The URL can be used to link to this page

3. Lakeview Rezoning & Preliminary Plat0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227, 1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.2271110 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Sharmeen Al -Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: December 13, 2010 ow I SUBJ: Lakeview Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval Planning Case #10 -12 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Lakeview subdivision and rezoning subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Planning Commission's findings of fact." City Council approval requires a simple majority vote. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The developer is requesting to rezone 50.48 acres of property from RSF, Single Family Residential District, and R -4, Mixed Low - Density Residential, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District; and preliminary plat approval to subdivide 50.48 acres into 66 lots and 4 outlots — Lakeview. The site is located northwest of the intersection of Lyman Blvd. and Lake Riley Blvd. and south of Highway 212. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 7, 2010 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted six for and none against a motion recommending approval of the project. Public Works The Planning Commission expressed concern over the level of noise generated from 1591 Park Road Highway 212. Currently, there is a noise wall north of the development located east of Phone: 952.227.1300 the subject site. A question was raised if MnDOT would be willing to extend the noise Fax: 952.227.1310 wall to the west. MnDOT's policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Staff is working with the applicant to evaluate the use of a privacy fence and mature Fax: 952.227.1110 trees along the north edge of the property to lessen the noise impact. A solution will be Web Site presented with the final plat. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us The Planning Commission minutes for December 7, 2010 are attached. 0- Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Mr. Todd Gerhardt December 13, 2010 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve the rezoning and preliminary plat for Lakeview. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission staff report dated December 7, 2010. 2. Rezoning Ordinance. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated December 7, 2010. gAplan \2010 planning cases \10 -12 lakevieMexecutive summary.doc 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: December 7, 2010 CC DATE: December 13, 2010 1 REVIEW DEADLINE: January 4, 2010 CASE #: 10 -12 BY: SJ /JM/TJ /AF /TH/ML PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Lakeview subdivision and rezoning subject to the conditions of the staff report." And, Adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 50.48 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, and R -4 Mixed Low- Density Residential, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District; and Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 50.48 acres into 66 lots and 4 outlots — LAKEVIEW LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of Lyman Blvd. and Lake Riley Blvd. and south of Highway 212 APPLICANT: US Home Corporation 934 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 Attn Joe Joblonski (952) 249 -3014 j oe. j ablonskiAlennar. com PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential District and R4, Mixed Low Density Residential District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 50.48 Acres DENSITY: Gross 1.3 Units /Acre Net 3.4 Units /Acre SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Rezoning of 50.48 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District and R -4 Mixed Low- Density Residential, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District; Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 50.48 Acres into 66 lots and 4 outlots — Lakeview. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. 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. Lakeview — Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 2 of 19 The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection Ordinance Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Chapter 20, Article XIV, Division 1. RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The applicant is requesting to rezone and subdivide a property located northwest of the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard and south of Highway 212. Access to the site is gained off of Lyman Boulevard. All parcels are accessed via internal streets. r . a f. _ t j t -41 _4 .. I. " ;A r .I Ir _ r SUBJECT 3 } PROPERTY I ' '• r *. � � �� err s ill, �:a Lyman Boulevard l s `r T T`' t � -�• a •��.�`,'' f �.,+ ��,�.�.�'R ttttr ' ��i Air ill, �:a Lakeview —Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 3 of 19 The applicant is proposing to replat 50.48 acres into 66 lots and 4 outlots. All lots are proposed to contain single family homes. The outlots will contain storm ponds, wetland and a park. A portion of the site is located within the shoreland overlay of Lake Riley (area within 1,000 feet of the Ordinary High Water mark of the lake). As such, the shoreland ordinance applies to that area. The property is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, and R4, Mixed Low Density Residential District. The proposal calls for rezoning the property to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. The gross density of this subdivision is 1.3 units per acre and the net density is 3.4 units per acre. All lots are proposed to be served via internal streets. Street C will ultimately extend to the west when that property develops. A temporary turnaround is required at the western end of Street C. The applicant will be required to install a sign that reads "This Road Will Be Extended in the Future" to alert future homeowners. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of Lots 1 and 2, Block 4. These lots fall within the shoreland overlay district which requires the lots to maintain a 90 -foot width at the setback line. The applicant is aware of the situation. This width can be easily adjusted by shifting property lines. The site consists of two parcels being assembled into one tract of land, and then subdivided. A MnDOT easement occupies the northwesterly portion of the site. The easement is proposed to be platted into an outlot. At the time of writing this report, staff had not received any comments from MnDOT; however, their staff contacted the City to make us aware that they are reviewing the plans and will be submitting comments. An existing storage building is located along the north side of the site must be removed. On November 30, 2010, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting. The applicant also met with the property owners west of the subject site to make them aware of the development. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND On February 25, 1991, the City Council approved the preliminary plat on the subject site for Lake Riley Hills subdivision (90 -10 SUB). The plat consisted of 68 single - family lots. If a final plat is not filed within one year of the date of approval of the preliminary plat, it is considered void. A final plat was not filed. Lakeview —Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 4 of 19 REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RSF, Single Family Residential District, and R4, Mixed Low Density Residential District, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. The area to the north is occupied by Highway 212, and the area to the east contains the North Bay development which is a High Density Development and is zoned Planned Unit Development - Residential. The area to the west is occupied by single family homes, guided Residential Low Density and is zoned Agricultural Estate District. The area to the south is zoned Planned Unit Development - Residential and is guided Low Density Residential. NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST DEVELOPMENT Highway 212 Springfield North Ba Single Family LAND USE N/A Residential Low Density Residential High Density Residential Low Density ZONING N/A PUD -R PUD -R A -2 Lakeview — Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 5of19 The 2020 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. Appropriate zoning for this land use is RSF, R4, RLM, or PUD -R. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.3 units per acre and 3.4 units per acre net after excluding the streets, wetlands, storm ponds and park. This area is in the MUSA. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RLM and finds that the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 50.48 acres into 66 lots and 4 outlots. Outlot A contains a wetland and a storm pond, Outlot B contains a park, Outlot C contains a drainage easement and a storm pond, and Outlot D contains a storm pond. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.3 units per acre gross and 3.4 units per acre net after removing the wetland, roads, storm ponds and park. 5t .lke ' r -40 x 1 y � 2 x- �� t 1 WT. �j r NAR Reflections at LaLe Riley Lakeview — Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 6of19 All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, that have deficient width. These lots fall within the shoreland overlay district which requires the lots to maintain a 90 -foot width at the setback line. The applicant is aware of the situation. The widths can be easily adjusted by shifting property lines to meet ordinance requirements. Lots 1 -9, Block 4 abut a wetland. The wetland is classified as a manage 2 wetland which requires a 20 -foot wetland buffer and a 30 -foot setback from the buffer. The proposed development plan provides for this 20 -foot buffer with the exception of Lots 7 and 8, Block 4. The City allows for buffer averaging so long as it is a minimum of 16 feet in width. Further, the area of buffer that would otherwise be present shall be compensated for elsewhere along the wetland boundary. The applicant submitted 17 different house plans that could potentially be built within this development. Staff compared these house plans against all the lots and confirmed that the smallest and narrowest lots can accommodate a minimum of 2 house plans including a 10x10 foot patio, sidewalk and driveway. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS One wetland exists on the property. This wetland was delineated in October of 2010 by Graham Environmental Services, Inc. Terry Jeffery of the City of Chanhassen reviewed the delineation on November 10, 2010. The applicant submitted the Application for Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary on November 18, 2010. This application was noticed for public comment as required under the revised Wetland Conservation Act on November 18, 2010. Comments are due to the City by December 13, 2010. Based upon the field review and a review of the submitted delineation report, the boundary appears to be accurately delineated with the following exception. Per the Department of the Army - Corps of Engineer Permit 95- 00665- NW -GAE issued to the City of Chanhassen for the Yuma Wetland, the wetland on the subject property to the 868 -foot contour is mitigation for the Yuma project. Therefore, no part of the delineated boundary may be below the 868 -foot contour. This wetland is also a Public Water Wetland identified as 10 -213W. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has jurisdiction to the ordinary high water elevation of 865.3. The DNR has indicated that contingent upon the final plan, the DNR may or may not waive authority to the City but given the avoidance of any wetland impacts, that may be unnecessary. The proposed development plan does not result in any impacts to the wetland. The wetland is classified as a manage 2 wetland which requires a 20- foot wetland buffer and a 30- foot setback from the buffer. The proposed development plan provides for this 20 -foot buffer with the exception of Lots 7 and 8, Block 4. The City allows for buffer averaging so long as it is a minimum of 16 feet in width. Further, the area of buffer that would otherwise be present shall be compensated for elsewhere along the wetland boundary. Lakeview —Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 7 of 19 The buffer must meet the requirements set forth in § 20 -412. This includes a minimum of 51 % of the vegetation must be native. No noxious weeds may be present. The slopes must be reasonably stable. The applicant and the City should work together to assure that appropriate buffers are established or remain undisturbed as circumstances may warrant. Proper monumentation shall be provided as shown on the plan set provided to the City. SIIORELAND REQUIREMENTS A portion of the proposed project lies within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Lake Riley, a Minnesota DNR Public Water, and therefore is within the City's shoreland district. Lake Riley is a recreational development lake with an ordinary high water elevation of 865.3 feet above msl on the 1929 datum. Lot standards for non - riparian lots within the shoreland area for a recreational development lake must be a minimum of 15,000 square feet and have a minimum width of 90 feet at the building line (setback line). Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 are deficient in width. This can be rectified simply by adjusting property lines. GRADING, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Since 28.86 acres will be disturbed, an NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity will be required. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been created and submitted for review. As was identified in the SWPPP, Lake Riley is listed as an impaired water and the pollutant is nutrients. Since there is not an approved Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan (TMDL) yet for Lake Riley, no waste load allocation has been established. Riley Creek is also impaired. The pollutant for Riley Creek is sediment. Again, no TMDL has been performed. However, every practicable management practice eliminating the possibility of sediment delivery to Lake Riley and, subsequently Riley Creek should be considered and, where appropriate, implemented. The applicant and their consultant have done a commendable job of showing the sequencing of erosion and sediment control best management practices. The details provided are consistent with City standards. As is noted in the SWPPP and in the plan set general notes, these are the minimum anticipated BMPs. Additional BMPs will likely be necessary as the project progresses and conditions change. These changes will need to be incorporated into the SWPPP. During grading of Street B the entire gully that originates under Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 should be filled and stabilized with blanket. This should be done so as to avoid additional tree loss. The provided SWPPP and grading detail were both exceptional preliminary plat submittals. As the grading plans are finalized and phasing is developed, changes will be necessary for the final plat submittal. A few changes are needed now as well. On sheet 8 of 13 notes 9 and 10 call for mulch, MnDOT Type 1. In those areas adjacent to preserved wetlands and woodlands, this mulch shall be Type 3 which is certified weed free. Specifically, all of Block 4 and any disturbed soils within Outlot A and Outlot B. Lakeview —Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 8 of 19 Temporary ponding has been shown on the erosion control plans as is required. It is likely that the permanent pond areas will be used for temporary ponding as well. In the event that these ponds are used temporarily, they will need to be cleaned out and restored to proposed plan conditions prior to final project approval. This shall be included as a note on the plan set. A turf establishment plan will be needed for final plat submittal. At a minimum, this plan shall call out a native seed mix in those disturbed areas within Outlot A. City staff recommends BWSR seed mix 32 -291 or its equivalent in this area. This turf establishment plan will also need to address the species composition and possible vegetation establishment and control within the wetland buffer area as discussed in the wetland section. DRAINAGE AND TREATMENT Water quality treatment and runoff control will be provided through three detention ponds located throughout the property. These ponds will be referred to as 100, 200 and 300 as indicated on the plan set and the HydroCAD model. The proposed drainage areas post - development largely mimic pre - development conditions. One notable exception is that 2.686 acres will be directed to North Bay under the proposed conditions. City staff is currently reviewing North Bay to determine if there is adequate capacity in their storm sewer system. The applicant must provide calculations showing that there are no downstream capacity issues in the existing storm sewer conveyance. Of the three ponds, pond 300 is readily accessible for maintenance. Ponds 100 and 200 will be difficult to access. Pond 100 has 3:1 slopes from the ingress location to the NWL. While City code does allow for 3:1 side slopes, it would be beneficial if the applicant and their consultant were to evaluate how these slopes could be made less severe. At a minimum, a maintenance access road shall be provided. This is also a requirement of the NPDES permit. As stated in Part III.C.1 of NPDES Permit No: MN R 100001 "Adequate maintenance access must be provided (typically 8 feet wide)..." Pond 200 has numerous access constraints and the location of the culvert from the MnDOT drainage easement limits the ability to install a retaining wall. However, it does appear that proposed manholes 221 and 222, as well as the outlet for this line, can be moved further south. This would allow for more area to create a maintenance access road. The applicant shall investigate this possibility and either incorporate this into their site design or provide adequate information to show why this is not feasible to do. To increase the life cycle of these ponds between requisite maintenance, the applicant shall install two -foot sumps at structures CBMH -104, MH -203 and MH- 222. City staff will work with consulting engineer in an effort to resolve access issues in both ponds. Street D shows a run of nearly 400 feet without a CBMH. Additional data, in the form of sufficient spot elevations, needs to be shown from point of tangent to point of tangent of the cul -de -sac to demonstrate that adequate grade exists to drain the street without impoundment issues. If adequate grade does not exist, additional catch basin - manhole structures will be needed. Lakeview —Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 9 of 19 The developer's engineer will shift the storm sewer at the back of Lots 38 to 41, Block 3 further north in order to provide a larger unencumbered backyard area. The storm sewer west of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 will remain as shown on the plan in order to maximize tree preservation. The emergency overflow elevation for the MnDOT drainage swale at the proposed Street B shall be indicated on the plan. The lowest opening of a building must be minimum 18 inches above an adjacent emergency overflow. Before final plat approval, hydraulic calculations will need to be provided. Of particular interest will be the volume at CBMH -204. Depending upon the volume of flow to this structure, the applicant may be required to provide a double catch basin. The storm sewer alignment at the back of Lots 19 and 20, Block 3 must be adjusted to minimize the required drainage and utility easement. All storm sewer must be included within a drainage and utility easement. The easement needs to be adjusted at FES -201. Some potential off -site drainage issues have been observed. Additional information must be shown on the final grading plan to show how drainage from the Highway 212 berm will be directed into the existing flared end section located north of proposed Lot 27, Block 3. Also, based on the proposed grading, a low area will be created west and north of the Street C stub. The developer must work with the adjacent property owner to either grade out the low area, or install storm sewer to prevent water from ponding in the area. A draft P8 model for water quality estimation has been provided. According to this model, adequate treatment for total suspended solids (TSS) is provided. However, treatment for total phosphorus is lacking. This is further problematic as Lake Riley has a known nutrient impairment. Total phosphorus removal must meet the minimum 60% removal and, if possible, higher removal rates should be sought. Additionally, because this does discharge within one (1) mile of Lake Riley and Riley Creek, and discharges to these water bodies, the conditions in Appendix A of the NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity will need to be addressed. WATER QUALITY AND WATER QUANTITY FEES The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. Water quality and water quantity fees are based upon net developable acreage. For Lakeview this was calculated based upon the numbers provided in the plan set. The gross acreage of the property equals 50.48 acres. After deducting Outlots A, B, C, D and the public right -of -way, net developable acreage was determined to be 18.939 acres. Water quality fees for a low density residential development are calculated by multiplying net developable acres by $2,540 /acre. Water quality fees were calculated to be $48,104.30. Water quantity fees are calculated by multiplying net developable acres by $3,640 /acre. Water quantity fees were calculated to be $68,936.87. Credits are applied to water quality fees at a rate of 50% of the per acre water quality fee multiplied by the total number of acres treated in the on -site treatment features. In this case, 21.506 acres are Lakeview —Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 10 of 19 being treated on site based upon subcatchment areas 100, 200 and 300 shown in the Draft Stormwater Management Plan. In addition, a credit of $2,500 per skimmer structure is also granted. Three structures are proposed on this project. Total estimated credit is $34,812.62. The estimated SWMP fees due at final plat are $82,228.55. OTHER AGENCIES The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. This may include a DNR dewatering permit, MPCA NPDES Permit of Construction Activity, and other permissions. EASEMENTS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS There are two easements within the development area. