Loading...
CAS-03_KENYON BLUFF - FILE 1 OF 2CITY OF CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1160 FAX (952) 227-1170 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 10/6/04 Sue Nelson TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU Z Attached ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change Order Vac. Vacation oy-a3 the following items: ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Pay Request ❑ _ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 5/6/04 Certification of Resolution #2004-20 1 4/12/04 Vacation Resolution #2004-20 1 Legal description of vacated right-of-way THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ® For Review & recording ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS Here are the items to be recorded for the Oak Grove right-of-way vacation. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call. Thanks. COPY TO: Dan Remer, Eng. Tech III Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner SIGNED: �rllT.�Ili1�f M tt Saam, 52) 227-1164 If enclosures are not as noted, k/ndly nodly us at once r CERTIFICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, duly appointed, qualified and acting Deputy City Clerk for the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of Resolution 2004-20, A Resolution Vacating a Portion of Oak Grove Avenue Right -of -Way — Vacation File No. 04-02 with the original minutes of the proceeding of the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, at their session held on the 12'" day of April 2004 now on file in my office, and have found the same to be a true and correct copy thereof and as approved by the City Council. Witness my hand and official seal at Chanhassen, Minnesota, this 6's day of May 2004. c �-c�cii wren T&gelhar6l Deputy Clerk CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: April 12, 2004 RESOLUTION NO: 200420 MOTION BY: Peterson SECONDED BY: Avotte A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF OAK GROVE AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY — VACATION FILE NO. 04-02 WHEREAS, the city received a request from Tom Rollings, CBR Development to vacate an existing portion of Oak Grove Avenue; and WHEREAS, no street exists in that area so therefore, the right-of-way is not needed; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council approves a resolution vacating a portion of Oak Grove Avenue right-of-way subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the city with the legal description of the vacated right-of-way. 2. The applicant shall dedicate atypical drainage and utility easement over a portion of the vacated portion. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 12`s day of April 2004. ATTEST: -� , -'�l '/J� Todd Gerhardt, City Manager YES Furlong Labatt Lundquist Ayotte Peterson IQL�� Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor NO ABSENT None None Legal Description of Vacated Right -of -Way for Oak Grove Avenue: That part of Oak Grove Avenue, as dedicated in the plat of PLEASANT VIEW, lying westerly of the northerly extension of the East line of Lot 1, PLEASANT VIEW, Carver County, Minnesota, and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwesterly comer of Lot 2, PLEASANT VIEW, Carver County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of North 36 degrees 32 minutes 29 seconds East, along the westerly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 275.20 feet to the southerly line of said Oak Grove Avenue; thence North 41 degrees 52 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 15.00 feet to the northerly line of said Oak Grove Avenue and said line there terminating. RECEIPT CITYOF 690 CITY CENTER DRI9- P.O. BOX 147 ;�I HMSENn PHONE: (952) 937-190055317 317-1 90017 IECEIVED OF l 61� I - ' l( n IQoT DATE No. 77403 UtYUIT IHh tiUHLH Planning Commissionlummary — March 16, 2004 0Lt-b 1. The primary zone boundary shall be amended to include the wooded area in the rear (westemmost) portion of Lot 4. 2. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the primary zone. All structures shall maintain at least a 40 foot setback from the primary zone. No disturbance of the site shall occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. Open space shall comprise 100% of the primary zone." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 2.1 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES: LOTS 1 & 2 PLEASANT VIEW, 400 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, KEN -YON BLUFF, CBR DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE #0403. Public Present: Name Address Jacie & Max Hurd Sandy Olson Maryevelyn Monty Larry Tivy Tom Rollings Don & Darlene Miller Mary Ann & Gary McCauley Nick Perkins Katrina Clemens 6695 Horseshoe Curve 6696 Horseshoe Curve 370 Pleasant View Road 370 Pleasant View Road 4550 Wesson Lane 395 Pleasant View Road 420 Pleasant View 339 Pleasant View Road 6691 Horseshoe Curve Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification on curb and gutter requirement and the 10 percent grade of the driveway. Commissioners Slagle and Claybaugh asked staff about their concern with the location and grade of the access onto Pleasant View Road. Chairman Sacchet asked staff to clarify their concerns with the proposed grading in the rear yard areas of Lots 1 and 2, house pad placement and the use of retaining walls. The applicant, Tom Rollings, CBR Development, 4550 Weston Lane, Plymouth and Tom Goodrum with Schoell & Madsen addressed concerns brought up by the Planning Commission regarding grading and tree preservation, slope and drainage from the driveway, and the placement of the access onto Pleasant View Road. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Larry Tivy, 370 Pleasant View Road is the adjacent property owner to this site. He expressed concern with the vacancy of Oak Grove Street and the placement of the home on Lot I in relationship to his home. Gary McCauley, 420 Pleasant View Road stated he 0 • Planning Commissiontummary —March 16, 2004 was Lots 3 and 4, so he was familiar with the steep driveways. His concern was erosion with the elimination of trees. Sandy Olson, 6696 Horseshoe Curve, which is located between the catch basin and the pond, was concerned with runoff and speeds on Pleasant View Road. Don Miller, 395 Pleasant View Road commented that when they built in 1992, the park commission took an easement for a proposed trail, which he thought he had been told by Mr. Hoffman has been abandoned and he could have that right-of-way back. He expressed concern with the traffic, speed and accidents that occur in his yard, the accuracy of the survey, and the size of the proposed houses. Maryevelyn Monty, 370 Pleasant View Road stated her concern about the size of the proposed homes. Jacie Hurd, 6695 Horseshoe Curve was concerned with the safety on Pleasant View Road and suggested installing a sidewalk, enforce the no parking and striping of Pleasant View Road. Mary Ann McCauley, 420 Pleasant View Road was tremendously dismayed over the thought of 3 houses being placed on this property and concern with the added traffic. Nick Perkins, 339 Pleasant View Road stated it's obvious there's concern with traffic but wanted to remind the commission that Horseshoe Lane and Horseshoe Curve also intersect at that point and the need for regulation. He was also concerned with drainage across his property. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive after hearing the neighbors comments she cited Chapter 18, Subdivision, Section 40, unless waived by the city the plat should show the location of building and structures within 150 feet. Also Section 20, Zoning, 58 under variance. A variance may be granted if all the following criteria are met. Number 6 is that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public street or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public, safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive asked if condition number 4 stating that the granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan had been removed from the code. Katrina Clemens, 6691 Horseshoe Curve asked for clarification regarding the use of a private drive to increase the size of a house that can be placed on the property. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing and brought the issue back to the Planning Commission for additional discussion and comments. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 04-03 for Kenyon Bluff for 3 lots and a variance to allow a private street as shown on the plans received February 26, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. Applicant shall submit landscape plan showing the 16 trees required to be planted. Trees shall meet minimum size requirements. b. Minimum bufferyard planting requirements for Lot 3 includes 2 overstory trees, 4 understory trees and 9 shrubs. C. Tree preservation fence shall be installed prior to grading at the perimeter of the grading limits. 10 Planning Commissionfummary —March 16, 2004 d. Any trees not shown for removal that are lost due to construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 2. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on two of the three lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family home on the property. The park fee on two single family homes totals $5,600 and is payable at the time of platting. 3. Submit a 30 -foot wide private cross -access easement against all three lots at time of final plat recording. 4. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, MN Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calculations and drainage map for staff review and approval at time of final plat. 6. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall more than 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will require a building permit through the City s Building Department. 7. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. 8. Show all of the existing and proposed utility easements on the utility plan. 9. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show a minimum 75 -foot rock construction entrance. d. Extend the silt fence along the south and southwesterly sides. 10. Add to the plans the following notes: a. Any connection to existing manholes or catch basins must be core drilled. b. All sanitary services must be 6" PVC-SDR26 and water services 1" copper. 11. On Lot 1, the house pad must be raised one foot in elevation to better facilitate drainage away from the house. 12. On Lot 2, 10:1 slope must be used for the first 15 feet off the rear house pad along with a 4 -foot retaining wall. 13. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic 11 1" • • Planning Commission Summary —March 16, 2004 control plan. 14. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for water -main. 15. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 16. The private street must be built to a 7 -ton design. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 17. The existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed. 18. Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: a. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. b. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. c. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. I All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: T e of Sloe Stabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. e. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. f. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $6,860. 12 • • Planning Commission Summary — March 16, 2004 g. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 19. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval. b. A 10 -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c. No burning permits will be issued for tree/shrub disposal. Any trees removed must be removed or chipped on site. 20. Building Official Conditions: a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. b. A building permit must be obtained to construct any retaining walls over 4 feet tall. c. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 21. Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation of the right-of-way. 22. Access to all three lots shall be limited to the Private Street. Direct access is prohibited off of Pleasant View Road." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. In summary Commissioner Feik added that the variance being requested is done so at the request of the city. Chairman Sacchet stated the main concerns by the Planning Commission were the proximity of the house on Lot I to the neighbor to the north, drainage and steepness of the driveway, safety on Pleasant View Road in terms of speed, no parking signage, no sidewalk, and tree preservation. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING. OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE. THESE CHANGES AFFECT ARTICLES I THROUGH XXXI OF THE CHAPTER AND ARE INTENDED TO UPDATE AND CONSOLIDATE THE ENTIRE ZONING ORDINANCE. 13 • • b4-°3 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit #2003-6 for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. The primary zone boundary shall be amended to include the wooded area in the rear (westernmost) portion of Lot 4. 2. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the primary zone. All structures shall maintain at least a 40 foot setback from the primary zone. No disturbance of the site shall occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. Open space shall comprise 100% of the primary zone." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: We'll take a 5 minute recess. We'll continue at a quarter to 9:00. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 2.1 ACRES 114TO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES: LOTS 1 & 2 PLEASANT VIEW: 400 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD; KENYON BLUFF, CBR DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE #04-03. Public Present: Name Address Jacie & Max Hurd Sandy Olson Maryevelyn Monty Larry Tivy Tom Rollings Don & Darlene Miller Mary Ann & Gary McCauley Nick Perkins Katrina Clemens 6695 Horseshoe Curve 6696 Horseshoe Curve 370 Pleasant View Road 370 Pleasant View Road 4550 Weston Lane, Plymouth 395 Pleasant View Road 420 Pleasant View 339 Pleasant View Road 6691 Horseshoe Curve Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Bruce. Feik: I'll start. The abandonment is really a housekeeping issue. This could go forward without the abandonment? They don't need the square footage. Al-Jaff: That's true. 42 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 • Feik: Had this come in not with a private street, 3 separate dwellings with driveways, irrespective of how many trees they're going to knock down but 3 private driveways off of a collection, Pleasant View I guess and I guess it's all Pleasant View by the time you're done, or maybe a piece off Horseshoe. The applicant would really be allowed to move forward on that assuming that we could meet the tree coverage issues and there's no real restrictions on that development to bring in that way. Bringing it this way gives us some additional tools to work with the applicant to protect the site more than it otherwise would be able to, correct? AI -Jaffa That is correct. Feik: That's my questions for staff at this point. Sacchet: Okay Bruce. Any other questions from staff? You got any Steve? Lillehaug: Well real quick ones. On the Klingelhutz development they have a concrete curb and gutter and this one there's bit curb. What's? Saam: We do require concrete curb and gutter on private streets, if I'm not mistaken so that will have to be concrete. Lillehaug: Alright. That's easy. 10 percent on the grade of the driveway, that's pretty much maximum, right? Saam: Correct. Lillehaug: Okay, that's it. I don't have any. Sacchet: Craig? Rich, any questions? Slagle: I had one. With respect to the driveway, and I don't know if it's an engineering question or Sharmeen, if you can answer it. I drive that road, if not every day, almost every day. And that location you're going down a hill, if you're traveling from east to west, and with a 10 degree grade, I would, it's going to be a delicate position for that driveway. I mean am I fair to say that there's probably some concerns? Saam: Yes. I will add there's a flat spot at, they are putting in a flat spot of 30 feet where it connects with Pleasant View so it's not steep all the way to Pleasant View. There will be a place for cars to stop, and that's the same requirement that the city requires on public streets, is a 3 percent flat spot. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Craig, any questions from staff? U] Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 • Claybaugh: Yes, just a second. Any concerns, I'm on sheet 4 of 6 with lot number 3. You've got 10 percent grade coming off that driveway. You've got house elevation of 964 where the driveway is coming in intersecting with the road. It looks like you're at 963. Just in terms of how those driveways are going to come in, what that grade is going to be like. I mean they're going to want to flatten out that driveway in there, the 10 percent grade on whether it's a 20 foot wide driveway. You look at how some of those are going to come together? Saam: Yes. We pointed that out that Lot 3 does have a 10 percent driveway onto a 10 percent driveway, so it's rather steep. Really the only way around that, well maybe they can move the house back to gain some length to make the slope not as steep. Claybaugh: Increase the run. Saam: Yeah. The only other way that that we came up with is maybe a small retaining wall along, I'll call it the east side, or the side yard of Lot 3 where it matches with Lot 2. Then they could lower that house down so it wouldn't have to come up as fast. Claybaugh: Okay. And no concerns with respect to the street elevation and the house elevation there? Saam: Well there's concern. I guess it's meeting our maximum though so we can't deny it. However we have recommended that they look at some alternatives. But 10 percent onto a 10 percent is a concern. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the comments, or questions I have. Sacchet: I have two questions. It relates to the report on page 5. You talk about that staff is concerned with the proposed grading in the rear yard areas of Lots 1 and 2. It points out there's a steep slope of 3 to 1 in the rear yard of Lot 1, which drains toward the house pad. And that the recommendation is that either the house pad be raised 1 foot in elevation or that a small 2 to 3 foot retaining wall be installed. I want to make sure I understand what exactly we are recommending and what kind of impact that has. In this case, and also in the second case where there, it is pointed out in the rear yard of Lot 2 it's very steep. It's a vertical drop off over 20 feet from the house pad to Pleasant View Road and that staff recommends to make a flatter 10 to 1 slope be used for the first 15 feet of the rear yard of that house pad along with the 4 foot retaining wall. I'd like to understand very clearly what those two recommendations are and what kind of impact that has in terms of possibly requiring for trees to be cut down and so forth. Is that a Matt question? Yes I would think so. Saam: Yes. In each of those it's my opinion that no further trees will have to come out than what they're showing here. Sacchet: So yeah, like specifically like for instance in the rear yard of house 1, I guess that's a silt fence. Already kind of curse around one of the trees there, which actually V1 Planning Commission tting — March 16, 2004 • makes me wonder what the probability of that tree surviving in the first place. Now if we have additional construction there with retaining wall, what have you, you don't think that that's. Saam: I guess if it got into the root structure then it could potentially damage the trees. Sacchet: But whereabouts would you see that retaining wall? Saam: Just inside the silt fence line. Sacchet: Just inside the silt fence line, okay. Okay. And then on the other one which is Lot 2. Saam: In about the same area as the silt fence. So not going any farther back to where the trees are. Sacchet: ...yeah okay. Saam: Do you understand the recommendation why? To give the future residents a little bit of a usable back yard versus having to... Sacchet: Which makes certainly a lot of sense. I mean that's very understandable. Okay. Alright, that's my question. With that I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and tell us any additional information that you'd like to present to us. State your name and address for the record. Tom Rollings: My name is Tom Rollings with CBR. Sacchet: Would you mind to pull the mic towards you please. Tom Rollings: I'm Tom Rollings with CBR Development, 4550 Weston Lane in Plymouth. This is Tom Goodrum. He's also with Schoell and Madsen. I think I'm addressing the first question you had Lot 1. We would probably try to raise the pad first, which. Sacchet: Makes more sense. Tom Rollings: It would have less impact on any future problem with that tree you're referring to so, and I think on Lot 2, it's not, it shouldn't affect any trees, if we had that retaining wall, which is fine. Sacchet: Okay, good. Tom Rollings: If you have any questions. Sacchet: Any questions from the applicant? 45 Planning Commission Meeting —March 16, 2004 • Lillehaug: Sure, I have questions with your driveways. Do you intend of trying to provide some flat spots on, maybe tweaking the grades here and there to minimize 10 percent driveway grades? Tom Rollings: We will. We did what we could to get to meet the requirements at this point. The nice thing about a custom home pad, we'll be able to tweak them as we go through the grading process. Lillehaug: How about the construction on the storm sewer across Pleasant View Road and Horseshoe Lane. Obviously you have good intentions on fully reconstructing the streets that are damaged and ripped up and meet the existing pavement depths and all that when you go through there. You have to use high standards to get Pleasant View back up to par. Do you, and then my last question, and then I'm done. Vacating that north portion, do you plan on taking the whole vacated swath there or having the one half go to the north property and the other half would go to your property? Tom Rollings: I think we have to take. John Goodrum: What happens with the vacation, we're looking at it right now. Once you vacate a piece of property it goes back to the original property that it came from and in review of our initial review of this subdivision, that entire Oak Grove Avenue was part of this subdivision and so it appears at this time in our surveyor's have taken a closer look at it, that the entire road will come back to this property as part of the vacation. Lillehaug: Okay. Tom Rollings: We were planning on taking half because we just assumed it. Tom Goodrum: Yeah, because it's still between the two parcels but. Tom Rollings: And we don't care either way but then he found out that it was originally belonging to the property anyway. Tom Goodrum: The property to the north was not part of the original plat when that right-of-way was originated from. Lillehaug: I guess I do have one more. Do you have any comments on the percent to remain in place with the trees versus what's required? It's less than what's required of 35 percent and then mitigation of the trees. Do you plan on lessening that at all to try to, I think it's 35 percent required, is that not right Bob? Tom Rollings: For the tree count? Lillehaug: Yep. Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 • Tom Goodrum: We have provided a revised tree canopy and tree count and in working with the city staff, agreed to a calculation that we would need to add 16 trees to this site as part of the trees that are being removed and we are willing to do that. I don't know if there's enough room to put 16 trees on that remaining area but we'll find room for them. Lillehaug: That's all I have of the developer. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any other questions from the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah, question. On that sheet 5 of 6 on the preliminary utility. I should have probably asked this of staff but while you're up with your engineer I'll ask, and if Matt has some comments. You've just got, as I read it, two catch basins at the bottom of the private drive. On a 10 percent slope grade. Tom Goodrum: That's correct. Claybaugh: Okay. Do you think it'd be advisable to possibly position some catch basins up for, to try to mitigate the degree of water or the runoff that's going to be coming down that private drive? I guess my thought is by the time it hits the bottom of that at a 10 percent slope on a good rain, it's going to blow right through that. So you're going to be coming down a 10 percent grade with a 20 foot flat spot, hydroplaning just, you understand where I'm going with this? Tom Goodrum: I understand the question and we were about to go with the catch basins down below there. The amount of water is going to be in that small of a private drive... flat spot towards the bottom of that road. We were comfortable with the catch basins, the two basins to be able to handle the drainage coming off that road. We could again talking with staff... Tom Rollings: We could certainly re -look at that if that's. Claybaugh: Yeah, it's certainly a concern to me... That's all the questions I have. Slagle: I've got a couple. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: And dove tailing with Craig's comments, and Matt address this to you as well. I would encourage, assuming this goes through, I would encourage you to go a little further west on Pleasant View where there's new construction, a couple big homes, because going directly to Craig's point, there was a rain a few weeks ago that actually caused a puddle that took half of Pleasant View because of that private drive at that house. Tom Rollings: I saw that, yeah. I know where you mean. FE Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 • Slagle: So, and I'm going to guess that's probably the same type of grade that you're looking at as well. So if you can just spend time with staff, that would be appreciated. And then I'm going to ask one last question for just your thoughts on the placement of this private street, and I'm not sure there's, I can come up with a better place, but I just want to hear from you, are you aware that because of the tum and being situated on the northern side of Pleasant View, that there is, that you run some risks as a homeowner going left or right out of that property. I mean your sight lines are not ideal. Tom Rollings: Exactly. We've looked at that very sensitively. It is where it needs to, we've looked at a lot of different opportunities. A lot of different options for that and I think it's the best. Saam: Yeah, we did, staff had wanted, what staff had directed the applicant to do was to move the private street either as far east or as far north and west as he could, to get away from this curve because that's really, when you're in the center of the curve like that, that's the bad spot. And it's my understanding in looking at the grading plan, because of grades, they're constrained to, I mean they're at 10 percent right now. If they keep going to the east where it drops off more, they're going to go over 10 percent so. Slagle: Is there anything, and direct it to staff, is there anything again from signage or, is there anything that we could put somewhere around there, because I'm again traveling that as much as I do, I'm just trying to think of taking a left you know and not being totally aware of what you're doing and having a car come, going 40 miles an hour around that curve, so I'm just wondering, have we explored all options? Saam: We could certainly have a blind entrance, a hazardous driveway and that signed and so. As far as the speed, I would hope nobody would be going 40 around that tight of curve. I would hope so. Slagle: That's it. Sacchet: Questions from the applicant? No one? One question I have, and I know it was a good answer. I mean I see you, and I touched on that before. I see you're silt fence kind of circling around a bunch of trees and that kind of makes me wonder what the probability is of these trees actually reasonably have a chance to survive. It looks like overall you're trying to be minimizing the grading, which I think is certainly good. Tom Goodrum: If I could add. It's our practice, and what we always do with the silt fencing is, not only use it as a, for erosion control but also the tree preservation fence line. And so when you have your contractors out there with their trucks, that orange fence really helps identifying what areas to stay out of and what, and to avoid so we do use the silt fencing as actual tree preservation so we do locate them outside the canopies of the trees so we are protecting those trees when we put those fences. That's why they curve around there. M Planning Commission Me ting — March 16, 2004 • Sacchet: Yeah, and the grading wouldn't really allow you to take, give them a little more space, those trees. I mean in some cases literally it goes zig zagging around the trees, which I mean I appreciate your effort to try to save them but is it really going to do the job if you don't give them a little more space. That's my concern. Tom Goodrum: We've identified this as, because our intent is to put the silt fencing where they're placed to protect the trees. Sacchet: Okay, and you're working with the City Forester on that? Tom Goodrum: Yes we will. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, alright. I think that's all the questions we have for you two. Thank you. Tom Goodrum: ...it was 4 or 5 months working on this. We do appreciate your efforts. Tom Rollings: Yes we do. Slagle: They're a good staff. Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing. I'd like to open this for comments from anybody who'd like to come forward to address this item. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say please. Larry Tivy: My name is Larry Tivy. I'm at 370 Pleasant View Road and I'm right adjacent to the property that Mr. Rollings is planning on developing. I came up to the city hall right after the property had been purchased and did some inquiry. Particularly about that street. Oak Grove Street, and was told that it was a, the ground actually belonged to the city of Chanhassen. Hadn't been used forever, and I've been there since 1981, and that I could apply for vacancy of that. And then I went through the documentation and the documentation said that I had to contact all people within 500 feet of that piece of ground, and there was another complicative because that piece of ground extends past the property that Mr. Rollings is looking at developing, going all the way to Pleasant View Court. And I was advised that probably it wouldn't be a good idea to do that because it wouldn't gain me anything. My concern about doing that is that when I saw the plot layout for the homes, home number one is almost on my back deck, and I didn't want to have that home any closer than it absolutely had to be. So now without being notified, which I thought was a requirement by anyone about the vacancy of that, I've been told that Mr. Rollings has just picked up 15 feet, which 15 feet on most of my property wouldn't make an awful lot of difference but 15 feet right there is a big 15 feet because he's going to be looking in my kitchen. And that is a real concern of mine, and I think it's a problem that can be easily resolved by taking house number 1 and moving it towards Pleasant View Road as close to the setback as can be allowed, and then everyone would wind up a winner. So that's the only issue that I've got and it's a fairly significant one as far as I'm concerned. Cbl Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 • Sacchet: Thank you. Can staff address the aspect, there's basically two issues that I see that were raised. One is the vacation of the easement. The road easement in terms of how this plays, and the other one is the location of house number one. Saam: Sure. I met with the resident, Larry back late last fall, when this originally came in and we discussed the vacation. Most of the time with vacations, and I'll take that part first. When the property's vacated, in this case 15 feet, typically half the property, the property's split and half of it goes to each of the adjacent land owners. However, and this is something that I haven't researched yet so it was news to me tonight too. When the applicant's engineer mentioned that in doing their research, their surveyors are saying that the road was dedicated, it was originally part of this applicant's property. If that is correct, then when that roadway is vacated, yes. It will go back to whoever platted it originally. But that's something that the city has not looked into as of yet. Sacchet: And the way the house pad is currently on the plat is like the regular setback maybe. It doesn't show where the house exactly is going to be. It just shows the house pad at this time. It doesn't mean the house is actually going to sit right on the setback, but we don't really have control, we can't dictate anything beyond the regular setback. AI -Jaffa Actually we can. Sacchet: We can? Al -Jaffa Because one of the things that we did when we permitted private streets as, private streets with variances was the distance of your side yard, front yard setbacks. If you would like to see a wider setback, a larger setback, that's one of your options. You could require. Sacchet: So that would be within our framework to ask that. It's still public hearing so if you want to address that you can come forward. Tom Rollings: Yeah, I was talking to Tom. If I can accommodate him I will. I mean we would move it. He said just looking at it with our little pencil and paper over here, we can move it. Obviously I think there's an impact fairly quickly on another tree, we're going to try to avoid but we would certainly not try to, I mean it would benefit lot selling too as well, not that I want to be as close to this gentleman as possible but to have as much separation. Sacchet: And if I understood your comment correctly, of the resident was that with the, potentially the whole abandoned road easement coming back to this property, that it would even move it closer and that was really what aggravated mostly the way I understand your comment. Tom Rollings: We certainly wouldn't move it any closer, even though we get another. 50 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 • Sacchet: So that is already a given then. Larry Tivy: But I was also going to ask Mr. Rollings to consider the closeness of the two homes and move them closer towards the. Sacchet: A little further over, yeah. Tom Rollings: We will and I don't remember which commissioner pointed it out but we will take it as far away from the neighbor as we can to make it as pleasant for the other owner too because as much separation is desirable for everybody in this situation. And obviously if that means 1 foot or another 15, we'll take it as far away as possible. And the house will not encompass the entire pad either so again we'll move it as close to them having a little more better living space than you guys have a little separation so. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Now public hearing is still open, if anybody wants to come forward. Yes please. State your name and address for the record. Gary McCauley: My name is Gary McCauley and I'm at 420 Pleasant View Road. I'm the Lot 3 and 4 so I'm familiar with the steep driveways. My concern has been that we've been there for 19 years and haven't seen too much in the way of erosion since Betty's been there, and with one single house. And I'm concerned about the erosion with the elimination of some trees up there and I see that they have deemed not to build maybe the fourth unit that they had thought of, or they had moved houses around with the commission was working with them. My biggest concern is any further erosion on that basically a deer can't crawl up that side of, next to my driveway. I've seen them fall down. It's that steep so it's a very critical area if anybody would want to take a look at. To give you an idea, my driveway's 100 yards long and it goes up 6 stories. Along the easi side it's, well I'm 62. I can't climb it anymore. I used to but I can't do it anymore so the issue of drainage is going to be critical in that area and engineers would want to maybe take a look at it considering what happened across the street with our new mosquito pond that they've built. The city's built for us. So that's about all I had. Sacchet: In terms of erosion, is there anything that staff can offer? Saam: They are minimizing, or they're lessening the amount of drainage which in turn will cause erosion that's going to go off site. Most of the drainage is going to be collected in the catch basins or additional catch basins and then routed to the pond that was just mentioned. Versus just going off site so I guess from staff's perspective we didn't see that drainage and/or erosion as an issue. They're not routing more down the bluff or anything like that. Sacchet: So it's actually, you feel there's a sufficient catching of the drainage? Saam: Correct. 51 Planning Commission feeting —March 16, 2004 0 Sacchet: Okay. Okay. I saw another hand. Yes please, if you want to come forward. Public hearing is still open. State your name and address for the record. Sandy Olson: My name is Sandy Olson. I live at 6696 Horseshoe Curve. I am between the catch basin and the pond and I am very concerned about where that water is going to go on it's way to the pond because it has to run down my property line and the curbs are tar and it's going to go into my yard which is in a valley. So I am concerned and I would like some assurance that I'm not going to be the catch basin for my new neighbors. I would also like to speak to the point that you made with regard to the traffic. I have lived there for 35 years. The speeds on that road at night are horrendous. I know it's going to take a fatal accident before anything is done because it's almost impossible for the police to enforce the mileage restriction. People do go 40. People go 50 and at night the teenagers go 60. I hear them because they drive right by my house. I hear them all summer, and nobody can do anything about it. That driveway is going to be very dangerous for the people who live there. It's going to be very dangerous for the people who drive by. I realize that that's not going to stop the project but I think you should be aware of it. That those are the facts on Horseshoe Curve. There are no shoulders there. There's no place for people to go. If you've got a runner in the morning or at night, they're right on the road. Anybody who drives the road knows that. I'm also concerned with regard to the street plan. You're talking here about a 33 foot width from the center line. Because the roads are small, I'm on the other side of that road. I'd like to be sure that I'm not going to pay the price that my 100 year old trees are not going to go down because you make an agreement with people across the street and so if something has to be done you go my direction instead of their direction. I have surveyor stakes in my yard that have been there since last fall without any explanation. I still don't know why they're there but I'm assuming somebody wants to know something, and so I guess I'd like to be kept informed because I am very directly affected by a lot of the things that are going to happen over there. Sacchet: Thank you very much. I think this would be good too, if you could address this aspect. There was a section in the staff report about the widening of the easement and that we wouldn't necessarily need the full width of a collector street in that particular area. If you could put a little bit of a framework around that. Maybe give some assurance in terms of where that's at. Saam: Sure. I'll start out by saying the city at this time doesn't have plans to upgrade Pleasant View. We're not going to be coming out there and widening it or anything like that with this project. With that said, Pleasant View, as Sharmeen had mentioned, is a collector. The city requires right-of-way to be 80 feet in width on collectors and what right-of-way is is just the land that the city owns that the road is on. So 80 feet, half of that is 40 feet and we look at half of it because this property's only on the north side. With that said, as the city doesn't have plans to upgrade Pleasant View to a full 36 foot collector roadway, so we don't feel the need to have a 40 foot right-of-way from the center line. So in working with the applicant, and in looking at previous plats to the east we're 33 feet from the center line of the right-of-way was taken. That's what we decided to go with to keep some consistency. 52 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 • Sacchet: So that's consistent with older and newer developments. Saam: Yes, to the east it is shown on these plans. We feel 33 feet will be plenty of right- of-way for the city. If we want to increase the size of the road in the next 20 years, surely not to 36 feet but we might add in a sidewalk, a trail, something like that. We'll have that right-of-way now and typically we get that with developments. So again the city doesn't have plans to widen Pleasant View so. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Yes. Public hearing is still open. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Don Miller: My name is Don Miller. I live at 395 Pleasant View Road, directly to the east of this proposed thing. I have a number of comments. Number one, regarding the easement, when we built in 1992, the park commission took the easement for proposed trail, which I thought I've been told by Mr. Hoffman has been abandoned and that I could have that right-of-way back. I've not proceeded to apply for that but I think I'm going to have to now. Because I don't want a wide right-of-way there. In reference to Sandy's comments about the corner on Pleasant View Road there, I'm, if you take an apex of the comer, the two apex's of that corner, I'm on the opposite end. I'm on the east end. I have had to put boulders out at the end of my yard to keep people from knocking down the trees, the telephone pole. They take the sign out that the city has there for a 25 miles an hour sign monthly. In fact I finally asked the city to just put it somewhere's else. I'm tired of picking it out of my driveway as I'm picking car parts out pretty much every winter. That's going to have the exact opposite effect on that side when that road comes out with Horseshoe Lane, also with the water coming down that driveway, it's going to go across there. That's a shady spot. It's right at the apex. It's right at the top of the hill. There's going to be a collection of ice there or a collection of salt, and somebody coming west, or easterly, westerly bound is going to be, there's going to be an incident there and there's going to be a bad one there. As far as the speeds, the sheriff, if you talk to him and you will find that they've documented many times speeds in excess of 50 miles an hour around that corner. That's why I have all the car parts in my yard. I realize that's not your concern with planning and I certainly don't want to upset the developers there but it's a major, major issue. The other questions I do have, are there any proposed square footages of the footprint of the house? I know you've got a 60 by 60 thing. Do you have any specific plans yet for what you're going to build there? Tom Rollings: No sir, we really do not yet. We're speculating they're going to be probably in the 5,000 to 7,000 square foot range. Homes. Don Miller: These are going to be 3 story homes or 2 story and walkout? Tom Rollings: Two story with walkout. Don Miller: So elevation wise they're going to be higher than my house which is 30 feet higher than you guys are. 53 Planning Commission Meeting —March 16, 2004 • Tom Rollings: They'll be 2 story. Don Miller: Okay. The other question I have is for the surveyors. You guys surveyed my lot when we built and now your surveying marks don't line up at all. You're a couple feet apart and I've lost a couple feet to my south side. I'm curious has the world moved or what's going on? And everybody down the line has had the same comment. In fact my neighbor has had you guys survey for him and we both questioned it and they came back and they said no, it's right where it is but it isn't where the old stakes were so anyway, those are the ones I have. Sacchet: Thank you for your comments. Please. Maryevelyn Monty: My name Maryevelyn Monty. I live at 370 Pleasant View Road and Larry Tivy is my husband, and I really, I am very, very concerned about the size of the homes that you are putting on this piece of property. Particularly on Lot 1, and my husband did mention that the proximity to our property line. But when you're at the top of that ridge, you can see, you're looking almost eye line with the roof of our house so if you're putting a 2 story home, or maybe a 2 %2 story home if you're talking about a high basement part that would give you a walkout, we're going to have a tower over our house, and also we might as well kiss goodbye any light after, at the end of the day. In the afternoon because your home is going to be blocking the sun on our house. I don't see how that can possibly be avoided unless you put in, as you folks called them here a rambler instead of a huge house. Tom Rollings: And it could very well be a rambler. I don't mean to, but I would say it could be a 2 story as well but I can't promise a rambler. People... Maryevelyn Monty: Right. So you're not actually developing, you're not building. You're selling the lot. I see, because what I'm concerned about, at the end of Pleasant View Road, at the west end there's a huge 2 %2 story home next to that cute little rambler house that was there earlier, and now those folks don't have any sun until the sun is on the western side of the road. So it's, to see things like that happen, that's really, we want to stay living there so okay. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Yeah, please come forward. Jacie Hurd: My name is Jacie Hurd and I live at 6695 Horseshoe Curve. I'm on Horseshoe Curve. I drive Pleasant View Road every day. It's my only outlet and my concern frankly is the safety of that road. I know it's been talked about tonight. I have a few I guess suggestions that maybe we could think about. I did send an e-mail requesting this. I was wondering maybe if it would be possible to put a sidewalk on that property, and I know that the answer from Matt I believe was that typically the city won't put a sidewalk that leads nowhere and I understand that. That makes a lot of sense to me. But I'm a walker and I'm a driver and my children used to be bicyclers and there is nowhere to go on that road when there are cars coming. And on this particular spot on the road, bl Planning Commission feeting—March 16, 2004 0 since it is that curve, if we could just offer just a little respite for somebody. I know that ideally we'd love to have the whole road sidewalked and that's just not going to happen in our lifetime. I don't see it happening for the entire road, but perhaps if we do it piece meal where we can and then as perhaps other people subdivide their properties, we can perhaps add onto that sidewalk. It at least would offer someplace to get away from that traffic if you're walking. And my second suggestion, which also goes to the same safety issue is, I was told that the entire length of Pleasant View Road is no parking, which I've lived there for 15 years and frankly I did not know that. There are cars parked there every single day along Pleasant View Road and there is not room for them. I personally know of two accidents that happened because of that and I don't know if they can enforce that no parking or perhaps say there really is no parking on this road but that might help just a little bit on the traffic issue. And then the third issue is maybe they could strip the road, and I know that there's not really enough room on either side to actually have two sides but if they put some sort of a divider down the middle it might at least mark a territory. I don't know. Those are my suggestions. I think the project is going to go forward. Obviously that steep driveway is, it's scary so thank you very much for your attention. Sacchet: Thank you. Yep, we've got a couple other people. Please come forward. Mary Ann McCauley: I'm Mary Ann McCauley. I live at 420 Pleasant View Road and I'm tremendously dismayed over the thought of having 3 houses on that property. We bought 2 acres in the woods because of the ambience. Because of the seclusion of the house and the thought of having 3 huge houses of 5 to 6,000 square feet with people breathing down my neck, I think is really disappointing and I would be very disappointed if this project goes through. I think it's at least one house too many. I'm concerned like everybody else about the safety. Somebody said earlier that the average trips or 6 a day per, or 10 per day per household. That's 60 more cars coming in and out potentially if you think about trips out on a curve that's already blind. If I make more than 2 trips a day out of my driveway, I need at least one person on the wrong side of the road in front of Don Miller's house and I also run the great risk of getting broad sided nearly every time I leave my driveway because it's blind and people drive too damn fast. And add all of that traffic coming out on that comer I think is a really serious issue and I think you should reconsider how many houses you allow to be built on that property. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Your turn. Nick Perkins: Nick Perkins, 339 Pleasant View. I think we know there's a traffic issue on that comer. Sacchet: Looks like we have pretty clear agreement on that one yeah. Nick Perkins: Yeah, I won't harp too much on it but I just want to throw into the mix that we also have Horseshoe Lane and Horseshoe Curve dumping into the same area so although we have a steep area, we also have two different streets that are meeting Pleasant View so we have like what, five all coming together. So we need some 55 Planning Commissionteeting —March 16, 2004 • regulation of some sort in that area. The other concern that I have is, I'm at the bottom of the other side of the hill so we talked about drainage. I think I talked to you Matt about it's all going to be funneled the other direction. For the most part. I don't have a pond at the bottom of my hill. I do, it's been somewhat there. It's not legally there I don't think but there's something there right now but it still does dump across my road, or excuse me, my front yard. There's a collection and then it goes across the rest of my front lawn, so if we have a great problem and it does bypass the collection, it will end up in my front yard, as long as it's on my side of the hill. So that's one major issue is the drainage. And I know that the drainage was an issue for the previous owner. I've only been there a year and so I'm coming into this with kind of no knowledge but some stuff has been pieced together basically, if there's any more water, it will be a major issue on my side. That's all I have. Slagle: Quick question. Where are you? Nick Perkins: 339. Sacchet: Can you show it on the map? Nick Perkins: I'm here. So again I need something to regulate the amount of water that comes there or dump it somewhere else because also my other neighbor who's not here, the larger property here, he doesn't have anything across his property at all. It goes over the top of his yard and into... Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. Yes, we have somebody else. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. In Chapter 18, Subdivision. Section 40, unless waived by the city the plat should show the location of building and structures within 150 feet. I don't know if it was waived or not but I think it's important after hearing the neighbors talk about their properties. And then in Section 20, in the zoning 58, under variance. Point 6. You may have already read through this but, a variance may be granted if all the following criteria are met. Criteria 6 is, again after hearing the neighbors, that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public street or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public, safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. That's all I wanted to add, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Staff, can you help us out with this house location within 150 feet. Is our proposed house pads fulfilling that or? Saam: What she was referring to was the existing house pads and that's a good point and when Larry came up and mentioned that he's so close to this property, I just noticed that they're not showing his house so that's something we'll get on the next addition. Sacchet: Right, I was wondering about that. Okay. 01 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 • Saam: I think Sharmeen will take the next one. Al-Jaff: As far as the variance goes, Debbie is right as far as zoning variances. However what we have in this case is actually a subdivision variance and the requirements are just slightly different. Sacchet: It's a different set of rules. Okay. Claybaugh: Could you expand on that Sharmeen. Al-Jaff: It is. Generous: Section 18-22. Al-Jaff: Correct, and if you tum to page 10 on your staff report. Basically what you look at is the topography of the site. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience and then conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other properties, and those are the only three criteria you look at when you're evaluating a subdivision. Sacchet: That's a subdivision variance. Okay. Feik: But Sharmeen, the variance is primarily for the private street. Al-Jaff: Correct. Feik: I mean the applicant has proved that he could develop this with a public street if chosen. So the variances being sought as an accommodation for the city and for accommodation of the trees and some other things so really we're looking at the variance that they're bringing to us quite frankly as a trade off in our favor. They could bring this in without a variance if they wanted to and the result of that would be significantly more lost trees, am I not mistaken? Al-Jaff: That as well as you could potentially have individual driveways that. Feik: 3 or 4 driveways. I just wanted to bring that back to why we're looking at variances here. Slagle: If I can ask a question to staff. Sharmeen, can you address the point that was mentioned by the last visitor at the podium regarding a light. In other words what I'm getting at is, if house I call it was quite large, and I'll give an example. Go to the very eastern, western side of Pleasant View off Powers. We are familiar with that big green house that got put in. I mean was that okay? I mean that met all requirements and plopped it in there and so, with the example of light, you know explain. 57 Planning Commission seting —March 16, 2004 • AI-Jaff: Typically if they meet setbacks, in that specific house that you're talking about. I mean the neighbors, the next door neighbors came in and wanted to stop that house from going in. But because they have met all required setbacks, all requirements of the ordinance, there was nothing that could be done to stop it. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Alright, public hearing is still open. If there's anybody else who'd like to come forward at this time. Otherwise, yes there is. Alright. Janet Paulsen: Well unless the code has changed, condition number 4 for a variance said the granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. Has that been removed? That's in Chapter 18. Subdivision. That's all I had to say. Sacchet: Thanks Janet. Does staff have any comment to that? Al-Jaff: I think Mrs. Paulsen is referring to missing number 4. The number itself Sacchet: That should be a number 4. AI-Jaff: ...where it says the granting of the variance. Sacchet: Oh yeah, I see where the number's missing. It is in the staff report on the bottom of page 10. Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: It actually says the granting of the variance will not substantially be detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. And then the associated finding basically affirms that, correct? Al-Jaff: Correct. Generous: Mr. Chairman, or Commissioner Feik pointed out the granting of the variance is for the private street which we believe is for the betterment of the community for the preservation of trees and that. Sacchet: Correct. Yes please. Come forward. State your name and address for the record. Katrina Clemens: Katrina Clemens and I live at 6691 Horseshoe Curve and I just had a question and I just want to make sure we're not losing something by agreeing to go with 0 Planning Commission Pfeeting — March 16, 2004 • a private street to get one driveway, we're reducing the hard cover so that's increasing the house size that's available to go on there? Is that true or no? Sacchet: Not necessarily. Katrina Clemens: Okay. I just want to make sure that that's not the case. We don't want 3 driveways. Nobody does because of the safety aspect. Sacchet: But you don't have smaller houses. Katrina Clemens: Well, or is there a way to compromise there? So that was my question. Sacchet: No, they're not directly related. Alright, unless there's anybody else, I will close the public hearing. Thank you for all your comments and bring it back to the commission for further discussion and comments. Who wants to start? Bruce. Feik: I'll start, why not. Sacchet: You look like you're ready. Feik: I spoke with staff at length today regarding this and in all deference to all the neighbors, it's a beautiful site. It's a beautiful neighborhood. Everything about it is beautiful. The staff has worked long and hard with this applicant. There are other rights and privileges that this applicant could be employing that would be significantly more detrimental I believe to this site than approving what we have here. If this, I've done some rough calculations. If this was a flat site, you'd be looking at 5 houses at 5,500 square feet. I'm just saying, if it were flat, it would be 5 and so you know, just to put things into perspective here so. I'm looking at this and understanding the amount of work that's gone in by the applicant and the staff and I fully support the application. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Any comments, discussion Steve? Lillehaug: Sure. I'll try to make mine quick. And just to go on a little more that Bruce is saying. These lots that they're proposing, they're very gracious lots comparatively. They're pretty big lots. They could go smaller so that's a plus. They're trying to save every tree possible that they can and that is just a huge benefit to the neighbors. A couple of comments on trying to provide a walk in that area. I would have to disagree and not support any walk being constructed in that area, and having broken segments of walk and the reason being I think it's good engineering practice not to have the different segments of walk because if I'm a driver on that road, and if I see a walk, you've got to look at driver expectancy and if he sees, and if the walker, pedestrian see a walk in one area and not in the other, you want to maintain a consistent driver expectancy and pedestrian expectancy and by adding a walk in and then taking it out and adding it in, that's not a good thing so I wouldn't support a walk in that area. But I would recommend that the neighbors petition the city to put a walk in for the entire length to connect up with other 59 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 • segments of walk. Storm sewer. Right now there isn't any catch basins I don't think on that property, or on that driveway. The developer is not increasing the runoff rate that significantly so I think by them adding the two catch basins that they do have there, it's going to improve the drainage on all the adjacent properties, and they'll work with staff to even further improve that so I think they are addressing all your concerns of what they're doing to be detrimental to your property. I think they are being sufficient in that matter. Other than that, I think what I'm hearing is problems with Pleasant View and not this development. I think what they're bringing to the table is really everything they possibly can and I fully support this proposal. Sacchet: Thank you Steve. Rich, not for the comment? Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah, I have a few comments. I guess I agree with most of what Commissioner Lillehaug said with the exception of the sidewalk. That is such a tight curve, it is such a blind curve and I think the expectations are expect the worst and that's what you're going to get. I think a sidewalk in that area, even though it is non- contiguous, may be a safety valve to allow people to negotiate that very blind, tight curve on a narrow road. Like I said, it doesn't necessarily lead anywhere but I think it goes a long ways towards mitigating some of the safety concerns. With respect to the development as a whole, I believe it's a reasonable use. Again the largest lot size on lot size 1 is 43,000 square feet. Our ordinance is 15,000 square feet. I am troubled by the 10 percent grade, but once again as our city engineer identified, that's within our city codes, ordinance and statutes. There isn't anything within respect of what we review in this body that we have the latitude to deny based on the neighbors concerns. Like I said, there's adequate square footage. There's adequate setbacks. They're not putting in property that, or building houses that they require variances specifically for the house. The variance is for the private drive. I would like to see the developer's engineer and city staff review the need for some intermediate catch basins. I personally believe that by the time on a good rainfall that by the time it hits the bottom of that 10 percent grade, it's going to blow through those catch basins at the bottom so I'm in favor of looking at catching them further up and helping mitigate that problem. I would support it and I do, would like to identify, I do appreciate the developer's tone in response to some of the neighbors concerns insofar as that he's able to address them. So that's all my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. A few things I'd like to add. I definitely want to add to the comment that was just made. I think it's very refreshing to have an applicant that shows this amount of willingness to work with all aspects, try to accommodate everybody. I definitely want to commend you for that. It's very much appreciated. The specific items, we have that condition here with the house on Lot number 1, whether the house should be raised or a retaining wall in the back, I mean the applicant expressed that raising makes more sense. It makes more sense to me. It would have less impact on the environment so I would propose that we not say or and say it's going to be raised rather than or have a retaining wall in the back. In terms of the setback to the north of that house pad, I would think that was very clearly expressed, that the applicant would try to accommodate as much as possible the concern of the neighbor to the north to have as much distance between the dwellings there. Safety is definitely an issue and as was mentioned, it's not Et 0 9 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 necessarily specific to this particular development. Certainly if there's anything we can do to encourage the city to look into how that can be mitigated with enforcing speed limit or posting and so forth, I think that'd be appropriate but I can't tie it specifically to this development. I don't think that'd be fair. I like not having the parking marked along Pleasant View. I mean those are city issues. They're not issues for this particular development. The drainage aspect, I like your idea Craig that additional catch basins would help with that and considering there is no such facility in place at this point, you would expect that the drainage problems should be improved. Certainly not get worst. With the tree preservation, again the applicant has expressed willingness to work with city forester and maximize the chance of those trees to survive that are right on the line where you're grading. So I would want to encourage that to really be carried through. And then my final comment in the findings of fact to the subdivision, finding E it states the proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. I would like to tone that down and say something like the proposed subdivision will not cause excessive damage or something to that effect because I think cutting down 50 percent of the trees certainly is an impact on the environment, but under the circumstances if we say it's not excessive or it's being mitigated to the extent possible, then that would be more closer to the reality of what we're saying so that's my comment. With that I would like to have a motion. Feik: I'll make a motion. I move the Planning Commission recommend the approval of a preliminary plat for planning case 04-03 for Kenyon Bluff for 3 lots and a variance to allow private street as shown on plans received February 6`s. February 26, 2004, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 22 with a change to item i l that the commissioner spoke of. Removing the either or language. Raising that one foot and deleting the remaining portion of that requirement. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: Second. Friendly amendment? Sacchet: Friendly amendment, go ahead Craig. Claybaugh: Staff, if you could tell me what is reasonable and how this could possibly be structured but I would like to add a friendly amendment to incorporate a sidewalk on the adjacent property to Pleasant View Road with the intent of mitigating the severest component of that curve and the sight lines. I'm not necessarily advocating that it has to run the total perimeter adjacent with Pleasant View Road but with respect, I have seen a number of joggers out there, walkers, I think Ladd's out there on cross country skis if I'm not mistaken. That's what we're talking about right? Yeah, that something where people have an opportunity to at least defend themselves negotiating that curve I think would be at least a reasonable response. We certainly can't address most of the concerns that the neighbors have but I believe that that is one that we can so what, how could that be reasonably structured, if I could get some input from staff. Saam: If you don't want it along the entire property boundary, maybe from the radius end points of the curve. That would ... in the worst place. 61 Planning Commission • ting—March 16, 2004 • Claybaugh: And I guess I would leave it at the developer's discretion, if you wanted to run it at the perimeter or if he was willing to do that as an offering to the neighborhood, that'd be fantastic. I guess mine would be stated that I would want it to the radius points as identified by Matt as a minimum. Feik: Before I accept, I know Commissioner Lillehaug has a different opinion and I'm bending a little bit his direction. Do any of the other two gentlemen have a comment regarding that? Slagle: I have a question. The two, correct me if I'm wrong Matt. It looks like there's two parcels to the northwest, or west as you go along Pleasant View, is that correct? From this site. That would sort of take up that big stretch of Pleasant View on the north side. Is that correct? Two additional property owners in essence. So three total. So you own both. Audience: 3 and 4. Slagle: Well good because my next question was going to be, are the owners here. Would you guys be open to discussing with the city a sidewalk on the north side of Pleasant View? Audience: If they take one house off the development ... I don't want 3 houses in there. Slagle: If I can just close the thought though. I mean I would be as one commissioner totally supportive of a sidewalk if it went the entire length of that section, because I think that that, Steve to your point of consistency. I mean to me as a driver who does that daily, I mean that would be enough of a consistency and perhaps would be an impetus for the city and other land owners to start to put, because that road truly does need some type of shoulder/trail, and maybe if I can add. If the folks here are as loud as the folks were on 101, you might end up with something at some point. But I mean I think I would encourage a discussion. Lillehaug: Could you have them point on a bigger map of where you're exactly talking. Sacchet: Yeah, let's make sure we all understand. Lillehaug: And then if I can comment. You're exactly right. It's going to increase safety right, it's going to increase it right there, but then you look down Pleasant View where they don't, where there isn't an opportunity for this, and what I'm saying is, the driver may expect that in other locations and then all of a sudden it's not going to be there and it's going to make other locations less safe so I will not support putting in a short segment of walk around that radius. It lessens safety in other locations. Sacchet: Just the radius. But how about the whole stretch there? AN Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 • Lillehaug: Well what is the whole stretch is what I'm saying. Sacchet: Let's make sure what we're talking about. Slagle: No, I'm talking all the way down to. AI-Jaff: Indian Hills. Sacchet: To Indian Hills. Slagle: Indian Hill Road. Sacchet: That's from Indian Hill to around the curve. Al-Jaff: If you look at the first page of your staff report, there should be a map. Lillehaug: Yep, that's what I'm looking at. Slagle: Just go northwest. Steve, all the way to Indian Hill Road. Lillehaug: Yep. Slagle: Maybe that be better. Lillehaug: Sure, that'd be better. Sacchet: But then how far up on the other side. Slagle: I mean if I can throw out for the... I mean we're throwing out some thoughts that need to be discussed with landowners and stuff but I do think to. Claybaugh: It's an opportunity is what it is. Slagle: Yeah. Lillehaug: But we can't hold the developer to do that stretch there. Claybaugh: But we can, certainly can discuss it in the context of the property that's in front of us. Lillehaug: For that whole stretch? Claybaugh: No. Lillehaug: Oh, just for that piece. Right, but then who's going to construct the other portion? I mean is the city going to act on that at the same time? 63 Planning Commissionteeting —March 16, 2004 • Saam: Chairman Sacchet, if I can address a couple comments to Commissioner Lillehaug's, what he just said. First off, we're talking about a sidewalk along a steep, we've got a bluff here so we're talking retaining walls. This isn't a flat area that we just go out and grade a little and pave concrete sidewalks. Secondly, to what Commissioner Lillehaug said, sure. In this development we can require the developer to put it in, but once we get off his property, now we're talking a public improvement project with assessments and if we don't have right-of-way, with the city obtaining right-of-way and/or easement. Sacchet: It's a big thing. Saam: Yeah. This is more than just slapping a sidewalk in and so just so everybody's on page with that. Lillehaug: That's why I think it should be petitioned as a city as something separate and not included as part of this because it's, I don't agree with it and I guess I wouldn't support it and I'll leave it at that. Sacchet: Would there be a balance point in, you were kind of asking more sentiment. Balance point of having some sort of a provision with this development that this can be accommodated at a future. Claybaugh: Or at least achieve the right-of-way. Sacchet: Yeah. Feik: Well we have the right-of-way already with the replatting of this. Saam: Yeah, we'll be getting the right-of-way. Maybe if I hear where you're going Commissioner Sacchet, maybe we get additional funds and a letter of credit and hold it for I don't know, 5 years or whatever so if we do do a project, then we have the funds from this developer. Sacchet: Yeah, I don't really have the specific idea how to do it. I'm just trying to find what is the balance point and. Lillehaug: Wouldn't it be assessed anyway by those same property owners so what would really be the use of it though I guess. I mean it would be assessed to those same properties if it was put in so why muddy it up and have... Claybaugh: Can I address a question of Commissioner Lillehaug. I don't understand the down side of a driver expectation expecting pedestrians. I don't see the down side of that. If there's a segment of sidewalk, I understand that you would like it to lead somewhere but in terms of that curve and the amount of restrictive sight lines associated 51 Planning Commission•eting —March 16, 2004 • with it, the road width, the concentration on the road and the rest of it, the driver comes around there expecting a sidewalk and they're expecting a pedestrian. Lillehaug: Sure, right there. I mean that's great but. Claybaugb: If they're driving on and they're expecting more pedestrians somewhere else, I don't see the down side of that. That's just makes a driver. Lillehaug: If you go on another comer and it doesn't have the walk there, the driver's going to be expecting that walk to be there. They're not going to be looking for it and expecting it. They're going to be expecting pedestrians to be on that walk and there's not going to be a walk there. So they're going to be in the road. I mean that's, I guess I don't know how to explain it any clearer but. Claybaugh: No, that's fair enough. Saam: Commissioner Sacchet, if I could just point out one last thing. It is our opinion, city engineering that this entire area be looked at in terms of a sidewalk or for a trail and not do it piecemeal. I guess that's our opinion, just so you know where we stand, and I think the park director said something to that effect too. That they're not looking for a pedestrian route in just this area. I could maybe see if we do an entire trail from Lotus, North Lotus Park I think it just to the northeast on Pleasant View. All the way down to Indian Hill or wherever. Maybe that would be something that would fly. Slagle: And there was a reference by a visitor suggesting that in dialogue with the park director that this person would be able to get back their right-of-way which I wouldn't think would be correct, is that? Saam: Yeah, I'm not privy to the situation he referred to but typically we don't give it back if it's a planned trail and. Feik: Before I accept or decline, Matt do you want to weigh in on this a little bit rather than, you think from the city's perspective that it would be advantageous or a detriment? Saam: We wouldn't be for it. Not in this piecemeal fashion. Feik: That being said I won't accept the friendly amendment. Claybaugh: I will withdraw my friendly amendment in a not so friendly fashion. Feik: So noted. Claybaugh: That being your parting gift. Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. We have some attempted friendly amendment and do we have any more attempts of friendly amendments? C1 Planning Commission • ting — March 16, 2004 • Claybaugh: No, we're not friendly any more. Sacchet: No, you're not friendly anymore. Alright. You're giving up on the friendly part. Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 04-03 for Kenyon Bluff for 3 lots and a variance to allow a private street as shown on the plans received February 26, 2004, subject to the following conditions: Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. Applicant shall submit landscape plan showing the 16 trees required to be planted. Trees shall meet minimum size requirements. b. Minimum bufferyard planting requirements for Lot 3 includes 2 overstory trees, 4 understory trees and 9 shrubs. C. Tree preservation fence shall be installed prior to grading at the perimeter of the grading limits. d. Any trees not shown for removal that are lost due to construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 2. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on two of the three lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family home on the property. The park fee on two single family homes totals $5,600 and is payable at the time of platting. 3. Submit a 30 -foot wide private cross -access easement against all three lots at time of final plat recording. 4. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, MN Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calculations and drainage map for staff review and approval at time of final plat. 6. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall more than 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will require a building permit through the City's Building Department. 7. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. 8. Show all of the existing and proposed utility easements on the utility plan. 9. On the grading plan: rc 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show a minimum 75 -foot rock construction entrance. d. Extend the silt fence along the south and southwesterly sides. 10. Add to the plans the following notes: a. Any connection to existing manholes or catch basins must be core drilled. b. All sanitary services must be 6" PVC-SDR26 and water services I" copper. 11. On Lot 1, the house pad must be raised one foot in elevation to better facilitate drainage away from the house. 12. On Lot 2, 10:1 slope must be used for the first 15 feet off the rear house pad along with a 4 -foot retaining wall. 13. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 14. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for water -main. 15. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 16. The private street must be built to a 7 -ton design. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 17. The existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed. 18. Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: a. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. b. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. c. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 67 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting —March 16, 2004 d. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Tvve of Sloe Stabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. e. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. f. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $6,860. g. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 19. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval. b. A 10 -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c. No burning permits will be issued for tree/shrub disposal. Any trees removed must be removed or chipped on site. 20. Building Official Conditions: a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. b. A building permit must be obtained to construct any retaining walls over 4 feet tall. c. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 21. Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation of the right-of-way. m Planning Commission • ting — March 16, 2004 • 22. Access to all three lots shall be limited to the Private Street. Direct access is prohibited off of Pleasant View Road." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Feik: I'd like to make an additional note though before this goes to City Council. That it be very clear, either in our summary or in the packet someplace that the variance being requested is done so at the request of the city so that is a little bit more clear when it gets to City Council. Sacchet: Yeah, and in summary for council I also would like to point out some of the concerns that came up in our discussion. And from the comments from the residents. Namely the concern of the neighbor to the north of the proximity of house number one specifically. And in that context expression of the developer that they are willing to accommodate that as much as possible. The concerns that are not specifically related to this development like safety on Pleasant View Road, in terms of speed, in terms of the no parking not being signalized sufficiently, potential concern for a sidewalk and finally concluded not to have included in our motion but that it's really ultimately also more a city concern than a concern for this particular development. The drainage concerns. In combination with the steepness of the private road. That it's something that probably engineering could add a little more weight to how much the new drainage facilities can mitigate drainage problems. To what extent it would be practical to have additional drainage facilities further up the hill. To not just catch it on the bottom. If that makes sense from an engineering viewpoint, that that would be considered. And then finally the tree preservation. That it appears certainly that the last thing, just about every other aspect for that matter the applicant expressed great willingness to work with all the concerns he had. And in the context of the trees, to work with the city forester to place the silt fence as far away as possible from the trees they're trying to save. Any other aspects that you want to... Claybaugh: Yeah, I want to clarify my position that I don't believe that the safety concerns that I'm trying to address are a result of the development going in. Something that's been there. Will continue to be there before and after the development goes in. This is just I perceive as an opportunity to try and address it and mitigate it. Sacchet: Yeah, and to add to that point that some of us felt that even a partial sidewalk could help mitigate the safety concerns for pedestrians around that curve. However that really it has to be put into a larger context as staff pointed out. That we can't just put that in and add in combination with the steep grades to the north, on the westerly part of Pleasant View, that it would really be a rather complex situation to deal with. But that City Council should be very clear that we tried to look at that as an opportunity with this development to get something rolling. That's it. Okay? That's it for that one. Thank you very much. Let's move on to our next item. 11 330 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 March 16, 2004 Chanhassen Planning Commission 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: We reside at 330 Pleasant View Road, 3 houses away from the proposed subdivision at 400 Pleasant View Road. We are unable to attend the 3/16/04 public hearing on this matter, but would like to go on record as being strongly opposed to permitting this subdivision. We have asked Larry Tivy to represent our interests at the meeting. We live where we do because the neighborhood is an oasis in the midst of heavy development. Allowing subdivision will devalue our properties monetarily as well as in terms of quality of life. Pleasant View Road cannot handle additional traffic, and we are concerned because increasing congestion through subdivision presents additional safety risk to pedestrians on the street, which as you know has no sidewalks. The curve where the proposed subdivision is located is particularly tricky to navigate. As parents of two young children, our concerns are amplified. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ellen Wolaner IVA--r, L Ud Marc Hodel PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide a 2.16 Acre Lot into Three (3) Single -Family Lots with a Variance, Kenyon Bluff LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Pleasant View. Northwest of Pleasant View Road. APPLICANT: CBR Development. LLC Tom Rollings 4550 Weston Lane N. Plymouth, MN 53446 (612)770-8885 — PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net Density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 2.16 acres DENSITY: 1.38 Units per Acre Gross 1.8 Units per Acre Net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivision of 2.16 acres into 3 single-family lots, vacation of a portion of Oak Grove Avenue and a variance to allow a private street to serve the development. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the request. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. i 0 Location Map 400 Pleasant View Road City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-03 400 Pleasant View Road Lotus Lake i • Kenyon Bluff -Planning Case No. 04-03 March 16, 2004 Page 2 PROPOSALSUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.16 acres into 3 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District. The site contains a single family home which is proposed to be demolished Access to the site is gained via an existing driveway off of Pleasant View Road. Loma Laic 7 An abandoned right-of-way is located northeast of the subject site. The applicant is requesting vacation of the right-of-way. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation with the condition that a drainage and utility easement be maintained over the vacated portion (the vacation of the right-of-way requires City Council action only). Approval of the subdivision will be contingent upon approval of the vacation. The variance in this application is to allow a private street to serve this development. The subdivision ordinance requires a variance be granted in order to allow a private street Staff is recommending approval of the variance to minimize grading and for safety reasons. This issue is discussed in detail later in the report. Staff has been working with the applicant for several months. Several development scenarios were examined including a four -lot subdivision. Staff directed the applicant to show how the site would develop if a public street was constructed. Sheet 1 of 1 (Preliminary Grading/Public Road Concept) shows the site served via a public street. This concept mass grades the site, removes most of the vegetation and utilizes retaining walls. Kenyon Bluff -Planning C •No. 04-03 March 16, 2004 Page 3 The average lot size is 27,860 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.38 units per acre and net density of 1.8 units per acre. The site is located northwest of Pleasant View Road. All three lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The site contains a bluff along the southwest comer. The required setbacks will be maintained from the edge of the bluff. The site has mature trees which the applicant is making an effort to preserve. In reviewing this plat, staff worked with the applicant to acquire additional right-of-way for Pleasant View Road. The current right-of-way is deficient in width. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with a variance to allow a private street with conditions outlined in the staff report. PRELEM NARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.16 acre site into 3 single-family lots. The gross density of the site is 1.38 units per acre and net density is 1.8 units per acre. All three lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 27,860 square feet. All three proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A bluff occupies the southwest portion of proposed Lot 1. The ordinance requires all structures to maintain a 30 -foot setback from the top of the bluff. The plans indicate that this setback can be accommodated and no grading is proposed within that area. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS There are no wetlands on this site. Erosion and Sediment Control Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 -foot spacing of metal T -posts and 1" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: 0 0 Kenyon Bluff -Planning Case No. 04-03 March 16, 2004 Page 4 Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area Steeper than 3:1 7 days is not actively being worked.) 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on residential single family development rates of $1,0281acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 1.92 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $1,974. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Residential single family developments have a connection charge of $2,545 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $4,886 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project does not propose the construction of NURP ponds and is therefore not eligible for SWMP credits. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $6,860. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The existing site has tree cover over approximately one acre of area. The existing bluff limit line follows the entire west side of proposed Lot 1 and the private street. The plans propose to grade about 50-60% of the site for the new house pads and private street. The proposed grading will prepare the site for full basement and walk -out house pads. Drainage swales have been proposed Kenyon Bluff -Planning C d. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 5 along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The plan proposes a retaining wall for tree protection on Lot 1. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall over 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will require a building permit from the Building Department. Staff is concerned with the proposed grading in the rear yard areas of Lots 1 and 2. There is a steep slope (3:1) in the rear yard of Lot 1 which drains toward the house pad. Staff has concerns about the ability of stormwater to safely drain around the house pad at the elevations shown. Staff would recommend that either the house pad be raised one foot in elevation or that a small, 2 to 3 -foot retaining wall be installed to better facilitate drainage away from the house. Also, the proposed rear yard of Lot 2 is a steep, vertical drop of over 20 feet from the house pad to Pleasant View Road. In order to provide a usable rear yard area, staff would recommend that a flatter, 10:1 slope be used for the fust 15 feet off the rear house pad along with a 4 -foot retaining wall. The existing site drainage is encompassed within two different drainage areas. The site drains off site to the east and west directions toward Pleasant View Road. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the rear yard drainage from Lot 1, all of the street drainage and all of the front yard drainage from the lots. This stormwater will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing pond at the corner of Horseshoe Lane. The proposed storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. To better treat the stormwater, the applicant is proposing a stormceptor manhole to provide additional water quality treatment of the stormwater. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. A 75 -foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. The plans propose on extending sewer and water from Pleasant View Road on the east side of the parcel. Overall, the utility layout looks fine. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City of Chanhassen for maintenance and ownership. According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. However, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for water -main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 0 e Kenyon Bluff -Planning Case No. 04-03 March 16, 2004 Page 6 Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPGA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. STREETS The plans propose accessing the lots via a private street from the south side of the parcel off of Pleasant View Road. The applicant is proposing a 30 -foot private street easement with a 20 -foot pavement width. The plans propose a 10% slope private street with a half hammerhead turnaround. The proposed hammerhead turnaround configuration has been reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshal. In addition, the private street must be built to a 7 -ton design. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. Also, the existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed. Pleasant View Road is designated as a collector road in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Current city code requires that collectors have a right-of-way width of 80 feet or 40 feet from the right- of-way centerline. Due to the existing environmental features (bluffs, trees, Lotus Lake) around Pleasant View Road and the tight space constraints of the area, it is unlikely that Pleasant View Road will ever be upgraded to the full width of current City standards for collector roads. As such, staff does not feel that a full 40 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Pleasant View Road is needed with this development. In keeping with the dedicated right-of-way width for Pleasant view Road of previous plats to the east of this site, staff has recommended that the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of-way to obtain a 33 -foot width from the centerline of Pleasant View Road for a total width of 66 feet. The applicant has shown this on the plans. VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY The applicant is requesting to vacate a portion of Oak Grove Avenue. Currently, no street exists in that area. The grades in the area are steep making a street connection unlikely. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation since the right-of-way is not needed. The City will retain a drainage and utility easement over the sanitary sewer line. Kenyon Bluff -Planning C•No. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 7 PARK DEDICATION Kenyon Bluff lies within the park service area of North Lotus Lake Park. Future residents of this subdivision will easily be able to access the park via Pleasant View Road. No sidewalks or trails are currently available along Pleasant View Road. It is unlikely that these amenities will be constructed in the future even though a pedestrian route along Pleasant View Road is identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The topography of the area and curvilinear nature of the road would present nearly insurmountable challenges to the construction of a trail or sidewalk. However, if an effort to construct a sidewalk along Pleasant View Road was ever undertaken, the 18 feet of additional right-of-way being acquired as a part of this subdivision could accommodate the improvements required of such a project. It is recommended that the applicant pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on two of the three lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single family home on the property. The park fee on two single-family homes totals $5,600 and is payable at the time of platting. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The tree calculations shown on the plans have been revised by the applicant (see memorandum dated March 5, 2004 from Schoell and Madson, Inc.). Tree Preservation Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Kenyon Bluff development were submitted by the applicant and are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots) 93,932 SF or 2.16 ac. Baseline canopy coverage 62% or 58,316 SF Minimum canopy coverage required 46% or 43,208 SF Proposed tree preservation 31% or 28,702 SF The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage 14,506 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 17,407 SF Total number of trees to be planted 16 trees A replacement planting plan must be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall be location, species and size of replacements. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. Kenyon Bluff -Planning Case No. 04-03 March 16, 2004 Page 8 Bufferyard plantings are required along Pleasantview Road. Requirements are as follows: Location Required Proposed Lot 3 — bufferyard B — 2 overstory trees 0 overstory 25' width 4 understory trees 0 understory 215'length 9 shrubs 0 shrubs Existing vegetation and grade changes are sufficient buffers for lots 1 and 2 along Pleasantview Road. Ordinance L�� CK�7Ti�riF.�fi1 �� �Tr�:[i ; � 1►/�Cy�Z.Y�7i.YlY�C�JU 1 &M 42 3 18,471 Lot Width 90' 150' 138' Lot Depth 125' 264' 151' Lot 3 21,896 166' 166' • The 30 foot bluff setback includes a 20 foot bluff impact zone. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Home Setback 30' front/rear 10' sides 30'/30'* IV 30'/30' IV 30'/30' 10' Findine: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District and the zoning ordinance if the private street variance is approved. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are Suitable for the proposed development; Kenyon Bluff -Planning C•No. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 9 Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; qlc Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause ticantt environmental -y damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. VARIANCE FINDINGS VARIANCE Section 18-57. Streets. (r) Private streets serving up to four (4) lots may be permitted in the A2, RR, RSF and R4 if the criteria in variance section I8-22 are met and upon consideration of the following: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. Kenyon Bluff -Planning Case o. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 10 (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, including wetlands and protected areas. Staff reviewed the two possible plat layouts for the site and considered individual driveways off of Pleasant View Road. Staff believes that the best option from a safety and environmental standpoint is the private street option. The option of all the lots accessing directly from Pleasant View Road with three separate driveways is not recommended from a safety standpoint. Each of the separate accesses creates a potential conflict point with traffic on Pleasant View Road, a collector street. The second option of a public street and cul-de-sac serving the parcel requires severe grading of the site. The plans show retaining walls around the perimeter of the site from 2 to 28 feet in height for this option. The final option of a private street serving three lots is the most environmentally friendly with minimal retaining walls and yet does not add any additional access points to the site off of Pleasant View Road. Staff is recommending approval of the private street. VARIANCE FINDINGS Sec. 18-22. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: VARIANCE FINDINGS WITHIN SUBDIVISONS The city may grant a variance from the regulations of the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The hardship is not a mere Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street preserves significant site features. 2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land. 3) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other properties due to the unique site features. The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and Kenyon Bluff -Planning Cam No. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 11 comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and comprehensive plan. The applicant is proposing to access the site via a private street. This option will minimize grading and tree removal as well as provide less potential conflict with vehicles on Pleasant View Road. The applicant's request is reasonable. Staff is recommending approval of this request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY (City Council motion only). "The City Council approves the partial vacation of Oak Grove Avenue as shown on plans dated received February 26, 2004, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the city with the legal description of the vacated right-of-way. 2. The applicant shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement over the vacated portion." PRELINUNARY PLAT u,_4 &) A) "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 0403 for Kenyon Bluff for 3 lots and a variance to allow a private street as shown on the plans received February 26, 2004, subject to the following conditions: Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. Applicant shall submit landscape plan showing the 16 trees required to be planted. Trees shall meet minimum size requirements. b. Minimum bufferyard planting requirements for Lot 3 includes 2 overstory trees, 4 understory trees and 9 shrubs. C. Tree preservation fence shall be installed prior to grading at the perimeter of the grading limits. d. Any trees not shown for removal that are lost due to construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 2. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on two of the three lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family home on the property. The park fee on two single family homes totals $5,600 and is payable at the time of platting. Kenyon Bluff -Planning Cas• o. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 12 3. Submit a 30 -foot wide private cross -access easement against all three lots at time of final plat recording. 4. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, MN Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 5. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calculations and draina a map for staff review, and proval at time of final plat. 7 JC ✓k Sn��+ 6. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall more than 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will require a building permit through the City's Building Department. 7. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. 8. Show all of the existing and proposed utility easements on the utility plan. 9. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show a minimum 75 -foot rock construction entrance. d. Extend the silt fence along the south and southwesterly sides. 10. Add to the plans the following notes: a. Any connection to existing manholes or catch basins must be core drilled. b. All sanitary services must be 6" PVC-SDR26 and water services 1" copper. 11. On Lot 1, eitheF the house pad must be raised one foot in elevation t, r use. 12. On Lot 2, 10:1 slope must be used for the fust 15 feet off the rear house pad along with a 4 -foot retaining wall. 13. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 14. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for water -main. 15. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the Kenyon Bluff -Planning CoNo. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 13 appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 16. The private street must be built to a 7 -ton design. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 17. The existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed. 18. Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: a. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. b. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. c. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. d. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: TygLgf Slope Stabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. e. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. f. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $6,860. g. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 19. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval. b. A 10 -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c. No burning permits will be issued for treetshrub disposal. Any trees removed must be removed or chipped on site. Kenyon Bluff -Planning At. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 14 20. Building Official Conditions: a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. b. A building permit must be obtained to construct any retaining walls over 4 feet to. c. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 21. Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation of the right-of-way. 22. Access to all three lots shall be limited to the Private Street. Direct access is prohibited off of PleCas View 3 // J// ATTACHMENTS ,A—s�aV,r` -�n +O�V✓� ,;K ✓a^il v 1. Findings of Fact. �" 1� 4 2. Revised Tree Canopy Calculations. 3. Application. 4. Letter from applicant dated February 19, 2004. 5. Project Narrative. 6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 7. Memo from Mak Sweidan, Engineer dated March 8, 2004. 8. Memo from Steve Torell, Building Official dated December 15, 2003. 9. Memo from Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator, dated March 3, 2004. 10. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated December 15, 2003. 11. Preliminary plat dated "Received February 26, 2004". 9:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-03 - kenyon blufflpreliminary plat report pc.doc �'N10^ �Jj�njll" V V l 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT ) AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Kenyon Bluff Subdivision #03-22 SUB/Planning Case 0403 On March 16, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 2.16 Acre Lot into Three (3) single-family Lots with Variances, Kenyon Bluff. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Single -Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (1.2 — 4.0 units per net acre). 3. The legal description of the property is Lots 1 and 2, Pleasant View. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; c) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; d) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; e) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; 0 0 f) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and g) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2. Lack of adequate roads. 3. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 5. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: The applicant is proposing to access the site via a private street. This option will minimize grading and tree removal as well as provide less potential conflict with vehicles on Pleasant View Road. The applicant's request is fairly reasonable. Staff is recommending approval of this request. 6. The planning report #03-22 SUB/Planning Case 04-03, dated March 16, 2004, prepared by Sharmin AI-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat with variances. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16a' day of March, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Uli Sacchet, Chairman Mar 05 04 07:46a E3 • 9546-9065 Schoell & Madson, Inc. Engineering • Surveying • Planning Soil Testing • Environmental Services www. schocilmodson. corn MEMORANDUM TO: Jill Sinclair, City of Chanhassen. Sharmeen AI-Jaff, City of Chanhassen; Tom 93,932 Goodrum, Schoell & Madson, Inc.; FROM: Terry Jeffery, Schoell & Madsen. Inc. SUBJECT: Kenyon Bluffs Tree Preservation Plan JOB NO: 64085-001 DATE: March 5, 2004 Here are the amended calculations to the tree preservation plan for Kenyon Bluffs. These reflect the Change in remaining tree cover and the subsequent forestation. Calculations were done to determine the existing canopy cover on the property located at 400 Pleasant View Road in Chanhassen, MN, The calculations were done using aerial photography available on the Carver County website and a dot grid. Each parameter was counted a minimum of three times and the mean results were used for the final calculation, A copy of each trial is included With this memorandum. A summary of the calculations follows. Total Land Area Existing Tree Cover Tree Cover to Remain Minimum canopy coverage required Difference in Canopy Covcragq Multiplier x1.2 Total Total Number of Trees to be Planted Area in Square Feet Percent 93,932 100 58,316 62 28,702 31 43,208 46 14,506 17,407 SF 16 trees If you have any questions, or should you require any additional information, please contact me at 952-847-9637. Terry Jeffery, Natural Resources Specialist Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer 10580 Wayzata Boulevard. Suite 1 • Minneapolis. MN 55305.1525 Office (952) 546-7601 • Fax (952) 546.9065 P.2 Mar 05 04 07:46a 1* 95546-9065 P.3 Tree Canopy Cover as a Percentage of Total Land E IM -5 0.0 4 'MONSUCA, I 1 0143 I ME' ''W” N . ......... li;W' '! ' �` 1':' - 1 "91� W . , CW01" Ciii e0m4b -+„Nxu 191% "i � Dot 14 Coverage Required . . 43,208 ftA2 1 Total Area of Parcel 73 93,932 ftA2 100 68,316 ftA2 Canopy Cover Area 45 57,903 ftA2 62 2 Total Area of Parcel 73 93,932 ftA2 100 Canopy Cover Area 47 60,476 ftA2 64 3 Total Area of Parcel 71 93.932 ftA2 100 be Cleared Canopy Cover Area 42 55,565 tt-2 591 30,007 ftA2 , ET Exisiting Canopy over to IMF; iflW R' `12 Tree Canopy to Remain After Site Grading IM -5 0.0 4 'MONSUCA, I 1 0143 I ME' ''W” N . ......... li;W' '! ' �` 1':' - 1 "91� W . , Count V'; L 'UL FlirRON, 191% "i � Dot , Coverage Required . . 43,208 ftA2 EE �IiR'Can2py Cover 44.7 68,316 ftA2 100 1 !TnqCa,pyZover to 1A,519, be Cleared 23 30,007 ftA2 51 Exisiting Canopy over to IMF; iflW Remain 28,309 ftA2 49 1.2 E 3'n2 Cga,,Iop, Cover 44.7 58,316 ftA2 100 2 n z2t�q C OOV over to be Cleared 24 31 311 ftA2 54 Exisiting Canopy Cover to Goverage per I roe Remain 27,005 ftA2 46 """t"14• Ex�M n., CaCover447 58,316 W2 100 3 .2%, py 'r to be Cleared 21 27.397 ftA2 47 rxisiling ianopy over to Remain 30,949 ftA2 53 Existing Canopy Cover 44.7 68,316 ftA2 100 Averago Existing Canopy Cove �!22.7 be Cleared 29.614 ftA2 511 �Alwurlq �anopy �Qver 10 Remain 1 128,702 ftA2 49 Tree Preservation Plan Kenyon Bluffs 64085-001 Mar, 4. 2004 IM -5 0.0 4 'MONSUCA, I 1 0143 I ME' ''W” N MANN. Minimum anopy Coverage Required 43,208 ftA2 46 , W 1A,519, CO3qt,6,1r �, IMF; iflW tu-11xifier 1.2 , 'j4' "i �'11 T OA' I kipif :r Goverage per I roe 10891[^2 Ito" """t"14• Tree Preservation Plan Kenyon Bluffs 64085-001 Mar, 4. 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 h yt 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD Yi Yi CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: I f vh ADDRESS: A 12711) TELEPHONE (Day time) (�4Z - 77d - RF St S - OWNER: 12 I�ip j J/-+l�G ADDRESS ,._S= CJ<FS TELEPHONE:/,/? Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit ✓Vacation of ROW/Easements 3 00 Interim Use Permit -j.,�Variance .2 Co Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNARIWAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) t, -'Subdivision' (o(oO TOTAL FEE $ /-/(0().00 x A list of all prgperty owners vVrthm 500A , feet o_ f the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. C5A, A 4 mat A416L►) Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. x *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. O�, 0 2� 1fiY OfnrfrA,r 0 0 PROJECT NAME /!!