3. Preliminary Planned Unit Development Rezone North Bay projectCITY OF
CHANBASSEN
PC DATE: 8/16/95 3
CC DATE: 9/11/95
CASE #: PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9,
WAP 95 -3
By: RG, DH, DD
STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 24.85 acres
1 from R12, High Density Residential, to PUD, Planned Unit Development;
preliminary plat to subdivide 52.1 acres into 78 lots, 3 outlot and associated
right -of -way; site plan review for 76 single - family detached zero -lot -line homes
1Z on 19.95 acres; wetland setback variances; and a wetland alt atn'V
Q The project is known as North Bay. Adminie
U Endo rs ed ✓ 1_
1 -- LOCATION: Lake Riley Boulevard, on the north side of Lake Riley'
J Re�Pd
IL Del.
APPLICANT: Rottlund Company, Inc Date Submitted to Commission
10. 2681 Long Lake Road
Q Roseville, MN 55113 — Di ft Submitted to Council
1 (612) 638 -0500 9 -/i - q S
1 PRESENT ZONING: R12, High Density Residential
1
ACREAGE:
gross: 52.1 net: 14.83
DENSITY:
units /acre (gross): 1.46 units /acres (net): 5.12
1
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
N - R12, Hwy 212 corridor and proposed open space
1
S - none, Lake Riley
E - R12, Lakeview Hills Apartments
Q W
-RSF, vacant
1
Riley
WATER AND SEWER:
Pending, part of Lyman Blvd. & Drainage Improvements /Lake
Area Trunk Utility Improvements
i w
L CHARACTER:
The site has been in agricultural ricultural use for many years and is g
for
devoid of trees within the proposed developable area, except
1 (n
the areas immediately around the major wetland in the southwest
corner of the site and within the area between Lake Riley
1
Boulevard (future Lyman Boulevard) and Lake Riley.
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
Residential - High Density (8 - 16 units per acre net)
1
I AKE
ANN PA ?K
AM ORE12IM BQVL tVA
RD
A. K
0
y�
PARK
MORE
Q
0 4%
0
I , /N.
'
qEGIONAL
"A
HANDOWERE
-N TS
PgR
BAND /MERE ...
PARK 4,
�STIALEI< I.
5
Off.' ;�
I ijk AL
2.1[1
_u_r
_0
0
sloo
R
=8200
.
MAR&Y w
LAKE 8300
PA
RICE AfAdvst�f_
JAKE
AKE
L� U.
00
0600
-MO
tGoo
DQND
8900
9600
ATIO i
LAKE ---9300
RILEY YY
Z z -9400
0 A
9600
u
960
-991
1�
10ioc
101
,o
'.69 c ir
1-106
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant, Rottlund Homes, is proposing a 76 dwelling unit single - family detached project
based on a variation of a zero lot line concept. The applicant is proposing a standard setback
of 20 feet from both Lake Riley Road East and North Bay Drive (a proposed private street).
The standard 30 foot setback may be waived by the city council when it is demonstrated that
environmental protection will be enhanced. Staff believes that this variation is warranted due
to the large common open spaces being provided as well as a reduction in the amount of
wetland filling that is taking place. In addition, the applicant is proposing 35 foot building
setbacks from the east perimeter of the PUD and a 30 foot setback from the west PUD
perimeter, the standards are 50 feet. In this instance, it may be appropriate to permit this
setback due to the uniqueness of the development and the fact that this is a single - family
detached project. The 50 foot standard is more applicable to higher density attached housing.
Two housing types, two and one story, are being proposed with attached common open space.
All structures will be slab on grade. A total of seven different unit plans are proposed with
living areas ranging from 1,300 to 1,600 square feet. Homes will be 24 feet in width with a
minimum of 11 feet between houses. Houses will have windows on three sides with one side
windowless to provide privacy for adjacent units. Individual lots range from 2,432 to 3,864
square feet with a total lot area of 5.07 acres. Common open space consists of 9.76 acres
with an additional 4.81 acres of wetland. Proposed Block 3 will be maintained as common
open space and will be brought back under a separate Conditional Use Permit for approval.
Until the city resolves the status of the potential parkland dedication of Outlot C as well as
the status of the non - conforming beachlot, the review of the beachlot cannot be undertaken.
The applicant should also be aware that boat /marine sheds are not permitted on beachlots.
BACKGROUND
The city approved the conceptual PUD on June 26, 1995 for this project. At that time, three
issues needed to be resolved to permit the development to proceed to preliminary
development stage: Lyman Boulevard alignment, the location of the access road within the
development, and the stormwater ponding area.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 17, 1995 to review the proposed
development. By a vote of 6 for and 0 against, the Commission passed a motion
recommending conceptual approval of the proposed plan subject to the conditions, issues,
concerns and recommendations specified in the staff report. The Planning Commission
requested that the applicant, as part of the next submittal, provide some criteria or options for
the potential use of the proposed common areas including better defining pedestrian access
points for commons area users. In regards to architectural features, the applicant should
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 3
provide the city with some assurance that there will be some variation in brick and siding
colors, potentially designating certain areas within the project for specific brick and siding
colors. Due to the problems encountered as part of the Mission Hills development, another
Rottlund project, the Commission requested that the applicant provide a greater guarantee that
erosion control measures will be installed and maintained throughout the construction of the
project as well as continuous control and clean -up of construction debris. It should be noted
that the Rottlund Company was the builder in Mission Hills and not the developer. The
Planning Commission also directed that the applicant apply for the conditional use permit for
the beachlot as part of the submittal for the preliminary PUD. Finally, the Commission
requested that a traffic impact analysis be provided to determine the capacity of roadways in
Chanhassen and the impacts of this development, especially without Highway 212 being
constructed.
The property is currently zoned R12, High Density Residential, which permits townhouses,
two family, and multi - family dwellings or apartments. There are numerous design
applications that could be applied in this district including rental apartments and for sale
townhouses. However, the district does not permit single - family detached housing.
The applicant is proposing a single - family detached project with a PUD, Planned Unit
Development, zone. The PUD zone is the only district which permits zero lot line and cluster
development.
To the east of this project is the Lakeview Hills Apartments which contain 170 dwelling
units. The Klingelhutz property located west of this property is zoned Single Family
Residential (RSF). To the south of the project is Lake Riley. This development is within
the shoreland district. The property immediately adjacent to the lake will be maintained as
common open space and will be brought back to the city requesting a beachlot.
Basin A is an ag /urban wetland adjacent to the large natural DNR basin located on the
northwestern edge of Lake Riley. Portions of the basin were excavated in the past to create
some deep water areas. The basin extends via a drainage swale to the east and stops near the
easterly property boundary. This basin will be impacted as a result of the development. The
original submittal proposed filling a portion of the wetland to construct the street with lots on
both sides of the access street within the North Bay project. Staff believes that impacts to the
wetland were reduced by directing that the applicant investigate a common or joint street
access point for this development and the Lakeview Hills Apartments. This minimizes
impacts to the wetland, increases the stormwater holding pond capacities adjacent to Lyman
Boulevard, and reduces the number of access points to Lyman Boulevard.
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 4
In conjunction with the City's Public Improvement Project No. 93 -32B, Lyman Boulevard is
proposed to be upgraded to City urban standards. The applicant has been working with the
' City regarding the horizontal realignment of Lyman Boulevard to provide enough area on the
north side of the street for stormwater ponding. Staff has reviewed the horizontal alignment
change and finds that the Lyman Boulevard alignment meets a 35 MPH design standard.
However, typically this type of street is designed for a 5 to 10 MPH higher speed than the
proposed posted speed limit. It should also be noted that the developer's proposed vertical
alignment for Lyman Boulevard differs significantly from the City's plan. This discrepancy
' will have to be resolved.
Lyman Boulevard is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street.
' Collector streets typically have an 80 -foot wide right -of -way with a 36 to 48 -foot wide street
section. In addition, an 8 -foot wide bituminous trail is proposed along the south side. Lyman
Boulevard is designated on the City's Municipal State Aid System and therefore must meet
' state aid design standards. The final alignment of Lyman Boulevard will be contingent upon
MnDOT state aid approval. Therefore, any changes as a result of the state aid approval
process will need to be included on the final plat.
Staff supports this type of development. It provides another housing alternative in
Chanhassen for detached single - family residential houses. It can provide additional protection
' for the wetland area located north of Lyman Boulevard. Finally, this project provides a
transition from the Lakeview Hills Apartments to the single- family residential (RSF) district
1 to the west.
Currently, the Lakeview Hills Apartments have a non - conforming use permit ( #92 -8) which
established the level of use of the beachlot as well as providing conditions for the
continuation of nonconforming use of the property. The nonconforming status was due to
insufficient lot frontage, insufficient area for a dock, vehicular access and parking on site, and
the boat launch. Any legal nonconforming status of the beachlot will be lost with the
development of the beachlot. It should be noted that the legal description for the non-
conforming use permit #92 -8 was for the property to the east of the Rottlund site. Therefore,
' staff contends that there is no nonconforming use status established for the beachlot. These
issues need to be resolved prior to the city approving a beachlot for the development. No
improvements to the land south of Lyman Boulevard will be permitted until a conditional use
' permit for a beachlot is approved by the city.
Staff is recommending that the preliminary PUD and preliminary plat, site plan, wetland
' setback variance, and wetland alteration permit be approved subject to the modifications to
the plan and the appropriate conditions contained in this staff report.
i
I
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 5
Site Characteristics
The site has been in agricultural use for many years and is devoid of trees, within the
proposed developable area, except for the areas immediately around the major wetland in the
southwest corner of the site and within the area between Lake Riley Boulevard (future Lyman
Boulevard) and Lake Riley. The site slopes gently from the north central portion of the
project with an elevation of approximately 910 feet to Lake Riley with an ordinary high water
(OHW) mark of 865.3. An extensive tree canopy area is located along the shore of Lake
Riley. Lakeview Hills Apartment complex is located to the east of the site. Land designated
for low density residential is located to the west of this property. The Highway 212 corridor
borders the project on the north.
f:7 � 931211ael
Justification for Rezonins to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 82.6 acres from A2 to PUD, Planned
Unit Development. There are three components to the PUD: industrial /office, multi - family
and single family. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The
review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Section 20 -501. Intent
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation
of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a
greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for
lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the
expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more
sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning
districts.
FINDINGS
It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be
realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes
and scenic views.
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 6
Findin . The major site characteristic of this property is the large wetland complex.
The wooded area in the southern portion of the site will be maintained as private open
space and will largely be left intact. The shoreland area will be maintained as
common open space.
' 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through
mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
'
Finding. The proposed development, through the use of smaller lots and reduced front
and perimeter setbacks, is an efficient use of the project site and reduces infrastructure
costs. The applicant is proposing a nine plus acre common open space for the future
' residents of this project including a future beachlot area. A segment of the city's trail
system is along Lyman Boulevard. The applicant's sidewalk along North Bay Drive
and street will connect into the Klingelhutz development to the west, in which a
neighborhood park may be located.
3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and
f along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Findin . Lakeview Hills Apartment complex is located to the east of the site. Land
designated for low density residential is located to the west of this property. This
project is unique to Chanhassen and will provide a natural transition between the
' different densities of use.
4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
' Finding. The comprehensive plan guides this land for Residential - High Density
which permits a net density of 8.0 to 16.0 units per net acre. The proposed
development at 5.12 units per net acre is lower than would be permitted in this area.
r This development provides an alternate housing type as envisioned by Housing Policy
No. 8: "The development of alternative types of housing will be considered to
' supplement conventional single family homes."
5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
' Finding. The development contains a large wetland complex that will be maintained
and enhanced as part of this development. While not providing open space for the
general public within the confines of this project, the proposal maintains large areas of
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 7
open space for residents of this neighborhood. The Park and Recreation Commission
is recommending that Outlot C be dedicated to the city as public open space.
6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Find in . The applicant is proposing a development with housing costs projected to
range between $110,000 and $140,000. While these amounts do not represent
affordable housing in the strictest sense of the term, which would require housing
prices of under $80,000, it does represent a lesser cost housing product than is
typically found for single- family detached developments in Chanhassen.
7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings
and the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding. Narrower lot frontages and clustering of units allows for more efficient
infrastructure provision and lower development costs per unit.
8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as
appropriate.
Find in . The use of curvilinear streets tends to reduce vehicular speeds. The access
to the site utilizing a common entrance with the Lakeview Hills Apartment property to
the east will reduce the number of connecting streets to Lyman Boulevard which is
designated as a collector street in the city's comprehensive plan. The applicant shall
provide the necessary right -of -way for the upgrading of Lyman Boulevard. Lake
Riley Road East will also connect this development with the Klingelhutz development
to the west. A sidewalk is being required along one side of Lake Riley Road East to
facilitate pedestrian traffic reducing vehicular and pedestrian conflicts.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique
features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan.
Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, water quality in lake,
trees, topographical features) through the creation of common open space.
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
' August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 8
' Sensitive development in transitional areas.
More efficient use of land.
' - Development that is unique to the community
GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE
The applicant, Rottlund Homes, is proposing a 76 dwelling unit single- family detached project
based on a variation of a zero lot line concept. Two housing types, two and one story, are
being proposed with attached common open space. All structures will be slab on grade. A
total of seven different unit plans are proposed with living areas ranging from 1,300 to 1,600
square feet. Homes will be 24 feet in width with a minimum of 11 feet between houses.
Houses will have windows on three sides with one side windowless to provide privacy for
' adjacent units. Individual lots range from 2,432 to 3,864 square feet with a total lot area of
5.07 acres. Common open space of 9.76 acres is being proposed with an additional 4.81
acres of wetland. It should be noted that only a portion of this common space is usable for
recreational activities. However, much of it will be revegetated with trees.
Exterior materials consist of brick accent, vinyl lap and shake siding, asphalt roofing, and a
mix of rectangular and arched window systems. Building elevations which vary through the
use of single- and two -story structures, option "bonus" rooms over garages, variation of
garage orientation, option front porches, and a 30 percent offset from the street for cottages.
' Brick (Gray Copperfield and Ohio Limestone) and roofing (Crestwood Shadow - Shale)
colors will be consistent throughout the project. A palette of three colors for siding (Cape
Cod Gray, Antique Parchment, and Platinum Gray), three colors for shakes (Antique Linen,
' Desert Tan, and Sterling Gray), and two colors for trim, soffit, and facia (Ivory Shell and
Special White) are being proposed.
I SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's
compliance with the following:
(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
' including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that
may be adopted;
' (2) Consistency with this division;
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 9
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by
minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping
with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or
developing areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural
site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship
to the development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features,
with special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
C. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression
of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent
and neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the
public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
arrangement and amount of parking.
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: This development creates a harmonious and functional project, protects
natural features and is environmentally friendlier, consistent with the comprehensive
plan and city code.
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 10
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
The applicant is proposing the subdivision of the entire 52.1 acres. The northern 30.11 acres,
being platted as Outlot A, contains the Highway 212 corridor and land guided for parks and
open space by the city's comprehensive plan. Block 1, located north of Lake Riley Road
East, contains 57 lots of which Lots 1 through 56 are developable. Lot 57 is undevelopable
(for a dwelling unit) and will be maintained as common open space for the residents. Block
2, located south of Lake Riley Road East, contains 21 lots of which Lots 1 through 20 are
developable. Lot 21 is undevelopable (for a dwelling unit) and will be maintained as
common open space for the residents. The property south of the Lyman Boulevard right -of-
way will be kept as park and open space, either in private or public hands, and should be
platted as an outlot. The subdivision also plats the right -of -way for Lyman Boulevard and
Lake Riley Road East.
WETLANDS
There are six wetlands on the property and one wetland outside the property and they are
described as follows (see Figure 1):
Basin A is a 4.81 acre ag /urban wetland adjacent to the large natural DNR basin located on
the north western edge of Lake Riley. Portions of the basin were excavated in the past to
create some deep water areas. The basin extends to the east and is associated with a drainage
swale that ends near the easterly property boundary. Approximately 0.31 acre of the easterly
portion of the basin and 0.03 acre of the northwestern edge of the basin will be impacted as a
result of the development. Staff believes that impacts have been reduced by directing the
road around the basin to the property line. If City Council approves the wetland alteration, a
permit application will still need to be approved under the State Wetland Conservation Act
with replacement at a 2:1 ratio. The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)
proposes to raise the water table of this wetland as a water quality project and staff may
pursue that project in conjunction with this development.
Basin B is not discussed here since it was a wetland that was determined to be located off
site to the north, within the proposed T.H. 212 right -of -way.
Basin C is an ag /urban wetland located in the northeast corner of the property. A portion of
this wetland (approximately 0.25 acre) lies on the property; the rest lies on the property to the
east. Portions of the basin were excavated in the past and it appears that there was a great
deal of disturbance to the area since there are vegetated mounds of presumed fill around it.
This wetland, however, is more diverse in vegetation than some ag /urban basins. The basin
will not be impacted as a result of the development. A swale exhibiting wetland
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 11
characteristics along the northeastern boundary of the site extends from the wetland south to
the sanitary sewer manhole. Staff agrees that this drainageway is exempt from wetland
replacement according to the Wetland Conservation Act.
Basin D is an ag/urban wetland approximately 0.89 acre along the southern property boundary
and is associated with Lake Riley. This wetland will not be impacted as a result of the
development.
Basin E and F are ag/urban wetlands located in the new Lake Riley Boulevard road
alignment. The City is the applicant for wetland alteration to these wetlands since the impacts
are a part of the road project.
Basin G is an ag /urban wetland located in the northwest corner of the property. Except for
approximately 0.03 acre of wetland on the property, the rest of the wetland lies on the
property to the north which is the future road right -of -way for TH 212. A swale extends
south of this wetland to Basin A along the road alignment. Staff agrees that this drainageway
is exempt from wetland replacement according to the Wetland Conservation Act since it
appears the wetland was created by actions due to the construction of the road which was
approved, permitted, funded, or overseen by a public entity. Although the drainageway will
be impacted, Basin G will not be impacted as a result of the development.
Buffer Strip
The buffer strip width required for ag /urban wetlands is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average
width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge
of the buffer strip. All lots shall meet the buffer strip setbacks; however, the structure
setbacks of some of the lots on the north end of Basin A and near the mitigation area by
Basin C will need a variance. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in
accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs
before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
Mitigation
This project will impact a total of 0.34 acre to Basin A, and therefore, mitigation of 0.68 acre
must be provided. The applicant proposes two mitigation areas. The first area is 0.47 acre in
the southwest portion of the site adjacent to Basin A. The second area is 0.21 acre near the
northeast portion of the site adjacent to Basin C. The proposed mitigation areas are expected
to become continuous with adjacent on -site wetlands. The wetlands will be similar to the
existing ag /urban wetlands that will be impacted by site development. Vegetation will be
established using a native seed source from the excavated wetland soils when available. Staff
encourages supplementary seeding with a native wet meadow seed mix throughout the
mitigation areas in order to encourage a diversity of plant species in the area.