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) easement extends from the Highway 212 right -of -way in the northwest corner of the plat to the wetland in the southeast corner of the plat. All work and drainage discharge within this easement must be approved my MNDOT. A public drainage and utility easement exists on the north side of the property. A 12 -inch trunk watermain lies within this easement and will be relocated within the platted right -of -way of the plat; therefore, the easement must be vacated. The existing building and gravel driveway on the north side of the side must be removed. STREETS The developer proposes to construct 31 -foot wide local streets within 60 -foot wide right -of -way throughout the development. Street B will provide access from Lyman Boulevard and will align with Springfield Drive to the south. The right -of -way at this location will be wider to accommodate an island. An encroachment agreement is required if the developer wishes to install an entrance monument at this location. Street A will connect with the North Bay development to the east. Streets B and D will be 90- foot diameter cul -de -sacs within 120 -foot wide right -of -way. Street C will ultimately extend to the west when that property develops. A temporary turnaround is required at the western end of Street C. The development is adjacent to Lyman Boulevard and is therefore subject to the arterial collector fee at the time of final plat. SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN The developer proposes to relocate the existing 12 -inch trunk watermain that extends from the Highway 212 right -of -way that connects to the North Bay development. The relocated 12 -inch trunk watermain will extend from the Highway 212 right -of -way, south within Street B, then east within Street A, connecting to the existing watermain within the North Bay development. The Lakeview — Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 11 of 19 developer will not be reimbursed the oversizing costs to realign this watermain since the work is development driven. The watermain within Street B between Lyman Boulevard and Street A shall be 8 -inch. The proposed hydrant between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 must be relocated to the intersection of Streets B and C. The proposed hydrant between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 must be relocated to the intersection of Street B and Lyman Boulevard. PARK DEDICATION Comprehensive Park Plan The city's comprehensive park plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located within one -half mile of every residence in the city. Acquisition and development of Outlot B (4.83 acres) will satisfy this requirement for all the new homes being built in Lakeview. Additionally, hundreds of households currently residing in this park service area, and many more new households yet to be developed will call this "their" neighborhood park. The city retained Hoisington Koegler Group to prepare a basic concept plan for the proposed park area. The sketch plan includes an open field, wooded hillsides, trail loop, playground, half -court basketball, a small shelter, and parking area. Vv 0 t�_� Lakeview Neighborhood Park Concept � _bl 11 Vill Off City of Chanhassen, Minnesota t`WF_ 0 amm Neighborhood Park Service Area Reflections at Lake Riley Lakeview —Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 12 of 19 Comprehensive Trail Plan The city's comprehensive trail plan includes an existing trail along the south side of Lyman Boulevard at the site of the proposed Lakeview subdivision. An internal sidewalk system has been planned by the applicant to transport pedestrians in and around this new development to this existing trail amenity. No additional construction of trails and/or trail segments is required. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Lakeview development are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands /parkland) 35.7 aces Total canopy area (excluding wetlands/parkland) 7.0 aces or 133,293 SF Baseline canopy coverage 19% Minimum canopy coverage allowed 25% or 388,773 SF /8.9 acres Proposed tree preservation 7.6% or 117,612 SF /2.7 acres The applicant does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore, the difference between the ending coverage and existing coverage is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage (7 ac -2.7 ac) 4.3 acres or 187,308 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 224,769 SF Total number of trees to be planted 206 trees Additionally, the applicant must provide trees to meet the 25% minimum coverage required. The calculations are as follows: Total reforestation area (8.9 ac — 7 ac) 1.9 acres Required canopy coverage (1,089 sq ft per tree) 76 trees The total number of trees required for the development is 282. Applicant has proposed a total of 248 trees. An additional 34 trees must be added to the landscape plan. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. Bufferyard requirements are as shown in the following table: Landscaping Item Required Proposed Bufferyard B — North 23 overstory trees 25 overstory trees property line, 1150' 34 understory trees 51 understory trees 57 shrubs 0 shrubs Bufferyard B — South 2 overstory trees 2 overstory trees property line, 100' 3 understory trees 4 understory trees 5 shrubs I Existing vegetation Lakeview -Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 13 of 19 The applicant meets the standards for bufferyard plantings. An increased number of evergreens have been proposed in place of the shrubs. These trees will provide a lasting buffer with less maintenance needs. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - WETLAND /SHORELAND/RLM DISTRICT Block Lot Area (SF) Buildable Area Lot Width at Front Setback Line Lot Depth Home Setback Wetland Setback 15,000 Shoreland 9,000 RLM 25% Shoreland 35% RLM 90' Shoreland 50' RLM 125' Shoreland 110' RLM Front/Rear/ Garage Side/ House Side 50' (30' Wetland + 20' Buffer) 1 1 13,906 4,867.10 94.89 148 25/25/5/10 N/A 1 2 9,440 3,304.00 65.00 145.5 25/25/5/10 N/A 1 3 11,713 4,099.55 85.48 126.5 25/25/5/10 N/A 1 4 12,669 4,434.15 65.00 196 25/25/5/10 N/A 1 5 13,512 4,729.20 65.00 177 25/25/5/10 N/A 1 6 11,654 4,078.90 65.00 170.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 1 7 11,047 3,866.45 65.00 170.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 1 8 15,995 5,598.25 100.00 162.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 2 1 14,645 5,125.75 85.44 147.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 2 2 9,743 3,410.05 67.09 139.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 2 3 9,150 3,202.50 67.09 135.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 2 4 10,352 3,623.20 65.00 138.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 2 5 15,900 5,565.00 85.00 164.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 1 15,067 5,273.45 85.49 221.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 2 15,257 5,339.95 75.00 192.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 3 12,627 4,419.45 75.00 169.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 4 12,456 4,359.60 75.00 152.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 5 10,722 3,752.70 75.00 140.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 6 10,500 3,675.00 75.00 140.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 7 10,500 3,675.00 75.00 140.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 8 10,500 3,675.00 75.00 140.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 9 10,500 3,675.00 75.00 141.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 10 11,241 3,934.35 75.00 144.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 11 16,724 5,853.40 112.59 170.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 12 19,317 6,760.95 111.21 171.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 13 9,806 3,432.10 65.00 153.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 14 9,938 3,478.30 65.00 153.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 15 9,225 3,228.75 65.00 142.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 16 9,476 3,316.60 65.00 146.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 17 9,727 3,404.45 65.00 150.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 18 9,978 3,492.30 65.00 153.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 19 13,861 4,851.35 89.65 146.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 20 15,039 5,263.65 95.40 155.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 21 10,005 3,501.75 65.00 154.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 22 9,861 3,451.35 65.00 152.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 23 11,414 3,994.90 65.00 154.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 24 9,884 3,459.40 65.00 146.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 25 9,999 3,499.65 65.11 153.50 25/25/5/10 N/A Lakeview -Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 14 of 19 Block Lot Area (SF) Buildable Area Lot Width at Front Setback Line Lot Depth Home Setback Wetland Setback 15 000 Shoreland �9 000 RLM ' 25% Shoreland 35% RLM 90' Shoreland 50' RLM 125' Shoreland 110' RLM Front/Rear/ Garage Side/ House Side 50' (30' Wetland + 20' Buffer) 3 26 10,551 3,692.85 65.00 150.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 27 15,089 5,281.15 90.00 169.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 28 16,612 5,814.20 90.00 186.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 29 11,498 4,024.30 65.00 144.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 30 9,572 3,350.20 65.00 142.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 31 9,691 3,391.85 65.00 140.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 32 1 9,472 3,315.20 65.00 144.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 33 9,526 3,334.10 65.00 144.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 34 9,127 3,194.45 65.00 140.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 35 15,015 3,753.75 105.40 153.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 36 9,044 3,165.40 67.00 134.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 37 10,660 3,731.00 65.00 150.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 38 17,105 5,986.75 65.00 186.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 39 15,546 5,441.10 65.00 188.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 40 12,679 4,437.65 65.00 160.50 25/25/5/10 N/A 3 41 11,917 4,170.95 65.00 163.00 25/25/5/10 N/A 4 1 16,122 4,030.50 95.56* 166.60 25/25/5/10 50'(30'+20') 4 2 15,507 3,876.75 90.00* 170.00 25/25/5/10 50'(30'+20') 4 3 15,310 3,827.50 90.00 170.00 25/25/5/10 50'(30'+20') 4 4 16,313 4,078.25 90.00 168.00 25/25/5/10 50'(30'+20') 4 5 18,453 4,613.25 90.00 174.00 25/25/5/10 50'(30'+20') 4 6 18,461 4,615.25 90.00 174.00 25/25/5/10 50'(30'+20') 4 7 16,333 4,083.25 90.00 168.00 25/25/5/10 50 4 8 15,009 3,752.25 90.00 166.00 25/25/5/10 50'(30'+20')** 4 9 15,090 3,772.50 90.00 168.50 25/25/5/10 50 4 10 15,859 3,964.75 90.00 177.00 25/25/5/10 50 4 11 1 16,804 4,201.00 90.00 179.00 25/25/5/10 50'(30'+20') 4 12 14,934 5,226.90 115.86 169.50 25/25/5/10 N/A OL A 630,265 OL B 210,385 OL C 211,866 OLD 22,577 ROW 298,960 *The lot width at the rear setback line must be adjusted to reflect 90 feet as required in the Shoreland Ordinance. * *Wetland buffer behind Lot 7 and Lot 8 of Block 4 shall be minimized to be coincidental with the rear lot - lines. The area of buffer that would otherwise be present shall be compensated for elsewhere along the wetland boundary. N/A Not Applicable ,Tn." Lots within Shoreland Overlay District. Lakeview — Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 15 of 19 SUBDIVISION FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance. Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density and the Shoreland Overlay District with the exception of Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, which are deficient in width. This can be easily corrected by shifting some property lines. 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 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; 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 excessive environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. The wetland is proposed to be protected. 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. Lakeview —Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 16 of 19 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: REZONING "The appreva4 of City Council approves Planning Case #10 -12 to rezone 50.48 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, and R- 4 Mixed Low- Density Residential, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for Lakeview Subdivision contingent upon final plat approval, as shown in plans dated received November 5, 2010, and adoption of the findings of fact." PRELIMINARY PLAT "The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Planning Case #10 -12 for Lakeview Subdivision for 66 lots and 4 outlots as shown on the plans received November 5, 2010, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the findings of fact: 1. The applicant shall add 34 trees to its total for tree planting. The landscape plan shall show at total of 282 trees to be planted. 2. All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading. All work and drainage discharge within the MnDOT easement must be approved by MnDOT. 4. The public drainage and utility easement on the north side of the development must be vacated. 5. The existing building and driveway on the north side of the site must be removed. 6. Based on the proposed grading a low area will be created west and north of the Street C stub. The developer must work with the adjacent property owner to either grade out the low area, or install storm sewer to prevent water from ponding in the area. 7. The developer's engineer will shift the storm sewer at the back of Lots 38 to 41, Block 3, further north in order to provide a larger unencumbered backyard area. 8. The storm sewer alignment at the back of Lots 19 and 20, Block 3 must be adjusted to minimize the required drainage and utility easement. 9. The lowest opening of a building must be minimum 18 inches above an adjacent emergency overflow. Lakeview — Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 17 of 19 10. Additional information must be shown on the final grading plan to show how drainage from the Highway 212 berm will be directed into the existing flared end section located north of proposed Lot 27, Block 3. 11. An encroachment agreement is required if the developer wishes to install an entrance monument at the Street B intersection of Lyman Boulevard. 12. A temporary turnaround is required at the western end of Street C. 13. The development is adjacent to Lyman Boulevard and is therefore subject to the arterial collector fee at the time of final plat. 14. The developer will not be reimbursed for the relocation cost of the 12 -inch watermain since the work is development driven. 15. The watermain within Street B between Lyman Boulevard and Street A shall be 8 -inch. 16. The delineated wetland boundary must be moved so that no portion of the boundary is located at an elevation less than the 868 -foot contour. 17. The delineated wetland boundary will not be considered approved until the public comment period has ended on December 13, 2010. 18. The wetland buffer behind Lot 7 and Lot 8 of Block 4 shall be minimized to be coincidental with the rear lot lines. The area of buffer that would otherwise be present shall be compensated for elsewhere along the wetland boundary. 19. The applicant, with the assistance of the City, must show that adequate capacity exists within the North Bay storm sewer system to accommodate the proposed drainage area to be directed to North Bay. 20. The NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity must be applied for and obtained prior to any earth - disturbing activities. Proof of this must be provided to the City. 21. Reasonable efforts must be made to provide a maintenance access road to ponds 100 and 200 in compliance with City Code and the NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity. 22. Additional data must be provided for cul -de -sac D to demonstrate sufficient grade for adequate drainage. 23. A minimum of two feet of separation must be provided between the emergency overflow for the MnDOT drainage swale and the low floor opening for Lot 5, Block 2. 24. Two -foot sumps shall be included with structures CBMH -104, MH -203 and MH -222. Lakeview —Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 18 of 19 25. All storm sewer shall be within a drainage and utility easement. 26. Hydraulic calculations shall be provided to the City for review and approval before the final plat can be issued. 27. Mulch, MnDOT Type 3, certified weed free shall be used in all of Block 4, Outlot A and Outlot B whenever mulch is called for. 28. The remainder of the gully which originates under Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 shall be filled in. This shall be done in such a manner as to avoid additional tree loss and the introduction of weeds and invasive species. 29. The estimated SWMP fees, in the amount of $82,228.55, are due at the time of final plat. 30. Phosphorus removal will need to meet the minimum 60% removal rate and should maximize that to the greatest extent practicable. 31. The applicant shall be responsible to assure that all other agency permissions are applied for and resulting conditions are met. 32. A Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form will need to be filled out and submitted to the LGU (City of Chanhassen) and the DNR. The form can be found at: http: / /www.bwsr.state.mn.us /wetlands /forms /Contractor Responsibility.doc 33. Appendix A C.1 and C.2 must be addressed including: a. Exposed soil areas must be stabilized as soon as possible but never later than seven (7) days. b. A discussion of the feasibility of infiltration and the appropriate response to these findings. 34. Building Official Conditions: a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and proposed mitigation reports. b. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. c. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and require permits, inspections and final approval. d. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. e. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Lakeview —Planning Case No. 10 -12 December 7, 2010 Page 19 of 19 35. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Submit street names to Building and Fire Marshal for review and approval. b. No burning permits will be issued. Tress, scrubs etc. must be removed from the site or chipped. c. Mains and fire hydrants shall be installed and made serviceable prior to combustible construction. d. A three -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. e. Temporary street signs shall be installed as soon as construction begins. Signs shall be of an approved size as required by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. They shall be weather - resistant and maintained until replaced by permanent signs. f. 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. g. The proposed hydrant between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 must be relocated to the intersection of Streets B and C. h. The proposed hydrant between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 must be relocated to intersection of Street B and Lyman Boulevard. 36. The lot width at the rear setback line for lots l and 2, Block 4, must be adjusted to reflect 90 feet as required in the Shoreland Ordinance. 37. Successful transfer of Outlot B (4.83 acres) to the City of Chanhassen concurrent with the final plat through a combination of dedication (3.08 acres) and fee purchase (1.75 acres) at a cost of $112,716 per acre, for development and use as a public neighborhood park. 38. A sign reading "This Road Will Be Extended in the Future" shall be placed at the west end of Street C. 39. The applicant shall work with staff to evaluate the use of a privacy fence and vegetation along the north edge of the property to lessen the noise impact from Highway 212. A solution will be presented with the final plat." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Application. 3. Affidavit of Mailing and Public Hearing Notice. 4. Preliminary plat dated received November 5, 2010. gAplan\2010 planning cases \10 -12 lakeview\staff report pc.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of US Home Corporation — Planning Case No. 10 -12, Lakeview Development Request for Preliminary Plat creating 66 lots, 4 outlots and right -of -way for public streets (50.48 acres); and a Rezoning of 50.48 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, and R -4 Mixed Low- Density Residential, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District located northwest of the intersection of Lyman Blvd. and Lake Riley Blvd. and south of Highway 212. On December 7, 2010, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of US Home Corporation for a single - family residential development. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development 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 District and R4, Mixed Low Density Residential District. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density 3. The legal description of the property is described on the attached Exhibit A. 4. Subdivision Findings: a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; the subdivision meets all the requirements of the RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density and the Shoreland Overlay District with the exception of Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, which are deficient in width. This can be easily corrected by shifting some property lines. b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; the proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision ordinance. 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; the proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 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; the proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; the proposed subdivision will not cause excessive environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. The wetland is proposed to be protected. f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. It will have access to public utilities and streets. 5. Rezoning Findings: The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) effects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed zoning has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed zoning is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c. The proposed zoning conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d. The proposed zoning will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e. The proposed zoning can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f. Traffic generation by the proposed use within the zoning district is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 6. The planning report #10 -12 dated December 7, 2010, prepared by Sharmeen Al -Jaff etal, is incorporated herein. 2 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed development including a Preliminary Plat creating 66 lots, 4 outlots and right -of -way for public streets (50.48 acres); and Rezoning of 50.48 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, and R -4 Mixed Low- Density Residential, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 7 th day of December, 2010. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION li Its Chairman 3 Legal Description for Preliminary Plat Purposes Only All that part of Government Lot 2 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10 -17, according to the recorded plot thereof, said Carver County and lying northerly of the centerline of Lyman Boulevard per Doc. No. T90333 and 189939. Said centerline is described as follows: Beginning at the west quarter comer of said Section 24; thence South 89 degrees 08 minutes 52 seconds East, where the east —west quarter line bears South 89 degrees 47 minutes 54 seconds East, a distance of 2186.62 feet; thence easterly, a distance of 28.00 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 800.00 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 00 minutes 19 seconds; thence North 88 degrees 50 minutes 49 seconds East, a distance of 629.36 feet; thence easterly, a distance of 11.92 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the south, having a radius of 800.00 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 51 minutes 14 seconds; thence North 89 degrees 42 minutes 03 seconds East, a distance of 592.50 feet; thence northeasterly, a distance of 550.91 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 450.00 feet and a central angle of 70 degrees 08 minutes 38 seconds; thence North 19 degrees 33 minutes 26 seconds East, a distance of 149.08 feet; thence northeasterly, easterly and southeasterly, a distance of 954.67 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the south, having a rodius of 510.00 feet and o central angle of 107 degrees 15 minutes 06 seconds and there terminating. 2 0 , - Planning Case No i V _ t g, CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED NOV 0 5 7010 PLEASE PRINT :;HANHASSEN QLA41NING DEP' Applicant Name and Address: r _ 4�: )) v.'.� ��• ;ma C a• �.�,n•a� ��J S I.i • - 1 S� I .q :i � = i'tE•.. :J,�v.i7 . Contact: ;% G JUv a' < Li Phone: Fax: Email: 4c= . 4 46 /6 4,; e'4-1.�wr Property Owner Name and Address: LLL _l�ta6 ►K�.J S /8 Contact: JoN.,� t�1; MdttAVl•, Oi 4J PeIGs Phone: Fax:' Email: davt.30ko E I JKa.' I . c.o rk. NOTE Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non - conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development" Rezoning qj W Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision" I'M Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right -of- Way /Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeai Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign - $200 -L E9� (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost** $50 CUP /SPRNAC/VARIWAP /Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB® � TOTAL FEE $ 2110 _ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Five (5) full -size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8 X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ( *.tif) format. * *Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: [l��l[�,1,� LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: ( � r) 7 - U > 1147 TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: �} fZS r REQUESTED ZONING: 1 ` Luy� I k - � �" PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: _ i A Eve �I X REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: R-Z' � ,, Az " J - 1 REASON FOR REQUEST: >r�r 4H 1?r1A ,1 14,/ & I,:, - j U" FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: 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 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 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 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. I 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. ( f? i t 3 e t' Date D to g \plan form Wevelopment review application.doc Lakeview City of Chanhassen Introduction U.S. Home Corporation, d/b /a Lennar is proposing to develop Lakeview in a manner that is sensitive to the environment and surrounding area. Our proposal includes 66 homes that will offer dynamic housing opportunities that accompany the creation of a fantastic new neighborhood that the City of Chanhassen will be proud of. Background/History The property was once a much larger piece of land. Improvements to public infrastructure including the upgrading of Lyman Boulevard and Construction of Highway 212 have cut this into multiple parcels. Recently a lot split was recorded that allowed the parcel that makes up this application to stand on its own. Property Description The site consists of approximately 50 acres of land nestled between Highway 212 and Lyman Boulevard. The natural topography of the site gradually slopes from North to South creating the opportunity for outstanding views of a large wetland complex and Lake Riley. A thoughtful approach to site planning helped minimize the impacts of Highway 212. While available for development, the property has sat idle for several years. City Standards Surrounding Land Uses within 500 feet Residential developments of varying densities surround the site to the South, West, and East. To the West is a conglomeration of several acreage parcels that are not currently served by City sewer and water and have the opportunity to develop in the future. To the South is the Springfield neighborhood that follows traditional sized residential lots. To the East you will find the higher density North Bay neighborhood. North Bay is made up of attached and detached townhomes. Directly to the North is highway 212. Lakeview lends a perfect opportunity to transition the differing densities between North Bay and Springfield. Zoning Classification The site is currently zoned Low Density Residential. We are proposing to change the zoning to Residential Low - Medium (RLM). This application is appropriate in Lakeview because nearly 50% of the land is unusable due to various easements and the large wetland complex. The change also provides the opportunity to transition density between North Bay and Springfield. Lot Description The new plan follows guidelines established in the RLM zoning district. This application is appropriate in Lakeview because nearly 50% of the land is unusable due to various easements and wetlands. Lakeview will be comprised of a mix of 65', 75', and 90' wide homesites. Careful consideration was taken in planning lot sizes that will allow future residents of the Community the ability to make modifications to their home and landscape. Included on the `Site Plan' sheet is information pertaining to the impervious coverage of some of our most popular house plans. An average impervious calculation for homes on the 65' wide homesites is 2,900 square feet. The smallest proposed homesite in Lakeview allows for maximum impervious coverage of 3,165 sq ft. The difference allows the homeowner reasonable room for improvements. The average lot size allows for 4,458 sq feet of impervious coverage. The impervious calculation on the largest home we are proposing is 3,907, but would more likely be placed on the largest homesites. The maximum impervious surface will be shown on the homeowners lot survey and will be disclosed to the homeowner as they are considering a purchase. A restrictive covenant will be recorded against each homesite that will prevent the ability to exceed the maximum impervious surface. Building Plans/Product Information Extensive research on housing availability and market conditions within the City of Chanhassen has guided us in putting together a product portfolio that includes an architecturally interesting variety of homes, and price points, that meet mulitple buyer niches. • Landmark Series - Designed with efficiency in mind, the Landmark series meets the demands of today's challenging housing market by offering a fantastic value. A relatively new concept in the City of Chanhassen, the Landmark series is planned specially for 65' wide homesites. Typical footprints are 50' wide allowing the ability to maintain setbacks designated by zoning standards. A variety of houseplans and elevations make up this series offering square footages ranging from 2,200 sq ft to 2,800 sq ft plus the ability to finish the basement to add footage to the home. With families in mind, the homes include four bedrooms, a large open living space on the main level, a master suite, mud room, and three car garage. Sixty -five foot wide lots allow the ability to preserve open space without compromising the integrity of the neighborhood. An interesting streetscape will be maintained through the incorporation of a variety of elevations, materials, and color packages. Lots are arranged in a manner that will include an assortment of walk -outs, look -outs, and flats. Based on today's market research we anticipate these homes to start with pricing in the mid $300,000's. 2 Classic Heartland Series - The recently upgraded Heartland series is designed for the 75' wide homesites with the move up buyer in mind. A variety of house plans will be offered ranging from 2,600 sq ft to 3,300 sq ft. plus the ability to finish the basement to add additional footage to the home. These well thought out plans typically include four bedrooms, a large open living space on the main level, master suite, craft room, and three car garage. No deviation from R -1 standards is requested in the large lot area. An interesting streetscape will be maintained through the incorporation of a variety of elevations, materials, and color packages. Based on today's market research we anticipate these homes to start with pricing in the upper $400,000's. Currently, we are also planning this series on the larger homesites that back up to the wetland. By offering smaller plans on the shoreland district homesites, we will allow the opportunity for those owners to do more extensive landscaping without sacrificing impervious surface regulations. The market ultimately dictates what price people looking for a new home are willing to pay and what features they want included in with that price. All house plans follow Lennar's signature "Everything you want, Everything you need" marketing platform which includes features built into the home that may typically be considered 'upgrades'. Additionally, each home will showcase Lennar's PowerSmart program that builds homes to save energy, money and the environment with state -of -the -art construction techniques and materials. Homeowners Association(s) A Homeowners Association will be established to enforce restrictive covenants and provide architectural guidelines and control. The intention of the Homeowners Association is to uphold the integrity of the neighborhood. We are electing to minimize private improvements and the maintenance responsibilities that can burden the Homeowners Association. The Association will ultimately be responsible for any areas that are not owned by the City of Chanhassen or a private lot owner. Phasing We are projecting to build through the project over the course of several years. Tentatively, phase one will consist of 32 homes starting along Lyman Blvd. working to the North. At this time we believe Phase 1 will include Block 1, Block 2, Lots 1 -19 of Block 3, and Lots 1 -2 of Block 4. It is our desire to begin development work on the initial phase as weather permits in the spring of 2011. Based on site conditions, it is likely mass grading will need to occur in one phase. Due to the volatility of today's economy and housing market it is very difficult to predict responsible project phasing. Timing and phase sizes will ultimately be dictated by market conditions and our ability to sell through finished homesites. Park dedication and Open Space The City of Chanhassen has identified the need for a neighborhood park in this general area. City code requires one acre of land dedication for every 75 persons. Each single family household is assumed to have 3.5 residents. Based on this formula Lakeview will generate 231 residents (3.5 X 66) and require land dedication of 3.08 acres. Park dedication has been accommodated by providing 4.83 acres along Lyman Boulevard (Outlot B). We would like to further discuss the acquisition of the additional acreage. Sidewalk is provided on one side of the street to encourage pedestrian flow to the park. Environmental Impacts • Wetlands - A wetland application has been submitted in conjunction with the preliminary subdivision application. One large wetland complex (10.40 acres) is identified along the South East boundary of the site. The wetland delineation report suggests it to be a Type 1 wetland. The site plan is designed to have minimal impact to the existing wetland. No deviation from City ordinance related to Wetland Buffering is requested with this application. Tree Preservation — Site planning with consideration of the existing features has allowed the development to have as little impact on trees as feasible. The existing tree canopy is made up primarily of Boxelder species that are 10 -13" in diameter. City's requirements for tree canopy area will be met trough the planting of 248 additional trees on the site. Field adjustments will be considered to help minimize the unnecessary removal of trees. Water Quality — Water quality will be managed through the incorporation of on- site ponding and other appropriate erosion control measures. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is included with this application. Lennar is committed to following stormwater policies enacted by the City of Chanhassen and the Minnesota Pollution Control Association (MPCA). Neighborhood Meetings Existing residents surrounding the Lakeview property are very important to the success of the Community. As of the date of this application we have met with the neighbors immediately to the West and intend to hold a neighborhood open house in the near future. Summary Lennar has a long history of building successful Communities in the City of Chanhassen under the names of Orrin Thompson Homes and Lundgren Bros. Construction. We are very excited for the opportunity that lends itself through the careful development of this fantastic property and ask for your support. 4 Project Team Owner: Klinglehutz, LLC Developer: U.S. Home Corporation Builder: Lennar Corporation Primary Contact: Joe Jablonski Planner/Engineer /Surveyor: Pioneer Engineering Wetland Specialist: Graham Environmental Services Landscape Architect: Pioneer Engineering Legal Council: Leonard Street and Deinard Association Manager: Community Development, Inc. Project summary (US Home/Lennar) Total Homesites — 66 Total area = 50.8428 (Gross) Density units per acre = 2.5227 DU /Acre Open Space = 24.6807 Acres 65' Wide SFD Homesites — 43 Minimum Lot Size — 9,044 sq ft 75' Wide SFD Homesites — I 1 Minimum Lot Size — 10,500 sq ft 90' Wide SFD Homesites — 12 Minimum Lot Size — 14,934 sq ft ** Note: All Lots within the 1000' Shoreland Overlay are a minimum of 15,000 sq ft 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 November 24, 2010, 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 Public Hearing for Lakeview — Planning Case 2010 -12 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. Subscribed and s orn to before me this Ls t day of , 2010. Notary Pu is KIM T. MEUWISSEN 3: c Notary Public- Minnesota �`��i ;w ' � Y MY Commission Expires Jan 31, 2015 C N . O U 01 c . R a c O N N cc Z C Ri t U C1 C d 3 IL _ O d O Z O V E O U ._ C cc UL C N R .0 C cc 0 C O V a w O W V Z i` o f6 •? cA O O C o m� co U O > U -r- O O y U O C N O O c a m m °� o C T . m C o ro � n m ro cu U) (0 M O c6 U) > Q U p O L 0 �La -m aZ m da QQ� °� CLc �� ) Cfl N OQ V 0 c6 >,E C cn O 0 aTd a t° awm a 3@ CD ca >,O J• c6 c6 O N 7 N O U >,co O > Q p U� p mmm E�o mQ m m�a °m — ` E� �° N�O c0 N O L c O c6+. N J O C i Q O C > c6 Q U C C6 co cz O 0.a � c o c > a n E ° -m m N m O m m- a) m a '0 o Li C V �� C c6 O L "O O .0 U ��.�? 0) _E N.� C C U N +_ O p'C C cC i m ° E a) a) .�, - o >_ L E 2• ,, c .. r m C c c � N 0) Q O E O O N= � N N U E ?� OL.� 3 O D °� m°�ELE� my a) N> E 9a C -oro3y cop :s U � cu ° � E a OY i N� m c C O QQ� O 7 r O C' �O.0 E ) U O •� O >H �� °_ = Tm m oErn y c a)ay � �s= ooEo - om 0Um p- i c6 co >+ O c6 O +. CO C N C _ N i O �"' Q C Q l , 7 co O V O c6 E R O r O co cz (n \ to Q 4) c m E m - o Y m c a) c - a) L O a7 fn m E C O C U to O L_ C m c a� o` nnE O ..'C.. p p C ++ 76 C i (6 N Q • } p - O O 0) fn I - - O . C Q C6 N M +' c6 U O ' - - c '� c O m c ° L a d C m o f m E n o. 5 Op cr O N� X c6 C p >' 0).0 N C+� C - C N cc; _L -+ C O � �= d U > *-' N cu a)0) 0)Ca) a)- 3 UU crm o- a) c a) ._ 76 m ° o a C� c6v ti O U - i = O J N -N� O .� � p mo ca O Q O C O \ c6 U .. > N O N ` O U a) N m a w a E L a) m m aa a oflm w ao > -in O i N (z Q J O r N O N O (� a _ 0 p LO d O QU co E n E n N m °� y m .N U E �c o o U w r N O i N C U Q m• 00 �yL p -•`�•; 0 0) O i U O > 'O d ca CZ � O Q O .� d E Uc =.c m`" a.�° c- a)cc c m -= - p m E o` a ` a E a) v °� a N _m .- O� O c6 d U > .V U> U } C N 'C > Q O •� c6 Q U O Q y++ Q ;... N of N a 3E3 -L ooama o a m m a) Q T O O O 'a ° T, .«. O n N L CD a d L C E c6 .= U) _ U C 0> 0 a) U L L L.. 0) 7 C 7� O U U Q _ O c6 Q i N C c6 7 U =S O O C= 0 p •+ 0 cS1 >, 'N >mr �Uc�mcrn m o Q m C a) m] m C O L C c0 C w o c c ' ) N OU L C: cq W p >Y .� C6 N t C 0 C' fA O N 0) O O C L a O� O - ,0 N N o n n.� a) m o° mono �c4) ma�� c � C CN — U O•��Q N O cL - OO O OU ."0 > c z O. 4 M00 0 ++ O U co E amm�c�L"oacU =c > (S C a Y U " U C � J N= ) i N 3 - . O�cas c6 O �� U+ (� O L� O c6 C -� >(n O d 'O b O o a= o� m � 3 o dm�c._ n a) a n U y_ N O N O� �� O U p O co O � � ) a) O Q -i O Q � 0 E r c6 c L ' U E -0 o L E >° ° m a a c- - c n Q - a) C � m � >, 0 p C O N cn y E -O Q O o c6 U U 3 c6 E U • Q . - . O `� Q) O . Q E C c c V c6 N U O >+ N ++ d 13 «. 7 N 0 N f �cmQm..:a �HOaamcmcCa a. CL a) m L C` 7 O O '15 c6 (� NJ ...0 ^ O C ?i (0:., 0 CO �"� O 7 N Q U ++ U •�>..- to�N � 0 l p U O •� (V Q O '.'� L N E U ° N ._ m Q - E Ca a i m� -a 6moUa O a C N 6 C C a N U L T °" C C O O m fn 7 3 V N� 2 L f0 t) O- f-UO ,�= � U i6 O_� c oia) °EoccarnaE mroo.NY� H �nUOC�� D ZOOQF- co cz Q�Nco �Q c6 !%) =d > �a)CU?a Ems- W:- E C N 4 O m �UQ o m EAU a) o a) C() 3 o N 3 a) U °), E a) 5 O c 1 Y N N cm o a) a) C 0> E O '- N .Lm.. ooco aC�0 mnm0Cnoo«m E d d CL c N ++ odEE mmm a)a aai-o-0TMma) U E C N - C 2 R N m R (n U O O) m a F- C N *: AC c0 0 C O 0� a W r 0 0 0 c m° o_ � T :s:E:v n" °� ++ O V di+ d O > >�-ma�°amiEN ° °wmcmrncv�o� m o c c) m E EU c> y Vp O - O p t 3 O o m a) ro m m o m L 3aN¢mnmw ° w D J d Q d J � to Q U . U. . o f6 •? cA O O d L O C U) o E c 3 C t m - o .0 a) 0 �� O C O .O. c�a a`mv mZm ao Ica o- co aY U) t0 7 O cq 0 �- V N 0 i Q U.0 0 3- U > C = Qm c >m a)o .QQ- > s a) ° �� c N p > ,0 + - • N } c6 0) U U N O� cu C c6 O > i O E c 0- aoo E 70 cu nom 'a> �°�� C E �o m >� mm� CF. co 0 - • (6 J 0 O 0 "-� U 0 Q �Qa $�n�mom=c a3 o m O t L� (6 N > c6 Q N 0 O O U p C 0 O R 0) Y O -- - cu E� DOE a 7 � r m m N O .0 a) C _ L O L O O c: C6 E a '' U O 70 0 C ++ L O O 'i C R L ro _� N T _N a �_ m C C ' m L m m m 0 °' C O L a U R{ 2 p 0 O �a U i N p)�p C U Fn v > O - 0 O N U C OL in O O_ nj U N�� O r O �+ Rt c= om3w` - TCO � m .0-0 Ems• E m o m �? o c ° . E C a C 0YCn i N >, m c - ''•-' Q � 0_ O 0 p N N O >F• O (6 U E 1p d mnm �6mY�-omEo -� °m mUm Cmm Ew m�'Om (0c5 -m mmc QO (6 O C 4 " 3 c 0 Q Q U O �*' \ cn Q O d E a� L -. O a N E- O C> m V ' - L ... O ..'C.. p p C ++ 76 C i c6 _ .Ln C) a) C 0)O y� N C Q c6 7 0 0 y .. c6 _ C N _ N Q C� .._ C m m 7 8 m U L m a C ca - O` m O UOCO =m O cO 3mL °U I- CF, X co > O p•D+L C '" O �:- c6 E� O O.. > U p + . N 0 co 0 0 c�a°'icaciaa)i -mEo~ Ua E m m '0 0 °2 n C � c6 O� `'0 CJ N � c6 O O QO C > O � N O U �'' N M.- mcE9�ma ycu £ a)m UOm omom a ! MC (D 2 > �a)U O N i a) 0 CC + c - 6 . Q J 0 O N H N Q O >i c6 O "- p O Q- O O l0 G� N U O > 'a o E ° L .°) N m 'N o f ° o C) c °-n r 0.6 N N C (6 O 0 Q m N c>6 `N "C 0 N� • U p 01 N> cA O N 0)� d O (6 7 ch O •= d£ U *' c) m- m >m�' n.T.m mc'E N m p E o a �-0 E a) x v ° m a c a)E`L _� I�CC60)Np�O�� O� O .