The URL can be used to link to this page

6 Rezone/Meridian Development - 7 a: ,) J 1.. L :( ::( - ~ 1,) - - f) CITY OF CHANHASSEN ft~ - PC DATE: August 15,2000 CC DATE: Sept. II, 2000 REVIEW DEADLINE: 9/11100 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to rezone five acres from A2, Agricultural Estate, to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development- Residential, and preliminary plat approval to subdivide tbe property into 10 lots and right-of-way for Summerfield Drive Springfield 8th Addition LOCATION: 421 Lyman Blvd APPLICANT: Meridian Development 5025 Bryant A venue South Minneapolis, MN 55419 (612) 829-0700 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential- Low Density (1.2 -4.0 units/net acre) ACREAGE: 5 acres DENSITY: 2.0 units per acre (gross); 2.47 units per acre (net) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting concept and preliminary Planned Unit Development approval rezoning tbe property from A2, Agricultural Estate District, to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development - Residential, and preliminary plat approval to create a 10 lot subdivision. The existing house would be maintained on one lot. Two lots will be accessed via Lyman Boulevard. Eight lots will be accessed via a connection of Summerfield Drive. Notice oftbis public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. . LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets tbe standards outlined in tbe Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets tbese standards, the City must approve tbe preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. 'f Ii ~'~ I',', k,. ~' P' i¡ -4 5 MISSION 6 RICE CRT 'T , Springfield Dr ~ 1"'\ Meridian Development August 15, 2000 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a PUD since tbe property is directly adjacent to property developed previously as a planned residential development. Though separate from tbe surrounding Springfield PUD, this project will be perceived as and will function as an extension oftbe previously approved plan. The subdivision design has been constrained by tbe City of Chanhassen's previous approvals oftbe Springfield Addition, specifically, by tbe terminus of Summerfield Drive on botb sides of the proposed development and by tbe location of connecting utilities. The proposed plat consists of 10 single family home sites. Eight of the sites will be accessed via the connection of Summerfield Drive. Two lots, one containing the existing home, will be accessed directly off Lyman Boulevard. While access from a collector road is normally prohibited, maintaining the access to tbe existing home and one addition home should not negatively impact the roadway capacity or jeopardize safety. The elimination of a cul-de-sac from Summerfield Drive reduces tbe amount of impervious surface and preserves the existing trees on the property. Since the property is not part of tbe Springfield development and, in fact, was an exception to it, the developer should change the name oftbe proposed subdivision. Lots with areas less than 15,000 within tbe surrounding development (Springfield) have had problems maintaining tbe maximum 25 percent impervious surface when three car garages are used. Therefore, lots less than 15,000 square feet in lot area (Lots 3 and 6 of the northerly block and Lots 2, 3, and 4 of tbe soutberly block) shall be limited to a two-car garage. The total area of the site is 4.9987 acres. Right-of-way dedication is 0.95 acres. The net area for development is approximately 4 acres. Staff is recommending approval of the conceptual and preliminary PUD and the preliminary plat subject to tbe conditions oftbe staff report. BACKGROUND This property was previously used as a small farmstead witb chickens and horses. It was not included as part of the development oftbe Springfield PUD, but was ghost platted to show tbe potential for future development of tbe site. This ghost plat incorporated a cul-de-sac from Summerfield Drive and used portions of tbe land witbin the Springfield development to create the lots. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations have not been submitted by the applicant. Staff has made approximate canopy coverage calculation for the development. They are as follows: Meridian Development August 15,2000 Page 3 Total upland area (including outlots) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 4.55 ac. less than 19% 25% or 1.14 ac. all existing trees The applicant does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, however all existing trees are scheduled to be preserved. Therefore, the applicant will be credited the 24 existing trees and is required to plant tbe difference. Minimum canopy coverage required Existing trees preserved Total number oftrees to be planted 46 trees 24 trees 22 trees The applicant has proposed a total of 10 trees. An additional 12 trees must be added to tbe planting plan to comply witb tbe tree preservation ordinance. The trees must be overstory, deciduous, 2W' diameter and no more than 20 percent may be represented by a single species. The rear yard of each lot must contain a minimum of two (2) overstory trees. This will add two additional trees to the total trees required. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan. Changes to the plan include an additional 14 trees. The trees must be overstory, deciduous, 2Yz" diameter and no more tban 20 percent may be represented by a single species. PARKS AND RECREATION The City of Chanhassen does not desire additional park land in this area. Therefore, the development shall be required to pay full park and trail fees for tbe nine additional lots created as part of tbe development. WETLANDS There do not appear to be any wetlands present on-site, however, staff recommends that a wetland delineator assess tbe site to verify tbe City's planning maps. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANT (SWMP) Water Oualitv Fees Because of tbe impervious surface associated witb this development, tbe water quality fees for tbe proposed development are $800/acre, based on single-family residential development rates. Based on tbe proposed developed area of 4.55 acres, tbe water quality fees associated witb tbis project are $3,640. Meridian Development August 15,2000 Page 4 The applicant may be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. Water Ouantitv Fees 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/low density developments have a connection charge of $1 ,980 per developable acre. Therefore the applicant will be responsible for a $9,009 fee. These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING The Springfield residential subdivision surrounds the subject parcel. The site is fairly void of trees with the exception of the northeast portion of the property near the existing homestead on Lot 2. The remaining site is fairly rolling and was used for agricultural purposes in the past. Site grading will be confined to the southerly portion of the site as shown on the plans. However, Lot 2, north of Summerfield Drive, will require grading in order to develop the house pad and driveway. The grading plan should be revised to incorporate proposed fill limits and elevations of the lot accordingly. The grading plans address drainage from the surrounding parcels; however, we believe some grading revisions are still necessary. Staff is concerned about the house pad elevations and drainage from the area south of the proposed street. A catch basin is proposed in the rear yard of Lots 3 and 4. An emergency overflow swale needs to be incorporated between Lots 3 and 4 to convey backyard drainage out to Summerfield Drive. Also, an emergency overflow needs to be incorporated along the southerly property lines of Lots I and 2 in case the pond in the northwesterly comer of the property overflows. This pond will also need to be altered to accommodate additional storm water runoff from the site. Staff also recommends the applicant work with staff in reviewing the existing drainage patterns through the southerly portion of the site to accommodate runoff through the site. Lyman Boulevard is a collector-type street and, typically, berming is required in accordance with city codes. However, given the topographic features of the parcel, berming may not be feasible; therefore, other means such as landscaping should be considered. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the parcel from Lyman Boulevard as well as Summerfield Drive. The plans propose to extend sewer and water along Summerfield Drive to provide utility service to the development. Lots I and 2 adjacent to Lyman Boulevard will be Meridian Development August 15,2000 Page 5 serviced via existing sewer and water services. According to city records, the existing house at 421 Lyman Boulevard (Lot I) is not connected to city sewer or water. According to city ordinance, homes within 150 feet of a sewer and water line shall be connected to municipal service within 12 months after the sewer line is operational. Therefore, it should be a recommended condition of approval that the existing home at 421 Lyman Boulevard shall be connected to municipal sewer within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The plans should also denote any existing well or septic systems on the property. The developer shall have the existing well and septic system on Lot 1 (421 Lyman Boulevard) abandoned in accordance with State and City requirements. Staff has reviewed the sanitary sewer elevations for the project in relation to the proposed house pad elevations. The applicant should be aware that the street grade may have to be elevated along with the house pads to provide enough grade on the sewer pipe to serve the adjacent lots. In conjunction with the preliminary plat of Springfield Addition, a preliminary street grade was extended through this parcel and the sewer designed accordingly. Staff encourages the applicant's engineer to review previous street grades and make the necessary corrections to provide for adequate grade on the sewer to serve the lots via gravity. The developer will be installing the street and utility improvements for this project. The construction plans shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The plans shall be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff review and formal City Council approva1. The developer will be required to enter into a PUD/Development Contract with the City and provide a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The plat should dedicate the necessary drainage and utility easements over the public lines outside of the right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities or width of drainage swales, the minimum drainage and utility easement shall be 20 feet wide. The property was previously assessed for sewer and water trunk and lateral charges in conjunction with the Lake Riley/Lyman Boulevard Trunk Improvement Project No. 93-26B. However, only one of the nine unit assessments was levied. The remaining eight were deferred. Since the applicant is creating more lots than previously was assessed, the additional lots will be subject to city sanitary sewer and water hookup and connection charges as well as a road connection charge at time of building permit issuance. The 2000 trunk utility hookup connection charges per lot for sanitary sewer and water are as follows: $1,000 Sanitary Sewer Hookup $1,694 Watermain Hookup $4,075 Sanitary Sewer Connection $4,075 Watermain Connection $1,814 Street Reconstruction - Lyman Boulevard The deferred assessments against the property should be re-spread against the property and certified to the County at time of final plat recording. Meridian Development August 15, 2000 Page 6 DRAINAGE The site currently sheet drains in a northerly, northeasterly fashion. The property drains to two existing storm water ponds created with the Springfield developments. The developer of this site will need to expand the existing storm water pond located just west of Lot 2. Staff will be working with the applicant's engineer to determine the amount of expansion necessary to accommodate runoff from this development. The site also drains into the pond located east of Lot I in the Springfield development. This pond will not require further expansion to accommodate runoff from the site. As mentioned in the Grading section, the plans will need to incorporate emergency overflow swales from the rear yards of Lots I through 4 lying south of Summerfield Drive as well as an emergency overflow swale along the southerly portions of Lots I and 2. According to the grading plan, adjacent neighborhood drainage patterns are proposed to be maintained with the site development. Storm water runoff in the rear portions of Lots I through 4 south of Springfield Drive is proposed to be conveyed via a storm sewer system. Staff is recommending that this area be reviewed in greater detail to eliminate the flared end section and develop a plan with a catch basin/drain tile and emergency overflow swale between Lots 3 and 4 to allow for the property owner to utilize more of the rear yard. The development's storm sewer system shall be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Ponding calculations including pre- and post-development drainage maps for a 10- year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event will need to be submitted to city stafffor review and approval prior to final plat consideration. Staff is also requiring a detailed storm sewer analysis of the individual storm sewer to determine that there are sufficient catch basins to accommodate proposed runoff. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the storm drainage system including ponds and emergency overflows. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the pond should also be a consideration in the easement width and location. The high water level of the pond located west of Lot 2 is 896.5. According to city codes, the minimum lowest floor elevation of a dwelling adjacent to a pond shall be a minimum of two feet above the high water level. Therefore, Lot 2's minimum lowest floor elevation shall be 898.5. Assuming an 8-foot high basement, the top of block elevation will be 906.5. The grading plan should be revised to incorporate the dwelling type and lowest floor, top of block, and garage floor elevations. In addition, the existing home lowest floor elevation and walkout elevation shall be denoted on the plans as well. EROSION CONTROL The plans propose Type I erosion control fence which already exists along the westerly portion of the site. Additional erosion control fence shall be installed along Lots 5 and 6 at the grading limits as well as rock construction entrances on Summerfield Drive. Existing and proposed catch basins outside of the street right-of-way should also have erosion control measures employed Meridian Development August 15,2000 Page 7 accordingly. Watershed District and NPDES permits will be required in conjunction with this development. STREETS The plans propose to construct Summerfield Drive to complete the gap between the Springfield developments. The street right-of-way is proposed as 60 feet wide with a 31-foot wide back-to- back concrete curb and gutter urban street section in accordance with city standards. Access to Lot I is currently via an existing driveway from Lyman Boulevard. The plans propose to relocate the driveway access from Lot I to the common lot line of Lots I and 2 where a shared driveway will provide street access to both lots from Lyman Boulevard. The new driveway access will require an existing street light to be relocated along Lyman Blvd. The old access shall be removed and replaced with B-618 concrete curb and gutter. In accordance with the city's private driveway ordinance the common portion ofthe shared driveway will need to be 20 feet wide and constructed to a 7-ton per axle weight design. Staff has reviewed the driveway locations along Lyman Boulevard and concurs with the proposed driveway relocation. Lyman Boulevard is a collector street listed in the city's comprehensive plan and driveway accesses are prohibited unless there is no other feasible way to access the property. Staff does not believe that one additional home site accessing from Lyman Boulevard will adversely affect traffic flow along Lyman Boulevard. A cross-access easement and maintenance agreement will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots which access the private driveway. The minimum driveway width shall be 20 feet within a 30-foot wide driveway easement. There is an existing eight-foot trail on the south side of Lyman Boulevard that runs across the property. This trail will need to be maintained and repaired with the installation of the new drive serving the two lots off Lyman Boulevard. In addition, a five-foot concrete sidewalk must be installed along Summerfield Drive as part of the subdivision infrastructure improvements. On a side note, in conjunction with Springfield 1st Addition located on the easterly portion of the project, south side of Summerfield Drive, the existing parking stalls will be removed/relocated by Llmdgren Brothers to accommodate the extension of Summerfield Drive. In addition, Lundgren Brothers will also remove the temporary turnaround located on the west end of the project when this project commences. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately five acres from A2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development - Residential. There is one component to the PUD: single family detached housing. The following review constitutes our evaluation ofthe PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Meridian Development August 15,2000 Page 8 Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. The applicant is requesting a PUD since the property is directly adjacent to property which has been developed previously as a planned residential development. Though separate from the surrounding Springfield PUD, this project will be perceived as and will function as an extension of the previously approved plan. The subdivision design has been constrained by the City of Chanhassen's previous approvals of the Springfield Addition, specifically, by the terminus of Summerfield Drive on both sides of the proposed development and by the location of connecting utilities. The use of the PUD does permit the reduction in the impervious surface through the elimination of a small cul-de-sac and preserves the existing trees on the property. 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: I. 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. Findinl!. The proposed plan will preserve almost all of the trees on the site. 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. Findinl!. The subdivision minimizes the amount of site grading, reduces impervious surface, and maximizes the use of the site for single family homes. 3. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Findinl!. The proposed development is consistent with the surrounding PUD and is compatible with the planned future development of the area. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Meridian Development August 15,2000 Page 9 Findinl!. The proposed site design is sensitive to and enhances the uses within the Lyman Boulevard corridor. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Findinl!. The proposed development is consistent with the Residential - Low Density designation of the property. The net density exceeds the target net density of 2.42 units per acre, but is well within the range of 1.2 to 4.0 units per net acre. The City of Chanhassen encourages development at the high end of density ranges. 6. 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. Findinl!. No additional parks and open space will be required of this development. Full park and trail fees shall be required pursuant to City of Chanhassen ordinances. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Findinl!. The provision of affordable housing is not anticipated as part of this development. Single family detached housing, unless heavily subsidized, cannot generally meet the affordable criteria. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Findinl!. The subdivision minimizes the amount of site grading, reduces impervious surface, and maximizes the use of the site for single family homes. Additionally, the site preserves almost all existing trees on the property. 9. 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. Findinl!. The proposed development combines access to the two lots on Lyman Boulevard, reducing potential traffic conflicts. It also connects the last segment of Summerfield Drive, providing area residents with alternative access to their lots. 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 ofthe site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving: Meridian Development August IS, 2000 Page 10 Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees) Sensitive development to existing surrounding development More efficient use of land COMPLIANCE TABLE Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (ft.) Depth (ft.) Maximum Impervious Surface ~q. ft.) Code Avg. 15,000, 90 1O0 3,750/2,750 min. 11,000 Lot I, north 37,876 176 206 9,469 Lot 2, north 23,860 159 ISO 5,965 Lot 3, north 14,914 115.7 186 3,728 Lot 4, north 16,252 90 196 4,063 Lot 5, north 15,738 90 174 3,934 Lot 6, north 11,335 90 136 2,834 Lot I, south 15,314 91 200 3,828 Lot 2, south 13,503 90 162 3,376 Lot 3, south 13,267 90 152 3,317 Lot 4, south 14,376 90 171 3,594 Lyman Blvd. 19,519 Summerfield Dr. 21,793 Total 217,744 Average 17,643 Setbacks: Front: 30 feet (Summerfield Drive), 50 feet (Lyman Boulevard); Side: IO feet; Rear: 30 feet. Lot coverage is limited to 25 percent impervious surface. Maximum building height is 3 stories and 40 feet. Uses shall be those permitted in the RSF, Single-Family Residential District. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS I. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the PUD-R, Planned Unit Development - Residential District. Meridian Development August 15,2000 Page 11 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any ofthe following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Findinl!: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 15, 2000, to review the proposed rezoning and subdivision. The Planning Commission voted five for and none against a motion recommending approval of the conceptual and preliminary PUD #2000-3 and preliminary plat approval subject to the conditions of the staff report with additional condition 24. The applicant shall consult with a wetland expert to verify that there are no wetlands on site, and condition 25. Meridian Development August 15,2000 Page 12 The Planning Commission would urge the applicant to work with the existing neighborhood regarding joining their homeowners association. While condition 24 is a legitimate requirement that the City of Chanhassen can and does require, condition 25, though a legitimate concern, is beyond the requirements of the city, especially since the City of Chanhassen does not enforce association covenants. The developer's representative, Beth Andrews, stated that they would be interested in becoming part of the association. The city may want to encourage this union, but not require it as a condition of approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council grants conceptual and preliminary approval ofPUD #2000-3 and preliminary plat approval to create ten lots, plans prepared by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen and Olson, Inc., dated July 14,2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan. Changes to the plan include an additional 14 trees. The trees must be overstory, deciduous, 2Yz" diameter and no more than 20 percent may be represented by a single species. The rear yard of each lot must contain a minimum of two (2) overstory trees. 2. Lots less than 15,000 square feet in lot area (Lots 3 and 6 of the northerly block and Lots 2, 3, and 4 of the southerly block) shall be limited to a two-car garage. 3. The following setbacks shall apply: Front: 30 feet (Summerfield Drive), 50 feet (Lyman Boulevard); Side: 10 feet; and Rear: 30 feet. Lot coverage is limited to 25 percent impervious surface. Maximum building height is 3 stories and 40 feet. Uses shall be those permitted in the RSF, Single-Family Residential District. 4. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for the nine additional lots created as part of the development pursuant to City ofChanhassen ordinance. 5. The developer shall revise the name of the subdivision to differentiate it from the Springfield project. 6. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. 7. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 8. The proposed residential development of 4.55 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $3,640. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be Meridian Development August 15, 2000 Page 13 waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $9,009. These fees are payable to the City at the time of fmal plat recording. 9. The plans shall be revised to incorporate the following items: · Show proposed filling and building elevations on Lot 2. The lowest floor elevation shall be a minimum of 898.5. · Show proposed house type and garage floor elevations on all lots. · Show lowest floor and walkout elevation on existing home on Lot 1. · Provide emergency overflow swales along the south line of Lots 1 and 2 between ponds. · Provide emergency overflow swale along the rearyards of Lots I, 2 and 3 and between Lots 3 and 4 out to Summerfield Drive. · Show existing well/s and septic site on property. · Add erosion control measures silt fence on downstream side of grading limits, protect existing/proposed catch basins and add rock construction entrances. · Add 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along south side of Summerfield Drive. · Removal of existing driveway access. 10. The existing home at 421 Lyman Boulevard shall be connected to municipal sewer within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. 11. Only one of the nine unit assessments was levied in conjunction with the Lake Riley trunk. The remaining eight were deferred. Since the applicant is creating more lots than previously was assessed, the additional lots will be subject to city sanitary sewer and water hookup and connection charges as well as a road connection charge at time of building permit issuance. The 2000 trunk utility hookup connection charges per lot for sanitary sewer and water are as follows: a. $1,000 Sanitary Sewer Hookup b. $1,694 Watermain Hookup c. $4,075 Sanitary Sewer Connection d. $4,075 Watermain Connection e. $1,814 Street Reconstruction - Lyman Boulevard The deferred assessments against the property should be re-spread against the property and certified to the County at time of final plat recording. 