�PjkjL -X t GY F LOCATION ���� QcSGn� V�Qw I�ocirJt LEGAL DESCRIPTION Ln4S I s,2r��¢aSQn� r �i;2wy CarvA,f 1/ ,W ^"IF �G�V14w IISO � TOTAL ACREAGE_ oC • / 4C y --P_ S WETLANDS PRESENT {{�� YES 1� NO V_\ PRESENT ZONING S F REQUESTED ZONING S G m PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Ln u— bu REQUESTED LAND USE DESK REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 1 further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the @pplicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and aqpneyreview. The e, the ci otifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for d opment review ve review hall be completed within 120 days unless additional review e oved by th pf /Z�oS-d3 -tr gnature Rznt Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee P ' // 6DD W Receipt No. � 12— The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 0 0 February 19, 2004 Sharmeen A]-Jaff City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Sharmeen: This letter is to grant the City of Chanhassen the additional 60 day requirement (until May, 29, 2004) to process my subdivision application (site located at 400 Pleasant View Road). It is my understanding that the application will be appearing before the Planning Commission on March 16, 2004 and before the City Council on April 12, 2004. Sincerely, Tom Rolling CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED PROJECT NARRATIVE FOR FEB 2 6 KENYON BLUFF 2004 400 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT CHANHASSEN AHNNESOTA Project Description: Tom Rollings is requesting the development of three single-family residential lots with a private road at 400 Pleasant View Road. The development is consistent with the surrounding single- family neighborhoods. The 2.1 -acre site currently contains a single-family resident, located near the center of the site, with two accessory structures located to the north of the home. The existing home and out buildings will be removed as part of this project. The property abuts Pleasant View Road along the southern and eastern edge. Oak Grove Avenue, an undeveloped platted right-of-way, borders the north property line. Access to the present home is from the southeast corner of the lot. The topography of the site slopes down from north to south with a high elevation of 983 feet in the northeast to a low elevation around 940 feet in both the southwest and northeast corners. There is a bluff in the southwest corner of the site. Project Data: Zoning Standards The property and surrounding lands are zoned Residential Single Family (RSF) and guided for low density residential. The proposed lots will meet all of the required setbacks and zoning standards for the RSF zone with a private street. The proposed lots will exceed the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet with sizes ranging from 18,471 square feet to 43,213 square feet. The buildable area within each of the lots exceeds the space necessary for a 60 X 60 foot building pad. The subdivision plan includes building footprints of 80 X 45 feet. This size more accurately demonstrates the building pad anticipated for the site. Private Road A private road will access the three lots. The road will enter the site west of the current driveway. This location aligns with the western access of Horseshoe Curve and provides 150 feet of sight distance from the driveway and the curve in Pleasant View Road. The drive will be constructed per city standards with a grade no greater than 10% and a paved width of 20 feet. A hammerhead tum -around will be constructed at the north end of the drive for emergency vehicle access. The drive will be within a 30 -foot easement and will be privately maintained. Tree Canopy There are 145 trees on the site. The trees are generally located along the perimeter of the property with heavier groupings within the southwestern bluff area and the northwest and 0 0 northeast comers. Few trees exist in the central area of the site where most of the development will occur. The proposed development will require the removal of 42 trees. This is less than half of the trees to be removed if a public road was required. The development will meet the tree canopy requirements of the zoning ordinance. Tree Canopy Currently Tree Canopy to Remain Tree Canopy Required by Ordinance Bluff 40,952 sq. ft. (45% of site) 29,090 sq. ft. (71 % of existing canopy) 14,333 sq. ft. (35% of existing canopy) The bluff in the southwest comer contains approximately 12,780 square feet of area. The subdivision provides the required 20 -foot bluff impact zone and 30 -foot setback. The bluff will be preserved and protected as part of the subdivision. Previous plans had noted a possible bluff in the northeast comer of the site. This was based on ariel topography that did not show the existing neighboring driveway and retention wall. After resurveying and field verifying the grades in this area it was discovered that the current slopes do not constitute a city defined bluff Grading Site grading will be required for the construction of the private drive and the building pads. Due to the natural topography of the site minimal grading would be required for the construction of the walkout style homes. This preserves the existing terrain along the eastern side of the site. Although the private drive will require cuts up to 10 feet there is minimal impact to the site. The use of retaining walls is not proposed except for tree preservation. Project Requests 1. Approval of a three -lot subdivision with a private road. 2. Approval of a variance for a private road. 3. Vacation of Oak Grove Avenue. Variance A variance is requested for the construction of a private drive as a shared access for the three lots. A private road is better suited for the development than a public road. To create the preferred sight distances and building locations a public road would need to be placed along the northern edge of the site. This is in an area that contains a nicely wooded slope. To grade a public road through this area would not only destroy the natural amenities that the development is trying to preserve, but it would negatively impact the character of the neighboring lots. This is demonstrated by the attached concept plan showing how the development of the site with a public road. The issues with a public road are: • At a 7% grade, the road will require cuts in the existing slopes up to 30 feet. • The required cuts will require the construction of 30 -foot retaining walls along the northern edge of the site, adjacent the neighbor's driveway. • Retaining walls will be needed along the edge of the bluff to provide adequate building pads and bluff preservation. • It will remove all of the vegetation within the wooded area in the northeast comer of the site. • It will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. • It will require removing 88 of the existing 145 trees. The use of a private road is beneficial to the city and the site by eliminating multiple accesses onto Pleasant View Road, reduces grading impacts and preserves trees. The variance request meets the six required findings as follows: Undue Hardship. The undue hardship is created by the topography of the site. A private road is not necessary for the development of the three lots within this site. It is possible to serve the site with three separate driveways or by a public road. Three driveways were not desirable due to the number of accesses onto Pleasant View Road and tree loss. A plan has been submitted that shows three lots being served by a public road. However, the steep grades and significant tree loss caused the public road to be environmentally damaging to construct. It is believed that a private drive will better serve the three lots and will minimize the grading impacts and tree loss. 2. Not applicable to other properties with same zoning This site is unique due to: 1) the steep topography, 2) having Pleasant View Road abutting two sides and 3) the inability to extend a public road past the site borders. Because of the site topography the private road will minimize the grading and tree loss within the site. The private road will also eliminate the number of driveways entering onto Pleasant View Road, which is expected to carry more traffic in the future. The ability to serve three lots with a single access than three accesses allows the development to improve traffic conditions in the area. Due to the location of the site and it's surrounding area it is not feasible to extend a public road beyond the borders of the site to serve any future developments. 3. Purpose is not to add value to the property Individual driveways without the use of a private road can achieve the same number of lots as allowed by city codes. The private road reduces grading and the number of accesses onto Pleasant View Road. 4. Not a self-created hardship The hardship is created by existing conditions. The development proposes to minimize the impacts to the existing conditions by using a private road. 5. Not detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties. The use of the private road creates a public benefit by reducing the grading impacts and by minimizing the number of driveways onto Pleasant View Road. 0 6. Not impair adequate light, air, traffic congestion, or property value nor endanger public safety. The private road maintains the same number of lots and development impacts that is allowed without the variance. Approving the private road will help in traffic congestion and public safety by reducing the number of driveways onto Pleasant View Road, especially in this area where several roads intersect near a curve. R -O -W Vacation Oak Grove Avenue is a platted 15 -foot undeveloped right-of-way located along the northern lot line. The road does not provide any practical benefit to the city or future access to the surrounding area. F • •. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED KENYON BLUFF SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES PLANNING CASE NO. 04-03 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 16, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the application of CBR Development to subdivide 2.1 acres into 3 single-family lots with variances, located at 400 Pleasant View Road (Lots 1 & 2, Pleasant View). A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on March 4, 2004) 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on March 4, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of A Public Hearing for a Subdivision with Variances proposing to subdivide 2.1 acres into 3 single- family lots, located at 400 Pleasant View Road (Lots 1 & 2, Pleasant View) Kenyon Bluff - Planning Case #04-03 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. K n J. E gel rdt, 60puty Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me -9—W ` • , this day of march , 2004• KIAA T. MEUVYISSEN W*PUblic- MiMWt3 — - CARVER COUNTY MYCammissionE*ms 1/312005 Not blic •NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Kenyon Bluff Subdivision with APPLICANT: CBR Development Variances LOCATION: 400 Pleasant View Road PLANNING CASE #04-03 NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, CBR Development, is requesting to subdivide 2.1 acres into 3 single-family lots with variances, located at 400 Pleasant View Road (Lots 1 & 2, Pleasant View). What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 or e-mail saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 4, 2004 0 0 City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. Staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Proposed Kenyon Bluff Subdivision Public Hearing Notice Area (500 feet) 400 Pleasant View Road City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-03 ` \ ✓ i,/ iii i n..... M.. Asa j i a • a �T �Y FmW �Ir ¢ s r` 400 Pleasant View Road Lotus Lake �. N 0 ALAN W & CAROL LENHART ANDREW H & KATRINA E CLEMENS 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY 6691 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9242 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 BASIL LAWRENCE TIVY CBR DEVELOPMENT LLC 370 PLEASANT VIEW RD 4550 W ESTON LN N CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 PLYMOUTH MN 55446-2023 CLARK C GRANT & ANNETTE M CURT R & SHELLY A SCHW IESO GRANT 6681 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN N MN 55317-9132 LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 CHA DAVID W SANTANA & DEBRA C DONALD J & DARLENE M MILLER SCHULTZ 395 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6614 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 EMILY H JOHNSON FRANCES M O'BRIEN ETAL 335 PLEASANT VIEW RD 450 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8325 GERALD & FRANCES M O'BRIEN JANICE L ANDRUS 450 INDIAN HILL RD 449 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8325 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 JOHN R & CAROL W HAMMETT JONATHAN R & KALLEEN T YANTA 6697 HORSESHOE CRV 365 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 KELBIN ROBERT BAILEY MICHAEL & KATHRYN SCHWARTZ 6580 PLEASANT VIEW WAY 469 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9241 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 PATRICIA A PAULS TRUSTEE OF RANDY R & RAYMA LEE SMITH TRUST 11010 OREGON CRV 429 PLEASANT VIEW RD BLOOMINGTON MN 55438-2806 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 RICHARD R & KATHLEEN E PECK ROBERT L & ELVA HANSEN 6690 HORSESHOE CRV 6620 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9501 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 0 ANN DANIELSON 6607 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 CHARLES C & JANET C HURD 6695 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 CYNTHIA ANN BRICTSON 6613 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 ELLEN L WOLANER 330 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 GARY W & MARY ANN MCCAULEY 420 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 JOHN & BEVERLY RYAN 6685 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 JOSEPH M & MARGERY M PFANKUCH 6611 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 NICHOLAS J P PERKINS 339 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 RAYMOND P & ALICIA L BROZOVICH 6609 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 ROBERT L & SANDRA J POST 489 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 Public works Staff is concerned with the proposed grading in the rearyard areas of Lots 1 and 2. C,rff OF MEMORANDUM CI�ANIIASSEN TO: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner 7700Market FROM: Mak Sweidan, Engineer POBoxBoulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 the housepad be raised one foot in elevation or that a small, 2- to 3 -foot, retaining PFax:9522.27.1110 Fax: 952.227.1110 DATE: March 8, 2004 Administration proposed rearyard of Lot 2 is a steep, vertical drop of over 20 feet from the Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax:952.227.1110 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review of Kenyon Bluff wwmachanhasseo.maas Land Use Review File No. 03-23 Building Inspections housepad along with a 4 -foot retaining wall. Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1190 Upon review of the plans submitted by Schoell & Madson dated February 25, Engineering 2004, I offer the following comments and recommendations: Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 The existing site over the Chanhassen lots has tree cover over approximately one acre of area. The existing bluff limit line follows the entire west side of the Park & Recreation proposed Lot 1 and the private street. The plans propose to grade about 75% of Phone: 952 227,1120 proposed ose rivate street with a half hammer - P the site for the new house ads and a ro d P . Recreation Center head tum around. The proposed grading will prepare the site for full basement 2310 Coulter Boulevard and walk -out house pads. Drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of Phone: 952227.1400 the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. Fax: 952.227.1404 The plan proposes a retaining wall for tree protection on Lot 1. The applicant Planning s should be aware that any retaining wall over 4 feet in height must be designed by Natural Resources a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will require a PFax:955227.1110 building permit from the Building Department. Fax: 952.227.1110 Public works Staff is concerned with the proposed grading in the rearyard areas of Lots 1 and 2. 1591 Park Road There is a steep slope (3:1) in the rearyard of Lot 1 which drains toward the Phone: 952.221.1300 Fax: 952227.1310 housepad. Staff has concerns about the ability of stormwater to safely drain around the housepad at the elevations shown. Staff would recommend that either Senior center the housepad be raised one foot in elevation or that a small, 2- to 3 -foot, retaining PFax:9522.27.1110 Fax: 952.227.1110 wall be installed to better facilitate drainage away from the house. Also, the g y proposed rearyard of Lot 2 is a steep, vertical drop of over 20 feet from the Web site housepad to Pleasant View Road. In order to provide a usable rearyard area, staff wwmachanhasseo.maas would recommend that a flatter, 10:1 slope be used for the first 15 feet off the rear housepad along with a 4 -foot retaining wall. The existing site drainage is encompassed within two different drainage areas. The site drains off site to the east and west directions toward Pleasant View Road. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the rearyard drainage from Lot 1, all of the street drainage and all of the front -yard drainage from the lots. This stormwater will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing pond at the corner of Horseshoe Lane. The proposed storm sewer must The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 0 11 RONALD E & LEANNE HARVIEUX RICH SLAGLE TRUSTEES OF TRUST AD 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD gAplan\2004 planning cases\04-03 - 6605 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN AD kenyon bluff\ph notice labels.doc CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 Sharmeen Haff • March 8, 2004 Page 2 be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. To better treat the stormwater, the applicant is proposing a stormceptor manhole to provide additional water quality treatment of the stormwater. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. A 75 -foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. UTILITIES The plans propose on extending sewer and water from Pleasant View Road on the east side of the parcel. Overall, the utility layout looks fine. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City of Chanhassen for maintenance and ownership. According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. However, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for water - main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. STREETS The plans propose on accessing the lots via a private street from the south side of the parcel off Pleasant View Road. The applicant is proposing a 30 -foot private street easement with a 20 -foot pavement width. The plans propose a 10% slope private street with a half hammer -head turn around. The proposed hammerhead turnaround configuration has been reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Sharmeent-Jaff • March 8, 2004 Page 3 Marshal. In addition, the private street must be built to a 7 -ton design. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. Also, the existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed. Pleasant View Road is designated as a collector road in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Current city code requires that collectors have a right-of-way width of 80 feet or 40 feet from the right-of-way centerline. Due to the existing environmental features (bluffs, trees, Lotus Lake) around Pleasant View Road and the tight space constraints of the area, it is unlikely that Pleasant View Road will ever be upgraded to the full width of current City standards for collector roads. As such, staff does not feel that a full 40 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Pleasant View Road is needed with this development. In keeping with the dedicated right-of-way width for Pleasant view Road of previous plats to the east of this site, staff has recommended that the applicant dedicate the necessary right- of-way to obtain a 33 -foot width from the centerline of Pleasant View Road for a total width of 66 feet. The applicant has shown this on the plans. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Submit a 30 -foot wide private cross access easement against all three lots at time of final plat recording. 2. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited, to the MPCA, MN Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 3. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calcs and drainage map for staff review and approval at time of final plat. 4. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall height more than 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will require a building permit through the City's Building Department. 5. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. 6. Show all of the existing and proposed utility easements on the utility plan. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show a minimum 75 -foot rock construction entrance. d. Extend the silt fence along the south and southwesterly sides. Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 CITY OF Fax: 952.227.1110 conditions: , CHMNSEN Phone: 952.221.1120 7700 Market Boulevard MEMORANDUM PO Box 147 structures. Chanhassen, MN 55317 2, A buildingernait must he obtained to construct an retaining walls over 4 p - y g Phone: 952.227.1400 feet tall. TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner Administration Division before building permits will be issued._ Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1100 FROM: Steven Torell, Building Official Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works Building Inspections DATE: December 15, 2003 Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1310 Fax: 952.227.1190 SUBJ: Site Plan review for: Kenyon Bluff Engineering Phone: 952.227.1125 Phone: 952.227.1100 Planning Case: 2003-22 SUB, 2003-20 VAR & 2003-6 VAC Fax: 952.227.1170 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 I have reviewed the plans for the above development and have the following Fax: 952.227.1110 conditions: , Pan & Recreation Phone: 952.221.1120 1. Demolition pemtits trust be obtained before demolishing any existing Fax: 952.227.1110 structures. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard 2, A buildingernait must he obtained to construct an retaining walls over 4 p - y g Phone: 952.227.1400 feet tall. Fax 952 227.1404 3. Final grading plans and soil reports must he submitted to the Inspections Planning & Division before building permits will be issued._ Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 G/safety/st/memos/plaa/Kenyon Bluff Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place 10 live, work, and play. Shanmeen A Raff • March 8, 2004 Page 4 8. Add to the plans the following notes: a. Any connection to existing manholes or catch basins must be core drilled. b. All sanitary services must be 6"PVC-SDR26 and water services 1"copper. 9. On Lot 1, either the housepad must be raised one foot in elevation or a small, 2 - to 3 -foot, retaining wall be installed to better facilitate drainage away from the house. 10. On Lot 2, 10:1 slope must be used for the fust 15 feet off the rear housepad along with a 4 -foot retaining wall. 11. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 12. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for water -main. 13. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 14. The private street must be built to a 7 -ton design. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 15. The existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed. c: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director. Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer. gAeug\proje \kmyou blu8lppr.doc Administration Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the P 2.21100 Fax: 952,227.1110 Upon review of plans prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc.. dated February 25, MEMORANDUM 2004, I offer the following comments and recommendations: TO: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Cfff OFC FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator A N CIIANIIASSEN Engineering methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before P221160 Fax: 952227.1170 DATE: March 3, 2004 7700 Market Boulevard Finance After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Kenyon Bluff (Planning Case 2004-03) Administration Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the P 2.21100 Fax: 952,227.1110 Upon review of plans prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc.. dated February 25, Phone: 952227.1130 2004, I offer the following comments and recommendations: Building Inspection permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the or P P Y g Phone: Fax: 952.227.1190 Fax:9522.27.1190 Erosion and Sediment Control Fax: 952.227.1404 Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control Engineering methods will be varied before and after pavement of the street. Before P221160 Fax: 952227.1170 Pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 -foot spacing of metal T -posts and 1" rock around silt fence material. Finance After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as P:211 Fax:952.227.1110 temporary inlet control. Park 6 Recreation Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 site. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopeseater than or gr Phone: 952227.1130 equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas must have temporary erosion protection Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the or P P Y g Phone: 952.227.1400 following table of slopes and time frames: Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Natural Resources remain open when the area Phone: 952227.1130 Steeper than 3:1 7 days is not actively being worked.) Fax:952227,1110 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Public works Flatter than 10:1 21 days 1591 Park Road PI952227.1310 222z1300 These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm Fax 952 water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, Senior Center temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems Phone: 952.227.1125 that discharge to a surface water. Fax: 952227.1110 Web site Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street www.cl.chanhassem.mn.us scraping and street sweeping as -needed. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on residential single family The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Sharmeen Al-Jaff • • March 3, 2004 Page 2 of 3 development rates of $1,028/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 1.92 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $1,974. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Residential single family developments have a connection charge of $2,545 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $4,886 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project does not propose the construction of NURP ponds and is therefore not eligible for SWMP credits. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $6,860. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. SUBDIVISION: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. 2. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. 3. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 4. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: TyW of Slove tabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or 5. Submit turnaround dimensions in front of Lot 2 to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.5. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a champing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gloat place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHONSEN 7700 Market Boulevard MEMORANDUM PO Boz 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Ane:952lra7 Phone: 952.227.1111 00 FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal Fax: 952.227.1110 December 15, 2003 Building InspectionsDATE: Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227,1190 SUBJ: Subdivision of 2.1 acres into 4 single family lots with variances and vacation of Oak Grove Avenue right-of-way Engineering Phoma: 952227.1160 Lots 1 and 2, Pleasant View, 400 Pleasant View Road, Fax: 952.227.1170 Kenyon Bluff, CBR Development applicant Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Planning Case: SUB 2003-22; VAR 2003-20; VAC 2003-6 Fax: 952.227.1110 I have reviewed the request for a subdivision for the above project. In order to comply Part a Recreation with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following P52.227.11 Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: fire code or cit ordinance/policy requirements. The plan review was done on Recreation Center available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are 2310 Coulter Boulevard submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952227.1404 1. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the intersection of Pleasant View Planning & Road and the new proposed street. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Natural Resources City Engineer for exact location. Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952,227.1110 2. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit Public worts proposed name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review 1591 Park Road and approval. Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 3. A 10 -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street Senior center lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer PFax:952..27.1110 boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and operated Fax: 952.227.1110 by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. Web Site www.achanhassemmus 4. No burning permits will be issued for tree/shrub disposal. Any trees removed must be removed or chipped on site. 5. Submit turnaround dimensions in front of Lot 2 to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.5. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a champing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gloat place to live, work, and play. Sharmeen Al-Jaff • March 3, 2004 Page 3 of 3 permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 5. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. 6. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $6,860. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. GAENGILorAPlanning\Kcnym Bluff 030504.dm 0 Sharmin Al-Jaff December 15, 2003 Page 2 6. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allow passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2 of Minnesota Fire Code. 7. Exception to #5 — The Fire Marshal is authorized to eliminate or reduce the turn around size required by the Fire Code Section 503.2.5 (see specs by City Engineer, copy enclosed) if the buildings on Lots 1, 2, and 3 are protected by an approved residential fire sprinkler system. Per Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.1.1 and 503.2.5 g:\safety\ml�ptrevs"vision2003-22 v ` l Zym Ma -,),Pe- Al.aL C � ,-cf ho"-k� r G -, -'e�j 're �I.i E i I 5VT 4-r�cy— � LAU-�� - '�/w iz oJe CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DA#: March 16, 2004 CC DATE: April 12, 2004 REVIEW DEADLINE: May 14, 2004 CASE #: 03-22 SUB/Planning Case 04-03 BY: Al-Jaff PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide a 2.16 Acre Lot into Three (3) Single -Family Lots a Variance, Kenyon Bluff LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Pleasant View. Northwest of Pleasant View Road. APPLICANT: CBR Development. LLC Tom Rollings 4550 Weston Lane N. Plymouth, MN 53446 U (612)770-8885 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net Density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 2.16 acres DENSITY: 1.38 Units per Acre Gross 1.8 Units per Acre Net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivision of 2.16 acres into 3 single-family lots, vacation of a portion of Oak Grove Avenue and a variance to allow a private street to serve the development. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the request. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Kenyon Bluff -Planning Calko. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 2 PROPOS.V /SUM`IARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.16 acres into 3 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District. The site contains a single family home which is proposed to be demolished. Access to the site is gained via an existing driveway off of Pleasant View Road. An abandoned right-of-way is located northeast of the subject site. The applicant is requesting vacation of the right-of-way. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation with the condition that a drainage and utility easement be maintained over the vacated portion (the vacation of the right-of-way requires City Council action only). Approval of the subdivision will be contingent upon approval of the vacation. The variance in this application is to allow a private street to serve this development. The subdivision ordinance requires a variance be granted in order to allow a private street. Staff is recommending approval of the variance to minimize grading and for safety reasons. This issue is discussed in detail later in the report. Staff has been working with the applicant for several months. Several development scenarios were examined including a four -lot subdivision. Staff directed the applicant to show how the site would develop if a public street was constructed. Sheet 1 of 1 (Preliminary Grading/Public Road Concept) shows the site served via a public street. This concept mass grades the site, removes most of the vegetation and utilizes retaining walls. Kenyon Bluff -Planning Canto. 04-03 March 16, 2004 Page 3 The average lot size is 27,860 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.38 units per acre and net density of 1.8 units per acre. The site is located northwest of Pleasant View Road. All three lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The site contains a bluff along the southwest comer. The required setbacks will be maintained from the edge of the bluff. The site has mature trees which the applicant is making an effort to preserve. In reviewing this plat, staff worked with the applicant to acquire additional right-of-way for Pleasant View Road. The current right-of-way is deficient in width. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with a variance to allow a private street with conditions outlined in the staff report. PRELE IINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.16 acre site into 3 single-family lots. The gross density of the site is 1.38 units per acre and net density is 1.8 units per acre. All three lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 27,860 square feet. All three proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A bluff occupies the southwest portion of proposed Lot 1. The ordinance requires all structures to maintain a 30 -foot setback from the top of the bluff. The plans indicate that this setback can be accommodated and no grading is proposed within that area. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS There are no wetlands on this site. Erosion and Sediment Control Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be vaned before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-duty mono -mono silt fence with 4 -foot spacing of metal T -posts and 1" rock around silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control. Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Kenyon Bluff -Planning Ca9ko. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 4 TT+pe of Slone Time (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area Steeper than 3:1 7 days is not actively being worked.) 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a stone water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on residential single family development rates of $1,0281acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 1.92 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $1,974. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Residential single family developments have a connection charge of $2,545 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $4,886 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project does not propose the construction of NURP ponds and is therefore not eligible for SWMP credits. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $6,860. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The existing site has tree cover over approximately one acre of area. The existing bluff limit line follows the entire west side of proposed Lot 1 and the private street. The plans propose to grade about 50-60% of the site for the new house pads and private street. The proposed grading will prepare the site for full basement and walk -out house pads. Drainage swales have been proposed Kenyon Bluff -Planning CdWo. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page S along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The plan proposes a retaining wall for tree protection on Lot 1. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall over 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will require a building permit from the Building Department. Staff is concerned with the proposed grading in the rear yard areas of Lots 1 and 2. There is a steep slope (3:1) in the rear yard of Lot 1 which drains toward the house pad. Staff has concerns about the ability of stormwater to safely drain around the house pad at the elevations shown. Staff would recommend that either the house pad be raised one foot in elevation or that a small, 2 to 3 -foot retaining wall be installed to better facilitate drainage away from the house. Also, the proposed rear yard of Lot 2 is a steep, vertical drop of over 20 feet from the house pad to Pleasant View Road. In order to provide a usable rear yard area, staff would recommend that a flatter, 10:1 slope be used for the first 15 feet off the rear house pad along with a 4 -foot retaining wall. The existing site drainage is encompassed within two different drainage areas. The site drains off site to the east and west directions toward Pleasant View Road. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the rear yard drainage from Lot 1, all of the street drainage and all of the front yard drainage from the lots. This stormwater will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing pond at the corner of Horseshoe Lane. The proposed storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. To better treat the stormwater, the applicant is proposing a stormceptor manhole to provide additional water quality treatment of the stormwater. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. A 75 -foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. UTILITIES The plans propose on extending sewer and water from Pleasant View Road on the east side of the parcel. Overall, the utility layout looks fine. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City of Chanhassen for maintenance and ownership. According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. However, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for water -main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. Kenyon Bluff -Planning CdONo. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 6 Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. STREETS The plans propose accessing the lots via a private street from the south side of the parcel off of Pleasant View Road. The applicant is proposing a 30 -foot private street easement with a 20 -foot pavement width. The plans propose a 10% slope private street with a half hammerhead turnaround. The proposed hammerhead turnaround configuration has been reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Marshal. In addition, the private street must be built to a 7 -ton design. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. Also, the existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed. Pleasant View Road is designated as a collector road in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Current city code requires that collectors have a right-of-way width of 80 feet or 40 feet from the right- of-way centerline. Due to the existing environmental features (bluffs, trees, Lotus Lake) around Pleasant View Road and the tight space constraints of the area, it is unlikely that Pleasant View Road will ever be upgraded to the full width of current City standards for collector roads. As such, staff does not feel that a full 40 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Pleasant View Road is needed with this development. In keeping with the dedicated right-of-way width for Pleasant view Road of previous plats to the east of this site, staff has recommended that the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of-way to obtain a 33 -foot width from the centerline of Pleasant View Road for a total width of 66 feet. The applicant has shown this on the plans. VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY The applicant is requesting to vacate a portion of Oak Grove Avenue. Currently, no street exists in that area. The grades in the area are steep making a street connection unlikely. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation since the right-of-way is not needed. The City will retain a drainage and utility easement over the sanitary sewer line. Kenyon Bluff -Planning Calk. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 7 PARK DEDICATION Kenyon Bluff lies within the park service area of North Lotus Lake Park. Future residents of thiss subdivision will easily be able to access the park via Pleasant View Road. No sidewalks or trails are currently available along Pleasant View Road. It is unlikely that these amenities will be constructed in the future even though a pedestrian route along Pleasant View Road is identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The topography of the area and curvilinear nature of the road would present nearly insurmountable challenges to the construction of a trail or sidewalk. However, if an effort to construct a sidewalk along Pleasant View Road was ever undertaken, the 18 feet of additional right-of-way being acquired as a part of this subdivision could accommodate the improvements required of such a project. It is recommended that the applicant pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on two of the three lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single family home on the property. The park fee on two single-family homes totals $5,600 and is payable at the time of platting. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The tree calculations shown on the plans have been revised by the applicant (see memorandum dated March 5, 2004 from Schoell and Madson, Inc.). Tree Preservation Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Kenyon Bluff development were submitted by the applicant and are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots) 93,932 SF or 2.16 ac. Baseline canopy coverage 62% or 58,316 SF Minimum canopy coverage required 46% or 43,208 SF Proposed tree preservation 31% or 28,702 SF The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage 14,506 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 17,407 SF Total number of trees to be planted 16 trees A replacement planting plan must be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall be location, species and size of replacements. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. Kenyon Bluff -Planning CJ No. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 8 Bufferyard plantings are required along Pleasantview Road. Requirements are as follows: Location Required Proposed Lot 3 — bufferyard B — 2 overstory trees 0 overstory 25' width 4 understory trees 0 understory 215'length 9 shrubs 0 shrubs Existing vegetation and grade changes are sufficient buffers for lots 1 and 2 along Pleasantview Road. Ordinance BLOCK 1 Lot 1 Lot 2 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Area 15,000 43,213 18,471 150' 138' Lot Depth 125' 264' 151' Lot 3 21,896 166' 166' • The 30 foot bluff setback includes a 20 foot bluff impact zone. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Home Setback 30' front/rear 10' sides 30'/30'* 10' 30'/30' 10' 30730' 10' Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District and the zoning ordinance if the private street variance is approved. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Kenyon Bluff -Planning CONo. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 9 Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. VARIANCE FINDINGS VARIANCE Section 18-57. Streets. (r) Private streets serving up to four (4) lots may be permitted in the A2, RR, RSF and R4 if the criteria in variance section 18-22 are met and upon consideration of the following: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. Kenyon Bluff -Planning CJONo. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 10 (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, including wetlands and protected areas. Staff reviewed the two possible plat layouts for the site and considered individual driveways off of Pleasant View Road. Staff believes that the best option from a safety and environmental standpoint is the private street option. The option of all the lots accessing directly from Pleasant View Road with three separate driveways is not recommended from a safety standpoint. Each of the separate accesses creates a potential conflict point with traffic on Pleasant View Road, a collector street. The second option of a public street and cul-de-sac serving the parcel requires severe grading of the site. The plans show retaining walls around the perimeter of the site from 2 to 28 feet in height for this option. The final option of a private street serving three lots is the most environmentally friendly with minimal retaining walls and yet does not add any additional access points to the site off of Pleasant View Road. Staff is recommending approval of the private street. VARIANCE FINDINGS Sec. 18-22. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: VARIANCE FINDINGS WITHIN SUBDIVISONS The city may grant a variance from the regulations of the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street preserves significant site features. 2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land. 3) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other properties due to the unique site features. The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the propose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and Kenyon Bluff -Planning C*No. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 11 comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and comprehensive plan. The applicant is proposing to access the site via a private street. This option will minimize grading and tree removal as well as provide less potential conflict with vehicles on Pleasant View Road. The applicant's request is reasonable. Staff is recommending approval of this request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY (City Council motion only). "The City Council approves the partial vacation of Oak Grove Avenue as shown on plans dated received February 26, 2004, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the city with the legal description of the vacated right-of-way. 2. The applicant shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement over the vacated portion" PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 04-03 for Kenyon Bluff for 3 lots and a variance to allow a private street as shown on the plans received February 26, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. Applicant shall submit landscape plan showing the 16 trees required to be planted. Trees shall meet minimum size requirements. b. Minimum bufferyard planting requirements for Lot 3 includes 2 overstory trees, 4 understory trees and 9 shrubs. c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed prior to grading at the perimeter of the grading limits. d. Any trees not shown for removal that are lost due to construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 2. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on two of the three lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single-family home on the property. The park fee on two single family homes totals $5,600 and is payable at the time of platting. Kenyon Bluff -Planning C*No. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 12 3. Submit a 30 -foot wide private cross -access easement against all three lots at time of final plat recording. 4. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, MN Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 5. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calculations and drainage map for staff review and approval at time of final plat. 6. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall more than 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will require a building permit through the City's Building Department. 7. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. 8. Show all of the existing and proposed utility easements on the utility plan. 9. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show a minimum 75 -foot rock construction entrance. d. Extend the silt fence along the south and southwesterly sides. 10. Add to the plans the following notes: a. Any connection to existing manholes or catch basins must be core drilled. b. All sanitary services must be 6" PVC-SDR26 and water services 1" copper. 11. On Lot 1, either the house pad must be raised one foot in elevation or a small, 2 to 3 -foot, retaining wall be installed to better facilitate drainage away from the house. 12. On Lot 2, 10:1 slope must be used for the first 15 feet off the rear house pad along with a 4 -foot retaining wall. 13. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 14. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for water -main. 15. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the Kenyon Bluff -Planning Ca11/No. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 13 appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPGA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 16. The private street must be built to a 7 -ton design. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 17. The existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed. 18. Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: a. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures. b. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. c. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. d. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: jypLpf Sloe Stabilized within Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. e. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. f. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $6,860. g. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 19. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval. b. A 10 -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c. No burning permits will be issued for treetshrub disposal. Any trees removed must be removed or chipped on site. Kenyon Bluff -Planning C*o. 04-03 • March 16, 2004 Page 14 20. Building Official Conditions: a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. b. A building permit must be obtained to construct any retaining walls over 4 feet tall. c. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 21. Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation of the right-of-way. 22. Access to all three lots shall be limited to the Private Street. Direct access is prohibited off of Pleasant View Road." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Revised Tree Canopy Calculations. 3. Application. 4. Letter from applicant dated February 19, 2004. 5. Project Narrative. 6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 7. Memo from Mak Sweidan, Engineer dated March 8, 2004. 8. Memo from Steve Torell, Building Official dated December 15, 2003. 9. Memo from Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator, dated March 3, 2004. 10. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated December 15, 2003. 11. Preliminary plat dated "Received February 26, 2004". gAplan\2004 planning casts\04-03 - kenyon blufNprefiminary plat report pc.dac CITY OF MEMORANDUM CI1Hl1DHJSEN TO: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner 7700 Market Boulevard PO Boa 147 FROM: Mak Sweidan, Engineer k'e'y O Chanhassen, MN 55317 QT"f" DATE: March 8, 2004 Administration Phone: 952 227.1100 Fax: 952 227.1110 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review of Kenyon Bluff Land Use Review File No. 03-23 Building Inspections Phone. 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Upon review of the plans submitted by Schoell & Madson dated February 25, Engineering 2004, I offer the following comments and recommendations: Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 The existing site over the Chanhassen lots has tree cover over approximately one acre of area. The existing bluff limit line follows the entire west side of the Park a Recreation proposed Lot 1 and the private street. The plans propose to grade about 75% of Phone: 2211 Faxa52.2277.1110 the site for the new house pads and a proposedprivate street with a half hammer - Recreation center head tum around. The proposed grading will prepare the site for full basement 2310 Coulter Boulevard and walk -out house pads. Drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of Phone: 952227.1400 the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. Fax: 952.227.1404 The plan proposes a retaining wall for tree protection on Lot 1. The applicant Planning a should be aware that any retaining wall over 4 feet in height must be designed by Natural Resources a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will require a Phone: 952.227.1130 building permit from the Building Department. Fax: 952.227 1110 Public Works Staff is concerned with the proposed grading in the rearyard areas of Lots 1 and 2. 1591 Park Road There is a steep slope (3:1) in the rearyard of Lot 1 which drains toward the Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952 227.1310 housepad. Staff has concerns about the ability of stormwater to safely drain around the housepad at the elevations shown. Staff would recommend that either Senior center the housepad be raised one foot in elevation or that a small, 2- to 3 -foot, retaining Phone: 952.227 1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 wall be installed to better facilitate drainage away from the house. Also, the g y proposed rearyard of Lot 2 is a steep, vertical drop of over 20 feet from the Web site housepad to Pleasant View Road. In order to provide a usable rearyard area, staff www.cl.charehassennn.us would recommend that a flatter, 10:1 slope be used for the first 15 feet off the rear housepad along with a 4 -foot retaining wall. The existing site drainage is encompassed within two different drainage areas. The site drains off site to the east and west directions toward Pleasant View Road. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the rearyard drainage from Lot 1, all of the street drainage and all of the front -yard drainage from the lots. This stormwater will be conveyed via storm sewer to an existing pond at the comer of Horseshoe Lane. The proposed storm sewer must The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Sharmeen 0• March 8, 2004 Page 2 be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. To better treat the stormwater, the applicant is proposing a stormceptor manhole to provide additional water quality treatment of the stormwater. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. A 75 -foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. UTILITIES The plans propose on extending sewer and water from Pleasant View Road on the east side of the parcel. Overall, the utility layout looks fine. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City of Chanhassen for maintenance and ownership. According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. However, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for water - main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPGA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. STREETS The plans propose on accessing the lots via a private street from the south side of the parcel off Pleasant View Road. The applicant is proposing a 30 -foot private street easement with a 20 -foot pavement width. The plans propose a 10% slope private street with a half hammer -head tum around. The proposed hammerhead turnaround configuration has been reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Sharmeen *• March 8, 2004 Page 3 Marshal. In addition, the private street must be built to a 7 -ton design. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. Also, the existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed. Pleasant View Road is designated as a collector road in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Current city code requires that collectors have a right-of-way width of 80 feet or 40 feet from the right-of-way centerline. Due to the existing environmental features (bluffs, trees, Lotus Lake) around Pleasant View Road and the tight space constraints of the area, it is unlikely that Pleasant View Road will ever be upgraded to the full width of current City standards for collector roads. As such, staff does not feel that a full 40 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Pleasant View Road is needed with this development. In keeping with the dedicated right-of-way width for Pleasant view Road of previous plats to the east of this site, staff has recommended that the applicant dedicate the necessary right- of-way to obtain a 33 -foot width from the centerline of Pleasant View Road for a total width of 66 feet. The applicant has shown this on the plans. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Submit a 30 -foot wide private cross access easement against all three lots at time of final plat recording. 2. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited, to the MPCA, MN Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 3. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calcs and drainage map for staff review and approval at time of final plat. 4. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall height more than 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will require a building permit through the City's Building Department. 5. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. 6. Show all of the existing and proposed utility easements on the utility plan. 7. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show a minimum 75 -foot rock construction entrance. d. Extend the silt fence along the south and southwesterly sides. Sharmeen s• March 8, 2004 Page 4 8. Add to the plans the following notes: a. Any connection to existing manholes or catch basins must be core drilled. b. All sanitary services must be 6"PVC-SDR26 and water services 1"copper. 9. On Lot 1, either the housepad must be raised one foot in elevation or a small, 2 - to 3 -foot, retaining wall be installed to better facilitate drainage away from the house. 10. On Lot 2, 10:1 slope must be used for the first 15 feet off the rear housepad along with a 4 -foot retaining wall. 11. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 12. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for water -main. 13. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 14. The private street must be built to a 7 -ton design. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 15. The existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed. c: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director. Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer. gAzag\pmjects\keuym blufHpprAm Mar 05 04 07:46a 952-546-9065 P.1 0 • Schoell & Madson, Inc. Engineering - Surveying • Planning Soil Testing • Environmental Services www.schocilmodson.com TO: City of Chanhassen DATE: March 5, 2004 PROJECT NO.: 64085-001 ATTENTION: Jill Sinclair SUBJECT: Tree Preservation - Ken on Bluffs FAX: 952 227-1110 We are sending you [R herewith ❑ under separate Cover the following: ❑ Plans ❑ Specifications ❑ Prints ❑ Reports ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Change Order ❑ Samples ❑ Copy of a Lotter ❑ Data Sheets ❑ Other Transmitted via: ❑ Mail ® Fax ❑ Will Call ❑ t t Those are transmitted 15 follows: Hr. Mossongor Sorvico Q Overnight Dolivory ❑ As Requestod ❑ For Your Records ❑ For Your Use N For Review and Comment REMARKS: Thank you for your input Jill_ It is always nice to be ablo to talk to someone and got the answors you nood. It you notice any discropancies or have any comments, please call me. SCHOELL & M SON, INC. TerranC ery, Natural Resources Specialist Direct Dial No. (952) 847-9637 Copy To I �: J nvi i Cpl\I Srvn'w w ku1:WhP�rcmn\t ir�lrrd (711 ice 14rn¢�\l rpn,.nn IW I vrcw.Jix kcv. 2/11;03 Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer 10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 • Minneapolis, MN 55305-1525 Office (952) 546-7601 - Fax (952) 546.9065 0 0 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized PROPOSED KENYON BLUFF agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: PLANNING CASE NO. 04-03 CITY OF CHANHASSEN (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as the Chanhassen Planning amended. Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 16, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market was published on the daze or dazes and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Blvd. The purpose of this heating is Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of to consider the application of CBR the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both Development to subdivide 2.1 acres inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition into 3 single-family lots with and publication of the Notice: variances, located at 400 Pleasant ViewRoad(Lots 1 &2, Pleasant View). A plan showing the location of abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz the proposal y available for public review at City Hall during regular l.(i- + /1 e J business hours. All interested ✓^ �f`N Persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their Laurie A. Hartmann opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmeen Al - Jaff, Senior Planner Subscribed and sworn before me on Phone: 952-227.1134 (Published in the Chanhassen n Thursday. March 4.2009: � No 4113) this day of —,2004 .--- GWEN M.RADUENZ NOTARYPU&1C MMMtESOTA eg. My CommMm ExrM Jan. 31.21105 Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter.._ ............................._..._....... $10.85 per column inch Web She www.6chanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding [rails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. RECOMMENDATION Planning A MEMORANDUM Cff OF CgA NSEN TO: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner 77W Market Boulevard FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director PO Boz 147 due to the existing single family home on the property. The park fee on two Chanhassen, MN 55317 DATE: February 27, 2004 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 SUBJ: Kenyon Bluff Fax: 952227.1110 Building Intendants I have reviewed the application to subdivide 2.1 acres into three single family lots Phone:952.227.1180 (Kenyon Bluff) as it relates to the park and trail section of the city's Fax: 952.227.1190 Comprehensive Plan. Kenyon Bluff lies within the park service area of North Engineering Lotus Lake Park. Future residents of this subdivision will easily be able to access Phone: 952.227.1160 the park via Pleasant View Road. No sidewalks or trails are currently available Fax: 952.227.1170 along Pleasant View Road. It is unlikely that these amenities will be constructed Finance in the future even though a pedestrian route along Pleasant View Road is Phone: 952.227.1140 identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The topography of the area and curvilinear Fax: 952227.1110 nature of the road would present nearly insurmountable challenges to the Park & Recreation construction of a trail or sidewalk. Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 However, if an effort to construct a sidewalk along Pleasant View Road was ever Recreation Center undertaken, the 18 feet of additional right-of-way being acquired as a part of this 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 subdivision could accommodate the improvements required of such a project. Fax: 952 2271404 Web She www.6chanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding [rails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. RECOMMENDATION Planning A Natural Resources Phone. 952,227,1130 It is recommended that the applicant pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or Fax: 952.227.1110 trail construction on three of the four lots. One lot is exempt from these charges Public Works due to the existing single family home on the property. The park fee on two 1591 Park Road single family homes totals $5,600 and is payable at the time of platting. Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.221.1310 c: Park and Recreation Commission Senior Center Phone: 952 227.1125 Fax: 952 227.1110 Web She www.6chanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding [rails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. NOTE: The only change to this Jgm is that the number of lots has bee4duced from 4 to 3. City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard p Chanhassen, MN 55317 tem bll t aF (952) 227-1100 Date: February 26, 2004 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Subject: Subdivision of 2.1 acres into 3 Single -Family Lots with Variances and Vacation of Oak Grove Avenue Right -of -Way; Lots 1 & 2, Pleasant View; 400 Pleasant View Road; Kenyon Bluff; CBR Development, Applicant Planning Case: 2004-03 (aka SUB #2003-22; VAR #2003-20; VAC #2003-6) The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on February 26, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 16, 2004, at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than Friday, March 5, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments 8. Telephone Company a. City Engineer (Qwest or United) b. City Attorney c. City Park Director 9. Electric Company d. Fire Marshal (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) e. Building Official E Water Resources Coordinator 10. Mediacom g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 3. Soil Conservation Service 12. Carver County a. Engineer 4. MN Dept. of Transportation b. Environmental Services 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Other - 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 14. 0 Schoell & Madson, Inc. Engineering • Surveying • Planning Soil Testing • Environmental Services www.schoelimadson.com TO: City of Chanhassan DATE: 2-26-04 1 PROJECT NO.: 64085-001 7700 Market Blvd ATTENTION: Sharmeen AI-Jaff Chanhassan MN 55317 SUBJECT: Kenyon Bluff We are sending you ❑ herewith ❑ under separate cover the following: ❑ Plans ❑ Specifications ❑ Prints ❑ Reports ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Change Order ❑ Samples ❑ Copy of a Letter ❑ Data Sheets ❑ Other Transmitted via: ❑ Mail ❑ Fax ❑ Will Call ❑ Hr. Messenger Service ❑ Overnight Delivery QUANTITY DESCRIPTION 16 Full plan sets including public road option 1 Reduced plan sets 1 Narrative These are transmitted as follows: ❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Records ❑ For Your Use ❑ For Review and Comment REMARKS: This plan set replaces the plans submitted 1-30-04 SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Tom Goodrum Direct Dial No. 952-847-9645 Copy To F:\Users\Common\FORMS\Companywide\Transmittal Form w-lines.dm Rev. 2/11/03 clN OF SEN RECEIVED FEB 2 6 2004 cHAN114SE4 PLANNING DEPT Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer 10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 • Minneapolis, MN 55305-1525 Office (952) 546-7601 • Fax (952) 546-9065 PROJECT NARRATIVE FOR ]KENYON BLUFF 400 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA Project Description: CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 2 6 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Tom Rollings is requesting the development of three single-family residential lots with a private road at 400 Pleasant View Road. The development is consistent with the surrounding single- family neighborhoods. The 2.1 -acre site currently contains a single-family resident, located near the center of the site, with two accessory structures located to the north of the home. The existing home and out buildings will be removed as part of this project. The property abuts Pleasant View Road along the southern and eastern edge. Oak Grove Avenue, an undeveloped platted right-of-way, borders the north property line. Access to the present home is from the southeast comer of the lot. The topography of the site slopes down from north to south with a high elevation of 983 feet in the northeast to a low elevation around 940 feet in both the southwest and northeast comers. There is a bluff in the southwest corner of the site. Project Data: Zoning Standards The property and surrounding lands are zoned Residential Single Family (RSF) and guided for low density residential. The proposed lots will meet all of the required setbacks and zoning standards for the RSF zone with a private street. The proposed lots will exceed the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet with sizes ranging from 18,471 square feet to 43,213 square feet. The buildable area within each of the lots exceeds the space necessary for a 60 X 60 foot building pad. The subdivision plan includes building footprints of 80 X 45 feet. This size more accurately demonstrates the building pad anticipated for the site. Private Road A private road will access the three lots. The road will enter the site west of the current driveway. This location aligns with the western access of Horseshoe Curve and provides 150 feet of sight distance from the driveway and the curve in Pleasant View Road. The drive will be constructed per city standards with a grade no greater than 10% and a paved width of 20 feet. A hammerhead tum -around will be constructed at the north end of the drive for emergency vehicle access. The drive will be within a 30 -foot easement and will be privately maintained. Tree Canopy There are 145 trees on the site. The trees are generally located along the perimeter of the property with heavier groupings within the southwestern bluff area and the northwest and northeast comers. Few trees exist in the central area of the site where most of the development will occur. The proposed development will require the removal of 42 trees. This is less than half of the trees to be removed if a public road was required. The development will meet the tree canopy requirements of the zoning ordinance. Tree Canopy Currently 40,952 sq. ft. (45% of site) Tree Canopy to Remain 29,090 sq. ft. (71 % of existing canopy) Tree Canopy Required by Ordinance 14,333 sq. ft. (35% of existing canopy) Bluff The bluff in the southwest comer contains approximately 12,780 square feet of area. The subdivision provides the required 20 -foot bluff impact zone and 30 -foot setback. The bluff will be preserved and protected as part of the subdivision. Previous plans had noted a possible bluff in the northeast comer of the site. This was based on ariel topography that did not show the existing neighboring driveway and retention wall. After resurveying and field verifying the grades in this area it was discovered that the current slopes do not constitute a city defined bluff. Grading Site grading will be required for the construction of the private drive and the building pads. Due to the natural topography of the site minimal grading would be required for the construction of the walkout style homes. This preserves the existing terrain along the eastern side of the site. Although the private drive will require cuts up to 10 feet there is minimal impact to the site. The use of retaining walls is not proposed except for tree preservation. Project Requests 1. Approval of a three -lot subdivision with a private road. 2. Approval of a variance for a private road. 3. Vacation of Oak Grove Avenue. Variance A variance is requested for the construction of a private drive as a shared access for the three lots. A private road is better suited for the development than a public road. To create the preferred sight distances and building locations a public road would need to be placed along the northern edge of the site. This is in an area that contains a nicely wooded slope. To grade a public road through this area would not only destroy the natural amenities that the development is trying to preserve, but it would negatively impact the character of the neighboring lots. This is demonstrated by the attached concept plan showing how the development of the site with a public road. The issues with a public road are: • At a 7% grade, the road will require cuts in the existing slopes up to 30 feet. • The required cuts will require the construction of 30 -foot retaining walls along the northern edge of the site, adjacent the neighbor's driveway. • Retaining walls will be needed along the edge of the bluff to provide adequate building pads and bluff preservation. • It will remove all of the vegetation within the wooded area in the northeast comer of the site. • It will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. • It will require removing 88 of the existing 145 trees. The use of a private road is beneficial to the city and the site by eliminating multiple accesses onto Pleasant View Road, reduces grading impacts and preserves trees. The variance request meets the six required findings as follows: Undue Hardship. The undue hardship is created by the topography of the site. A private road is not necessary for the development of the three lots within this site. It is possible to serve the site with three separate driveways or by a public road. Three driveways were not desirable due to the number of accesses onto Pleasant View Road and tree loss. A plan has been submitted that shows three lots being served by a public road. However, the steep grades and significant tree loss caused the public road to be environmentally damaging to construct. It is believed that a private drive will better serve the three lots and will minimize the grading impacts and tree loss. 2. Not applicable to other properties with same zoning This site is unique due to: 1) the steep topography, 2) having Pleasant View Road abutting two sides and 3) the inability to extend a public road past the site borders. Because of the site topography the private road will minimize the grading and tree loss within the site. The private road will also eliminate the number of driveways entering onto Pleasant View Road, which is expected to carry more traffic in the future. The ability to serve three lots with a single access than three accesses allows the development to improve traffic conditions in the area. Due to the location of the site and it's surrounding area it is not feasible to extend a public road beyond the borders of the site to serve any future developments. 3. Purpose is not to add value to the property Individual driveways without the use of a private road can achieve the same number of lots as allowed by city codes. The private road reduces grading and the number of accesses onto Pleasant View Road. 4. Not a self-created hardship The hardship is created by existing conditions. The development proposes to minimize the impacts to the existing conditions by using a private road. 5. Not detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties. The use of the private road creates a public benefit by reducing the grading impacts and by minimizing the number of driveways onto Pleasant View Road. w 6. Not impair adequate light, air, traffic congestion, or property value nor endanger public safety. The private road maintains the same number of lots and development impacts that is allowed without the variance. Approving the private road will help in traffic congestion and public safety by reducing the number of driveways onto Pleasant View Road, especially in this area where several roads intersect near a curve. R -O -W Vacation Oak Grove Avenue is a platted 15 -foot undeveloped right-of-way located along the northern lot line. The road does not provide any practical benefit to the city or future access to the surrounding area. I Finance Phone: 952 227.1140 CITY OF Fax: 952.227.1110 conditions: CIIMSEN Phone: 952.227.1120 7700 Market Boulevard MEMORANDUM PC Box 147 structures. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Administration 3. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Planning a Phone: 952.227.1100 FROM: Steven Torell, Building Official Fax: 952.227 1110 Fax 952.227.1110 Building Inspections DATE: February 13, 2004 Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 SUBJ: Site Plan review for: Kenyon Bluff (Revised) Engineering Phone: 952.227.1180 Planning Case: 2003-22 SUB, 2003-20 VAR & 2003-6 VAC Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952 227.1140 I have reviewed the revised plans for the above development and have the following Fax: 952.227.1110 conditions: Park 8 Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 1. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing Fax: 952.227.1110 structures. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard 2. A building unit must be obtained to construct an retaining walls over 4 g Pe Y g Phone: 952.227.1400 feet tall. Fax: 952.221.1404 3. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Planning a Division before building permits will be issued. Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 G/safety/st/memos/planMenyon Blufi2 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Date: February 2, 2004 d9ftse return plans to Planning City of Chanhassen Secretary when finished. 7700 Market Boulevard Thank you! Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Subject: Subdivision of 2.1 acres into 4 Single Family Lots with Variances and Vacation of Oak Grove Avenue Right -of -Way; Lots 1 & 2, Pleasant View; 400 Pleasant View Road; Kenyon Bluff, CBR Development, Applicant Planning Case: 2004-03 (aka SUB #2003-22; VAR #2003-20; VAC #2003-6) The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on January 30, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 2, 2004, at 7:00 p.rrL in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your continents by no later than Wednesday, February 18, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly ap rated. , 1. City Departments 8. Telephone Company a. City Fjigineer (Qwest or United) mey�. c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal g fficial f. Water Resources Coordina g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Mediacom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. City of Chanhassen 3 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 crri OF (952) 227-1100 MMSEH Date: February 2, 2004 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Subject: Subdivision of 2.1 acres into 4 Single Family Lots with Variances and Vacation of Oak Grove Avenue Right -of -Way; Lots 1 & 2, Pleasant View; 400 Pleasant View Road; Kenyon Bluff; CBR Development, Applicant Planning Case: 2004-03 (aka SUB #2003-22; VAR #2003-20; VAC #2003-6) The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on January 30, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your continents and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 2, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than Wednesday, February 18, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Deparunents a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official L Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Mediacom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. ClW est Mr. Gary Roberson 6244 Cedar Ave. S. Richfield MN 55423 Mr. Rick Finch, General Manager Mediacom 2381 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 Ms. Cherie Monson Mr. Mark Osendorf Minnegasco Xcel Energy 700 West Linden Ave., P.O. Box 1165 1700 E. Co. Rd. E Minneapolis, MN 55440 White Bear Lake, MN 55110 i • Location Map 400 Pleasant View Road City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-03 400 Pleasant View Road Al, Lotus Lake CITY OF SHASSEN rR RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DUITY OF CHANHASSEN �ryryp 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD 0111 Ur` CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 6(.4�04c_ 1 d DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT:1�)M I 0I'; K c S �j 1 /27/U s� TELEPHONE (Day time) j�4Z - 776 - RF k U '/,C',5 k,. -,I} P N a OWNER: ADDRESSl�e_5= LcIcF_!; Z_;; %tom TELEPHONE: G,/ 2 7 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit ✓Vacation of ROW/Easements 300 Interim Use Permit _6Z'Variance O Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review _Notification Sign She Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) ✓Subdivision` (o(oQ TOTAL FEE $ / l (on -op j( A list of all pr perry owners ithin 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. 