� !n C U > � O i ' C Q) co � N C 'C > Q O O 0 07 , 0 Q L 0 N v= O p.� N Q Q c6 O U = c - 0 3E3O c - ate a)-a mQ °> n-5 m� 0) od .> a) .0 1r 7 U m ._ m a w YO 7 C O L C W 0 d O UU Q (,� — O �� Ej' O +. O Q) (6 >, O >j G) O L++ maam° c�Ecm m� U� C O n C a) O m C C U N 7 C C «. - mm :o N a)L .O C� Cn 'E > 'C >' L 2 +. _ 0 v) to O ?� in O RS N C C fA 0 5-0 U p O N_ U) w N o.... - nn U as ) c E .o L o co LE mu Uaro m �� O — U p •- N U� J C i O a) O � yL--• •F-• 0 y-• L 0) � 0 U C C6 p O > (D cn C6 N U co U - � O �m � > C- «. m 4 +L. O a C U Q) D1 C ammo od= mUcmnooy y� a. o m N C m m �-+ U C N - O :3 O N 7 ) U) i O y �� + •_ 0 p 0 •� p'� U . f6 U N O L C r O O p O � d Y O ' E a .. a) a n C '5 m m L ?' o .� N m m a) m> o m 0 a)6• 0 "E E o O� O U i U U O O ca U U L C C O U Q� - Q N L • U C E O Q c6 0 0) 0 0 i *' V -Urnm- L£ m a -0 - aQ �. C � m m ' - m ° >, i6 O p O O p N 0 C O 0 0 � Q E U 0 Q " N (6 C L >, N 0 d c6 c0 ++ U O C m m n L o r a n a) a) a) o c F- o a 2 C a m C Y - 7 O m - 0 c= = C0 ++ O J C6 O O a) C C O � U C O f6 :r L `)••• 3 cu +" N c6 O U.) O 0 .. . ._ t0 O N p c0 O C U - Q 0 4, L N O N n E c a ~ 'y = a) m s o Cj �' •ami n ro o a < C ,� m U m U L n -c a m_t.Ta U 7 O t m p QU N f - U 4. •«-• 0 O N C O a)CCmLm� oL� U 7 yC F- OU O •x C W c6 �ZEQ Q O .p O Q� c6 c6 QrNMd >+ O Y 01 N O K - t � �Q i6.Ln �+IL m m T in a) a° U m rn a) �' 4 c m c ° n L a) . m -- c? = >Ca, .-- Em�ro' ;a o`m� D �U¢ o ca ELU ac o m 3 o y. ° U rn� yiamE ~CEN C aE ornya C ,�a m a ° i m no 0 Q �ca ° � ao 'F- ° c E C � W O� m 0 map -X �C �N - a T� a 1-• *: AC QG1 �p d N. C C auUE, 0- 0 nm�a� ° >c� mnmaa °c ° m'oo�� y� W C N V O '� O 3ooiU� m 4/ 'fN � d O .� E -y O 4 ~ 3 m L U 3 N L y O Q - r O ".'d 41 aiao-c.'nNmLEEUcyO�°aca°imvm R D O J 1- d Q O d J R O O Q U �oCd ca F 44 Too 3o.>Qmaca m0 U. 0 ALAN T & TINA M LEE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUSTEE BEVERLY ANN SPORRE 421 LYMAN BLVD 400 COUNTRYWIDE WAY MS: SV -35 166 LAKEVIEW RD E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8656 SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065 -6298 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 CAROLE K BASTASZ DANIEL W & SALLY A RYAN DAVID C MAJOR 179 LAKEVIEW RD E 9025 SUNNYVALE DR 158 LAKEVIEW RD E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8639 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 DAVID L ANDERSON DEVON L ANDERSON GRANT & ELAINE CASANOVA 290 GREENLEAF CT 178 LAKEVIEW RD E 174 LAKEVIEW RD E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 GREGORY R RENBERG JAIME W & LISA H LAUGHLIN JAMES & ANDREA SWEENEY 282 GREENLEAF CT 376 SUMMERFIELD DR 296 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7628 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631 JEREMY LAUGHLIN JOAN M LUDWIG JOYCE A BENNETT 8784 NORTH BAY DR 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD 8789 NORTH BAY DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 JUDD C & SHIRLEY R MORGAN KATHLEEN M LUCE KENT A HOVE 161 LAKEVIEW RD E 165 LAKEVIEW RD E 177 LAKEVIEW RD E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO LAURA MARIE COOPER LESLIE M BERGSTROM 350 CHASKA BLVD 9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD 8781 NORTH BAY DR PO BOX 89 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8650 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 CHASKA, MN 55318 -0089 LISA M LANG MARGARET W NICHOLS MARK W LINDNER 170 LAKEVIEW RD E 182 LAKEVIEW RD E 8785 NORTH BAY DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 MARY BETH MAKI MATTHEW J THILL MITCHELL S & CINDY L VENESS 150 LAKEVIEW RD E 8790 NORTH BAY DR 8794 NORTH BAY DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 NGA DOAN NICOLE A DELANEY NICOLE M EVENSON 8799 NORTH BAY DR 8793 NORTH BAY DR 8797 NORTH BAY DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 NORTH BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSN QUIRIN & MARIA MATTHYS RACHEL WIDMER INC 8795 NORTH BAY DR 8791 NORTH BAY DR 2681 LONG LAKE RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113-1128 RICHARD J CHADWICK 9530 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8681 ROBERT & SUZANNE JANSSEN 162 LAKEVIEW RD E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 SCOTT A & MICHELE M WALKER 9031 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8639 SEAN D & LEANNE M CONNELLY 396 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7628 STEVEN P & SANDRA L NORDLING 281 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631 TIMOTHY D & PATRICIA L BESSER 400 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8655 SPRINGFIELD HOMEOWNERS ASSN 730 FLORIDA AVE S GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55426 -1704 TARY JANE ADAMS 154 LAKEVIEW RD E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 TIMOTHY P AMLIE 8796 NORTH BAY DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD 631 TRANSPORTATION BLDG ST PAUL, MN 55155 -1801 TERI R HELLING 8780 NORTH BAY DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7624 TODD A & SHELLEY L LEONE 275 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7631 WAYNE E ANDERSON JOE JABLONSKI JOHN KLINGELHUTZ 181 LAKEVIEW RD E US HOME CORPORATION KLINGELHUTZ, LLC CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7625 935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD 552 BAVARIA ROAD WAYZATA, MN 55391 CHASKA, MN 55318 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED Ir0 N _ I �— °- 0 o C DESCRIPTION HYDRANTS) GATE VALVE(S) RE DUCER(S) EXISTING WATERMAIN PROPOSED WATERMAIN FUTURE WA7EENMAIN SANITARY HOLES) EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FUTURE SANITARY SEWER LAKEVIEW PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN \/\ CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOV 0 5 2010 FLARED ENO BEEHIVE E %ISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER FUTURE STORM SEWER EXISTING 2' CONTWR LINE EXISTING 10 CONTOUR LINE PROPOSED 2' CONTOUR LINE PROPOSED 10' CONTOUR LINE POND OUTLET LINE POND HIGH WATER LINE PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EMERGENCY OVERFLOW DELINEATED WETLAND LINE HIGH WATER; SHEET INDEX 1. COVER SHEET 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT 4. SITE PLAN 5 -7. GRADING PLAN 8 -9. GRADING DETAILS 10. EROSION CONTROL PLAN 11. EROSION CONTROL DETAILS 12. SANITARY & WATER PLAN 13. STORM SEWER PLAN TR 1 -4. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN LS 1 -2. LANDSCAPE PLAN PROPOSED /EX. RET WALLS • • • • • • ...... • • • EROSION CONTROL FENCE - --- - - - - -- EASEMENT LINE GRAVEL SURFACE D BITUMINOUS SURFACE O CONCRETE SURFACE EX. SERVICE EX. LAWN SPRINKLER VALVE • EX. LAWN SPRINKLER HEAD E%. WATER WELL - - - - - - © EX. CULVERT EX. TREE LINE EX. M JOR REE — Ex. OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES EX. UNDERGROUND TELEVISION —tel lel— E%. UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE — EX. FIBER OPTIC LINE — EX. ELECTRIC LINE 9 9 — Ex. UNDERGROUND GAS — A X EX. FENCE LINE EX. FENCE LINE [J EX. SOUND BARRIER WALL ■ EX ELECTRIC BOX 'o".g"ii EX. ELECTRIC BOX E%. MONITORING WELL C9 TELEPHONE BOX ® EX. IDLE VISION o" ,4 y E%. UTILITY POLE E%. LIGHT POLE 0 EX. " HOLE ® 4 EX. MAIL ROX EX. SIGN R OApWAY PROVEMENIS BITUMINOUS PATH — CURB LINE 'CONCRETE WALK RICH; -OF -WAY LINE SETBACK LINE HIGH WATER; SHEET INDEX 1. COVER SHEET 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT 4. SITE PLAN 5 -7. GRADING PLAN 8 -9. GRADING DETAILS 10. EROSION CONTROL PLAN 11. EROSION CONTROL DETAILS 12. SANITARY & WATER PLAN 13. STORM SEWER PLAN TR 1 -4. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN LS 1 -2. LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED BY PIONEER ENG INEERlXa_Q,p_ o oia , ome•I, o...< ,n o �e %e°Ima ua< < an9<. I•, o r oo�i(e1 o lne rvoonll <s. P 1 9NEERenginee rang — 242. ;.TV,w<Dri a uw.v e , f65N681 -19M M�rcbr H<iUXR. MN 55120 r P '�'reen99amen T� I "a` HIGH WATER; SHEET INDEX 1. COVER SHEET 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT 4. SITE PLAN 5 -7. GRADING PLAN 8 -9. GRADING DETAILS 10. EROSION CONTROL PLAN 11. EROSION CONTROL DETAILS 12. SANITARY & WATER PLAN 13. STORM SEWER PLAN TR 1 -4. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN LS 1 -2. LANDSCAPE PLAN CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT PREPARED BY PIONEER ENG INEERlXa_Q,p_ BRIAN N. MOLINARO REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER 4]504 REG. NO. JOHN C L ARSON REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR 19928 REG. NO. DEVELOPER JOEJABLONSKI LENNAR 935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD. W AYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 952 -249 -3014 <wcDEIO SITE DRIVE .,, u, n• C m � LOCATION MAP BENCHMARK - � TER SPRINGFIELD LOT 10 -11 BLK 1 ELEV =924.90 W GRAPHIC SCALE 1. F CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT I I NORTH BAY \ ' \ \� \�� ,�` � I n - 0 m - - ' NZ ol I I I � \ \ `P 11 11�� 11, WX 16x v � j LAKE RILEY DNR 10-2P OHW 1165,3 WETLAND MANAGEMENT CLASS "IMPROVE" OHW 8653 jaS IM 0 � WETLAND DNR 10-213W MANAGE "2" 20' BUFFER 30' S.B. TO BUFFER f A I/ p a*t 1 0 III \� J \ \�eq I // j as as eez ~ /% / / � � ,�� / \ � , \ \ � �J I — 0 11� \ \�.\ � /111'11 l�,o I �; / /��_ \\ 8 �� / %.. 9 /ii�� \�. .77 P12NEERengineeting ('651 16P1 -19 MwMan HeiPL1OFM 551]0 .+s. 68^ "4168 P- 2NO 1347 V "1 12— as aw - 3' 40, < 94 10 A 38 p 1 FT 8 1 7 7 PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY % EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: OUT V 6 0 4 4:% -4 1--, 5 30 32 33 3 mdk-d, — 109e 4 _d .1 m- ..d .., 1.1 0 ss 00 'STREE i J 1 TOTAL AREA 50.8428 ACRES TOTAL R.O.W. AREA 6.8632 ACRES TOTAL LOT AREA 111.2989 ACRES TOTAL OUXOT AREA 24.6807 ACRES TOTAL OUTLOTS 4 NUMBER OF LOTS 66 LARGEST LOT 19,317 So. FT. SMALLEST LOT 9.044 SO. FT. AVERAGE LOT 12.737 SO. FT. GROSS DENSITY (E%CLUDES OUTLO 3 2 41 2 2' LOTS /ACRE NET DENSITY (EXCLUDES OUMOTSTR LOISIACRE PROPOSED ZONING RUM UTILITIES AVAILABLE GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET PIONEERengineeting 3 4 27 j' 21 24 20 3 12 13 u a V Al I I cn 93,7s g 14 15 16 17 18 STREET B %2 3 9 8 7 g 6 5 4 Zw- ----------- out V, f ?D 0 ' OUTLOT A iL o ?EET E, OUTLOT B LJ A j 3 OUTLOT C 2 2 1 5 0N6 7 �c L 19, 117 21 1584 All 1- 1 11,111,111 1,' 2 '"1 11 1 1 1, 1 �l -d NORTH BAY I LAKE RILEY DNR 10 -2P OHW 865.3 ' WETLAND MANAGEMENT CLASS "IMPROVE" aw "aes.D i — WETLAND BUFFER — WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK 0 — WETLAND CONSERVATION SIGN � �i�mwua a x SPR —ELD ' sa D— N.: - N TOTAL GROSS AREA: 50.45 ACRES '- TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS:G GROSS DENSITY: 1.30] UNITS /ACRE T" 9 (OUTLOT B) TOTAL PUBLIC ROW AREA: 0.56 ACRES TOTAL WETLAND ARE , \: 10.40 ACRES - .— ...0 -.,, (DNRATMAND 10 -213W) TOTAL NET AREA: 15.39 ACRES 1 1 I .. ::.. ... V I SETBACKS I I I SHORELANDZONING RLM ZONING FrOn Frnn — G,gerow3tiontoR- O - \V =25 Gvage fowdtion to R- O -W =25 If= (owd non to R -0 -W =25 llouie foundation to R -O -W =25 Side =5' -Garage IV- Building Side =5' -Gunge IV- B.Oding Rev =25' Rcv- -25' Min Area: Min Arco: Lot Area= 15,000SF LmA— =9,000 SF Lot Width: Lt W'idh: Lot Widh =90'@ Prom S,11 —k Lm With =05' @ Frwt Setback Mss Impervious Covemg ,% Max ImPCr -ri= Co1erage=35% PI$ NEERmpi, ering i..e:�...... :ax ea wn:< Unvu.w Mwle4, xd not ssllo (6515651.9AEE a "sue n "q..na,mu i�:.rti I LAKE RILEY DNR 10 -2P OHW 865.3 ' WETLAND MANAGEMENT CLASS "IMPROVE" aw "aes.D i — WETLAND BUFFER — WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK 0 — WETLAND CONSERVATION SIGN L � �i�mwua b s w SPR —ELD D— - SUBDIVISION DATA SUMMARY: TOTAL GROSS AREA: 50.45 ACRES '- TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS:G GROSS DENSITY: 1.30] UNITS /ACRE TOTAL PARK AREA: 4.53 ACRES (OUTLOT B) TOTAL PUBLIC ROW AREA: 0.56 ACRES TOTAL WETLAND ARE , \: 10.40 ACRES - .— ...0 -.,, (DNRATMAND 10 -213W) TOTAL NET AREA: 15.39 ACRES (GROSS - PARK - ROW - WETLAND) NET DENSITY: 2.32 UNITS /ACRE L NQ Z�Z ." '• .. .• . •• — 909 .90.92 .. HIGW '„ •. — .9,a 92 9z�� -ro / „m9 , — 3 ANA QI�AjYIY — ..— •• .. i — i — - - 9 .8.92 0. 292p �On / /,_9,2 Q I EO.F. ..�e+•� >_ .' .. 90 =� Ag26— ��L'.Q665aCi� .. '. .. '. p.v? • — / / � � i t 1 — — - �a R�NYYG0.21J/f e — � / B5 I, —900' — — _ — _ _ -98 — _ ` /q.F. - 3�1 /�IIl➢ -999' 4 R\ l l .99 �� =t -- / I I I I I \ g,2- 96 28 / / / p 0 a R ;' % / //; / —i �/ 9oe E.o.F. L.P. I / 12 � I fi ,e - \ z � / v / ' � / 'A�� /� 9� i� � ay \ � �• \ � 1 \ Bba � � 51 \ I �{ / E.O.F. u - e / ,i Yw°�/ `•, � \ \ \ _� �m e9a ...r.....• me w �.B m \ , e _ - o $ � \ m \ \\ \� e \ m 1= w I E. / POTTJM.aez^ WFT\vOL= Q.425p i o \ : ' - / • OI 4 P / 91 o I l l - A - D OL A ` IN�A . 3 E -S. OBa \ I i ' I I I I = l �i \ 8 tv / O d' S,� akEa�ryL- O.,6iAG ) `\ /`I I II I 7/1 \N BP I 9 O.F. OUT TI' .., � �I � I I' I : I I ) � _9 I + I / / / / 35 '9 .' a ^n / / / : / /, • '. � 898 - / ' � I II I, li 'l I I I ... 9 . / / / :`` 2D U P- / I \ �� ply /l1 i/ l; { o Mi aTt LP1 89 G / / o I o G SEE SHEET 6 PI$NEER ,wn,,nng CRE..� CRAPIIIC SCALE IN FEET Me �V [ wss u.oeum,.e ` �65116BI -1914 A ^h= r ^e^eh oz� esa oAn r�.�1-13Ae - °•• ""•• "- PRELIIa4INARY GRADING 9ss e,L EN N AR RLVO. " S 'S OF B 13 in.�waii; ulsslzo " LAKEVIEW TA. MINNPSOI"A SSl91 CNANNAS— .M91NFSOFA SEE SHEET 5 - �/� \ I ��' I' II I .• 7I ,. I 7.81 I .o.F. -- � ' � /l %'� / ,�,. / - :�_ B96. / J OUTL,OII �� lII l l .) I ) \� n I I+ 1 �/ J / / / 35 v'9�m ' a ^ ^ ' / / // ✓% �'/,/ g'O \ 898 / .I., I . III � III 1 _ n 11+ 1 .... .9 .. • E.O.F.y / � J /�/ /, / _ _ \ \ y \\ yf c 1 / 0 ' / E.O.F. 1 1 ; 1 / 6r l l 9 ` O / /Y // 1 ' 11 �r �// / /(•I iJl \4 WETAND CONSERVABON SICN m,W m m m m o p • / a ° \ jr / WATER QUALITY BASIN 200 / ' \ � \ 6:. -_� � �• ^ $ NWL- 86 92 6.00 ] _.< „ I BOTTOM °858.00 / ' 80 TM° ^/ WET VO 8861.911 AM STORAGE va..- 1.HnADFT AREA OF DRAINAGE- 18.65BAC AREA NWL- 0.494AC . \\��.\\ � •, m G o. a 2 � _ / ,. �° °'' � wET DNR 00-213W' MANl GE "2- 20' BUFFER 30' .B. TO BUFFER � f / / / / / / •\” °® °a.,\ \ ( 5 ro /�, / �' 20l'IIEnAND BUFFER OUTLOT A /// // r ✓ m _ �\ \95\ C \ \ �9A \�J a �\ SETBACK TO WETLAND -BUFFER 9, ISEE SHEET PIONEER engineering GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET mm x J H e Dri a u:�.::... °° L51 ,LBI -4AVn xm °° o„ vav v�v LENNAR PRELIMINARY ms BAS wnx>ATABEVD. LAKEVIEW 6 GRADING on 13 WAYJ.ATA. MIN.. 55)91 CHANIIA66P.N. MINNP_SOTA LEGEND SEE SHEET 6 EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION —/ I I V X �+ X o m C. 'I BASIN MANHOLE FLARED END BSA �\ \.•I I \ \\ \• \ \ \ \ \ - &98— fi �, I I V '..avo / D ► �� / EXISTING STORM SEWER I / \ \ \ �� \ .\ \ 9g 08 ?� " 896 ' as PROPOSED STORM SEWER I \+' I \ \ \ � W m g+� aa+ gam m PH IN ASE LINE I a. \ \ \ \� \ \.�.\ sea\, ._',; a'90 c // � • /. AB QUALITY \', .. 1 \• \ \ \ \ �........ AS 200 - - - - - - - - - EASEMENT LINE fir' I[ ! �\ .,\ \ \ \ \ 66q� "`�_ rr / NWL- 866.0D - - -m - -- E %ISNNG 2 CONTOUR LINE j �` \ JW \ \ \ ya9 6 <. \ \�� `` 1� c .xw, ?� / 111- 889.2] wo EXISTING 10' CONTOUR LINE \ \ \\ .� 1 I h 6 \� \/ _°�<rL�{A, BOTTOM - 856.00 PROPOSED 2' CONTOUR LINE \ \ ✓ti WET VOL.- 1.82BACFT '2 \ Bdp \ .�`�."' "6f / •� /" / STORAGE VOL- 1.917ACFT PROPOSED 10 CONTOUR LINE 8 eg \ 8 624 f 16 �. ,� AREA OF DRAINAGE- I 8.658AC e..o P.NO OUTLET LINE \\ \\ 3•'�__ ^� \ ( / AREA NWL- 0.490AC ---== ° °$ - - -- POND HIGH WATER LINE ry PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION LAND \ \.._ \ \\ \, m C 0 a 2/ _ , ry / , WET —__ 1 •► `► __— EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ee \ ` > s DELINEATED WETLAND LINE s - ,.. .. DNR 00 -213W FEMA FLOODPLA61 BOUNDARY ` \ \` \\ MANf�GE "2" ... ....... ...... STANDARD EROSON CONTROL ): \ \ 7� HEAVr -DU Y EROSION CONTROL / \ \ s.s g 20' BUFFER TREE FENCE I 1 1 _ S of �\\ X 888 ,g .o F. 30' I.B. TO BUFFER ) .•,.0 " " "• " PROPOSED /EX. RET WALLS / RAND I CONSERVATION AREA SIGN / I; \� � 6 J \ yy WETLAND BUFFER SIGN / / •" / I -- O � x \ \Po'4 \6 .66p " O �� Op / �/ Q E%. SANITARr OR STORM MH 1 / X / / e,T, \ 6 \ 5/�; / 20-VLETLAND BUFFER EX. HPTE VALVE OUTLOT A CS Ex. DRAM 1 :e e? r\ 'B \ SETBACK TO WETLAND - BUFFER s�v EX. SERVICE I , / Cl ✓ �8.5 0 \ `•. \ \•• \p \ f M1 . LAWN SPRINKLER VALVE vi Ex. LAWN SPRINKLER HEAD E%. WATER WELL // ,°•' I 9. \ \ \ y ..... \ , $ 9 �- - - - - -� Ex. CULVERT rWI�WYI E%. TREE LINE 98 g ?e E%. OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES 1 j I g8 6 E%. UNDERGROUND IEEE VISION /•. / //"�. 4 ' "� • • r E%. UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE I i \ e e I� -LL.d 6. — tofo — E%. FIBER OPTIC LINE F I �gi' E.O.. — E%. ELECTRIC LINE � � 3 � • I 'f I I \ — 9 9 E%. UNDERGROUND GAS % %— E%. FENCE LINE /� .1 `` AA W� a \ I ; I iI // / / ❑ EX. ELECTRIC BO a % EX. ELECTRIC BOX \ • \ - ; �W; 11 1 111 I f Ex EX. MONITORING WELL EX TELEPHONE LEPHONE BOX TE a .._. . r LEVISION BOX \\ \ .. \ \ I I �I w � 894 � m t I I • '... I ��\ \ \. / � Ex O . UTILIiv POLE Ex. LIGHT POLE + A E%. TEST HOLE ® Ex Ex. . MAIL OX = ,v si 4 I MPROVEMENTS R GHT OF WAY LINE ° \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \� 874- �B TUMNOUS PATH I J - \' \\ \ \ \ \\ \ — ._ cE g66 EX. GRAVEL SURFACE NTERL NE a., / g �� \ \ \\ — aT6 e6 cures L WA \ \ \ I I \6 :II 11 / 9 \ \ \ \ \_ -- CONCRETE LK \ \ \ \ / K \ \ %\ \ \ \ 8 6A ... SCIE— L \ \ \ -I / / 0 � ... \� ��.\ � , \� \� B \ \ \ \ J . n p \ \ ��... \\ \\ \ \ OU I UQj H6 \ I \ j E%. BITUMINOUS SURFACE xp. ` \ `. 7 1 9 � 4 I , / -.:\ \ \•.'�. sAx4 9? \ar8c890 Ex. CONCRETE SURFACE \\ gT :.. •. i v \ / 1 / \g p6�e� \\ _ —_�- — / / / ^ \ \ 1 1 111% 1 �Ii / / I \ I.I GKFLL MAIERAL 0 sELEG, BA � GRAVEL CONSi ENTRANCE I 9� \• J' �\ 1�;fL iii 1' • I II 'p. 90 \ i / —� . ..... r- — � � e \ ` � 90 8 'i < e � e � e ' � •" � —� o, 90 0 9p6 \ g0g �TMl1 �•' ^'W Z GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET � CL (n PI$NEERengineering (65N 681 -191A w ^Name u.�rL--- r•�%.vW y oeI pta in.','.aP�:;x.emo "wissu9 r:efiig�aa P.�N:� -.. ^n PRELIMINARY GRADING 9JSlas'wnvINieATnRBLVD. LAKEVIEW 7 Da 13 WAVZATA. MTNN6S01'A SSJ91 ONANRA.E......OTA Io TYPICAL POND SECTION BERM I� — - -_ — rrWt - - - -t 3 ER06ION BLA j vnal[S j ON DITCH SLOPES h BERM DRAINAGE & UTILITY--I EASEMENT —VI I Oj BLOCK N0. LOWEST OPENIrvG ELEVATION 7 LOT N0, ELLEEVATION WR \ HOUSE TYPES GROUND ELEVATION R — RAMBLER OR SPLIT ENTRY TO — RAMBLER LOOKOUT OR SPLIT ® BUILDING ENTRY WALKOUT RECOMMENDED LO r WO — RAMBLER WALKOUT GARAGE SIDE SLO —SIDE LOOKOUT SWO —SIDE WALKOUT I I FINISHED ELEVATION SS LOT CORNER .< j C STREET LOT INFORMATION (TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE) xnM / II p —RACE ExCA.ICI "'B"AL SHLECI PAO1ILL 1 0`E COMPACND BACxFIM NR`Tt `C PA 1 — A ACK I AIERIAL MP I O B Co AC EO BACIFILL BOIIOU O U STAB (E Mi [nIAL SUBGRADE CORRECTION DETAIL NO SCALE _P_I ONEERmemen - ng 2422 RAI ym olive ' u ` (SHIAH -1914 MaMOI+Ncigl�l], MN 55120 M P PnA: EBI H MIO oOP Cv a C. LOT BENCHING DETAIL NO SCALE 2. EACH INE ANNIA BI CM9ST Of ME SITE. STOOU OU REGNNFM OF SpL INPWI. Iron INST_ ROdi Wu51M CMW FN]RAN¢ AvuupL saL 3. TALL ECNENI CONTROL DExCES LRT FENS£). S S PE METER S 1. 1 TORSO., —LE BD TO IN BE BOO R OP K AREA SNRPP[D, CLEAN C /A SO AM. MORL 11 RE ¢ TEM OR SIMPHRUTP POR FILL PER ME BMROR NT RECUUAPOW 10 BCM Oh —I ON9� 7. 0 �EiP h aABRRwfl1N0PrR�PUti° auATlo a awvN. PLEB TDI -, uro TAM A uM OF .• CEPM. 12. ST E1 RLES M INTIN FINE NAME USiE N ERDSxM fdllLBAIlWlIFS M �CCNCV E E ADHERE T O waUMOl1 REMRFUExi iU ulx�rtliEE ER[A RM SSOGIR Q 81 ME PVNIirAFTERN EM AND aCOUPIErz NM RESlO1ATR ME A MCA PLANS MUST BE ON ME JOB SIR RII—. CR$TRODBR IS IN 3 P WATER WAUTY IN URBB A ME MIMRE0TACONSTRRUCTION 9rz TH EROAON AND SEOIxENT DENTROL PI.LNNNO WNOBOO(. ALI CROSHON N A ' TO MIND CRR9 CE A I1n T E N 5 EBM E' E R E IN STALLED OHNSCHL5 SUCH AS ND ME SPEXIBIC MI 91ALL u [ UxM COxSFRUCn IT MP F.. AD, THE POREIRAL FOR aw +s NDO DNRMC E R OS ION HAS r iIRE ME MOB.% RLwMEMLxrs FOR ME B CPANO ! ;W COxpTRS AS CONSMUCnON PROORERSES AND UNDIRECTED OR SEASONAL TE. ME PDauITT[[ Auu AN-PATE THAI MORE BIp•s RILL BE ECESS OF i0 ENSURE S ON AND AONENI CIA ' ON of Srz. WRND ME N rouRA a ironsMUCnR. N IS Tx[ R[sPaNINBUx a ME rcRMrzc TD ADDREa All E N MA�uAr AD BE CR EATED AID MBOK TI[ 1EMNU4 /OR [UMAnc RRN.__ OP MATE. AND — RP CES. Al BE x[EOFD TO PROxtt FN[cM2 1. ALL FREES ME UDR UNL ZT OR I FREE Al FE6 b PENCE E WTREKA POSSBE PaEARK ME EKBTND MESS OWNS AND OTHER KOETAT T COKR TO NO, M.- RUxOT. B OPERATE MACK EWRUEN� UP c A NE AME M . V ON PRIAL BApt- PW[. P. TEMPOB SEW SKINLL ODNE IN ACCORDANCE TO MMXH a113 6 SN.: CDNINSING OF Mx OPT MIX 150 IS s PER AaRE OR APPROFCD EEVAL ,� EwAL AND pM ANCHO IN PLACE OR 1 MPROYEU E02 IN iBTOD YIRUUM DAL TYPE I PERMITER, I. MUMSMRS PER A CRE lO. lF. C.S.N. T N SIORAIIOR SxuL US ProNSCRE, BCE THIN .—I 25]5 A pSK EO 1 PPLACE O �P ERA,. INSTALLED TT 0 ululu W POF CC R HD KRAA OP M[ 9URFACE AR gN T PER APo[ COKRAA WM IND I AT }I ORSIfFPFR ?AW/OR WERE NDICATFD ON ME PS LL AIDED OP NAK B ERO_ CONM0. BLANXOF TAPE S INSTALLED OR UNWAY SHA BE BE HYDROSEEAD RON LACKIFER MULCN. SON N CL IF TO NO DUST BECOMES A NUISANCE M E NNMACTOR SHALL APPLY WATER DION A AW m CnOUME SHE dApxE OPWATRS THE ENTIRE THE A ([xD PT RDAUWAYS) STALL COMPLETI BEEN AOED AND MULCHED E B OU D BLl PENCE SL ISINUUTO AROUND ! pSPOSED M MN BN TY ( K AFTER FINAL BFE STANUEATNIN IS ACH&IT M AFTER WF TEMP:A;y WEASU ARE NO EMCER AC MD. A THE CRMACTOR SU MIPS, 1 X N SP PE A AI AND OMWlWNSSTTNRIUCTONSPF� WRETAVW BUFFER S CTCCS MAT NAN N D OSIN. LOCRION OF APEEB 11i tD A C UTYRAD MUST BE DELNEA[CO (SO R CS STAIRS SNONS — EFNCE. ETC) ON ME DEVELOPMENT S1E (SPORE NCRK BFONS 2ALL EXPOSED AR AREA!'MMN 2TO PEEL OP A SURFACE WAFER OR ANY sTORMRATER CRKYANCE svSTEM WMEN R RNNECTED TO A SURFACE WATER WRIN BE SIM U[ED AS RUM. LATTER MIME YS IS MB 3:1 Aro 5) IID.1p MD�uxAOFBFAlpOigTM OR OTHER SYSTEM THAT OFICHASINTER A BE p NUS(A STABUifO Wmx DDO a.SURFA W ATER NET P aLI � o RS OF en D ASU FFACE %A m� io ANr (W x ). RMw L X n O T IM SURFACE WARRuAN[Nl CuEROV p54PAnR FE SE.WEM C... Fancnas " xovR A. roa SHE Is oKRaADro. ADDITIONAL wOVAOE PRACTICES AW M SMPPP MIST BE BEHOLD. M[RF SHALL R[ W UNBRO(EH BE IN RR FOR REOPES WTI A CRBE OF 3:1 OR s1EEPER. _ SL DADS COMPOST SHAKOS OR DnER M CE MS a B. 2SEDTAMT CWTROL MUST BE SU BUSHED OR COMNORADE PERIMETERS BEFORE ACE LAW ..HE ADTMTES BE... FA SCINATION EKN [LE I ME c TY Is NOT CRPLErz. R Arz Bur's DumNO aR von:NR.L Tart DISCH -0 10 ME "LEI HAVE SAB - 11—ILEI 1111 HAI 11 i FENCE Al— ME PERIMETER OF ME BAST: OF ME STRICOPME A. CANNOT BE PLACED . rzRS INOUNNO 1 WATER mAErBas wa B CURB AND CUTTER sRifu oA CONDUITS OR ONCH_ B TRACTOR MUST NSTAI BI u� Aa BY Y (OOR PERUANENT) STAMENTATON BA4N5 WHERE TEN R2 ER PUN. i0 A CWUOU IOGLTHIN AW/d B SNOB R I. PRICI ISHE MIENCN POSSIBLE. O 6 l �IE EW W R AOR UAMOTTBBEEpm1ARCED TOAMB BASIN Tx[ PRIOR TO BITTERNS INE SURFACE MATER, IT MUST BE TREATED R P THE APPROPRIATE MWE SUCH THAT ME IN S NOT DAISELY APNEGI ME TO PROTECTN TROSON SCOUR. TIE SM UUSBE pSPERAO OWN NATURAL Rr RIP AP, SAND BADS PLBnC SEERNC OR OTH R ACCEPTED MUDY ANN" E NRAOT WEIUW.DSRM R NU DAM OP IN WETANDS CAUAxO OCANT ADSVRSE M CR1HCTOR MOST ARPONI SOMEONE TD INSPECT TRUCTON I ON EKNi D. 1. SEMEN AN O.S I IN 24 HOURS. ALL MUST RECORDED IN M T O R R R0 DE.