Loading...
1i. Preliminary Plat for Lake Susan Hills West 3rd Addition Argus Dev. 1 ' / C. DATE: June 7 CITY 4F - - 1989 C.C. ::E:87:;1 :U:6 1989 CASE `� 89-4 WAP IIPrepared by: Olsen/v ii STAFF REPORT il • I PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat for 55 Single Family Lots Lake Susan Hills West 3rd Addition II. Wetland Alteration Permit for a Holding Pond Z Within a Class B Wetland I V LOCATION: West Side Of Powers Boulevard Approximately $ Mile South of Hwy. 5 �1� I 9L APPLICANT: Argus Development Don Patton 18133 Cedar Avenue Realty Center I Farmington, MN 55024 7600 Parklawn Avenue Edina, MN 55435 I PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R IACREAGE: 35 . 79 Gross 22. 5 Net DENSITY: 1 . 5 u/a-gross 2 . 4 u/a-net IADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- IOP; vacant IS- PUD-R; vacant N. ilE- PUD-R; single family rA W- A-2; vacant 0 IW WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. 1- . PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a Class B wetland in the northwest corner. II2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density I El g--, - ,: .■•■• ..7w' } - ' -\ ----- - f • _ . - 7°-4 ,- . ...-„_______L----- --' ,,\- \ :4:41 :trC,...„,„„,s,s i _ 4.44ariax! ... ..._... i ) , ,7•#- ' 7IFF \ ,/ 4Z-?f __ .----' ■ ■ ., . _ LAI,-)6 5t_i /3-1 _.• , LAKE SUSAN 3 ov kvo Ipc9 . . , , PUD—R • ' 1144,4..f, Foi , RD 1 r-41_111.1 . • * _. • 7 .! 0 =, Eirj tt 86 T 14 ST 0 -if a. , . — PSI 1 1 . c31, i CN >-- _.i -ri 4 n3 R I A i rs I I ..._ P . R SF :.. ,•- i ,..-. .1 t III —, tr.' 0 +-A-' ,..., . _ ._.-.„ cc 0 =loll 1 .... .... .. \ ft, L.,'‘ k, _ 0- . ) 9C"--- EVARD (C.R. 18 ) '7.111 I : LYM1 `I ! . ; _____ C-_-_—) ■.)Li • 4, A2 A2 ; , PUP . . • 1T T . , 411 p • r III WO• 4 _ 111-4 WO 1 ' s' M Mr -.IIQ ON -=°!-7-4----.7...: '4 MN --41 4 -v7, .....\\_,,..7Th - 1 111°11.1. ....:...1: 'POMO \ " , , \J - — . \ 1. MI 111 I MI N\ 1 . .........._ . k Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition June 7 , 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-518 of the City Code requires the applicant to receive development stage approval of the PUD following general concept approval. The development stage is essentially the preliminary plat of the site (Attachment #1) . Section 20-421 requires a wetland alteration permit for the creation of a pond within a Class A wetland and for any digging, ' dredging or filling in a Class A wetland. Section 20-438 dredging will be allowed only when it will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological or hydrological ' charactertics of the wetlands. Dredging when allowed shall be limited as follows : ' 1. It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. 2 . It shall not adversely change water flow. 3 . The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action. ' 4 . Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland district unless specifically authorized in the wetland alteration permit. 5 . Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures . 6 . Dredging in any wetland areas is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is deter- mined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. ' (Attachment #2 ) REFERRAL AGENCIES ' City Engineer Attachment #3 Park and Recreation Commission Attachment #4 BACKGROUND The City Council reviewed the PUD concept plan on June 29, 1987, and approved the concept plan as a PUD with certain conditions. The developer subsequently revised the concept plan to address ' the Council ' s conditions. The Planning Commission and City Council held a joint meeting on July 27 , 1987, to review the overall PUD philosophy and specifically, the Lake Susan Hills West PUD proposal. The City Council recommended certain changes ' ( increase Outlot H to a five acre park) and again approved the concept plan as a PUD. The City Council felt that it was beneficial to have the 299 acre site developed as a PUD rather than as a subdivision. As a PUD r a Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition June 7, 1989 Page 3 - the site will be reviewed as one coordinated development enabling the city to require adequate park facilities and to require logi- cal staging of road improvements and utilities . Since the PUD will be developed in separate preliminary plats , the city and developer negotiated a concept plan agreement to ensure that all of the conditions will be provided for each phase. On October 5 , 1987 , the City Council approved the land use plan amendment, wetland alteration permit, rezoning and preliminary plat for 76 single family lots for Lake Susan Hills West 1st Addition. At that time, the City Council approved to rezone the property from RSF, R-4 , R-8, and R-12 , to PUD-R and to amend the land use plan to correspond to the different areas of density approved as part of the PUD Concept Plan. The City Council also approved a wetland alteration permit for the construction of a holding pond within a Class B wetland and preliminary plat for the First Addition of Lake Susan Hills West containing 76 single family lots on the east and west side of Powers Boulevard. On May 8, 1989, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for 21 single family lots for Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition PUD located on the east side of Powers Boulevard (Attachment #5) . PRELIMINARY PLAT , The applicant is proposing 55 single family lots located on the west side of Powers Boulevard west of the Lake Susan Hills 1st Addition plat. The average lot size is 15 , 738 square feet. Twenty-six ( 47% ) of the lots contain less than 15 , 000 square feet and 29 ( 53%) of the proposed lots contain more than 15 , 000 square feet. The lot sizes range from 12, 000 square feet to 70, 668 square feet. On the preliminary plat Lot 1 located in the south- east corner of the proposed lots shows only 11, 974 square feet. Once the final plat is provided Lot 1 will be adjusted to provide the required 12, 000 square foot minimum. To ensure that Lot 1 will contain 12, 000 square feet, staff is recommending that the applicant provide an amended preliminary plat showing all of the lots with at least 12, 000 square feet. The PUD ordinance requires that at least 50% of the single family lots contain 15, 000 square feet or more and that the average lot size shall not be below 13 ,500 square feet. The PUD ordinance also requires a minimum of 80 feet at the building setback line ( 30 ' ) and that no lot shall be smaller than 12, 000 square feet. Once the lot with the 11, 974 square feet has been adjusted to contain 12, 000 square feet, the preliminary plat will meet all of the PUD con- ditions. Streets ' The 55 lots will be serviced by a 50 foot public right-of-way which will be a continuation of Heron Drive from Powers Boulevard I Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition June 7 , 1989 Page 4 ' to Audubon Road. Therefore, the third addition is providing a secondary access to the development. The existing right-of-way ' servicing the west side is 60 feet and the proposed right-of-way should be increased to 60 feet to be consistent. The two streets going south from Heron Drive must be provided with temporary turnarounds which are paved with an all weather