The URL can be used to link to this page

5. Conceptual PUD to Rezone from r-12 to PUD Northbay Addition, Rottlund Companyi MEMORANDUM CITY OF 5 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager i FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer/Director of Public Worksl,AO Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator��''"`� Bob Generous, Planner II DATE: June 15, 1995 I I SUBJ: North Bay: Lyman Boulevard Alternatives Oft N City AdministtatAl Endorsed Modi' .:_ Rejec±ed_ Date Submitted to Commissiop Bate Submitted to Council Staff has reviewed the proposed alternatives for Lyman Boulevard prepared by Pioneer Engineering for the North Bay Project. We have listed the positive and negative aspects of each alternative for your review. Alternate A represents applicant's preferred alignment which shifts roadway to the south. Uses a 30 MPH road design. Alternate B represents applicant's preferred alignment shifting roadway to the south with a superelevated cross - section (banked roadway) to permit 35 MPH speeds. isting roadway alignment. This road alignment is consistent with the iM for the reconstruction of Lake Riley Boulevard Project No. 93 -32B. Alternate C basically follows preliminary plans prepared by Provides for 35 MPH speeds. i u Altemate PROS A Provides area for stormwater Proposed speed is not consistent with management; pond which will also that of a Class I urban collector or serve development of property to minicipal state aid street the east (Lakeview Hills) Impacts wetlands on south side of road Common street access to Lakeview Hills apartments and this Alignment pushes road closer to lake development involving tree loss Construction costs may be higher due to extra excavation /embankment work May not provide sufficient area between road and lake for city park Don Ashworth June 15, 1995 Page 2 Alternate PROS B Provides area for stormwater management pond which will also serve development of property to the east (Lakeview Hills) Common street access to Lakeview Hills apartment and this development Alternate PROS C Avoids trees and wetland impacts south of road City and municipal state aid road design standards are met Increases separation between road and Lake Riley CONS Superelevation for road is discouraged for speed limits below 40 MPH Impacts wetlands on south side of road Alignment pushes road closer to lake and may increase tree loss Construction costs may be higher due to extra excavation /embankment work. May not provide sufficient area between road and lake for city park CONS Provides stormwater ponding only for Rottlund's development unless an additional buildable lot is eliminated Ponding is proposed on both sides of Lyman (in order to provide all ponding on north side of road a permit to excavate wetland is necessary) Eliminates proposed building unit adjacent to Lyman Existing road embankment can be utilitized It should be noted that all three (3) alternatives will require some type of wetland alteration permit either for road and /or house pads. In order to accommodate a public space adjacent to Lake Riley as a public park, the preferred alignment depends on the ultimate use of this area. If the park is intended for passive uses (i.e., trails and benches /picnic tables), then Alternate B (without road superelevation) or Alternate C are viable. However, if the use of the park is to be active (boat launch, fishing pier, etc.), then alternate C would be the preferred alignment. g: \plan \bg \nrthbay 1 CITY OF ,� CHANHASSEN PC DATE: 5/17/95 CC DATE: 6/12/95 .� CASE #: PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 � STAFF REPORT Z Q J a PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; conceptual 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. The project is known as North Bay. LOCATION: APPLICANT: Lake Riley Boulevard, on the north side of Lake Riley Rottlund Company, Inc 2681 Long Lake Road Roseville, MN 55113 Charles Adelmann 1411 W. 97th Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 888 -4303 PRESENT ZONING: ' ACREAGE: �a to �w DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: WATER AND SEWER: R12, High Density Residential Action try City Adm(nistratoi Endorsed —� �W gross: ' 46.57 net: 14.83 Rejecte De (o b -9S units /acre (gross): 1.61 units /acres (net): 5.06 Dse Submitted to Commi Date Submitted to COUWA N - R12, Hwy 212 corridor and proposed open space S - none, Lake Riley E - R12, Lakeview Hills Apartments W -RSF, vacant Pending, part of Lyman Blvd & Drainage Improvements /Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements PHYSICAL CHARACTER: 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. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - High Density (8 - 16 units per acre net) vi TWININIMINNS IN" Ell no rim RK PARK lw -- LAKE SUSAN Ly 14ANH I? COMAWAUry PARK ` ul 100 Lo AlL MARSH ul LAKE W-- 8300 PAR RICE At RSH LAKE A ATI, CREEK PARK POW LAKE --9500 RILEY AlL CREEK PARK POW H SS FA REGIONAL RICE North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY ' The applicant, Rottlund Homes, is proposing a 75 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 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. BACKGROUND The property is currently zoned R12, High Density Residential, which permits townhouses, two family, and multi - family dwelling 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 west of this property is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). In February, 1995, the property was brought in for final plat approval on the Lake Riley Hills subdivision which received preliminary plat approval on February 25, 1991. In order for staff to proceed with the application for Lake Riley Woods, we requested that Klinglehutz submit plans reflecting the following changes: lots that meet the required wetland setbacks and redesign the plat to eliminate the road running immediately north of Lyman Boulevard. Klinglehutz is currently reevaluating their proposed plans. 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 for city approval as 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. Staff North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 3 believes that impacts can be reduced by directing the road around the basin to the property line. Staff has reviewed the street access point and believes that due to the close proximity to the existing driveway access for Lakeview Hills Apartments, consideration shall be given for common or joint street access point. The current submittal proposes filling a portion of the wetland to construct the street and Lots 2 and 3. Staff believes that a better alternative would be to continue the street alignment easterly to intersect the existing Lakeview Hills Apartment service drive and have homes single loaded on the west side of the street. This will minimize impacts to the wetland and also increase the stormwater holding pond capacities adjacent to Lyman Boulevard. Coordination between the property owners of Lakeview Hills Apartments will be necessary in order for this to originate. Staff is aware of that the property owner to the east is considering a development potential as well. The applicant should meet with the Lakeview Hills Apartment owners to discuss a joint access street. The relocation of the roadway will significantly alter the proposed plat. In conjunction with the City's Public Improvement Project No. 93 -32B, Lyman Boulevard is proposed to be widened. This will impact the plat as shown on this submittal. The applicant has contacted the city engineer regarding the potential realignment of Lyman Boulevard to provide additional room on the north side for stormwater ponding. However, staff has reviewed this alignment change and has concerns with regards to meeting state aid design standards. Lyman Boulevard is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Collector streets have an 80 -foot wide right -of -way with a 36 -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 city will reconsider the alignment conditioned upon the following items: 1. 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 -way 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. 2. The street design must meet state aid, 35 m.p.h. design standards. Upon review of the proposed layout with this submittal, it appears the alignment does not meet the 35 m.p.h. design standards. 3. The proposed alignment should not add any extra cost to the project, i.e. retaining walls, steep slopes, surcharging, etc. Staff supports this type of development. It provides another housing alternative in Chanhassen for detached single- family residential houses. It can provide additional protection North Bay ' PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 4 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 ' to the west. Staff is recommending that the concept be approved at this time with the modifications to the ' plan and the appropriate conditions, issues and concerns being addressed prior to acting on the preliminary PUD approval and wetland alteration permit. Staff is recommending ' conceptual approval only due to the issues resulting from staffs recommendation to develop a joint access with the property to the east which will make a significant change to the plat. In addition, staff and the applicant must resolve the issue regarding Lyman Boulevard alignment. We also anticipate that significant reductions in wetland filling will occur with these revisions. I 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. REZONING Justification for Rezoning 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. I 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 North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 5 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. Findin . The major site characteristic of this property is the large wetland complex. The wooded area in the south of the site will be maintained as private open space and will largely be left intact. Staff believes that the development, as proposed, excessively impacts the wetland complex in the southern portion of the property. The relocation of the access road to the east would reduce the amount of wetland that needs to be filled. In addition, North Bay Drive through the project should be shifted to the north to pull the housing pads away from the wetland area and allow the building pads to be situated at grade, eliminating the need for much of the grading on Block 2. 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 Klinglehutz development to the west, which is proposed as a neighborhood park. 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. 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 ' North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 6 ' project is unique to Chanhassen and will provide a natural transition between the different intensities 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 5.06 units per net acre is lower than would be permitted in this area. ' 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. p p p p P 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 ' open space for residents of this neighborhood. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that a portion of proposed Block 3 be dedicated to the city as public open space. ' 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. ' Finding. The applicant is proposing a development with housing cost 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. North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 7 Finding. The use of curvilinear streets tends to reduce vehicular speeds. Staff is recommending that the access to the site utilize a common access with the Lakeview Hills Apartment property to the west with a separate intersection off that road into this development. This 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. North Bay Drive will also connect this development with the Klinglehutz development to the west. A sidewalk is being required along one side of North Bay Drive 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. Sensitive development in transitional areas. More efficient use of land. GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE The applicant, Rottlund Homes, is proposing a 75 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 form the street for cottages. ' Ba North y ' PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 ' Page 8 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. ' 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; (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 North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 9 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: Conceptually, this development creates a harmonious and functional project. However, the revisions recommended by staff will improve the protection of natural features and lead to development that is environmentally friendlier, consistent with the comprehensive plan and city code. WETLANDS A full wetland report has not been received by the City at the time of drafting this report. There are five wetland basins on the property and they are described as follows: Basin A is an 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 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. Staff thinks that impacts can be reduced by directing the road around the basin to the property line. A discussion later in the report on road alignment and unit location follows. Basin B is an ag /urban wetland located in the northeast corner of the property. Most of the wetland 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 all 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. Basin C is an ag /urban wetland located in the northwest corner of the property. Most of the wetland lies on the property to the north which is the future road right -of -way for Highway 212. A swale extends south of this basin to Basin A along the road alignment. Since it appears that this road created the drainage swale, this portion of the wetland is exempt from wetland permits. Basin C will not be impacted as a result of the development, however, the swale will be removed. n North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 10 Basin D and E are ag /urban wetlands located in the new Lake Riley Boulevard road alignment. It is suggested that both of these wetlands be removed with the road alignment shifted to the south. This will create more area to the north of the road for a regional stormwater pond. The City would handle the wetland permitting since this would be part of the road project. A second alternative would be to keep the road alignment to the north where it avoids most of Basins D and E. The regional stormwater pond would then be located to the north and possibly south of the road. I Buffer Strip u F� 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. Currently, Lots 1 and 6, Block 2 and Lot 24, Block 1, do not meet the wetland buffer and structure setbacks. 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- North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 11 family residential developments. Credits will be given to the applicant for providing water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. Stone 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. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $2,975 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 22.4 acres; however approximately 5.3 acres is wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for approximately 17.1 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of $50,873. The developable area will vary depending on the ultimate impacts and mitigation area to wetlands. DRAINAGE The site is part of a large drainage area that drains south and west into the large wetland (Basin A). The site is approximately 22 acres and the parcel to the east is approximately 23 acres giving a cumulative drainage area of over 45 acres. Prior to discharge into the wetland, the runoff needs to be pretreated for phosphorus retention of 35 to 50 percent. The stormwater ponding area should be designed to treat the runoff from the entire drainage area and the City will credit the applicant for land, excavation costs, and oversizing of the hydraulic system. Some of the storm sewer laterals may need to be oversized to accommodate future runoff from the site to the east. The applicant shall also pick up the existing storm sewer line coming from the parcel to the east and tie it into the storm sewer system. The City is working on a SWMP water quality project that involves 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 the lots and streets. Staff believes that Lots 1 through 12, Block 2 could be adjusted northerly to minimize impact to the large wetlands and trees. Also, grading in the backyards of Lots 26 through 38, Block 1 should be revised to drain southerly around the structures and out to the street rather than along the rear North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 12 lots and eventually out to future Trunk Highway 212 as proposed. This would be inconsistent with the existing neighborhood drainage pattern. Site grading in general will need to be compatible with the future upgrading and widening of Lyman Boulevard. In addition, drainage patterns from the adjacent parcels should be incorporated into the developments overall improvements. All berming shall be located outside of the City's right -of -way. No site grading except for the trail (by the City) is proposed on Lot 1, Block 3. This lot does contain a number of significant oaks that apparently will be left intact. The applicant's engineering should incorporate emergency overflows in the low points along the street system. 