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 12
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to
protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional
perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future
development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general,
the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a
10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan
uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow
water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based
on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full
development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water
bodies.
Storm Water Quality Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based
on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for
treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land
and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land
use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus
a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the water quality basin for
this site is already in place these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding
needed for the site. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of $1,530 /acre for multi-
family residential developments. The applicant is proposing to provide water quality
treatment according to the City's SWMP standards, and therefore, the water quality fees will
be waived accordingly. Credit toward the applicant's SWMP fees will also be given for
providing water quality treatment for the 2 acres of road reconstruction on Lyman Boulevard
�. and the treated runoff from the property to the east.
Storm Water Quantity Fee
' The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an
average city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land
acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for
' runoff storage. Multi- family residential developments will have a connection charge of
$2,975 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 22.29 acres; however
approximately 6.22 acres is wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be
responsible for approximately 16.07 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of
$47,808.
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 13
DRAINAGE
The site is part of a large drainage area that drains south and west into the large wetland
(Basin A). Prior to discharge into the wetland, the runoff needs to be pretreated for
phosphorus retention of 35 to 50 percent. The site is approximately 22 acres, however,
approximately 10 acres will runoff into the stormwater quality pond for pretreatment. The
rest of the area is either wetland or undeveloped area south of Lyman which drains into Lake
Riley. The property to the east is approximately 23 acres. The applicant is able to provide
water quality treatment for 14.6 of these off site acres. If the adjacent property develops in
the future, water quality treatment will be necessary for the additional 9 untreated acres.
Currently, the runoff from the developed section (apartments) of the property to the east
discharges through the North Bay property. This storm sewer must be tied into the North
Bay storm sewer system so that the stormwater is pretreated prior to discharge into Wetland
Basin A. The storm sewer proposed to convey runoff from the wetland basin in the northeast
corner of the site may directly discharge into Wetland Basin A. The channel proposed
through Wetland Basin A shall be deleted. The water quality pond will also have to be sized
large enough to pretreat the 2 acres of runoff from Lyman Boulevard.
The City will credit the applicant's SWMP fees for land, excavation, and oversizing costs of
the storm sewer system. Along with additional ponding area, some of the storm sewer
laterals may need to be oversized to accommodate runoff from the site to the east. Changes
due to off site accommodations for storm water quantity and quality should be noted in the
hydrologic calculations so that staff can credit the applicant's storm water fees appropriately.
Final review of the construction plans may require additional storm sewers and relocating the
ponding areas to be compatible with the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. Detailed storm sewer
calculations will be required in accordance to the City's SWMP.
The City is working on a SWMP water quality project that involves Wetland Basin A and the
natural wetland to the west. The water table of the wetlands will be raised in order to
provide more storage for treatment. Staff will continue to discuss these plans with the
applicant as the plat progresses.
GRADING
A majority of the site is proposed to be graded for house pads and streets. Staff believes that
Lots 4 through 31, Block 1 should be adjusted to drain from back to front to avoid
concentrating the drainage along the backs of these lots. Also, grading for a drainage swale
in the backyards of Lots 15, 16, and Lot 21, Block 2, should be, if at all possible, deleted or
at least minimized through the wetland. Due to the magnitude of the site grading, at least one
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
' August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 14
temporary sediment basin should be employed on Lot 57, Block 1 between Lots 32 and 56,
Block 1. This basin may be removed once the storm sewers have been installed and are
operational. All site grading must be completed prior to any street construction.
The site grading in general appears to be compatible with adjacent properties with the
exception of the apartments to the east. It appears the berm that is proposed along the east
will encroach slightly into Lakeview Hills Apartments' property. The applicant will need to
acquire a temporary construction easement for this grading. The plans also propose on
extending a public street (Lake Riley Road) north from Lyman Boulevard along the common
property line of Lakeview Hills Apartments and this development. The applicant is proposing
to dedicate one -half of the necessary road right -of -way with the final plat. The other half of
the road right -of -way will have to be conveyed to the City by easement document from
Lakeview Hills Apartments. Without this easement document, the applicant would not be
able to proceed with the development. Site grading will also need to be compatible with the
future upgrading and widening of Lyman Boulevard.
The applicant is proposing to construct the storm water pond on the north side of Lyman
Boulevard as well as wetland mitigation areas. Both the pond and the mitigation area should
be located outside the City's right -of -way for Lyman Boulevard. Grading of these ponds
should be compatible with the future widening of Lyman Boulevard.
EROSION CONTROL.
An erosion control plan has been incorporated on the grading and development plan and
submitted to the city for review and approval. Staff recommends that Type 3 erosion control
fence be used around all of the wetlands. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction,
shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. All
wetland mitigation areas shall be seeded with native wetland grasses.
' A temporary sediment basin should also be incorporated into the construction plans to provide
an added degree of protection. The sediment basin should be constructed on Lot 57, Block 1
' between Lots 32 and 56, Block 1.
UTILITIES.
' Municipal utilities (sewer and water) are proposed to be extended along Lyman Boulevard as
a part of the City's public improvement project (No. 93 -32B). The project is tentatively
scheduled to begin this fall or next spring (1996). This project is dependent on the public
utilities being extended to the site. Without these utilities, this development should be
considered premature. Final plat approval should be contingent upon the City Council
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 15
awarding a bid for the Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction/Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility
Improvement Project No. 93 -32B.
The development proposes both public and private infrastructure systems. The utility system
should be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of the
Standards Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will be
required for review by City staff and formal approval by the City Council. The applicant will
also be required to enter into a PUD/Development Contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and
compliance with the conditions of approval. If the applicant is willing to dedicate a 40 -foot
wide public drainage and utility easement over the utilities along North Bay Drive, the City
would assume ownership and maintenance of these utilities.
Currently, the City has an existing sanitary sewer line located in the northeast corner of the
site. This line runs south parallel to the east lot line to approximately where Lots 19 and 20,
Block 1 are located. The line then proceeds easterly and serves the Lakeview Hills
Apartments. This line will need to be abandoned or relocated in conjunction with this area
being developed. The developer may be able to do a phased approach whereby a limited
capacity in the existing utility service to this area could be temporarily employed to develop
the southerly portion of the site. This existing utility easement may be vacated once
alternative sewer service has been provided to Lakeview Hills Apartments. Sanitary sewer
and water service shall also be extended to the east for future extension to the parcel south of
the apartments and east of this development.
STREETS
In conjunction with the City's Public Improvement Project No. 93 -32B, Lyman Boulevard is
proposed to be upgraded to City urban standards. The applicant has been working with the
City regarding the horizontal realignment of Lyman Boulevard to provide enough area on the
north side of the street for stormwater ponding. Staff has reviewed the horizontal alignment
change and finds that the Lyman Boulevard alignment meets a 35 MPH design standard.
However, typically this type of street is designed for a 5 to 10 MPH higher speed than the
proposed posted speed limit. It should also be noted that the developer's proposed vertical
alignment for Lyman Boulevard differs significantly from the City's plan. This discrepancy
will have to be resolved.
Lyman Boulevard is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street.
Collector streets typically have an 80 -foot wide right -of -way with a 36 to 48 -foot wide street
section. In addition, an 8 -foot wide bituminous trail is proposed along the south side. Lyman
Boulevard is designated on the City's Municipal State Aid System and therefore must meet
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 16
state aid design standards. The final alignment of Lyman Boulevard will be contingent upon
MnDOT state aid approval. Therefore, any changes as a result of the state aid approval
process will need to be included on the final plat.
There are two proposed interior streets with this development. Lake Riley Road is proposed
' to be a public through street from Lyman Boulevard to the west property line of the
development for future extension. The other street, North Bay Drive, is proposed to be a
private street. Upon review of the typical street sections it appears both streets will be very
similar in design and construction. Staff would like to offer an alternative to the applicant
with regards to North Bay Drive. The street is proposed to be private; however, the City
would be willing to take over ownership and maintenance responsibilities of North Bay Drive
contingent upon the applicant dedicating a 50 -foot wide road, drainage and utility easement
over the roadway and increasing the pavement section from 6 inches of granular to 12 inches.
This would not impact the setback requirements. Should the applicant wish to maintain a
' private street system, the street will be required to meet the City's private street ordinance.
The proposed Lake Riley Road meets City right -of -way and street design standards except for
' a portion along the east property line where the street connects to Lyman Boulevard. The
applicant will be required to obtain an easement from the property owner for road, utility and
drainage purposes over the westerly 30 feet of the parcel (Lakeview Hills Apartments). All
streets and utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction drawings and
specifications will be required to be submitted to the City staff for review and formal
t approval by the Council a minimum of three weeks prior to the final plat being approved by
the City Council.
The proposed Lake Riley Road will terminate at the west property line of the development.
The parcel directly to the west will be responsible for the extension of this roadway.
Therefore, a temporary cul -de -sac should be constructed at the end of Lake Riley Road and
the appropriate signage indicating that this street shall be extended in the future attached to
the barricades. Staff will also include this as a condition in the PUD /development agreement
' to advise future property owners of the extension of Lake Riley Road.
MISCELLANEOUS,
An existing gravel driveway runs parallel to the westerly property line. Upon completion of
Lake Riley Road by the developer, this gravel driveway may be terminated or removed since
alternative access would be provided by the applicant. In addition, the wetland mitigation
area will also remove a portion of the gravel driveway.
U111
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 17
Due to the limited parking in front of the units and given the street width, staff is concerned
with a potential parking problem along the private and public street systems. Staff
recommends that parking be prohibited along one side of both North Bay Drive and Lake
Riley Road. Staff will give the option to the applicant to decide on which side of the street
parking shall be prohibited.
LANDSCAPING /TREE PRESERVATION
The applicant has performed the required tree canopy calculations for the development. A
baseline canopy coverage of 11 percent (1.78 acres) is estimated. Code requires a minimum
canopy area of 15 percent (2.43 acres). Therefore, a forestation area of 0.65 acres is required
which equates to 26 trees. The applicant proposes the removal of 0.43 acres of canopy area.
Code requires a replacement area of 1.2 times the amount of required canopy being removed.
The applicant must provide 0.516 acres of replacement planting or 21 trees. At a minimum,
47 trees would be required for this development. The applicant proposes the planting of 80
overstory trees, 113 ornamentals, and 39 evergreens as part of this development, which
exceeds minimum quantity requirements. It should be noted that city code requires that
evergreens average seven feet. The applicant is proposing an extensive landscape buffer
between this development and the property to the east.
Staff has the following recommendations regarding the landscaping plan:
• provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings
• provide evergreen screening from automobile headlights for Lots 1, 13, and 15, Block
2
• increase the number of evergreens to 20 percent of the tree plantings as required by
ordinance
• incorporate additional evergreen plantings along the TH 212 corridor
PARK AND RECREATION
The Park and Recreation Commission met on May 9, 1995 to review this development. The
commission recommended that the city council require the following conditions of approval
for the proposed North Bay PUD in regard to parks and trails:
1. Dedication of the westerly portion of Block 3. This dedication is generally
described as lying west of the trail easement at the point where it is
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 18
perpendicular to Lake Riley Boulevard. This dedication to be a condition of
the granting of planned unit development status.
2. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
As a part of a PUD, it is the applicant's responsibility to meet certain criteria. These criteria
include:
' - Parks and open space —the creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
The Comprehensive Park Plan identifies this area of the city as park deficient. The
city is attempting to negotiate the acquisition of a neighborhood park of no less than
five acres in an adjoining conceptual plat referred to as Lake Riley Hills (Klingelhutz).
The future of this submittal is uncertain. The commission's recommendation to require
the dedication of a portion of Block 3 is directly attributable to this criteria.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
' The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 16, 1995 to review the proposed
North Bay development. By a vote of 4 for and 1 against, the Planning Commission
recommended that the City Council grant preliminary approval for PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, and
t WAP 95 -3 subject to the conditions of the staff report with modifications to existing
conditions 20, 24, 26 f, 28, and 30 and the addition of conditions 36 through 38.
r The vote in opposition to the development was due to the fact that the city was in essence
downzoning the property from higher to lower density without a corresponding evaluation of
the impacts to the ultimate build out of the community and the projected dwelling unit
requirements contained in the comprehensive plan.
The Planning Commission also requested that a report be provided to City Council regarding
' adequate levels of for infrastructure within the community and specifically as it relates to
development in this area. Attached is a memorandum from Charles Folch and Dave Hempel
discussing the adequacy of the road.
On August 24, 1995, City staff met with Don Jensen, North Bay developer, Paul Cherne
North Bay engineer, and Ted Christianson, engineer for the development south of the
apartments and east of North Bay. Staff believes that the meeting was very productive in our
efforts to find the best solution for water quality and quantity ponding.
1
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 19
The Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) calls for a regional pond on the North Bay
property sized to treat the North Bay development, the apartment property ( -14 acres), and the
8 -acre parcel south of the apartments. The best place to construct a pond is along Lake Riley
Blvd. on the North Bay property, however, the area is constrained by Lake Riley Blvd. and
the edge of the wetland on -site. The proposed ponding will treat North Bay's development
and the 8 -acre parcel. If additional ponding for the apartment site were placed here, it would
reduce the wetland mitigation area North Bay needs to meet the Wetland Conservation Act
and it would create an unsafe situation along Lake Riley Blvd since the slopes into the pond
would be too steep.
The City has been working hard to develop a wetland bank and believes this is a good
situation to make use of the bank by excavating into the wetland for the necessary water
quality treatment. The following items were considered:
1. A permit to excavate wetlands is required by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and usually they will require a minimum mitigation ratio of 1:1.
The Wetland Conservation Act, on the other hand, requires 2:1 mitigation for
filling or draining a wetland and it does not require mitigation for excavating.
Thorough analysis of the site has reduced the wetland fill to a minimum. The
City's approved SWMP actually called for the wetland to be used as a water
quality pond since it is classified as an ag /urban wetland. The wetland on -site
has been excavated in the past and the proposed ponding would be an
extension of the excavation with an attempt to protect both the ag /urban
wetland and the natural wetland on the west side of the farm road.
2. Ponding for the most part would be reduced to one location. However, there
may be a small ponding area on the parcel to the east that would provide rate
control for the larger storms.
3. This wetland is part of the stormwater quality improvement projects designed
by Bonestroo which will raise the normal water level a maximum of 2.5 feet.
The wetland receives a direct drainage area of 113.7 acres and a total drainage
area of 319.1 acres. The large drainage area to this wetland combined with its
fairly large surface area make it ideal for stormwater quality improvements for
Lake Riley. Staff will be pursuing the completion of this project in
conjunction with the Lake Riley Blvd. road reconstruction and proposed North
Bay development.
4. Since this project is in the City's interest, the City could provide assistance in '
permitting the project with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Also, the City
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 20
could provide for the mitigation needed to excavate the wetland with its
wetland bank.
The engineers, Paul Cherne of Pioneer Engineering and Ted Christianson of RLK Associates,
for the two proposed developments are working on the pond sizing and grading to
accommodate the sites. Staff informed them that this water quality plan proposal will have to
be approved by City Council before we proceed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council grants preliminary approval of PUD #95 -1: Preliminary Planned Unit
Development (PUD) (plans dated 4/17/95 revised 5/4/95 and 7/17/95 prepared by Pioneer
Engineering) approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential, to PUD,
Planned Unit Development (first reading); preliminary plat to subdivide 52.1 acres into 78
lots, 4 outlots and associated right -of -way; site plan review for 76 single family detached
zero -lot -line homes on 19.95 acres; a variance for wetland setbacks for Lots 12 - 16, Block 1
and Lots 16 - 19, Block 2 to permit the house placement as shown on the plans; and a
wetland alteration permit for North Bay subject to the following conditions:
1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to
insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9 -1.
' 2. Redesignate Lot 1, Block 3, as an outlot. Lot 57, Block 1, and Lot 21, Block 2, are
unbuildable for dwelling units and must be maintained for common open space.
3. Revise the landscaping plan to provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend
the pond into the surroundings; provide evergreen screening from automobile
headlights for Lots 1, 13, and 15, Block 2; increase the number of evergreens to a
minimum of 20 percent of the tree plantings as required by ordinance; and incorporate
additional evergreen plantings along the 212 corridor.
4. The applicant shall provide financial guarantees to the city to assure satisfactory
installation of the landscaping.
5. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation and garage
floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 21
6. Submit soils report with lot by lot tabulations to the Inspections Division. This should
be done prior to issuance of any building permits.
7. Change proposed Lake Riley Road to Lake Riley Road East.
8. Obtain a building permit for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height before
beginning their construction.
9. The applicant will need to revise the erosion control plan to include temporary
sediment basins, Type III erosion control fence, seeding type and schedule of site
restoration. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval.
Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands.
10. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in
accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff
review and City Council approval three weeks prior to final plat approval.
11. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting
the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
12. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality /quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre- developed and post
developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks.
Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be
required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water
quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
13. The applicant shall enter into a PUD /development agreement with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
PUD /development agreement.
14. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers
section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland
Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland
fill activity in all phases of the project.
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 22
15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota
Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width
' shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within any street right -of -way.
18. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands
shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level.
19. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at
the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety
purposes. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the
pond into the surroundings is recommended.
20. The proposed multi - family residential development of 16.07 developable acres is
responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $47,808. These fees are payable
to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. Credits will be applied to these fees
after final review of the construction plans. Staff shall review the developable acreage
and fee prior to final plat.
21. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
r Engineer.
22. Site grading shall be compatible with the future widening and of upgrading of Lyman
Boulevard and also with existing drainage characteristics from the adjacent parcels.
The applicant shall be responsible for acquiring the necessary easements for grading
outside the plat. All site grading must be completed prior to street construction.
23. The existing sanitary sewer located in the northeast portion of the site shall be
relocated in conjunction with the development. The applicant may petition the City to
vacate the existing utility easement once the line has been relocated.
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 23
24. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City Council awarding a bid for the
fist phase of the Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley Area Trunk Improvement Project No.
93 -32B and MnDOT approval of the alignment of Lyman Boulevard. The applicant
shall also dedicate the required 80 -foot wide right -of -way for Lyman Boulevard prior
to the finalization of the construction plans for Lyman Boulevard. Final vertical and
horizontal alignment for Lyman Boulevard shall be subject to City and MnDOT -state
aid approval.
25. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored upon completion of the site grading
with seed and disc - mulched or sod or erosion control blanket. All grading must be
completed prior to issuance of building permits on the site with the exception of one
model home directly off Lyman Boulevard. Wetland mitigation areas shall be restored
in accordance with the wetland restoration/alteration permit.
26. The construction plans shall be revised to include the following changes:
a. Delete grading of the channel through Wetland Basin A.
b. Provide outlet control structures from the proposed pond north of Lyman
Boulevard to the wetland mitigation area adjacent to Lyman Boulevard and
from the mitigation area to Wetland Basin A.