surface. Drainage, Grading and Utilities ' See City Engineer memorandum. Landscaping ' The ordinance requires one tree per lot to be provided by the developer. As part of the PUD approval, the applicant proposed increases in landscaping at entrances and along the boulevards . In addition, the PUD was approved with the condition to preserve existing vegetation as best possible. The preliminary plat includes one tree per lot and additional landscaping along the ' intersections , along the trail to the park and along Audubon Road. As part of the approval from the second addition, the applicant provided an amended landscaping plan that reduced the number of Pin Oaks as boulevard trees. The DNR forester recom- mended different types of vegetation over Pin Oak. The amended landscaping plan for Lake Susan Hills 2nd Addition provided Hackberry instead of the proposed Pin Oak. To be consistent with ' the second addition, staff is recommending that the proposed Pin Oak on the landscaping plan for the third addition also be replaced with Hackberry. Parks and Open Space The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the preliminary plat ' at the March 21, 1989, meeting. The Commission action was based on the PUD agreement with the Lake Susan Hills West developer with the following conditions : 1 . Dedication of Outlot A for park purposes and to require the grading of Outlot A at the same time streets are installed in accordance with the grading plans provided by the city. 2 . The installation of five foot wide concrete sidewalks along the through streets, specifically on the north side of Heron Drive. 3 . Provide a 20 foot wide trail easement along the west side of ' Powers Boulevard as outlined in Sections 4 and 5 of the PUD contract dated November 16 , 1987 . 4 . The developer shall receive 50% credit on park dedication 11 fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees. Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition June 7 , 1989 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION The proposed preliminary plat for Lake Susan Hills West 3rd Addition is consistent with the approved PUD concept plan. Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 1 "The Planning Commission recommends approvals of Preliminary Plat #89-2 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat dated May 12, 1989 , with the following conditions : 1 . The applicant shall provide an amended preliminary plat showing Lot 1 to have a minimum of 12, 000 square feet and provide block numbers. 2 . The applicant shall provide staff with an amended landscaping plan prior to final plat approval replacing the Pin Oaks with Hackberry. 3 . The applicant shall install 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk , along the north side of Heron Drive. 4 . The applicant shall provide the 20 foot wide trail easement II along the west side of Powers Boulevard. 5 . The applicant shall receive 50a credit on park dedication fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees. 6 . Approval of wetland alteration permit. 7 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. 8. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 9. The sanitary sewer located within Heron Drive shall be held at a grade of 0 . 40% throughout the run to Audubon Road. I 10. The sanitary sewer shall be jack-bored to the west right-of- way line of Audubon Road for future connection and service along Audubon Road. 11. The right-of-way for Heron Drive needs to be 60 feet in width to conform with Phase I construction and a right turn lane included at Audubon Road to meet anticipated traffic demands of the area. I/ 1 - Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition ' June 7 , 1989 Page 6 12 . The storm sewer system needs to be modified so that it drains to the wetland pond provided on site and eliminate the storm ' sewer/parkland development conflict as outlined in the PUD report. 13 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans and tie cards will also be required upon ' completion of the construction. 14 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities. ' 15 . A feasibility study should be considered to facilitate the looping of watermain along Audubon Road from the railroad tracks to Heron Drive or incorporation of this work into the Audubon Road improvement project if initiated this year. " ' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary plat with staff' s recommended conditions . The ' Commission also added Conditions #16 and #17 as follows : 16 . All lots shall have access from interior streets. 17. The developer shall grade Outlot A at the same time as the grading of the lots occur. ' CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: ' "The City Council approves Preliminary Plat #89-2 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat dated May 12, 1989, with the following con- ditions: 1. The applicant shall provide an amended preliminary plat showing Lot 1 to have a minimum of 12 , 000 square feet and ' provide block numbers . 2. The applicant shall provide staff with an amended landscaping plan prior to final plat approval replacing the Pin Oaks with Hackberry. ' 3 . The applicant shall install 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Heron Drive. 4 . The applicant shall provide the 20 foot wide trail easement along the west side of Powers Boulevard. of Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition June 7 , 1989 1 Page 7 5 . The applicant shall receive 50% credit on park dedication fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees. 6 . Approval of wetland alteration permit. ' 7 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements . 8 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of ' the Watershed District permit. 9. The sanitary sewer located within Heron Drive shall be held i at a grade of 0 . 40% throughout the run to Audubon Road. 10. The sanitary sewer shall be jack-bored to the west right-of- way line of Audubon Road for future connection and service along Audubon Road. 11. The right-of-way for Heron Drive needs to be 60 feet in width ' to conform with Phase I construction and a right turn lane included at Audubon Road to meet anticipated traffic demands of the area. 12 . The storm sewer system needs to be modified so that it drains to the wetland pond provided on site and eliminate the storm sewer/parkland development conflict as outlined in the PUD report. 13. Detailed construction plans and specifications including 1 calculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans and tie cards will also be required upon completion of the construction. 14 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities . 15. A feasibility study should be considered to facilitate the 11 looping of watermain along Audubon Road from the railroad tracks to Heron Drive or incorporation of this work into the Audubon Road improvement project if initiated this year. " 16 . All lots shall have access from interior streets . 