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. UTILITIES Municipal utilities 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 in the fall or next spring (1996). This project is dependent on the utilities being extended to the site. Without these utilities, this development should be considered premature. 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. 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 prior to this area being developed. The developer may do a phased approach whereby they retain existing utility service in this area and develop the southerly portion of the site. The utility easement may be vacated once alternative sewer service has been provided to Lakeview Hills Apartments. In North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 13 addition, a storm sewer line has also been extended from Lakeview Hills Apartments and discharges in the proximity of Lots 9 and 10, Block 1. The applicant is proposing to relocate the storm sewer line and incorporate it into the site's overall development. STREETS In conjunction with the City's Public Improvement Project No. 93 -32B, Lyman Boulevard is proposed to be widened. This will impact the plat as shown on this submittal. The applicant has contacted the city engineer regarding the potential realignment of Lyman Boulevard to provide additional room on the north side for stormwater ponding. However, staff has reviewed this alignment change and has concerns with regards to meeting state aid design standards. Lyman Boulevard is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Collector streets have an 80 -foot wide right -of -way with a 36 -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 City will reconsider the alignment conditioned upon the following items: 1. 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 -way 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. 2. The street design must meet state aid, 35 m.p.h. design standards. Upon review of the proposed layout with this submittal, it appears the alignment does not meet the 35 m.p.h. design standards. 3. The proposed alignment should not add any extra cost to the project, i.e. retaining walls, steep slopes, surcharging, etc. The interior public street system as proposed meets the City's right -of -way and street design standards. The private streets will be required to meet the City's private street ordinance. Detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required to be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by the City Council. Staff has reviewed the street access point and believes that due to the close proximity to the existing driveway access for Lakeview Hills Apartments, consideration shall be given for common or joint street access point. The current submittal proposes filling a portion of the wetland to construct the street and Lots 2 and 3. Staff believes that a better alternative would North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 14 be to continue the street alignment easterly to intersect the existing Lakeview Hills Apartment service drive and have homes single loaded on the west side of the street. This will minimize ' impacts to the wetland and also increase the stormwater holding pond capacities adjacent to Lyman Boulevard. Coordination between the property owners of Lakeview Hills Apartments will be necessary in order for this to originate. Staff is aware of that the property owner to ' the east is considering a development potential as well. The applicant should meet with the Lakeview Hills Apartment owners to discuss a joint access street. ' LANDSCAPIN G /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 90 overstory trees, 103 ornamentals, and 29 evergreens as part of this development, which exceeds minimum quantity requirements. 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 additional landscape screening south of Lot 1, Block 1 • revegetate the area behind Lots 6 -11, Block 2, with central hardwood species which t would expand the forested area adjacent to Basin B • increase the number of evergreens to 20 percent of the tree plantings ' 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 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 15 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 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 this staff report. The Planning Commission added conditions 31 through 35 as part of their motion. 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 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. 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. J J I North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 16 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council grants conceptual approval of PUD #95 -1 with the following conditions, issues, concerns and recommendations: 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. 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 elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 6. Revise the 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. f! North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 17 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 utility and street improvements 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. 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 per sign. 13. 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. 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 u u 0 L! North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 18 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 wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 -year high water level. 20. 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. 21. The proposed single - family residential development of 17.1 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $50,873. 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 -way 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. n 1 North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 19 b. The street design must meet state aid, 35 m.p.h. design standards. Upon review of the proposed layout with this submittal, it appears the alignment does not meet the 35 m.p.h. 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 currently submittal of the roadway alignment is not acceptable due to the impacts to the wetlands. 27. Lots 1 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 landscape screening south of Lot 1, Block l; 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 the commons area and access. 32. A guarantee of minimum brick variations and colors of siding be defined. 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 heightened traffic use with Highway 212 development. [I l North Bay PUD 95 -1, SP 95 -9, WAP 95 -3 May 9, 1995 Update June 6, 1995 Page 20 ATTACHMENTS 1 Development Review Application 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 5/8/95 3. Letter from David Mitchell to Charles Folch dated 4/28/95 4. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 5. Memo from Todd Hoffman to Robert Generous dated 5/10/95 6. Park & Recreation Staff Report dated 5/9/95 7. Letter from Joe Richter to Robert Generous dated 5/11/95 8. Memo from Kevin Von Riedel to Kate Aanenson dated 5/17/95 9. Planning Commission Minutes of 5/17/95 1. X Comprehensive Plan Amendment r 11. X Vacation of ROW /Easements CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 2. (612) 937 -1900 12. Variance DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION rw V APPLICANT: g l � �OWNER: _akIIr1e!5 17della>alwt. , X Wetland Alteration Permit =1� Ztif� I x UlK ADDRESS: Non - conforming Use Permit ' ADDRESS: 14. Zoning Appeal S. Planned Unit Developments 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment TELEPHONE (Daytime) /,ryt�''" /'lY� TELEPHONE: / kJA 1. X Comprehensive Plan Amendment r 11. X Vacation of ROW /Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance cc� rw V 3. Interim Use Permit 13. X Wetland Alteration Permit =1� 4. Non - conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal S. Planned Unit Developments 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning / kJA 7. Sign Permits C ✓ r GIGGLE 8. Sign Plan Review k Notification Signs r ` 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $100 CUP /SPR/VAC /VAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision & Ft E'L <�t TOTAL FEE $ 6 7 CT `�� 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 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 ev-k oY WOV LOCATION L, ICx' 1 l eL j tint f l s LEGAL DESCRIPTION Elf_' I I im!►lezVl1 z6viyll dyk 11f PRESENT ZONING .}� REQUESTED ZONIN PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ' REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 11 REASON FOR THIS REQUEST TV C �'1 t 17e� bits ILi( , dil rlL ttu This application must be completed in full and be typA ritten 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. ignature of a plicant /l «�� Date P ' 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. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 9371900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ' X% APPLICANT 1 ` tom , _. OWNF-R: ADDRESS: `� Yf Nn ��e ADDRESS- /��°- A6 222 lf�` :alR X211004, � TELEPHONE (Day time) _ fz ? TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. X Vacation of ROW /Easements j 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Varlance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. X Wetlar)d Afteration Permit 4. Non - conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost— °-P3 L� $100 C U P/S P RNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the 8pplicatlon. Twenty -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 FF'Uhl HHO HHre HH TO L ' PRESENT ZONING ( REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST L4G w / T��l DY I. Vll � 51 v �X l J �tEQ ` � l•(1 �-�l 1'l �i�`' (,��, [L�/I G� Vt �� S � �°� U I�it� This application must be completed in full and be typte�vritten or clearly priateWand 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 havu 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 procded with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to me 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. Signature oflicarn ' Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. - rhe 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 malled to the applicant's address. Date x' 13 7- Z 6 7 Date PROJECT NAME F — i Imo-( ea 41 LOCATION L,, l ti� �� )� tle��f eft ' �.►,L �r;f�s I LEGAL DESCRIPTION TT � 67'1 I L W W 6M4 �fi'ZLyrlL ' PRESENT ZONING ( REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST L4G w / T��l DY I. Vll � 51 v �X l J �tEQ ` � l•(1 �-�l 1'l �i�`' (,��, [L�/I G� Vt �� S � �°� U I�it� This application must be completed in full and be typte�vritten or clearly priateWand 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 havu 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 procded with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to me 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. Signature oflicarn ' Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. - rhe 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 malled to the applicant's address. Date x' 13 7- Z 6 7 Date CITY OF CHANHASSEN 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 q 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 subdivision plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, APR 17 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. Analysis: Elevations. Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments'. 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. Soils Report. In addition, a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes. Street Names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the ■ Bob Generous May 8, 1995 Page 2 submitted documents. The public street shown aligned predominantly north -south should be given an east designation in its name. Recommendations: ' 1. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor ' elevation. 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 to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 4. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, ' Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 5. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. ' enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo g: \safety \sak \memos \plan \nrthbay.bgl CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • FO. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ')�-cr 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. Fi 0 or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with tine 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. SLrWO 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. TU ( SE (R) SEWO WO FLO - - - - -- �, -- - - - -- RLO 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. n �wiW PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Orr Schelen April 28, 1995 . , d Mayeron8, Associates, Inc. 300 Park Place East 5775 Wayzata Boulevard ' Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 Director of Public Works /City Engineer 612- 595 -5775 City of Chanhassen FAX 5 5 95 -5774 ' P. O. Box 147 Engineers Architects 690 Coulter Drive Planners Chanhassen, MN 55317 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) RECEIVED Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements: Phase II ' City Project No. 93 -32B OSM Project No. 5183.00 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Dear Charles: We have reviewed the preliminary grading plan and preliminary site & utility plan for the ' above Adelman /Rottlund property and offer the following comments as they relate to City Project No. 93 -3213: ' 1. The developer's proposed horizontal alignment of Lake Riley Boulevard indicates a 30 mph design. OSM's design for Lyman Boulevard is 35 mph minimum, with 40 mph being the desired design speed. The horizontal alignment currently proposed on the City project through this property does not exceed the 35 mph design speed. 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 centerline elevation of 873 to 877 (see attached profile for this property), the developers profile indicates an elevation of ' approximately 870. Our proposed elevation meets State Aid Standards for roadway design adjacent to DNR wetlands. ' 3. The proposed street width for Lake Riley Boulevard through this property on the City project is 48 feet. The developer's preliminary plans are consistent with this width. However, the preliminary plat indicates a Right -of -Way width of 60 feet. This is not consistent with City standards which require a Right -of -Way width of 80 feet for this area. A Right -of -Way width of 60 feet provides 5.33 feet of boulevard behind each curb. This is inadequate for proper maintenance of the roadway and does not t provide sufficient space for possible future appurtenances to the roadway such as lighting, streetscapes, or walks. 4. The City and the developer should review the possibility of combining the access to this development with the access to Lakeview Hills Apartments. The current ' proposal by the developer creates an intersection with Lake Riley Boulevard that is approximately 200 feet from the existing driveway to Lakeview Hills Apartments. ' H: \51&3.00 \CML \CORRFS \ 042895 .CF Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Chanhassen April 28, 1995 Page 2 Each access has the potential to generate a significant amount of traffic. This combined with the anticipated traffic on Lake Riley Boulevard, and the horizontal curvature at this location, creates a very undesirable traffic flow situation. The City ordinances may address this situation too. 5. The 8 -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. 6. Alignment of the trail & utility easement is preferred along the proposed roadway. This alignment is consistent with the remainder of Lyman Boulevard and provides for efficient trail maintenance. If the City desires, a second trail could be installed by the developer that would access the proposed open space in the development between Lake Riley Boulevard and Lake Riley. Ownership and maintenance would be by the developer similar to other trails proposed in the development. 7. Invert elevation of the developers proposed sanitary sewer manhole at Lake Riley Boulevard should be 863.00. If the proposed intersection is relocated to the east, then the developer should contact our office to coordinate a new invert elevation. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 595 -5699 or Wayne Houle at 595 -5736. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. David D. Mitchell, PE Project Manager Enclosure c: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, City of Chanhassen Kate Aanenson, City Planner, City of Chanhassen Wayne Houle, OSM Project Engineer wh /nm /ce H:\5193.OD\CTVIL\CORRES\042S95.CF n C � 1 p o STATION 258.00 m / I T.C. 885.01 - ---- VT Si YPI 44 OBl. T 25 .39.00 D � N n F .. O m co I n S m m 0 x m i N Orr Schelen Ye d Aaaclat clstea, Inc. Ln�inerra . A,wt-le . Pl.nnen . Su r.e Tora aoo r.a sl... c..l... Sm u m,a....a u,......n..x 55.1! Ii3L . aIS5a55m m _00 0 r � STORM SEWER 6 STREET CONSTRUCTION ;":.:;a�•. "m��:°;.: ~:,0`: LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK M•- •• °•• ° ^^ UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS L PHASE 2 CITY PROJECT NO. 93 -328 CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA F� 9� on \ r :o n _ z li �m� o oA y a C7 I� i 76' F-F 8 -618 CONCRETE CURB 6 GUTTER I 111 r D Z CO O C r m D v C o 1a _ N 1! . _m . . m MwY.cy Lta sY�rroM.z+e.00 .. g $ r 8 t h :. m noN O r' < $ .:.� - m w _ m ..s ... . H .... .. .... ... .... ... .. - p co m tr � y G N v ^ O p m to Orr STORM SEVER 6 STREET CONSTRUCTION Sch.ten LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK Meyeron d ��. �...,. �..�. w.s,.. m Asaoctetes. Inc. UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS t PHASE 2 m E. e r . Architect.. P1 .... r.. sYr.ey.r CITY PROJECT NO. 93 -328 zoo r.n e. a li.. Y. ssaeazze . eases -en. CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA north side of Lake Riley Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary plat to subdivide 46.57 acres into 85 lots, 2 outlots and associated right -of -way; site plan review for 83 single family detached zero - lot -line homes on 19.95 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 May 4, 1995. ** THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION WILL BE REVIEWING THIS ITEM ON TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1995 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. a a f RICE z —ezoo _ \ MAR&Y LAKE CIRCLE PARK o w. -. -_ - 8300 I KE SUSAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC - • � �� o R/C E M RSN e LAKE ; HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION 0 —� 0 8800 MEETING / .E=1 r �:� -- _ t�-' XXXI Wednesday, MAY 17, 1995 = : >. j >> at 7:00 p.m. ` u -800 City all Council Chambers y ,ti = z� . Q 8900 690 Coulter Drive , A 0 9� Project: North Bay L BANOI.MERE r/E /GNTS I Developer: Rottlund Company, Inc. — 9AN01MERf i' co,vMURirr / LAKE LA 7 ',��. �� -- - —9300 Location: Lake Riley Boulevard, on the PARK ,, ? D' J r RILEY -9.0o Z Z - north side of Lake Riley Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary plat to subdivide 46.57 acres into 85 lots, 2 outlots and associated right -of -way; site plan review for 83 single family detached zero - lot -line homes on 19.95 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 May 4, 1995. ** THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION WILL BE REVIEWING THIS ITEM ON TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1995 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 1 PAUL ZAKARIASEN JEFF P NELSON DALE KUTTER 600 WEST 94TH STREET 300 DEERFOOT TRAIL 301 DEERFOOT TRAIL , CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT D REBERTUS MR. KENT RAMLIDEN CHRISTINE MCGRATH 320 DEERFOOT TRAIL 321 DEERFOOT TRAIL 331 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55331 ' ' MS. PAMELA N. GUYER STEVEN SEKELY DANIEL /JEAN CHRISTENSEN 340 DEERFOOT TRAIL 341 DEERFOOT TRAIL 360 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' SCOTT WIRTH KEVIN SHARKEY RICHARD MADORE ' 361 DEERFOOT TRAIL 380 DEERFOOT TRAIL 381 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' PAUL TERRY MR. WILLIAM JANSEN WILLIAM STOKKE ' 400 DEERFOOT TRAIL 240 EASTWOOD COURT 241 EASTWOOD COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM HENAK STEVEN SHIPLEY WILLIAM HENAK ALLERS 280 EASTWOOD COURT 261 EASTWOOD COURT 280 EASTWOOD COURT ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WENDELL SCHOTT JAMES DINGEL ARLIS OLSON 7034 RED CEDAR COVE 720 VOGELSBURG TRAIL 9370 FOXFORD ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' ' THOMAS E ANDERSON MR. DONALD B. DEAL STEVEN P. MCMEEN 9371 FOXFORD ROAD 9390 FOXFORD ROAD 9391 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' JOEL N MEYER - DOUGLAS RYNDA JOEL MEYER ' 9410 FOXFORD ROAD 9411 FOXFORD ROAD 9410 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KENNETH POTTS ROBERT MCCARGAR WAYNE KINION 9431 FOXFORD ROAD 9450 FOXFORD ROAD 9451• FOXFORD ROAD ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BROWN- LEE /JOHN LEE JAMES LOFFLER MR. RICHARD LAMETTRY ' JOANN 9470 FOXFORD ROAD 9471 FOXFORD ROAD 9490 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HAROLD SIEVERS DENNIS MILLS MR. DUANE D. HOFF 9491 FOXFORD ROAD 9510 FOXFORD ROAD 9511 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' RICHARD J CHADWICK JOHN ANDERSON WILLIAM O'NEIL 420 LYMAN BLVD 8654 CHAN HILLS DR NO 9550 FOXFORD ROAD ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' STEVEN MCCLINTICK THOMAS JESSEN MICHAEL WISE 9551 FOXFORD ROAD 9570 FOXFORD ROAD 9571 FOXFORD ROAD ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' DAVID WONDRA GEORGE T MCCLURE PAUL J MARTIN 9590 FOXFORD ROAD 9591 FOXFORD ROAD 9610 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT SCHOEWE DOUGLAS DUCHON DAVID GATTO ' 9611 FOXFORD ROAD 9630 FOXFORD ROAD 9631 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANIEL WHALEN PETER PEMRICK ELDON L. BERKLAND FOXFORD ROAD 9251 KIOWA TRAIL 9261 KIOWA TRAIL ' 9650 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' RONALD J. FRIGSTAD BARRY BERSHOW JAMIE HEILICHER 9270 KIOWA TRAIL 9271 KIOWA TRAIL 9280 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' CRAIG HALVERSON CRAIG HALVERSON CITY OF CHANHASSEN 9283 KIOWA TRAIL 9283 KIOWA TRAIL 690 COULTER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN A. WILLIAMS FREDERICK AMRHEIN MR. SCOTT A. BABCOCK ' MR. 9291 KIOWA TRAIL 9350 KIOWA TRAIL 8570 MAGNOLIA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 APT. 112 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 PETER C. LILLIE JAMES E SLOSS RICHARD BLUMENSTEIN 9355 KIOWA TRAIL 9360 KIOWA TRAIL 9361 KIOWA TRAIL ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS M LEFLER RAYMOND BRANDT JOHN BELL 9366 KIOWA TRAIL 9370 KIOWA TRAIL 9371 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' ' ARTHUR HALL WILLIAM BERNHJELM MARK MOKSNES 9376 KIOWA TRAIL 9380 KIOWA TRAIL 9381 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' ROBERT L. EICKHOLT JOYCE E. KING PRINCE R NELSON ' 9390 KIOWA TRAIL 9391 KIOWA TRAIL 7801 AUDUBON ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TERRY MARTIN LAKEVIEW HILLS RANDI BOYER 9411 KIOWA TRAIL 8800 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BEN SWENSON NORMAN JR GRANT DELBERT SMITH 9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD ' P 0 BOX 129 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 RAY LEWIS ROBERT H. PETERSON JAMES L. TONJES 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9101 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9111 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' ' JACK HUNGELMANN JOHN GOULETT RICHARD OLIN 9117 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9119 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9125 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' JIM HENDRICKSON ALAN DIRKS MR. LELAND G. SAPP 9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9223 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD C/O CERIDIAN EMPLOYER SER CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 5354 PARKDALE DRIVE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55411 ' CURTIS KRIER GREG HASTINGS DENNIS BAKER 9211 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD , CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Lm EUNICE KOTTKE 9221 LAKE RILEY BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 I RON YTZEN 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ' PAUL OLSON 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 t JAMES F. JESSUP 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MATTHEW THILL 9610 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 1111, MICHAEL D. WISTRAND 9670 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL REILLY 2305 INDIAN RIDGE DR GLENVIEW, IL 60025 I MARK DANIELSON 9751 MEADOWLARK LANE ' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES FRAZER 540 PINEVIEW COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEPHEN WHITEHILL 7001 DAKOTA AVENUE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALAN DIRKS 9223 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FREDERICK POTTHOFF 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOY A. SMITH 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD W SITTER 9249 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BILL PREDOVICH 9611 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL MONK 9761 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PARAG DESAI 9691 PORTAL DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 DAVID R ERICKSON 520 PINEVIEW COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD ASPLIN 541 PINEVIEW COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD VOGEL 105 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GEORGE DEWITT 3127 SE 4TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 JOHN W. ARDOYNO 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LUCILLE REMUS 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVE BURKE 9591 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD P VOGEL 105 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVE /CHARLOTTE ZUMBUSCH 9700 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NEIL A KLINGELHUTZ 9731 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MAGDY EBRAHIM 521 PINEVIEW COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROGER NOVOTNY 560 PINEVIEW COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID 0 HANSEN 108 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CAROL GRAY 50 PIONEER TRAIL , CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 J F� r, Klingelhutz Development Co. 350 East Highway 212 Chaska, MN 55318 Kimberly Jones & 1 Staffond Nelson 8571 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 'Metro Waste Control Comm. Mears Park Centre ,230 5th Street East St. Paul, MN 55101 1 C Lakeview Hills Investment Co. 3025 Harbor Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Joseph & Gayle Hautman 8551 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Brenda Schaeffer 27306 County Road A Spooner, WI 54801 Beverly A. Fielder 8521 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Planner II FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director ZO/ DATE: May 10, 1995 SUBJ: Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development, North Bay, Rottlund Company, Inc. The Chanhassen Park & Recreation Commission reviewed the aforementioned submittal on May 9, 1995. Don Jenson of The Rottlund Company was present at this meeting. A copy of the staff report prepared for the commission is attached. Upon listening to the comments of Mr. Jenson and reacting to the staff report, the commission made the following recommend:.tion: "Commissioner Lash moved, Commissioner Huffman seconded to recommend 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 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 Fi Mr. Robert Generous May 10, 1995 Page 2 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. ' c: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director Don Jenson, Rottlund Companies Park & Recreation Commission 0 u C F J CITY OF L1CHANHASSEN . STAFF REPORT Z Q V J A Q PROPOSAL: Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary plat to subdivide 46.57 acres into 85 lots, 2 outlots and associated right -of- way; site plan review for 83 single family detached zero -lot -line homes on 19.95 acres and a wetland alteration permit, North Bay LOCATION: On Lake Riley Boulevard, north side of Lake Riley APPLICANT: Mr. Don Jensen Rottlund Company, Inc. 2681 Long Lake Road Roseville, MN 55113 (612) 638 -0500 PRESENT ZONING: R -12, High Density Residential Q 0 W F U) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Proposed Hwy. 212 right -of -way S - Lake Riley E - R12, Apartments W - RSF, Residential Single Family COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN: The neighborhood park needs of this proposed development are to be met by a future 5 acre park site. This new neighborhood park is currently being required from the adjoining proposed plat to the west - Klingelhutz Lake Riley Hills. The Lake Riley Hills acquisition is proposed as a 50 % park dedication/50 %± cash sale arrangement. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: Lake Riley Boulevard is identified as a trail alignment. An appropriate corridor has been identified as a part of this plat. Construction will occur in the future by others The applicant has shown an interior trail loop system. PRC DATE: May 9, 1995 (p PC DATE: May 19, 1995 CC DATE: June 12, 1995 , HOFFMAN:k North Bay Ma 9. 1995 Pacre 2 RECOMMENDATION PARKS It is recommended that full park dedication fees be collected per city ordinance. These fees are in lieu of land dedication. TRAILS It is recommended that full trail fees be collected per city ordinance. These fees are in lieu of trail construction. Trail easements shall be dedicated as depicted on the proposed plat. Interior trail loop system to be constructed by the applicant. 1 � +%Y /cc cc t H STATE OF HIESOT'Q DEPARTMENT METRO WATERS - 1200 PHONE NO. 772 -7910 May 11, 1995 OF NATURAL RESOURCES WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILE NO. Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: North Bay Development, Lake Riley (10 -2P) and Wetland 10- 213W, City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City #PUD 95 -1) Dear Mr. Generous: We have reviewed the site plans (received April 19, 1995) for the above - referenced project (Section 24, T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Public Water, Lake Riley (10 -2P) and Public Waters Wetland 10- 213W are on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross - section of Public Waters and Public Waters Wetlands (including a multiple -slip dock), is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. The OHW for Lake Riley is 865.3' and the OHW for Wetland 10 -213W is 865.3'. It appears there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. You should be aware that the project may be subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 2. It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. We would object to having the stormwater routed directly to Lake Riley or Wetland 10 -213W. 3. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the DNR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 4. No FEMA designated floodplains exist on the project site. However, Wetland 10 -213W and Lake Riley will have 100 -year floodplain elevations. All the work that is done for this project must comply with applicable floodplain regulations ^ qf L ' both the city and the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Wate` rsl 6'd District. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER uI I Y O Mr. Robert Generous May 11, 1995 Page 2 ' 5. Lake Riley has a shoreland classification of recreational development. The shoreland district extends 1000 feet from the OHW. The development must be consistent with city ' shoreland management regulations and P.U.D. standards. In particular you should note: ' a. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zone. The minimum shore impact zone is an area within 37.5' of the OHW. See state shoreland management ' guidelines and city ordinance for more details on what can be allowed in the impact zones. ' b. Less than 25 percent of the area of each lot should be covered with impervious surface. C. The structures in the development should be screened from ' view from Lake Riley using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. ' d. The open spaces should be clearly marked in project drawings and related documents. ' e. The property owners association agreement should contain deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or other instruments that prohibit construction of buildings, storage of vehicles and materials, uncontrolled beaching of watercraft, and ensure the long- term preservation of the topography and vegetation of open space. f. The number of mooring spaces should not exceed the number of spaces calculated using the criteria specified in the ' Shoreland Ordinance of the City of Chanhassen. 6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed ' developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota ' Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. The City should regularly inspect. particularly after large rainstorms, the erosion control measures at the ' construction site. n Mr. Robert Generous May 11, 1995 ' Page 3 b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 ' gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations ' permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. C. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan ' Sullivan @ 296 - 7219). d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These ' comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772 -7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, V� Joe Richter Hydrologist JR /cds c: Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann Chanhassen Shoreland File Wetland 10 -213W File Lake Riley (10 -2P) File RLK ASSOCIATES LTD. 922 Mainstreet Hopkins, Mn. 55343 (612) 933 -0972 fax: (612) 933 -1153 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 17, 1995 TO: Kate Aanenson FROM: Kevin VonRiedel RE: North Bay Concept Application After reviewing the North Bay plans and application there are several points of concerns we would like to pass on to your staff and the Planning Commission. They are: I A. Apartment Concerns . Civil Engineering . Transportation . Infrastructure Redevelopment . Landscape Architecture . Construction Management 1. That the access to the apartment complex remain in the current location or become a common ' access road along the Adelman- Lakeview Property line. 2. That because the Lakeview Apartments are a sizable business - access to the apartment remain unhindered during construction. ' 3. That sanitary sewer and water service remain unaffected by construction. 4. That storm water drainage remain unhindered by construction of the North Bay project. 5. That there be some type of pedestrian connection from the Lakeview Apartment site through ' the proposed North Bay site to the proposed future neighborhood park west of the Adelman Property. ' B. Development Concerns: ' 1. That access to the developable portion of the Lakeview site not be unduly restricted by the North Bay Development. 2. That existing storm water drainage patterns be preserved. ' 3. That sanitary sewer and water facilities be available in size and depth to adequately serve the undeveloped portion of the Lakeview property. 4. That pedestrian access be available at the North Bay Property line. C. Planning Issues 1. We feel a common access road along the Adelman/Lakeview Property line would best serve ' both properties at a fully developed stage. 2. We feel joint planning efforts for both properties would yield a better overall effort. 3. Realignment of Lake Riley Road could be beneficial to the City and the developer (S) however, more design detail would have to be available to fully understand the impact. . Civil Engineering . Transportation . Infrastructure Redevelopment . Landscape Architecture . Construction Management Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 CONCEPTUAL AND 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 78 LOTS, ONE 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 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY, NORTH BAY, ROTTLUND COMPANY, INC. Public Present: Name Address John Bushey 9000 Riley Lake Road, Eden Prairie Ron Ytzen 9227 Lake Riley Blvd. Jo Ann Mulligan 8501 Tigua Circle Dave Nikolay 8500 Tigua Circle Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Don Jensen Rottlund Company, Inc. Wayne Tower Pioneer Engineering Ernie Peacock Applicant's Representative Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions? Thank you Bob. Does the designee of the applicant wish to approach the Planning Commission? Don Jensen: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. Don Jensen, Land Development Manager for Rottlund Company. With us tonight in the audience and ... Wayne Tower, who is our project planner and coordinator with Pioneer Engineering. He'll describe a little bit of the site characteristics. I'll be able to explain some of the architecture and the concept behind what we're trying to accomplish on this property. And then representing the owners is the owner's broker and designated representative here tonight, Ernie Peacock in case there are any questions regarding our contractual arrangement. ...tonight working on this project. We also have representatives of the adjacent properties here to speak on their particular issues with the Lakeview Hills Apartments. We have had a chance to meet with them and working with them.... staff quickly described on the overhead here. Without much further ado, I'll let Wayne Tower here to... 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Wayne Tower: Thank you Don. I guess my role tonight is just to kind of introduce you to what the general site is and how it relates to the community in general and the physical attributes of the project. Down here, I don't know if it's easily seen by the camera but we have an aerial photo obviously showing the larger pictures of what we have up here on top. Obviously the main characteristics of the site, of course ... Lake Riley. As we move to the east, there's the Lakeview Hills Apartments that can be seen here on the aerial photo. As we move around to the north, there's a future right -of -way for Highway 212. As you go around to the west here, we have some open ground which presently is being proposed to be developed by the Klingelhutz ownership and also wetlands to the west. Working on the specifics of the site itself, again we had the lakeshore. As we move north from the lakeshore we have a fairly substantial stand of mature oaks. Mostly oaks right through here which we are intending to hopefully save in it's entirety with maybe some very minor exceptions. From that, presently Lyman Boulevard exists through here but there's going to be an expansion to that or an upgrade to Lyman Boulevard which is something I think Don will talk about. Presently we thought we were working with the appropriate curve data and we'll have to work with the city engineers to find out quite what their objections were because some were unspecific as to what the problem was with that 35 mph speed program. As we move north we have an open water wetland which is somewhat outlined by this normal water elevation or high water elevation line right here and this is pretty much open, as you can see by the aerial photos. The extension of the wetland per se, as defined by the DNR and others, meanders on out and back through here and of course back. There's an existing driveway that actually splits the two wetlands right in here. There's a small equalizing culvert there that works across the driveway in the central location here. As we move north we have another stand of trees. These are a little more wetland types. Cottonwoods and box elders and those kinds of things and many of them are viewed by the wetland downgrade... venture out but actually kind of a little swale ... takes a storm sewer pipe up through there. But generally, most of that tree coverage is in the wetland. After that the terrain dramatically rises. Now, I think between the lake and the highest point, which is up here at 912, we've got about 46 feet of elevation difference. It's generally downhill all the way from our north property line down to the lake, with a... We have a small wetland up here in the northeast corner and ... very small little ditch type of wetland over here which will virtually go away when 212 comes into play. I guess that's just the general attributes of the site and I think I'll turn it over to Don at this point. Mancino: Thank you. Don Jensen: What we're really doing, and I'm going to put up the, I've got the architectural ' boards on, I hope that the camera can see them. We've got two different styles of housing we're proposing in the plan, all of which really ... the standard townhouse in the townhouse plat as you see it in attached housing and we're really just separating it again at what would be the common party wall. Really our concept here is to blend, if you will, and what is called 27 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 detached townhouses. So if you pushed these all together, you'd easily have a duplex, a row of townhouses, four units or more. Now as you start to separate those, explode those again, what you have is a few more windows on the side elevations. And depending on whether you turn those or rotate those, you get differing patterns that appear in how a residence or a new owner would actually use these homes. What we have in this particular instance, and I'll show you on the site plan, as well you have these in your packets but perhaps this will clear things up a little bit. Two housing sites and the ones that are lowest and closest to Lake Riley on this plan, and also along the wetland, straddle on both sides of North Bay Drive, the proposed public street, what we're calling Rottlund Cottages at the moment. All of these are designed to be skewed to the road at about a 30 degree angle. And what that does for us in the house plan is, by drawing them up you can easily see the road at an angular area. You have some of the concave area to the street. That is your garage access point, and whether we have enough room to load them from the side or load them straight on, it becomes your garage entry area as well as your front door entry area, neither of which end up blocked to the road. By angling it, depending upon your direction of travel, in one direction where you see the garage doors more and the other direction where you see them substantially less. The second thing that occurs when we have these tipped at an angle is that off of the rear area where there's a 3 season porch, whether that's an option or standard and various patio spaces that we have programmed in through here. Again, those have a more angular view and as you know looking across, whether it's any room or outdoor space, if you can get some angles, you have a much longer perception and in reality a much longer opportunity to experience the outdoors. What that's also done is it limits the amount of space that we actually we have in between dwelling units and that side setback zone. So by tipping these, if I have a building that's 70 feet long for example from the front of the garage to the end of my master bedroom, by angling, I really only got a space of about 40 feet inbetween and that's not anything different from a standard single family for example where you might have anywhere from a 40 to a 55 foot deep house on some pads, depending on if the garages are directed forward or back. We have similar relationships within this particular product. What we're looking at in square footages, that are in the submittal packet here, is you have approximately 1,280 square feet on one floor plan and then we have a maximum of 1,490 feet on another floor plan idea so there's a variation. This plan, and in your packet, in these locations, we anticipated right now only tying the market with a single floor plan. So it's a rambler, all slab on grade. Not dissimilar to our Mission Hills neighborhood but again there's a four dwelling unit in a single building. We have found in our one neighborhood that is probably the most similar to this that's up and running right now in Inver Grove Heights, that when you have a strong amenity such as Lake Riley, such as the wetland complex immediately to the south, that there are those people who want to expand and ask for some options. What we had in that particular neighborhood, and no doubt we will have in a couple locations here, is people look at some bonus space as a second floor. So they have all their living area on the main floor, anywhere from 1,300 to 1,400 square feet. And then if they want to, they'll add bonus space so if the 28 C J Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 kids come home, but we're really looking at an empty nester market in terms of a buyer and throughout this style of house. The second product type that we're looking at is a two story design. Again, if you can imagine, these could just as easily have been two groups of row townhouses in four's or six units configurations. Again, we're expanding out the design space. These come in a variety of orientations. Certainly can be massaged as we move forward. Some are oriented straight to the street. Some are angular to the street and fan out as we go around the curve. We're not convinced yet that we want to have it exactly head on the street. Perhaps an angular pattern is perhaps just as appropriate... They're much shorter than the slab on grade variety that we have in the other area. This for example would be the elevation of the, as you would enter the development with a single level dwelling unit. Voila, new sketch. And this being the elevational pictures for the proposed dwelling. Again we're looking at varying the fronts of the buildings, whether you have bonus space over the garages that's described in the staff summary. Looking at mixing the brick. In some cases having pre -cast columns that are different building material types. I've got that at my feet and I'll show you shortly some building material samples. Board that we prepared that are taking place in a similar neighborhood. The number of square footage and the floor plan variations going anywhere from approximately 1,600 to 1,800 square feet. So fairly sizable amount of square footage that comes ... base plan. Again, trying to cover the market with a really all in one. You limit certainly people the opportunities for a 3 car garage but it's intended to fill a nitch within the marketplace that is probably a step above our villa neighborhood, if you will. So people might be moving out of attached. This gives them the sense of still a community. They don't have the maintenance obligations. They come with buying the standard single family home and all of the fixed costs of maintenance and upkeep. Here you still have the benefit of some of the association, the costs such as snowplowing and landscaping and water bills and other such things that may come with a master association. And again you have flexibility though picking exactly the house that you would pick that would fit within the allotted area. So there is a natural variation of colors. A natural variation of house style and there are some unique characteristics based on people's options within that base package. So that's what we're attempting to bring to the marketplace in this location. It's certainly unique in that we're trying to work within Chanhassen's zero lot line and PUD ordinances, both of which haven't been used very often. It's our understanding... What we have in a companion neighborhood, it's a slightly larger square footage than our zero lot line housing in our Arbor Point, Inver Grove Heights project but it's our kind of test model for life cycle housing. We have it all in that neighborhood with a variety of housing colors, that shift primarily within the lighter earth tone ranges. Using stone type materials on the columns. In the front of the garages, etc. We're trying to carry those as we can to other locations. Combining that with a cedar shake style siding. Using the upper gables as well as having the standard vinyl or aluminum siding. Really maintenance free throughout the building elevations on the fronts and around the sides. We are looking at opportunities to enhance, whether we have brick in addition to the stone tiles but the primary focus here is to have a minimum amount of 29 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 maintenance on the structure. Again, a 25 year roof standard shingle approach that we've been using for many years and that's really what we're trying to accomplish here in this neighborhood. We looked at the attributes of the site. We've had the engineers out. We've had the wetland delineators out as soon as the frost went out, which wasn't until late April so we have some natural concerns with what's going on in the system. We certainly are hopeful that we can resolve the access issue right through here. We're not as excited about trying to have one access point out to the street in a location to the east... We certainly are hopeful that we can market off a single entry, either off of Lyman or Lake Riley Boulevard. But that tends to keep this more of a neighborhood onto itself. If we have a road as suggested up on a common property line, we tend to dilute when you really enter the neighborhood and it becomes more houses out in the street rather than entering this particular pocket if you will. That's our marketing issue and that's something that we feel strongly about as we can. We have the public street that connects into the proposed location of the Klingelhutz plat. We have a sidewalk along that side that connects to the neighborhood park. We have a lot of reforestation going on. We have an average of at least 3 trees per dwelling unit on this plan, which is substantially more than a good part of the single family subdivisions. Staff has recommended more buffering ... and we certainly see the attributes of doing... Large wetland canopy area here that we are planning and proposing to be cleaned up in there. There's a lot of dead fall. The city's proposing to grade the waterway... storm water management plan but it's some 3 to 4 feet ... some of those trees that are living on the edge are not... As Mr. Tower of Pioneer Engineering pointed out, there's a lot of stronger, hardwood canopy material along the lake edge. We're proposing that as a common lot owned by this