the applicant will need to provide, forDistrict approval, a declaration or other recordable instrument stating terms for


9/20


access and ma in tenance o f such facilities and incorporating an enforceableobligation to the District to maintain such facilities.

RECOMMENDATION

Cty staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, variances, rezoning an d annexation withthe following conditions:The s ite shall be developed in substantial conformance with the following pians on filewith the Community Development Department, except as may be modified by theconditions herein:

Preliminary Plat dated 3/ 7/ 14Preliminary Plat Grading Plan dated 5/ 15/ 14Preliminary Plat Utility Plan dated5/ 15/ 14Berm & Screening Plan dated 5/ 14/ 14

2. The annexation, variances and rezoning will not take ef fec t until the final plat isapproved by the Cty Council.3. Th e annexation petition will not be considered approved, nor may it be filed with

Minnesota Municipal Board, until both the final plat and development agreement areapproved and executed by the Cty an d developer.

4. Cvil engineering pians submitted with final plat application materials must beconsistent with the Cty Engineer comments found in this report, a nd th e plans mustbe found satisfactory to the Cty Engineer.5. Th e developer shall submit a grading permit application to Brown' s Creek Watershed

District. Any permit conditions that the Cty Engineer finds necessary to include inthe final pian set shall be included in the final plat applicationpackage.

6. This development will be responsible for paying $2, 500 per lot to the Cty for park andtrail dedication fees. These fees may be reduced by crediting trail construction costs iffound acceptable to th e Park Commiss ion an d Cty Council an d thereafter included inthe Development Agreement associated with this plat. These fees will be due prior torelease of the final plat from the Cty for recording with Washington County.

7. All electrical and communications utility lines shall be buried. This shall be specif iedin the pians submitted for final plat approval.

8. Stormponds should be designedto reflect the new rainfall data from NationalWeather Service Atlas 14.

9. This development will be responsible for paying the Trout Stream Mitigation Fee of10, 277. 70 pe r acre; the Transportation Adequacy/ Mitigation Fee of $17,600. 20 peracre; and trunk sewer and water fees of a total of $13,338.53 per acre. The

Transportation Adequacy/ Mitigation fee m ay be reduced by crediting MarylaneAvenue improvement construction costs if found acceptable to the Cty Council an dthereafter included in the Development Agreement associated with this plat. Thesefees will be due prior to release of the final plat from the Cty for recording withWashington County.

10. A landscaping/ tree planting pian consistent with the Cty Forester' s reviewcomments must be submitted together with the final plat application materials.

11. Home Owner' s Association documents including stormwater facilities maintenancemust be submitted with final plat application for approval by the Cty. Whenapproved by the Cty, they must be filed together with the final plat.


10/20


12. Th e developer shal l submit right-of-way permit application(s ) to Washington Countyfor an y work within County right-of -ways, including connection( s ) to County trails.

cc Chris Aamodt

Attachments: Zoning & Location MapManning Setback DetailDevelopment Plans


11/20

Q Um a+ ( 6

6 E nO QN

C . 2 m m m w c w 0[ I f - . p Y om- o a s a s us me m m

a 0 5 . 4 . ci o C a w _ o o w 0 o aaa. E ` o ff as LQ . co C m = = m m m U w w L dd M N ` ' L L L Lo - o o o o L m 2 w w ' . c m Q d N m a sV - mC) U U o2SU a s = m m m ( LLy m SD UO- O r= m V

3 a a m U S U U m a U a a a[ Q R o 0 wQ [ If [ If H J U U U U F - - [ I f [ If U U > m m m U d d d M LN b N ' . ' ' . 2 Q i a s ; ' . ' ti 1 rV d i ' , . 7

o s s z 1 1 S I55

0 6 9 Z I

4 p

099Z

S V . .R -A

o k ez Ut z e z E e , , + m f r , ri ,.+ . ,,^' ^,

ar sr lsr1 . - .ars rt osezl ,,. 5 1 x 9G R 1 2 5 & 1 2 5 5 g I t ,I I l o 9 g 1 2 8 5 z s a ` 11 = e U: t

hY

N ^ ' i ` , w . , i ' ^ , . . , . 2 s s y y5 6 r , , . d L ` ` v iozzzl

V I I Iu w a mnm da w a u k w r r Ou w o w r r m m m da iu' m m d m m m d ry u u m 0 1 1 1 1 i U