C. Type III erosion control fence shall be placed adjacent to and around all
wetlands and mitigation areas.
d. Provide a temporary sediment basin on Lot 57, Block 1 in or near the proposed
irrigation house between Lots 32 and 56, Block 1.
e. All storm sewer catch basins shall be protected with hay bales and/or silt fence
until the streets are paved and the site fully revegetated.
f. Review grading plan to ascertain most appropriate method for conveying
stormwater across Lots 4 through 31, Block 1. Revise grading-plMn t3 have
rear lots drain through to front yard rcas an Lc43 4 through 31,Bleek -+
lnelusi-vti vcmu th:, mar l at-4 n .
g. Add catch basins on new driveway access to apartments.
h. Prohibit parking on one side of all streets.
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 24
i. Address relocation and abandonment of existing gravel driveway on west
property line.
j. Include a drain tile system behind the curbs on all lots that are not adjacent to
a stormwater pond or wetland.
k. Use City standard detail plates.
1. Provide utility stub to vacant parcel which lies south of the apartments.
27. The applicant shall obtain and convey to the City at no cost a street, utility and
drainage easement over the west 30 feet of the Lakeview Hills Apartments parcel
lying north of Lyman Boulevard and terminating where the full 60 -foot wide right -of-
way begins in the plat of North Bay.
2 pp 8. The applicant shall provide a temporary barricade at the end of Lake Riley Road East
and include a sign indicating that "This street will be extended in the future." A
condition shall also be placed in the PUD /development agreement acknowledging the
intent to extend Lake Riley Road in the future.
r 29. Parking shall be restricted to one side of North Bay Drive and Lake Riley Road. The
applicant may choose which side of the street to restrict parking. The City will adopt
the appropriate resolution prohibiting parking and place the appropriate regulatory
signs.
30. The applicant and /or property owner shall waive any and all procedural or substantive
objections to the special assessments associated with City public improvement Project
No. 93 -32B including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the
assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. Staff and the applicant will work on
developing revised language for this condition that conveys the intent of the condition.
31. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
32. Dedication of Outlot C for park purposes. This dedication to be a condition of the
granting of planned unit development status.
33. The applicant shall provide the city with some assurance that there will be some
variation in brick and siding colors, potentially designating certain areas within the
project for specific brick and siding colors.
North Bay
PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3
August 16, 1995
Update August 30, 1995
Page 25
34. The applicant shall install a watermain along Lake Riley Road in accordance with the
city's feasibility study for Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction project (93 -32B). The city
shall credit the oversizing cost back to the applicant by means of a reduction in their
assessments for project 93 -32B. The oversizing cost shall be the difference between
an 8 -inch line and the proposed 12 -inch line based on fair market value.
35. No improvements to the land south of Lyman Boulevard will be permitted until a
conditional use permit for a beachlot is approved by the city.
36. The applicant shall provide a pedestrian access between Lots 32 and 56, Block 1, to
encourage access to the common open space.
37. Staff will work with the applicant on providing acceptable setbacks for Block 1
including reducing the eastern and northern perimeter setbacks.
38. The applicant will work with staff to consider the Klingelhutz right -of -way alignment
proposal for Lake Riley Road East."
ATTACHMENTS
1 Development Review Application
2. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 5/8/95
3. Letter from Robert C. Obermeyer to Robert Generous dated 8/3/95
4. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
5. Non - conforming Use Permit #92 -8
6. Section 20 -263 Recreational beach lots
7. City Council minutes of June 26, 1995
8. Letter from Cyrus Knutson to Robert Generous dated 6/7/95
9. Letter from David Mitchell to Charles Folch dated 8/4/95
10. Memo from Charles Folch and Dave Hempel to Bob Generous dated 8/29/95
11. Planning Commission Minutes dated August 16, 1995
12. Alternate Lake Riley Drive Alignment
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
f APPLICANT:�i1 ' �i C.�1G1' ��l' ✓Lt IG�� I tIt, . OWNER: 4{ !!5 ITC����a1lGG7f�
x
ADDRESS: 11-0 i' j,�`7�t t Z e � ADDRESS: 14 a ,
■ i i 'I, �.1 �1 t l l ` .1��. ��� I�� 4l ?�il�`�
■
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 1,l�i TELEPHONE:
f 1. X Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW /Easements 16-'
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance
3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit
4. Non - conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning App eal
5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. Rezoning �1lh
7. Sign Permits
�✓ f' /Gt?cc f' f��Zf
8. Sign Plan Review k Notification Signs
9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
4 $100 CUP /SPR/VAC /VAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds
10. Subdivision & 'I -A_ 7 I TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8'/s" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
" Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME �� o Wav
LOCATION L,;ALt 1 /W/ West G7f
J
LEGAL DESCRIPTION 64 prE' I !" 111a (
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
CUD
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION r r� �lu� d /6' h Vii? 1.4
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION K= &44 fICL�� v J
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST TL f t.t 1 I?C >> C L/ �lll�� �II/1 U Lll<j C (I�St�VCl yC�1G; it ��1
Y(Ull 4�iUtil111GJ5 jf/v����lli('6'l��t� �l pt� U12�
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.
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.
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.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
113
Signature of A plicant
✓p D��'1���:, j��11���� Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
HF'F'- 1=- 1'?'?5 1`_• �_ FF'01.1 HHI_I HHv- HH Tu +'+_ lb F'.I1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 - 1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
fJY1 t i 1 fll , w �w OWNER
:�
' APPLICANT `t
: w �
ADDRESS: ��La I !.� N � L�� �e� x ADDRESS:
T1= LEPHONE (Day time) "O T I- L E P H 0 N I-:
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. X Vacation of ROW /Easements
' 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance
3. Interim Use Permit 13. X Wetlarxi Alteration Permit
4. Non - conforming Use permit 14. Zoning Appeal
i 5. Planned Unit Development rfJ� 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
1 6. Rezoning
1 7. Sign Permits
X Notification Signs
8. _ Sign Plan Review
g. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost
$100 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds
10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $
A list of all rt owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
p� Y
included with the application.
Twonty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8 X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
"' Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
HF'F'- 1�'- 1'?'?�• lc•: cl FF'1 HHI] HHee HH TO F'. t =tl
PROJECT NAME F i Ie� ev-n a-' q6V i jam L ' I L
t_OCATION L - � 1U614 � cfeti�L��„ �sy W/ tLte� -f nT �C : kt C�INVr,rs
I 4
LEGAL_ DESCRIPTION AT+�0 a� 6n f h m l rto j
PRESENT ZONING �1
REQUESTED ZONING �«
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATIO
fi m h
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST T D tl j 1 j,C? ��c�� Gil (L"LUl for II C (f5` �C�Y i�' tt5C�24G I1 W r7�'I
va 5fir5 d w't° t�j h sk. a t1P,�aq �
5 >5 p6V v kl�f
This application must be completed in full and b-e ty vritten 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.
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 ltavu attachtid a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certftate 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.
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 pioctied with tiro study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
/Ignature of licant f �f ,�,ls Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on Fee Paid _ Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be availab on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
CITY OF
�8AN8A5SEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: May 8, 1995
SUBJECT: 95 -1 PUD, 95 -9 SPR & 95 -3 WAP (North Bay, Rottlund Companies, Inc.)
I was asked to review the proposed plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED,
JUL 17 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project.
AnWjsis*
Elevations. Proposed lowest floor level elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to
insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments. This deficiency in the
plans was pointed out in my May 8, 1995 memo and has not been corrected.
Dwelling Type. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections
Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the
structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO,
TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for
errors during the plan review process. I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these
designations. SOG is not a standard designation. The R designation conforms with the type of structures
being proposed. The plans should be revised to include standard designations.
Soils Report. Before building permits can be issued a soils report showing details and locations of house
pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required. The soils report should include lot -by -
lot tabulations for land development with controlled earthwork prepared according to HUD Data Sheet
79G.
I Street Names. The street designated as Lake Riley Road is likely to be extended considerably to the west
in the future with another outlet to Lyman Blvd. City policy requires mads with outlets on the same
collector road that exceed 1750' or serving more than 60 addresses be given and east -west or north -south
I designation. Because it is quite likely that this situation will occur in the not too distant future, it seems
prudent to name the road Lake Riley Road East now. Attempting to change resident's addresses later is
a painful, difficult process.
Bob Generous
August 4, 1995
Page 2
Retaining walls. the Preliminary Grading & Erosion Plan indicates a retaining wall grater than four feet
high will be built. The Uniform Building Code requires a perm it for such a wall.
Recommendations:
1. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevations and garage floor
elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
2. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should
be done prior to final plat approval.
3. Submit soils report with lot -by- lot tabulations to the Inspections Division. This should be done
prior to issuance of any building permits.
4. Change proposed Lake Riley Road to Lake Riley Road East.
5. Obtain a building permit for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height before beginning their
constriction.
enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo
g:\safety\sak\ memos \p lan\nrt hbay.bg2
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official _
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
F'-0 or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with me basement floor level
approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
s � SEwo WO FLO
or PLO
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
%' *i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Ao"'k r th
1.Z I �
Annivers4ry
1969-1994
August 3, 1995
Mr. Robert Generous
City Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mr. Generous:
Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District
Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co.
8300 Norman Center Drive
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55437
832 -2600
Legal Advisor: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman
3300 Piper Jaffray Tower
222 South Ninth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
333 -4800
The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed
District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the North Bay
development in Chanhassen. The following policies and criteria of the District are applicable for
this project:
1. In accordance with Section E(2) of the District's revised rules and regulations, a grading
and land alteration permit from the District is required. A detailed grading plan showing
both existing and proposed contours must be submitted to the District for review.
2. A detailed erosion control plan outlining procedures to control sedimentation from leaving
areas altered on the site must be submitted to the District for review and approval.
3. A stormwater management plan for the project must be submitted for review and approval.
The preliminary utility plan shows a discharge of stormwater from the site directly into the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters Wetland. The proposed
water quality basins along Lyman Boulevard must be extended further to the north to
provide treatment of this runoff.
4. Homes to be constructed on the site must have low floor elevations set a minimum of 2 feet
above the calculated 100 -year frequency flood elevation of the stormwater detention basins
on the site.
5. The District notes that encroachment within wetland areas meeting the requirements of
the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act is proposed. The District understands that the City of
Chanhassen is the LGU administering the requirements of the Conservation Act. The
District will require written verification from the City that the requirements of th
Conservation Act have been met. kECEIYVD
N9;
CITY OF C i ^ i,,,
Mr. Robert Generous
August 3, 1995
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this development at an early date. If
you have any questions or request additional information, please give me a call at 832 -2857.
incerely,
R, ert .Obermeyer
Barr Engineering Company
Engineer's for the District
' c: Mr. Ray Haik
Mr. Fritz Rahr
28199_1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, August 16, 1995
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: North Bay
Developer: Rottlund Company, Inc.
Location: Lake Riley Boulevard, on the
ZJZ -8
t
e.
MAR-W o
LAKE
wai PARK -� 8300
SUSAN -
: - �sSo R /CE M RS N LAKE
6600
t� POST -H'� 8700
esoo
Mo
- -J =
s000
- F z35 ATIO
BANOAIERE \
NE i
RARK 1 9200
BANG /MERE " '
% LAKE
cow.wNisr � - - -9300
north side of Lake Riley "°R" •., �` R /LEY rY
Z Z 3100
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to
rezone 22.4 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development;
preliminary plat to subdivide 46.57 acres into 79 lots, 3 outlots and associated right -of -way; site
plan review for 76 single family detached zero -lot -line homes on 19.64 acres; and a wetland
alteration permit on property located on Lake Riley Boulevard, on the north side of Lake Riley, '
North Bay, Rottlund Company, Inc.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you
about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project.
During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937 -1900, ext. 141. If you choose
to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 3, 1995.
C s
' 'ngelhutz Development Co. Lakeview Hills Investment Co. Brenda Schaeffer
East Highway 212 3025 Harbor Lane 27306 County Road A
aska, MN 55318 Plymouth, MN 55447 Spooner, WI 54801
Kimberly Jones &
f ffond Nelson
1 Tigua Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I tro Waste Control Comm.
Mears Park Centre
5th Street East
Paul, MN 55101
d
1l
Joseph & Gayle Hautman
8551 Tigua Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lakeview Hills
c/o Remada Co.
Braemar Business Center
7630 W. 78th Street
Bloomington, MN 55439
Beverly A. Fielder
8521 Tigua Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT #92 -8
1. Permit Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use:
Recreational beachlot (Lakeview Hills Homeowners Association)
2. Provertv. The permit is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows:
Legally described in attached Exhibit A.
3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions:
a. Installation and maintenance of a gate which would be locked day and night (but
the residents of the complex would have lake access by keys furnished by the
management);
b. Prohibit overnight boat dockage, prohibit overnight mooring, and prohibit
overnight storage of boats on the beach itself, except for storage of canoe racks
(application requests one canoe rack with 8 to 10 boats stored);
C. All other overnight storage would be limited to designated portions of the existing
parking lots (north of Lake Riley Blvd) and other designated portions of the
property lying north of the apartments buildings;
d. The dock length would be limited to 50 feet;
e. Continued use of the boat launch;
f. Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to the number 11 on the
application itself but all other historic information has been agreed to.
4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing
for violation of the terms of this permit.
5. Lapse If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction
has not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an
extension is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance.
6. Criminal Penaltv. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal
misdemeanor.
Dated: January 25, 1993
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
�0 na7d J. Chmiel,'Mayor
B
' Don Ashworth, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this !. day of �{'
191, by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor and Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanha$sen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted
' by its City Council.
DRAFTED BY:
Campbell, Knutson, Scott
& Fuchs, P.A.
Suite 317
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
(612) 455 -5000
' RNK
uJ
-lo y blid J
KA.RE% J ENUE -HAPOT !
NOTARY' PUB!.' :NNESOTA �
C4RVEP 'Y
i Ml : t.,, ..ed U•, le ,
� iGb'
J
NON - CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT PERMIT
Association
Lake View Apartments
Lake
Riley
Number of Homes
170 Apartments
Size, square feet
3,000 sq. ft.
Shoreline
120 feet
Motor Vehicle Access
yes
Off - Street Parking
yes
Boat Launch
yes
Buildings
none
Picnic Tables
yes
Grills /Campfires
yes
Seasonal Dock
1
Diagram
50 feet
Canoe Racks
1 with 8 -10 canoes
Boats on Land
not requested
Boats at Dock
not requested
Boats Moored
not requested
Swimming Beach
yes
Marker Buoys
not requested
Swimming Raft
not requested
Miscellaneous
- locked gate shall be installed
-boats shall be stored at the apartment
building and not the beachlot
-shall comply with DNR regulations for the
boat launch
I EXHIBIT I'A"
All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter,
' and of Government Lot 1, of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23,
together with that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, which lies East of
' a line drawn 641.67 feet West of, measured at a right angle to and
parallel with the East line of the Northeast Quarter of the North-
east Quarter of said Section 24, Township 116, Range 23, and its
' extension. (52.80 acres) (PID #25- 0240100]
'
OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF CARVER
'
ent
This 2 day
is to certify that this do 21
w 'led in t is ofp at�o,ciock
of� M. and was duly recorded as
document no. 147565
CARL W. HANSON JR.
Cpynty Recor
&
'
by: —
M I G G
§ 20 -263
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20 -263. Recreational beach lots.
Intent. Based upon experience, it is recognized by the city that the use of lakeshore by
multiple parties may be an intensive use of lakeshore that may present conflicts with neigh-
boring uses of lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same lake or the lake itself.
Further, beachlots may generate complaints if they are not maintained to the same standards
as single - family lakeshore lots. Therefore, the city requires the following conditions for rec-
reational beachlots, in addition to such other conditions that may be prescribed in the permit:
(1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage.
(2) Except as specifically provided herein, no structure, ice fishing house, camper, trailer,
tent, recreational vehicle, shelters (except gazebos) shall be erected, maintained, or
stored upon any recreational beachlot. For the purpose of this section, a gazebo shall
be defined as, "a freestanding roofed structure which is open on all sides."
(3) No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles,
motorized mini - bikes, all- terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or
parked upon any recreational beach lot.
(4) No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping.
(5) Boat launches are prohibited.
(6) No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight
mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a
recreational beachlot is allowed more than one (1) dock, however, the allowed number
of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed.
Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats
may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks
specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six (6) watercraft may be stored
on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to
permit one (1) rack slip per lot served by the beachlot; however, in no case shall there
be more than four (4) racks per beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is
permissible at any time other than overnight.
(7) The maximum number of docks on a recreational beachlot is three (3). No dock shall
be permitted on any recreational beachlot unless the beach meets the following con-
ditions:
a. Shoreline of at least two hundred (200) feet per dock, and
b. Area of at least thirty thousand (30,000) square feet for the first dock and addi-
tional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet for each additional dock.
(8) No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock shall
exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or the minimum straight -line distance necessary
to reach a water depth of four (4) feet. The width (but not the length) of the cross -bar
of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length de-
scribed in the preceding sentence. The cross -bar of any such dock shall not measure
in excess of twenty -five (25) feet in length.
Supp. No. 7 1176.4
ZONING § 20 -263
(9) No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided, however, that the
owner of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within
the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common dock
is the only dock on the two (2) lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with
' the provisions of this chapter.
(10) No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at
least two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage. No more than one (1) sail boat mooring
' shall be allowed for every two hundred (200) feet of lake frontage.
(11) A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the sub-
, division of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms shall
mean those beach lots which are located either within (urban) or outside (rural) the
Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the comprehen-
sive plan.
a. Urban recreational beach lot. At least eighty (80) percent of the dwelling units,
which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall be
' located within one thousand (1,000) feet of the recreational beach lot.
b. Rural recreational beach lot. A maximum of fifty (50) dwelling units (including
riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational
' beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary into the
rural area, the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply.
(12) All recreational beach lots, including any recreational beach lots established prior to
February 19, 1987 may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming
areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the United States
' Coast Guard standards.
(13) All recreational beachlots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other property
owners from beachlot activities. This buffer may consist of topography, streets, veg-
etation, distance (width or depth), or other features or combinations of features which
provide a buffer. To insure appropriate buffering, the city may impose conditions to
insulate beachlot activities including, but not limited to:
a. Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas, docks, racks or other al-
lowed recreational equipment or activities;
b. Hours of use;
c. Planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs;
d. Erection of fences;
' e. Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming; painting and upkeep
of racks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and debris;
f. Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon the intensity of the use
proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of access.
To the extent feasible, the city may impose such conditions even after approval of the
' beachlot if the city finds it necessary.
I Supp. No. 7 1177
§ 20 -263
CHANHA.SSEN CITY CODE
(14) Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted to
watercraft owned by the owner /occupant or renter /occupant of homes which have
appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot.
(15) The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall
be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council.