& ENTS (NOTE: LOCAL ANTEDICTION uAV R p MORE PPE rtRVA NEPfCn ON I.SOUNT RWETE MOST D OF R ED AND DISPOSED Of PER M.RCA. RESUUnRS 3 OLES NU MI BE UWNED TO A DETNED AREA OF DFCx[ a'rNtis Au IN OFFS -1A- KH1 AND —1 PROPER., DO—SEO OF. NO ENCNE FUTURE 2 E�l 1 j 2B R 65' SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LG GRAD NOD GRADE HOLD DOWN B AND ET BACKS to ° RE- SPF[Ao HOLD BASEMENT FLOO DOWN LOOKOUT (TYPICAL SECTI NOT i0 SCALE) 5' 60' S J FINISHED GRADE R 3 GRADING GRADE R j 0 10 0.5' TOPSOIL RE- SPREAD 3.0' Ho.D BASEMENT FLOOR DOWN RAMBLER (TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE) w, S`TBUA,K �R GRADE GRADING GRADE i rcl 0. s' TOPSOIL RE- SPREAD .0 HOLD BASEMENT FLOOR DOWN �B 25 25' 11 35' SETBA MIN.) pl wo I US m 0.5' TOPSOIIj RE- SPREAD ; 2.5' HOLD BASEMENT FLOOR DOWN WALKOUT (TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE) 25' 22 1 2U' SETBACK (MIN.) 3: a WO to 10' b RE- SPREAD ; _o HOLD T — BASEMENT FLOOR DOWN SETBACKS 95' \Vide Singh, FamBy LOU, Fro l: OH .Tge Foundationb N -W 25 House foundation b R -O -w' =25 Side =5'- Garage 10'.B.Udmg Rm 25' Min Area: Lot A— =9,000 SF Lot width: Lot Width =85 MINT BUildmg Covcmgc =35% 25% in Sh..I nd Ovcrl: SETBACKS 65' wih Single Family LOT Front: Garage fOWKILINP I. R -O -W =25 House fi.MNhtiPP BY R -O -W =25 Side= 5' -CkND, 10•- Building R -F=u' Min Arca: LYN AN, =9,000 SF LDI Width: Lot Width --65' MOR Building Coverage =35 ^e 25% in Shorcl nd O—by 5' SETBACK R 75 SINGLE (MIN') FINISHED GRADE FAMILY LOTS LO N GRADING GRADE j To' HOLD DOWN - -- - US o 5 Torsoe AND RE- SPREAD SET BACKS 2.6] BOLD BASEMENT FLOOR DOWN LOOKOUT (TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE) FUTURE 2 E�l 1 j 2B R 65' SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LG GRAD NOD GRADE HOLD DOWN B AND ET BACKS to ° RE- SPF[Ao HOLD BASEMENT FLOO DOWN LOOKOUT (TYPICAL SECTI NOT i0 SCALE) 5' 60' S J FINISHED GRADE R 3 GRADING GRADE R j 0 10 0.5' TOPSOIL RE- SPREAD 3.0' Ho.D BASEMENT FLOOR DOWN RAMBLER (TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE) w, S`TBUA,K �R GRADE GRADING GRADE i rcl 0. s' TOPSOIL RE- SPREAD .0 HOLD BASEMENT FLOOR DOWN �B 25 25' 11 35' SETBA MIN.) pl wo I US m 0.5' TOPSOIIj RE- SPREAD ; 2.5' HOLD BASEMENT FLOOR DOWN WALKOUT (TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE) 25' 22 1 2U' SETBACK (MIN.) 3: a WO to 10' b RE- SPREAD ; _o HOLD T — BASEMENT FLOOR DOWN SETBACKS 95' \Vide Singh, FamBy LOU, Fro l: OH .Tge Foundationb N -W 25 House foundation b R -O -w' =25 Side =5'- Garage 10'.B.Udmg Rm 25' Min Area: Lot A— =9,000 SF Lot width: Lot Width =85 MINT BUildmg Covcmgc =35% 25% in Sh..I nd Ovcrl: SETBACKS 65' wih Single Family LOT Front: Garage fOWKILINP I. R -O -W =25 House fi.MNhtiPP BY R -O -W =25 Side= 5' -CkND, 10•- Building R -F=u' Min Arca: LYN AN, =9,000 SF LDI Width: Lot Width --65' MOR Building Coverage =35 ^e 25% in Shorcl nd O—by qr mTm� OISTRUCTIO 5ml 42 SECTION A- C 1 dwl"w, Ail ........... . . .. .... . . EAR A, TE MPORAR Y M OU TLET PIONEERengineefing 2422 D, a GRADING DETAILS LAKEVIEW EAR A, TE MPORAR Y M OU TLET PIONEERengineefing 2422 D, a GRADING DETAILS LAKEVIEW LEGEND CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION TO BE INSTALLED AFTER IST LIFT OF BITUMINOUS. CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION TO BE INSTALLED NTH CATCH BASIN ORATE. ............•• PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL FENCE. INSATLL BEFORE START OF GRADING HEAVY DUTY EROSION CONTROL FENCE. INSATLL BEFORE START OF GRADING o4reeeoea. SECONDARY EROSION CONTROL FENCE. TO BE INSTALLED 48 HOURS AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING. - SECONDARY EROSION CONTROL FENCE. TO BE INSTALLED AFTER COMPLETION OF SDEWALK CDNSTRUCTION. MNDOT CAT J EROSION CONTROL BLANKET. INSTALL WTHIN ) DAYS OF GRADING COMPLETON OR BEFORE IST RAINFALL EVENT WHICHEVER IS FIRST NDOT CAT 4 EROSON CONTROL BLANKET. +........... .... I OR BEFORE ]DAYS OF GRADING COMPLETION OR BEFORE RE 1S 1ST RAINFALL EVENT WHICHEVER EWR I F S FIRST ® ROCK CONSTRUCTON ENTRANCE INSATLL BEFORE START OF GRADING .-. STRAW BID ROLLS INS ILL NITHIN J DAYS OF GRADING COMPLETION OR BEFORE 1ST RAINFALL EVENT WHICHEVER IS FIRST ROCK BERM INSTALL WITHIN J DAYS OF GRADING COMPLETION OR BEFORE IST RAINFALL EVENT WHICHEVER IS FIRST zmh _PI$_ NEERengineving 2422 Bnlopri +r Dii L••v,,,••••.1O , f48H6 -1914 MrMwr Teigln+, MN 551]0 x r P :6811- e. s rr'ru(( "Atirrcv°°wcr ��aLSC L r.euc z p x c� rC U � e r < xn u ;m / .�E °c�T L II mom QITOF sLT FENCE r .o. 5300 L %Ii I 1 PLAN PROFILE F— 1 I�o Q_ m ,Z DIRECTION 1Yti�� - OF FLOW W WOODCHIPS, SOD, III 1 ` OR STRAW MULCH II II I Ill BERM - COMPOST, EARTHEN (STABILIZED WITH STRAW III MULCH OR WOOOCHIPS). OR WOODCHIPS SILT FENCE SILT FENCE 24- m DIRECTION: w OF FLOW � T WOODCHIPS, SOD, OR STRAW MULCH —1 1--24" PI$_ NEERengineering � Dli ems, •..e,w.,.,... ` 16 511 6 8 1 -IOM Mrnlola lNeiglna. MN 55130 �. pene -9aBq LE EROS10N CONIRO P AN FOR iN IIEUAL LOTS IYFIOP EROSION CONTROL FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS (TYP.) I• ` 53028 EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR INDIVIDUAL LOIS WITH SWALE DRAINAGE LDI , \ \ 2 \ \ \ \J ' AWAGE S-AL FIAEIER I a4 I I -- 1I " ro cmoF EROSION CONTROL FOR N INDIVIDUAL LOT WITH q SWALE DRAINAGE DEPARIMENI ' 5302D 9ti IYi1�4 - i 1 � REM PLAN PROFILE •.){`� r �'-,\ �yip�, n a w.cLp ow urm� sxF =ar a ma. 12. ELAN DIRECTION m�M.. �.xLxc OF FLOW a ry, w smmrn .x„ LR aA"vns w"x ulx. r wenup I WOODCHIPS. SOD, • s lu w OR STRAW MULCH ITI I BERM - COMPOST. EARTHEN (STABILIZED WITH STRAW III MULCH OR WOODCHIPS), OR WOODCHIPS STRAW .w. I,..., . Ix.. D L PLAN SILT FENCE SILT FENCE FIBER BLANKETS SLOPE STABILIZATION € 24" m DIRECTION OF FLOW - - a a � T U"F x�i, <JI boR '� °� WDODCHIPS. SOD. CATCHBASIN INSERT u OR STRAW MULCH BACK OF CURB PERIMETER GONTRO ` ••^ Sip Iebm Sle WITH SDEWAIK �® per M "DOTS 6 I pm JP8 27' INFRASAFE SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER -DO (F OR USE WIN DITCH GRAT IN CAS STANDARD DETAIL 1 f� iri 1Yti�� - 1 ` �S I Fifii� i� REM PLAN PROFILE •.){`� r �'-,\ �yip�, n a w.cLp ow urm� sxF =ar a ma. 12. ELAN DIRECTION m�M.. �.xLxc OF FLOW a ry, w smmrn .x„ LR aA"vns w"x ulx. r wenup I WOODCHIPS. SOD, • s lu w OR STRAW MULCH ITI I BERM - COMPOST. EARTHEN (STABILIZED WITH STRAW III MULCH OR WOODCHIPS), OR WOODCHIPS STRAW .w. I,..., . Ix.. D L PLAN SILT FENCE SILT FENCE FIBER BLANKETS SLOPE STABILIZATION € 24" m DIRECTION OF FLOW - - a a � T U"F x�i, <JI boR '� °� WDODCHIPS. SOD. CATCHBASIN INSERT u OR STRAW MULCH BACK OF CURB PERIMETER GONTRO ` ••^ Sip Iebm Sle WITH SDEWAIK �® per M "DOTS 6 I pm JP8 27' INFRASAFE SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER -DO (F OR USE WIN DITCH GRAT IN CAS STANDARD DETAIL NORTH BAY •. - ------ 8 12 8'02.81. --------- R M: go M11=21 1 80. RIM:89B.54 IN 885. INV,887.65 ID RI-R332- R1:896.71 -8 2,42 N V�882,32 RILE' 895.95 7 • OWLEVARD H RANT 0 / NV.804.95 - PVC c 00 w RI :893 64 37 IN188 2 IW682: 6 B B .Y RANT RlIkEig 56 INV. 882 20 W882.10 R IM .3 MH is WTLAND N-0 : 03 111 91 -05 NV.90 13 05.06 ;N ,9 RIM. @ �9 9 R V. II �- II �1�7�1 93 1 w R . TLoT A RIM:89D.45 867.67 I I.-RANT MH 18 RI 8 H RANT 8 PVC C9 WM 8' 0 4.428 IN N 2. 21 27 24 21 111 86.74 8 - :, .1117171 I II tD 1877.tt 12 14 17 RIM 906.9 INM 874.1 1 vc� V.' 'a 8 0 a p 4;- M IN IN V:876.58 5 IN 8 VIII H�RANT IN 879.49 V We 9.39 8" 00.40-9 VDR NT 1 mu--A 3 2 PVC w HYDRA T 0 2.90X RI :893.62 0 RIl 71.10 887 IN, 6.w RI -907.45 RIM: 910.2 V ;�1 . 17 : �ll 11,693- W 0 0.40. RIMJF�8 IN-95- 1-895. 0 I II IN, 895. 0 11 IN , 7:9. : Il a 9.8,, 8 N 7 1111 2 INV;883: 48 , 4 �INGTIELD ----------- H� A 3 0 1.- El' 0 4.41% Dmw F -- ---- 0 0 9.40X WX07 C ------------ ----- 2 ---- - RIM:897.76 mm::89918 2 1 '875.52 INV.11 RIM:906 1• + ININ6.76 NV ll.V�17�1:42 1-895:5544 4 IN-031 it SEE SHEET 13 FOR STORM SEWER DESIGN. PIONEERengineeting -PlllG 6CAI.E IN FEET PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER LENNAR LAKEVIEW & WATERMAIN 935 TA 12 13 PI$ NEER engineering xx em= D.- , I. I! a -is a Muxbli i {eiglii�,AM 55130 w A m HWL= 891.98 HWL= 869.27 HWL= 890.45 BOTTOM = 882.00 BOTTOM =856.00 BOTTOM = 880.00 NOTE: WET VOL.- 0.425ACFT WET VOL.=1.828ACFT WET VOL. =0.665ACFT SEE SHEET 12 FOR SANITARY q so ?o Sao STORAGE VOL.=0.371ACFT STORAGE VOL.=1.917ACFT STORAGE VOL. =0.694ACFT SEWER AND WATERMAIN DESIGN. AREA OF DRAINAGE= 3.00BAC AREA OF DRAINAGE- 1 8.558AC AREA OF DRAINAGE= 4.904AC AREA NWL= 0.161AC AREA NWL =0.494AC AREA NWL =0.249AC GRAPHIC SCA ' E OEI FEETOav r l > ( /j , "A 1 1 j i l.r k✓'' .f { �I f t � .. i i 11 s; r c Gross project area: 50.8 acres TREE CANOPY Wetland Area: 10.3 acres Elm [I�11 Dedicated Park area: 4.8 acres - ,>' TREE CANOPY WITHIN DEDICATED PARK OR WETLAND AREA Net area: 35.7 acres go TREE CANOPY TO BE REMOVED - S11UlJ Gross Canopy Area: 12.4 acres irU` lJl Canopy within Park /wetland area: 5.4 acres ! Net Canopy Area: 7 acres 'gal Baseline Canopy Coverage: 19.6% Canopy to be removed: 3.6 acres x 1.2 =4.3 acres Net Canopy Area after grading: 2.7 acres Base Line Canopy Coverage after grading: 7.6 Minimum Canopy Coverage Requirement: 25% of net project area of 35.7 = 8.9 acres Remaining existing Canopy of 2.7 acres Required additional Canopy Coverage: 6.2 acres Each additional tree = 1,089 sf Additional trees required to meet Canopy Coverage Requirement: 248 See Landscape plan for proposed tree locations and plant schedule v . WETLAND PI$NEERengineerin_g .i.i.wwe. ..ems....., ...e......<., . (65 A. 1 tirty.. erv.eM x� O m�o ro„fe;Bl��gMN SSIt / I / I TREE PRESERVATION PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET' LAKEVIEW CHAR-1—.N-1— Tt op l� 4l q s. € Ti � ? ? 1 € t! a , t � � Gross project area: 50.8 acres TREE CANOPY Wetland Area: 10.3 acres Elm [I�11 Dedicated Park area: 4.8 acres - ,>' TREE CANOPY WITHIN DEDICATED PARK OR WETLAND AREA Net area: 35.7 acres go TREE CANOPY TO BE REMOVED - S11UlJ Gross Canopy Area: 12.4 acres irU` lJl Canopy within Park /wetland area: 5.4 acres ! Net Canopy Area: 7 acres 'gal Baseline Canopy Coverage: 19.6% Canopy to be removed: 3.6 acres x 1.2 =4.3 acres Net Canopy Area after grading: 2.7 acres Base Line Canopy Coverage after grading: 7.6 Minimum Canopy Coverage Requirement: 25% of net project area of 35.7 = 8.9 acres Remaining existing Canopy of 2.7 acres Required additional Canopy Coverage: 6.2 acres Each additional tree = 1,089 sf Additional trees required to meet Canopy Coverage Requirement: 248 See Landscape plan for proposed tree locations and plant schedule v . WETLAND PI$NEERengineerin_g .i.i.wwe. ..ems....., ...e......<., . (65 A. 1 tirty.. erv.eM x� O m�o ro„fe;Bl��gMN SSIt / I / I TREE PRESERVATION PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET' LAKEVIEW CHAR-1—.N-1— Tt op l� 4l 1 3 96 0� J NT 0 . ;, �f 0 N 71aN�F,�6 —ice-- \ \ \ \ \99 B e6e \� \A,p \ B66 _ m 1 4e �� C \_ 1 a � aaz 7086 X f' .. 7077 \ \� t jog � 7026 � TREE PROTECTION I'Z+NC'E DETAIL TREE e PRESER�VAT�ON NOTGS` Awes. I. xns[ A xox ,oNC is x x w,x 111E. w+ o[v[exc.,v<,aus uxs, 70 0 ,ovuexr sticsl. 7367 7365 A r I 7 1 7CjYt 1 I 35 ,. 34 y �, L / 'Yi V , PIONPPRengineering .+.^�o� ..e�.v.� •.w..:.....,., • (6511681 -1914 Memlol., l 35110 F __-.- n 701.1 X047' "� F 1 0 r 66— 4 mm o5z J 045 7`�4 WETLAND TREE PROTECTION DETAIL 71 r / / 7064 705304 042 / { . r4 ROSION CONTROL FENCE/ w ` io EE PROTECTION FENCE ! ^ m �315 73ii o "B s 70 5 73117 7058 7 U 1 054 v.k': ccxvx•.w•. /" ' a.A ,. 9 '7305. s f 1 20 i fl v '.9 7 7 7308 k .. 7� ,yF 730273Vy7103 7306 mnnc " 7177 •• 299 298 7116 7119 ..,•m,.: ^ i j I 1 8 7297 7 Iu ^ j.; 7296 e*SP / 711 ; 7122 7 7 --- Z ,! — w -' z5� TREES IN FUTURE P " \ 1 X868 z7. 2 ¢ ?7rr3a14 :� AND WETLAND _ 268 SEE SHEET T4 FOR TREE INVENTORY LIST 2 12 4 � – a7m '�� 124 1j 30 T ED BUT NOT INVENTORI� 72t1' 71 \ _ , ,71 2 71 a 7169 _ ....... 882 yp� 22 —' \.,_ 2 7N245 \ 5 Z \ \ \ \ 167 6 g eg6 �z 3' y �\ 33 TREES IN P / SANITARY PIPE TO BE REMOVED \... C \ 7222 165 7 ye�L2� I / 1.34 44 � 256' 1 � I \ .m 6yq.e eg / 160 72 7 2 1 I - -- \ 226 r I / ; 72 — a6 �\\ I�'. 7 4 723 / I z 7 7 2 e � r r GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET LENNAR e�. +�:`�" •T^ 10 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN W5Wn1znrneouLevn —A, LAKEVIEW '('z or 4 WAYZATA. XIPINCSOTA 51111 CIIANHA668N. MPINRSOTA o. 45 . �•. I—_ .._.. �. \ o m — �� 9229 �/ //� ... ej^ 67 W%. Ib 46 "l == ^ \,-1�1 ..�— t 50. I tli 67s ...� J o / ! J 43 f 4y =�- ` ... ".... � � � +� � ' � : I N I :• N� / ( f F f - ) \ f� ... � \ CRARIIIC SCALE IN FEET 7421 /� C 1 �� 74z�og� � \ I � � I ✓ I �� I I a,/ h ¢ 111 i � 73 6 I— J z -j-/ ,ag�� 117. IIII /) _7.J -, •I I' :: I I 900 , �! V' 1 ! . / 1• W L J AI t .898 .412 \ '2 666 e9gf , 13//' cd NO) w 9 q k i l I / EROSION CONTROL FENCE TREE PROTECTION 0 FENCE f i/ I l :�l � l .K C k `9 ✓'.� /'y F iF � ...:/ � 6 ✓�J �. 5 /' �/ WETLAND yy , 7020/ ¢ SEE SHEET T2 FOR TREE ,/ /.� 1N S 1 I \\. I'.� -..� o� 90 �:� . / ,'r il� - 1 �.- �-°' --• -eye x!7'43 /.�.'' ] 2x7023 P _PI$_ NEERenginm,.y SEE SHEET T4 FOR TREE INVENTORY L D T TAIL S .®, LENNAR LAKEVIEW ,.� TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 91s WA17ATA ROULNVARU EAST T3 or 4 } WAYZATA. FIPINPSOI'A SS191 CRANHASSP.N. MQIN6SOTA 6]36 Black Cherry 12 7175 )lw -1 Bmeide 10 73)2 7173Basswo¢d ]335 Green ASM1 12.10 702fi w27 7070. ]0x9 :, )doh Green ASh 11 6713 6116 9oxelder 9exelder ]0,30 12 tq - 11 11362 )063 Bmeitler 12 Bme!tler t ]6,10. d I1 1 .30 30 73]6 Green ASh 10 )dog Hackbarry 12 6139 Boxelder 11,30 Eim Gmen A.h Green dsM1 )0644 i6 Bme :tl¢� 13,18 1032 w33 733) ]338 Green Pih Boxelder 32 ]O.lD Boxelder Boveltler ]4410 Red Oak 11 ]4411 Petl Cetlar 3 6]440 flm 10 )066 Bme!der 144 )339 Boxelder id 791 ....... 7383 7111 Boxelder 11 6141 67dz Boxelder amemer 10.10 a Boxelder 15 Boxeltl¢r 31,12,10 1066 Iabi pme!tler i6 r Bove Eder >390 33443 Blark Cherry - 12 Dead >a13 Boxelder 13 6745 Green nzh 16 }fi,1d,36 1(Ifi8 em.d¢r ]2 Bov¢iaer ]I 7313 oexeme, ReE Cedar v d U' - )44a< Boxelder 1] 741s '. Boxelder 12 6]a6 W¢¢n AA 6.11 Id _ ]11fi9 eme!de• U 13 73443 Red Cedar 6 20 ]116 Oaxeltler Sd 6]50 Green ASh iQlb.6 10 Oavelaer ww Bme :de f0 ]ods i0u ]313 ''. Red Cedar 6 20' Idl) - • m 1! 6]53 Grecn PSh 11 w)1 Bm¢ide 10 ''. 7345 Red Cedar 3 12' 7418 9meld¢r ll 6751 6]55 Green ASM1 Green ASM1 30 32 IS Boxelder ..... Poxeltler wn 70]3 Bmeide: 13 Om¢!dee .. 1A Boxelder 7316 R¢d Wdar d 12' 74419 3oxe1tler 13 ........... ..... 6]57 Gr¢en ASX 32 73xtl 7323 w744 Bmeider 15 ]395 >3d7 ]310 Red 4dar Red Cedar ) 3 30 30' 7420 BOxeltler w .... )4431 Boxelder Ifi 6150 Elm 12 ..g tl w >5 Bmeitler 10,10 I1 lean )3449 Bose der 20.20idxi Boxelder 10 6159 6]60 6]]0 d Cedar Red Cedar Green ASM1 Es 6 is il,io Eim Basswood 711)6 w>7 w7a Bmeitler i6 Bme'tler i 144 w52 w53 .. 7350 )351 Bose der Green AM10 17 Elm ...... 74423 .......... 1312 .. .... ..... ... 7399 Basswood 6771 7001 0oneld<r Uo elder t0 12 Boxelder IS Boxelder 20,25,20,3E - - 70A Bma:der { 15 Bme'der `... 1E Bmeitler li Elm Eim 7353 739 >35d Cottarcwoad Green ASM1 Green ASM1 10 12 11 1210 G •002 poxeld¢r 12 ]129 . >OBp_ ]�1 Bm¢:tl ( 30 : - )M3 )335 Green ASh r 5 : w5a w 57 unsolder ly JMJ )OOd poxeltler Boxelder 30 11 1212 10 X!82 Boxetl � 18 Bmeider ... 14 2 peed >356 735] Boxelder Gree nA,h -- ID , l3 ]332 1333 )005 7 006 Boxelder Boxelder 15 .. li &L[emotH Tory getl Oak 7(855 w85 Bmeitler i 16 .......... 15 poxe!o -- 7358 -- - ]359 ... Bex¢ Aar Bexe der ID .... 12 JpD] Boxelder 10 X18] Bmeitler 10 7360 ._ ]361 GRen ASh _ 9 w09 Blad me OY _ 12,12 A3t Boxed r Bme!der u 7362 ASM1 —e I II 10 ce dar s wJZ ee.dae� _ ? ' Gree A n mn 11 wtx Boxelder IB t0 7093 Bexeide- li)3644 Green ASh �BOxe 15 wlI el¢[k Cherry 13.10 %V5 NJ6 Boxe'tle� 12 Bmeideri >4 1365 1366 der Boxe der 1d 16 h X19] me!der nPSh SR,1Q16,W ''. ]039 Boxelder 10,38 7175 )lw eme:d Biad <M1erry ....... ....... 32 73)2 7173Basswo¢d Green NM1 ...... 36.26,30 .. t2 702fi w27 7070. ]0x9 :, Graen A,X )1,32 Green AaX 34,3E Elnr 11 Boxelder 13 7177 ]201 7101 Bme:d r Boaeitl Bmeder tq - 11 33744 >3]5 73]6 Green NM1 Bazzwoed Green ASh ]6,10. d I1 1 .30 30 7030 ]031 Hm 1t Ce[Mnwootl 36.30 ]203 )x07 )x03 Boxelder Bmeide• Bmeitle• 14 Seven lean - 8 NonS Bnlitunr r - 12 7377 ]3]8 ]319 Eim Gmen A.h Green dsM1 10 x2 l3 1032 w33 Cottorw.notl 15 __.__ CogemvoM . 7x10 D1 Boxelder Boveltler SB i - ti 7300 380 0 Acd Cedar Green AA -- - 3 10' Jt135 )036 Boxeltl¢r 36.28 20 Boxelder 15 )303 7305 ]Dr Bexe!aer Box¢!de• Bm¢!d¢• �Bmeitle• lean ..... 12,]1 31 ��10 Severeloan _....... 791 ....... 7383 Green ASM1 ..BM -Ood Bur Oak ..... 13 .... f3 .. -- 13 w3) 7038 Boxelder 15 Boxeltl¢r 31,12,10 )309 )310 Bove Eder 12 lean '. 13 Severe lean 7351 1365 Bnzw etl Eln 18,16.14414413 1t wl9 '., Boxelder 10 7312 ]313 Bmeitler 1414 ]385 Baszwootl 30.26,x0]8 B elder 12 )31a 7383 J3R6 Boxelder Poxe der 13 X42 Boxelder t6 7315 Bme!de• u - 7 ; 1 ` 3 Oavelaer I1 Lesn ]ods i0u BOxeme. u Elm 15,18 Alb Bme!de•0 7330 Boz¢rd¢r 7ms eexdae; _ All ] -_.. 338 _.__ e• Boze!dd • Bme! 10 Sexere lean ........ 7331 Basswood 344 _.. 12 ]1446 X111 IS Boxelder ..... Poxeltler ]319 Boxelder . -.. .....]3944 ........ d ... IOdB IS Boxelder IB 73xtl 7323 Bmeider Green ASh 10 l 10 ]395 Red Cedar Green ASM1 3 31 lI Lean 10x9 w50 Boxelder 1 1)12 ... ,,. Boxelder 7321 Boxeide• tl ]396 Green AO I1 lean w53 12,10,12 der 30,33 ]323 7326 - .Cherry Elm 15 30 7397 7398 Eim Basswood ll 13.13 w52 w53 —.1 BozMtler li 7326 Elm 8 Non SiB01¢an[ 7399 Basswood 10.18 w5d Boxelder IS Boxelder 20,25,20,3E 7331 73x6 Elm Eim SO - 1t ]180 ...... ]101 .......d - Rea Ill 1210 G ]055 Elm ]3 ]129 ....... Petl OaX 10 : - )M3 getl Oak ......... 19 w5a w 57 unsolder ly )330 )331 .. ex¢!tle pM Dak 1212 10 ]183 ]0.T] ........ Basswood A.d Oak ... 14 2 peed w5B 7059 Bo elder 13 Do tl r 15,13 _ ]332 1333 Elm Green ASl• 1t ]0 70.05 7106 &L[emotH Tory getl Oak 12 13 _P_I_$NEER engineering xx enrre nd<� ,.x„M.m,,, � 16sn e1 -1914 Mendoln H<igM1b, MN a5110 rv: aBl -M88 w.Renx nearr.RN . i SQM. LINE \ \ I bdyd6 __! y v / i / / A I I I I \ �I \1 I 1 Ill r� PI N ERengineering - — m<D- -, --- 1.1651)661 -191d M MN 55110 Pu:651 - 95A5 a 11 \ \\ �TY K I SIGPAR "ED AND 0 r G r i WETLAND >L / Il 11 WOODLAND AREA KEY OMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME ROOT QUANTITY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OVERSTORY TREES HB HACKBERRY CELTIS 0 CIDENTAUS 2.5' 0&0 14 HL THORNLESS HONEYLOCUST GLEDITSIA TRIACAN INERMIS 2.5' BdB 16 NM S SO NORTMRVODS MAPLE ACER DRUM NCRTHWOODY 2.5 BdB 9 RB RIVER &RCM BETULA NIGRA HERITAGE CLUMP 10 8d 29 W RED OAK DUERCUS RUBRA 25 Bd 17 SL SENTRY UNDEN UA AMERICANA 'SENTRY 2.5' B&B 16 SM SIENNA GLEN MAPLE ACER PREEMANII X 'SIENNA GLEN' 2S B&B 15 B5 EVERGREEN TREES BLACK MILLS SPRUCE PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA 7' B&B 66 7' AVERAGE HEIGHT. 6' MINIMUM ORNAMENTAL TREES JTL JAPANESE TREE LILAC SYRINGA REDCULATA SINGLE -STEM 2.5' BdrH 20 PFC PRAIRIHRE CRAB kA T'RAIRIFlRE' 2.5' BEB 17 SDC SNOWDRIFT CRAB ALUS 'SNOWDRIFT 2.5' BdB 13 STC SUGAR ME CRAB ALUS'SUGAR TYME' 2.5' BdB 16 TREES ON PRIVATE LOTS TO BE PLANTED AFTER HOMES ARE BUILT. CITY PARK TO BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS CONIFERS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 6 IN HEIGHT WITH AN AVERAGE OF 7'. FRONT YARD DECIDUOUS TREES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 2.5 ". ALL OTHER DECIDUOUS TREES TO BE MINIMUM 1.5" WITH AN AVERAGE OF 2.5" TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPOSED TREES: 248 REQUIRED NUMBER OF TREES: 248 (SEE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR CALCULATIONS.) DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL LANDSCAPE NOTES SAVED iRS i \ INFORMA�NAL�PU P,b E ONLY l L / LANDSCAPE PLAN \ � MA.. � ".[M,w�.�.,a ",K�R..,�x..,.aa�p. �..,w ..� " " m. " ,,.a ` • L 9p..." GRAPHIC S� w.,e.w w a". x nva,w,. ra aan.w.m w. un".ae mas rtaa.�urs .wo rtm.n 95s wn1z anrr LAKEVIEW LE o� WAYZATA.MDIN650TA 55591 NNAS5P.N.MINNP.901'A - vv F f 8q as ti I r . t l 1 1 � � • I i I � r + UP / N� ' ) i !\E��. ., _ `.j /;s.d.. 1 1 1 ) /' l i W !`• a 4P� i I HB 5 n II I I 1....„ I , t / yy r � l �r ¢ 1 J u 1 �'• ; 9 \, I q v �J9L'D: AR JT '; HB- / // // ✓ 1 Ao "��• � ;� I L.. }.: � � WETLAND m r I l f A r Y (651)661 -1914 Ibr.ry.•n4f:h+x:r vl�.. r:rm:reM k' ^ ^b ioas -io zaxz P.u:661 -9466 sorortrmyw�..rmrr.nie:�:.mml N� °' �, is HeigLb, MN 551]0 ,,.,,,,,_ r LENNAR LANDSCAPE PLAN WS WAI'ZATA BOU6EVARDEAST WAYlAtA.MMNe50TA 55)91 LAKEVIEW BAS6eN.TiMNhSOTA L2 or Z CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1 . Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning from RSF, Single Family Residential District, and R -4, Mixed Low - Density Residential, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District, all property within the preliminary plat known as Lakeview and as described in Exhibit A below: EXHIBIT A All that part of Government Lot 2 and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT N0. 