61 z

tQ r

00o o h . . 0 c ) . . . .H { 4 y.... 4 1 N 9 . n*

b im r n a , r

L S

g 4i

L O , 0 0 2 m a a 0 m I b ' I b

0 0 1 lf) (`) 0 0 0 oo i o 0 o n 0 0 0 0 . o o g o o . ' i, 0 0 0 . o o o. o o I l b o o 0 0 0 i ,uo ON Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M .................u w u u m m i . . . r v r v uuw m u u u m n m n m m l m a s m m u m ; . u u w m a s w .

I WH l? J ON 3 f 1 N 3 A V ` J N I N N H W HVS H 1 2 1 N 3iNL3 J N I N N H W S L H V S

N O41 n Ow

a OJN

V

Q Um a+ ( 6Q

6 E nO QN

C . 2 m m m w c w 0[ I f - . p Y om- o a s a s us me m m

a 0 5 . 4 . ci o C a w _ o o w 0 o aaa. E ` o ff as LQ . co C m = = m m m U w w L dd M N ` ' L L L Lo - o o o o L m 2 w w ' . c m Q d N m a sV - mC) U U o2SU a s = m m m ( LLy m SD UO- O r= m V

3 a a m U S U U m a U a a a[ Q R o 0 wQ [ If [ I f H J U U U U F - - [ If [ If U U > m m m U d d d M LN b N ' . ' ' . 2 Q i a s ; ' . ' ti 1 rV d i ' , . 7

o s s z 1 1 S I55

0 6 9 Z I

4p

099Z

S V . . -A

o k ez Ut z e z E e , , + m f r , ri ,.+ . ,,^' ^,

ar s r lsr1 . - .ars rt osezl ,,. 5 1 x 9G R 1 2 5 & 1 2 5 5 g I t ,I I l o 9 g 1 2 8 5 z s a ` 11 = eU: t

hY

N ^ ' i ` , w . , i ' ^ , . . , . 2 s s y y 5 6 r , , . d L ` ` v iozzzl

V I I Iu w a mn m da w a u k w r r Ou w o w r r m m m da iu' m m d m m m d ry u u m 0 1 1 1 1 i U

61 z

tQ r

00o o h . . 0 c ) . . . .H { 4 y.... 4 1 N 9 . n*

b im r n a , r

L S

g 4i

L O , 0 0 2 m a a 0 m I b ' I b

0 0 1 lf) (`) 0 0 0 oo i o 0 o n 0 0 0 0 . o o g o o . ' i, 0 0 0 . o o o . o o I l b o o 0 0 0 i ,uo ON Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M .................u w u u m m i . . . r v r v uuw m u u u m n m n m m l m a s m m u m ; . u u w m a s w .

I WH l? J O N 3 f 1 N 3 A V ` J N I N N H W HVS H 1 2 1 N 3iNL3 J N I N N H W S L H V S


12/20


13/20

Preliminary Plat of Rutherford StationAdditional Information and DiscussionAccording to the requirements of SECTION 3 2 of the Cty of Stillwater code of ordinances, thefollowing information must be provided. Th e section references are from Section 32 , Subd. 5.

9) Wetland plan. A wetland delineation was performed in 2005. That delineationdetermined there were no wetlands on the site. Due to the passage of time, a newwetland delineation must be performed. That will be done when the delineatordetermines the site is suitable for a new investigation.However, if the new delineation finds wetlands exist, the requirements of article ( 9)will be followed in addition to other applicable rules and regulations.