(16) Portable chemical toilets may be allowed as a condition of approval of a recreational
beachlot. The maintenance and use of chemical toilets on some beachlots may be
unsuitable because they cannot be adequately screened from residential neighbors or
lake users. Any use of chemical toilets on recreation beachlots shall be subject to the
following:
a. The minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy -five
(75) feet. Side and front yard setbacks shall be maximized to achieve maximum
screening from adjacent lots and the lake.
b. It may only be used Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the
lot during the rest of the year.
c. It shall be securely anchored to the ground to prevent tipping.
d. It shall be screened from the lake and residential property with landscaping.
e. It shall be serviced at least weekly.
f. Only models designed to minimize the potential for spilling may be used.
g. Receipt of an annual license from the city's planning department. The license
shall be issued unless the conditions of approval of this ordinance have been
violated. All license applications shall be accompanied by the following informa-
tion:
1. Name, address, and phone number of applicants.
2. Site plan showing proposed location of chemical toilets.
3. Name, address, and phone number of chemical toilet supplier.
4. Plan for commercially maintaining the chemical toilet, including a copy of
any agreement for maintenance, and the name, address, and phone number
of person responsible for maintenance.
5. A written description of how the applicant intends to screen the portable
chemical toilet from all views into the property, including views from the
lake.
(17) No watercraft or boat lift shall be kept, moored, docked, or stored in the dock setback
zone.
(18) Gazebos may be permitted on recreational beachlots subject to city council approval
and the following standards:
a. Minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy -five (75)
feet.
b. No gazebo shall be closer to any lot line than the minimum required yard setback
for the zoning district in which the structure is located.
Supp. No. 7 1178
ZONING § 20 -263
c. Maximum size of the structure shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square
' feet.
d. Maximum height shall not exceed twenty (20) feet.
e. Gazebos shall make use of appropriate materials, colors, and architectural and
landscape forms to create a unified, high - quality design concept for the lot which
is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures.
f. Gazebos shall be properly maintained. Structures which are rotted, unsafe, de-
' teriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired, removed, or replaced by the
homeowners or beachlot association.
g. The following improvements are prohibited in gazebos; screening used to com-
pletely enclose a wall, water and sewer service, fireplaces, and electricity.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5 -9- 1(11)), 12- 15 -86; Ord. No. 80 -A, § 1, 6- 15 -87; Ord. No. 87, § 1,
6- 13 -88; Ord. No. 121, 2- 26 -90; Ord. No. 146, §§ 1, 2, 5 -6 -91; Ord. No. 160, § 3, 2- 10 -92; Ord. No.
230, § 1, 1 -9 -95)
Editor's note — Section 3 of Ord. No. 160, adopted Feb. 10, 1992, added subsection (16) to
this section. Inasmuch as there existed a § 20- 263(16) added by Ord. No. 146, the editor has
renumbered the new provisions as § 20- 263(17).
I Supp. No. 7 1179
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL TO REZONE 22.4 ACRES FROM R-
12. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; PRELIMINARY PLAT
TO SUBDIVIDE 46.57 ACRES INTO 78 LOTS, 1 OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY. SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR 75 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ZERO LOT LINE HOMES ON 19.95 ACRES; AND,
A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY, NORTH BAY
ADDITION, ROTTLUND COMPANY.
Kate Aanenson: This property is located off of Lake Riley Boulevard. That's how it gains access. It has 212,
future 212 alignment running through the middle of it and it is adjacent to what was a plat by Mr. John
Klingelhutz and to the east, Lakeview Hills Apartments. The property is guided for high density, zoned R -12.
Rottlund Homes is proposing 75 unit, single family dwelling project. It's a different type of project than we've
seen in the city because it's zoned for medium or high density. You can do a zero lot line. Single family
detached, which will be the first one of this type in the city and we're, the planning staff, are in support this
type of project. Again the think it provides a different market nitch of housing product where there could be
something different based on the zoning. We think it is appropriate for the land. But there are some issues
with the property. One being, the wetlands and road access. When this plat was originally submitted, the
wetland had not been staked and was originally going to be in this area. After the wetland had been delineated,
it actually goes on the most easterly portion of the property. Staff believes that to reduce the impact of the
wetland and combine access with the future development of Lakeview Hills, that's probably appropriate to move
the access to the most easterly portion of the project. Approximately where the red line is right now. And
therefore combining accesses. And again reducing the impact to the wetland. The project itself, as indicated,
would be accessed off of Lake Riley Boulevard and would provide a public street with access onto the proposed
Klingelhutz plat. It would stop at the 212 right -of -way and provide appropriate buffer and screening. As
indicated, there is a wetland and... appropriate buffer setback from the proposed wetland. One of the other issues
with the plat is the use of this area here. The Park and Recreation Commission, which I'll let Todd Hoffman
speak to, had looked at acquiring some of the property and using it as a public park. The applicant himself
would like to use it as a part of a recreational beachlot. This is before you just for concept approval right now.
We wanted you to look at some of the broader issues but if it does come through for a beachlot, they would
come through with a conditional use permit. We are in support of the PUD zoning, as I indicated. We believe
it provides a different market nitch. It could meet some other type of product but we think this is a different
one that we haven't seen in the city and is appropriate. We believe it's consistent with the comprehensive plan
and the goals. Again, it's conceptual. There are some issues to be worked out. One, I'll let the applicant speak
to that Charles Folch had put a memo to you on the cover sheet is the applicant would like to realign the old
Lake Riley Hills. But with that staff is recommending approval of the conceptual PUD with the conditions in
the staff report and I would like to let Todd Hoffman speak for a minute or two on the park issues that he has.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Todd.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council and the audience. The conditions that the Park and
Recreation Commission has recommended is in your packet... Essentially what the Park Commission is
investigating the possibility of acquiring a portion of the lakeshore for public use. Specifically ... area for
picnicking and then a... They studied two alternatives, which I'd like to show you on the overhead at this time.
They include alignment number 1, which is the ... city alignment if you will. It allows for the parking area, and
this is again conceptual, to lie outside of the tree cover canopy area of the large oak trees. The little kind of
savannah areas ... and then would not interfere with the wetlands on the site. The other alignment, the Rottlund
alignment or as presented by the applicant, this would cause the parking area to be pushed forward towards the
lake. Obviously either alignment would work... So that's an update I have for you and with that...
32
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions of Kate or Todd?
' Councilman Berquist: That Lakeview, that Lakeview Apartments, is that the name of them?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: Now that's on the lot directly next to them?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: Right next to them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to do your presentation?
Don Jensen: Certainly. I had this set up but, I just visited during the break. Mr. Mayor, members of the
Council. My name is Don Jensen, the Land Development Manager with Rottlund Homes. Rottlund Company
' Inc. We are proposing to be both the developer and the builder for this development, and are proposing to
undertake all of this... approval. Staff outlined the concept for this development. What I have in front of you is
the plat as presented to the staff. We are in concurrence with most of the conditions with the exception of the...
conditions in your packet and I'll have a chance to discuss them briefly. You have a long record of Minutes
that we went through with the Planning Commission so I won't bore you with a tremendous amount of the
details that are covered there but I wanted to briefly overview development. What we have is a package of two
different housing types. One which is targeted for empty nesters. One which is targeted for, probably just
' above first time home buyers or perhaps first time detached home buyers and they're represented primarily along
the public street we have the empty nester product. As you can see there's quite a bigger footprint and plan
view. And then to the north, looking around on a private street, up off the future 212 corridor, we have a two
story product that would be targeted more for a move up, first time home buyer. The square footages for the
two products, I'll take this down for a moment. for what we're calling our cottages and what it's designed as
empty nesters, it's a rambler. At grade. Dwelling units, there is no basement and at the moment there are no
second floor spaces. They're approximately 1,400 square feet up to 1,600 square feet, depending on the floor
plan. But they're intended to have quite a different facade as well as the building color ranges. As you can see
on the sample board that we have down below, it's pretty much in the earth tones or muted tones that much of
the siding manufacturers have gone to these days. The plan that I just kept up on the easel now, the floor plan
of that same product. The empty nester orientation. What we're doing there, similar to how ... Planning
Commission, is we're pushing the buildings approximately 30 degrees to the street. What that does is it shortens
up the distance between the structures to approximately 40 feet of the 72 foot length of the structure. It opens
' up a front yard entrance area to the doorways. In cases where we have additional square footage or bonus space
that this floor plan would indicate, the foyer slides around and we'd still have essentially a front yard space.
And likewise you'd have a large back yard space with a patio or three season porch opens up off the corner.
You accomplish that by twisting the building and having it at an angle. You can see from the site plan that that
really is how we've oriented a majority of the dwellings throughout this roadway condition. The final plat
would twist and massage that so that we could make that angle occur and... The second building product that
we're looking at is a two story. You've seen our villa development at Mission Hills. What we're doing is
increasing the square footage a little bit and adding a two story space. Having some of that space as bonus
above the garage. Again it's somewhat similar to our villa but each unit is it's own structure. These are coming
in your packets as we have in our design development area, anywhere from about 1,630 square feet on up to
about 1,850 square feet. Two bedrooms and three bedroom plans. Flexibility on the elevations... Flexibility on
33
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
building materials that are also coming with that package and again some flexibility on a floorplan. So you
have a variety of front elevations. The site plan twists these buildings a little less aggressively as submitted in
the sketch plan form and the cottages, it's not so true to the concept of the dwelling and building plan that they
need to be skewed. However, it's probably an idea that's going to be pursued more... sketch plan here. Skewing
would do the same thing with twisting the garages and the street that would be head on. They'd be angled so
depending on your line of travel ... It would push the front door a bit closer to the street. The building materials
would be consistent or ... have in front for both product lines but they will have varying colors. Both in brick
and indoor accents and window accent colors as well as the siding colors. Unlike... product where we start to
have a lot more uniformity, these have a little bit more variability... completed about a year and a half ago.
That's the product that we have. What I'd like to do is come back to the site plan. We have an aerial here, if
the Council is interested in just having a general orientation of how this development fits. And we'll come back
to the site plan. Staff has suggested in their conditions that the, and as Kate just went over, that this road
entrance onto Lake Riley Boulevard, move over to be straddling the property line. After some review at our
offices we will agree that that's a reasonable effort. We wanted to make sure that what we were doing, slipping
the roadway to the other side of these buildings so there is less wetland fill than on this plan but still some
based on that latest delineation that we had. There would be buildings to put that on this site. I'm not exactly
sure how many different plans you may have received in your packet. We did submit some different road
alignments and building plans that were for the engineering staff to prepare their memo, which I know is
attached to the packet there so presumably they have to have received those. Regarding our big issue is what
we have in front of the Planning Commission was a desire to program this space a little bit more than we have
on our sketch plan proposal. We would like to allow this central commons area, between the two developments
to be able to be developed and programmed by the residents that move into this area. We would prefer, and
that's not something that's in any condition, that we will forward, possibly even set up an escrow where at 50%
of the build out, this escrow money and a design would be done between the neighborhood and Rottlund
Company and the city could designate or appoint a planner, park planner to be involved in that process. But we
have had greater success when we allow the residents to program what is their background than we have by
having some... trying to predict what that site can be in the future. The way that the grades work out, we believe
that ultimately that ... for two different levels. This street is rising and then it starts to fall back down as it joins
what we're calling and labeling North Lake Drive and this street gradually falls all the way down to Lake Riley.
There's about 35 to 40 feet of change, as some of you know by looking at the property, from Lake Riley
Boulevard on out. That translates into about a 5% street grade. So this center space and the spacing between
buildings will need to step approximately 8 foot ... between buildings so it becomes more difficult to get... space
in that area. I'll give you a for instance and then I'll get off of this topic. We just went through an empty
nester development in Lakeville, where as part of the approval process the Council there thought it was good
that we develop a playground for their grandkids. And we did so because we were conditioned upon approval
to do so. Now that the neighborhood is 60% built up, they don't want to have to pay the insurance costs in
their homeowners association for liability purposes. It's park rated equipment. They've asked the city to remove
it. The Council as well as the manager have agreed and now we're going to go back in and install a perennial
garden and use the same monies. It's those kinds of decisions we'd like to leave up to the residents and we're
more comfortable saying that we'll spend x amount of dollars to improve the site but we'd rather not have it to
be playground if nobody wants a playground. We'd rather not have it be a garden if nobody wants a garden.
We'd like them to be involved in that process. We did have success with that in the city of Inver Grove Heights
where we have an escrow set aside for, there was a playground... That's one of our issues. This common open
space. This is approximately an acre. As was described in our Minutes, it's about 180 feet long. As an
average, it's about 120 feet wide in it's current configuration and as staff has pointed out, there's going to be
some massaging with this road alignment to make sure we have our wetland buffers for this zone in through
here. We have a large quantity of open space, depending on the calculations that you do or don't get credited in
34
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
this area, and again what we were describing, instead of this whole zone of approximately 2 acres as common
area for all of these residents and as part of their common open space. We can and will program and plat as an
outlot a portion of that for city park purposes. We have heard a couple of different things. Both presentations
I've heard this evening talked about acquisition which is something that we did not hear coming into tonight's
meeting. We're not in a position that we can take full park fees for all these residents and then dedicate
lakeshore. We would be more than willing to set aside for purchase or to have an abatement of some of the
park dedication fees for land along, for lake use for public purposes. We've been working with staff regarding
moving the trail off of Lyman Boulevard and both of the sketches that were held up ... to get the public closer to
the lake experience as they go on the bike trail and move through some mature trees rather than being along
side a road all the time and that's been a consistent theme of our development. Regarding some of the other
conditions that are in the staff summary and maybe what I can do is just go straight to those because I know it's
late and I'd like to be available to ... all your questions regarding both our product and the site plan, sketch plan.
We are concurrence all the way, conditions 1 thru 19 are fairly standard. Part of the concern of different road
alignments, and I'll explain it briefly on this plan here which is condition number 20 about storm water ponds.
We have been pursuing different alignments of the road for two purposes. One of which is to, what we believe
is improve the storm water purpose of the whole region as a part of this storm water quality plan. This road is
slid further to the lake. As you look on the aerial you'll see there's an opening there that we've been just sliding
the road within. If you've been by the property you know that there's kind of a dirt area on the lakeshore side
of the road. It opens up the area between the water and the wetlands to the north and the road. On this plan
and on our plans there's a large space in here for wetland mitigation and we've been able to do a water quality
pond also off of this road and just imagine the road and these houses flipped over and you have pretty much
what our preliminary plat might look like with your approval. The water quality pond gets a chance to grow a
' little bit bigger. When we do that, we believe and our engineers have the calculations and staff has had a
chance to review those at a preliminary level, to take all the runoff from the road, which currently doesn't have
any water quality from the adjacent development to the east when it develops the undeveloped land. Quite
conceivably enough to accommodate the project as it is currently designed. There's no water quality for it
today. This development and a small portion of the road through the Klingelhutz property. The other
alignment, which for park purposes gets a little bit more parking, eliminates virtually all of this area in through
here to function as a water quality pond, and from our engineer's estimates, what it does is it limits the ability of
this property to accomplish all of those downstream goals and it really allows only enough area outside of
wetlands for ponding for this development only. It's squeezed to get anything from Lake Riley Boulevard.
There is no ponding capacity for the property to the east and probably accommodate a couple hundred feet of
road going to the east. It's slightly higher here and that ... a better drainage area. That's been our focus and it's...
unanswered as to what is the overall goal. The second overall plan that we had in trying to move that road was
to make use of the land and space that was in that park area as targeted so that when we get the trail a little
closer to the lake and so that we could maximize developable area just north of that road that carries with it a
large setback area and that primarily impacts our ability to have a dwelling unit down in this location. The city
code eliminates any building, for all practical purposes, other than a boat shelter. Storage space as a beachlot
improvement. The collector road with it's setbacks pushes any development almost 200 feet away from that
' lakeshore. So by having the road slightly forward, that does improve the developable opportunity for both the
structures and for water quality. We're not taking any trees of any large size that are not taken by the current
plans that we have received from the city's consultant, OSM. There are a couple of small, low quality wetlands
that show up on the current state requirements for wetlands that are impacted in all cases slightly by road
improvements for their highway. Some are a little bit more aggressive than others. The up side is that those
are low quality wetlands and by taking them on the lake side, you can more than compensate for them north.
And you can clean up the water quality, which we think is an important element of trying to preserve the water
' quality for Lake Riley. It provides a lot more opportunity. The legislature didn't help us out this spring.
35
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
There's certainly an opportunity this project would not go until probably spring next year, based on the plans for
Lake Riley Boulevard and utilities. There is a possibility that this land in through here that's currently a
wetland could function as a good water quality if the legislature changes the rules but we don't know that now
and that's not something we can propose to you at this time. We believe that while some of the conditions in
this memo state that the proposals that we've had on road alignments would not meet state aid standards. That
there's still a possibility that a flat road could be staked, depending on how far back in the Klingelhutz property
the road could be changed to meet that alignment. We have only dealt with the road alignment on this
development starting here, working back through here. And then working with staff on that. So that's,
condition number 20 is just a point of clarification. Condition number 21 deals with what is developable
acreage. I would say as we move forward with the preliminary plat, those acreage numbers switch. If it's 17.1
acres, we have no problem with this cash number. If for some reason it drops to 16 acres, 15.5 acres, that
number tends to be calculated off the developable acreage. We'd just like it to be known that that number is a
floating target or moving target. Number 25 we dealt with in some detail and staff has in their memo. Our
comments there are just that we believe we can still massage something. It's not an all or nothing in terms of
the two alignments there at the northerly alignment and the southerly alignment that were shown both in park
and for engineering purposes. There may be some middle ground difference between and what we're trying to
do is decipher whether water quality is the most important aspect. Whether it's plenty of parts in a parking lot
is the most important aspect. Whether or not you can have a roadway that's designed for 40 mph next to Lake
Riley that ends 300 feet away on a gravel road in Eden Prairie, for the time being. Whether or not it's a small,
- what's called a super elevation. In other words, instead of...ground, the outside edge is just going to be tipped
up at the same grade that it tips down on the outside. This ... in order to maximize the water quality. We really
have two separate components to this development. We have the housing in the neighborhood and then we
have really kind of urban infrastructure here and how we can accomplish that. We're saying we can accomplish
all of these things. It's just how well does it work for you and how do you want to create your hierarchy.