17. The developer shall grade Outlot A at the same time as the grading of the lots occur. ' Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition June 7 , 1989 Page 8 ' MANAGER' S COMMENTS Lake Drive will act as a collector for all properties in this general area. Although this subdivision does not directly con- nect to Lake Drive, it will act to serve the entire Lake Susan development to the west of County 17. Generally, I would attempt ' to find a means by which all of the lots to the west of County 17 would pay a portion of Lake Drive' s construction costs - a con- cept used in constructing Kerber Boulevard. In this instance, I think the City will be able to rely on the developments in the ' third phase of the business park to carry out the construction of this roadway. Even though the overall development (Lake Susan Hills Partnership) benefits from Lake Drive, you can be assured that individual pro- perty owners purchasing lots adjacent to Lake Drive will protest its construction. This fact will be true regardless of whether they are asked to contribute to paying for the road or not - the first scenario simply being more volatile than the second. To insure that we have given these owners fair warning that Lake Drive is in the City' s Comprehensive Plan and will be constructed, this office would recommend that specific wordage stating the City' s intent and, by their purchase of the lot, their recognition and agreement that Lake Drive will and can be built. ' WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT As part of the PUD concept plan approval, the wetland located within the 3rd addition was determined to be a Class B wetland ' which could be altered to provide a retention basin for storm- water runoff from the site. Page 3 of the preliminary plat shows the edge of the existing wetland. The applicant must change the ' edge of the wetland to allow the lots (Lot 9 ) to maintain the 75 foot setback. The grading plan does not show any changes to the wetland. The applicant will be providing an amended wetland alteration plan. Therefore, staff is recommending the wetland alteration permit be tabled until an amended plan is provided to city staff. ' RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the 11 following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends tabling Wetland Alteration Permit #89-4 subject to an amended plan being submitted to city staff for review. " PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission recommended tabling of the wetland alteration permit as recommended by staff due to inadequate information. so Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition II June 7, 1989 - Page 9 CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION II Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: I "The City Council tables action on Wetland Alteration Permit #89-4 subject to an amended plan being submitted to City Staff II for review. " ATTACHMENTS II1 . Excerpt from zoning ordinance. 2 . Wetland Ordinance. 3 . Memo from City Engineer dated May 31, 1989. II 4 . Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated March 28, 1989. 5 . City Council minutes dated May 8, 1989. I 6 . Planning Commission minutes dated June 7 , 1989. 7 . Preliminary plat dated May 12, 1989 . II II I II II II 1 II II II II a § 20-517 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE ' Sec. 20-517. General concept plan. (a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire ' development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: (1) Overall gross and net density. ' (2) Identification of each lot size and lot width. (3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. 1 (4) General location and extent of public and common open space. (5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. ' (6) Staging and time schedule for development. (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall ' be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. ' (c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: (1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments. (2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan,together with all supporting data. ' (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspa- per at least ten(10)days prior to the hearing,written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. ' (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commis- sion the city council shall consider the proposal. If the planning commission fails to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the city ' council may proceed without the report. The council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four- fifths vote of the entire council. ' (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5-18-6(2)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-518. Development stage. ' (a) Following general concept approval of a PUD, the applicant shall submit the devel- . opment stage application, preliminary plat and fee. If appropriate because of the limited scale ' of the proposal, the concept stage and preliminary plan stages may proceed simultaneously. The applicant shall file the development plans and preliminary plat, together with all sup- porting data. 1200 C r r 4 ZONING ,, ) % ai C . • _ z t4 (13 purpose of this article. In reviewing wetland alteration proposals reference shall he -p United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service under Runoff, I and Sediment Control Handbook and Technical Field Guide. If the city council determ; that the required calculations in a particular instance are needlessly burdensome because of the area and nature of a proposal, it may agree to a substitute analysis. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-8), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-437. Filling. A minimum amount of filling will be allowed when necessary for the use of property, but Ionly when it will not have a net adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological character- istics of the wetland. In determining whether a proposed development will have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland, the council shall consider, but not limit its consideration to, the following factors: I (1) Any filling shall not cause total natural flood storage capacity of the wetland to fall below, or fall below further, the projected volume of run-off from the watershed I generated by a 5.9-inch rainfall in twenty-four(24) hours. Since the total amount of filling which can be permitted is limited,apportionment of fill opportunities for other properties abutting the wetland shall be considered. I r- (2) Any filling shall not cause total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to k..... be diminished to an extent that is deterimental to any area river, lake or stream. (3) Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic wastes may be used. I (4) Filling shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on vegetation. (5) Filling in wetland areas will not be permitted during waterfowl breeding season I fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. I (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5-24-8(1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-438. Dredging. I Dredging will be allowed only when it will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hyrological characteristics of the wetlands. Dredging, when allowed, shall be limited as follows: (1) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. (2) It shall not adversely change water flow. I (3) The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action. I (4) Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland district unless specifically authorized in the wetland alteration permit. I(..