11) Landscape plan. The landscape plan will be prepared after review and approval of thepreliminary plat an d will include the following:a. Property l ines.b. Existing and proposed contours and berming at two -foot contour intervals.c. Location, type and size of existing plant material.d. Proposed lots, p av ed a re as including streets and sidewalks and pathways, an d

screening from Manning Ave. The plan for screening from Manning Ave issubmitted with this preliminary plat application.

e. It is expected the site will be m as s graded and substantially al l of the existing treeswill be removed or disturbed during construction. However, efforts will be madeto protect as many trees as possible and that will be shown on the final gradingpans

f. The location, type, size and number of proposed plant materials will bedetermined when the final grading plans are prepared. The requirements of thesubdivision ordinance will be met regarding new tree planting. Subdivision 6 ( 3 ) q1 . Of the subdivision ordinance requires three street trees per lot. Due to thenarrower width of many of these lots, it is recommended that two trees per lot onthe front and one or two more on the corner side of lots be planted with onemore tree planted in a rear area of each lot as proposed by the home builder.

g. All areas disturbed by grading will be seeded except those areas which are soddedsuch as adjacent to curbs and sidewalks or those areas left undisturbed.

h. A berm an d screening plan is submitted for the area abutting Manning Ave. Theberm will vary from 3 % to 4 % feet high and will be planted with a mixture ofconiferous and deciduous trees.

Page 1


14/20


15/20

Our proposal is that a condition of approval would be to grant administrativeauthority to city staff to reduce the combined sideyard setback to ten feet but notless than five feet each side, which could only be granted if a proposed housecould not fit on a lot with standard setbacks by arrangement of the house locationon the lot, such as increasing the front setback on a fan -shaped lot.

f. There are no environmental reports required by the state environmental qualityboard ( EQB).

g. Our estimate of the traffic expected to be generated by the development is about550 trips per day. We expect this to us e Marylane and McKusick Road with about1/ 3 of the trips on McKusick Road to the east and 2/ 3 to the west and then northor south on Manning Ave.

h. The expected fire protection needs are those typical to a single family residentialneighbohoodNone of this site falls within the jurisdiction of shoreland, floodplain riverwaybluffland/ shoreland, historic preservation, forest protection, or restrictive soils onwetlandreguations

Page 3


16/20

C ) Z > WU_ uvzZO o w_ E>

6000 Q6 O_Q 8 & o s f p Q 0000 2 x3 03 ososW z3 a $ > ZJ 3 a rnmnm W6000 isO x oa F Q u m ZBV u u u U N 3 > , + mm u o m2 iaia u -

a a a o Qa 4 U

u

P

37

c

m

3 qBZ6Bn

L a m / A O iii rn Am z

r

P fir epi wza o

rr i -e /

V41/i ma apav

AsQ % oiiai iaa e r r % & % i o0 0/R IO C

01

b nj of

n

n. a

4

1/

rJ .. b o

i

aw

p0 Ym ; u0o o> o ,e,. rrr m 4 m 4 mb r. i z or%%orw /,r/ 3m6E ZE 6BSae mm se ai . axu-. n anmm v. v aamm CT CM eLy., eM Q a iru Orcz Ccz oyez o wa9 oN' a a l noS N as isn i v > ~ ttt-

dda

o


17/20

T

Jul

I f

a Iii

2T

920.0 II920-I

Ill

7avbu M31snmow J


18/20

1 77

LLLLU,o z

0

MR S

j

133' 1S IHDIHM

myI E ano iwwns

w --- ..............le- NAMM W 7 7ZF7


19/20

C ) Z 1 z 0000 wu

Lr'

a^=,,

a_

a,._,-.

e .

w

mo _

O.

r j

-n inJ'Ii;a O u d zoar.x N x u1JOO

C

o

o

w

a

w-

xzkl,

w

t

x

x

w

Z Q

wa zz

w0t p po_ a a e r . o0000 2-osos0 >rn m WZ

ZOw

I _7/ oa

Ol3NV71/VPV17S'ftSmto- v

au- rle01, b

b a a iuOz/t r%m%

ff

LA Io

d v r to wat

49 : ON Ob ANf10J ' g --Nw w . . e a a

0


20/20

o ZlI t la iu s 1 1 - ONIN33HOSV

33HS SNOISIn36

I JM nn a M M L l I I II 1O I 9D o -

4 0 1 ,

3O

u d w d r o o i a o n 9 a Y % m o m

oz 401

oz 3 0 t i 3 1 d '