Regarding the condition number 29. That's what I want to clarify here. I've heard acquisition and it's
acquisition, not dedication. That can be amended. We don't have a whole lot to dispute or discuss... park fees if
there's acquisition on 29 as well. I'll give you some brief acreage we asked our consultant to look at. The two
park plans, if you take the tighter right -of -way and the sides of the parks, came up with approximately an acre
that the roadway is pushed somewhere in this vicinity they would have as the boundary line between what
would be retained by the development and what is proposed to be acquired. If the roadway slides to the north,
it's approximately 1.3 acres. I'm not here to tell you what I think that lakeshore is worth. I think we'll be able
to work with the city on that. We are concerned about the, I'm going to say opportunity to have some overnight
slips, and part of your regulations are that our lakeshore distance that we're entitled to so many slips per how
much frontage we own and if our frontage is taken away, then that diminishes some of our ability to have
overnight slips, which we've... At a minimum we've got a docking program that's out there as with the apartment
complex to the east. We've been looking at all the other conditions that are on the plan. We went over item
number 31 which was define the options of the development for the open space area. We would just as soon be
comfortable with an escrow. With a dollar amount... landscaping, benches and... Item number 33. Our plan we
believe... briefly touched on. The fact that we would have a dock. We would have the opportunity to have
possibly some storage for paddles and that kind of thing for people who could use... All of the other items are
quite easily accomplished ... 35 conditions. With that I'd like to thank the Council for allowing this presentation
here. Hopefully our product presentation is clear as a need in the city. The zero lot concept for the Rottlund
Company is one that we think is ... can have some success. It's been about 10 years since these type of...had any
buildout in the Twin Cities. We have a couple underway now. We have several more started and in the
approval process and throughout... The key for us here in this concept is again having minimal maintenance to
the buyer. They can be in a detached product and they don't have to worry about mowing the grass. They don't
have to worry about shoveling their driveway on a daily basis. They don't have to worry about watering the
36
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
lawn takin g care of the shrubs. They can live. They can take care of the inside but they don't have to deal
with the exterior maintenance and that's we think a key opportunity for those folks. In particular, many of our
single buyers that we have out there that are hard pressed to work, play, and find time to take care of a house...
Two family wage earners in our home so that's why we think this really has an opportunity in Chanhassen. Our
target point that we discussed with staff, that we had in your Minutes for Planning Commission, is we are real
hopeful that we can start down in the low 100's. Around $110- 120,000.00 and then depending on options, try to
cap that at about $140. We are not trying to capitalize on the opportunity that the lakeshore has at this time by
doing a lot of things to drive the price higher. We think our nitch is trying to provide for that first time, move
up home buyers and somebody who's trying to downsize. An empty nester. They might have an $120,000.00
house with a very small bathroom on two floors and they're trying to just move that capital into another location
and still live in or near the Chanhassen or Chaska market. And that's been our focus for a lot of our housing
products... still for this neighborhood here. With that I'll be happy to answer questions and...
' Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? It doesn't look like it right now. Do you have something?
Councilman Berquist: Well no. I just, this is a very, it seems very complicated. It seems we're going to have,
' in my simple mind I want to, I'd like to take it issue by issue. Park and Rec is concerned about some things.
The common driveway. The switch and stuff has not been, we're not looking at what has, we're looking at stuff
that's old right now.
Don Jensen: We're looking at the ... plan. Staff has proposed a condition of approval for the sketch plan that
would take and put the roadway on the common joint property line and move this similar amount of houses to
' this side. They believe that the sketch plan is conceptual enough that that's...
Kate Aanenson: Maybe I can address that Steve. This is concept and the intent here is just to see that you're
ework for the product. We didn't want to over burden them with a
comfortable with trying to develop the fram
lot of drawings. You'll have an opportunity under preliminary plat to see the whole revisions. All these issues
addressed under the preliminary. So we felt that we would just try to express to you the concerns, issues that
we would have and then he'd have to go back and articulate those in another plan and come back before you.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Good. I hoped it was conceptually. Concept I have not a problem with.
Alternate A, Alternate B and Alternate C and the pros and cons, they don't relate to alignments 1 and 2?
Alignments 1 and 2, the alignments 1 and 2 do not show the road as it is. Do they? How is the existing
alignment?
Todd Hoffman: Alignment 1 would be the existing alignment.
Councilman Berquist: This is the existing?
Charles Folch: Yeah. And that would correspond to Alternative C.
Councilman Berquist: And that corresponds to Alternate C? You've solved it and broke the code.
' Don Jensen: Alignment 2 would correspond to either Alternative A or B.
Councilman Berquist: Alright. It's become clearer. Thank you.
' 37
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: 78 units is what you're looking at?
Don Jensen: There's 75 on this plan now.
Mayor Chmiel: Or 75 single, yeah.
Don Jensen: In all likelihood that's probably going to drop 1 or 2 more, depending on what you decide,
especially if the road alignments would take one for sure. If you went with Alignment 1.
Mayor Chmiel: Currently what are your clearances between those structures? What setbacks do you have?
Don Jensen: Well right now what we have is, we have a 20 foot setback to the right -of -way line with the
standard city 60 foot right -of -way for public street through here. So you have a full space to park a car away
from the road. A public sidewalk in the right -of -way all along the southern side of the north face through here
And we have approximately 15 feet inbetween structures. The ... larger footprint through here. And we have
approximately 10 feet inbetween the structures when they are aligned in a parallel fashion such as this. In this
location.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have a little bit of problem with the total numbers of 75 units. I'm not sure where I'm
going to go from there as to how many but it seems like it's very congested.
Don Jensen: Well what you really have is a similar concept to, if you were to attach them into configurations
of 4 to 6 dwellings. You'd have a party wall and you might have 20 -25 feet between a building. If you
allowed everybody to have their own dwelling... party wall, you've got really an area of 10 to 15 feet. It's not all
that unusual for some single family neighborhoods, 15 feet is not all that uncommon with 10 foot setback...
design this zero lot line concept. 10 feet is, it's a question inbetween here that you don't have any comparables
but again the zero lot line concept is looking at people buying into the idea of having a little tighter proximity
to each other and a way that you would design that living area space inbetween the buildings so that you have
really the people looking at it in an area that's landscaped inbetween that is not window to window. It's window
to blank walls so they have that privatized feeling in there. And the front entry again is more of a private entry
space. This is a new product line for us. We've had distances. These are ... couple feet bigger. It would be
easier for us to respond if they said well, I'll give you 10 feet or 12 feet or 13 feet is better than...
Councilman Berquist: ...10 feet...
Mayor Chmiel: You got it. That's what I was thinking the distance inbetween. That I think we can look at as
we progress with it. Anyone else?
Councilman Mason: I like the concept. We certainly have had this discussion before about lot lines and square
footage and what not and I think there is a place. I certainly wouldn't want the whole city to look like this but I
definitely think there is a nitch in this town for that sort of set -up. I've got to believe that with that price and
that close to the lake, they'll go quickly. Would be my guess. And again, I don't city wide, I certainly wouldn't
agree with the zero lot line but this does afford, and I caught the Minutes about no, it's not low income and you
could argue it's not even affordable but it certainly is closer to affordable than whatever else is going into this
city right now and I like the concept.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
38
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
Councilman Senn: Just echoing Michael. I like the concept and I like your price points. Other than that, I
think we need to...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion? Now there's also one other thing, before I go. Some of the things
that he was referencing Charles. Number 20, 21, 22.
i Charles Folch: Well basically, it's kind of a horse and cart situation so to speak. To a certain extent what
happens with the potential use of the park property, if you will, adjacent to the lake will sort of affect to a
certain extent where we want to put the road. Then again on the other side of the coin, we have to meet certain
design standards for that type of road that we have there and I think as long as we work out those issues
through the preliminary platting process, I don't have a problem. I think at this point in time staff would be
looking at more thoroughly into either Options B or C. B I should preface as being, looking at it if it's a viable
option where we don't have to super elevate the road. I think you would find Carver County Engineer and I
know a couple of the other neighboring City Engineers from communities adjacent to us here that I've spoken to
over the number of years regarding road issues and one thing you don't want to do is super elevate an urban
road because we've got problems now trying to get people to obey the speed limits on local roads. 30 -35 to 40
r mph. If you super elevate a curve, it makes the motorist much more comfortable to drive at a faster speed so
eve tend to discourage using super elevation for our low speed urban roadways. But again, if there's an
opportunity to try to massage it a little bit at the end touchdown points for the development, to t to eliminate
that, then maybe it's a viable option so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike.
' Councilman Mason: I guess I'd like to move approval. It is a concept. Conceptual plan at this point. And
assuming that these issues can be worked out with staff and Rottlund and if not, it's going to come back to us
and we're going to decide it one way or the other anyway. So at this point I'll move conceptual approval for,
' Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential as
stated in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: PUD 995 -1?
Councilman Mason: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Mason: You're welcome. Thank you.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, a motion on the floor and there's also a second. Did you want to say something?
Kevin: Yes ... Mr. Mayor, Council. M name is Kevin ... with RLK Associates. ...Lakeview Hills Investment
Group to look after their interests of their property. Not only apartment buildings but to develop a portion of
' the property... One of the issues that was brought up was the common access. You may be interested to know
that the Lakeview Hills Investment Group does go along with that comment... There are several issues that
would come into play on how this development affects the property. One is the existing drive that services the
apartment buildings that need to be maintained as... The common access... Secondly, there's some storm water
39
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
drainage issues that would be impacted by the development of this property. One is the ditch line comes
through here. I'd like to see that preserved and run this line here. That we recognize as this develops, as this
portion of the property develops, we'll need to address... storm water ponding area. Other issues have to do with
access. If this road did come up, one of our concerns was access between properties... There was a park down
in this area where it's previously proposed but to be sure that residents of the apartment building in the future
would have access to that regional park. If this road does indeed come up here, there would be a sidewalk...
We don't have any problem with this realignment... modifications at this end of the problem. ...proximity to the
road to the lake. There's not too much we can do with it but it helps the overall... That's about it. All and all it
should be, I'm not opposed to this plan as presented and we have met with Rottlund ... Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to grant conceptual approval of PUD #95 -1 with the
following conditions, issues and concerns and recommendations:
1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP,
NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and
safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 99 -1.
2. Fire hydrant changes:
a) Add one fire hydrant at the intersection of Lyman Blvd. and the new proposed street (near Lot 1).
b.) Add one fire hydrant at the intersection by Lot 43.
c) Relocate the current hydrant between Lots 46 and 47 to between Lot 47 and the trail.
d) Relocate the current hydrant from between Lots 36 and 37 to between Lots 33 and 34.
3. Submit street names for review and approval.
4. Submit turning radius of cul -de -sac to Fire Marshal for review and approval.
5. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level, top of foundation elevation and garage
floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
6. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior
to final plat approval.
7. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building
permits.
8. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final
plat approval.
9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
40
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new
developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion
control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands.
11. All utilities and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utilities plans and specifications shall be
submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00
per sign.
13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and
provide ponding calculations for storm water quality /quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface
Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed
pre - developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks. Individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch ba §in segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins
are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's
Pondnet model.
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
15. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit,
the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be
implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. Impacts resulting
from sanitary sewer installation shall be provided to staff as an amendment to the replacement plan
' application.
16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver
County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and
Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and
ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas.
18. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way.
19. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetland shall be a minimum
' of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level.
20. The proposed storm water pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level
and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes.
41
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
21. The proposed single family residential development of 17.1 developable acres is responsible for a water
quantity connection charge of $50,873.00. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the
final plat.
22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and
shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
23. Site grading shall be compatible with the future widening and of upgrading of Lyman Boulevard and also
with existing drainage characteristics from the adjacent parcels.
24. Existing sanitary sewer located in the northeast portion of the site will need to be relocated prior to
development of the area.
25. Lyman Boulevard alignment may be further refined conditioned upon the following:
a. The right -of -way must remain uniform throughout at 80 feet. This applicant at this time is considering
a narrowing down or neck in the right- of -,vay to minimize conveyance of right -of -way. The City
would need to have the right -of -way dedicated prior to finalizing construction plans for Lyman
Boulevard.
b. The street design must meet State Aid, 35 mph design standards. Upon review of the proposed layout
with this submittal, it appears the alignment does not meet the 35 mph design standards.
c. The proposed alignment should not add any extra cost to the project, i.e. retaining walls, steep slopes,
surcharging, etc.
26. The applicant shall meet with the Lakeview Hills Apartment property owners to discuss a common street
access along the easterly property line of the site. The current submittal of the roadway alignment is not
acceptable due to the impacts to the wetlands.
27. Lots I through 12, Block 2 shall be adjusted northerly to minimize impact to the large wetlands and trees
This also requires the realignment of North Bay Drive through the site.
28. Revise the landscaping plan to provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the
surroundings; provide additional landscaping screening south of Lot 1, Block 1; revegetate the area behind
Lots 6 -11, Block 2 with central hardwood species which would expand the forested area adjacent to Basin
B; and increase the number of evergreens to 20 percent of the tree plantings.
29. Dedication of the westerly portion of Block 3. This dedication is generally described as lying west of the
trail easement at the point where it is perpendicular to Lake Riley Boulevard. This dedication to be a
condition of the granting of planned unit development status.
30. payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
31. Define the options of development for a commons area and access.
32. A guarantee of minimum brick variations and colors of siding be defined.
42
I City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
33. Define the dock or boat mooring or storage as per proposed use for the shoreline.
34. A heighten guarantee of runoff control and garbage clean -up.
35. A future projection of heighten traffic use without Highway 212 development.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, 5 FOOT SIDE YARD,
VARIANCE REOUEST TO BUILD AN ADDITIONAL GARAGE STALL, 650 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD,
SAM & LAURIE CURNOW.,
Public Present:
Address
Name
Teri Frederick 660 Pleasant View Road
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The applicants are requesting a 5 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard
setback. The property is located at 650 Pleasant View Road. It's approximately 26,000 square feet. It's zoned
single family residential. Surrounding land use consists predominantly of single family homes. The site
currently contains a home and a two car garage. The entire area slopes to the south towards Lotus Lake. The
subject property is located in the Reichert's Addition, which consists of 9 lots along the north side of Pleasant
' View Road. Staff is unaware of any other variances that have been granted in this subdivision or in this
immediate area. Staff is recommending denial of the variance as the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship
that warrants the granting of a variance. Staff feels that if the request would be approved, that it create a
' standard that deviates from surrounding properties within this subdivision and the surrounding area. In addition
staff feels the applicant has a reasonable use of the property with the existing home and the 2 car garage. On
July 12th, or excuse me on June 12th, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing to consider
this variance. The board denied the variance appeal on a unanimous vote. The applicants however were not
present or represented by anyone at this meeting. The adjoining property owners located to the northwest, it'd
be 660 Pleasant View, were in attendance at the meeting and they did express some concern over the addition
for the fact that it may block a portion, or some of the view of the lake and they were also concerned with the
location of the garage addition in relation to the property line. Staff had pointed out that a survey would be
required showing the garage addition at the time of the building permit application. The neighbors were also
concerned with possible effects on drainage, seeing that their yard kind of slopes down to where the garage
' addition would be located. Just one other additional. We did receive a letter from the neighbors which would
actually be to the south and to the east. You received a copy of that letter earlier. It's from Kevin Benson
basically stating that they're in favor of the variance because of the parking situation out there. They don't want
to see the cars parked on the road. They'd prefer the applicant have some additional room in his yard in which
to park vehicles. And with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks John. Any questions that we have of John at this time?
' Councilman Berquist: They currently have a double garage and a 30 foot wide double wide driveway, right?
John Rask: Correct.
43
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1995
Councilman Berquist: How many cars are normally on the site? Three?
Teri Frederick: Well they have a mother and a father and then the son has a Jeep.
Councilman Berquist: The neighbor's encouraging the garage addition because with cars parked on Pleasant
View it blocks his view when apparently they drive onto Pleasant View, and with extra cars parked on the road,
this is an extra hazard to motorists. With 3 cars in the family and a visitor, that's 4 cars. And you've got a
double driveway and double garage... Anybody ever talked about, is it permissible to simply pave next to a
garage without a variance?
John Rask: Yes, that would be permittable.
Councilman Senn: Steve, at Board of Adjustments we talked about additional paving to the side. We also
talked about extending the garage back along the north side of the house with a tandem bay if they thought they
needed an extra bay and also an option of adding a bay effectively to the south rather than to the north property
line, all of which could be done without any variances and without affecting the property owner to the north,
which was our primary concern, you know given the proximity there.
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, 5 feet's pretty close.
Councilman Senn: So I mean we thought they were pretty much, there were other pretty viable options to
pursue and so that's why we denied it. That's pretty much in keeping with the same ... similar type of situation.
Councilman Berquist: I don't have any more questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike. Mark, you don't have any others?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: I'll make a motion to deny the variance request.
Roger Knutson: Based upon the findings set forth in the planning report?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Mason: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Berquist: Discussion? During the Board of Adjustments and Appeals when you were talking about
all these other alternates, the applicant is just all this, this is what we want to do?
Councilman Senn: The applicant wasn't even present so I mean it was real difficult.
Councilman Berquist: Are you the applicant?
44
\ NNESC T
o �b
' a
F
r Op Ta
June 7, 1995
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Robert Generous
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
PO Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55317
Dear Robert Generous:
SUBJECT: North Bay
Preliminary Plat Review P/95 -038
South of new TH 212 corridor, east of TH 101
Chanhassen, Carver County
CS 1017
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) has reviewed the North Bay
preliminary plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subd. 2, Plats. We find the
plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments.
• Mn /DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between
land use and highways. Residential land use adjacent to highways will usually result
in complaints about traffic noise.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has established noise standards and
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development also has guidelines. Traffic
noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by these agencies.
Since the MPCA has issued Indirect Source Permit #94 -3 for the proposed highway,
Mn /DOT will not be expend highway funds for noise mitigation measures for the
proposed development. The developer should assess the noise situation and take the
action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any traffic noise.
1
Attached is a copy of the proposed Trunk Highway 212 Official Map in the area of
the plat with elevations shown. A noise wall approximately 20 feet high will be
needed to protect the development. The mounding shown in the plans indicates
encroachment on the TH 212 corridor. It appears that the right of way width is
sufficient for about 8 feet of mounding. Questions may be directed to Ron Erickson,
predesign engineer, at 582 -1295. REC =EIVED
- - j
I An Equal Opportunity Employer C11 Y Ul
Robert Generous
June 7, 1995
Page two
• Drainage patterns and rates of runoff are currently away from the proposed TH 212
corridor. These drainage patterns and rates of runoff must be perpetuated. No
additional drainage will be allowed to the TH 212 corridor. Questions may be
directed to Mary Hondl of our Hydraulics Section at 797 -3040.
Sincerely,
Cyrus Knutson
` Transportation Planner
c: Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer
John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor
i
r
I i ,
I
cl
I 9
r g�
i ^� - �, II � , •. r ,�� - �, '��#
F ) f'�,�o h r.
f , - gy p.
11' 3
r ID
r
r
r v
r j•-
r �,
4 „':;.maNull
Orr fps
Schelen
August 4, 1995 me sso
Mr. Charles Folch, P.E.
Director of Public Works /City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
P. O. Box 147
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
�
00 Park Place E905
775 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis; lV o"w
612 -595 -5775
1- 800 - 753 -5775
FAX 595 -5774
Engineers
Architects
Planners
Surveyors
Re: Review of Preliminary Plat
Property ID No. 25- 0136300
Proposed Right -of -Way Design & and Utility Improvements
along Lyman Boulevard (Lake Riley Boulevard)
Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements: Phase II
City Project No. 93 -32B
OSM Project No. 5183.00
Dear Charles:
We have reviewed the preliminary grading plan and preliminary site and utility plan for the
above Adelman /Rottlund property as requested by Dave Hempel on July 26, and offer the
following comments as they relate to City Project No. 93 -32B:
The developer's proposed horizontal alignment (480 foot radius curve) of Lyman
Boulevard meets the minimum 35 mph design for the City's typical 3% roadway
crown. However, OSM's design for Lyman Boulevard is 35 mph minimum, with 40
mph being the desired speed. The developer's proposed centerline alignment is
located approximately 27 feet south of the currently proposed City project (see
attached preliminary plat).