association and so that they would use the dock facilities that they're entitled to by code for this property on a lottery basis if in fact they have a boat. All of those rules we're not proposing or asking for anything unique there other than what the lakeshore lineal footage grants this particular property. We understand that that's probably up to 5 slips under a separate permit action that we would come back to the Council for and through the Planning Commission. As staff noted, we have a private street up in the northern end of the development. We're 50 feet away, or more, from the proposed 212 right -of -way. That has slid on MnDot's chart of accounts for many, many years. But regardless, this helps preserve the opportunity for this subdivision... subdivision and that the resale or initial sales, the 50 foot setback is what we are looking at away from a proposed future major road. Whatever that design happens to be. As staff pointed out, we have what's really called common lot area. There are small individual townhouse style lots around each property, the balance of which is a common area. We have anticipated to have two associations, one of which would be for this housing type that would be on a public street. And a second association that would exist around this area here. They would have common use of this space here and if they would decide, once these neighborhoods built out, what the use should be in really that common back yard area. That's approximately what, an acre and, a little over an acre of a common back yard space. There's really kind of private zone in their lot area. If you remember from the sketches, or if you 30 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 don't. It's approximately 10 feet within the platted lot past the structure... ideas, whether that's multi- family attached or single family, it's really kind of their private space and beyond that, you start to get this public zone ... in a couple of locations to the public street or a more pronounced access. Standard single family for example you might have a 15,000 square foot lot and you might have 5,000 square feet really in the back yard behind the house, based on that lot. You'd have approximately 35 foot setback, 50 foot deep house. What you have left over is approximately 40 to 50 foot deep back yard by however wide your lot is. And what we're doing here is really allowing a much more expanded opportunity for play. This housing style that we have programmed on the north end is our most variable. What's really, it's the most likely to cross over in terms of age bracket. In terms of opportunities for people with children. Not really a whole lot we can predict about what that market will be. It's primarily a price point. If people are interested in being in Chanhassen, they can't obtain more. It provides a different opportunity in a price point where you don't have maintenance obligations. You might be able to find some turnover housing in Chanhassen. That might be $120,000.00 but you still have to mow the lawn. You have to take care of the upkeep. Is the roof in good repair, etc? So that's our hope and our target. Just some initial dimensions that we have on this plan, before any changes or reiterations. It's 150 feet wide. It's approximately 350 feet long at this location. 180 feet wide at this location and at these other dimension points, show 130 feet. 100 feet. 90 feet. It's a pretty large space. You can throw a frisbee a long way in a space like that or throw a ball a long way. You can get a pick -up game of baseball for small kids. That type of thing. We're hoping through the grading, and what is proposed, that we can get as level a space as possible in the final plan. Staff went over what our wetland issues are. We'd like to explain a little bit and hope that the Planning Commission, in terms of our land use application here and see what we're trying to accomplish. The road in this particular designation for Lake Riley Boulevard, is trying to accomplish a number of things. What we're hoping to do is to open up this ponding area for the city's water quality goals. Our approach is to try to find a way that the city can work with it's engineers to make the design speed appropriate so that the space can be as large as it is. We'll work with the State Aid Standard, and believe we have. The farther this road is over, the larger the ponding can be. The city is trying to place storm water runoff from the road project in addition to this development and the neighboring development in either a pre or post conditions. It's not quite clear to us but our whole approach there is to try to make it happen, not lose any trees. There are some that are programmed to be lost anyway by the city's current plans that are in pre- design. We've had a meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission. They are requesting in your notes that we dedicate the land in this particular location. That's their domain to request that. We are believing that by granting easements, that the ownership is retained by this particular association and it's primarily a Council issue to solve. However I remember my last time around you had issues that were different from the Parks Commission. If in fact it's to be dedicated, we just want to be treated fairly and be granted park credit for that rather than paying full fees and having the land taken to boot. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 We're hoping that the PUD looks at the flexibility of what we're getting as a total package and not just creates an opportunity to have us pay, and take land away on a lakeshore. But again, that's primarily a Council action. We're working with the City's water quality specialist, Diane Desotelle and making sure that our wetland analysis meets her criteria as the LGU. That's the City's obligation. It's a cross check off for us. We wanted, we've asked and talked with staff yesterday on a clarification on their request to move the road over to straddle the easterly property line and we would look at that as we come back, so long as we understand together and that we would have the Planning Commission's blessing as well, that what we'd really be doing is just inverting the houses and this road. That there would still be wetland fill on this side of the development. On the easterly boundary line in order to have housing that would essentially take advantage of that roadway and the cost of that roadway going down to Lake Riley Boulevard or Lyman, as it may be renamed. The traffic numbers are going to be very low. This is at the very end of the traffic generation line if you will. People immediately on either side of Eden Prairie are in the Bearpath development. Presumably they're mainly going to be driving, whenever they decide to go to work, out east on Dell Road and there's probably not a whole lot of trips coming back through Lake Riley Blvd, Lyman Blvd. You really have department development as a traffic generator and any future development that occurs ... so we believe that by having housing up closer to the lake, it's really not a traffic problem by having a lot of roadway built. It doesn't have any housing immediately off of it. You're dragging a lot of pipe... We'll be happy to answer questions. I know there's a few other people that want to have comments about the development and... chance to speak. Mancino: Any questions now? We may have some more later. Thank you. Farmakes: When you're talking about the commons area, you were referring to that would be worked out by them. This is a conceptual plan, correct? Typically we don't do that that way. Is that, when we discussed the issue of commons area and we talk about landscaping for instance or in a concept. I notice that there's no landscaping on the commons area so how are you treating it. Aanenson: No. Again, we're just looking at this in generalities. How you feel about the product. Some of the general framework issues and then when we come back for preliminary plat, it would be tighten up. So we're looking at this just in the general framework. Don Jensen: If I could clarify the intentions of the space. We went through this with the Mission Hills Villa neighborhood. What our goal here is to, is to landscape it. It's going to be sod. It's going to be irrigated. But that there's no program equipment that we would like to see conditioned on this development. Having full park fees that are going to a program park immediately less than probably a quarter mile. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Farmakes: So from a conceptual standpoint, what you're saying is you don't want a ballfield ' ont here? Don Jensen: We don't want a ballfield. We don't want play apparatus. We don't want any more conditions on that common space than you would on a single family house, what goes in their back yard. That's what we're talking about, by having those residents decide, based on who they are. ' Farmakes: Is this conceptually a commons area for the houses that surround Block 1? Or is this a commons area for all the units? ' Don Jensen: It's a commons area for all of the units but it obviously impacts those people that are in that block and back onto the most. Farmakes: Some of the areas that you're showing as green space, in the corners say for instance. Are those intended to be accessed also or are those, would those access to those points have to be over property lines? Don Jensen: Access to those would be available. The lots that you have on the proposed ' plat in your packet, they have a ... strip inbetween each lot so for maintenance purposes there's always access. It's all commons area but everyone's entitled to be there that lives there. From a practical point of view, we tend to find that really only the people that live in that general area use it the most. But it is open to all, from an ownership perspective and there's no rules against using it. Mancino: So if someone from the first cottage on the south side wants to come into the commons area in the middle, they can walk through anyone's side yard, which is 10 to 20 feet inbetween? Don Jensen: Sure. Much as people can today on any single family neighborhood on the common drainage and utility easements that are available on all of those properties. People rarely do but you have a public easement. ' Mancino: But there is no general area? There is no entrance to that commons area? Don Jensen: No. What we would have is, in all likelihood, a space between Lots 63 and 39. ' They would have a much more pronounced entry. Likewise there's more than likely to be a drainage and then on the utility plans we have drainage access in this location here and again up in this northeast pocket there'd be a more pronounced entrance into that. So it might be... landscaping plan or be able to announce that a little bit better... access trail. 1 33 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: Is there a trail to Lake Riley from that northern side? How do people get from there to Lake Riley? Don Jensen: From the northern side they're going to come around onto the private road and then they have their choice. If they want to get on the sidewalk at this point here, this point here or if they come through the back area to access the sidewalk that's proposed on this south side of North Bay Drive and if they can move down... Pretty much like a cul -de -sac area if you will. You have a small housing neighborhood with a well defined access point, two of them, and that whole private street doesn't generate a whole lot... Farmakes: How many zero lot line developments have you been involved with? Your corporation. Don Jensen: The company here, and we have five under way right now. We have one in a full scale development. We have several that we had completed probably 10 years ago. Farmakes: I'm assuming that the piece of people who are living in these zero lot lines, that they have very little property surrounding their home... Don Jensen: There's two perspectives there. That's correct. The commons area is important The other is, when you look at the overall land mass that you have, for example out in these areas. The actual perceived open space that you have is a lot more than their lot area. Farmakes: I understand that but for recreational issues, particularly if they have children and so on, in this type of situation they're either playing out in the street or they're going to a commons area. Don Jensen: Or they're going to the neighborhood park that's a little bit farther down the street. Farmakes: Correct, but if you're talking younger kids and so on that primarily... where would they be parking their bikes? Where would they be, there's no in and out. Will people be dropping their kids off by parking their cars on the road? What has been your experience with these other developments? Don Jensen: I guess what you really see is that you have a buyer profile that's buying into a neighborhood understanding that they're not needing the yard space that comes with your standard single family lot. That's what they want versus having someone who says, I want to buy and live here and I feel cheated because I don't have this big back yard that comes with a single family lot. It's just different housing. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Farmakes: But conversely, it may be that someone needs that space but this is what they can ' afford in that particular community. So therefore that's what they buy and they utilize that commons area for recreation. I � H C i J I� Don Jensen: And that's true and that's one of the advantages of being able to have it as large as possible for as many people, whereas for example a number of single family homes that might share a common back yard lot line. One person deciding to fence off their back yard in the middle of that what once was a pretty large opportunity... In this case we have a much larger opportunity. Where they place their bikes, they'd probably lay them down on the turf or whatever their mode of getting there is. Farmakes: So you haven't experienced any type of problems with the neighbors for access issues with this commons area because of the narrow access points, or storage of bikes or you know, young children hitting a ball through a window? Don Jensen: No, but I think you have those concerns in many number of housing types though. We haven't perceived... more or less of a problem. Working through a... Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Okay. Did you have anyone else presenting? Don Jensen: No. Mancino: May I have a motion to open up the public hearing please. Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion cwtied. The public hewing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Those who wish to address the Planning Commission, please do so at this time. Don Sitter: My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. I've been a resident of Lake Riley for 15 years now and I guess our main concern with this would be protection of our lake resources. I'm a little concerned about the wetland alteration. I do not see anything in these plans that show how he's mitigating the wetlands that he was destroying, and I don't believe, being we're so close to the lake and studies that we have done as a lake association and part of the surface water management task force, show this wetlands to be critical to the health of Lake Riley. And he also mentioned that the grade is all coming right down to the lake. I would really suggest we don't listen to any kind of mitigating this wetland off to some other property or going into the fund or anything like that. I'm really not sure what these 35 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 holding ponds do for the water that's coming this direction and heading toward Lake Riley. It doesn't quite make sense to me so I'm assuming that the city will work very closely. I would very strongly support moving this road over here to mitigate west of the wetlands. Also I was part of the wetlands ordinance that we worked with and I think they said that the wetland officially goes back. These trees are included in the wetland. These houses are not anywhere near far enough away from the wetlands to meet current ordinances, as far as the buffer zone so I don't think they're even close to meeting current ordinances there. I'd also like to address the beachlot over here. I would suggest that the city pull that in together and not consider that separate. I think it should be considered as an entire plan so we can look at the whole thing altogether. My concern is that we're going to give them a beachlot which has boat storage but there's no place for anybody to park a boat anywhere in here and I'm afraid that they're-going to end up wanting to have boat storage and whatever else next to the lake, which I would be strongly opposed to. Also the road improvements. I think this is going to add a fair amount of traffic going both directions out of here. I don't know what kind of coordination you have to do with the City of Eden Prairie to coordinate the road improvements but I would strongly suggest you look at that. If the road has to shift, I didn't quite understand this but they said that the road would have to shift to the north to get MnDot to approve the speed of the curve or something. Again, that's going to impact the wetlands and I didn't see anything in the plans as to how they're going to address that. And as far as the zero lot line, some of the discussions about how people get to these common areas. That's not so much my concern as the protection of the lake, but it sure sounds like you're setting yourself up for a lot of trouble with having lot lines that snake between houses and people cutting through other people's yards. Looks like trouble to me. However, I would like to say on the positive side that I'd rather see a development like this than high density, high rise, low income housing so I'm in favor of this type of a development versus a super high density type of development, which I think is what it's zoned for today. So keep our lake in mind in the planning process and we appreciate it. Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Bob, can you talk to any of those questions that came up a little bit about wetland mitigation. About the closeness of some of the homes to the wetlands, etc. Generous: Well that one's easy. We pointed that out to the applicant. That's why one of our recommendations that they shift the North Bay Drive to the north so that they can maintain the required setbacks and buffer strip. The roadway alignment. It's a horizontal curve. It's some engineering standards that have to have so much sight distance and angles to meet their requirements for funding I believe and design criteria and so that's what the city has a consultant that's working on that and the applicant's engineer will work with the city to make sure that complies. Actually I believe that the City's original alignment for Lake Riley, or the Lyman improvement is closer to the wetland area. This one actually pushed it farther away. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 The ponding areas there are proposed for storm water quality and quality improvements so that it takes out the nutrient loads before it would dump into the wetland and then it would go through the wetland out into the lake. So what they're working on is based on the city's storm water master plan that looked at the development of this area and how we're going to preserve and enhance our water quality. Farmakes: So as the plan stands right now, 15 under your recommendations covers that issue? As the drawing shows it now with the setbacks and so on. Don Jensen: 15 on page? Farmakes: Page 16. Generous: Yes. Don Jensen: If I could elaborate on that, and Bob did an excellent job... All of the road's taking the storm sewer that comes down the road. Likewise the city's project has storm sewer off of a curb and gutter section. Those meet at this location at the intersection of the public street that we're calling North Bay Drive and Lake Riley Boulevard. This is the water quality pond area. This coloration is the untouched wetland in it's current status. This area here actually is a second cell and as, from a water treatment point of view, qualifies for wetland mitigation status. So this whole entire area of wetland mitigation, and it's likely that the city through this road project would expand that into the land that's available here, on the Klingelhutz plat. The water goes from the street to pure water quality pond. Bounces out and goes through wetland mitigation area that also is used as a water quality second cell. From there it goes to this large complex. Here the City's proposing to raise that elevation like 3 or 4 feet for storage. This road presumably goes away and then it bounces out into the one wetland again that flows back underneath Lyman Boulevard back out into the lake. So there's really quite a series of protection or systems here. Farmakes: How is the setback issue to the north then? Don Jensen: The canopy that's shown on the drawings would lead you to believe that the ' edge of the canopy is the right -of -way, the edge of the wetland. That is not the case. We have about a 40 foot distance from the delineated wetland. We understand that it would need to be 50 so we shift 10 feet from this point here. ' Aanenson: Can I just expand on one other thing, on the beachlot. Again, this is conceptual so the objective here is just to try to flush out the issues that they need to address when they t come back to refine it. Certainly there needs to be some work on the wetlands. But the 37 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 beachlot, I want to make sure that that's clear. That we concur that that needs to be addressed when it comes back for preliminary and we would notice that as part of the preliminary and have a public hearing on that but it needs to be addressed then. And also understand that the Park and Recreation Commission also is looking at possibly using a portion of that as public space and that whole issue needs to be addressed too and we'd like to see it again in kind of a holistic sort of thing so we have a lot better understanding what the trade -off is. And it ties back into what you were saying Jeff as far as open space. When we looked at this, what would be a use of the land. Obviously it's zoned for high density. They could be stacked. We felt this was a good use of the land. It's a different product and we also felt the preservation of the open space along the lake, the preservation of that natural feature, the trees also provide an opportunity for those residents to have a place to recreate too. In addition to the larger park in the Klingelhutz, the Park and Recreation Commission has now recommended a larger park in this area, which is also is close proximity to walking space. So there is king of a competing need there to have this type of a product and not as much open space interior but in close proximity and a little bit different type of space. Farmakes: When you're referring to the product then, and what our commission's going to recommend, is the intent of what you're calling public use, a neighborhood issue or serving the people in relative distance to the area? Aanenson: My understanding is they may be looking at putting parking spaces and opening it up as a public space to allow maybe a few parking slips for maybe a public pier. Farmakes: But again I go back to, unless they've changed the definition, neighborhood park is to serve generally the neighborhood, although it's publically used by... Aanenson: They do have, all that beachlot is under their ownership right now. That would all be their neighborhood park. Now if the Park and Recreation Commission wants to obtain that in some fashion, they'd be looking at a different type of park. That is all right now just thoughts that they've expressed. Again, conceptually this is kind of what they're leaning at but certainly we would like to see that refined as this goes through the process and certainly the applicant wants to know exactly what the implications are in their project. Mancino: Kate, will you talk a little bit more about the park. Is it a neighborhood park on the Klingelhutz property? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: And how far is that? M Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Generous: It's 5 acres in size and less than a quarter mile from there. Aanenson: And that would have the normal play structure and those sort of things that you'd see in a neighborhood park. Farmakes: What is the distance to the apartment building that is part of the non - conforming lake access that we had problems with. How far is that distance? Aanenson: It's right in front of the project. Farmakes: Right in front. Mancino: Are you finished. Farmakes: Yeah, I'm sorry. I just wanted to. Mancino: I'm cutting you off. This is still a public hearing. Would someone else like to address the Planning Commission? Dave Nikolai: My name is Dave Nikolai. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle. I'm a resident of Rice Lake Manor. I'm a neighbor, and I'll use the term lightly as neighbor, to Rottlund right now. Approximately a year ago I was here, I am the single largest... resident that borders the Mission Hills development and I'd like to show you some pictures a year later of what has happened to the water quality in Rice Lake Marsh area. The ponds and I'll show you, or ask you, have any of you since approving Mission Hills, been out to take a look at what has happened to the water and wetland areas? May I ask that question first of all? Have anybody of you gone out and come out into my neighborhood and taken a look? Mancino: I've driven out and I haven't seen the wetlands. Dave Nikolai: Okay. Can I show you some pictures? These pictures were taken in the last 3 months. I have talked. Mancino: Just a minute. Nann, can you get this? Opheim: The photos? Mancino: No, can you get his voice? Opheim: Yes. WE Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Dave Nikolai: I have talked to Dave Hempel about this and I am working with John Rask. John should have apprised these people about that I was coming this evening, so I'm not here to blind side the city by any means but I want to show you the reality of what's happened just this year, which is approximately one year since Mission Hills came into play, and what it's doing to the water quality. You've got an issue, we've got runoff going into Lake Susan direct and you've got an issue with runoff off the development going directly into Rice Lake. First of all here is the exit off of West 86th Street, or off of TH 101 into West 86th Street. You can go out there and you can see water pooled there right now. If you drive out there and that is running under TH 101, directly into Lake Susan. This next picture was taken approximately one year after the development commenced. You'll see on here that there are no barriers for protection of the erosion and I'm going to show you pictures where it escalates based on the rains and things that we've had. Now we've had a fair amount of rain this spring but that should have all been taken care of and protected and thought of ahead of time. I'm going to show you, the pictures I'm showing you right now are before the erosion barriers that were put up about approximately 3 weeks ago. 3 -4 weeks ago and I'm going to show you what happened after the last rain and you'll see the pictures of the erosion barriers. You're now looking at my neighborhood, where I live, West 86th Street. I'm on Tigua Circle, which is the dead end of West 86th Street. You're going to slowly see the escalating water build -up. We have a flooding situation. I have talked to Dave Hempel about this twice. I've talked to John Rask about this and what has happened in the re- building of West 86th Street, is you've created a pitch that is pushing the water down. There's two storm sewers that are collecting that water at the end of the new development are not adequate. It's flooding West 86th Street and it's draining directly into the wetlands. The picture that I'm handing this gentleman here right now, I'm sorry Jeff, will show the flooding that's happening on West 86th Street. You can tell by the quality of the water, that this is straight runoff. Here's the picture of my neighbor directly to the east where the flooding, this flooding didn't, it wasn't there before. All of these pictures here now. Now the first picture I'm handing Jeff now, this is after the barriers were put up 3 weeks ago. Approximately 3 -4 weeks ago and after I had to come to the city to beg them to get after Rottlund to correct this situation. Here's a picture I'm handing Jeff right now would be a classic, after the barriers are put up. Mancino: The barriers were put up a year after the project was started? Dave Nikolai: That is correct. You can see in the difference in the pictures that there are pictures that were taken before and then there are pictures that have been taken within the last couple of weeks. Now I'm going to show you the difference in the color of the water going directly into the wetlands. I'm going to hand Jeff the first picture here. You can see by the beige color of the water, and then you can see the blue color in the background, what has 40 7 n Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 happened and that water is going directly into Rice Marsh. Here's a good picture showing the water already totally distorted. It's not going, it is going through our collecting pond but the collecting pond's filled up. They overflowed and the last set of pictures I want to show you, this is the part that I originally called the city about and I'm most concerned about, the wetlands around the whole Mission Hills development are full of trash and here's a good picture and sir, I'd like you to come up here and take a look at this picture. Your superintendent has been notified. Your building permits are being withheld and he is not doing anything about it. I live in this neighborhood. Mancino: Okay, remember you're talking to us. Dave Nikolai: I'm sorry. So you can see the trash sitting in the wetland. Here's another picture of the flooding but there's also trash. This would be along the easterly border of the development. I live just up the hill from this development. I've been picking up trash from the Rottlund development for a year. You can come into my neighborhood right now and you will see after this little wind that we had in the last day, trash coming in our neighborhood. Nobody picks that up except for us. I'd like these pictures back. I'm more than willing to leave them here so that whoever you'd like. I've got two other issues I'd like to address. Mancino: Okay. Dave Nikolai: The erosion is my number one concern. The trash is the second concern. For 90 days now, and the city staff will tell you. You should check with them so you don't have to believe me. I have been talking with them about it. They have contacted Rottlund. Rottlund hasn't responded. When I said neighbors, you know I was here a year ago. I talked about all these issues. I was concerned about it. I'm here now a year later. This development, while it isn't directly adjacent, we did receive notices in Rice Lake Marsh area that there was going to be another development by Rottlund in our area but tonight I haven't seen it so something changed here. There are two parts. You've got the right -of -way going through a piece of property here for the new Highway 212. I think somebody should ask the question about what's going to happen to the piece of land that is on Rice Marsh that is north of that that butts up to the other part of Rice Marsh where I live. Okay. So I'm asking a question. ...concept of this type of density of housing. I'll live with the one that we have, because I'm already in to that. The gentleman that said before, that he'd rather see this type of development versus what's happened in my area, which we're not talking that far. We're less than a quarter mile apart here. Maybe even less. This type of development is not suited for wetland, lake area. The park situation. I fought for that park in Mission Hills. The Park Commission did not put a park in there. They passed on it. We came here and told you about it. You did get them to do that and there is supposedly going to be a park, a small 41 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 park in there. You cannot put that many people into a small area without a planned park system, and Bandimere Park is not developed. Sorry. And that's going to come up on an issue or here shortly. I think I'm going to stop there. There were a lot of promises made on the Mission Hills project. Dick Putnam, who was the major spokesman at that time, made a lot of promises to us, the neighbors about things that were going to happen that haven't happened, and I've got evidence to prove. I'd highly recommend you come out and take a look. If you don't get out there tomorrow, they'll probably be corrected but I think the pictures speak for themselves. I would recommend to the city that they really seriously reconsider this type of development and take a look at what's happened with the Rottlund people and the developments they have, and if what I'm told is true, the building permits are being held up because they can't get Rottlund to perform, then why would you want to approve another development? Thank you. Mancino: We appreciate your comments. Thank you for coming. Any other comments? Sharon Gatto: I'm Sharon Gatto. I live at 9631 Foxford. My concern is the traffic. We, it doesn't sound like 212 is going through. We can't count on 212 going through. So it bothers me with 80 some homes, which are probably 2 cars to each home. The traffic level, as they were said, would be very little and I disagree with that. Access could be made, I don't know if they could get onto it from TH 101, but TH 101 is a pretty busy road these days. Pioneer Trail's pretty busy. Highway 5 is packed. Dell Road's not open yet. It will be open soon. That's going to be packed. I hate to see high density going in until there's some roads that will access people in and out ... TH 101's being wrecked. I mean the traffic on it right now is very high, it's very dangerous. Lyman, I'm not sure what they're talking about, about the curve or if they're going to enhance or widen the road but the traffic is what bothers me, firstly. Secondly is the high density near the lake. I live on the southwest corner of the lake and it bothers me that high density will be close to the lake. You know you're going to get trash. You're going to get runoff. You're going to get traffic. And I think people will come in with kids. Even though they're zero lot lines, they're going to be more affordable housing because Chanhassen has a higher, it does have a higher average housing sale price so I think it's going to bring in small families...just don't think it's suited. I would rather see them take out maybe half of the homes and leave it not such a high density. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? John Bushey: I'm John Bushey, 9000 Riley Lake Road in Eden Prairie. I own property and live on Lake Riley and I'm a Board member of the Lake Riley Improvement Association. I'd like to quickly reiterate a few of Mr. Sitter's comments and agree with staff on some of the issues. First of all the wetland alterations. I'd like to recommend that you minimize alteration to wetlands and question whether the 2:1 mitigation rule applies here. And if so, is 42 I L� n Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 it on site or is it off site? Near? Far? I don't know what the rule is on that. I'd like to stress it should be near the wetland that's reflected in the development here is critical to the health of Lake Riley. I think that's pretty clear that that's the case. And as the recent commenter here just made clear, there's many construction site. I live adjacent to Bearpath right now and a lot of nice things were said at the beginning of a construction project and regardless of the good intent, whether it's there or not, in the end erosion control is largely determined a success—and even then it really doesn't work when a big storm comes, and that's when the problems are. It's good for a light drizzle and a big rain in the end ... lot of sediment into these wetlands. The NURP pond or settling ponds on the south of this project considered mitigation in this case? I don't know that. That's a question that should be brought up. Is that legally called a mitigation as part of the 2 for 1. Mancino: Bob, could you answer that please? Generous: Under proposed legislation. John Bushey: The new proposed. Generous: Yeah. Aanenson: But currently, no. John Bushey: But currently, no. Will the decision be made before or after that legislation? That's up in the air. Generous: You know the legislature as well as we do I suppose. John Bushey: Yeah, okay. And the delineated wetland that's mentioned, is that delineation before or after the wetland level to be raised by 4 feet? Generous: That's currently. John Bushey: Okay. So if it's raised 4 feet, then the buffer zone go back 4 feet and it seems like there's no room for these developments. If the level goes up 4 feet. Mancino: Well they will adjust it accordingly. John Bushey: If they adjust it accordingly, it seems like they're awful tight right now. Generous: Yeah, and we've let them know that they are tight in there. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 John Bushey: Alright, so that's covered. It was real interesting to hear the stories of the development at Rice Marsh Lake. Rice Marsh Lake feeds through Riley Creek directly into Lake Riley and it's on the primary sources of phosphorus going into the lake. And with the high phosphorous soils that we have in the north side of Lake Riley, in addition to all the agricultural phosphorous loading, that's a serious problem with the quality of Lake Riley, which is in question. It's not a very high quality lake right now to begin with. The erosion control, it's absolutely crucial that it be taken, the best practices and beyond in these construction... Three other issues, I'd like to reinforce the thought that the beachlot development be tied directly with the development. Not keeping them separate... lake association because of the high traffic already and I think that any approval of this development should be tied to the development of the beachlot so it's clear that what you get with the houses, you get with the lake. Mancino: It will be. John Bushey: The traffic issue is also pretty critical. I don't know whether having the driveway together with the apartments or not is good. That could go either way. Right now the traffic from the apartments is a major problem with very little disregard for traffic rules and stop signs. I can see why they wouldn't want to share that driveway. But this will an additional load on the Eden Prairie side as well as on the Chanhassen side. I suggest that this development not become approved until there is a definitive traffic management plan. It was hard for me to see but I understand there are some sidewalks. Is that the dark line? Mancino: Yes, it's on the south side of that main road. John Bushey: Okay. Is there a plan for sidewalk or bike path on Lake Riley Blvd and Lyman? Generous: Yes. With the expansion. John Bushey: Ah, okay. Aanenson: That'd be part of the improvement project of that. John Bushey: Okay. It's interesting that that's on the south side of Lake Riley Road because you can't continue. Right off the top of this chart there's a humongous cliff there. So somehow they're going to have to cross the road so some consideration of how that goes. If it's going to tie into... There are plans right now at the Eden Prairie border for bike paths to come to the western boundary of Eden Prairie and go north along the boundary with the Bearpath development... but that's on the north side of the road. So some consideration of 44 1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 that. It belongs on the south side here. Somehow it's got to get across. We understand that. With the traffic situation the way it is, and the number of children that are in the apartments, and the very few of us who live in Eden Prairie near this but are not in Bearpath, and the new occupants of these... so thank you. ' Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? ' Kevin: Good evening, Madam Chair. Commissioners. My name's Kevin ... and I own RLK Associates... We've been retained by the... Corporation, owners of the Lakeview Apartment property to assess the development potential of the property, together with assessing the ' impasse of the proposed North Bay development on the... property. Three main areas that we'd like to talk about tonight. How the housing development affects the apartment building. How the development affects the developability of the Lakeview property and then the overall ' planning issues concerned with the entire area. First of all, one point that we'd like to state is that the access to the apartment building, it's critical that it remains in approximately the same location that it is. Now if the road were to straddle property lines, that it would be close ' enough to existing entrance to the apartment building... apartment complex itself so. Right now the proximity of the access to the apartments and proposing routing of those are ' relatively close and I think that may be an issue... Another issue is that the sanitary sewer and water service of the apartment are in place now and I'm sure staff will address this engineering. Those need to remain in place uninterrupted through the construction of the ' proposal. Fourthly, that the storm water drainage that's currently... and I think you can see on page 2, your existing conditions map, where that line empties out across the Adelman property and follows it overland of course down to the pond. And then to the south of that, ' there's another smaller pipe that exits off the property onto the Adelman property and... And then fifthly, in connection with the apartment complex, that the overall development, not necessarily... on the entirety of the Lakeview property but that some sort of connection, ' pedestrian connection be from the... Secondly, for the development concerns of the Lakeview property, again the access I think is something that we'll continue to look at with the Rottlund Corporation... Secondly that again, storm water drainage be preserved for the developability of that ... is not affected adversely by that. Thirdly, that sanitary sewer and water facilities be made available with the proper sizes and depths adequate to serve that area. Again, the pedestrian connection from the developable portion of Lakeview properties be made so this ' whole area can be ... and not a separate piece as it were. Lastly, with the plan issues, and a lot of these things will go back to show that the common access road is... That overall that the joint planning efforts by Rottlund and perhaps the... Corporation might yield an overall... And lastly, in looking at the side of the Lake Riley Road that we understand that shift in that road may be appropriate given the storm water concerns or the design speed of the road itself. However... Those are concerns in overview.... 45 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission on this issue? If not, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion cwiied. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: The public hearing was closed. We may during the discussion, commissioners discussion, ask questions from the applicant and that would be fine if you could please answer us or if staff. Mike. I think that one of the issues that we need to discuss is that staff is recommending that we have this conceptual approval and not preliminary PUD approval. Just because of some of the issues that still need to be resolved that will affect this plat. So if you could talk to that and also conceptually, again in broad stroke terms, how you feel about that. Farmakes: Madam Chairman? Mancino: Yes. Farmakes: Can I make a comment? You may want to define the difference between, for our two new board members. I'm not sure, I can't speak for them but I know sometimes that's a confusing issue for initially being on the commission. Mancino: Oh, for conceptual approval? Farmakes: Yes. Meyer: So what are we approving? Mancino: So what you are approving is transportation routes. How the roads work. The alignment of the street. The overall landscaping. Aanenson: Just kind of broad brush. Again the conceptual, it doesn't have legal standing. You can certainly alter it but when you're saying is the general framework, you envision seeing the single family detached is what you vision on there, as Commissioner Mancino indicated. But the general framework of the road connections. That sort of thing. Just the overall broad brush. Certainly issues are going to have to be further developed such as the wetland. How that's, how and if that should be mitigated. Storm water treatment. How that will be handled. All those sorts of things but what we're saying is on the conceptual framework, is this something you would be interested in seeing further developed. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: So with that, I'll start with Jeff. Farmakes: I guess I'll start out with touching on some issues. The first one I'm going to touch on, because this sort of pertains to the previous issue that I abstained on. The ' developments that we have that are right adjacent to a lake, it seems to me that in our best practice, perhaps we should maybe take a look at looking at how we do that. An issue of construction. I can name off all of the lakes that are in Chanhassen and the ones for future development of this type are Minnewashta, Riley, Lake Ann potentially, and Lake Lucy still has a small amount of development left to go. All of these lakes have turbidity problems. Without exception, and some of them are bad. There's no question that development contributes a great deal to this and we can make all the rules in the world but if the management of development does not follow through with these, we literally have to have a person on site on every development in Chanhassen and somebody's got to pay for that. So I ' guess we either need to stiffen those bonding issues and make it more than a slap on the wrist, or simply not allow those developers to develop in this community. Because this is a community that takes the wetland issue seriously and not to make a long speech here. That's ' what our residents want. And if the developers don't want to conform to that, don't come in. I'm disturbed by these pictures that were brought up here. I think that a lot of this is just an issue of management quality and I realize that you're representing a company in particular that ' happens to relate to these but there are other construction firms also that are involved in these issues. But they're still issues. They're issues of trash and clean -up after yourself and simple ' issues of putting up barriers that you agreed to put up and did not do it. Don Jensen: I would like to. ' Mancino: Would you please finish until we have a question for you. Thank you. ' Farmakes: In a large scale development, it's obvious there's a million things to go and there are some things that are delayed or whatever but on the chain of command and going on down the line, these are the type of things that create problems with neighbors, and these are ' your neighbors here. What you're proposing is to bring in an additional 100 and some people, or cars and families, into this area to create more of Chanhassen. Now there's a lot of Chanhassen left to be developed and we have to take it seriously. We have to ask the people ' coming to do that, to take our rules seriously. Now I'll start on the issue of this development. I think that the issue of the wetland mitigation that was proposed, be pushed farther down on the property line. I'm not sure, I'd like to see what's the staffs response to that is. I haven't ' seen wetland mitigation that is pushed off into someone else's property line before but maybe if the city wants to respond to that proposal. I don't understand it thoroughly or I'm not sure that it's spelled out here. I didn't catch it. Is that what you were proposing? A direct ' question. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Don Jensen: To respond directly to the question here. The plan as it is intended, is if this is the low area of your SWMP management plan, master plan. Our plan achieves the 2:1 mitigation required by the wetland that's proposed to be filled on this plan. Water goes directly into a water quality pond. That does not get any wetland mitigation credit. If it comes out of there into a second cell, which is entirely on this property, meeting the mitigation percentage requirements before it goes into an area that's declared a wetland, it does get wetland mitigation credit per current State rules and LGU rules. What I was describing is that this farm road would go away once you have a public road access further and this farm is in the 212 right -of -way. It presumably goes away with the Klingelhutz plan when it ultimately becomes developed. The city's SWMP management plan intends to purchase property at the low end of the drainage basin for water quality purposes. This remnant piece, inbetween an existing delineated wetland is higher than the current wetland. Would be a candidate to be dug for a water quality ponding or wetland mitigation for which this road project has it's own requirements for Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley. So what I'm just describing is there is a potential for the city to maximize the space. That's off site. We didn't ask for any credit off site. It's just that what you end up with is this existing wetlands, all areas above that likely get carved out in your long range master plan that Bonestroo prepared and your best plan is to have that north of the road because you certainly can't fit in a water quality pond and expect it to do it's job between the lake and the road so, I hopefully responded to your questions. Farmakes: That answers my question, thank you. I'll go down to the issue of what I see as a fill fluid issue or the options on the shoreline. If they retain, as the park recommends or whatever they come to an agreement where the ownership of that area as retained with the development and as for the use of this development. I see potential of problems with boat, canoe storage and things of that nature. You've got a fair amount of people on a small amount of land. I'm not sure how that's going to be a part of the plan but I'd like to see that spelled out when it comes back specifically. What those options are. And the issue of boat storage. I think we've touched on the issue of canoe storage but I think boat, and what we're looking at as far as mooring boats. I think it's pretty evident that 212, based on federal protections and federal money handed to the State, to our community, is down in the future somewhere. At least not in this century. Under those circumstances, I am concerned how, what our projections are in this types of densities for access and how you see that traffic, so that would also be something I'd like to see developed in the next report when that comes back. Because obviously those access points will be from north to south, and not east to west. We don't have the benefit