o f d ld dv a ll/3, v S A l d d v e w

d9 EJ L 3nad9

i9 4 a

E 3ddl W I N , Z 3 0 f Y y d SldlWS E 1 3 0 f 7 2 1 3 1 y ( 1

3 n N 3 n V O N I N N V W

9L HS V

8 9 0 0 1 A, 15 9

aroe do

5

0n

6{ l o n - T

H$ tl SE l o n a do-

W

bL 3ddl

d' dW 3 N I d h o

s s z d' aANI Nl

Q

bt 3ddb ' T

O

s n O N i W n l i e

tit 3ddb Z

a

f _OE 3onadSI9LN I d b

u d w d r o o i a o n 9 a Y % m o m

1 1 1 1 1 O N - Oe a b / b / SO 3 1 V O

oz 3 0 t i 3 1 d '

w

AN

l

wo a sw@ L a p a u a g a p f

i9 4 a

S%-' V 1 0 S A N N I W AO

A aZ HSl

3 n N 3 n V O N I N N V W

9L HS V

8 9 0 0 1 A, 15 9

U aldlW E A vA 5

Hstl 6{ l o n - T

H$ tl SE l o n a do-

W

d' dW 3 N I d h o

s s z d' aANIl

Q7 > oLu J C C Z

s n O N i W n l ie

a

ON

SL 3

E OOON\SStle EEA vW bZadl pd

31Jfd,;a

O

L ( )

O

Q . ,

t ; W,

1 H J 1 2 33E 3 l d b W S

1 1 1 11 O N - Oea b / b / SO 3 1 V OAN woa sw@ L a p a u a g a p fS%-' V 1 0 S A N N I W AO 991, 106- LS9

3nN3nVONINNVW e1V1SAHAOSMVA iHAGNnHAANIONe 89001 A, 159GAHAS IOea AInOV WV I1VH1 oNVVildVOXI0HO NOISInHAdns 103aIo AN HAGNn a0 eW AeOAWdAHdSVM iaodAHHONOI1VoHIoeds

N d SIH11VH1 AA IiHAO AeeaeHJaaulbu3 IINO pa$ua9I

3 d SWYapauagaa' dsawep

O

L ( ) NO

Q . ,

t ; W,

1 H J 1 2 33E 3 ld bW S

U )0 Z

D Zm O L, Z J z w J a

rq U Fw w O O w a Um m Z N > ( Ca O

zU = W W Y : E~O is Z Q ( 7 O Y U Q 2 Q O OWZ wwjy m wL L ~E O z w oLOw 0 O W D : EJ U ) OOYW 7 Z W v U)m Z u z W Fz b a a O U m Z Ua z a O W Uw wzaw O o O m JmZ OO , z m z r n L L L iO F z OWz Uz ` OOF Z

o w o o = w z 7 z O O p zW O W O U = o w p Um ( 7 mzwUziO z O in w QL L

Qw U ) - ,3 O zo Eww o O o w z 0 z o o 0rZv Z6 rom

a

OZzw W W Fw WZ z Q

7 > oLu J C C Z a2ma

ON

W

OaL L L L DAUO Z t/

U)w vryzX L L UF-O n

Qaa nJIl AVM W1HOI ry

L. . l_

U )0 Z

D Zm O L, Z J z w J a

rq U Fw w O O w a Um m Z N > ( Ca O

zU = W W Y : E~O is ZQ (7 O Y U Q 2 Q O OWZ wwjy m wL L ~E O z w oLOw 0 O W D : EJ U ) OOYW 7 Z W v U)m Z u z W Fz b a a O U m Z Ua z a O W Uw wzaw O o O m JmZ OO , z m z r n L L L iO F z OWz Uz ` OOF Z

o w o o = w z 7 z O O p zW O W O U = o w p Um ( 7 m zwUziO z O in w QL L

Qw U ) - ,3 O zo Ew w o O o w z 0 z o o 0rZv Z6 rom

Rutherford Station

Documents

Transcript of Rutherford Station