12. Staff encourages the applicant's engineer to review previous street grades proposed for this property and make the necessary corrections to provide for adequate grade on the sewer to serve the lots via gravity and provide back to front yard drainage over Lots I through 4 of the southerly block. Meridian Development August 15,2000 Page 14 13. The developer of this site will need to expand the existing storm water pond located just west of Lot 2, northerly block. Staff will be working with the applicant's engineer to determine the amount of expansion necessary to accommodate runoff from this development. 14. The development's storm sewer system shall be designed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. Ponding calculations including pre- and post-development drainage maps for a 10-year and 100- year, 24-hour storm event will need to be submitted to city staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. Staff is also requiring a detailed storm sewer analysis of the individual storm sewer to determine that there are sufficient catch basins to accommodate proposed runoff. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the storm drainage system including ponds and emergency overflows. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the pond should also be a consideration in the easement width and location. IS. Additional erosion control fence shall be installed along Lots 5 and 6 at the grading limits as well as rock construction entrances on Summerfield Drive. Existing and proposed catch basins outside of the street right-of-way should also have erosion control measures employed accordingly. 16. The common portion of the shared driveway will need to be 20-feet wide and constructed to a 7-ton per axle weight design. A cross-access easement and maintenance agreement will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots which access the private driveway. The minimum driveway width shall be 20 feet within a 30-foot wide driveway easement. 17. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 18. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. 19. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract/PUD Agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 20. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their Meridian Development August 15, 2000 Page 15 conditions of approval. 21. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within the City's right-of-way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained along the City's right-of-way. 22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 23. Utility and drainage easements over all utilities and storm water ponds outside of the right-of-way. The minimum easement width over the utilities shall be 20 feet wide depending on the depth of the utility. Drainage easements over all ponds and wetlands shall be up to the 100-year flood level. 24. The applicant shall consult with a wetland expert to verify that there are no wetlands on site," ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendations 2. Development Review Application 3. Supportive Narrative 4. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat 5. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated July 21, 2000 6. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 7. Letter from Doug & Megan Koch to Robert E. Generous dated August 12,2000 8. Planning Commission Minutes for August 15,2000 Meridian Development August 15,2000 Page 16 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: Application of Meridian Development On August 15,2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Meridian Development for rezoning property from Agricultural Estate District to Planned Unit Development - Residential. On August 15, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Meridian Development for preliminary plat approval of property. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Rezoning and Subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential- Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is the North 650 feet of the East 335 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: I. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Meridian Development August 15,2000 Page 17 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 5. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Meridian Development August 15, 2000 Page 18 d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 6. The planning report # dated , 2000, prepared by is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development - Residential Rezoning and the Preliminary Plat. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this _ day of 2000. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Its Chairman BY: ATTEST: Secretary g:\plan\bg\development review\meridian development.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CITV o..F_ ÇH.6.I\I\.J ~ .....-éN JUil,.14 2000 CHAI'in/"\,:¡,;;¡¡,;",, ""J.."".""'I\o1 wEPT APPLlCANT:j1\e.y I Å~V\ 'De\! e l-.Ofmen+ ADDRESS: 5ðZs;. ßy'ftUl+ AI/e. Çð. ¥»\I1I1,.,å..¡uJ'·C I mtJ S5=:.4-~ TELEPHONE (Daytime) (g L 2.- ~'2-q -0700 OWNER: ADDRESS: SAH'I ¡; TELEPHONE: _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit - Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROW/Easements - Interim Use Permit - Variance _ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit ~ Planned Unit Development· _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits \ _ Sign Plan Review ..:L. Notification Sign ISð.~ - Site Plan Review· ..lL Escrow for Filing Feesl Attorney Cost'· ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAPIMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) ~ Subdivision· TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8'12" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. .. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE _ When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Œ PROJECT NAME <;; "P r<. N (;, FI G L]) ~ It-! A b D I T 100J LOCATION 42/ LymAN ESLVl) LEGAL DESCRIPTION /#e ~rM "S-(),4~¡ ð;f! +hp G,u-l23S,A*!.f¢ /-/Æ.'11) S£.u %:1) 'Set:. 24, II '" I ~ Z~ TOTAL ACREAGE 5 Ac.(Z6S WETI.ANDS PRESENT YES ;( NO PRESENT ZONING ReSld.,~..·....1 REQUESTED ZONING ~ S ¡:::: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION 'i2 .,.s,d.....).,;'" J REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 'R s. F REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Svb.d,ultl~'" ðf 'R-o~...-I't This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of 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. ! win keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further 'understand that addilional 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 knowleelge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore. the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day axtension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions ar proved by the applicant. 7-/5 -00 Date ."ih... L).",,,~~ ,;7,1,' n1;'ð /À>(A!!'Io¡>~ \pplication Received on 7/1 ~ I tV Fee Paid ~ I, 1.\)'0. Q}t Receipt No. bw Í? J '7 / ' . Tbe appncant 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. 7-/3·¿)o Date Supporting Narrative SPRINGFIELD 8TH ADITION Springfield 8th Addition is a 5 acre parcel surrounded on the east, south and west by Lundgren Bros' Springfield Addition, a single family development. This proposal is for IO single family residential lots, one of which contains the existing house. Eight of the lots are proposed along Summerfield Drive. Summerfield Drive has been extended to the east and west lines of this parcel. This proposal would connect the street and underground utility lines. The proposed lots each have a minimum of 90 feet of frontage along Summerfield Drive and a minimum of90 feet at the front setback line. The lots all exceed 11,000 square feet in area and the average lot size for the development is 17,643 square feet. Two lots are proposed along Lyman Boulevard, one of which contains the existing house. There are two existing sewer/water connections off of Lyman Boulevard as shown on the plans. There is currently one driveway curb cut to the existing house. This proposal is to close the existing curb cut and create a new shared curb cut as shown on the plans. Trees All trees will be preserved Drainage This proposal utilizes in place drainage connections for storm water run off. Homeowners Association There is no plan for a homeowners association at this time. c ~ .,~ ~ .m . ß i .~ ~ð~ r¡' J r~ n~~ f¡.¡- ,~ ~ t . . ..~ h~ I i- . :; ! ô ! a~ ![fH ! ~~~ i~~ ~ ~ " ~ ..: I 3 ; I : I I!J;~;: l¡¡il! f~U 'is ' . . < t '. ~m¡, I o.f d~ I '0> . § d~= 1 of z~~ : ~ ~ , í!'....d ~ i j t~t 2: ~~§~ o 0_" ~ .~.~ is i ¡. ~ I ~ i h~; t? f bI !l ... ~' I !