— (5) Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control an retention measures. d nutrient 1193 I III 1 1 ' § 20-438 CIIANHASSEN CITY CODE r l ' (6) Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. ' (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-8(2)), 12-15-86) ' Sec. 20-439. Discharges. (a) Soil loss from a construction site any part of which is in a wetland or within two ' hundred(200)feet of the wetland that is within the wetland watershed shall not exceed a rate of more than two(2)tons per acre per year. (b) Projected soil loss from a completed construction project shall not exceed one-half ton ' per year if any part of it is in a wetland or within two hundred(200)feet of a wetland that is within the wetland watershed. ' (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-8(3)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-440. Stormwater runoff. ' (a) A minimum increase in volume of stormwater runoff to a wetland from a development over the natural volume of runoff may be allowed when necessary for use of property but only ' when it will not have a net adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetlands. In no case shall the restrictions on runoff set out below be exceeded. Since the total increase in runoff which can be permitted is limited, the council when considering ' permit applications shall consider, in addition to the following, apportionment of increased runoff opportunity to all wetland property within the surrounding wetland area. ' (b) Stormwater runoff from a development may be directed to the wetland only when free of debris and substantially free of chemical pollutants and silt, and only at rates which do not disturb vegetation or increase turbidity. Sheet flow and other overland drainage of runoff ' shall be encouraged. (c) The proposed action shall not cause stormwater runoff on the wetlands to take place at ' a rate which would materially exceed the natural rate. (d) The allowed total increased runoff, in combination with the total fill allowed,shall not cause total natural flood storage capacity of the wetland to fall below, or fall below further, ' the projected volume of runoff in the whole developed wetland watershed generated by a 5.9-inch rainfall in twenty-four(24) hours. (e) The allowed total increase in runoff, in combination with the total fill allowed, shall not cause total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to fall below, or fall below further, the projected nutrient production from the whole developed wetland watershed. ' (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-8(4)), 12-15-86) Secs. 20-441-20-475. Reserved. 1194 J CITY 'OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer DATE: May 31 , 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review ' Lake Susan Hills West 3rd Addition File No. 89-2 Land Use Review Location The site is located on the east side of Audubon Road approxi- ' mately three-quarters of a mile south of Trunk Highway 5 . This 36-acre site is comprised of rolling farmland. II Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site on the east from Phase I construction. These existing sewer mains were sized and installed to service the anticipated development for the subject parcel . ' The sewer line in Heron Drive is planned to serve a larger area along Audubon Road north of Heron Drive. Therefore, the sanitary sewer line on Heron Drive needs to be lowered from the first cul- de-sac east of Audubon Road by using a minimum grade of 0 . 40% for an 8-inch pipe along its entire length to Audubon Road. The pro- posed plans show that the east two-thirds of Heron Drive meet this requirement. At the intersection of Audubon Road and Heron Drive the sanitary sewer line shall be jack-bored under Audubon Road to the west right-of-way line of Audubon road for accessibility for future sewer connection . Watermain Municipal water is available to the site from Phase I construction. 11 Jo Ann Olsen May 31 , 1989 ' Page 2 With this addition there will be approximately 7 , 000 lineal feet of dead-end 10-inch watermain construction. In 1990 , the City is hoping to upgrade Audubon Road from the railroad tracks south to Lyman Boulevard. In the event that this roadway improvement does ' not occur, the City should, as a minimum, proceed with a public utility improvement project for installation of a 12-inch water- main along Audubon Road for looping of the watermain system from the railroad tracks to Heron Drive. In the interim, the applicant for this development will need to verify and document sizing for the watermain with submittal of ' the plans and specifications . Public Street ' The applicant has provided a 50-foot right-of-way for all streets . Heron Drive should have a 60-foot right-of-way with a 32-foot wide street; all cul-de-sacs will have 28-foot wide ' streets with a 50-foot right-of-way. The access onto Audubon Road will require a right turn lane to meet the anticipated traf- fic demand for this type of development. ' Grading and Drainage It appears that the majority of the site will experience shaping ' and/or grading to create the building pads. All street grades conform to the maximum and minimum grade ' requirements of the City for site construction . The storm sewer system needs to be modified to prevent conflicts ' with park improvements as shown in the PUD report. The storm sewer network is proposed to drain the site. This should be directed to the on-site wetland ponding area. The pond I needs to be sized to hold surface runoff and provide adequate storage for a 100-year storm event and have a controlled outlet to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate for the area. Details will be required with the plans and specifications submittal . The pond should be shaped to conform to the DNR wetland require- ments for fish and wildlife. , Erosion Control I The plans should show the site wrapped with erosion control fencing in accordance with the City' s Type III standard. ' All side slopes greater than 3:1 shall be stabilized using ero- sion control blankets . Vegetative cover shall be established in accordance with the conditions of the Watershed District permit. Jo Ann Olsen May 31 , 1989 Page 3 Recommended Conditions 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements . 2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 3 . The sanitary sewer located within Heron Drive shall be held at a grade of 0 .40% throughout the run to Audubon Road. 4 . The sanitary sewer shall be jack-bored to the west right-of- , way line of Audubon Road for future connection and service along Audubon Road. 5 . The right-of-way for Heron Drive needs to be 60 feet in width to conform with Phase I construction and a right turn lane included at Audubon Road to meet anticipated traffic demands of the area. 6 . The storm sewer system needs to be modified so that it drains , , to the wetland pond provided on site and eliminate the storm sewer/parkland development conflict as outlined in the PUD report. 