tonight of answering general questions of our engineer so I'm not going to dwell on the engineering issues but obviously it'd be something that you'll be providing us when this comes back. But those pictures are disturbing. I think that in particular looking at the previous development, which I see is a much worse situation as far as land topography. The topographic issue of how that land works and so on and how we 48 L I r Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 deal with that currently. We may want to look at, as I was just talking about some sort of additional issues on wetlands that surround open water. Mancino: We can add that to a PUD. Farmakes: We can add this to an addition but I'm not sure if staff has had time to contemplate that issue but, there's not many feet to that type of water to ... quality of what we're trying to achieve here. In looking at and a lot of this does not go from one wetland to another wetland to another wetland. It goes right into the lake. I'd also like to see what options would be put forward to residents of the commons area. I'd like to see that spelled out. I think that's an important area when you confine that many people together, and particularly a zero lot line. I think that zero lot line is good. I have nothing against zero. It offers I think a good living environment if the commons area is more than a token issue. And it allows a reasonable place to live at a reasonable cost and particularly in an area that has high land cost. I like what I see architecturally. I think how they've approached it with the multi -color and the architecture that I see, is actually innovative. I like it. It's some of the nicer stuff that I've seen come into here. And at that price level. If that in fact is that price level. Although I'm not making that a condition of what I'm talking about. I'm not certain, I would feel that we're not doing our job if we left that as a blank area to be figured out by the residents. I think that's too much an intrinsic issue and we should be part of that. That's part of what we do. I'll leave the comments, I don't want to take them all. I'll leave that for the rest of you. Mancino: You got most of them. Thanks. Mike. Meyer: I don't know what he's left out. A lot of the same concerns I have were the same as his. The wetland. Making sure that that's handled in the right way because you only get one shot at it is a big concern. I would like us to have a hand in the common areas also and the planning of that. I just pretty much am in full agreement with everything that Jeff has said and I'll just leave it at that for now. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I have a couple of things. You had brought up the amount of traffic on the surrounding roads and Lyman Boulevard is scheduled to be updated at some time. It's another road in need of repair and improvement. How is that, what does the timeframe look like for Lyman Boulevard being upgraded? Generous: I think they said pushing it back to next spring. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Don Jensen: Do you want me? Generous: Yeah. You had talked to Charles on that. Don Jensen: The engineering department, in their memo in your staff report... condition that they have in every other development, we wouldn't be able to turn any dirt until they ordered that job which upgrades Lyman and Lake Riley Boulevard. So keep in mind that that whole road, the alignment that we're talking about, Lake Riley Boulevard, will get torn out. Torn up. New pipes put in and a new road surface put down. And from a company builder point of view, we don't want to be in there prematurely because we don't want to get cut off either. It doesn't do us any good to start a subdivision and have no way to deliver lumber and that kind of thing so those two are really tied hand in hand. To answer your question, if the city can't bond for the roads this fall or the utilities this fall, everything gets delayed at this point regardless of-timing. Whether that's next monday of July or August or September. Skubic: Okay, thank you Don. Don Jensen: The report says spring as the anticipated time to pay. Skubic: One other thing. There aren't too many zero lot line developments that I'm aware of You did mention that there is another one in the suburban area, Inver Grove Heights. Is that correct? Don Jensen: Yes. Skubic: And just for point of reference, how does that development compare in terms of number of units, price range? Don Jensen: That was a concept, it's a little bit higher price point. It's has a little bit steeper topography around the exterior of the dwelling so that's one of the reasons that a lot of the buyers chose options with second floors ... views. Had the wetland complex that we've been working with the city on to maintain the overall water quality... Regarding it's compatibility. It's price point is stronger than what we anticipate at this point and it's target should be. We anticipated that that would probably come in at around the 140 range... We would target this one so that the base price would be what we've got in the staff summary. Of course a lot of that is determined on development costs that we don't necessarily control and some of it is the higher ambience that... Does that answer your question? Skubic: Thanks. co Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 1 Don Jensen: ...little bit less on the other one because it's about another 5 foot wider. It's a ' basement product where these are slab on grades so we need a little bit extra room to get the excavating equipment in so that's our reason for that. That density, with a private road system, that was about 5 units an acre... Skubic: And there were about, approximately the same number of units in that development? ' Don Jensen: We had 44, which is a real similar notion to what we had through here where you have... ' Skubic: That was 44 units? Don Jensen: That was correct. Skubic: Thank Y ou. ' Don Jensen: You had a question about other zero lot line developments. There was kind of a phase in Twin Cities developments, probably RLK could certainly comment to that. About 10 -15 years ago there was kind of a round of development that was in a narrower lot line, and ' whether you call it detached... Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, and then for some reason it went down the road for a little while. Now it's coming back and the Twin Cities in general has ' lagged the nation in coming up with housing that is smaller lots with less maintenance. We think it's appropriate. We've been receiving a lot of potential inventory and opportunity in giving the market with what they want. ' Mancino: Thank you. My comments are, conceptually I think, and no one has hit on the wetlands and our concern about them and I know that that will be taken care of between now ' and preliminary plat. The alignment of the roads, etc. I do support the staffs recommendations on that. I very much support this kind of housing. We have seen a lot of townhomes, twin homes lately so I like the zero lot, single family for those people who would ' still like to buy single family homes and can't afford most of the homes in Chanhassen. However, I would like to address a couple of the architectural comments that are in your memorandum and that is, I would like to make sure that Rottlund, that we do have a variety ' of color in bricks. I have seen that work lately in a townhome development that did not just use one color of brick, but used different colors. All within the same tone but a slight difference. And they also used brick or a substantial material like that and not the same mass ' on every single home. They used it maybe halfway up or they used it on a whole wall, a side wall, so that there was some differentiation between what was brick and what was wall. On page 8 of the memorandum under architecture, it says building colors will vary based on ' homeowner's selection with a range determined by Rottlund. See selected sample, which we 51 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 did. Rottlund reserves the right to vary based on supplier and material availability at the time of actual construction. I don't feel comfortable with that because I want to make sure that the agreement that Rottlund has with the city, with the variations that we see, we will be able to get. That is very important. Secondly, I would conceptually would like to see more side level entries. That is as you go down these streets, I see more of a neighborhood of garages, which is again very, very typical of all of the twin home, townhome developments that we're seeing and they all start looking alike. So I would like to see more of a variety of entries. I do feel it is important that the common area has very definite access corridors to it. And Bob I wanted to ask you, has the Klingelhutz property that's going to be up for development, have they talked to. Well I would hope in the next few months that they look at the access onto their property and that the applicant and those that are going to be developing the western property, get together to make sure that that works. Aanenson: Excuse me, are you talking about the street? Mancino: The street access. Aanenson: That's currently what they have platted right now. Whether that plat's going to hold in place but they have designed it to tie into this street. Mancino: Okay, thank you. I do like what has been presented as architecture. I like the mix of rectangular and arched window systems but I would just like to add some of these other things. What else? I think that those are the only other new issues that I wanted to bring up. I guess that's it. Do I have a motion? Meyer: Nancy, could I just ask one other question about staff? Mancino: Sure. Meyer: Along the 212, future 212 right -of -way, are we talking about any berming or any landscaping to put some sort of buffer there. I see there, maybe it's just the lay of the land but towards the upper end, towards the wetland there. Is that bermed? Aanenson: 212 will be lower than the actual, this project. What they're proposing to do is do some of the grading into that so when the property, when 212 does go through, whatever date that is, you're going to have to come into this project to do grading. So we envision some landscaping there but the elevation of the road will be lower. But there's still some noise ... or transition. That's what we're talking about. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 Mancino: Well I just ... I do support what Jeff said. I would like the applicant and staff to ' work out some sort of a system so that the erosion control measures are put up. There is no trash. Developer's walk their talk. And to be proactive and to have natural consequences if it doesn't happen. Thank you. ' Don Jensen: I'm sure there were a couple of questions that ... podium to answer, if I could respond. Mancino: Yes, you may. ' Don Jensen: There was a question about what was happening north of the property to Rice Marsh Lake. Right now the city is responding, looking at purchasing the 212 corridor and the Rice Marsh Lake has been discussion stages and that was a complete program that has happened in other locations of 212. So that would take care of the problem to the north. That would fill out their joint plans, as we understand... Chanhassen to have an opportunity to serve Rice Marsh Lake with a trail system that would be independent of the Lake Riley trails that are happening in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. Aanenson: So our desire is to leave that natural except for a trail. That would be the area between 212 and Rice Marsh. Don Jensen: The existing sewer line forms a natural trail corridor that's already cut through ' the vegetation. For the most part that sewer line would be abandoned once the improvements and Lake Riley Boulevard, Lyman, whenever that occurs. Secondly, in some defense of our ' Mission Hills development. The superintendents have been told of that. We are the builder there so we are responsible obviously for all the trash but certainly that's, we're following other developers since there is a single family neighborhood between us and the others, which ' is not to say that some more fences aren't to be added and we'll just leave it at that. But we're not the prime contractor responsible for a lot of the road building and a lot of the initial major erosion control to protect that lake. So I just wanted to clarify that ... or if they're torn ' down, no matter who tears them down. Regarding traffic, that will be in the staff summary. Hopefully I explained that. This is a road project... improve the overall circulation that fits within the city hierarchy. The engineers will comment to that next time. We do want to ' make sure that as a Planning Commission you are comfortable with this concept of housing, because we want to spend the time to massage the plan. We don't want to spend the time to massage the plan if you change your minds in two months time so we'd like to know that ' now and we appreciate the comments that we've heard. Regarding the commons area. We appreciate your interest to work with us to design it. I would like to say now that I want to be open to your phone calls and I'd like to be able to access you so we're not spending time ' at the podium with what our future plans are. We would like an opportunity to not over 1 53 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 program space before we know who the buyers are. And there is a risk.there. I've got neighborhoods where City Councils and Planning Commissions have projected a population mix. Required me to build play equipment. I can only purchase commercial grade equipment, like your parks can for liability purposes and I end up with a neighborhood of two children, with a $15,000.00 play structure, because that was mandated. If the association has the opportunity, if we can define activity zones, and the association then has the choice what their liability insurance, can buy a Rainbow play systems that fits what they want to do. They can buy that for $1,000.00. I can't buy a swing for an association, as the Rottlund Company, and turn it over, and not buy commercial park grade equipment that a swing will cost me $1,500.00. A slide that's this high will cost me $1,000.00, and you can verify that with Todd who buys all the equipment, I presume for the city and it's parks. I'm not trying to be abstinent about that. I just want to be open that we can envision what this neighborhood will be but if we don't leave a space and opportunity, all the people with children might buy on the outside and all the people without children, and there might be a lot of them, they buy on the inside, and they end up with a play structure right outside their patio. Okay. And then in retrospect, how smart was I? I don't want to waste a lot of time. I just want to be open to you so we're not debating... Mancino: Thank you. At this point, do I have a motion? Farmakes: I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council grant conceptual approval of PUD #95 -1 with the following conditions. Or excuse me, dated May 9, 1995 with the following conditions and issues, concerns and recommendations. 1 thru 30. I would add 31. To define the options of development for a commons area and access. 32. That a guarantee of minimum brick variations and colors of siding be defined. 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 based on past... 35. A future projection of heighten traffic use without 212 development. Mancino: Do I hear a second? Meyer: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council grant conceptual approval of PUD 995 -1 with the following conditions, issues, concerns and recommendations: 54 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 1 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 #9 -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. I 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. I 6. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. I 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. 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. 1 55 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 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 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. 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. 56 r u I I C 0 n Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 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. 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 -way 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. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 1995 27. Lots 1 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. To define the options of development for a commons area and access. 32. A guarantee of minimum brick variations and colors of siding be defined. 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 212 development. All voted in favor and the motion caned. Generous: It goes to the City Council on June 12th and they'll, for conceptual approval. Mancino: Did everyone hear that? It goes to the City Council on June 12th for conceptual approval. Thank you very much. 58