10 -17, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Carver County and lying northerly of the centerline of L)rnan Boulevard per Doc. No. T90333 and 189939. Said centerline is described as follows: Beginning at the west quarter corner of said Section 24; thence South 89 degrees 08 minutes 52 seconds East, where the east —west quarter line bears South 89 degrees 47 minutes 54 seconds East, a distance of 2186.62 feet; thence easterly, a distance of 28.04 feet, clong a tangential curve, concave to the north, having a radius of 800.00 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 00 minutes 19 seconds; thence North 88 degrees 50 minutes 49 seconds East, a distance of 629.36 feet; thence easterly, a distance of 11.92 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the south, having a radius of 800.00 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 51 minutes 14 seconds, thence North 89 degrees 42 minutes 03 seconds East, a distance of 592.50 feet; thence northeasterly. a distance of 550.91 feet, along a tangential curve. concave to the northwest, having a radius of 450.00 feet and a central angle of 70 degrees 08 minutes 38 seconds thence North 19 degrees 33 minutes 26 seconds East, a distance of t49_08 feet; thence northeasterly, easterly and southeasterly, a distance of 954.67 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the south, having a radius of 510.00 feet and a central angle of 107 degrees 15 minutes 06 seconds and there terminating. Section 2 . The rezoning of this property is subject to the plans dated November 5, 2010 and all conditions of rezoning and final plat approval. Section 3 . The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. Section 4 . This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 13th day of December, 2010. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on g:\plan\2010 planning cases \10 -12 Lakeview \ordianance.doc CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 7, 2010 Chairman Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Denny Laufenburger, Andrew Aller, Kathleen Thomas, Kevin Ellsworth, Tom Doll and Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al -Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Mary Beth Maki 150 Lakeview Road East Joe Jablonski US Home Corporation and Lennar Tom Vasquez 179 Lakeview Road East Tim Amlie 8796 North Bay Drive Andy Hopper 181 Lakeview Road East PUBLIC HEARING: LAKEVIEW: R EOUEST FOR REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) AND MIXED LOW - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R4) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW - MEDIUM (RLM), AND SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES INTO 66 LOTS AND 4 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF HIGH WAY 212. APPLICANT: US HOME CORPORATION (DBA LENNAR), PLANNING CASE 2010 -12. Sharmeen AI -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Sharmeen. Nice job. In just a moment we'll ask the applicant if he or she would like to make a presentation but before we do that, are there any questions from the commissioners for the staff? Kevin, I'll start down on your end. Ellsworth: Yes Mr. Chair. Sharmeen on, I have a few questions. On page 6 we talk about comments due to the City by December 13 regarding the approval of the wetland type and boundary. What's the purpose of that public comment and does it have any impact on what we're talking about today in terms of decisions by the Planning Commission? Al -Jaff: There is a new ruling that basically when you delineate a wetland you need to have a 30 day comment period for them to basically provide you with any feedback. Ellsworth: So the public could have input on if they delineated it incorrectly for instance? That would be the feedback that they're looking for from the public or what kind of input are they looking for? Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Al -Jaff: It's not the public per se. It's the agencies that need to provide the feedback. Ellsworth: Oh okay. Has there been any? Al -Jaff The Water Resources Coordinator has had conversations with them and they don't believe there will be any issues. They're fairly confident that it will be fine. Ellsworth: Alright, thank you. And then on page 7 talking about the Best Management Practices. It's I don't know, two thirds of the way down. It talks about additional Best Management Practices will likely be necessary as the project progresses and condition changes. Who monitors that project as it progresses and makes the decision that they need to change what's proposed or add different practices? Fauske: The City contracts with Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District to do site inspections and so that comment just kind of covers as rain events happen, certain storms they might have to look at alternative practices but the plan that they submitted by and large meets our standards. Ellsworth: Do they go out after a rain event or is there just. Fauske: Yes. Ellsworth: Okay. Fauske: They have regularly scheduled inspections and then after a rain event they're checking on developments. Ellsworth: Very good. Then on page 8, talking about North Bay receiving some of the drainage and it talks about adequate capacity in their storm sewer system. Was that, has that been determined or is that do you think will be an issue or? Fauske: We don't anticipate it will be an issue but we are updating the model. The City has a model that we're working with the developer's engineer to ensure that there's adequate capacity. Ellsworth: And that would come out of the Outlot D, that water quality basin 300? Does that become the reserve, the reservoir for the storm water and then it drains out of there over time, is that how that works? Fauske: That's correct. Ellsworth: Okay. And then on page 9 the phosphorus treatment going into Lake Riley. How, I guess I read that but I didn't understand. A, is it an issue? B, is it measurable? Is it C, treatable? What actually goes on in that regard? OA Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Fauske: Phosphorus removal is a requirement set down by the State. Phosphorus removal is typically taken by the systemic solids within the runoff so the particulate matter in the runoff contains phosphorus and so the ponding that you see throughout a development is intended to allow those particulate matters to settle to the bottom of the pond and therefore reducing the phosphorus load within the water. And then part of the City's maintenance of storm water ponds includes every, it depends on the pond but you dredge out the pond. You take those sediments out so that it continues to function as designed. Ellsworth: Okay. Is there any monitoring downstream of the pond to see if the phosphorus is actually settling out with the sediment? Fauske: The City works with the Watershed District on doing water quality monitoring. I don't know the specifics of the downstream in this particular case. Ellsworth: Is Riley getting worst or better from the treatments that we've been providing, or don't you know? Fauske: It's hard to say because the data is so new. We don't have any long term monitoring on that. Ellsworth: And aren't they doing a study with the carp who are digging up the sediment on the bottom too and trying to take those out? Fauske: Yes. Ellsworth: Okay. And then the same, right below that talks about the NPDES general storm water permit, and I guess a more general question too. There was a comment about all other agencies permissions are applied for. What's the follow up for that? How do we know that that actually occurs? That's on I think page 18 when we talk about that. Al -Jaffa We will not issue a building permit until we have copies of all of the different permits and we are copied on them as each agency approves them. Ellsworth: Okay, so it's. Aanenson: It's actually, they don't get a letter to proceed until all that's permitted. They don't proceed until all those have been met. Ellsworth: So you wouldn't prohibit any earth movement. Aanenson: Typically we would, yeah. For grading permits and all that, so there wouldn't be, usually we walk a site. Typically if there's erosion control or if there's tree buffering, or tree fencing that needs to go up, then we would walk, typically walk all that. Then they'd be given an order that they can start the project so that's something that Alyson would usually check through and make sure that's all put in place before they can get that. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Ellsworth: Okay, great. Yeah. Thanks very much. That's all I had Mr. Chair. Laufenburger: Thank you Kevin. Kathleen. Thomas: Yeah actually I have a question. How, are these streets pretty much the way they're going to be because I have a question about Street C. It's the one that kind of just dead ends currently. You know there's not a cul -de -sac. It's that, yeah those rows to the left of Street C. Yeah because it's just kind of like a, you know it just stops. I was just curious if it provides adequate turn arounds for fire vehicles and things like that. Al -Jaff: It's a condition of approval that they provide a turn around. Thomas: Okay because it just looked very dead end so it didn't seem like you could back a truck, a fire truck back up and get out. Al -Jaff You are correct. Thomas: Okay. I just wanted to double check. Thank you. Laufenburger: Anything else? Thomas: That is it. Laufenburger: Okay. Mr. Doll. Doll: Just curious, I know you've looked at this. Any concerns with Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 I guess and Lot 4. It seems like they're pretty steep in the back yard to that pond. Al -Jaff: It is a 3 to 1 grade and there is adequate back yard. It exceeds 15 feet in width. Doll: It is 15, okay. Al- Jaff: That's in addition to the actual patio area. Doll: Oh, okay. And just a thought on Lot 4, Block 4 you've got a, kind of a road. Just think about headlights hitting somebody's house. Maybe there's a thought. I know you want garages on the high side but maybe flip the garage on that so that they're not getting hit and people aren't being disturbed by cars coming in and out of there. Al -Jaff: That's a very good point. Doll: Do any indication of what would be going into the west you know as far as future thought of development? Aanenson: It is guided low density residential. We've asked the applicant to look at that piece just you know again working with them as Sharmeen indicated to make sure, because we have 4 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 the drainage. Maybe you could point to that drainage area to the west there. It kind of, and looking at the grades, where is the best place to put it so we did ask them to meet with the property owners to the west just to make sure we had that in the best place to provide, that's our job to make sure that they have adequate ability to tie into that street and it would go all the way over to Quinn Road so it could come in RLM. Again the reason we went with the RLM zoning, as Sharmeen indicated, we're kind of between some other zonings. It's a nice transition so if you go over to Quinn Road those lots are a little bit bigger so they could change but it wouldn't be probably less than what this is. It could be a little bit bigger lots. Right now those are still on septic and well in that area. Doll: Oh, they're nice homes. Any, I didn't really look at the berm area on 212. No issue with drainage into, you know back into the proposed lots? Fauske: There is some drainage that enters into MnDOT right -of -way and so the applicant will have to work with MnDOT to get a drainage permit to allow for that but overall the drainage within MnDOT right -of -way decreases with this development because of the on site ponding and the grading that they're proposing to do. Doll: Okay. And you're good with, you know you mentioned in here you're worried a little bit about getting access to 100 and 200 or you know. Fauske: That's always something that seems to come up quite a bit with developments. We'll work with the developer to try to grade in a bench so that we can get equipment down there to maintain the ponds. Doll: Okay. I have no further questions. Laufenburger: Okay. Mark. Anything? Andrew, do you have any questions? Andrew: No I went down. I just want to note that there's some 38 conditions on the motion as well and by meeting these conditions then they'll meet or exceed all our standards as required by code. Laufenburger: I have just a couple. Sharmeen you mentioned that there was a neighborhood meeting. Al -Jaff Yes. Laufenburger: Any idea on how many attended that meeting? Al -Jaff: My understanding there were 5 couples that attended the meeting and maybe that would be a question for the developer. Laufenburger: For the applicant, yep. Okay. Bear with me just a moment here. The visual that you have on the screen right now, it suggests there will actually be a visible stream going from 5 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 the northwest portion of the property, along that low area and then draining into the wetland. Do you anticipate that that will actually be visible and there will be surface water running there? Al -Jaffa It depends on how much rain we get. It does carry quite a bit of water from 212 and Alyson do you want to. Laufenburger: Is this water being carried from the settling pond in the cloverleaf of 212? Fauske: That's correct, yes. Laufenburger: Okay, so that water, after it settles and it reaches a certain point, it will drain into this wetland and then from the wetland into Lake Riley. Al -Jaff. Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. Alright, thank you. Okay, I think that was all the questions I had of staff. Thank you very much. Do we have an applicant present that has, wants to make some remarks. State your name please. Joe Jablonski: Good evening. Laufenburger: Would you speak at that podium please. Thank you. Joe Jablonski: Good evening. My name is Joe Jablonski representing US Home Corporation and Lennar as the applicant. I apologize, I'm fighting a cold a little bit here but we'll fight through it. Just a real brief history of the site, or I guess where we got the plan that you see before you this evening. First off I want to thank staff for their work and introduction on the application before you this evening. I think they pointed out several things that were key in coming up with what you see before you. Really when we looked at this we looked at three different issues that the site really has, or challenges I guess. One of them is, the higher density on the north end by North Bay and then the opportunity to transition it down into Springfield. That was one of the things that we looked at as a critical component in the planning. The other one was of course dealing with Highway 212 and the MnDOT drainage right -of -way there and how that kind of dissects the property the way that it does and how to appropriately plan and prepare for that so that we were minimizing the impacts that the residential lots would have up against 212 and we feel that we've done a pretty good job of doing that with this plan. And then the other part of it is dealing with the shoreland overlay. Again that's another issue on the site. It's not a real big site to begin with. It's 50 acres and that's dealing with three pretty challenging things. I think our s site plan here has done a very good job of dealing with those and just wanted to run through that real briefly for you. Other than that I guess to answer the question or comment on the neighborhood meeting, there were I believe 5 couples that showed up. We did have separate meetings with the two property owners immediately to the west there and the neighborhood meeting notices were sent out to the same list of public publications so it went out to the 500 foot radius and we did contact the homeowners association at Springfield and invited them to pass information to encourage them to attend as well so. I guess I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have. I think we have done, I think with the components of the site and r Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 the size of it and what we had to deal with, I think we really did come up with a good plan that meets the needs of the site and fits within what the City is looking for in future development so be happy to answer any questions. Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Jablonski. If you just want to wait there for a second. Mark, any questions? Undestad: No questions. Laufenburger: Andrew, how about you? Aller: Mr. Jablonski, I went out to the site and I took a look at it and I think the plan does a really good job of utilizing the area that you have, which is minimalized by shoreland overlay. My major concern when I was out there was looking at the transition from the wetland and on those properties that abut that and I'm wondering with the, do you know what type of footings are contemplated as far as the homes that are... Joe Jablonski: You mean the shoreland overlay? Aller: Yeah. Are they going to be deeper than normal? Are they going to be standard? Are they going to be? Joe Jablonski: Well what we would do is attempt to, or we would work with our soil engineer and our primary design engineer to come up with, our first choice would be to correct them all so that any house can be built on any pad and not have those issues. If there are certain cases where, because basically what we're doing is, if you were out there you're familiar with the fact that obviously the wetland sits down low and that as you get up towards 212 the elevation comes up quite dramatically. It was another challenge of this site that I didn't really point out but what we were proposing or planning to do was basically bring the grades of those up so that we're correcting pads and creating walkout's on there so that they're taking advantage of the 8 to 10 foot fall from the top at the street grade down so our intention would be to not have to do that but of course we work with our soil expert and our professional engineers and the City's building department to make sure we're following codes and standards. Aller: Do you know how high you contemplate that from being from the high water mark of the wetland? Aanenson: City ordinance is minimum 3 feet so those are always checked between the different departments for review but that's the minimum. The lowest elevation. Fauske: Mr. Chair if I may. To answer Commissioner Aller's question, based on the information, the high water level of the proposed pond is at 869 with the low for the adjacent walkout's being around a 92 so there is over 20 feet there in elevation so we anticipate adequate. Laufenburger: Does that answer your question? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Aller: It does, thank you. Otherwise I've again, I've been out to the property. I compared it with the drawings and the specs that we have on the report which was another great job by staff and I think it looks like a really nice plan. Laufenburger: Okay. How about this end? Kevin, you have any questions of the applicant? Ellsworth: Yes Mr. Chair. Mr. Jablonski, was there any decibel curves drawn from the noise from the freeway? What do you anticipate for noise in those homes you know closest to the highway? Joe Jablonski: We have not evaluated that through a study. We would, obviously we understand that there'll be certain challenges marketing wise for those particular homes and we'll do I guess what we feel necessary. Probably above and beyond the landscape type plan that you see there but would meet those through our marketing. Ellsworth: I guess my concern is that, you know 5 years from now the homeowner's get together and say oh it's too noisy here and then now you petition MnDOT for a sound wall and then we all pay for the sound wall whereas it would be part of the development if it went up first. I have no idea what the relationship with MnDOT is in petitioning for a sound barrier or not. And maybe staff can help me there. Joe Jablonski: The, I can speak to that a little bit. Well first off the good thing about this case is that the road is already in so the homes are going to be familiar with the fact that the road's there. It's not going to be something that 5 years, 10 years from now it's going to be a surprise. I think people understand that over time the traffic's probably going to get worst you know and it's going to be used more. However we will also, through our purchase agreements and things, properly disclose that you know obviously you're in close proximity to a highway and that, we're going to make sure they understand that we're doing everything we can to tell them and be upfront with them about the highway and things. There are decibel standards put forth by MnDOT for sound walls and those type of studies that are done and one of the things that they do is a, I guess a feasibility or reasonableness study and with that they measure how many homes will benefit from the use of a sound wall given a distance away from and I believe in this calculation it was approximately 12 homes. Not having a soil, or a sound study completed but just off of my conversations with our engineer, and with that, what they do is they take the feasibility or the cost related to preparing sound walls. See how many homes it will benefit and then what the cost and the, in this case what is determined is that the cost associated with a wall would probably not benefit the community as a whole. Because as you get further away from Highway 212 that need for it is going to continue to drop and so. Ellsworth: But are the homes on the edge looking down on the highway or is there a berm that separates it? That you look up from that yard. Joe Jablonski: The homes as you go from east to west, I believe the homes on the far west, which would be Lot 11 and 12 are approximately 68 feet above, sitting about the highway at garage level. So those homes and yards will be at or above the garage. Or Highway 212. Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Ellsworth: Okay, thank you. Laufenburger: It does present a marketing problem though doesn't it? Joe Jablonski: It could. It could be challenging a little bit on those particular home sites but that's why, you know when we went through several concepts when we were laying this out and one of them had several homes backing up into 212 corridor and we decided to make the adjustment and change it the way you see it tonight simply to reduce or minimize the number of homes that are impacted by it. Laufenburger: Kevin, you have any more questions? Ellsworth: No. Laufenburger: Commissioner Thomas. Thomas: I do not have any questions, thank you. Laufenburger: Commissioner Doll. Doll: What was the, and you may have said this and I missed it. The consensus from your meetings with people. Positive? Negative? Joe Jablonski: To be honest the most response we got was people prospecting or looking to move from Springfield into a new community. So I would say that's a positive for us, yes. Laufenburger: Anything else? Doll: No. Laufenburger: Mr. Jablonski, do you, does US Home Corporation have any other experience in Chanhassen? Joe Jablonski: Yes. Laufenburger: Can you talk a little bit about that please. Joe Jablonski: We, US Home Corporation is also an affiliate of Lundgren Bros and Orrin Thompson Homes. We did develop and build the homes across the road in Springfield. We've built Ashley Meadows. We're currently building in Pinehurst and Lake Harrison. We have built a number of communities throughout Chanhassen through the years so we're very well versed in Chanhassen in the area and have a pretty long history. Laufenburger: Okay, very good. In the report there's discussion about the phases or the pace at which you would likely develop. Can you just speak to that a little bit, now that you're here. E Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Joe Jablonski: I can. Obviously it's a little bit difficult to speak about the marketability or how quickly things will go but what our current projections are, between 25. 20 to 25 a year so it'd be about a 3 year development or build out. Laufenburger: And if things go well you would begin development in the spring, is that correct? Joe Jablonski: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. So just for those of us that are not familiar with the construction industry, if you begin development in the spring does that mean we'd likely see foundations showing up in the fall or the following spring? Joe Jablonski: We are pretty aggressive in starting our homes, as long as we're able to work with our, with the building department and the fire marshal. We like to get started pretty early in the process if the access is appropriate and we'd like to get started for sure by fall so that we have something ready right away in the spring of the following year. Laufenburger: Okay. Do you name the streets? Joe Jablonski: Me personally, no. Laufenburger: But does the developer? Joe Jablonski: The developer does. We were limited in naming the main road coming in because it is a dead end connection from North Bay so that was a required street name. The rest of them, you can correct me if I'm wrong but. Aanenson: They submit the names of, building department reviews them and then also the County can reject them too if there's ambiguity or similar type names so. Laufenburger: Do you sell the names and get a huge royalty like TCF Bank Road or anything like that? Aanenson: No. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions? Aller: Mr. Jablonski, would you be intending to grade all at once or piecemeal? Joe Jablonski: That's going to be challenging part of this. It's likely we will have to grade the whole thing just because of the topography of the site and some of the things that we're having to deal with. It's very likely we'll have to grade it all. Aller: And do you foresee putting in the park during the grading phase or Phase I? Joe Jablonski: Well it is a city park so we'll be working with the park commission and the park board and City Council to see what they want to do but certainly our, we would prefer to see the park done as quickly as possible. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Aller: Thank you. Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Jablonski. Ellsworth: Mr. Chair. Laufenburger: Yes. Ellsworth: Mr. Jablonski, I'm not familiar with developments how they evolve. Will you start on the northern end building homes or is it really whoever comes in and says oh I like that lot and so you build a house there. Someone comes in and says I like that lot over there or is there a process? Joe Jablonski: Well we would start with the primary entrance off of Lyman Boulevard there and assuming we were doing approximately 25 lots per phase, that would get us about part, up to the intersection of the first cul -de -sac road and may even get into that whole first cul -de -sac on the west side. And typically we start model homes and inventory homes obviously with close proximity to a main entrance but from there it is kind of market driven on where people want. Ellsworth: Thank you. Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Jablonski. Joe Jablonski: Thank you. Laufenburger: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing. If there's anybody present that would like to speak about this item, I'd ask that you please step up to the podium. State your name and address. Good evening and welcome. Tom Vasquez: Good evening. My name is Tom Vasquez. I live at 179 Lakeview Road East. That's in North Bay and for the last 5, 6 years I've been privileged to serve as the president of the North Bay Homeowners Association. I'd like to call the commission's attention to two errors that are made in the application for this development. On page 3 of the application, under the heading City Standards, in that paragraph it reads to the east you will find the higher density North Bay neighborhood. North Bay is made up of attached and detached townhomes. That is not correct. North Bay has only single family homes. There are no common walls. There are no attached townhomes. I suspect that that statement might have been made to affect the last sentence in that section which relates to the differing densities between North Bay and other areas. However let it be said that North Bay has only single family homes. The second error I'd like to mention to the commission is that if you look on that map up there you see on the northeast side the continuation of a road. A road that currently is a city street and goes through North Bay and the name of that road is Lakeview Road East. It's been that road for 11 %2 years that my wife and I have lived in North Bay. On all the maps that go with the application, that road is identified as Lake Riley Road East. That is not correct. Lake Riley Road East is a road further to the east in the Lakeside development. But let it be known that Lakeview Road East is 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 the proper name of the city street that is referred to in these maps in the North Bay area. We are not opposing, we are not opposing this development but we do have some concern. The primary concern is surface water runoff. We would like to be assured that the development plans are such that catch basins are provided for 100% of the surface water runoff from the proposed development. A bit of history. About 6 -7 years ago the development to the east of North Bay called Lakeside was developed and there we were alerted to the fact that that land, as is the land in the proposed subdivision, is higher. Higher than the land in North Bay. At the Planning Commission 6 -7 years ago I mentioned our concerns and the developer of Lakeside at that time agreed without hesitation that it was a proper concern to have 100% of the surface water runoff directed to catch basins. I realize that with this proposed development a lot of grading is to be done but still we are concerned about the surface water runoff and I have seen nothing in the proposed plan that was released to the public to address that fully and we would like to be assured that that is the case. A second concern we have is a concern that has been very gratefully observed by the developer of Lakeside and also the current developer that is doing some additional work there, and that is that we have a lot of senior citizen residents that live in the single family townhomes along Lakeview Drive East. Lakeview Road East, I'm sorry. Right name. Lakeview Road East. And we have requested in the past and the contractors and the developers have very kindly observed this request that construction vehicles, worker vehicles and so forth use the Lyman Road entrance to all work rather than coming up Lakeview Drive East, and they have observed that. So we would like to be assured about the surface water runoff. We're lower but we don't need a flood. Thank you. Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Vasquez. I appreciate your notation of the two items. Staff can you speak to the naming of Lake Riley versus Lake, Lake Riley Road East, Lakeview Road East. Is that just a mistype or? Fauske: We'll get it corrected. Laufenburger: Thank you. Alright, I thought so. How about the surface water runoff, is that something you can address? Fauske: Certainly. One of the requirements and we touched on it a little bit earlier at the meeting here tonight is that the existing drainage of this site towards the development to the east, there is currently drainage going to that area. The developer proposes with the changes in grading and with catch basis, as Mr. Vasquez mentioned, he would like to see catch basins in the street. There are catch basins in the proposed street connection to the east. We are reducing the area draining to the North Bay development and city staff is working with the developer's engineer just to ensure that we have the capacity in the pond there to make sure that the pre and post development discharge rates and volumes are adequate. Laufenburger: Okay. Pleased that you're aware of that and thank you for addressing that. And the last item that Mr. Vasquez mentioned was a construction, and I know that the City works very closely with the construction departments to ensure that the vehicles, to the best of their ability avoid the residential streets. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Aanenson: I think we put in the development contract when Ron Clark did the Lakeview, that they use that construction access and we'd do the same thing here. Fauske: That's correct and as Mr. Jablonski had mentioned with the phasing of their development, it would certainly make sense to have access off Lyman Boulevard but we'll work with the developer to make sure that works with their development plans and stipulate that in the contract. Laufenburger: Okay. I think I want to ask this question of Sharmeen. I take Mr. Vasquez's word that on the error number one where he says North Bay is only single family homes. Does that change your transition plan at all? Al -Jaff No, it is the same and it's in their narrative that the applicant had submitted to the City. Laufenburger: Okay. Al -Jaff: It's not staff that put that language in there but it is still a transition. We looked at the density. What North Bay has is a denser development, yet they are detached units and the development that you have before you today is actually a transition so it's less dense as it gets closer to Springfield development and the property to the west. Laufenburger: Okay, thank you. Any other comment from the public at this time? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, a follow up? Laufenburger: Oh sure, please do. Please step up and I'll ask your name in a moment. Ellsworth: I share Mr. Vasquez's concern about the runoff to North Bay and I know there's the modeling and so on but what's the recourse for North Bay residents if the modeling's wrong? So development goes in and we have high rain that year. Maybe near the top of the model's constraints and they've got flooding problems down there. Who do they talk to? And then how is that resolved? Fauske: It would be public infrastructure and we would work with the residents to develop the solution. Ellsworth: Because we approved the modeling and so on, then it becomes the City's responsibility to address any issues that came from that? Fauske: That's why we're extremely diligent with our runoff calculations. Ellsworth: Good point. Thank you. Laufenburger: Thank you. State your name and address please. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Tim Amlie: Good evening. My name is Tim Amlie and I live at 8796 North Bay Drive in North Bay. I live kind of at the corner, in the northeast part of the map there. The very corner where North Bay and Lakeview meet. A couple first things. First of all then noise issue that was touched on earlier. Before the development gets going I would do anything in my power to work with MnDOT to get some kind of wall up there. Where I live the noise isn't horrible but when you're coming down Lakeview, when it's busy times of the day and night, the noise just comes over that field and people who live further down, I know that it will be an issue for your homes as they come up and you know with the density getting deeper there, my experience is the more dense they'll work with putting walls and stuff in. I highly recommend doing that before any building was done because it is definitely noisy there. It's very definite so I'd definitely for your marketing plan and everything else, work with that. Second of all, when they're doing all this grading on that area and our prevailing northwest winds are blowing towards all the dust that's going to collect in North Bay and the area. What is the building going to do to work with us on that when I come out on my patio and it's pitch black and dust and things like that? You know what's going to happen to my neighborhood when that's going on? And then a third and final thing I'm questioning on, right at the, where the end of the street is where Lakeview comes to an end before, where the dead end just meeting that new area, for the last years and years and years we've been able to park, we've got boat access so we have our, keep our boat trailers back up in those bushes and stuff and we do not want to lose access to our edge of the property there for keeping our boat trailers and stuff back in the summer back there, so that's an issue too to make sure that we have access to that area because that's important to us to keep our boats at North Bay. Laufenburger: Kate, could you address that please? Aanenson: Well I'm not sure that when we originally put that plan together that that was intended to be a parking place for boats. It was always intended to be a street to go through so. Tim Amlie: Well it's back in the woods. It's, but it's just that we don't, when they build their lots and stuff that we still have access to our edge of our lot back there. Aanenson: It's common, that's common HOA property because those lots are actually in about 3,000 square feet so that really would be an issue for the homeowners association to address because we did not accommodate. There is guest parking in that area but we have not accommodated for outdoor storage or boats on that property so I guess I'd ask you to work with your homeowners association on that. Tim Amlie: We just don't want to lose the access to get out stuff to it. That's what we're talking about. It's not. Aanenson: What I'm telling you is, the City has not approved a legal plan for you to have outdoor storage so I don't see our's, it wouldn't be our mechanism to make sure that you continue to use that. The only outdoor storage that should be there would be temporary parking. Otherwise that's something that typically we get enforcement complaints on so. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Laufenburger: So you have a convenience of that, just as a result of no activity in that area but that's not a convenience that is an entitlement associated with approval of the plans so the Planning Director is speaking truth here. You need to work closely with the homeowners association. Tim Amlie: Well I'm on the board there too. Aanenson: Yeah, you might try to find some other place that you can accommodate that is what I'm saying on that site because I'm not sure how the grades are going to match up there and some of that vegetation, how that transition's going to work so that might not still be accessible. Tim Amlie: Sure. Aanenson: Okay. Laufenburger: Did you have a comment? Aller: No. Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Amlie. Any other comment from the public? Certainly. Aanenson: Can I just ask one other question that was grading and dust? Laufenburger: Yes. Aanenson: I know this is a common complaint and we do manage our sites, we try to keep the construction activity, manage that so if it is an ongoing issue, that's something that any of the neighbors can call and let us know, we'll actually they're supposed to be keeping those sites watered so the dust doesn't come up so that's something that we try to manage. So if there is complaints about that, that it's not being properly managed, that's certainly an enforcement issue that we'd want to be aware of but that's also part of the development contract. Before they get the order to proceed things that we expect them to manage and sometimes we have a few dry weeks and things get out of hand but we certainly want to manage that and we want to be informed if there's a problem. Laufenburger: That's a good point. We can enforce that which we know about and though we may be on site doing inspections periodically, it's often then neighboring citizens that we would encourage to contact us if we, or contact the City if there's any problem. Good evening. State your name and address please. Andy Hopper: Good evening. Yes, my name is Andy Hopper and I live at 181 Lakeview Drive, or Lakeview Road. Sorry Tom, East. Laufenburger: We're going to get this name right... 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Andy Hopper: I live coincidentally right next door to Tom on one side and Tim on the other side SO. Laufenburger: This is a conspiracy, is that what you're saying? Andy Hopper: That's right. I'd really like to talk about two things. One is to reinforce or once again state our concern about the, during the construction the potential for mud and rain and so forth coming down that road. If you've been on Lakeview Drive or Lakeview Road, it's a, almost a straight shot up the hill. If you look up where the little north sign is on that map. If you're, at the bottom of the hill it's a straight shot up the hill and it's a perfect cul -de -sac. Conduit I should say for rain water. And so if there's mud and debris that's loose from the construction, it'll all come right down that street. And right at the top where it makes the turn , that's the high point and the, there's a, the road had been previously graded. It's at a higher elevation than the surrounding terrain. I'm not sure what the developer planned to do about that. Whether they're going to lower that road or whether it's going to stay elevated the way it is but I can assure you mud and debris will come down that road. Now the other thing is, to my understanding that when the Highway 212 was originally envisioned or put in, that there was an agreement with our association some time ago and the state highway department that the sound barrier that's there actually would be longer. That it would extend further toward Highway 101 than they actually ended up by doing so it has been, according to my understanding, the State did less than they said they would do at the time they put that highway in. Now as Tim has so aptly stated, it's a very significant, that noise is a very significant factor. Especially at commute times in the morning and at night. Doesn't affect us personally too much because we're behind a couple of other homes but if you stand out in the street, it's loud. So a piece, a word of advice to the developer. I would say you ought to strike while the iron is hot here and while there's the prospect of 50 homes or there about's. I'm not sure exactly how many homes. 60 homes. Laufenburger: 66. Right now 66 lots are part of the rezoning. Andy Hopper: That they, that this would be an opportunity to see if you can gather up those promises and see if they could be, that sound barrier could be done. It'll have to be some day because it's, it ends abruptly right at about where the light green area starts and doesn't extend at all. Now I had a couple more general questions about the nature of the development itself. The wetland. We're kind of new to the neighborhood. We love it. We love the native, the very, very natural kind of view. Sense you get when you drive through the neighborhood. There are deer. There's the, I even saw a large turtle coming out of that pond about 6 months ago just before, I guess mating season or egg laying season or something. What will be the impact of this development on that pond? Can anybody answer that question? Laufenburger: I think we can. Do you want to ask your second question as well and then we'll try to answer them. Andy Hopper: Okay. Are there going to be fences on this property? Anywhere on this property. Laufenburger: What do you mean by fences? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Andy Hopper: Well between the lots for example or are, because in our neighborhood there are no fences at all and I'd like, if possible I'd like to see it continue that way. In other words the wildlife and so forth is able to wander freely around the place and that's one of the things that makes it nice. The other thing is the pond is fully grown over with reeds and grass. Will the developer or anyone attempt to change that? Aanenson: I'll answer the fence question first. I think they're kind of embedded together. Similarly when this subdivision, North Bay went in the functionality actually of that wetland probably improved a little bit as far as going from agricultural and how it was being used and straight runoff being pre - treated which similarly this will also do, is pre - treating it before it goes in. Obviously you're taking some of the runoff from 212 but as far as putting fences on there, if the homeowners choose to put fences around there, typically we have ordinances when you get closer to the wetland. How they'd be open but if someone else in there wanted to put a fence up, I don't think we would want to prohibit that. Consequently we also have the MnDOT drainage area for movement if there's wildlife to go through that area throughout the city. We still can anticipate that. We have the golf course that's also probably mentioned some wildlife that would still move between that area. Andy Hopper: Well could you make that a little more specific? Exactly how that would apply here. Aanenson: Well I'm saying there's a wildlife corridor. You know when we look at the city there's a significant wildlife corridor, like when you go down Bluff Creek starting at Minnewashta and going down to the Minnesota River Valley. There's also when you go further to the west, maybe you can show the slide of that. The first slide Sharmeen where the wildlife would be on there going from the golf course, going over down. As you go down Lyman through the Springfield neighborhood. Down Bandimere Park. Kind of that corridor right there. There's another big wetland when you get to the corner of Lyman and 101. If you could use the pointer please Sharmeen it would be very helpful. Maybe take the pointer and kind of show kind of that, so you've got those wetlands there. Those complexes. That's where some of that wildlife's moving. Down to those wetlands there along 212. You go down now at 212 you see deer along kind of those corridors so it's still going to move through that direction. Andy Hopper: Well, will the nature of the pond be changed in any way? Aanenson: I think as far as improving the quality because we're pre- treating some of the runoff that's going in there now. Alyson if you want to add anything to that. Fauske: Wetlands are protected by the State so there will be no alteration to the wetland as you see it. There will be minor grading to install for example a pond outlet so that it can discharge through there but the vegetation that you see today is what will still exist. Andy Hopper: Pond outlet? Fauske: Yes. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Andy Hopper: What is there now? Fauske: The pone that's directly north that you. Andy Hopper: Oh that little pond. I'm talking about the larger area. Yes, okay. Fauske: So there will be some minor disruption but the vegetation surrounding the wetland and the buffer, as Sharmeen explained, had discussed during her presentation, there's a wetland buffer. That's an area that cannot be disturbed with the development. Al -Jaffa And this development is proposing to leave it intact. Andy Hopper: And so the residents couldn't reasonably be expected to start to build the beaches and parks and what have you on the edge of the pond? Aanenson: No. Laufenburger: This will not become Lotus Lake, if that's what you're saying. Andy Hopper: Yes. Thank you. And with the fences I guess there's nothing we can say about that. Aanenson: Well I guess you know we do have an ordinance that requires when you're adjacent to a wetland how you can place a fence. So you can't block the wildlife movement but I'm anticipating this is a more traditional single family neighborhood that if someone had a pet or wanted to fence in their yard would typically, it's different than the North Bay where you've got a smaller lots and it's common. These people have individual lots and not a common lot. Andy Hopper: Yes, I understand. Aanenson: It's a little bit different. Yeah. Andy Hopper: Okay, but does the developer plan to put fences in as part of the specific home development? Laufenburger: Mr. Jablonski, do you want to speak to that at the podium? Thank you. Joe Jablonski: Mr. Chair and to answer the question, we would not be putting any fences in ourselves necessarily per se up front. We would leave it at the discretion of the homeowners if they choose to. Laufenburger: So there's nothing in the, in the appearance of the general design of the entire property that calls for, what would I call it? Ornamental fencing of any sort. Joe Jablonski: No. We have not planned for any up front. Again it would be at the discretion of the homeowners or the individual lot owners as they so choose. Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Laufenburger: And as long as the lot owners follow the ordinances that are in place by the City, then they're free to build that fence if they choose to. Aanenson: And I think it'd be really typical, if you look across the street in the Springfield neighborhood, there's some homes that have fences and some that don't and it's kind of individual choice depending on how they use their yard and how they see it. Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Mr. Jablonski. Mr. Hopper, thank you for your comments. Anything further at this time? Andy Hopper: No. Thank you very much. Fauske: Mr. Chair, if I may just to clarify one of the questions that came up is where the drainage along the street there. Laufenburger: Yeah. Fauske: Just for clarification for both the Planning Commission and the residents. The high point is approximately at this location so that should give the residents an indication of exactly how much, approximately 300 feet of street that would be draining down towards the North Bay development. Laufenburger: So the general contour of the property at that point is not going to be changed to shift the drainage from the east to the west, is that correct? Fauske: Correct. Laufenburger: You're pointing out the high point. Fauske: Correct. So from approximately this location it will drain to the east, and that's that section of storm sewer and the drainage calculations that we're verifying to make sure there's adequate capacity in the system. Laufenburger: So there is some drainage there right now. Fauske: That's correct. That's correct. Laufenburger: Okay. Understand that commissioners? Okay. Thank you very much. Is there any other comment from the public at this time? Okay I want to thank everybody who not only came but also especially those who came forward and expressed their views. I'm pleased to see that, as I'm sure all the commissioners are, that the surrounding citizens do want to express their feelings. I thank them for that. If there's no other public comment, I'd like to close the public hearing at this time. Commission members, do you have any additional questions of staff as a result of the comments from the public? Anything? Okay. Well let's just take a moment to consider your thoughts on how we should proceed on this. Mark. R, Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Undestad: Yeah, you know I mean I think it's very well put together. Staff did a great job. They've got a great development team on the whole package. I like it and I think it's well done. Laufenburger: Good, okay. Mr. Aller. Aller: Well I had the same concerns that some of the residents did and that's one of the reasons why I went out to actually look at the property. When I went through the conditions that are stated in the findings and what is expected of Lennar in putting this together, I think all my concerns were pretty much answered. It will all be in the doing. The planning appears to be appropriate and I think it's just going to be a matter of whether or not the soils will handle it and as they move forward whether or not certain conditions need to be addressed, which they probably will. Most things are moving target in doing a subdivision so I think the plan though looks I think appropriate for the property. I think it's a great use of the wetland and maintaining that wetland and I would recommend the property. I think it looks good. Laufenburger: Okay. How about down here. Tom. Doll: I think it's well thought out and I wish them good luck. Thomas: Yeah, I agree. Laufenburger: Okay. Kevin. Ellsworth: I think it looks very nice. A lot of work. A lot of good work went into it. I still have concern over the noise. I lived off of 494 for 7 years in Minnetonka before they put up the wall and there were days you couldn't have a conversation in the yard it's so loud. Now I know they've made advances in concrete and that the concrete's a little quieter on 212 but also I live presently off of Pioneer Trail and Highway 101 and in rush hour it's noisy down there. If the wind's out of the north at all, and so it just seems there's an opportunity to get that sound wall up now. I mean if it does, the one gentleman pointed out, it ends just past the property of the adjacent property and you can see it in one of the pictures. But again that's obviously a conversation the developer's had and considered it with MnDOT. I'm surprised the City doesn't have any kind of ordinances regarding protection from sound and that type of thing but apparently we don't. Laufenburger: I wonder if we could have staff clarify something. I certainly believe what I believe it was Mr. Hopper, what he said that he thought there was something. Is there some way we can check to see whether or not MnDOT in fact had made a commitment to extend that sound barrier farther to the west? Al -Jaffa Once a highway is in, MnDOT will not use any funding for walls. At least that's, we've had conversations with them and basically, I'm going to read the sentence. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. W Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Laufenburger: Is it possible for us to determine whether or not there's any validity to the comment, I'm paraphrasing this. We thought the barrier was going to be farther, closer to 101 than it actually turned out to be. Aanenson: I can address that briefly. When they did the 212, it was a design build and part of the construction cost, the only mitigation that was put in place with those homes put in place. They will not go back and retrofit that. Laufenburger: Okay. Aanenson: So a lot of discussion went on like the burden for individual development to bear that, is it a fair burden for an individual developer to build at that scale. It seems onerous. We've had a discussion with the developer saying we need to look at the noise mitigation attenuation to see what we can do. They're working on that. It's not going to be the same scale and size of the existing wall. Cost prohibitive. But they are working on that. They're aware that is an issue. We pointed that out so we're going to come back before final plat with some more specific plans. They've got a berm and you know try to work through that. I think as the developer pointed out, I think the best thing that we did was try to make the cul -de -sacs go and looked at how many houses were against it and we tried to remove that. We tried to mitigate through design the best we can and we're trying to take it to the next level but MnDOT's not going to come back and build the wall and to ask the developer to build it at that cost, is very expensive. Laufenburger: So we're really asking for consideration for those people that do not yet live there. Obviously we can't change it for the people that are already living in North Bay. Aanenson: Right. Laufenburger: I mean that's. Aanenson: But so noted as was stated, I think you don't want to create something that's inferior over time that becomes less desirable to live so if we can try to prevent that now, that's the best thing to do through good design and that's what we're trying to work on between now and when we get to final plat. That we can try to make this desirable so you don't want that to be kind of the less desirable. And whatever we do for mitigation there, just works it way to provide better mitigation as you get towards North Bay and further down the line too. Doll: And don't you think that someone that's going to purchase the property is going to realize that they're sitting on 212? Laufenburger: Yes, I would think that but there's also people who buy property near the airport that after they buy it say well come and add more sound proofing to my home. Thomas: It's nice to think that it will for sure be well I know the highway's there but you can't you know, you never know. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Ellsworth: The sound wall was finally put up on 494 when they moved it from 2 to 3lanes so it was a total reconstruction and that's where the funding came from for those sound walls. Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, and this one was when they did the 212 corridor, they limited it in some of that to reduce their cost and they're not going to go back, as Sharmeen stated, they're not going to go back and fence it. Aller: And I would believe that this is still a moving target with the noise and the barrier because you have a natural barrier will only put in those trees and the buffer there. We put in actual homes where there are none now, that might act as a buffer and reduce some of that noise. Ellsworth: And then I'd very much like to work with the water. I think that will improve that pond from where it is today because. Aanenson: Pre -treat it, yeah. Ellsworth: Absolutely. So thank you. Laufenburger: Well I hope we don't interrupt the habitat for that turtle. Aanenson: No. No. Aller: Save the turtles. Laufenburger: Save the turtles, exactly. Aanenson: If I may, I think that's why the park commission also wanted to put the park. It takes a really nice amenity for Springfield to enjoy, and also you have that backdrop of the wetland behind you and then the views there are nice. You can see the lake too so I think preserving some of that, that edge on both those also provides a nice environment for you know, for people and for the wildlife there too. Laufenburger: Okay. Any further comment? I'll entertain a motion. Aller: Mr. Chairman I move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Lakeview subdivision and rezoning subject to the conditions of the staff report and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation thereto. Laufenburger: Thank you. We have a valid motion. Is there a second? Undestad: Second. Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Undestad. Is there any further discussion? Aller moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves Planning Case #10 -12 to rezone 50.48 acres of property zoned RSF, 22 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Single Family Residential District, and R4 Mixed Low - Density Residential, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for Lakeview Subdivision contingent upon final plat approval, as shown in plans dated received November 5, 2010, and adoption of the findings of fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the preliminary plat for Planting Case #10 -12 for Lakeview Subdivision for 66 lots and 4 outlots as shown on the plans received November 5, 2010, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the findings of fact: 1. The applicant shall add 34 trees to its total for tree planting. The landscape plan shall show at total of 282 trees to be planted. 2. All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading. 3. All work and drainage discharge within the MnDOT easement must be approved by MnDOT. 4. The public drainage and utility easement on the north side of the development must be vacated. 5. The existing building and driveway on the north side of the site must be removed. 6. Based on the proposed grading a low area will be created west and north of the Street C stub. The developer must work with the adjacent property owner to either grade out the low area, or install storm sewer to prevent water from ponding in the area. 7. The developer's engineer will shift the storm sewer at the back of Lots 38 to 41, Block 3, further north in order to provide a larger unencumbered backyard area. 8. The storm sewer alignment at the back of Lots 19 and 20, Block 3 must be adjusted to minimize the required drainage and utility easement. 9. The lowest opening of a building must be minimum 18 inches above an adjacent emergency overflow. 10. Additional information must be shown on the final grading plan to show how drainage from the Highway 212 berm will be directed into the existing flared end section located north of proposed Lot 27, Block 3. 11. An encroachment agreement is required if the developer wishes to install an entrance monument at the Street B intersection of Lyman Boulevard. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 12. A temporary turnaround is required at the western end of Street C. 13. The development is adjacent to Lyman Boulevard and is therefore subject to the arterial collector fee at the time of final plat. 14. The developer will not be reimbursed for the relocation cost of the 12 -inch watermain since the work is development driven. 15. The watermain within Street B between Lyman Boulevard and Street A shall be 8 -inch. 16. The delineated wetland boundary must be moved so that no portion of the boundary is located at an elevation less than the 868 -foot contour. 17. The delineated wetland boundary will not be considered approved until the public comment period has ended on December 13, 2010. 18. The wetland buffer behind Lot 7 and Lot 8 of Block 4 shall be minimized to be coincidental with the rear lot lines. The area of buffer that would otherwise be present shall be compensated for elsewhere along the wetland boundary. 19. The applicant, with the assistance of the City, must show that adequate capacity exists within the North Bay storm sewer system to accommodate the proposed drainage area to be directed to North Bay. 20. The NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity must be applied for and obtained prior to any earth - disturbing activities. Proof of this must be provided to the City. 21. Reasonable efforts must be made to provide a maintenance access road to ponds 100 and 200 in compliance with City Code and the NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity. 22. Additional data must be provided for cul -de -sac D to demonstrate sufficient grade for adequate drainage. 23. A minimum of two feet of separation must be provided between the emergency overflow for the MnDOT drainage swale and the low floor opening for Lot 5, Block 2. 24. Two -foot sumps shall be included with structures CBMH -104, MH -203 and MH -222. 25. All storm sewer shall be within a drainage and utility easement. 26. Hydraulic calculations shall be provided to the City for review and approval before the final plat can be issued. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 27. Mulch, MnDOT Type 3, certified weed free shall be used in all of Block 4, Outlot A and Outlot B whenever mulch is called for. 28. The remainder of the gully which originates under Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 shall be filled in. This shall be done in such a manner as to avoid additional tree loss and the introduction of weeds and invasive species. 29. The estimated SWMP fees, in the amount of $82,228.55, are due at the time of final plat. 30. Phosphorus removal will need to meet the minimum 60% removal rate and should maximize that to the greatest extent practicable. 31. The applicant shall be responsible to assure that all other agency permissions are applied for and resulting conditions are met. 32. A Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form will need to be filled out and submitted to the LGU (City of Chanhassen) and the DNR. The form can be found at: http: / /www.bwsr.state.mn.us /wetlands /forms /Contractor ReMonsibility.doc 33. Appendix A C.1 and C.2 must be addressed including: a. Exposed soil areas must be stabilized as soon as possible but never later than seven (7) days. b. A discussion of the feasibility of infiltration and the appropriate response to these findings. 34. Building Official Conditions: a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and proposed mitigation reports. b. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. c. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and require permits, inspections and final approval. d. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. e. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 35. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Submit street names to Building and Fire Marshal for review and approval. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 b. No burning permits will be issued. Tress, scrubs etc. must be removed from the site or chipped. c. Mains and fire hydrants shall be installed and made serviceable prior to combustible construction. d. A three -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. e. Temporary street signs shall be installed as soon as construction begins. Signs shall be of an approved size as required by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. They shall be weather - resistant and maintained until replaced by permanent signs. f. 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. g. The proposed hydrant between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 must be relocated to the intersection of Streets B and C. h. The proposed hydrant between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 must be relocated to intersection of Street B and Lyman Boulevard. 36. The lot width at the rear setback line for lots 1 and 2, Block 4, must be adjusted to reflect 90 feet as required in the Shoreland Ordinance. 37. Successful transfer of Outlot B (4.83 acres) to the City of Chanhassen through a combination of dedication (3.08 acres) and fee purchase (1.75 acres) for development and use as a public neighborhood park. 38. A sign reading "This Road Will Be Extended in the Future" shall be placed at the west end of Street C. 39. The applicant shall work with staff to evaluate the use of a privacy fence and vegetation along the north edge of the property to lessen the noise impact from Highway 212. A solution will be presented with the final plat." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. c