~¡ ì I~jl in I. " em ¡r~r 1. II! I 1,- " " " '" 11II ¡¡ 1 i~H ~ ~ j I " I/i ~! IJ f ¡! ¡Iii n _ ~ UÎ r-ç ::;::(ì- -- - -- - - - (- >- , a: 020 i «I- ¡¡;j~ z« 11.0 ~...J ~9 -In.. f¡!: w fE 00", I I I I I C-) ~:1 :.: [1. ~ .... " 'oo 53 " :1 .. oo. .. 'it:; '.n ~J r I I I I I I I I I I N I "' I .' :1 (3 ~:1 I "1- ~ :,; I ~ ::i L____~_J_ ~ ,,~____ ~ ¡ ~ I ---~:-- ¡ --¡--- ~~:-~ 1 : \ I " "' ~.~ ~.1 ,.. 00 " fj ¡:: i':) ~-( ,I -......Jo.oç9,f' . '-=.C. I""" II "~-I> J¡ ..~:~.~ -,,<I. ~1Ii'. . , :9 \ ~ ~ \ , o ~~ ~ ,- -jl(:.,/ ""9 \/ ø , I ~~ ...!;!! :!;:: , It " i:: ~:~ o( , ¡-r--r---...,-- '\:: : " , d:-,: .,i:> ~f U," "'·'1 co, "'I'" II': : ::1.. , , ____~J .... _. _J J.""'~' "V, t..~:.~-~~~ - ---I ?f..,: ,/ H I " . ¡ ~ . ~,. , ! Þ.' . . , Sa , ~i '~ ~~ ¡ , 'Þi:( , --') otI.'&; om ~ i!~ J -'-""-.;!;os ¡ -7 (~ ¡.........-T...--::.¡ I / ¡ I....J ...'Ii , if or1..? 0 I' , i . ~~ If ~ nl, Ii.. f:; .~~ / " ,... "$ r! I' , 1.<1' I , ~... I"- ," ¡ ~ ---~¡-----t~~~~~~~tt-- t ~~ -_h_¿--=--~=--~~~~;-~'¿-:>~----i I «'HI' 1 H / r---·--'~...-;";:--7 "'~~o~; , ; 'ti .;>t; 'V')' I ¡ ,( "\;~ 'JiQ Q' , / 11',/ ,." (, ,e..,', t_ ç,;,__j §',-___,,,,, -.L.. f L .. £::1 :.J ,oo ~~; , . I ," ,¡!!I o 11I1I z ,_VV~ g Illii I¡hi!!!!'¡ I... II , ~! I' ¡- . ". , ~5 ~! II II .hi i! ¡! I~! ~! _1..1 iRig .....'...../tI.OO...Z.ON / , / """~//~ ~-; ~/?' .:~.J' ,J ý}/ ..r,J' .............. ,{ / ".f" :----- ,/ r..;::i~'/ ~__ or: / " i G"¡2!.:;·)/~·It.¡c.~,>'· ~ / / / / / / / / / , ..-"- ,.¡~J ::; '-L' Ii ....-:.:9 4if:.'t-" ~ ~ ¡ - z ___ .oo~ HIi'~ 1111 G) CITY OF CHANBASSEN 690 City Cmttr Drive. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minn"ota 55317 Phone 612.9311900 General Fax 612,937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Silftty Fax 612.934.2524 Wlb Wt/IW,ci,chanhassen.mn,fIS MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: July 21, 2000 SUBJECT: Request for conceptual and preliminary planned unit development approval to re-zone five acres from A2, Agricultural Estate, to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residential and preliminary plat approval to subdivide the property into eight lots of right of way for Summerfield Drive on property located at 421 Lyman Boulevard, Springfield 8th Addition, Meridian Development. Planning Case: 2000-3 PUD I have reviewed the above preliminary planned unit development project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. No issues or concerns at this time. g:\safety\ml\plrev2000-3 The City of Cbanbassen. A fTowinr community with clean lakes. auality school<. a channin. downtown, thrivin. hu.<in""" and h,."tifùl oarh A ",at "nff to Ii"" work,~' gþ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2000 AT 7:00P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 890 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Rezone from A2 to PUD and Subdivision of 5 Ac... Into 10 Single Family Lois ,¿~ APPLICANT: Meridian Development LOCATION: 421 Lyman Blvd. NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Meridian Development, requests conceptual and preliminary Planned Unit Development approval to rezone five acres from A2., AgrIcultural Estate to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development residential and preliminary plat approval to subdivide the property into 10 lots and right-of-way for Summerfield Drive on property located at 421 Lyman Blvd., Springfield 8th Addition. 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 Chair will lead the pUblic hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present pians on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing Is dosed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it Is helpful to have one copy to the depar1ment in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 3, 2000. " Springfield Dr m Smooth Feed Sheets™ SPRINGFIELD HOMEOWNERS ASSN C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONSTR INC 935 EAST WAVZATA BLVD WAYZATA, MN 55391 SPRINGFIELD HOMEOWNERS ASSN C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONSTR INC 935 EAST WAVZATA BLVD WAVZATA. MN 55391 NAN ZHANG XIAOGUANG WU 483 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 TROY A & JEANNETTE M RENNER 525 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 NANCY MEHRA 568 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 TIMOTHY D & PATRICIA L BESSER 400 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EARL S & TINA M STRAIT 500 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 ERIC S & LISA M HAMBORG 9108 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RUDOLFO A & ELIZABETH A GOMEZ 350 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 GORDON S & PAMELA J JENSEN 356 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 ... ,.... ,----,"'" I..'.' _.._ I , I CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 TODD & LORI BAIRD 296 GREENLEAF CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RALPH E & STACEY M SPRAINER 501 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEPHEN L TISDALE 528 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANG VAN & FONG-YUN NGUYEN 9260 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 RICHARD J CHADWICK 9530 FOXFORD RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS S & LEANNE M KELLY 9100 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 MARK C & LISA A ANDERSON 9111 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LOU A & JENNIFER L COSTABILE 351 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRADLEY A & JENNIFER K HIBBS 364 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 Use template for 5160@ CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT 'BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK A & JODI L BARGMANN 466 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM J & GRACEANN K DETERS 513 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 EVAN FULLER 548 GREENVIEW DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KLlNGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO 350 HWY 212 E PO BOX 89 CHASKA. MN 55318 VENCIL G & CATHLEEN L PREWITT 421 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANIEL P & MARY F JOHNSON 9101 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEITH M & JENNIFER L MELES 9117 OVERLOOK CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ERIC G & DEBRA A RAYMOND 355 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRUCE C & LINDA P THALACKER 367 PARKLAND WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _ ~ ",...fí:\ Smooth Feed Sheets™ ATTHEW S HOFFMAN .05 QUINN RD HANHASSEN, MN 55317 PRINGFIELD HOMEOWNERS SSN C/O LUNDGREN BROS ,ONSTR INC 35 EAST WAYlATA BLVD rAYZATA. MN 55391 ANG WANG & LlHUA QIN 128 SPRINGFIELD DR HANHASSEN, MN 55317 OUGLAS J KOCH MEGAN M AWSON KOCH 136 SPRINGFIELD DR HANHASSEN, MN 55317 ON C & TANYA S PETERSEN 143 SPRINGFIELD DR HANHASSEN, MN 55317 ð,UL J & MARY A LAUERMAN 155 SPRINGFIELD DR HANHASSEN. MN 55317 185 SPRINGFIELD DR HANHASSEN, MN 55317 AVID G & C RUTH SOMMERS .6 SUMMERFIELD DR HANHASSEN. MN 55317 ARRY M & ROBYN JO BOURGEOIS )25 SUNNYVALE DR HANHASSEN, MN 55317 ARY F & PHYLLIS H HABERMAN )36 SUNNYVALE DR HANHASSEN. MN 55317 .s _. ___... DANIEL J & KARALEE K KAHLMAN 8955 QUINN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCOTT W & CINDEE M WALZ 9117 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER J MCKEARIN & LAUREN H MCKEARIN 9131 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOSEPH W & BRENDA N NEVE 9137 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CURT A & LINDA K KOBILARCSIK 9149 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL P & SUSAN E DEEGAN 9162 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PHILIP P & NANCY E DENUCCI 9186 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYlATA, MN 55391 PAUL & TONYA HENDRICKSON 9028 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID & THERESA ANDREWS 9042 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Use template for 5160@ ROBERT J & BEVERLY M AMICO 9061 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYlATA BLVD E WAYlATA, MN 55391 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA, MN 55391 TONY L & CONNIE S NUSS 9140 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL J & LYNN M SHEEHAN 9150 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 DEAN J & JILL R BARTA 9174 SPRINGFIELD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAIME W & LISA H LAUGHLIN 376 SUMMERFIELD DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA. MN 55391 MICHAEL & JANE MAJOR 9031 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL J & MICHELLE M KELLOGG 9124 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _.r::>.. Smooth Feed Sheets™ ROBERT J & KATHY J BEERY 9132 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GARY & DANISE MCMILLEN 9151 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAVZATA BLVD E WAYZATA. MN 55391 ROBERT W & LISAK BORN 9163 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 HAESEOK CHO & JIEUN CHUNG 9170 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 .... Use template for 5160@ DANIEL S & JENNIFER K RUBIN 9140 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALEKSANDR SHTEYMAN '9'148 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FREDERICK C RIESE VALAIRE P RIESE 9154 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 RONALD P LILEK & MARY M BENNETT-LILEK 9155 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT G & SUSAN L DAUB 9159 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK A & SUSAN E FROMMELT 9162 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THEODORE J & ANN L SMITH 9166 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JACK J & LAUREL A SCHNABEL 9167 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID W & LAURA L BEISE 9171 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 August 12,2000 Mr. Robert E. Generous, AICP City of Chanhassen; Senior Planner 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Bob: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me this past Wednesday August 9, 2000, to discuss the rezoning proposal by Meridian Development at 421 Lyman Boulevard, My home borders the south property line of this new development. I am sorry to see the agricultural land go, but do welcome new neighbors, Furthermore I would participate at the Planning Commission Meeting on this topic scheduled to occur Tuesday, August 15, 2000, however I have previous obligations that prohibit my attendance, I do wish to express two concerns about this new development. My first concern is the land drainage of this new development. This particular area of Chanhassen has a high level of clay contained within the ground soil. This type of soil does not readily allow for quick absorption of water from rain or lawn irrigation. Currently there is a channel in the back of my property to guide water across other land owners back yards down to a drainage pipe, Already, in my short time of residence in the Lundgren Springfield development, I am surprised how much water does flow through this channel. I strongly request that Meridian create an equivalent type of drainage provision past the north side of my property line, within the Meridian Development, to appropriately handle drainage. This is to eliminate the possibility of my property becoming over utilized to drain more land, possibly creating standing pools of water detracting from the beauty of my yard and creating a breeding ground for misquotes and disease, The second concern I have pertains to the cedar fence, landscaping and items contained on the north side of my property. This fence was placed at the expense of Lundgren Bros. The fence, landscaping and items contained within are to stay fully intact. In the event of damage during construction by Meridian Development or its contractors, Meridian Development will fix or replace the fence, landscaping or items contained within to its original design at their sole expense, Sincerely, Doug & Megan Koch 9136 Springfield Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (]) P1anning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2000 Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward and state your name and address please. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close tbe public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, your thoughts on this please. Kind: Makes sense to me. Burton: Same Peterson: Motion please. Blackowiak: I'll move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to PUD #85-1 to allow a church as a permitted use on Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley. Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded, Any further discussion? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to PUD #85-1 to allow a church as a permitted use on Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TO REZONE FIVE ACRES FROM A2. AGRICULTURAL EST A TE TO PUD-R. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 8 LOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SUMMERFIELD DRIVE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 421 LYMAN BLVD.. SPRINGFIELD 8TH ADDITION. MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Beth Andrews Sara Worre David Sommers Debbie Lloyd Meridian Development 300 Shoreview Court 396 Summerfield Drive 7302 Laredo Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff? 12 (i Planning Commission Meeting - August 15,2000 Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Bob, the staff report, what page is it? Talked about having a wetland delineator review. Let me see if( can find it. Page 3 under Wetland. Staff recommends that a wetland delineator assess the site to verify the city's planning map. There was not a condition to that effect. Do you think that that would be appropriate? Generous: That would be a clarify. Yes, we don't believe there's one there but. Kind: And then the driveway, the single driveway that would be accessing the two properties that are on Lyman Boulevard. Is there a condition in here that requires that? Number 16 talked about the shared driveway but there's really no requirement that they share. Generous: That's correct. It doesn't specifically state that and that could be included as part of that document. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, The plans do show a shared driveway so we assume that it will be shared, If we approve the plans as they are shown, it's a shared driveway. Kind: Right. And does that leave it open that they could come back and say oh, we each want our own driveway? Hempel: No. Kind: Okay. So as long as the site plan shows it that way we're covered, And Bob, would you talk about the remnant triangles and why this doesn't line up very well with the neighboring lots? Generous: Well I actually have a concept plan for the adjacent property. At one time Lundgren Brothers anticipated that they would acquire this property and they would continue their development. On the plans it shows portions of those triangular area would be included and lots that would use parts of this property. That never came to fruition and so this development had to stand on it's own. As part of the final plat for the 7'h Addition they actually combined the triangular areas into the abutting lots so those are all one lot on either side of the roadway. Kind: One thing looking at this plan, one thing that I really like about it is the property line, side property lines are radial with that curved street. They kind of pie out and on the plans that's before us tonight they're all just straight from there so they don't really curve around that curvy street, Could you speak to that at all? Generous: Well what they, unfortunately they had to start with the side property line that was at an angle and to meet all the ordinance requirements, that's how it worked out, It's pretty efficiently laid out but it was very strict. They're right at the 90 feet for all ofthem. Kind; Thank you. Peterson: Other questions of Bob? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. Bob, on the first page, well I guess it's page 2 it states how access from a collector road is normally prohibited. Why aren't we permitting that in this case? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2000 Generous: The one benefit of this PUD was that the preservation of the few trees that are on this site. And so that's why we supported both the PUD and allowing those two lots to access it. We don't believe the two homes that, that that roadway will be heavily impacted. Sidney: Okay, so the city is gaining something in doing that? Generous: Correct. We'll preserve existing mature trees. Sidney: Okay. And then question about on Lyman, berming or trees. Have you had a discussion with the applicant about whether or not landscaping could be added in place of a berm or? Generous: We haven't had that discussion. We were hoping that as part, one of the conditions is a revised landscaping plan. Sidney: And that would be included in that discussion? Generous: Yes. Burton: Mr. Chairman? Peterson: Please. Burton: Bob, on the preliminary plat on the west side there's a line that runs along, I'm just trying to figure out what that is. Generous: That'sjust a measurement line I believe. Burton: This thing. It kind of swoops in. Generous: This one? Burton: No, Generous: Or this? Burton: That one. Sorry. Generous: That's erosion control. Burton: Okay, Ijust couldn't figure out what it was. Peterson: Okay, other questions? Burton: I guess one more. We got the letter from Doug and Megan Koch and they're concerned about their fence and I was just curious where their fence is and ifthere is an issue there or are you pretty comfortable that they're taken care of? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2000 Generous: The fence is located on their property, The grading plans don't cross that line. They'll match up at that point and that's one ofthe issues that they've had is to verify that all the grading and drainage... Blackowiak: ...I've got a couple questions of Bob. What is the city getting out of this making a PUD? You said saving trees. What are the benefits? Generous: Reduced impervious surface. And then it fits in with the surrounding PUD. The appropriate zoning under low density, residential low density designation are either RSF which is a traditional single family zoning category. R-4 which permits single family homes or twin homes or planned unit development. This is the option that they took. They were sort of forced into this design by our approvals of the PUD around it. Had this been part of that larger plat, it would have gone forward. Blackowiak: Okay. So then in the PUD the average lot size is 15,000, is that correct? Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: That's the average. And minimum is II. Generous: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Because I was just using a calculator, as I look at the two northern most lots, I don't really feel that they're part of this. You know what I'm saying? I mean technically this is the same point but to me it's almost like a different, I mean it's accessed off Lyman. You're not going to be on Springfield or Summerfield Drive going through. So I'm just, I was just trying to do some calculations figuring out if we pretended those didn't exist, if the numbers would make it for this many houses in that area and it wouldn't. It seems like we're packing them in awfully closely. Do you have any feel for that? Generous: It's consistent with that whole street. The interior of the PUD had the 11,000, 12-13,000 square foot lots, At the perimeter we have 30,000, 40,000 square foot lots and they act as a buffer for the entire development. Aanenson: If I could just comment on that. I looked at this plat originally. It's on two major collectors and that was the reason it was given the PUD. It's adjacent to 101, which will be the main thoroughfare when 212 is updated. And Lyman Boulevard. It was our issue back then that those larger lots be on the perimeter of the development and that's how we perceived it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Okay, thank you Bob. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward. Beth Andrews: I'm Beth Andrews. I'm here on behalf of Meridian Development tonight. He was called out of town in an emergency. We are in complete agreement with all these requirements made by staff. We just received this letter from the neighbor but we don't have any problems with buffering or doing whatever we have to do to save the landscaping and the fence. I think some of the other issues were changing the name of the development and we're open to whatever you have for changing the name. We don't need to leave it Springfield 8th, So, all the issues that were addressed in the staff report, we're in agreement with. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15,2000 Peterson: Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward and state your name and address please. David Sommers: David Sommers, 396 Summerfield Drive. As a neighbor adjacent to this we just had some questions about the covenants. Whether or not the homes in this area will be consistent with the rest of Springfield. We do pay homeowners association fees. Whether or not they would be included. There is quite a big slope from my house. There's probably an 8 foot drop into this area so I had some questions about grading. Peterson: Grading. Do you want to take that one on Dave? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. IfMr. Sommers would show us in the map where he resides, I'd be happy to take a closer look at it. David Sommers: This is my house right there. Hempel: You do have some drop off. Mr. Chairman, commissioners. They are proposing to grade, to be compatible with the wall. There's currently, it must be a 6 to 8 foot high wall if I'm not mistaken along the westerly property line of Mr. Sommers. The grading plan does propose contours to tie into the wall to lessen the height of the wall at the southerly part or the front yard area of the lot. As you go towards the rear ofthe property, the wall will mostly maintain the 6 to 8 foot drop at the very northerly end of the wall. And I believe the wall does taper down.. .so it will line up fairly well with the neighboring property. Peterson: Okay, thank you Dave. As it relates to the covenants. It's my understanding it's a whole different development and it would not be relative to any covenants set forth to your current area now. David Sommers: Okay...that we have 8 lots. I mean I think it's disturbing that you have 8 to 10 lots in the middle of a large subdivision that might look and feel totally different. It affects property values, aesthetics. Not to mention the issues around the homeowner association. Access to the pool and the parks and everything else that the neighboring people pay for. I think that if that's not worked in good faith to try to fix than you're asking for trouble that doesn't have to be there. Peterson: I understand. Thank you. Beth Andrews: I would be happy to address those issues for you. The price homes that we're planning to meet here, when Meridian originally bought this land we did approach Lundgren in case they wanted to buy it and they were not interested in doing this. We're looking at probably a price point from 300 to 350. We have a builder that entered into a tentative contract to purchase this land local with the developer and asked the price point that they will be in. We would love to be a part of your association. We would love to join in and pay dues and amend whatever we need to do to be a part of that. We have no problems with that at all. ]6 Planning Commission Meeting - August] 5, 2000 Peterson: If you could direct your questions up here. We're the ones. Beth Andrews: We would love to make that work. I assume that we need to address whoever it is in control oftheir association to work something out. We would not have a problem with making that price a recommendation. Peterson: Thank you for your comments. Any additional comments from the public? Dean Paxton: I don't have anything directly, My name's Dean Paxton. I live at 2611 Orchard Lane and I'm just curious as to the city's overall perspective on density and housing, And maybe we'll get into that in the situation in the next item also but just in general it seems that there are PUD requirements that you can set maximum density within an area and does that mean that every buildable lot in the city as long as it meets that PUD requirement will then meet that maximum density within the city itself. Is there an overall view of the city in which we say that this area is going to have so much housing and can get an association and not? If the city has sort of from the planning area, have an opinion or philosophy on this and a direction. Where you're going from then. You know I've kind of had an interest in that. Not that would drive neighbors there but it's the Highway 5 corridor and willI 01 end up another corridor with dense housing and those kind of concerns so you know, not frustrating problems. Just kind of inquiring as to the philosophy of the city. Peterson: Kate you get paid more than we do, Do you want to answer that one? Aanenson: It's a pretty complex question. It would take quite a while to try to answer it. I think the best answer is the city has a comprehensive plan that we are following. The city's goal is to provide a variety of housing types. We have large lot developments, 10 acres. 5 acres. That we intend on keeping. We have very small lots. We have apartments, We have senior housing and that's our goal to provide a diversity of different types of housing. While we have a comprehensive plan and a guiding, there are market forces that take place. When land develops and how it develops, while it follows the comprehensive plan, each developer has unique circumstances and requests and we review those as they come in. But J would recommend if this gentleman is interested, that he review the comprehensive plan to get a little bit more background on it. Peterson: Okay. So noted. Thank you. Other comments? Debbie Lloyd: Hi, My name's Debbie Lloyd and I live at 7302 Laredo Drive, And I've taken an interest in looking at a wide array of different items that's brought to the Planning Commission and I just wanted to point out a couple of things I found in the staff report. One is on the front page, acreage. And you may call me picky but the acreage is not 5 acres. It's 4.99 and I think that should be explicit on here. Now it can be a PUD-R because there are exceptions in the code. And I think that should just be written in the report what the exception is. If it's in the code that the property is adjacent to and across a right- of-way from property which has previously been designated as a PUD-R. I just think that's just... The other comments that J have is on the height of the building. It says maximum building height is 3 stories and 40 