7 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans and tie cards will also be required upon completion of the construction. 8 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities . 9 . A feasibility study should be considered to facilitate the looping of watermain along Audubon Road from the railroad tracks to Heron Drive or incorporation of this work into the Audubon Road improvement project if initiated this year . c: Allan Larson, Sr. Engineering Technician I ' .. C C CITY OF L SSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner ' FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator ' DATE: March 28 , 1989 SUBJ: Park and Recreation Commission Action on Lake Susan Hills West Site Plan Review The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for ' Lake Susan Hills West Third Addition at their last meeting. The Commissioners ' action was based on the PUD agreement with the Lake Susan Hills West developer. It is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to request the dedication of Outlots A and B for park purposes and to require the grading of those outlots at the same time streets are installed in accordance with grading plans provided by the City. Additionally, the Commission ' recommends to require the installation of 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalks along the through streets within the development; 8 ft. wide bituminous trails along the east side of Powers Blvd. and ' the east side of Audubo Road; and a 20 ft. wide trail easement along the west side of i-r- er- Blvd. , as outlined in Sections 4 and 5 of the PUD contract dated November 16 , 1987. Additionally, it was recommended that the developer receive 50% credit on park dedication fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees . Attached please find the Park and Recreation Commission minutes . ' • ty Council Meeting - Ma 3, 1989 \\O II There's a lot of different things. My first suggestion is that in the_RSF, R-4 district that buildings should not exceed 80% of the size of the primary structure. I don't know if 80% is a good number or not. That's still pretty big, and not to exceed a total of 1,000 square feet. I would take (a) and drop it back to 140 square feet or a minimum setback of 5 feet. Then I'd say for a house between 140 square feet and 400 square feet, have a 10 foot setback and anything bigger than 400 square feet which is 20 foot by 20 foot, go to the regular 30 foot setback. So theoretically your house can be 30 feet from your back property line so you've only got a 30 foot backyard and somebody can then _ build a huge storage building just 40 foot away from you. Those are my II suggestions for that. Then we add that (c) there. Mayor. Chmiel: Yes, I agree. I think we should pull this at this particular time. My reasoning is that I would like to have this as a regular agenda item II and open this for discussion because I'd like more input from the people in the community if they have any. Councilman Johnson: I don't think there was much input at the public hearing ' that was held. I do remember being there. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. I was there also. I just want people to be aware of the II fact that this is there and I want to make sure. Councilman Johnson: A neighbor of ours built a large barnli.ke structure in 1 their backyard. They've got the 12,000 square foot lot and they actually put it right on the property line right next to the guy's garden so his garden became a shaded area. They spent a long time getting that garden going and they built - M this structure right next to it so that's what I'm trying to prevent. Stuff like that. I move to table it then. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. I'll second that. II Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table the first reading of an I Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding Accessory Structures. All voted in favor and the motion carried. D. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 13.49 . II ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, EAST SIDE OF PG ERS BLVD. APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. II Councilman -Johnson: I actually didn' t have a whole lot of problems with the preliminary plat itself but I've got a problem with the pond that with the ice II melt they had a pond get destroyed, a sediment pond and it's been what, a month now and it hasn't been repaired and now we've got sediment running into Lake Susan because there has been no repair. I don't see why we should continue. This should have been repaired immediately. Do you know what the status of that I/ is Gary? Gary Warren: We followed up and had contact with the developer, Argus I Development and their engineer. They've changed engineers in the process of going from the Second to Third Addition so I don't know i.f that slowed them up but we've been in contact with them over 2 weeks ago to address it. You're 2 II w i /J 2J' City Council Meeting - ,,y 8, 1989 IIright, I was out yesterday looking and I made a note that it had not been yet so. done I Councilman Johnson: Yes, there's nice light brown water flowing out of there tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Have we received revised landscape plans on this as well as did we also receive the Watershed and Carver County permit for this Gary? II Jo Ann Olsen: We did receive the revised landscaping plan. Carver_ County, no they have not received for the temporary access? They have not received that. We have been in contact with them and they feel there will be no problem with taking it. I don't even know if they've made the application yet. II Mayor Chmi.el: But you've had discussions with the County regarding this and they don't have any problems? The pond to be repaired, that should also be part Iof that basic approval. Jay are you going to make a motion on this? - Councilman Johnson: Okay. I thought Ursula wanted to talk. ICouncilwoman Dimler: I had something other than that. My point with it. I was under the impression that we had a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Is that right Jo Ann? IJo Ann Olsen: This is a PUD and so they were rmi.tted 1� smaller lot sizes. Ii Councilwoman Dimler: Okay because I noticed there were quite a few of them that i___ were smaller. Also, do we have a minimum width at the setback that the lot h to be? has IIJo Ann Olsen: It's 90 feet at the setback. Councilwoman Dialler: It's 90 feet wide at the setback. Okay, do they all meet Ithat requirement? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. ICouncilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. That's all I wanted to know. Councilman Johnson: I'll move approval of item 1(d) with the staff's 10 I conditions. Adding a condition 11 that the sedimentation basin along CR 17 be repaired as soon as it dries out enough to repair it. You can't get in there and work on it now but in a timely fashion. IICouncilman Workman: I'll second it. ICouncilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat to subdivide 13.49 acres into 9 single family lots on the east liside of Powers Blvd. approximately 1 mile south of Highway 5, Lake Susan Hilts IF West, Argue Development with the 10 conditions listed b report and an additional condition 11 stating that the sedimentation in tne` asinf County Road 17 be repaired in a timely Fashion. All voted eina favor oand nthe II motion carried. II3 E. 1 I I I • Eaa I SU1� p AQ1/4 P , I I �� �G C,Li, ES y r �, ' / 2.1sAc 4 A\ fir-) o i • ` OUT ' 4611��s f Q f i `\ QttiiSPA `` C35'D1!Irft,, ,,whit�it ! �/ G Z ! _ � �"�� (i _ ____, , ,_' ___i. - ------ ------ ' ---/: 3 . 9 4 . . .EO � - 28 C9spu.):;,.:::: b w4111 Or i alifork 04041riiiii . ,/I,eala iiiiill_in ,its%11104.-I, •, 0 :'� gill Ot,]TL17T t ik,...amooki,10 z, \- 8 Q uZu 4::.Arm. oak Analorg Ate, tAo i. 1 `1' tR 1 goo 0.4is ,i , oik.,I_ 5CAO ACC r ® �, s Uh- ./v1J�L� ®i6 :Ij$I�� t i7 � I 3.� “ . • �►� ,� ,,, 4_,/ E aslim *I1L, , Nrcp -..coo `■ �. w •y, , sa Appg (E:17 ilte. '■ 1 11A*1 I Fr. 4& 41 1:. 0 O al PLAKA VI (4011. yr f\ /; , : DA*e o s, „ ms, qtr 1 G � ®� e Bt +� .a '* Pff A\j'.\\\\\\\ \ Yt - \ mi II ' Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 13 II ili _ Conrad : So the City got the boat launch is what it got out of this land . The neighbors didn' t want the boat launch but it got something . Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in Ifavor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . il Emmings : My only question is why there ' s a condition on this . What happens to the land, don' t we want to amend the Comprehensive Plan anyway? Olsen : The only reason I can think that it wasn ' t done originally was that II in case they did come back and go through the amendment and then use it as single family or low density. I Emmings : Right now we know that this piece is going to be some form of higher density. We' re not going to give them low density on this so why wouldn' t we amend our plan anyway? IIBatzli : They could come back in and redo their PUD if they decided not to build the townhomes there. II Olsen : That ' s the only reason I put that condition is just to , it ' s not that necessary of a condition. We know that they' re going to go through but once they do plat it into those 14 individual lots , townhome lots , then k. we know that it is going to pretty much go through. Emmings : It' s not worth anymore . I ' ll go along with it . I don ' t feel strongly about it. IBatzli : Well he asked by question so it ' s okay. I Headla: I asked the question before on the previous thing and I lost so I ' ll go along with this one. IConrad: I have no comments . Batzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #89-1 to change 1. 5 acres Residential ILow Density to Residential High Density with the following condition : 1. Final plat approval of the 14 townhome units . IIAll voted in favor and the motion carried . IPUBLIC HEARING: ARGUS DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON THE EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 3RD IADDITION: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 35 . 79 ACRES INTO 55 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS . ii- B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND. I Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 14 Public Present : Don Patton, Applicant Ray Brandt, Applicant Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad : Jo Ann, you mentioned that there would be grading of Outlot A but II I don' t see that in the recommendations. Is that bundled in someplace? Olsen : That should have been under the park. Don Patton: I think it' s on the PUD concept. Olsen : It ' s already in the contract that they have to do that . We could add that though. Conrad : Whatever you think. Olsen : It is on number 1. I 'm sorry, I 'm reading the Park and Rec one ' s. Yes, we should probably add that to be consistent because I 've added. . . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Ray Brandt: I 'm Ray Brandt. I don' t know how I did this. The right-of- II way for Heron Blvd . is platted 60 feet wide and way back 2-3 months ago when I was putting in the dimensions, I put in 25 feet. . . One of my earlier preliminary plats I erased it but I didn' t erase it on my computer so it' s drafted at 60 feet so the lot areas and that are correct. Then that one lot that I have 12, 900 and some, that ' s just an oversight also . I don' t think there were any others. Oh yes , I guess what I was thinking on that wetland , what we' re going to do is encroach , our setback is going to encroach but now that I read the report I ' ve got to put a ponding area in there so that will have to come back and change that . Conrad: Okay. Any other comments? Batzli moved , Erhart seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla : I 'm glad to see them putting in hackberry. I don ' t know if you ' read the Minnesota Volunteer but they talk about the pine bark beetle that hit Woodbury last year . Part of their conifers are taking quite a beating . Stay away from all conifers. Use deciduous and I 'm very glad to see you do that. Will you explain to me again the rationale for a 90 foot frontage that we just insist that all the builders have? Olsen : With the PUD you can go down to 80 feet and that ' s one of the ( benefits of the PUD. Why we have 90 feet though? • Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 15 I IrHeadla : We' re so unforgiveable with that 90 feet with all our builders and now we come in and there are several 80 feet. This doesn ' t seem to be consistent at all . I Olsen : That was one of the benefits of a PUD. Smaller lot sizes. Narrower lots . I Headla : Aren ' t you saying that' s the way it is period if that ' s the case . I take a look at a 90 foot frontage as not being a rigid rule but certainly can be negotiated in the future. It ' s hard to believe that it' s got to be this for one place and another place, ah, we can lose 10 feet. It won' t I make any difference . Conrad : Well we do have a minimum. Headla : It' s 90 feet but they allowed 80 feet here. IBatzli : That's in a PUD. Headla : But it' s still in a development. You' ve got homes here , you 've got homes here, what' s the difference? I 'm not going to be that hard nosed I on 90 feet when I can see it used so often here and I 'm not saying 90 is the magic number over 80. I 'm looking at more consistency in our reasoning as we say yea or nay on more people in the future. .. Ilt, Batzli : Isn ' t that just part of the whole PUD plan though that we' re getting something in return so we' re being more flexible. IConrad: Is there a minimum Jo Ann for our frontage? Olsen : In a PUD? IConrad : Yes . IOlsen : It ' s 80. Conrad : It is 80. So normally without a PUD, what' s the minimum? II Olsen: 90. Erhart : But remember if it ' s not PUD , in RSF it' s 15 , 000 square foot Iminimum. In a PUD, it' s 12, 500 square foot minimum. Headla : That part I can buy. I think there ' s some pretty good rationale I for that because they compensate in other areas but when I see so many 80 foot wides , I don ' t think that our 90 foot has that much substance to it . It ' s a good guideline but to hold to it, I think we should look at it a little bit different . That ' s over a 10o change. On recommendation 1, you 11 refer to having a minimum of 12, 000 square feet and provide block numbers . What ' s a block number? IOlsen : It ' s when you have Lots 1-3 , Block 1. Lots 1-10 , Block 2. It' s just another little technicality. I • I. Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 16 r i Headla : Oh okay. That' s all I had . Batzli : Dave got me thinking on this 80 feet . Lot 3, which is 2 to the east from the lot that' s below 12,000 square feet. You see where I 'm at? We have a frontage at 79. 96 . Not to be picky or something but. Olsen: I was picky on the 11,900 so yes, that' s just, when the final plats II come in, the lot lines always adjust a little bit and we check those . Batzli : Just curious. I think this is an interesting plan in that we have several lots which are enormous compared to lots on the southern end here. 11 I 'd be personally kind of interested in, and I don't know that I was really here for the entire PUD concept plan for this . I 'd be really interested to know why we have several lots that are so big. ' Erhart : That ' s where that pond is going . Batzli : All the way around there? , Erhart : That ' s a low area . Olsen: It's wetland, yes . Batzli : So that ' s going to be back, well we don ' t have block numbers , 1. II okay. One other just idle curiousity note here before I get to my one real question. Is this 20 foot strip out to Outlot A from Heron Drive, did I miss something? Why is that in there? Olsen : That ' s access to the park. Batzli : Is that down into the park or is that going to be. . . 1 Olsen : It will be part of the outlot . I believe dedicated to the City isn' t it? Batzli : Is the outlot dedicated to the City? Is the City going to be maintaining that? Conrad : Was that your real question? Batzli : No. This is my real question. In item 11, the right hand turn, will that affect any lot sizes over in that corner? Are you going to be moving the road over actually? Ray Brandt: It ' s all within the right-of-way. ' Batzli : It' s all going to be in the right-of-way? Okay. That was my only real question . Emmings : I have a couple of questions . I don ' t know if they' re real or not but I ' ll ask them anyway. Over on the left hand edge of this thing , there ' s Lots 4, 5 and 6 on that one cul-de-sac that looks like they' re I Ilr Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 17 I 1(7 double frontage . They front on Audubon and that street . Do they? Ray Brandt: Are they double frontage? IEmmings : Yes . Ray Brandt : Yes . Actually 7 is too . They really front both ways but I Iwould imagine that there won' t be any access on Audubon. Emmings : I assume that' s what you' re doing there but I know that in the I past when we've had this situation, just to make it crystal clear , I don' t think that the County would let you do it anyway. Olsen: It' s a city road . IEmmings : It ' s a city road , but I think maybe we ought to just put that down that all access for those lots will be on the interior streets. I That' s what you plan to do anyway but just so it ' s spelled out. Then the other thing I have on those double frontage lots is I have a recollection and I 've been feverishly searching through the ordinance here and maybe it's not in there or I just couldn ' t find it but it seems to me that we Ialways do some things with. . . Olsen: You always have to have an additional depth . Emmings : Where is that in the ordinance? Olsen: In this new codified ordinance, I can' t find it . I Emmings : Yes , I couldn ' t find it but there are things that apply to double frontage lots and I don' t know if these double frontage lots were evaluated Iin terms of whatever those provisions are . Erhart: There' s an extra 10 foot setback . IOlsen : Yes , and they definitely have the depth. There ' s also additional landscaping. I can ' t remember right off hand where exactly it is but I know when we were looking at the PUD concept , we were looking at the Iadditional depth for that. Emmings : I guess I ' d just ask that between now and the City Council that I that be checked just to make sure that all of the provisions are being met and if there ' s any problem, that it be brought up to the City Council . Then the only other thing I wonder about is , right now there' s nothing Ideveloped to the south of this property correct? Yes , that ' s correct? Olsen: Yes, there ' s nothing . IEmmings : And how about to the east? Is that the first subdivision? lirOlsen: First phase. I • mii Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 18 1 Emmings : And how are these lots on the east edge matching up with lots that have already been platted to the east? Olsen : They' ve all been consistent with the concept plan . Emmings: That's all I ' ve got . Erhart : Jo Ann , why do we request a developer to pave sidewalks but yet not the trails? What' s the thinking behind that? Olsen : The trail easement? Erhart: Yes . Olsen : I 'm not exactly sure if that was a condition between the Park and Rec and the PUD contract . Maybe Don can fill you in on exactly why? Erhart: I was just wondering what the rationale was? Olsen : I think it' s along Powers it' s going to be improved and it depends on when all of the improvements for the road will take place. The developer might not. . . , Erhart : Powers , what 4 lane all the way? When? Olsen: In the next 2 years. 4 years. They' re planning on it now. ' I Erhart : That ' s right . Going down to the railroad bridge it is 4 lane and it looks like it' s a temporary jog there. Okay. The thing I might suggest when you' re doing a wetland thing , in order to react to Brian ' s concern about those large lots , they' re putting a conservation easement on a significant portion of those lots so we should try to keep them wild if you I think that fits. After studying that in detail , if you think that fits . Olsen : We usually put a conservation easement along the 75 foot setback. , Erhart: In that sense making it a pseudo public area because it' s a lot of. . .maybe you could help me Dave but what ' s wrong with pin oaks? Headla: I looked at that and couldn' t figure out why they changed? Olsen : The DNR forester said the pin oaks grow real fast and get brittle . They' re fast and the mature tree really sooner but it wasn ' t as long . lasting . Erhart : I don ' t know why they don' t just use red oaks instead of pin oaks . II The PUD ordinance requires , is the 1 tree per lot on just the PUD ordinance or is that in. . . Olsen : That ' s in all our ordinance . Erhart: That's in all our ordinances? , . Planning Commission Meeting June 7 , 1989 - Page 19 Olsen : It ' s always a condition of any development contract . IErhart: On Audubon Road there where we have those nice evergreens that we' re putting in , is that going to be also bermed or is that just going to Ibe level with existing? Olsen : It showed a grading plan. Again , Audubon Road, there' s some I improvements being made to that too. There are plans to continue that all the way down to Lyman . Erhart: Yes, I 'm aware of that one. IOlsen : The grading plan , it shows slight berming . I Erhart: I think that' s real valuable to take a double fronted lot like that when the rear abuts up to a major street or arterial like that , or a collector, to put a berm in addition to the trees but I guess I 'd ask that I you consider that in the final plan of this thing because it does , it really provides some immediate screening but it also provides somewhat of a barrier for kids running in the back yard and running out onto the street. I Ray Bradt: The street, Audubon Drive, the existing elevation is at it' s lowest point is 946. That' s about 12 feet higher than the backs of the lots. Erhart : So I see a berm would really be useless . Okay. I think that ' s all I had on my list. IConrad : Okay, good comments Tim. I was not an advocate of this as a PUD and I still am not. I do have problems with lot configurations as certain lots back into the sides of other lots . I just find that that forces Ifences and is not good planning. I have no other comments . Headla : Can I make a couple more? Conrad: Sure . Headla : I 've got one real comment . On number 10, the sanitary sewer shall I be jack-bored to the west right-of-way. I know what jack-bored is. Is it appropriate in this type of situation that we require it? My real concern is this is appropriate in this type of condition, that ' s all . IOlsen : I 'm sure the engineers have reviewed that and that ' s what they determined . IHeadla : Well it was in their comments but does it fit in here? To me that' s a question if that' s appropriate. The other one I have is that these dedication fees . Where do they go? I ' ve never seen any of that Imoney spent west of CR 117 or south of CR 18. Olsen : That ' s not Chanhassen . I- Conrad: It ' s not supposed to. That ' s the law. I IN Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 20 1 Headla : Let' s change that to eastern Chanhassen? I had to get that shot in. Batzli : Jo Ann, just following up on Dave' s point, they' re going to start a watermain down along Audubon Road there right? Olsen : Right . ' Batzli : And also the sanitary sewer down there as well so what they' re doing is basically putting it over there for if and when they do start that project? Olsen : Which project? The Lake Susan? Batzli : No, aren' t they going to make some improvements? Utility improvements down Audubon Road there? Olsen: Correct . ' Batzli : So you ' re just asking them to jack-bore it for when the improvements are put in that it will have already been done? Olsen : Yes . To loop everything . Emmings : I found one thing on double frontage lots . There ' s a provision I under Section 20-908 that says the required frontyard has to be provided on both streets . Olsen : That ' s not it . There ' s another one . Emmings: There may well be but I found one and I ' ll just bring that to your attention. Olsen: I know the other one too but just where it is in this new one I 'm not sure. Batzli : I 'm sorry, did you say the frontage has to be provided on both sides? ' Emmings : No, required front yard . Olsen: Two front yards and two side yards . - , Emmings : Yes instead of, you don ' t have a back yard on a double frontage lot so you have two front yards . Batzli : So is that just for setback purposes then? Olsen: Yes and what can be placed in it and stuff like that . Conrad : Anything else? Is there a motion? if Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 21 I Headla : I thought Steve had one comment in there that I can' t remember what it was now. Erhart : Yes , I 've got it. I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend Iapproval of the preliminary plat #89-2 PUD dated May 12, 1989 with the 15 conditions cited by staff plus a condition 16 that all access on double fronted lots shall be from the interior streets only. IEmmings : Access to all lots should be from interior streets because there are some on corners too I guess . IErhart : Yes . Did I miss something? Batzli : I' ll second it for discussion purposes . Are we going to talk at Iall about conservation easements? Conrad : Or grading the outlot? IErhart : I think that' s going to be part of the wetland alteration . Olsen: The easement would be. IBatzli : The conservation easement but grading the outlot is going to be part of the wetland alteration as well? ILErhart : No . I Olsen : The conservation easement around the wetland would be part of the wetland. I don' t know where the edge of the wetland is yet. Erhart : Now you' re talking about grading Outlot A for a park? I thought II read it in there as one of the conditions already. Olsen : The Park and Rec Commission put it in. IErhart : Then let ' s add that as number 17 . Further discussion that was in the report. Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #89-2 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat Idated May 12, 1989 with the following conditions : 1. The applicant shall provide an amended preliminary plat showing Lot 1 Ito have a minimum of 12, 000 square feet and provide block numbers . 2. The applicant shall provide staff with an amended landscaping plan prior to final plat approval replacing the Pin Oaks with Hackberry. I3. The applicant shall install 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the I north side of Heron Drive. I I M . Planning Commission Meeting June 7, 1989 - Page 22 1 ( 4. The applicant shall provide the 20 foot wide trail easement along the west side of Powers Boulevard. 5. The applicant shall receive 50% credit on park dedication fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees. 6. Approval of wetland alteration permit . 7. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and I provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installatin of these public improvements . 8. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 9. The sanitary sewer located within Heron Drive shall be held at a grade of 0.40% throughout the run to Audubon Road. 10. The sanitary sewer shall be jack-bored to the west right-of-way line of I Audubon Road for future connection and service along Audubon Road. 11. The right-of-way for Heron Drive needs to be 60 feet in width to ' conform with Phase I construction and a right turn lane included at Audubon Road to meet anticipated traffic demands of the area . 12. The storm sewer sytem needs to be modified so that it drains to the ' wetland pond provided on site and eliminate the storm sewer/parkland development conflict as outlined in the PUD report . 13 . Detailed construction plans and specifications i ncluding calculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improvements shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer . As-built mylar plans and tie cards will also be required upon completion of the construction . 14. Appropriate utility easement shall be provided over all public facilities . 15. A feasibility study should be considered to facilitate the looping of watermain along Audubon Road from the railroad tracks to Heron Drive or incorporation of this work into the Audubon Road improvement project if initiated this year . 16. All lots shall have access from interior streets . 111 17. The developer shall be grade Outlot A at the same time as grading of the lots occurs . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommends tabling of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-4 subject to an amended plan being submitted to the city staff for review. All voted in favor and the motion carried .