2. The developer's proposed vertical alignment, as indicated on the preliminary grading
plan, does not reflect our proposed vertical alignment for Lake Riley Boulevard.
Our proposed profile indicates a low point located approximately 390 feet from the
westerly property line along the centerline of Lyman Boulevard.
3. We are assuming (without having the hydrology calculations) that the pond design
for Pond 20 took into account storm drainage from Lyman Boulevard. Elevations
on pond 20 are inconsistent with the given data. The storm sewer design along
Lyman Boulevard should be verified with the final design of Lyman Boulevard.
4. The eight inch watermain along the proposed interior dedicated City street should
be changed to a 12 -inch watermain. This change would be consistent with the City
of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Water Supply and Distribution Plan.
5. The sanitary sewer manhole invert elevation of 867.9, shown at Lyman Boulevard will
work with the preliminary design of the sanitary sewer along Lyman Boulevard. The
design of the sanitary sewer should be verified with the final design of Lyman
Boulevard.
H: \5193.00 \ CM L\ CO RR FS \ 0904 95. C F
Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Charles Folch, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Chanhassen
' August 4, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 595 -5699, or Wayne Houle at
' 595 -5736.
' Sincerely,
ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON
' & ASSOCIATES, INC.
aw'i � , LL
David D. Mitchell, PE
Project Manager
Enclosure w /attachments
' c: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, City of Chanhassen
Kate Aanenson, City Planner, City of Chanhassen
ce
wh /
Wayne Houle, OSM Project Engineer
'
1
I H: \5183.00 \CML \CORRES \08W95.CF
CITY OF
�BANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works fa
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Enginee
DATE: August 29, 1995
SUBJ: Transportation Needs for North Bay Preliminary Plat Review
Land Use Review File No. 95 -16
At the August 2, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the commissioners requested staff report
back to the City Council whether or not there are adequate transportation infrastructures in place
to meet the needs of this developing area.
During this past spring and summer, the City's consultant engineer, OSM, has been preparing the
plans for the Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction Project No. 93 -32B. This process included a
traffic projection analysis based on the existing and future land uses of the service area. The
current traffic volume for this road is 1,100 cars per day. The year 2015 traffic volume is
projected to be 2,800 cars per day. This count is similar to that currently being carried on
Audubon Road and Lake Drive. The design section of 38 feet wide for Lyman Boulevard is
based on this projected traffic value.
On August 28, 1995, the City Council approved the construction plans and authorized
advertisement for bids for the reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard from Trunk Highway 101 to
the east city limits, Project No. 93 -32B. This road improvement is anticipated to be completed
by the fall of 1996. The upgrade of Lyman Boulevard as well as future city /county road
improvements such as Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) and Trunk Highway 101 will
facilitate and provide adequate transportation infrastructure to support the proposed developments
as well as full development of the area.
ems
g leng \davelmemos\ traffic
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
2. The tIppllcant shall complete and resubmit the signed Wetland Conservation Act
' certificate of exemption.
3. The interim use permit shall expire on October 15, 1995. All disturbed areas as a result
of the filing shall be reseeded and mulched or employed in crops. The applicant shall
supply the City with a financial escrow in the amount of $2,500. to guarantee restoration
and compliance with conditions of this permit.
1 4
The applicant shall reimburse the City far all costs incurred for the enforcement of this
permit including engineering and attorney fees.
5. The applicant shall hold the City and it's officers and employees harmless from claims
made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from
permit approval or work done in conjunction with it. The applicant shall indemnify the
city and it's officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses that the city may
pay or incur in consequence with such claims, including attorney fees.
All voted in f wor wwd the motion carried. (Mike Meyer did not vote on this item.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL TO REZONE 22.4,
ACRES FROM R12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.57 ACRES INTO 79 LOTS,
3 OUTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 76,
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ZERO LOT LINE HOMES ON 19.64 ACRES; AND A,
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND IVETLAND SETBACK ON PROPERTY,
LOCATED ON LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY.,,
NORTH BAY, ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC.
Public P,lesent:
None
' Craig Schmidt
11
Address
William R. Engelhardt Associates
Bob Generous pivsented the staff repoit on this item.
Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Skubic: Yes, I have one. Bob, was the applicant able to retain the same number of units
with the revised plans from the original?
Generous: There were 75 originally so they picked up a unit.
Skubic: Thank you.
Mancino: Bob, on condition number 2 where you have Lot 57, Block 1 and Lot 21, Block 2
are unbuildable for dwelling units and must be maintained for common open space. They're
not on my plans so I assume that that's already been done.
Generous: \Fell they show them. It's the large open area on both blocks.
Mancino: Oh! That's what that means. I Botch ya.
Generous: All the land that's not platted for the dwellings and Lot 21 is the wetland and all
the common land on the south side.
Aanenson: If it was platted as a lot, it could be buildable so as long as it's in the outlot
status, it's non - buildable.
Generous: So they could either call it an outlot or plat it as a lot and in here specify that it's
undevelopable for dwellings.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: So somebody else doesn't it and try to build something on it.
Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Does the applicant or their designee
wish to approach the Planning Commission?
Don Jensen: Yes. Good evening. My name is Don Jensen. I'm the Land Development
Manager with the Rottlund Company, 2681 Round Lake Road, Roseville, MN 55113. We're
here tonight to bring back the development in it's revised form and we are pleased we've been
able to resolve most of the conditions that thy: Planning Commission and Council as well as
staff set forth for «s in the redesign effort. I have a number of graphics with me tonight that
you also have in your packets. The ones I have tonight are colored, versus the black lined
and reduced copies that you have. So I'd be happy to go through them as we speak tonight in
greater clarity or perhaps highlight those at issue for yourselves. I won't go through a
presentation as in full depth as I did that last time around but what we have tonight is we
Wo
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
1
have the overstory plan rendered, which is on the board here to my left, which highlights the
existing trees in the very dart: green towards Lake Riley and on the wetland. The balance is
our proposed landscaping plan. It shows all the dwellings units in the lighter color that you
see around each dwelling unit where all the shrub that we have as foundation planting plans
I for each dwelling unit. Central common space and entry monumentation. Additional plantings
are shown on this plan and then in your packet were highlighted on separate sheets. We also
have those at a larger scale, as were in your plans, submitted for review tonight. We have the
landscape plans, foundation planting detail renderings. We also have some improved
renderings of the buildings for the cottages. The furthest step in our RV if you will. So
we're able to show what those particular elevations look like in our final working drawings
step. The village homes, which are the smaller dwellings up through here, in terms of the
sizing on the ground. At least their footprint impact are still in the design development phase
and are unchanged from what we last brought before you. We have an improved buildings
and colors and pallet of materials. The board in front of you we've changed recently been
able to comply and improve our brick selection through a consolidation of one particular
supplier. We have those in front tonight as well. And we also have the architectural floor
plans again for your view at the large size tonight. And that's what we have. We'll go
through a couple of them as you wish. We would like to thank the staff for their support and
recommendation for approval. We do have a key difference, as we had at our previous
I application with the parks recommendation. We'll go over that in a little bit of detail. That
does involve the lakeshore and we would like to be able to describe that a little bit more. We
would like to recap that the Rottlund Company will be both the developer of this land and the
' builder, and that's a little bit different from oar relationship with the Mission Hills project and
we would like to be able to clarify and at least for the moment, provide a chance to say that
we can only do so much when you're the builder and the developer is obligated to do most of
the things on the site. Our previous project most recently in Chanhassen, Windmill Run,
which is a single family subdivision. We were both the developer and the builder and I think
that the concerns expressed by residents or the city staff were far less than those which had
been voiced here on the Mission Hills development, and I think that that goes to illustrate
what we can accomplish at the North Bay development. What we did accomplish at the
Windmill Run development. We'd like to again highlight what we believe the strengths of the
development are. We have a strong pedestrian circulation system. Based on the comments
when the Planning Commission at a previous meeting had approved and refined the design for
our central commons area is .65 acres in size. Throughout the center area we have a pathway
system that links it down to the Lake Riley Road east, as is recommended by staff. That has
a sidewalk. Again, it connects it all the way down to Lyman Boulevard and then as well to
the property to the east where there's a future park proposed at some place within the next
subdivision. That again connects to the trail system on Lyman so we've got the ability for all
of these folks in this neighborhood to circulate out literally without a car, walking and
I bicycling in a fairly safe environment. We have a, I might as well touch on that quickly. We
I 27
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
have an aerial, in case you're interesting in some context, we can pass that around... That was
shot very recently but shows all of the action going on next door at Bearpath, in Eden Prairie,
as well as Mission Hills and other locations. What we have going on within the central space
and on the grading plan it becomes a little bit clearer, there's really two tiers that are
accomplished. Each one of these dwelling units step up the hill, or in this case, down, left to
right, approximately a foot to a foot and a half. So what we've done is, as these buildings are
stepping down, as they're stepping down in this location, they continue to step down along the
street. The whole site, as you recall from our last presentation, has about 40 feet of change
from Lyman Boulevard as you go up towards the easterly boundary and to the, what we'll
Klingelhutz development. What we've able to do with the center space then is flatten out and
create more of a useful upper tier. This does not step down as fast as the buildings are and
what we've been able to provide then is a rid;;e and that's what these plantings are located on
so that cascades down and you have a situation unlike what you have outside of city hall.
Not quite as dramatic from your upper parking lot to your lower parking lot. That area then
defines what might be ... child's play area down below and the upper area that's larger is more
of a consolidated area for viewing or we view it as an adult opportunity. What we've shown
on this plan is that we surrounded the area with permanent planting beds so that we've got a
private space, public space. The public space as defined on these plans again was .65 acres,
so it's a fairly large piece of land for all the residents' use. And we've shown that there's an
opportunity that they can decide whether they like gardening. Whether they want to have
flowering gardens, active gardens, or if they just want it for open passive get togethers. It
could be big enough for volleyball games for example. Big enough for throwing frisbee.
And then down in through this snnaller area we've got an opportunity and to be able to
incorporate on site ... pea gravel and create a container. Once we really see what the mix is.
The real opportunity here is to let these folks design the space that they're going to have to
pay their insurance over and they're going to have to maintain and take care of based on their
mix. And so that's what we're providing in this particular enhanced plan. Our entry areas
down at the development's front doors and also on the waterfront area, we have increased
planting areas. We have a rock element which is very similar to our Mission Hills signs...
So that's located through the main entryway with Lyman Boulevard that's pulling back to
make sure that we've got the appropriate sight visibility. Immediately to the west of that our
detention facilities begin. Likewise there are enhanced plantings at North Bay Drive, as we
go into the neighborhood of village homes. Out onto thy; lakefront area and this is what we
were discussinng with staff. Clarifications as to what is going on. This particular area on your
plan you have a proposed outlot to the east and what we were discussing with staff is
improving the existing gravel access road that's being used today. Staff informs us if you
improve it, it becomes a new use and it can't be there but if you just have a curb cut and
leave it gravel, it's an existing non- conforming use and it can stay so, there will be a curb cut.
This improvement as it's shown here won't occur so that the access is still preserved as an
existing non - conforming use. What we were showing here, we were asked to show what
28
' Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
could happen down there at the beacllfront. The possibility of a small shelter for the residents
who have the lakefront rights and the lakefront docking rights. The design of that and the
ability to actually construct something is subject to further review and that's the reason that it
was as a lot. Staff has suggested that that remain an outlot until it is solved and that would
' be fine. The third outlot that is shown farther to the west was described as requested by the
parks commission as the possibility for a public park area. We're not interested in having the
development pay full park fees and be required to dedicate as private park for public purposes
and not be reasonably compensated. That's a separate issue and we think that that's, it
certainly doesn't get at trying to provide affordability. You're in essence paying
approximately 1.75 times the going park rate when you're doing that particular action. The
' PUD status, as we understand, we're creating a neighborhood such as this, is a mandatory
category designation for the city of Chanhassen. It's not optional as some of the parks
commissioners may have thought. So we have a separat! issue. We understand when we
' make our point known that it's an issue with the Council and it's not really something the
Planning Commission... in any great detail tonight and we'll leave it at that. On the
landscaping plan, what you see and really as the neighborhood becomes completed, represents
' a little over 3.1 new trees, whether they're ornamental, evergreen, or street tree categories, per
dwelling unit. And a representative plan ... on the plans that we've submitted approximately 30
shrubs and perennials... that's a substantial investment in the quality of this particular
' neighborhood, we think in comparison to ... this city or any in the western suburbs. Another
issue that the Planning Commission had asked us to address the last time is what can we do
to reasonably assure that there's sonic interesting looking facades and that there's some
differences in building materials. Differences in building colors. What we've submitted to
staff and what we have here tonight are sonic improved building plans where we've got some
different roof lines going on from what was previously submitted. We're breaking that up.
' We're adding some dormers. We're adding some greater eaves. It doesn't show up
necessarily as well in this stage or at this size but you have a longer and greater overhang
over the garages. You have a break -up of what's occurring over into the garage, in some
' cases it doesn't extend over the entire garage. We did have a chance on the site plan to turn
several garages as we had in the previous concept stage so that not all of the views are the
same from the street and that helps to minimize the concern about the garage door. You can
r see on the board below me, and I don't know if, I'll move it up so the camera at home.
You'll notice this is sturdy metal here. What I have on the upper right hand corner of the
board are all of the current accent colors that we have. I'll put the other board down below.
That's consistent with what we have on the front doors and on all the shutters which is similar
to what we've done in Mission Hills development and we have a few more shutters
throughout this particular plan. We have a series of three different brick colors. We have a
common thread of a singular roofing product for the 76 dwelling units. And then what you
see is the second color and then a faux cedar shake that goes typically above the garage
elevation so we can adapt the roof line above the garage door. You have this particular
' 29
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
garage so you can get different... through here. Similar to single family subdivisions. The
architectural control over this neighborhood would be, you can't have the same color
immediately adjacent to any given lot, which means if you've got this color on one side of the
street, you can't have it immediately next door or immediately across the street. It could be
angular and so it can go in a triangulated pattern or it could be missing and you would have a
different pattern showing up. We think with the modest changes in the elevations and in the
building next to you, if you've got 26 of the cottages, which is this particular building. And
then we have approximately 50 of the village homes. Those again have slightly different
elevations and the color path really gives you the assurance that you're not going to have
sameness. And that you have a really good variety of building patterns going on.
Mancino: Don, right now on Mission Hills you use the same brick everywhere, from what I
could, as I drove around.
Don Jensen: That's correct.
Mancino: Okay. Aiid tills would be the three different.
Don Jensen: Correct. They have the different accent colors. Minimum of two per
subdivision, and then we also had I believe two different building colors, none of which were
the same so there's actually four different accent colors, if my memory serves me correct.
With that we did get a chance to meet with staff and go over the conditions of approval. Bob
highlighted—There were a couple of minor issues with engineering that were also something
that we wanted to touch on and just make sure we understood out of the meeting where we
were headed. And those conditions are 21, 25, 27(f) and 31, 32, and 33 we've already
touched on a little bit. Our issues with those particular conditions are, with number 21 we
had discussed with staff that at the final plat time, the amount of developable acreage is
determined and that this condition merely represents a cap number. And so the 47,808, if the
plan ... what we are asking is that recognition be granted. That number of that could drop. If
line up changes or some other things change in how we calculate things, we just want to be
able to check the math and staff was comfortable with that this afternoon and we just wanted
to double check that tills evening. Regarding condition number 25. This was something we
did not discuss this afternoon and adding the possibility of adding two words. Final plat
approval shall be contingent upon the Council awarding the bid for the first phase of the
Lyman Boulevard /Lake Riley Area Trunk Improvement project. We've understood with staff
that a utility portion and not the actual bituminous street portion would be on the docket for
this fall. And you really can't build a street from there anyway so that's why they're intended
that way but we would presume that that condition would apply if a partial ordering of the
project.
30
i Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
1
Mancino: Excuse me, Dave does that meet with your approval?
Hempel: Yes, that amendment would be acceptable.
Don Jensen: Item number 27(f) we also went over with staff and 27(f) as it stands says
revise grading plan to have the rear lots drain through to the front yard. Because these are
slab on grade products we, at the moment have designed the grading plan with the high point
as a front door entry and that it pitches back. Front door entry is typically behind the garage.
...building plan here. This is the landscaping plan but for example our garage is located up
front. Our front door entry then is approximately 20 feet back from the garage, set back from
the roadway. That means we're going to have about 40 feet back. Then there's an additional,
approximately 25 to 35 feet, depending on the product that's selected for the front or the back
of the building and then Out in the back yard. We're trying to make sure that we don't have a
problem with...lteat, which is a real popular mode of heating. Slab on grade structures these
days where the heat ducts are in the slab or just below the slab. We're not convinced yet of
trying to move all the water from the back through to the front would create either a desirable
grading situation in the front or if you have the narrower distance between structures. Or that
it would really solve Our problem with water. What we agreed with staff today is that we
would worn: with them to arrive at a satisfactory solution for the fine grading, as it dealt with
those lots 4, through 31, Block 1. And that wasn't mentioned today, or at least this evening
so presumably that's, I mean that's a very fine detail issue. I'm just uncomfortable agreeing to
push the water all the way through to the front at this time. I don't want to appear that we're
not doing what staff has asked for. Item number 31. We also agreed with staff this afternoon
that we would arrive at some acceptable language regarding the waiver of procedural or what
they would call minor substantive objections to the assessments as they occur. This issue
deals, and it's our understanding with whether or not the title company will withhold for
pending assessments and how do you really warrant or guarantee that we convey this home or
any given home in this particular development, that they're going to get the proper legal
notification when the city actually comes to the hearing for the Lyman Boulevard project. So
we understand their issue and we don't really object to what they're trying to accomplish but
right now the way this condition is worded, it says we're going to give up a lot of rights and
we just want to be able to be comfortable with what that says so, in principle we're
comfortable with the condition. We just want to revise the language so it will go forward
kind of gray. 32 and 33 we already discussed. Dealing with parks and we just want to be
able to accomplish a reasonable neigliborhood that provides really very little up for
maintenance for the residents. We'd like them to be in full control of what their immediate
outdoor surroundings are and we're wanting the lakefront to be, at a minimum, for their use
and really concerned a point of the public that the residents that are going to be living here
get their full dock slip rights as they are entitled to by the amount of frontage of lakeshore
that we currently have in this particular property. That's at least 5, if not 6 overnight dock
31
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
slips based on the front footage on the lake so that's a minor issue and again that's for the
Council. OUtSlde of that, all of these 36 conditions, many are standard. We're very
comfortable with and we'd like to thank the staff for the diligence on this plan. In working
with us. We're looking forward to getting it approved so we can wait and see that the project
for Lyman Boulevard is awarded this fall. If there's any questions that you have about the
building product, about how we redesigned the development and what we are trying to
accomplish here, I'd be happy to answer your questions. I don't know that there's a
representative from the adjacent property to the... There is from Lakeview Hills Apartments.
I don't know that there's a representative here. We have had discussions with them. They
have had discussions with staff regarding a pending plat but they are comfortable, and spoken
so at the Council meeting in the past about having a single right -of -way for public access on
the east side of the property so this plan in fact can be accomplished. We do not have a
hostile situation occurring for access purposes. And we're also working with staff on the road
alignment for Lake Riley Boulevard. There was a concern, and I'll close with this, that staff
would like Lake Riley moved back to it's original location. This is a compromise location
which met the design guidelines. What we're not clear on is when that mooshing and
smooshing of that final design occurs, there's the possibility that this dwelling unit, if it were
to stay exactly as computed here, might be 45 feet away from the right -of -way line as it
might be versus the 50 feet that we have today. We wanted to breach that subject now is that
this is not reasonable if we're clipping a small corner of this building, that it could be allowed
to remain at a 45 distance away from right -of -way. There's really no other impacts around it
other than the lakeshore so that the dwelling unit would be able to preserve. That's all that I
have at the moment.
Mancino: Thant: you. Any questions at this point? We may have some later but thank you
very much.
Don Jensen: Thant: you.
Mancino: May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing?
Peterson moved, Slwbic seconded to open the public hewing. The public heming was
opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission, please come up now. State your name and your address.
Craig Schmidt: Good evening Madam Chairman, members of the commission. My name is
Craig Schmidt. I'm a civil engineer with William R. Engelhardt Associates, 1107 Hazeltine
Boulevard in Chaska. I'm here tonight representing John Klingelhutz. He's the property
32
Planning Corillllission Meeting - August 16, 1995
1
owner to the west of tills development. Mr. Klingelhutz is out of town. He asked me to
come and go over a couple of issues lie has regarding this plat. As a brief introduce, back in
September of 1992, John Klingelhutz received preliminary plat approval for 68 lot residential
development known as Lake Riley Hills. In March of this year Mr. Klingelhutz that approval
of his plat had expired and it was no longer valid. As a result of this, two major changes
would have to occur oil tills plat. First was a development of a 5 acre neighborhood park on
his parcel. And the second was a realignment of Lyman Boulevard. Since that time we've
been in the process of developing new plans for Mr. Klingelhutz. At this time what Mr.
Klingelhutz is requesting is that a portion of the land required for the, that would be required
by the Rottlund development for pare: dedication, be dedicated in the northeast corner of their
development. And that in the future then, Mr. Klingelhutz will dedicate the remaining land to
equal the 5 acre lot requirement. Thus, developing a neighborhood park which would serve
both of these developments. That's what he would really like to see happen but he has agreed
to a conlpronlise if you will. He would like to see Lake Riley Road, as it comes into his plat.
Relocated approximately 170 feet south of it's current location. If that were to occur, that
would enable him to more easily fit file 5 acre park in this portion of the development. Of
his development and so.
Mancino: So it WOUld be contiguous there?
Craig Schmidt: So it would be contiguous. And that's really all the concerns that he has. I
took a look at the Rottlund plan, based oil that realignment and what would occur would be,
based on my initial loot: was actually the addition of two units. 8 large units would be
eliminated and 4 would be put back and also 6 of the smaller units so there'd actually be a 2
unit increase, or a possible. One other thing that that could do would be to increase the
overall area of this townhorne space as this would be realigned.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. And I guess how we'd like to, Bob how would you like to deal
I with that?
Aanenson: Well lie's kind of caught up at a loss because right now we're just responding to
I this plan. The departure, you know the recommendation would really have to come from the
Park and Rec Department. They loot: at each plat individually. Now I'm not sure if he's
talked to Todd about that but the recommendation for the park issue and the compensation
obviously has to be worked through, actually through that whole process. And to now to say
well that's how we're going to proceed, the Park Commission's already given their
recommendation on this plat. It's kind of an I Ith hour sort of thing. We have no chance to
respond and Todd's not here to respond on that so I guess we have to respond to this at this
point and then take it up at the Council as a suggestion. We can certainly do that.
i
I 33
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Craig Schmidt: That, if I could just as a moment. That portion of it was kind of his
Opt1111U111 case. I mean that's what he would like to see because he really feels that that park
is intended to serve a wider area than just his development and he has a similar piece of
property in that there's a lot of wetlands and so forth and a lot of steep slopes that are
difficult to use so. Actually he has much less density allowable in his parcel. What he really
wants to see happen most of all would be the realignment of that street and we think that that
can be accomplished relatively simply and wouldn't really decrease the number of units that
are Out there.
Aanenson: Again, the Park and Recreation Commission looks at you know access and where.
As Mr. Jensen's indicated, he already feels like he's being punitively punished to have public
parks so he's already feeling like he's already being asked to donate public property so to say
the first recommendation, to give additional, I'm not sure—because they've already asked for
public. And as far as relocating it in that area, I think certainly that's something that would
have to be the recommendation from the Park Commission before this went to Council.
Mancino: So you would suggest that Mr. Schmidt should call Todd?
Aanellson: Certainly.
Mancino: Okay, and discuss that with him. And then I think at that point you might want to
tall: with Kate and Bob and also Rottlund.
Craig Schmidt: I apologize for the lateness of it. I wasn't made aware of it until late
Monday. I was unable to get a hold of Mr. Jensen.
Mancino: Well we appreciate your coming. Anyone else like to address the Planning
Commission? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Aleye►• moved, PeteiNon seconded to close the public hewin The public hewing was closed.
Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Mike.
Meyer: I don't think I really have anything in particular to say. It's a lot to take in. Overall
I like the plan as set forth. Really nothing in particular at this point.
Mancino: Okay, Craig.
Peterson: I think the staff certainly did a thorough job after spending an hour and a half
reading the documentation involved. I think that it does go a long way in addressing the
34
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
issues of a project the size of this. Not having been here for the preliminary review, it seems
' as though the Issues that were addressed then have been duly noted and realigned to address
those needs so in looking at it generally, I think it is a development that does have some
creativity and is, I think they've strived to ►hake it a little bit more unique and different than
some of tine typical ones you may see so other than the issue that was just brought up that
raises concern, I would like to get your feedback at least on that. Your initial one regarding
the changing of the road as it stands, for my own edification if nothing else.
Don Jensen: Okay. I just wanted to make sure you didn't have any additional questions.
Staff made us aware of this possibility that this would come up this evening. We have been
working with staff for this alignment and that was based on the previous plat. Presume that
that circulation system would occur. What staff asked us if you can have known that loss in
dwelling units and you can make this road work down here at the time of the final plat, if
you can do that, and we at this time don't see a reason why not. Now that doesn't necessarily
mean that there might not be some other issue that won't show up and create some practical
difficulty. And I g uess what we would say right now is we'd like this approved as is with the
t understanding that as with all projects, things possibly change as it goes to final plat and if
there were a change, that would be viewed as being a substantial conformance to the
preliminary plat. We're not at all interested in giving up more land through here for public
' park purpose. We ... full park dedication fees were being used to develop and /or acquire
parkland and that the provision of the lakeshore was a reasonable amount of private park. So
I think staff, as well as yourselves, understand where we're headed. That that would be a
r departure for us and this given plan and would certainly change some of the economics. So I
guess that's our, initially we don't believe that it would have any significant impacts to the
wetlands area down through here. There was some concern probably in this area so when we
start to plat ... the road too far back, we start to push these buildings towards the wetland areas
that we worked so hard to stay away from. There is a concern about setback against the
' adjacent property... And if there's a change in the ... single level rambler style plans. We start
to drop a little too many of those, It starts to become a little bit difficult to have enough to
really improve the market to a certain price and that's really the goal is to be able to
accomplish that. So ... answer your question here. We're open to it but I guess we're pretty far
' along right now. We've spent a lot of time and energy and it would be the second phase of
utilities. There is no work that would happen on this until spring, in all likelihood and so the
ability to make a second phase adjustment is feasible.
Conrad: Will you plan your road into the development to the west? No? You structured this
to tie into a plan that had been previously approved I assume.
Don Jensen. That is correct. Although it's expired, it certainly was a previous approval with
an alignment that made an original amount of sense.
1 35
L
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Peterson: No other questions.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: I like it. It's a novel plan to the city. It has a number of benefits. It offers lower
priced housing and it's a good buffer between different land uses. And I'm anxious to see
these issues be worked out. Nothing else.
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: For staff, a quick comment. Tell me, 32 and 33. Payment of park, I did see the
Park and Rec report but it says full payment, payment of full park and trail fees. And then
dedication of OUtlot C. Is that, how come it's both? Is that because this is a PUD?
Aanenson: That's the position the Park Commission is taking. And they similarly took that
one on Autwnn Ridge. That because it's a PUD, they felt that in order to get the PUD they
Should be given something for that. I guess the Planning staffs proposal was, it could have
been higher density but we liked this product. It's a different nitch. We didn't take that kind,
we felt that preserving the open space really was the issue. Similarly we did look at the
conditional use, as Bob pointed out in his staff report. Until this issue is resolved, they really
can't go forward with the conditional use. They don't know how much frontage they have at
this point so that's a separate issue. That's still going to have to come back before you.
Conrad. So say it again. Staffs position, your, the planning position.
Aanenson: We felt, the only way lie can accomplish this, as Mr. Jensen indicated, to do this
zero lot line is a PUD. In the zoning that's in place right now, you can't do this type of
product so lie's forced in order to do this project, which we support, it could be a lot of other
things. We support this type of product as far as the housing type and nitch. We support the
PUD. But the Park Commission is saying that now that you're doing a PUD, therefore you're
obligated to give something up. It's an issue. We don't want to split the departments. It's an
issue that the City Council is going to have to address. There's certainly some substantial
issues...
Conrad: This is a neat project.
Don Jensen: Thank you.
Conrad: It brings a, and I really don't have any. I have nothing further to add other than the
recommendations already been made before me but, here we go again. It's taking a high
36
Planning Colllllllssloll Meeting - August 16, 1995
' � g> though this is kind of dense. It's down 1
density and now we d ZOnlll�, ul essence. Even t o
' zoning. It is. And I tell you, we'll get burned and we've got to force the issue. We've got to
force it fast with the City Council because the neat thing about what we've done, regardless of
how hostile the residents get when they come in here, we have forecasts where we're going.
We have forecasts before they moved in what was going to be there after they built. We
continue to tall: about high density. \Ale continue to talk about this but it's really comfortable
to eat it up. I really like tills. I think this should be in here but the issue is our's and the
' issue is every time We start down zoning, we'd better challenge somebody. That's probably
the city staff, to say what are we going about tills because we just ate up more high density
and we're going to have a real tough time putting it anyplace else because people are already
there and they don't want it and we will back down. So again the challenge is to figure that
out right now. Every time we do something like this, I think we really, it's just so easy to let
it slide and wait for the neat 3 or 4 plans to come in, in two weeks and just sort of take a
' look at it but I think we really have to challenge what we're doing in terms of the zoning
impact of \what we're doing with the planning impact. So again, this looks real good. Like it.
I think you guys \viii figure the few problems out. But in terms of where we go, I think we
have some work to do in terms of how we manage our zoning.
Mancino: Well you know, I was thinking about that too and I thought this is a different
housing type. We don't have.
Conrad: Oh absolutely.
Mancino: It's, the other part about it is it goes from the high density, the apartments and it's
going to transition nicely into single family, which is on the west of it and I like to see a
transition. And 1 think people feel much better, more comfortable with it. At least those who
come to the Planning Commission meetings do. So I like it. I think it's a different product
and I think because of that, and where it's located, I like the amenities.
Conrad: But what are you going to do Madarn Chairman? What do you want us to do in
terms of other high density in the area? We have not forecast in our comprehensive plan that
many high density areas in this city and we love to give them up. And so they're being
chewed up and we don't, we're not going to find other places for them unless we put them
down in the south. So the challenge there is to challenge ourselves. Everytime we do this, I
think immediately we have to say, do we need the high density in town. Do we need, you
know what was the last one where we went single family instead of commercial? Well we
haven't done that yet.
Mancino: But it was tabled.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Conrad: Yeah. But again that's, and it's not that changing the direction is bad. It's just that
we, something has to, we can't wait for the next comprehensive plan update in 5 years. We
can't, because it will be too late. We won't have the opportunity to rethink where those,
where that retail space is going to come from or where that high density space is going to
conic from because we won't be able to defend our position against the residents.
Mancino: Do we have land that we're going to be looking at, study areas along 212 that we
haven't designed yet?
Aanenson: Yes. We're working on that right now that might be high density but Ladd's
right. He brings up an issue that if you loot: at what the Park Commission is, we're kind of
digressing here but what the Park Commission is doing in their study and you look at what
land's available, you're right. There's not a lot. What it means is the density that we've taken
away from Under, coming in under the zoning would be a significant increase in some of
those areas that are vacant.
Mancino: Where else do have high density? We have it on Highway 5. We have it
designated for the Eckankar, part of the Eckankar property.
Aanenson: \Vliich will probably never be. May never be built on.
Generous: \Ward property.
Aanenson: Yeah, and the Ward property.
Mancino: And the Ward property, and that's it at this point. And then we also have it
designated as some mixed use areas.
Aanenson: Correct. The one at Mission Hills. I think that's where we'll probably see some
of that. In the pods around the 212, 101 area. And similar, the new 212 and the existing,
169/212.
Conrad: But if you don't replace it right away, it's going to be real tough to talk to the
residents who moved in there before this goes in, and we won't do it. Not that we have to
have it. It's just that I think we need some hind of a system to make sure that we challenge
the planning staff to tell us if we need it and. If we need it. If we need more high density
because in their wisdom they're knowing where the city's going.
Aanenson: I think the Met Council says we do.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Conrad: How important it is to have affordable housing
Mancino: I like the project. I have a, I want to tell you what I like Don and what, some
concerns that I have and that was, I was here for the preliminary when we saw the
conceptual. One of the things that we were concerned about were the common areas and the
access to it and 1 think you've done a good job on getting access to those. The only one that
I would like to see included would be, and I don't know how you include it because you've
' got a lot going on there, but between in Block 1 between Lot 56 and 32, it certainly doesn't
have to be a trail that connects up to the other trail but I would like to see some sort of
pedestrian access there so that the people who live in Block 2, can come in through that
southern way and get to that common area in the middle. Have an accessway...
Don Jenson: If 1 could respond to that. I'll hold up another drawing here. If you look at the
regular plan, there is an access off of Lake Riley Road a little bit farther to the west. One of
the two lines that are drawn through here indicate overland drainage, which is in fact storm
sewers that are back there get plugged or covered with leaves, those types of things, that
there's some overflow that have to ... two structures. Now, in the summertime people certainly
can wall: through there with the opening on the grass without a pathway for access purposes
into this zone, and in the wintertime they'll be able to come overland through snow just as
they would on a regular pathway. ...sort of fit all of those elements in there. Here we
provide another access to these dwelling units farther to the east. If we can accomplish it, I'm
pretty sure that we'll put a spur in but I want to be sure that the detailing engineering gets
worked out so I can fit all those things. Have a drainage Swale and a retaining wall and a
sidewalk and trying to provide that defensible space that we're shooting for behind each home
before we get to that private area.
Mancino: \Veil I would like to put it in a condition to see if the applicant and staff can work
with putting something in there. Some sort of an access and as I said, it doesn't have to
connect up to any of the other trails that you did put in but it's just some sort of an opening
so people know they can access it that way. You don't have to cut through people's yards or
in between houses. The other, the second comments that were made were on architectural
features and I think you did a very good, excellent job on showing to us on sheet 3 and sheet
4 the different facades for the cottage. The one story and the two story. I would like to
change the reconurlendation 34 to be a just a little more specific and say that prior to final
plat approval, the applicant shall work with staff to develop a project design plan which
specifies how the variation in architectural details incorporating the seven building elevations
shown on Sheets A3 and A4 of the plans prepared by Winton Associates Inc, as well as the
variation of building material as shown to the Planning Commission on 8 -16 are to be
accomplished. 1 don't think you have any concerns with that.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Don Jensen: No. \\ /hat we're really doing is just reviewing the covenants that we have and
the architectural control and the color of materials.
Mancino: Good. My only, I have two other concerns and one of them is a much broader
concern for the, for Dave and engineering. Is the level of, do we have adequate infrastructure
in the area? As 1 drove over there, got on Lyman and I stopped at TH 101 and the way TH
101 is and trying to negotiate going forward on Lyman east coming from Galpin. There's a
lot of traffic, at about 5:30 and you just stopped and waited. And by the time this
development goes in, if it goes in next spring, you're going to have another 200 cars trying to
get on TH 101. TH 101 is a mess right now. It just seems to me that are we building up too
quickly for our infrastructure and our service level? And when will TH 101 be upgraded and
all those things because it's extremely frustrating now. There isn't a light at that jog and I'm
concerned for public safety there. In that whole area.
Hempel Very valid points Madam Chair. I'll just give you an update of what's occurring
down in that end of town. With this Lyman Boulevard utility project, we will be upgrading
Lyman Boulevard to 36 foot wide at least, if not maybe even wider. That is designated as a
collector street on the city's comprehensive plan. It should be completed in the fall of '96 to
help transportation needs in this area. We do anticipate other developments occurring here as
well as the Roltiund North Bay development. John Klingelhutz' parcel will be back in before
YOU I'm sure with a development proposal. Lundgren also has a preliminary plat approval on
the south side of Lyman Boulevard, just west of Lake Riley with quite a few homes there as
well. So with the Lyman Boulevard upgrade, that will go out to TH 101. From that part on,
the rest of Lyman Boulevard is a county road and under the jurisdiction of Carver County. I
do believe that they have in their capital improvement program in the next few years to
upgrade that section of roadway as well. On through Powers Boulevard down to Audubon
Road. The city will be upgrading Powers Boulevard next year to 4 lane divided highway
from Lyman Boulevard up to Trunk Highway 5 which would be an avenue for the
transportation from tills area to take should TH 101 not be satisfactory, or at least a second
alternative. Unfortunately roads, the way we're growing in the community here, our collector
roads may be slightly behind development needs but they are on our 5 year capital
improvement program, as far as upgrading our major collector streets in concert with the
county road. Trunk Highway 101 011 the other hand is under the jurisdiction of MnDot. It's,
I think still this week classified as a temporary trunk highway, which means that.
Mancino: It's not permanent yet.
Hempel: Not yet, but there is talks of turn backs to the county and /or city for their
upgrading. As you nnight have noticed out there it's been recently overlayed. It's real nice
this year. And next year after the spring thaw, it will probably be broke up again but. We
.11
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
have no plans for upgrading that section of TH 101. Not at least until the TH 212 corridor
would come through and that would be part of the MnDot interchange. There is some talk of
upgrading TH 101 up further to the north on the Mission Hills subdivision. From there up to
what's been currently upgraded by the Rosemount facility and just south of TH 5, to make
' that all 4 lane. That will probably be occurring in the next 3 years. So there are some plans
for roadway improvements out there. I guess not being a traffic engineer, I couldn't give you
a concrete answer that yes, the current road situation out there will be adequate handled but I
suspect with the proposed improvements coming on line in the next few years, that there
would be adequate level of service for the proposed developments.
Mancino: You didn't say anything about a light or anything.
Hempel: The traffic signals and four way stops, they're all require traffic levels to be a
certain level to meet warrants to bring on those types of safety improvements.
Mancino: I have not been able to turn off of Galpin onto Highway 5 for two years now.
Hempel: You may after this weekend.
' Mancino: It tool: an elementary school to do it.
Don Jensen: Madam Chair, if I might get a chance to respond quickly what my traffic
engineers have. The requirement of Chanhassen to have roads in place prior to getting
building pernuts restricts to a great degree the true ability for a neighborhood to be absorbed
prior to the traffic improvements that are there to be served. With the Lyman Boulevard
project being a pre - requisite for final plat of Lundgren and Klingelhutz, Rottlund, you're really
saying that all of the collector roads in Chanhassen will in fact be in place to places where
they have jurisdiction. What only gets left out is that we look at this as a tree area, as do the
people that live there ... There is a secondary access that's recently being improved and there's
just a very short lint: left in Eden Prairie and that's Lake Riley Boulevard as it goes ... Bearpath
just to the east and that's all in place. Dell Road is all in place. I mean you have ... just on
the border of Chanhassen and certainly a fair amount of these people are going to work in
Eden Prairie or possibly even in Chaska so we balance... and try to find housing opportunities
' where the jobs are. We're also looking to make sure the infrastructure exists not only in
Chanhassen but surrounding areas...
Mancino: I understand. I would still like part of this to be reviewed by City Council so that
they have some sort of report on the infrastructure and the service area and what it will be
like. Because I think it's, I'm not thinking about development at all. I'm thinking about
' public safety for our community. My last concern is, I'd like to hear from other
1 41
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
commissioners on it a little bit, is that on the front page of the proposal it talks about that the
applicant is proposing a standard setback of 20 feet from Lake Riley Road East and North
Bay Drive. The standard is a 30 foot setback and the reason why they're asking, and I
understand is to save the trees and the wetlands, etc. My just very practical concern, and
question that I have and I'd just like to hear some discussion is, 20 feet from the garage to the
street. Now when I went out to Mission Hills and I measured from the apron of the garage to
the street curb was 23 feet and those were pretty close to the street and I measured my car.
My car is like 17 feet. So I am somewhat concerned about, and every one of these
developments, the villa developments, there are cars in the driveway. I hardly went by one
where there wasn't a car parked in the driveway. So again I have a little bit of a safety
concern about people getting out of their front door. Walking around to the garage and
getting into the car, etc and having to go into the street. And I understand the environmental
side of it too but I have some dust very practical concerns and I don't have a station wagon. I
don't have a big camper so 20 feet is, I just want to tell you is very, very little space. Bob do
you, I don't know if you want to continent on that or anyone else.
Generous: 1 \'ell just a quick one. Within the property that are fronting on the public right -
of -way there's actually another 14 or 15 feet before the edge of pavement.
Mancino: But on that private drive, on North Bay Drive. That's where it's 20 feet.
Generous: That will be 20 feet, yes.
Mancino: And there are 50 houses on that. Right? And I'm looking at that right so you
have 2/3 of the houses at 20 feet. Very close to the street. I didn't see, yes I did. I did see
in the villa development off of Dell Road. They had for each set of, I think it was 12, they
had 4 or 5 extra parking spaces that were kind of segregated, and there were you know a
couple boats there. So I just, I don't know how to deal with it. But it is a concern I have.
Any discussion?
Peterson: "'ell you're presenting something that doesn't have a lot of options. We're dealing
with a wetland issue. That's obviously one of them is get rid of the wetlands but that's not an
option.
Mancino: Bob, what is the buffer right now in the wetlands? I mean is there a way.
Generous: What is the buffer? Do you mean what the code requires?
Mancino: Yeah.
W
t Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Generous: lt's a 10 foot average. 0 to 20 feet.
Mancino: And that's what we've got right now?
Generous: Yes.
Don Jensen: Plus the 40 foot setback.
Generous: Plus the 40 foot setback. From your edge of your buffer.
' Don Jensen: Madani Chair If I Could comment.
Mancino: No ... Any comments?
Meyer: I think it is a valid concern. I haven't given it a lot of thought. I'll go measure my
truck.
Peterson: Well I totally agree. I lived in an area that was about probably 20 feet and getting
something out of my trunk of my car, I was going over the edge of the, going onto the road
L regularly. But I didn't park right up against the front of the garage.
Mancino: Don.
Don Jensen: In comparing this to Nlission Hills, which you gave as an example. Two key
differences occur. One of which is the Mission Hills development has many buildings located
r 90 degrees or perpendicular to the roadway. And we tried throughout this plan to have most
of the buildings skewed so the 20 foot setback really runs to the angle point of the front of
the structure. Given that you've got at least 18 inches to possibly 2 feet of a kind of wall
f return before the door, you are picking up a couple of extra feet of true driveway dimension if
this structure is positioned at the minimum setback. The minimum setback is what allows us
to at least design that already fits. So from a pure dimensional standpoint, throughout a lot of
these dwelling units the way they're positioned on the preliminary plat, we have an angle
which means that we've got a long side and short side but that the setback is to the front of
the structure. Not necessarily in front of the garage door, which means you've got a little bit
more room to wall: if it's at the 20 foot setback. And a little bit more room for a vehicle to
occur. Now that's the villa dwelling unit, as Bob pointed out. All of the dwelling units on
Lake Riley Road East are angled even more severely. They're at 30 degree angles so you're
picking up an additional long side, short side with the setback is to the front of the structure.
Plus you have a public right -of -way distance. Then a key difference between what's going on
at the Mission Hills development and the villa neighborhood in here are the street width and
1 43
Planning Commission Meetrng - August 16, 1995
the quantity of two cars versus one car garages. You have one car garages... marketplace.
You have a higher likelihood that you might have one in and one out if you have two
occupants. You're going to see a few more. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's a traffic
problem. It just means you might see a few more cars and... Most of the roadway is in
private driveways that are within the Mission Hills development are approximately 24 feet
back to back or... In this case what we have is a road that is throughout the development is
a ... allowing parking on one side which means that there's a greater distance for circulation and
a greater distance for public safety. So hopefully that helps. And as a final follow -up, all of
these dwelling units have 2 car garages enclosed as well as 2 spaces out so you've got places
for people to get inside of their home without really having an impact on either the public or
private streets out through here.
Mancino: I'm not convinced. I would like staff to work with the applicant and maybe even
look at the setbacl: on the east property line and on the north property line. I see right now
they're 35 feet and 50 feet and maybe there could be some giving there to pick up another 10
feet. And I'd like you to maybe present both ways to the City Council. Because I did find
that whether it was a 2 car or I car garage, there were still cars in the driveway, in every
single place so I WOUld like the City Council to look at that and put that in as a condition. I
think that's it on my concerns and I think it's a good project. I'd like to entertain a motion.
Meyer: I will make a motion, with a little help. I make a motion that the Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council grant preliminary plat approval for PUD #95-
1 for preliminary planned unit development approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R -12, high
density residential to PUD, planned unit development. Preliminary plat to subdivide 52.1
acres into 78 lots, 4 outlots and associated right -of -way. Site Plan review for 76 single family
detached zero lot line homes on 19.95 acres. A variance for wetland setbacks for Lots 12
thru 16, Block 1 and Lots 16 thrU 19, Block 2 to permit the house placement as shown on the
plans and a wetland alteration permit for North Bay plans dated 4/17/95, revised 5/4/95 and
7/17/95. Prepared by Pioneer Engineering, subject to the following conditions 1 thru 36.
There a number of revisions that need to be. Deleting number 6. Changing, revising number
29 to replacing temporary cul -de -sac to temporary barricade. Revising number 27(f).
Aanenson: No, that was the applicants. I think if you wanted something, they just want to
be able to work with staff to revise the grading plans. Similarly that would be with 31.
Work with staff on that.
Mancino: Work with staff to resolve the language.
Meyer: Okay, so if we make the.
44
Planning Commission N - August 16, 1995
Q
Mancino: And I think on 25 the applicant also wanted to make sure that the awardin o f bid
was for the first phase. To insert that. Of the Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley.
Peterson: And on number 21.
Mancino: The applicant wanted to make sure that on 21, that the amount charged was for the
developable acres. It may change from 16.07 so.
Meyer: Okay, so we should direct staff to review that 16.07 acres. Alright. I have a note.
' Mancino: Read my 34?
Meyer: 34. 1'111 going to let you read that one.
Mancino: 34 Would read, prior to final plat approval the applicant shall work with staff to
develop a project design plan which specifies how the variation in architectural details,
incorporating the 7 building elevations shown on Sheet A3 and A4 of the plans prepared by
Whitman Associates Inc., as well as the variation in building materials as shown to the
Planning Commission on 8 -26 are to accomplished.
i
Meyer: Ol.ay. . I d 111 ; e to add number 37 and this is one of your's too Nancy. About trying
to, the applicant WOUld work with staff to get an entrance along, which direction would that
be. The southeast corner of the park. To try to get a.
Aanenson: Yeah, between Lots 32, or building 32 and 56.
Mancino: Pedestrlall access.
Meyer: Okay. Let's try to integrate Klingelhutz development road access.
Mancino: The applicant work with staff.
Meyer: Okay. The applicant work with staff to consider the Klingelhutz alterations or
request for alteration of the road alignment. The applicant has made a request to revise the
wording of number 31. I think it's, I don't know if this would be Dave. Could you provide
some wording for that?
Aanenson: Just wort: with staff.
Hempel: Just wort: with staff, yeah.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Meyer: Okay. To revise the wording on that. And number 32.
Aanenson: Those are really the jurisdiction of the City Council. He's just raising them as an
issue.
Don Jensen: You can strike that if you'd like.
Mancino: And mine was to add that the applicant work with staff to look at changing the
setbacks on the east side of the property, on the north side of the property to allow for 30
foot setbacks on Lake Riley Road East. Fin sorry, not on Lake Riley Road East. Yes, on
Lake Riley Road East and North Bay Drive.
Meyer: Number 39. Okay. Anything else?
Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Skubic: I'll second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Peterson: My only discussion is the more I sit here, the more I can relate to Ladd's
comments regarding down the road. I mean I think it's clearly something we as a group and
staff have to work together on. I mean you think about it, it's scary. We're just asking for
1:00 in the morning meetings in the next year or two. To that end of my discussion.
Aleyer moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council gnuit hiriinnin.uy approval of PUD 995 -1: Preliminary Planned Unit Development
(PUD) appwv.d to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned
Unit Development; pWlimlinaly plat to subdivide 52.1 acres into 78 lots, 4 outlots and
associated light -of -way; site plan review for 76 single family detached zero lot line homes on
19.95 acres; a vadwice for weth-ind setbacks for Lots 12 -16, Block 1 and Lots 16 -19, Block 2
to penuit the Douse placement as shown on the plans; and a wetland alteintion permit foi-
Noah Bay (plans dated 4/17/95, revised 5/4/95 and 7/17/95, prepared by Pioneer Engineer),
subject to the following conditions:
A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
Shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant
to Chanhassen City Ordinance 49 -1.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
i
2. Redesignate Lot 1, Block 3 as an outlot. Lot 57, Block 1 and Lot 21, Block 2 are
unbuildable for dwelling units and must be maintained for common open space.
e upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the
3. Revise the landscaping plan to provid
pond into the surroundings, provide evergreen screening from automobile headlights for
Lots 1, 13, and 15, Block 2; increase the number of evergreens to a minimum of 20
percent of the tree plantings as required by ordinance; and incorporate additional
evergreen plantings along the 212 corridor.
4. The applicant shall provide financial guarantees to the city to assure satisfactory
installation of the landscaping.
5. Revise grading and drainage plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation and garage
floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
6. Submit soils report with lot by lot tabulations to the Inspections Division. This should
be done prior to issuance of any building permits.
7. Change proposed Lake Riley Road to Lake Riley Road East.
8. Obtain a building permit for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height before
beginning their construction.
9. The applicant will need to revise the erosion control plan to include temporary sediment
basins, Type III erosion control fence, seeding type and schedule of site restoration. The
plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion
control fence sliall be used adjacent to the wetlands.
10. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in
accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and
City Council approval three weeks prior to final plat approval.
11. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities
and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
12. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
' accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
47
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post
developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
13. The applicant shall enter into a PUD /development agreement with the City and provide
the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the PUD/
development agreement.
14. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers
Section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland
Ordinance. Mitigation wort; shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland
fill activity in all phases of the project.
15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department
of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be
a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within any street right -of -way.
18. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands
shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level.
19. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the
normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety
purposes. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the
pond into the surroundings is recommended.
20. The proposed multi- family residential development of 16.07 developable acres is
responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $47,808.00. The staff will review
the number of developable acres. These fees are payable to the City prior to City filing
.•
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
the final plat. Credits will be applied to these fees after final review of the construction
1 plans.
21. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
22. Site grading shall be compatible with the future widening and of upgrading of Lyman
Boulevard and also with existing drainage characteristics from the adjacent parcels. The
applicant shall be responsible for acquiring the necessary easements for grading outside
the plat. All site grading must be completed prior to street construction.
23. The existing sanitary sewer located in the northeast portion of the site shall be relocated
t in conjunction with the development. The applicant may petition the City to vacate the
existing utility easement once the line has been relocated.
24. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City Council awarding a bid for the fist
phase of Lyman Boulevard /Lake Riley Area Trunk Improvement Project 93 -32B and
MnDot approval of the alignment of Lyman Boulevard. The applicant shall also
dedicate the required 8o foot wide right -of -way for Lyman Boulevard prior to the
finalization of the construction plans for Lyman Boulevard. Final vertical and horizontal
alignment for Lyman Boulevard shall be subject to City and MnDot -State Aid approval.
25. All disturbed areas shall be immediately restored upon completion of the site grading
with seed and disc - mulched or sod or erosion control blanket. All grading must be
completed prior to issuance of building permits on the site with the exception of one
model home directly off Lyman Boulevard. Wetland mitigation areas shall be restored
in accordance with the wetland restoration /alteration permit.
26. The construction plans shall be revised to include the following changes:
a. Delete grading of the channel through Wetland Basin A.
b. Provide outlet control structures from the proposed pond north of Lyman Boulevard
to the wetland mitigation area adjacent to Lyman Boulevard and from the mitigation
area to Wetland Basin A.
c. Type III erosion control fence shall be placed adjacent to and around all wetlands
and mitigation areas.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
d. Provide a temporary sediment basin on Lot 57, Block 1 in or near the proposed
irrigation house between Lots 32 and 56, Block 1.
e. All storm sewer catch basins shall be protected with hay bales and /or silt fence until
the streets are paved and the site fully revegetated.
f. Revise grading plan to have rear lots drain through to front yard areas on Lots 4
through 31, Bloch 1 inclusive versus the swale along the rear lot line.
g. Add catch basins on new driveway access to apartments.
h. Prohibit parking on one side of all streets.
i. Address relocation and abandonment of existing gravel driveway on west property
line.
j. Include a drain the system behind the curbs on all lots that are not adjacent to a
stornlwater pond or wetland.
k. Use city standard detail plates.
1. Provide utility stub to vacant parcel which lies south of the apartments.
27. The applicant shall obtain and convey to the City at no cost a street, utility and drainage
easement over the west 30 feet of the Lakeview Hills Apartments parcel lying north of
Lyman Boulevard and terminating where the full 60 foot wide right -of -way begins in the
plat of North Bay.
28. The applicant shall provide a temporary barricade at the end of Lake Riley Road and
include a sign indicating that "This street will be extended in the future ". A condition
shall also be placed in the PUD /development agreement acknowledging the intent to
extend Lake Riley Road in the future.
29. Parking shall be restricted to one side of North Bay Drive and Lake Riley Road. The
applicant may choose which side of the street to restrict parking. The city will adopt
the appropriate resolution prohibiting parking and place the appropriate regulatory signs.
30. Staff' wid (lie applicant shall Avoit together on the appropriate wording vegaWing the
applicant and /or property owner shall waive any and all procedural or substantive
objections to the special assessments associated with city public improvement Project
50
' Planning C01111111ss1on Meeting - August 16, 1995
93 -32B iticiuding, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the
assessment exceeds the benefit to the property.
31. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
32. Dedication of Outlot C for parr: purposes. This dedication to be a condition of the
granting of planned unit development status.
33. Prior to final plat the applicant shall wolic with staff to develop a project
design pl:ul which specifies how the variation in architechu,il details, incolpolating the 7
building elegy atiuus show►, oil Sheet A3 :old A4 of the plays pi paled by Whiten,
Associates h►c., as well as the variation in building materials as shown to the Plv,ning
Couru,issiu,l on 8 -26 are to accomplished.
34. The applicant Sh ll install a water►naul along Lake Riley Road in accordance with the
city's feaSibility study for Lyrnan Boulevard Reconstruction Project 93 -32B. The city
shall credit the oversizing cost back to the applicant by means of a reduction in their
assessments for project 93 -32B. The oversizing cost shall be the difference between an
8 inch line :Ind the proposed 12 inch line based on fair market value.
35. No improvements to the land South of Lyman Boulevard will be permitted until a
conditional use pernlit for a beachlot is approved by the city.
36. The applic:wt sh:dl look at putting a pedestli.u, access to the southeast colter of the park
between buildiubs 32 :old 56.
37. The ttpplic:urt Nyoric with staff to consider the Wingelhutz alterations or request for
alteration of' the road alignment.
38. The Ipplic:ult wuri: with the staff' to look at ch.u,gin the 20 foot front yard setbacks to
' 30 foot front yiml setbacks on Lake Riley Road East and North Bay Drive.
All voted ill favol', except for Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5
to 1.
Mancino: Reasons for.
Conrad: I want to make it real clear that I can't vote for any project that down zones until
staff analyzes the impact on the need for the land as it was previous zoned or guided.
51
W.R. ENGELHARDT ASSOC. TEL No.612 -448 -8805
i�
1
�. tr
(A
0-
I
�P, -
� c
s �
Aug 17,95 8 :38 No.002 F.02
i
Xc �
47
J
F
s
N
III
S ()
f
�'4k
ONO *vp
w
a �
a
�P, -
� c
s �
Aug 17,95 8 :38 No.002 F.02
i
Xc �
47
J
F
s
N
III
S ()
f
�'4k
ONO *vp