feet. If the code that I read is correct and updated, than the height of the building has to relate to the setback. So the setback on these lots is 30 feet so the height of the building must be 30 feet. For the height ofthe building to be 40 feet, it must be setback 40 feet. Also, Alison worked up the numbers for the average lot. I did the same thing because when I worked at it, you know we're really involved at looking at the private driveway issue and I looked at that. I drove around the property. It really has a different feel than the rest of the new development around it. And we talk about tree preservation. I think it'd be interesting for everyone to see what kind of trees we're talking about. There's a lot of shrub 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2000 trees. Scrubby trees and I don't know if that is enough reason to allow a driveway onto a major feeder. When you see what these lots are like over here, there's a lot of lots accessing Lyman and the traffic on that road is going to get very strong as time goes on and all those lots are filled up. And it just seems, it seems like it's awkward. And with 212 coming through there eventually, I think it's going to be very busy. So those are my feelings, thanks. Peterson: Thank you. Other comments? Okay, motion to close please. Kind moved, BJackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Alison, any comments on this one? Blackowiak: Sure. Let me collect my thoughts for a moment. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Kate a quick staff question. Debbie's comments about building heights made me look at condition number 3 a little bit more closely and it talks about maximum building height is 3 stories and 40 feet. This 3 stories thing kind of dovetails into our discussion later on this evening. We're talking about 2 story homes that would have a walkout. We're not talking about 3 story homes on the front. Aanenson: Or 40 feet in height. That's what it says, 3 stories or 40 feet in height and height is measured by average grade. Kind: When you talk about a 3 story home though you're including a walkout. Aanenson: Basement. Yeah. Right, and we have a lot of those. Kind: But the 40 foot height would limit it. I'm just. Aanenson: Right, or capped to 40 feet, right. Kind: And the point that she brought up about we're lessening the front setback to 30 feet so should that decrease the building height. Is that a PUD restriction or? A:lI1enson: There's no correlation between the two. The setback's 30 feet. Whether it's 40 or height, 3 stories. Kind: The 40 foot height is city wide? Aanenson: Correct. Peterson: Okay, Alison. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm ready I think. Just a few general comments. I do feel that it's a little small. The lot sizes are a little small. I understand that if you take a look at the Springfield development that the larger lots in the perimeter, that makes sense. Smaller lots in the interior. I understand that. It just seems really tight and I don't know, it's my feeling. I don't consider that two of... lots really part of this because they're accessed separately and there's one existing house. There's going to be one new house and because they don't front this development at all and because they are accessed totally in a different 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15,2000 direction, I just don't even. I kind of tried to put those out of my mind and look at the 8 lots that were left and it just, it seemed small. But I guess ifit meets requirements. If you look at the whole thing together it meets the square footage but by itself, it just seems like it's kind of sandwiched in there. A few things. I have a problem with sticking it right in the middle of Springfield. I think that's going to be a big, big problem with the existing neighbors since there is a pool. There are walking paths. There's a lot of stuff's that happening there already and to, you know drop in 9 new houses and say, we've got a great pool but guess what you guys, you can't use it. This is our park and we paid for it and Ijust worry. You don't want to start out a new neighborhood that way. By just dropping it into a potentially bad situation so I would strongly encourage the developer to talk with Springfield and to get together and work something out because otherwise I just think that we're going to have problems down the road. I don't see a walking path on the plan and I believe there are paths on either side of the proposed development and I think that that needs to be part of any new development. I think one is concrete, if I'm not mistaken, and one is asphalt so I don't really care which one it is but I didn't see a condition in there. Deb, correct me if I'm wrong.- Kind: I'm looking for it. Peterson: It was on the plan though wasn't it? Kind: I thought I saw it. Generous: It's condition number 9. Peterson: I read it somewhere. Blackowiak: A 5 foot wide concrete. Okay. But is it 5 foot? What's there on both sides. Hempel: Mr. Chair, commissioners. The bituminous on the south side, by the pool, is actually the parking lot for the pool which is going to, staffs going to have to research the parking requirements that were associated with that pool play area there so. It should be concrete on both sides of this development. 5 foot wide concrete which will be connected through this development. Kind: So we know the condition number 9 says on the south side. Should it say north and south side? It's actually on page 13. The very top. Hempel: We will have to clarify which side of the road that this should go on. The 7''' Addition sidewalk I don't believe is quite in yet. It's going to be constructed this year. That's on the west end. On the east end is Summerfield. Or Springfield I". We'll have to verify where that's at. f; Blackowiak: Okay. Building heights, again I don't know that 30 foot setback equates 30 feet but. Aanenson: We haven't done that... Blackowiak: I know. That's kind of new to me but that's alright. I've been surprised before. And oh, the driveway off Lyman Boulevard. Again, it's one of those things where Ijust don't know that, I don't think our intent is to increase access and increase the number of traffic going directly onto a major road like that. With this plan there's no other way to do it. I'm wondering if this is the best plan, I don't know ifit is. Let's see here. And the trees. I agree. I don't think that many of the trees there are really considered, I would consider them significant. I don't know if our forester's been out there to take a look 19 r r ~ ~~.. l Planning Commission Meeting - August 15,2000 at it or anything but you know we're talking about saving trees and that's what the city's going to get in exchange for a PUD and' don't know that we're getting an awful lot in that part of the deal. They didn't look that great to me. 'could be wrong but, they're not that pretty. 'like trees. Don't get me wrong but they're not great. And finally, 'think 'just want to reiterate the same, the idea of putting the neighborhood right in Summerfield, I really worry about that. 'really think that we have to think this through because like you know, we're going to have a pool and you guys can't use it. I just think that that's. Aanenson: You know Lundgren could have bought it... Peterson: So noted but. Blackowiak: 'know. But I'm saying, I'm just trying to think long term and what do , like about this. What don't' like about it and I'm trying to get through this. Some of the things that' don't like about it, and that's one my big sticking points right now is that it's just plops in the middle and it doesn't feel right, so. Peterson: Other comments? Burton: Can I ask a question of staff real quick? Peterson: Sure. Burton: The northern drive, that could be further subdivided, is that right? Aanenson: Under the PUD, they'd have to rezone it. Under a PUD you're approving this site plan so they would have to come back for a rezoning. Generous: ... with the average. Aanenson: Right. They use that for the average so they cannot subdivide unless they come back and ask for an amendment. That's the other beauty ofthe PUD, which we've talked about with lot sizes. Let me just make one other comment that we talked about with blending and that we've spent some time discussing that but you've given us direction on trying to blend house types and lots and that was again the consideration given for this. To try to make it. Well it's going to be stuck in another one. It wasn't our choice. We tried to make it so at least it's consistent and compatible. It doesn't have a completely different feel or look to it. Burton: I actually liked the lots. I want to preserve those lots. Aanenson: And that was the existing homes with the existing driveway that's going to kind of. Peterson: So it's got to come back, to answer his question. Aanenson: Yes. They can't change the density or subdivide. Peterson: Any comments on it overall? 20