7jy. t (�4 � Aj kr) Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twe � ix full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 0 0 PROJECT NAME LOCATION�C�I�I ecS�rl T V//iQw ICoe rj f LEGAL DESCRIPTION L,4L g,2 _\�IeaSGn� �i'2wyr re'rule" tem,, z ;cgrIF5Q1Cj TOTAL ACREAGE_ • ' C �� S WETLANDS PRESENT YES I�NO PRESENT ZONING RFni IF52TFrl REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION � C � z. n REASON FOR THIS REQUEST SCAJ; ViSiGV1 /S This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should oonferwith the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. l further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the requirements and aggney r extension for devet6oment of Fee Application Received on that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing eria e, the ci 's otifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day eve review hall be completed within 120 days unless additional review Fee Date 1.2 �0 Date Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. C5 O r y O off. - 49W 64 n SSVP - = Vs .w oS a� O r W r 3 k\ l ----------- - — i) I I _ -------- 2. - _ 0 PROJECT NARRATIVE FOR KENYON BLUFF 400 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA Project Description: CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Tom Rollings is requesting the development of four single-family residential lots with a private road at 400 Pleasant View Road. The development is consistent with the surrounding single- family neighborhoods. The 2.1 -acre site currently contains a single-family resident, located near the center of the site, with two accessory structures located to the north of the home. The existing home and out buildings will be removed as part of this project. The property abuts Pleasant View Road along the southern and eastern edge. Oak Grove Avenue, an undeveloped platted right-of-way, borders the north property line. Access to the present home is from the southeast comer of the lot. The topography of the site slopes down from north to south with a high elevation of 983 feet in the northeast to a low elevation around 940 feet in both the southwest and northeast comers. There is a bluff in the southwest comer of the site. Project Data: Zoning Standards The property and surrounding lands are zoned Residential Single Family (RSF) and guided for low density residential. The proposed lots will meet all of the required setbacks and zoning standards for the RSF zone with a private street. The proposed lots will exceed the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet with sizes ranging from 16,847 square feet to 28,675 square feet. The buildable area within each of the lots exceeds the space necessary for a 60 X 60 foot building pad. The subdivision plan includes building footprints of 80 X 45 feet. This size more accurately demonstrates the building pad anticipated for the site. Private Road The four lots will be accessed by a private road. The road will enter the site west of the current driveway. This location aligns with the western access of Horseshoe Curve and provides 150 feet of sight distance from the driveway and the curve in Pleasant View Road. The drive will be constructed per city standards with a grade no greater than 10% and a paved width of 20 feet. A bubblehead tum -around will be constructed at the north end of the drive for emergency vehicle access. The drive will be within a 30 -foot easement and will be privately maintained. A private road is better suited for the development than a public road. To create the preferred sight distances and building locations a public road would need to be placed along the northern edge of the site. This is in an area that contains a nicely wooded slope. To grade a public road through this area would not only destroy the natural amenities that the development is trying to 0 0 preserve, but it would negatively impact the character of the neighboring lots. The issues with a public road are: • At a 7% grade, the road will require cuts in the existing slopes up to 30 feet. • The required cuts will require the construction of 30 -foot retaining walls along the northern edge of the site, adjacent the neighbor's driveway. • . Retaining walls will be needed along the edge of the bluff to provide adequate building pads and bluff preservation. • It will remove all of the vegetation within the wooded area in the northeast corner of the site. • It will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Bluff The bluff in the southwest corner contains approximately 12,780 square feet of area. The subdivision provides the required 20 -foot bluff impact zone and 30 -foot setback. The bluff will be preserved and protected as part of the subdivision. The use of a shared drive removes a driveway near the bluff and minimizes the grading around it in order to keep its natural amenity. Previous plans had noted a possible bluff in the northeast corner of the site. This was based on ariel topography that did not show the existing neighboring driveway and retention wall. After resurveying and field verifying the grades in this area it was discovered that the current slopes do not constitute a city defined bluff. Tree Canopy Trees on the site are generally located along the perimeter of the property with heavier groupings within the southwestem bluff area and the northwest and northeast corners. Few trees exist in the central area of the site where most of the development will occur. The development will exceed the tree canopy requirements of the zoning ordinance. Tree Canopy Currently Tree Canopy to Remain Tree Canopy Required by Ordinance Grading 40,952 sq. ft. (45% of site) 24,715 sq. ft. (60% of existing canopy) 14,333 sq. ft. (35% of existing canopy) Site grading will be required for the construction of the private drive and the building pads. Retaining walls will be used to minimize the grading and to preserve the bluff. Utilizing a private road instead of a public street and having custom homes that can be designed to take advantage of the grades will also reduce site grading. Project Requests Approval of a four -lot subdivision with a private road. 2. Approval of a variance for a private road. 3. Vacation of Oak Grove Avenue. Variance A variance is requested for the construction of a private drive as a shared access for the four lots. The use of a private road is beneficial to the city and the site by eliminating multiple accesses onto Pleasant View Road, reduces grading impacts and preserves trees. This is demonstrated by the attached concept plan showing how the site can be developed without the private road and within the zoning requirements of the City. The variance request meets the six required findings as follows: Undue Hardship. The undue hardship is created by the topography of the site. A private road is not necessary for the development of the four lots within this site. Alternative plans have been submitted that shows four lots being served by individual driveways and by a public road. However, the steep grades and bluff make it difficult and environmentally damaging to construct separate driveways and or a public road to serve the four lots. It is believed that a private drive will better serve the four lots and will minimize the grading impacts and tree loss. 2. Not applicable to other properties with same zoning This site is unique due to the steep topography, having Pleasant View Road abutting two sides and the inability to extend a public road past the site borders. Because of the site topography the private road will minimize the grading and tree loss within the site. The private road will also eliminate the number of driveways entering onto Pleasant View Road, which is expected to carry more traffic in the future. The ability to serve four lots with a single access than four accesses allows the development to improve traffic conditions in the area. Due to the location of the site and it's surrounding area it is not feasible to extend a public road beyond the borders of the site. Thus a private road better serves the site than a wider public road. Another alternative would be to combine individual driveway to reduce the number of accesses onto Pleasant View Road. However, this would still require more curb cuts than a single access plus would require grading along the bluff or within the wooded slopes in the northeast comer of the site. These areas are to be preserved with the single access private drive. 3. Purpose is not to add value to the property Individual driveways without the use of a private road can achieve the same number of lots as allowed by city codes. The private road reduces grading and the number of accesses onto Pleasant View Road. 4. Not a self-created hardship The hardship is created by existing conditions. The development proposes to minimize the impacts to the existing conditions by using a private road. 5. Not detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties. The use of the private road creates a public benefit by reducing the grading impacts and by minimizing the number of driveways onto Pleasant View Road. 1-1 0 6. Not impair adequate light, air, traffic congestion, or property value nor endanger public safety. The private road maintains the same number of lots and development impacts that is allowed without the variance. Approving the private road will help in traffic congestion and public safety by reducing the number of driveways onto Pleasant View Road, especially in this area where several roads intersect near a curve. R -O -W Vacation Oak Grove Avenue is a platted 15 -foot undeveloped right-of-way located along the northern lot line. The road does not provide any practical benefit to the city or future access to the surrounding area. Y�) qr;El / ll� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Kenyon Bluff Subdivision #2003-22 APPLICANT: CBR Development with Variances #2003-20 LOCATION: 400 Pleasant View Road NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, CBR Development, is requesting to subdivide 2.1 acres into 4 single-family lots with variances, located at 400 Pleasant View Road (Lots 1 & 2, Pleasant View). What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen at 227-1134 or e-mail saljaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on December 25, 2003 0 0 0 City Review Procedure 0 Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. Staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. gAplan\fo=\mview procedure Proposed Kepyon Bluff Subdivifon #2003-22 With Variances #2003-20 Public Hearing Notice Area (500 feet) 400 Pleasant View Road S 3 Lotus Lake ALAN W & CAROL LENHART ANDREW H & KATRINA E CLEMENS ANTHONY R & CHRISTINE M LUND 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY 6691 HORSESHOE CRV 350 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9242 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 BASIL LAWRENCE TIVY BETTY O KENYON C/O AMY CHARLES C & JANET C HURD 370 PLEASANT VIEW RD EKGREN-HERSTEN 6695 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 2389 23 3/4 AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 RICE LAKE WI 54868-9779 CLARK C GRANT & ANNETTE M DAVID W SANTANA & DEBRA C GRANT CYNTHIA ANN BRICTSON SCHULTZ 6613 HORSESHOE CRV 6420 ROJINA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9132 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 DONALD J & DARLENE M MILLER ELLEN L WOLANER EMILY H JOHNSON 395 PLEASANT VIEW RD 330 PLEASANT VIEW RD 335 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 FRANCES M O'BRIEN ETAL GARY W & MARY ANN MCCAULEY GERALD & FRANCES M O'BRIEN 450 INDIAN HILL RD 420 PLEASANT VIEW RD 450 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8325 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8325 JANICE L ANDRUS JEFFORIE A KVILHAUG & JUDILYN JOHN & BEVERLY RYAN 449 PLEASANT VIEW RD W KVILHAUG 6685 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 6681 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 JOHN D & ANN M DANIELSON JOHN R & CAROL W HAMMETT JOSEPH M & MARGERY M LICH 6607 HORSESHOE CRV 6697 HORSESHOE CRV 6611 ORS H CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 CHANHASSEN HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 KELBIN ROBERT BAILEY MICHAEL & KATHRYN SCHWARTZ NICHOLAS J P PERKINS 6580 PLEASANT VIEW WAY 469 PLEASANT VIEW RD 339 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9241 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 PATRICIA A PAULS TRUSTEE OF RANDY R & RAYMA LEE SMITH RAYMOND P & ALICIA L BROZOVICH TRUST 429 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6609 HORSESHOE CRV 11010 OREGON CRV BLOOMINGTON MN 55438-2806 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 RICHARD R & KATHLEEN E PECK ROBERT & LINDA SATHRE ROBERT L & ELVA HANSEN 6690 HORSESHOE CRV 365 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6620 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9501 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 0 0 ROBERT L & SANDRA J POST RONALD E & LEANNE HARVIEUX SANDRA LEE OLSON 489 PLEASANT VIEW RD TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6696 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 6605 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED KENYON BLUFF SUBDIVISION #2003-22 WITH VARIANCES #2003-20 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public heating on Tuesday, January 6, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the application of CBR Development to subdivide 2.1 acres into 4 single family lots with variances, located at 400 Pleasant View Road (Lots 1 & 2, Pleasant View). A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on December 25, 2003) 0 6 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VACATION OF A PORTION OF OAK GROVE AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY #2003-6 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, January 26, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the request of CBR Development to vacate a portion of Oak Grove Avenue right-of-way located northeast of 400 Pleasant View Road. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Matthew Saam, Asst. City Engineer Phone: 952-227-1164 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on January 8, 2004) �Z�ccsJ ,cv-e,u, c�l.u.-ems✓ Proposed cation of Oak GAVe Avenue Right -of -Way Public Hearing Notice Area (500 feet) ALAN W & CAROL LENHART 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9242 BASIL LAWRENCE TIVY 370 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 CLARK C GRANT & ANNETTE M GRANT 6420 ROJINA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9132 DONALD J & DARLENE M MILLER 395 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 FRANCES M O'BRIEN ETAL 450 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8325 JANICE L ANDRUS 449 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 JOHN D & ANN M DANIELSON 6607 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 KELBIN ROBERT BAILEY 6580 PLEASANT VIEW WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9241 PATRICIA A PAULS TRUSTEE OF TRUST 11010 OREGON CRV BLOOMINGTON MN 55438-2806 ANDREW H & KATRINA E CLEMENS 6691 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 BETTY O KENYON C/O AMY EKGREN-HERSTEN 2389 23 3/4 AVE RICE LAKE WI 54868-9779 CYNTHIA ANN BRICTSON 6613 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 ELLEN L WOLANER 330 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 GARY W & MARY ANN MCCAULEY 420 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 JEFFORIE A KVILHAUG & JUDILYN W KVILHAUG 6681 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 JOHN R & CAROL W HAMMETT 6697 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 MICHAEL & KATHRYN SCHWARTZ 469 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 RANDY R & RAYMA LEE SMITH 429 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 0 ANTHONY R & CHRISTINE M LUND 350 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 CHARLES C & JANET C HURD 6695 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 DAVID W SANTANA & DEBRA C SCHULTZ 6614 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 EMILY H JOHNSON 335 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 GERALD & FRANCES M O'BRIEN 450 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8325 JOHN & BEVERLY RYAN 6685 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 JOSEPH M & MARGERY M PFANKUCH 6611 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 NICHOLAS J P PERKINS 339 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 RAYMOND P & ALICIA L BROZOVICH 6609 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 RICHARD R & KATHLEEN E PECK ROBERT & LINDA SATHRE ROBERT L & ELVA HANSEN 6690 HORSESHOE CRV 365 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6620 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9501 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9524 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 E ROBERT L & SANDRA J POST RONALD E & LEANNE HARVIEUX SANDRA LEE OLSON 489 PLEASANT VIEW RD TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6696 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9576 6605 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9526 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Vacation of a portion of Oak APPLICANT: CBR Development Grove Avenue Right -of -Way LOCATION: Northeast of 400 Pleasant View Road NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, CBR Development, is requesting to vacate a portion of Oak Grove Avenue right-of-way, located northeast of Pleasant View Road. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Mayor will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Council discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Matt Saam at 227-1164 or e-mail msaam@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Council. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 8, 2004. City Review Procedure Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. Staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. gAplan\f r \revim procedure S 0 ()L'05 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED KENYON BLUFF Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized SUBDIVISION #2003-22 WITH agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- VARIANCES #2003-20 lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal theChaohassenPlanningCommisnonwill newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as holdapublic hearing on Tuesday,January amended. 6, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.196� MarketBlvd. The purpose ofthis hearing was published on the date or dazes and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said is to consider the application of CBR Notice is hereby incorporated as pan of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of Development to subdivide 2.1 acres into the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both 4 single family lotswithvariances, located inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition at 400 Pleasant View Road (Lots 1 & 2, and publication of the Notice: Pleasant View). A plan showing the location of the abcdefghijklmnopgrstuv xyz proposal is available for public review at , City Hall during regular business hours. All interestedpersons are invitedtoattend By Vt this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Laurie A Hartmann Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner Phone: 952-227-1134, (Published in the Chanhassen Villageron Subscribed and sworn before me on, Thursday, December25,2003; No. 4058) 'l qday ,�//� .[ - this 0 of 2003 GWEN M.RADUENZ MINNESOTA NOTARYmtss JQ tx `^ r'h+1 hry Commission Exp�reS Jan. 31.20Q5 4�---� -4444 Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $21.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $21.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $10.63 per column inch City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 ff OF (952)227-1100 Date: December 11, 2003 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner Subject: Subdivision of 2.1 acres into 4 Single Family Lots with Variances and Vacation of Oak Grove Avenue Right -0f --Way; Lots 1 & 2, Pleasant View; 400 Pleasant View Road; Kenyon Bluff, CBR Development, Applicant Planning Case: SUB #2003-22; VAR #2003-20; VAC #2003-6 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on December 5, 2003. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on January 6, 2004, at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than Tuesday, December 23, 2003. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Mediacom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. 0 Schoell & Madson, Inc. Engineering • Surveying • Planning Soil Testing • Environmental Services www.schoellmadson.com o4"V3 RFP*,�;.r9 DEC 0 2003 CITY OF CHANHASSEN TO: C� D� C�o. i k e DATE: r1-/*C?/03 PROJECT NO.:: 6 $S 00/ ^ 1, 1 s CO ieso4 � 5�I r1A., !!410 dr1Ve, ATTENTION:'/ � t -e A 1 ' ✓ ire AA.JC t ' �.1j SUBJECT: 42N p►1 IS�vT� We are sending you Y1 herewith ❑ under separate cover the following: dans ❑ Specifications ❑ Prints ❑ Reports ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Change Order ❑ Samples ❑ Copy of a Letter ❑ Data Sheets ❑ Other Transmitted via: ❑ Mail ❑ Fax ❑ Will Call Hr. Messenger Service ❑ Ovemight Delivery QUANTITY DESCRIPTION ^ 1, 1 s CO ieso4 � 5�I r1A., !!410 dr1Ve, ire AA.JC t ' These are transmitted as follows: ❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Records ❑ Far Your Use ❑ For Review and Comment SCHOE�LL�& MADS/O� N, INC. y '1 o oi fp O i41r,,, Direct Dial No. Copy To Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer 10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 • Minneapolis, MN 55305-1525 Office (952) 546-7601 9 Fax (952) 546-9065 /.2 =0 3 L6 2 89- Vic) o-�- joroOArl x 0L%/Yler5 L. . -k h 5-0 G o f +s 5U4 e v- 1 ,�J / /u f�Q.. a / I. CG.» 4 4r PROJECT NARRATIVE FOR ]KENYON BLUFF 400 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA Project Description: Tom Rollings is requesting the development of four single-family residential lots with a private road at 400 Pleasant View Road. The development is consistent with the surrounding single- family neighborhoods. The 2.1 -acre site currently contains a single-family resident, located near the center of the site, with two accessory structures located to the north of the home. The existing home and out buildings will be removed as part of this project. The property abuts Pleasant View Road along the southern and eastern edge. Oak Grove Avenue, an undeveloped platted right-of-way, borders the north property line. Access to the present home is from the southeast comer of the lot. The topography of the site slopes down from north to south with a high elevation of 983 feet in the northeast to a low elevation around 940 feet in both the southwest and northeast comers. There are city defined bluffs in the southwest and northeast comers of the site. Project Data: Zoning Standards The property and surrounding lands are zoned Residential Single Family (RSF) and guided for low density residential. The proposed lots will meet all of the required setbacks and zoning standards for the RSF zone with a private street. The proposed lots will exceed the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet with sizes ranging from 18,458 square feet to 24,814 square feet. The buildable area within each of the lots exceeds the space necessary for a 60 X 60 foot building pad. The subdivision plan includes building footprints of 80 X 45 feet. This size more accurately demonstrates the building pad anticipated for the site. Private Road The four lots will be accessed by a private road. The road will enter the site just north of the current driveway. The drive will be constructed per city standards with a grade no greater than 10% and a paved width of 20 feet. A hammerhead tum -around will be constructed at the north end of the drive for emergency vehicle access. The drive will be within a 30 -foot easement and will be privately maintained. Wr • 0 Bluff Two bluffs have been identified on the site. The prominent one is in the southwest corner and contains approximately 12,780 square feet of area. The second bluff is in the northeast corner. The majority of the bluff is outside the property with only 948 square feet of bluff actually on the site. The subdivision provides the required 20 -foot bluff impact zone and 30 -foot setback. The bluffs will be preserved and protected as part of the subdivision. Tree Canopy Trees on the site are generally located along the perimeter of the property with heavier groupings within the southwestern bluff area and the northwest and northeast corners. Few trees exist in the central area of the site where most of the development will occur. The development will exceed the tree canopy requirements of the zoning ordinance. Tree Canopy Currently Tree Canopy to Remain Tree Canopy Required by Ordinance Grading 40,952 sq. ft. (45% of site) 24,715 sq. ft. (60% of existing canopy) 14,333 sq. ft. (35% of existing canopy) Site grading will be required for the construction of the private drive and the building pads. Retaining walls will be used to minimize the grading and to preserve the bluff areas. Utilizing a private road instead of a public street and having custom homes that can be designed to take advantage of the grades will also reduce site grading. Project Requests Approval of a four -lot subdivision with a private road. 2. Approval of a variance for a private road. 3. Vacation of Oak Grove Avenue. Variance A variance is requested for the construction of a private drive as a shared access for the four lots. The use of a private road is beneficial to the city and the site by eliminating multiple accesses onto Pleasant View Road, reduces grading impacts and preserves trees. This is demonstrated by the attached concept plan showing how the site can be developed without the private road and within the zoning requirements of the City. The variance request meets the six required findings as follows: 1. Undue Hardship. The undue hardship is created by the topography of the site. A private road is not necessary for the development of the four lots within this site. (See the attached alternative plan) However, the steep grades and bluffs make it difficult and environmentally damaging to construct separate driveways for each of the four lots. It is believed that a private drive will better serve the four lots and will minimize the grading impacts and tree loss. 2. Not applicable to other properties with same zoning This site is unique due to the steep topography, having Pleasant View Road abutting two sides and the inability to extend a public road past the site borders. Because of the site topography the private road will minimize the grading and tree loss within the site. The private road will also eliminate the number of driveways entering onto Pleasant View Road, which is expected to carry more traffic in the future. The ability to serve four lots with a single access than four accesses allows the development to improve traffic conditions in the area. Due to the location of the site and it's surrounding area it is not feasible to extend a public road beyond the borders of the site. Thus a private road better serves the site than a wider public road. 3. Purpose is not to add value to the property Individual driveways without the use of a private road can achieve the same number of lots. The private road reduces grading and number of accesses onto Pleasant View Road. 4. Not a self-created hardship The hardship is created by existing conditions. The development proposes to minimize the impacts to the existing conditions by using a private road. Not detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties. The use of the private road creates s public benefit by reducing the grading impacts and by minimizing the number of driveways onto Pleasant View Road. 6. Not impair adequate light, air, traffic congestion, or property value nor endanger public safety. The private road maintains the same number of lots and development impacts that is allowed without the variance. Approving the private road will help in traffic congestion and public safety by reducing the number of driveways onto Pleasant View Road, especially in this area where several roads intersect near a curve. R -O -W Vacation Oak Grove Avenue is a platted 15 -foot undeveloped right-of-way located along the northern lot line. The road does not provide any practical benefit to the city or future access to the surrounding area. Schoell & Madson, Inc. Engineering • Surveying • Planning Soil Testing • Environmental Services www. schoellmadson. com aOo LI- G3 TO: City of Chanhassan DATE: 1-30-04 PROJECT NO.: 64085-001 7700 Market Blvd ATTENTION: Sharmeen AI-Jaff Chanhassan, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Ken on Bluff Application preliminary set reduction We are sending you ❑ herewith ❑ under separate cover the following: ❑ Plans ❑ Specifications ❑ Prints ❑ Reports ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Change Order ❑ Samples ❑ Copy of a Letter ❑ Data Sheets ❑ Other Transmitted via: ❑ Mail ❑ Fax ❑ Will Call ❑ Hr. Messenger Service ❑ Overnight Delivery QUANTITY I DESCRIPTION 16 Preliminary plat sets 1 preliminary set reduction 1 Narrative 3 Concept plans with public road 1 concept plan with ublic road reduction 3 Concept plans with separate driveways 1 concept plan with separate driveways reduction These are transmitted as follows: ❑ As Requested ❑ For Your Records ❑ For Your Use ❑ For Review and Comment SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Tom Goodrum Direct Dial No. 952-847-9645 Copy To CITY OF RECEIVED SSEN JAN 3 0 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT F:\Users\Common\FORMS\Companywide\Tm mitral Forth w-lines.dm Rev. 2il1/03 Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer 10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 • Minneapolis, MN 55305-1525 Office [952] 546-7601 9 Fax [952] 546-9065 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: CBR DEVELOPMENT LLC Date: 12/08/2003 Time: 9:43am Receipt Number: EE / 4295 Clerk: BETTY DEV REVIEW APP 400 PL VIEW ROAD ITEM REFERENCE ------------------------------------------- AMOUNT DEVAP USE & VARIANCE 1,160.00 --------------- Total: 1,160.00 Check 4092 1,160.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT!