The URL can be used to link to this page

G-1. Boulder Cove0 CITY OF 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.2271160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 l MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Sharmeen Al -Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: April 14, 2014 by SUBJ: Boulder Cove — Preliminary Plat with Variances to Subdivide 13.38 Acres into 31 lots and 3 outlots — Planning Case #2014 -09 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #2014 -09, Boulder Cove subdivision for 31 lots and 3 outlots with a Variance to allow a 1,200 -foot long cul -de -sac on property zoned RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact " City Council approval of the subdivision with the variance requires a majority vote of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The developer is requesting approval of a preliminary plat subdividing 13.38 acres into 31 lots and 3 outlots and a variance to allow a 1,200 -foot long cul -de -sac for property located north of Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 62nd Street. Access to the site is gained off of a proposed cul -de -sac south of West 62nd Street. The developer's traffic engineer will be analyzing the proposed street connection and will provide a recommendation for traffic control conditions, if any. This information will be available prior to the final plat submittal. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY Planning & The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 1, 2014. Issue raised during the Natural Resources public hearing included traffic, drainage, and lack of sidewalks in the area. The Planning Phone: 952.227.1130 Commission voted 4 -1 to recommend approval of the project. The April 1, 2014 Planning Fax: 952.227.1110 Commission minutes are a part of the consent agenda of the April 14, 2014 City Council packet. Public Works 7901 Park Place RECOMMENDATION Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Staff recommends approval of the request. Senior Center ATTACHMENTS Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 1, 2014. Web Site 2. Email from Jolene Scott dated March 31, 2014. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 3. Emails from Ryan Johannsen dated March 31 & April 1, 2014. 4. Email from Leah & Jassen Schneider dated April 1, 2014. 5. Emails from Rachel Dahlen dated April 1 & 2, 2014. g:\plan\2014 planning cases\2014 -09 boulder cove \executive sum ry.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSED MOTION: PC DATE: April 1, 2014 — CC DATE: April 14, 2014 REVIEW DEADLINE: April 14, 2014 CASE #: 2014 -09 BY: AI -Jaff "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Boulder Cove subdivision with a variance subject to the conditions of the staff report." And, Adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat with Variances to Subdivide 13.38 Acres into 31 lots and 3 outlots, Boulder Cove. LOCATION: North of Highway 7, East of Church Road and South of West 62nd Street. APPLICANT: Lennar Corporation 16305 361h Street Suite 600 Plymouth, MN 55446 Contact: Joe Jablonski or Paul Tabone (952) 249 -3000 joe.i ablonskinalennar. com PRESENT ZONING: RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 13.38 Acres DENSITY: Gross 2.32 Units /Ac Net 3.99 Units /Ac SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a subdivision with variances for property located north of Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 62"d Street. Access to the site is gained off of a proposed cul -de -sac south of West 62 "d Street. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION - MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi - judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi- judicial decision. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 2 of 25 PROPOSAUSUMMARY The subject site is located north of Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 62nd Street. It is zoned RLM- Residential Low and Medium Density District. The applicant is proposing to replat 13.38 acres into 31 lots and 3 outlots. All lots are proposed to contain single family homes. The outlots will contain storm ponds, an open area and a tot lot. There is a variance attached to the application dealing with the length of the cul- de-sac serving this development. Approval of the variance will eliminate access off of Highway 7 and improve safety. The property is zoned RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. The gross density of this subdivision is 2.32 units per acre and the net density is 3.99 units per acre which falls within the low density designation of the comprehensive plan. All lots are proposed to be served via the proposed cul -de -sac. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 3 of 25 The site consists of two parcels being assembled into one tract of land, and then subdivided. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the RLM District. The applicant submitted several home designs they intend to build. One of these designs (Next Generation), is a two -unit home. Staff discussed this matter with the applicant and informed them that city code requires a variance for the temporary use of single - family dwelling as a two - family dwelling. Therefore, this type of dwelling is not permitted at his time. One issue that needs to be pointed out is the fact that there are currently four driveways with access off of Highway 7. Two of them are located on the subject site and will be closed. The remaining two are located east of the subject site and will require a private street variance should the homeowners decide to relocate their access to be served off of the proposed cul -de -sac which will be an improvement from a safety standpoint. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. On August 28, 2006, the City Council approved the following: Rezoning of 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. Preliminary Plat with Variances to Subdivide 12.99 Acres into 39 lots and 1 outlot, Boulder Cove. • Site Plan Approval for the construction of 4 Three -plex Units On September 25, 2006, City Council approved the final plat, development contract and construction plans for the Boulder Cove development. The plat consisted of 39 lots and 1 outlot. Eleven of the lots were proposed to house single - family homes, 16 lots to house duplexes, and 12 lots to house three - plexes. The outlot was intended to contain a storm pond and a gazebo. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 4 of 25 BOULDER COVE INSET A - - - - -- �23 1 B ✓ ✓ 2 i � J 4 5'• ✓ OU7LOTA On November 13, 2006, City Council extended the time to file the final plat to May 1, 2007 due to unresolved issues with the legal description of the parent parcel. On April 3, 2007, the developer sent staff an email stating that these issues remained unresolved and requested that the time to file the final plat be extended to August 1, 2008. The City Council approved the requested extension on August 13, 2007. On July 8, 2008, the developer sent staff a letter requesting that the time to file the final plat be extended to August 1, 2009, to allow him sufficient time to secure financing for the project. The City Council approved the request on July 28, 2008. On June 15, 2009, the developer submitted a letter requesting the time to file the final plat be extended to August 1, 2010 due to the current economic conditions. On July 13, 2009, the City Council approved the request. On June 21, 2010, the developer submitted a letter requesting the time to file the final plat be extended to August 1, 2011 due to current economic conditions. The City Council approved the request on July 12, 2010. On June 21, 2011, the developer submitted a letter requesting the time to file the final plat be extended to August 1, 2012 due to current economic conditions. The City Council approved the request on July 11, 2011. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 5 of 25 Since the plat and associated documents were never recorded, the application became void. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 13.38 acres into 31 lots and 3 outlots. Outlot A contains a drainage easement, a storm pond and a tot lot, Outlot B is an open space and will contain a future development sign and Outlot C contains a drainage easement and a filtration basin. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2.32 units per acre gross and 3.99 units per acre net after removing the wetland, roads, storm ponds and park. All lots are proposed to contain single family homes. The applicant submitted several home designs they intend to build. One of these designs (Next Generation), is a two -unit home. Staff discussed this matter with the applicant and informed them that the city code requires a variance for the temporary use of single - family dwelling as a two - family dwelling under the following circumstances: 1. There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship. 2. The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single - family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. 3. Separate utility services are not established (e.g., gas, water, sewer, etc.). 4. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Staff is reviewing the two - family dwelling issue and considering a potential code amendment. If a code amendment was approved, the Next Generation homes would have to meet those standards. There is a variance attached to the application that deals with the length of the cul -de -sac serving this development. This variance will be discussed in detail later in the report. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS A review of aerial photography, national wetlands inventory map, DNR Public Waters Inventory map, soil survey data and other available information does not reveal the presence of any wetlands on the site and makes the likelihood that any exist on the property improbable. hi the event that wetland characteristics are observed on the site during field visits during the growing season, steps will need to be taken to assure compliance with the MN Wetland Conservation Act, the Federal Clean Water Act and other applicable federal, state and local regulations. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 6 of 25 STREETS The developer proposes to extend a 1,200 -foot long public cul -de -sac from the existing intersection of West 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. Staff supports the variance for the cul -de- sac length due to the safety benefits associated with only accessing from West 62nd Street and since the water main for the majority of the project will be in a looped system. Access to Highway 7 is not proposed for the following reasons: 1. MnDOT classifies Highway 7 as a high- priority regional corridor and will not allow access to Highway 7 if there is an alternative access from a local street, 2. MnDOT is minimizing the number and controlling the spacing of accesses along Highway 7, and 3. City Code requires minimum one - quarter mile (1320 -foot) access spacing along Highway 7. The distance between Church Road and Shorewood Oaks drive is only approximately 2100 feet; therefore, an access from the Boulder Cove development to Highway 7 would not meet City requirements. Recent developments within the Highway 7 corridor include Hidden Creek, Hidden Creek Meadows and Boyer Lake Minnewashta Addition, as shown below. Access to Hidden Creek extends from Highway 7 at Pipewood Curve. The old access was removed due to poor sight lines. Hidden Creek New Pipewood Curve access Old Pipewood Curve access Boyer Lake Minnewashta Accesses to Hidden Creek Meadows and Boyer Lake Minnewashta were extended from existing local streets adjacent to these developments. In December, 2005 MnDOT determined that the Church Road intersection at Highway 7 did not meet warrants for the installation of a traffic control signal. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 7 of 25 The preliminary plans show a new public street extending from the curve that connects 62 °d Street to Strawberry Lane. As illustrated on the map below Church Road, 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane is a route used by buses and parents to drop off and pick up students from Minnewashta Elementary School. • Church Road is a 31 -foot wide urban street owned and maintained by the City of Chanhassen. • 62 "d Street is a 22 -foot wide rural street. The corporate boundary between Chanhassen and Shorewood bisects 62 "d Street. Shorewood currently maintains 62nd Street. Shorewood's standard street section is 24 -feet wide; Chanhassen's is 31 feet. • Strawberry Lane is a 22 -foot wide rural street owned and maintained by the City of Shorewood. ( grynmvur Pl CaD� uj ' S ? SmiMtDwn � dagelD i a k iq BerttF/ Dr �� ¢Pm S�ewooA Oeksp Vlryinp<my � Pa�h In oa4l� r.:i se r� aoan �+ 3 i Apace Map courtesy of Microsoft Corporation MmL Staff met with representatives from the City of Shorewood to discuss the proposed connection to 62 °d Street /Strawberry Lane with the proposed development and any future upgrades to these streets since improvements to 62 "d Street would generally be part of a project to improve Strawberry Lane. Shorewood currently has no plans to widen Strawberry Lane or 62 °d Street but anticipates that work within this corridor will be done in the next five to ten years. Staff from both cities recommends that the 62 °d Street/Strawberry Lane /Strawberry Court intersection alignment be addressed at this time. Staff discussed revising the plans to construct a "T" intersection at this location to improve the functionality. The developer shall provide an analysis to determine if the "T" intersection would warrant a stop condition. If a stop condition is warranted, traffic counts on 62nd Street shall be collected and analyzed to determine the queuing effects at the intersection. Other details such as transifioning from a 31 -foot wide street in Chanhassen to a 22 -foot wide street in Shorewood shall be addressed with the final plan submittal. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 8 of 25 Four driveway accesses to Highway 7 will be removed with this project: two from the proposed plat, and the driveways for 3520 and 3530 Highway 7 (single- family properties immediately east of the development). The developer proposes to construct a 20 -foot wide private street from Strawberry Court to provide access to the homes on 3520 and 3530 Highway 7. The private street shall be a 7 -ton design and will be within an existing 30 -foot wide easement. The 2006 development proposal was for medium density housing which generates slightly less traffic than a single - family development; however, the total traffic and peak traffic based on the current proposal is within the acceptable ranges for a local street. The following traffic comparison is based on the 6d` Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual: UTILITIES Sanitary sewer service to the proposed development will be extended from the Metropolitan Council trunk sewer at the intersection of West 62 °d Street and Strawberry Lane. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right -of -way permit) and the street must be restored. In these situations the Metropolitan Council installs a temporary meter every few years to determine the average flow and bills the City accordingly. The septic tank and mound system that services 3530 Highway 7 is within the project boundaries. These items must be removed and disposed of at an approved facility in conjunction with the site improvements as proposed. The developer must provide a sanitary sewer service to 3530 Highway 7. The developer shall ensure that sewer service to 3530 Highway 7 is maintained throughout construction, which will involve pumping the septic tank after the septic mound is removed and before a sewer service is installed to serve the property. According to the Building Department the home at 3520 Highway 7 is connected to the City of Shorewood sanitary sewer system. Current Proposal: 2006 Proposal: 31 new single - family homes 38 twinhome /townhome /detached and 2 existing single- family 2 existing single - family Difference homes Total Daily 9.57 trips /unit ri 33units: 5.86 trips /unit x 38 units: 222.68 trips Trips 315.81 trips 9.57 trips /unit x 2 units: 19.14 trips + 73.99 trips Total: 241.82 trips Peak A.M. Trips 0.75 trips /unit x 33 units: 0.44 trips /unit x 38 units: 16.72 trips 7 a.m. — 9 a.m. 24.75 trips 0.75 trips /unit x 2 units: 1.50 trips +6.53 trips Total: 18.22 trips Peak Trips 1.01 trips /unit x 33 units: 0.54 trips /unit x 38 units: 20.52 trips . — 6 4 p.m. 6 p.m. 33.33 trips 1.01 trips /unit x 2 units: 2.02 trips +10.79 trips Total: 22.54 trips UTILITIES Sanitary sewer service to the proposed development will be extended from the Metropolitan Council trunk sewer at the intersection of West 62 °d Street and Strawberry Lane. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right -of -way permit) and the street must be restored. In these situations the Metropolitan Council installs a temporary meter every few years to determine the average flow and bills the City accordingly. The septic tank and mound system that services 3530 Highway 7 is within the project boundaries. These items must be removed and disposed of at an approved facility in conjunction with the site improvements as proposed. The developer must provide a sanitary sewer service to 3530 Highway 7. The developer shall ensure that sewer service to 3530 Highway 7 is maintained throughout construction, which will involve pumping the septic tank after the septic mound is removed and before a sewer service is installed to serve the property. According to the Building Department the home at 3520 Highway 7 is connected to the City of Shorewood sanitary sewer system. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 9 of 25 Rim and invert elevations of all sanitary and storm sewers must be shown on the final utility plan. Water main for the project will be directionally bored under Highway 7 and will wet tap into the existing 12 -inch trunk water main on the south side of Highway 7. A portion of this water main extension lies on 3520 Highway 7; the developer must acquire the necessary easement prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. Water main will extend between Lot 5, Block 1 and the tot lot to the existing water main in the southwest corner of 375162 d Street. The water main alignment shown on the utility plan is not within the existing easement; therefore, the developer must acquire the easement necessary to install this water main prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. A water main interconnect will be required to the Shorewood water main at 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. This connection is mutually beneficial to both Chanhassen and Shorewood by maintaining reasonable water pressure during system disruptions. Eight -inch water main will be installed within the proposed street. Proposed sanitary sewer connection & water main interconnect Proposed water main connection Proposed T ' water main e /•.- connection +f + Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 10 of 25 The proposed water main looping is critical since the existing service area north of Highway 7 is currently served by only one water main crossing under Highway 7. Looping the water main will minimize service disruptions should a water main break occur north of Highway 7. The developer proposes to extend 6 -inch water main to the east to provide service to 3520 and 3030 Highway 7. The developer must acquire the necessary easements to complete this work. All existing and proposed off -site drainage and utility easements must be referenced accordingly. Existing off -site easements must be referenced by document number or the plat in which they were dedicated. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. STORMWATER UTILITY The Surface Water Utility Charges are calculated based upon land use type and land area. Credits may be applied based upon stormwater practices being implemented. The following table illustrates the stonmwater utility charges associated with the development of this parcel. GRADING, SURFACE DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY PRACTICES The graphics below illustrate the existing and proposed drainage areas within the Boulder Cove property. Yellow indicates the area draining to the north, pink indicates the area draining to the south, green indicates the area draining to the west, and blue indicates the area draining to the pond (proposed condition only). Area Rate Total Water Quality 12.18 ac $2,830/ac $34,469.40 Water Quantity 12.18 ac $5,590/ac $68,086.20 Treatment BMP Credit 13.01 ac $2,830 0.5 /ac ($18,409.15) $84,146.45 GRADING, SURFACE DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY PRACTICES The graphics below illustrate the existing and proposed drainage areas within the Boulder Cove property. Yellow indicates the area draining to the north, pink indicates the area draining to the south, green indicates the area draining to the west, and blue indicates the area draining to the pond (proposed condition only). Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 11 of 25 t TN t' EXISTING DRAINAGE MAP Residents to the north and west of the proposed development have indicated that there are drainage problems within their neighborhoods. The table below summarizes the existing and proposed surface runoff conditions, which indicate that the area draining off site, the volume of runoff and the peak discharge rate will decrease under the post - development condition. Area draining to the north Existing Condition (E5 & E6 ) Proposed Condition P1 Drainage area 3.91 acres 1.54 acres Drainage volume 100 -yr) 1.252 acre -feet 0.539 acre -feet Peak (100 -yr) discharge 9.81 cfs 8.25 cfs Area draining to the west Existing Condition (Areas 1 -3 & E4 Proposed Condition (P8) Drainage area 20.970 acres 23.20 acres Drainage volume (100- 4.570 acre -feet 6.331 acre -feet Peak 100- ) dischar e 1 23.65 cfs 21.41 cfs Because this will result in greater than one acre of new impervious, it must meet the requirements set forth in the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Program (NPDES Construction Permit). In addition to erosion prevention and sediment control practices, this includes permanent stormwater management as discussed in Part IILD of the permit. This section of the permit requires that the first inch of runoff from impervious surfaces is retained on site. If infiltration is prohibited (see Part III.D.1.j), other methods of volume reduction should be evaluated. In either case, that water quality volume must be treated. The applicant is proposing a filtration feature and a wet sedimentation pond and is seeking credit for abstraction from the canopies of the newly planted trees. The preservation of existing tree canopy and the establishment of new overstory trees is an- accepted practice under the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District rules and the Minimal Impact Design standards. The applicant has indicated that over one acre of tree canopy will be preserved on the site. Staff is having trouble discerning where this amount of tree preservation is occurring. They must provide an exhibit showing where these protected canopy areas are. This shall be the grading limits overlaid on a current aerial photograph with leaf out conditions or a similar exhibit agreed to by the city. Only the preservation of tree canopy within the boundaries of Boulder Cove shall be counted towards Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 12 of 25 this credit. The hydrology report indicates that 124 trees will be planted. Of these, 31 are ornamental trees which are not considered overstory trees and shall not be counted towards the abstraction volume. The applicant will need to calculate the resulting abstraction due to tree establishment without the ornamental trees. The applicant is providing rate control, volume reduction and water quality improvements through the installation of a filtration basin and a wet detention pond. Infiltration is infeasible due to the poorly drained clay soils and the shallow water table on the site. Minnehaha Creek has established criteria for the use of filtration and tree preservation as a volume reduction practice. The proposed grading and hydraulics of the filtration basin will result in a significant portion of the basin in the backyards of six lots. This will necessitate frequent inundation of the yards. The filtration feature should be moved northerly to the greatest extent practicable to contain the bounce within the outlot. This filtration feature shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. The city will maintain the outlet structure and reinforced concrete pipe between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3, but the filtration feature and the plantings shall be the responsibility of the HOA or the developer. An operations and maintenance manual shall be drafted and provided to the City for review and comment prior to issuing any building permits for Lots 1 -10 of Block 3. A detailed planting plan and schedule shall also be developed for this feature and included as part of the landscaping plan. This planting should include shrubs or some other effective screen to assure that yards do not encroach into the filtration feature thereby rendering it ineffective as a water quality BMP. For every outfall into a pond, additional maintenance is required. It has always been the practice of the city to minimize the number of outfalls into a pond to the greatest extent practicable. To this end, the applicant and their engineer shall evaluate moving the water main to the southerly side of the tot lot and bringing the storm sewer along the northern side of the tot lot and connecting to the line running through the backyards of Block 1. If this is not possible, documentation will need to be provided clearly demonstrating why it is not possible. Long -term pond maintenance is becoming a larger portion of the city's maintenance budget. It is far more cost effective to proactively reduce sediment delivery to the ponds than it is to dredge the ponds out as needed. Given the confined space on the site, an additional forebay is not an option. The design shall include the installation of environmental manholes or 4 -foot or deeper sump manholes with a SAFL baffle at CBMHI and CBMH3. A catch basin must be installed in the rear yard between Lots 7 and 8, Block 2. Staff s experience is that overland drainage in excess of 300 feet produces drainage issues on the downstream properties. The grading plan must be revised as follows: 1. The grading along the north side of Lot flow to the side of the home. 2. The filtration basin shall be shifted to entirely within Outlot C. 1, Block 3 must be adjusted so that drainage will not the north so that the high water elevation will lie Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 13 of 25 3. The high water elevation of the pond must be lower than the bottom of the proposed boulder retaining wall. 4. The high water elevation must lie within Outlot A. Currently a portion of the high water is proposed to lie within Lot 4, Block 2. 5. The line types on the current plan are difficult to discern in the back of Lots 12 -14, Block 3 and the retaining wall along the north side of the berm within Outlot A. Revise accordingly or provide a larger scale of these areas for review. The developer must obtain a permit from MnDOT for the proposed grading and drainage discharge into the Highway 7 right -of -way. The plans must show the existing drainage and utility easement that will encompass the east -west portion of the proposed six -inch drain tile as it daylights to the Highway 7 ditch. The swale behind lots 4 through 10 of Block 2 shall have a drain tile installed as part of the site grading and utility installation. The plat must be revised to include rear drainage and utility easements that are at least 10 feet wide. EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Because this will result in greater than one acre of new impervious, it must meet the requirements set forth in the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Program ( NPDES Construction Permit). As part of the NPDES the applicant must develop or cause to be developed a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with A of the elements required under Part III of the permit. Section 18 -40 of Chanhassen city code requires that the SWPPP be provided with the preliminary plat submittal. The applicant must submit an amended SWPPP with the required elements to the city prior to final plat approval. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the deficient SWPPP items. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has available on their website a SWPPP Checklist that the applicant can reference. Items of note missing from the SWPPP include a narrative discussing, among other things, training requirements, chain of responsibility, discussion of Lake Virginia as an impaired water, and long -term operations and maintenance of the stormwater best management practices. Additional discussion of stormwater management practices also need to be included in the SWPPP, particularly as in relates to the use of filtration as a stormwater BMP. Many of the other required elements have been provided but are located throughout the plan set or in other documents entirely. The SWPPP should be a single standalone document that assembles the required information in one document for ease of review, inspection, maintenance and assurance of compliance. GROUNDWATER Soil boring information has been submitted and indicates that groundwater elevations fluctuate from approximately 962' within the tot lot to approximately 973.5' on Lot 11 of Block 2. The lowest floor elevations of the proposed buildings are at least three feet above the groundwater elevation. However, this boring information is from December of 2005 and likely does not Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 14 of 25 reflect the static water level. The soil layers within which the groundwater was encountered range in elevation from 966.7 to 974.4. hi some cases, this makes the separation between the highest known groundwater elevation and the low floor elevation as little as two (2) feet as is the casein Block 1. There is a stormwater pond located in the southwest corner of the property. A review of the Geotechnical Report dated January 20, 2006 indicates that the water level in boring #3 on December 27, 2005 was about 969.5 feet or about one foot higher than the normal water level (NWL) of the pond. Since wet detention ponds rely on a continuous dead pool storage volume, groundwater to the NWL is not necessarily a problem. However, if you consider the time of year and the continuity within the soil layer in which the water was encountered, it is quite likely that the groundwater level seasonally bounces to as high as 972.1 feet or a full foot above the 100 - year return interval storm event high water level (HWL). The pond will not function under these conditions and the separation between the groundwater and the low floor elevation is only two (2) feet. The pond will need to be redesigned such that the NWL is at a 972. The low floor elevation must be 18 inches over the emergency overflow (EOF). hi a conversation with Braun Intertec, they indicated that they had additional peisometer readings and would issue an addendum to their 2006 report. If they are able to provide assurances that the 2005 readings are not indicative of the field conditions and that groundwater intrusion will not occur at an elevation above the NWL of the pond, they will not need to redesign the pond. Because of the shallow water table and the backyard drainage, all recommendations of the March 3, 2014 Braun report shall be incorporated into the site grading and all construction measures for the site. This is of particular importance for the houses in Block 1 and Lots 1 -5 of Block 2 to prevent groundwater intrusion into the basements. Further, sump pump discharge shall be directed to drain tiles or directly to the ponding areas. In 2006 Barr Engineering completed an analysis and determined that the proposed high water elevation would not significantly increase the groundwater elevation near the existing homes west of the site. The developer will install a French drain system on the west side of the pond to lower the groundwater elevation to approximately 966', which would provide a three -foot separation between the groundwater elevation and the lowest floor elevations of the adjacent homes. This French drain system will be a significant benefit from the existing condition and will allow for the properties to the west of the project to connect sump pumps to the French drain system. According to a resident a field drain tile was installed on the west side of the development many years ago. If any drain tile is encountered during construction the developer's contractor must contact the city to determine if the tile is to be removed or connected to the development's infrastructure. RETAINING WALLS The developer proposes to install a 590 -foot long boulder wall along the north side of the berm in Outlot A. The maximum height of the wall is three feet. The developer must sign an encroachment agreement to allow for the boulder wall within the drainage and utility easement over Outlot A. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 15 of 25 A 110 -foot long retaining wall is also proposed on the east side of Lot 15, Block 3. The plans do not note the maximum height of this wall and the existing grades on the property to the east are not clearly shown on the grading plan. Once the revised grading plan is received staff will work with the developer to see if this retaining wall can be eliminated from the plan, or reduced in length and /or height. MISCELLANEOUS A high- tension power line exists along Highway 7. Any work or landscaping must be approved by Xcel Energy. PARK DEDICATION Parks This property is located within the neighborhood park service area for Cathcart Park. Future residents of Boulder Cove will have convenient access to the park from West 62nd Street. Cathcart Neighborhood Park is unique in that the park is owned and operated by the City of Shorewood, but is located in the City of Chanhassen. The two cities operate the park with an agreement that Shorewood provides for all capital improvements and daily operations and Chanhassen mows the lawn and trims the trees and bushes. Cathcart Park is 4.75 acres in size and features a playground, basketball court, hockey rink with shelter, tennis court, and a ball field. Ample off - street parking is available at the park. The amenities at the park have been updated within the past 10 years. No additional parkland acquisition is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. Trails The subject site does not have direct access to a trail; however, convenient access to the Southwest LRT Trail is available from West 62°d Street. The Southwest LRT Trail is situated within a corridor owned by the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA). Three Rivers Park District manages the corridor as a multi -use trail through an agreement with HCRRA. This particular section of the trail travels west to the City of Victoria and east to Minneapolis. Access to this trail is a very desirable recreational amenity and will be widely utilized by the future residents of Boulder Cove. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The applicant for the Boulder Cove development has submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. They are as follows: Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 16 of 25 Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 13.38 ac. or 582,832 SF 50% or 293,021 SF 35% or 203,991 SF 9% or 53,713 SF The applicant does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore, the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage 150,818 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 180,981 SF Total number of trees to be planted 166 trees The total number of trees required for the development is 166. The applicant has proposed a total of 138 trees and does not meet minimum requirements. Staff recommends that the applicant increase the number of trees planted in order to meet the minimum quantity required. Bufferyard requirements are as shown in the table: Landscaping Item Required Proposed Bufferyard B — South property line, Hwy 7 9 overstory trees* 9 overstory trees* 920', 25' width 18 understory trees 54 understory trees *Overhead power lines present — only 36 shrubs 0 shrubs ornamentals allowed within 25' of line Applicant meets total minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings. In regards to the bufferyard plantings, there are overhead power lines along Highway 7. Staff recommends that Xcel Energy planting guidelines be followed and only ornamentals be allowed to be planted in the bufferyard within the utility easement. Planting the appropriate trees will avoid `tree- topping', a labor - intensive, detrimental practice, and assist in creating a safer clear zone around the power lines. The overstory trees that are required in the south bufferyard shall be designated as understory trees and added to the overall total for that item. City ordinance also states that no more than one -third of the trees in the landscape plan may be from any one tree species. In this plan, Black Hills spruce comprise one -third of the total trees planned. Staff recommends that additional species be planted to reduce the overall percentage attributed to this species. The additional species shall not include any species of maple. This genus is also overplanted in this development. Relying too heavily on just one type of tree creates a monoculture situation where pest or disease problems can cause a significant impact. City ordinance states that evergreens must average seven feet when planted. All evergreens specified for planting in this development are called out at a height of six feet. Staff recommends that the minimum average height be met. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 17 of 25 The tree inventory submitted by the applicant was completed in 2005. Now, nine years later, there are additional trees that would meet the criteria to be inventoried. There would also be some trees whose conditions have changed, and possibly some that no longer exist. It is challenging to get a proper perspective of the site with outdated information. Since the applicant is clearing all but 9% of the trees on site, there are few opportunities to preserve trees and therefore the lack of up -to -date data can be compensated for by the fact that few individual trees are able to be preserved. An additional challenge with the tree inventory plan submitted by the applicant are the several discrepancies shown on the plan sheet. First, there are trees shown to be removed by the applicant as part of the subdivision that are not on the applicant's property. Any tree removal outside the parameters of the subject property shall require approval of the property owner. Second, there are a handful of trees whose designation as saved or removed needs to be clarified. • Tree #38, sugar maple: shown on the plan as saved, shown in the inventory as removed. The applicant shall resolve the discrepancy. • Tree #72, spruce: shown on plan and inventory as saved. Tree is noted to be in poor condition. Tree shall be noted as REMOVE. • Tree #96, red oak: shown on plan at the very edge of the grading limits. Tree appears to be in a position for a possible save. It is in fair condition. Staff recommends that applicant work with staff to preserve tree if appropriate. • Tree #205, #206, ash: shown on plans as saved. These trees are within the grading limits and have proposed grading shown on top of their locations. Trees shall be noted as REMOVE. The applicant is proposing to preserve a 50 -inch diameter bur oak (tree #71) that is in good condition. This tree is well worth the applicant's effort and will be a signature tree. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to install tree protection fencing at the edge of the drip line of the tree and inside the fencing spread a 3 to 4 -inch layer of woodchips to protect the root zone. These protections shall remain in effect until construction is completed. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE — RLM DISTRICT Buildable Lot Width at Home Block Lot Area (SF) Front Setback Lot Depth Area Line Setback Front/Rear/ 9,000 RLM 35% RLM 50' RLM 110' RLM Garage Side/ House Side 1 1 13,835 4,842 86 194 25/25/5/10 1 2 1 12,395 4,338 65 190 25/25/5/10 1 3 12,232 4,281 65 188 25/25/5/10 1 4 12,069 4,224 65 185 25/25/5/10 1 5 15,208 5,323 67 184 25/25/5/10 2 1 10;374 3,631 65 135 25/25/5/10 2 2 10,665 3,733 57 130 25/25/5/10 Planning Commission Boulder Cove - Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 18 of 25 Block Lot Area (SF) Buildable Area Lot Width at Front Setback Line Lot Depth Home Setback 9,000 RLM 35% RLM 50' RLM 110' RLM Front/Rear/ Garage Side/ House Side 2 3 10,682 3,739 54 134 25/25/5/10 2 4 9,792 3,427 63 143 25/25/5/10 2 5 10,030 3,511 65 154 25/25/5/10 2 6 10,799 3,780 65 166 25/25/5/10 2 7 11,289 3,951 65 174 25/25/5/10 2 8 11,635 4,072 68 178 25/25/5/10 2 9 12,510 4,378 77 174 25/25/5/10 2 10 10,441 3,654 70 158 25/25/5/10 2 11 11,066 3,873 104 116 25/25/5/10 Corner Lot 3 1 10,707 3,747 91 152 25/25/5/10 3 2 10,286 3,600 65 158 25/25/5/10 3 3 10,401 3,640 65 170 25/25/5/10 3 4 9,553 3,343 76 125 25/25/5/10 3 5 11,168 3,908 102 115 25/25/5/10 Corner lot 3 6 10,238 3,583 66 170 25/25/5/10 3 7 10,303 3,606 65 159 25/25/5/10 3 8 10,120 3,542 65 155 25/25/5/10 3 9 10,096 3,533 63 143 25/25/5/10 3 10 10,262 3,592 60 144 25/25/5/10 3 11 10,240 3,584 65 136 25/25/5/10 3 12 10,105 3,536 61 145 25/25/5/10 3 13 9,801 3,430 61 141 25/25/5/10 3 14 9,653 3,378 64 146 25/25/5/10 3 15 10,225 3,579 66 152 25/25/5/10 Outlot A 86,684 Outlot B 14,723 Outlot C 37,807 ROW 105,415 SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RLM District and the zoning ordinance if the length of cul -de -sac variance is approved. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 19 of 25 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site is guided for a density ranging between 1.2 — 4 units per acre. The subject site is proposed to have a gross density of 2.32 and a net density of 3.99 units per acre. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater 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. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause excessive environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. 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. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate stormwater drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. VARIANCE The variance deals with the length of the cul -de -sac. Section 18 -57 (k) of the City Code requires the length of a street terminating in a cul -de -sac not to exceed 800 feet. The length of the Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 20 of 25 proposed Strawberry Court is approximately 1,200 feet. Staff supports this variance due to the following: 1. MnDOT classifies Highway 7 as a high- priority regional corridor and will not allow access to Highway 7 if there is an alternative access from a local street, 2. MnDOT is minimizing the number and controlling the spacing of accesses along Highway 7, and 3. City Code requires minimum one - quarter mile (1320 -foot) access spacing along Highway 7. The distance between Church Road and Shorewood Oaks drive is only approximately 2,100 feet; therefore, an access from the Boulder Cove development to Highway 7 would not meet city requirements. Providing future access to the two existing single - family homes located east of the subject site is adding to the length of the cul -de -sac. In addition, there is no other alternative to provide access to these properties since the surrounding area is developed. VARIANCE FINDINGS See. 18-22. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: VARIANCE FINDINGS WITHIN SUBDIVISONS The city may grant a variance from the regulations of the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed cul -de -sac length promotes public safety. 2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; Finding: The hardship is due to the removal of access to Highway 7. 3) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique to this site and not generally applicable to other properties due to its location next to Highway 7 and the fact that all properties north of the subject site are developed making a second access unfeasible. 4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 21 of 25 Finding: The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and comprehensive plan. The applicant is providing local access to properties that currently access via Highway 7. The applicant's request is reasonable. Staff is recommending approval of this request. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #2014 -09 for Boulder Cove for 31 lots and 3 outlots with a Variance to allow a 1,200 -foot long cul -de -sac as shown on the plans received March 4, 2014 subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact: 1. Park and Recreation Conditions: a. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Boulder Cove. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current proposed lot count of 31 homes and the city's 2014 single - family park fee of $5,800 per unit, the total park fees for Boulder Cove would be $179,800. 2. Environmental Resources Conditions: a. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the drip line for tree #71. A layer of woodchips shall be installed over the root zone to a depth of 3 -4 inches. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. b. No trees shall be planted within the public right -of -way. Front yard trees shall be located inside the setback area. c. Additional tree species shall be added to the plant schedule in order to reduce the percentage attributed to spruce so that no more than one -third of the trees are from any one species. Additional trees may not be from the maple family and must be overstory species. Minimum total number of trees to be planted is 166. d. There are overhead power lines along Highway 7. Only ornamental trees shall be allowed to be planted in the bufferyard between the property line and the proposed fence. e. Evergreens shall average seven feet in height when planted. f. Any tree removal outside the parameters of the subject property shall require approval of the property owner where the tree is located. g. Applicant shall correct the tree inventory for the following trees: Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 22 of 25 • Tree #38, sugar maple: shown on the plan as saved, shown in the inventory as removed. The applicant shall resolve the discrepancy. • Tree #72, spruce: shown on plan and inventory as saved. Tree is noted to be in poor condition. Tree shall be noted as REMOVE. • Tree #96, red oak: shown on plan at the very edge of the grading limits. Tree appears to be in a position for a possible save. It is in fair condition. Staff recommends that applicant work with staff to preserve tree if appropriate. • Tree #205, #206, ash: shown on plans as saved. These trees are within the grading limits and have proposed grading shown on top of their locations. Trees shall be noted as REMOVE. 3. Building Department conditions: a. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height. c. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. d. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. e. Proper removal, abandonment or sealing of storage tanks, on -site septic systems, wells, etc. required. Permits required, as applicable. f. If applicable, existing home(s) affected by new street will require address changes. 4. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Three feet of clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. b. Fire hydrants must be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed prior to and during construction. d. Fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. e. No burning permits will be issued for the removal of brush, trees. 5. Planning Department Conditions: a. The "Next Generation" homes are not permitted under the current city ordinances. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 23 of 25 b. A high- tension power line exists along Highway 7. Any work or landscaping must be approved by Xcel Energy. 6. Engineering Department Conditions: a. The developer must work with the City of Chanhassen and the City of Shorewood to revise the plans to incorporate a "T" intersection at 62 "d Street, Strawberry Lane, and Strawberry Court. b. The developer shall provide an analysis to determine if the "T" intersection would warrant a stop condition. c. If a stop condition is warranted, the developer shall have a traffic engineer collect and analyze traffic counts on 62nd Street to determine the queuing effects at the intersection. d. Other details such as transitioning from a 31 -foot wide street in Chanhassen to a 22 -foot wide street in Shorewood shall be addressed with the final plan submittal. e. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right -of -way permit) and the street must be restored. f. The septic tank and mound system that services 3530 Highway 7 is within the project boundaries. These items must be removed and disposed of at an approved facility in conjunction with the site improvements as proposed. g. Based on the proposed preliminary plan the developer must provide a sanitary sewer service to 3530 Highway 7. The developer shall ensure that sewer service to 3530 Highway 7 is maintained throughout construction, which will involve pumping the septic tank after the septic mound is removed and before a sewer service is installed to serve the property. h. Water main for the project will be directionally bored under Highway 7 and will wet tap into the existing 12 -inch trunk water main on the south side of Highway 7. A portion of this water main extension lies on 3520 Highway 7; the developer must acquire the necessary easement prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. i. Water main will extend between Lot 5, Block 1 and the tot lot to the existing water main in the southwest corner of 3751 62nd Street. The water main alignment shown on the utility plan is not within the existing easement; therefore, the developer must acquire the easement necessary to install this water main prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. j. A water main interconnect will be required to the Shorewood water main at 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 24 of 25 k. The developer proposes to extend 6 -inch water main to the east to provide service to 3520 and 3030 Highway 7. The developer must acquire the necessary easements to complete this work. 1. All existing and proposed off -site drainage and utility easements must be referenced accordingly. m. Existing off -site easements must be referenced by document number or the plat in which they were dedicated. n. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. 7. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Show the extent of the shoreland overlay district for Lake Minnewashta on the plan set before final plat approval. b. The applicant must demonstrate the extent of tree preservation for stormwater volume reduction credit by overlaying grading limits on a current aerial photograph before final plat approval. c. The applicant must recalculate the volume reduction credit from new tree plantings without the use of ornamental trees before final plat approval. The current best information is that elevation is at least 969.5 to approximately 972. d. The filtration feature shall be moved so that the bounce within the basin remains entirely within the outlot before final plat approval. e. A homeowners association shall be created and shall be responsible for the maintenance of the filtration feature. The outlet pipe shall be the responsibility of the city. f An operations and maintenance manual shall be developed for the filtration feature indicating how the HOA will maintain the feature and assure its proper function. g. The landscape plan shall be updated to include the planting schedule for the infiltration basin and the outlots and to provide shrubs or other buffering measures between the rear yard lines and the filtration feature before final plat approval. h. The pond in Outlot A shall be redesigned such that the likely seasonally high water table is at or below the modeled normal water level. i. Additional hydrogeological data provided and attested to by a licensed professional in hydrogeology or similar may be used to show that the above condition is met. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014 -09 April 1, 2014 Page 25 of 25 All recommendations relating to subgrade improvements, preparations and drainage as well as dewatering and drainage control from the March 3, 2014 Braun report shall be implemented. k. The swale behind lots 4 through 10 of Block 2 shall have a drain tile installed as part of the site grading and utility installation. This shall be included before final plat approval. 1. Environmental manholes or 4 -foot sump manholes with SAFL baffles shall be installed at CBMHI and CBMH3. m. A concerted effort shall be made to combine the outfall into the Pond in Outlot A such that there is only one outfall. If it is not feasible from an engineering standpoint, then documentation supporting this assertion shall be provided to city staff prior to final plat approval. n. A comprehensive, standalone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of the NPDES construction permit shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment before final plat approval. o. Surface Water Management connection charges are estimated to be $84,146.45. This connection charge will be due at the time of final plat. p. In the event that wetland characteristics are observed on the site during field visits during the growing season, steps will need to be taken to assure compliance with the MN Wetland Conservation Act, the Federal Clean Water Act and other applicable federal, state and local regulations. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Application. 3. Affidavit of Mailing and Public Hearing Notice. 4. Preliminary plat dated received March 4, 2014. 5. Home footprint designs. 6. Letter from City of Shorewood dated March 11, 2014. 7. Email from Mark Diede dated March 27, 2014. 8. Email from Patrick Johnson dated March 28, 2014. 9. Letter from MnDOT dated March 6, 2014.p gAplan\2014 planning cases\2014 -09 boulder cove\staff report pc.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Lennar Corporation — Planning Case No. 2014 -09, Boulder Cove Development Request for Preliminary Plat creating 31 lots, 3 outlots and right -of -way for public street (13.38 acres); and a Variance to allow a 1,200 foot -long cul -de -sac on property zoned to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District located north of Highway 7, East of Church Road and South of West 62nd Street. On April 1, 2014, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Lennar Corporation for a single - family residential development. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density 3. The legal description of the property is described on the attached Exhibit A. 4. Subdivision Findings: SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RLM District and the zoning ordinance if the length of cul -de -sac variance is approved. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site is guided for a density ranging between 1.2 — 4 units per acre. The subject site is proposed to have a gross density of 2.32 and a net density of 3.99 units per acre. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stonn water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause excessive environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. 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. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate stone water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. VARIANCE FINDINGS See. 18-22. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: VARIANCE FINDINGS WITHIN SUBDIVISONS The city may grant a variance from the regulations of the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed cul -de -sac length promotes public safety. 2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; Finding: The hardship is due to the removal of access to Highway 7. 3) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique to this site and not generally applicable to other properties due to its location next to Highway 7 and the fact that all properties north of the subject site are developed making a second access unfeasible. 4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and comprehensive plan. The applicant is providing local access to properties that currently access via Highway 7. 5. The planning report #2014 -09 dated April 1, 2014, prepared by Sharmeen Al -Jaff et.al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed development including a Preliminary Plat creating 31 lots, 3 outlots and right -of -way for public streets (13.38 acres); and Variance to allow a 1,200 foot -long cul -de -sac on property zoned RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1" day of April, 2014. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION go Its Chairman Exhibit A PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONt That part of the following described parcel lying Easterly of R.L.S. No. 15, according to the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota, All that part of Section 5 Township 116 North, Range 23 West described as follows, to wit: Commencing at the Southwest earner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32. Township 117 North, Range 23 West; thence Easterly along the North line of said Section 5, Township 116, Range 23, a distance of 478.50 feet; thence South 585.20 feet; thence South 62 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 687,50 feet; thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West 196.60 feet; thence South 73 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds West 198.50 feet; thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds West 795.80 feet to the North line of said Section 5; thence Easterly along said North line of sold Section 5, a distance of 598,20 feet to point of beginning, the East line of said property above described runs in a North and South direction. AND That part of the following described parcel lying Westerly of Line A: All that part of Section 5. Township 116 North, Range 23 West, described as follows: Beginning at a judicial landmark on the North line of said Section 5. a distance of 478.50 feet East of the South Quarter Corner of Section 32, Township 117 North of Range 23 West; thence East along the North line of said Section 5 to the Northwesterly line of the right —of —way of State Trunk Highway No. 7 which right - of —way is set forth and described in Case No. 9902 on file in the office of the Clerk of District Court, Carver County. Minnesota; thence Southwesterly along said right —of —way to its intersection with a line drawn through the point of beginning and forming an interior angle of 90 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds with the North line of said Section 5; thence North to beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Carver County, Minnesota. Line A is described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on on assumed bearing of !North 89 degrees 17 minutes 04 seconds East, along the south line of sold Southeast Quarter, a distance of 88518 feet to the point of beginning of said Line A; thence South 05 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 154.44 feet; thence 165.71 feet Southerly on a non — tangential curve, concave Westerly, having a central angle of 158 degrees 14 minutes 39 seconds a radius of 60.00 feet, a chord bearing of South 03 degrees 48 minutes 07 seconds West and a chord distance of 117.84 feet; thence South 30 degrees 22 minutes 28 seconds East to the Northwesterly right— of—way line of State Trunk. Highway No, 7 and said Line A there terminating. 11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division —7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227 -1300 / Fax: (952) 227 -1110 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1i1I ,, APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT 1�R�'EVIEW Date Filed —�� 1T 60 -Day Review Deadline: —I �— � Planner: `✓hi l Case #,-2o14-09 Section •• • •• apply) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ......................... $600 ❑ Subdivision ADDITIONAL REQUIRED FEES: ❑✓ Notification Sign .................... ............................... $200 (City to install and remove) X-13 = a.1q ❑✓ Property Owners' List within 500' ........ $3 per address (City to generate — fee determined at pre - application meeting) ❑ Escrow for Recording Documents.. $50 per document (CUP /SPRNACNARNVAP /Metes & Bounds Subdivision) ❑ ❑✓ ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on -site sewers ..... $100 ❑ Conditional Use Permit Consolidate Lots ................... ...........................$150 ❑ Single - Family Residence . ............................... $325 ❑ El AllOthers .......................... ............................... $425 ❑ Interim Use Permit Escrow will be required for other applications through the ❑ In conjunction with Single - Family Residence.. $325 ❑ All Others .......................... ............................... $425 ❑ Grading 2 1,000 cubic yards ........................... UBC ❑ Rezoning ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD ................. $100 ❑ All Others .......................... ............................... $500 ❑ Sign Plan Review .................... ............................... $150 ❑ Site Plan Review ❑ Administrative ................... ............................... $100 ❑ Commercial /Industrial Districts * ...................... $500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area Include number of existing employees: and number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts .......... ............................... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit ADDITIONAL REQUIRED FEES: ❑✓ Notification Sign .................... ............................... $200 (City to install and remove) X-13 = a.1q ❑✓ Property Owners' List within 500' ........ $3 per address (City to generate — fee determined at pre - application meeting) ❑ Escrow for Recording Documents.. $50 per document (CUP /SPRNACNARNVAP /Metes & Bounds Subdivision) ❑ ❑✓ Create 3 lots or less ........ Create over 3 lots .......... ............................... $300 y!1.$600 + $15 per lot ❑ Metes & Bounds .........................$300 + $50 per lot ❑ Consolidate Lots ................... ...........................$150 ❑ Lot Line Adjustment .............. ...........................$150 ❑ Final Plat * ............................. ...........................$250 'Requires additional $450 escrow for attorney costs. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. ❑ Vacation of Easements / Right -of- way ................... $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) ❑✓ Variance ............... ............... $200 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Single - Family Residence ............................... $150 ❑ All Others ........................ ............................... $275 ❑ Zoning Appeal ....................... ............................... $100 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment ............................ $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) 05 TOTAL FEES: $Q)L�� Received from: Date Received: Check Number: Section 2: Required Information Project Name: Boulder Cove Property Address or Location: 3670 HWY 7 Parcel #: 250050600&250050510 Legal Description: Please see on preliminary plat Total Acreage: 13.38 Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes ® No Present Zoning: RLM- Residential Low & Medium Density Requested Zoning: RLM - Residential Low & Medium Density Present Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Requested Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Existing Use of Property: Currently vacant land Description of Proposal: Please see Community Narrative ❑v Check box if separate narrative is attached 3CANNEI? Kit Section 3: Property . Applicant APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by li the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. 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 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate poor to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Lennar Corporation Contact: Joe Jablonski or Paul Tabone Address: 16305 36th Avenue No. Suite 600 Phone: (952) 249 -3000 City/State/Zip: Plymouth, MN 55446 Cell: Email: joe.jablonski @lennar.com; paul.tabone @lennar.com Fax: Signature: Date: 2/14/14 PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. 1 understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Premier Bank Contact: Andrew Nath Address: 2866 White Bear Ave N Phone: (651) 855 -1114 City /State2ip: St Paul, MN 55109 Cell: Email: anath@premierbanks.com , f Fax: Signature: Date: 2/14114 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, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Otto Associates Contact: Cara Otto Address: 9 West Division Street Phone: (763) 452 -7291 City /State2ip: Buffalo, MN Cell: Email: Cara @ottoassociates.com Fax: (763) 682 -3522 Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? `Other Contact Information: Q Property Owner Via: ❑✓ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name: Applicant Via: ❑ Email [:]Mailed Paper Copy Address: ❑ Engineer Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: ❑ Other' Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email: SCANNE CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on March 20, 2014, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Boulder Cove — Planning Case 2014 -09 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A ", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. 4ar n J. E gel ardt, puty Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me thiso' &day of Mardi , 2014. "y � KIM T. MEUWISSEN �. � Notary Public- Minnesota 2 ^•:_. MY�ExpkesJ�31, 2018 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, de pending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. BOULDER COVE: Request for preliminary plat review for a 31- Proposal: lot single - family subdivision with variances on 13.39 acres of ro err zoned Residential Low & Medium Density RLM Applicant/ Lennar Corporation /Premier Bank Owner: 3670 Highway 7 Property 3670 Highway 7 Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood What Happens about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /2014 -09. If you wish to talk to Questions & someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI -Jaff Questions & by email at saliaffOci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 - Comments: 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the City Review Procedure: Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Manned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Man Amendments and Code Amendments require a public heading before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a rewmmentlation. These reports are available by request. At the Manning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallndustrlal. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Manning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested personts). • Because the Manning Commission holds the public heading, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Plannin Sluff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. BOULDER COVE: Request for preliminary plat review for a 31- Proposal: lot single - family subdivision with variances on 13.39 acres of property zoned Residential Low & Medium Density RLM Owne r: : Owner: Lennar Corporation /Premier Bank Property 3670 Highway 7 Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /2014 -09. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI -Jaff Questions & by email at saliaff(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 - Comments: 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Manned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Manning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feel of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the heading process. The Commission will dose the public heading and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Manning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialfindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the appllcant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Manning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested persorl • Because the Manning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. ff you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. CHRISTOPHER M STEINKRAUS CITY OF SHOREWOOD COTTAGE HOMESTEADS AT 3520 MAPLEWOOD CIR 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD BOULDER EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8927 5001 AMERICAN BLVD W STE 501 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437 -1116 CRAIG ALAN KOUBA DONALD J & W ENDIE A SEAMANS DOUBLE JK FARMS LLC 3520 HIGHWAY 7 6301 CHURCH RD 2719 W 43RD ST #A EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8872 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8838 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55410 -1665 GERRETT M TVINNEREIM JULIE A HIRSCH KENNETH C DURR 3530 MAPLEWOOD CIR 6321 CHURCH RD 4830 WESTGATE RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8838 HOPKINS, MN 55345 -3931 MARVIN G & PATRICIA S ONKEN MICHAEL L & CARRIE L MILLER MICHAEL W & KEISA M TRUAX 6221 GREENBRIAR AVE 6311 CHURCH RD 3217 LARCHMORE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8861 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8838 WAYZATA, MN 55391 -2827 PHILIP B WARTMAN JR PREMIER BANK SCOTT WANZEK 3531 MAPLEWOOD CIR 2866 WHITE BEAR AVE N 3502 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 SAINT PAUL, MN 55109 -1384 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 SEAN G MATCHAN SHAWN D HEITZ STEINKRAUS CHURCH RD 6241 CHURCH RD 3510 MAPLEWOOD CIR STORAGE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8836 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 112 5TH ST E #101 CHASKA, MN 55318 -2277 STEVEN CARROLL THOMAS & ROSE RUHLAND VERLAN J WISSINK 6236 FIR TREE AVE 6211 GREENBRIAR AVE 6401 LANDINGS CT EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8855 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8861 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9713 WADE A NAVRATIL AARON J & KAREN G BURMEISTER AMY K HAAS 3751 62ND ST W 26155 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR 26085 OAK LEAF TR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -6401 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ANDREW T THILL & AMY J THILL BLAKE J THORSON BRIAN & LAUREN THOLEN 6185 CHURCH RD 26205 OAK LEAF TR 26175 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 BRUCE R PALM CHRISTOPHER & JENNIFER GOETZ D SCOTT & L S BECKER 26170 OAK LEAF TR 26215 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR 6165 STRAWBERRY LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL D TORGERSON DAVID L & SHEILA M HALBMAIER DOROTHY & THOMAS CROSKEY 6185 STRAWBERRY LA 26395 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR 26265 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EDWARD J CAMERON 26580 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 HEIDI M SNEDE 26105 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JEFFREY Q & PATRICIA B TUMA 26345 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JOHN & BRENDA HUGO 5509 DUNDEE RD EDINA MN 55436 JUDITH JILL OELHAFEN 26130 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 KEVIN T & KATIE WELSH 26225 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MARCUS & KRISTIN HOFFMANN 6195 STRAWBERRY LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MARTIN HEILAND & RENEE RUBLE 26510 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 GEORGE M & EILEEN W KOEHNEN 26505 MAPLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES J & JULIA R GAGNON 26125 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JEFFREY T TUTTLE 26245 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JOHN P KLICK 3703 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 JUSTIN L BLUM /JESSICA M BLUM 6155 CHURCH RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 LAURIE J SACCHET 6175 STRAWBERRY LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MARK H MORFORD 6150 CHURCH RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MICHAEL H & MARY K BARGA 26305 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 GREGORY C & ARINA PAOLI 26325 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JAMES V & VALERIE D SCATENA 26285 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JEREMY NAATAN WOLFSON 6175 CHURCH RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JORGE E & WENDY L CRESPO 26090 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 KEVIN SYMMS RACHEL TURNBULL 26150 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 LEAH M & JASSEN M SCHNEIDER 26420 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MARK PLEWKA 26540 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 NATHAN ELLIS & HEATHER ELLIS 26165 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 NEVIN DAVID NOLDER III BRENDA P D HELGESEN & P C RAY PATRICIA FASCHING BRENDA J NOLDER 6120 STRAWBERRY LA 26450 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHO PATRICK & MARY HODAPP PAUL E STEFFENS RITA A DETRUDE 26195 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR 26250 OAK LEAF TR 26620 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ROBERT B SCOTT JOLENE K SCOTT 6150 STRAWBERRY LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 RONALD D ZUEHL 6180 CHURCH RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 TIMOTHY J LENZEN 6170 CHURCH RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 W H OELFKE & J H OELFKE 6170 STRAWBERRY LN SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ROBERT J WETHERALL 6135 CHURCH RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHAWN T MACK & SHAWNA M MACK 26065 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 TODD & ERIN MIRON 26300 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ROBERT M WILLOCK 26190 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 STEPHEN E /DIANE O KLIMOWICZ 26135 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 TODD & LISA WAGNER 4770 MANITOU RD TONKA BAY MN 55331 ilk Ma MF 6\ es° 1 7ir r I I I I LN �-J 7 a a / 1 - v /lam l :7m./ \ X ov: Ma MF 6\ es° 1 7ir r I I I I LN a / 1 - v /lam 1 \ \ \ vvv� ✓ten vvv� PRELIMINARY PLAT TTO "'.rn LENNAR 14 -0105 CHANRASSEN, MN SHEET NO. 1 OF 6 SHEETS 20`12114 Main Home 14 Bedroom 1 4 Baths 12 -Bay Garage Next Gen Suite 1 1 Bedroom 1 1 Baths 1 -Bay Garage 3,200 Sq. Ft. I Story 12 Bedrooms 12 Baths 3 -Bay Garage 1,902 Sq. Ft. Total 2 Stories 4 Bedrooms 14 Baths 13 -Bay Garage 3,836 Sq. Ft. Total 2 Stories 14 Bedrooms 13 Baths 3 -Bay Garage 2,230 Sq. Ft. Total L . The Pillsbury Kitchen 0101 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,230 Sq. FtJotal Bedroom • Ownees v EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED' HOMES LENNAR.COM „■1 Plans and elevations are and may contain options, standardon all models. right to make changes artist's renderings which are not Lennarreservesthe to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions without prior notice. Stated and elevations dimensions and p- Bedroom Bedroom square are used as Cation land should the home's ® , , representationof not is precise or actual size. Any statement, �� verbal or written, regarding "finished area" or any "under air" or other description or I modifier of the square home is a shorthand manner in which the footage size of any description of the square footage was + _ _ _ _- estimated and should indicate certainty. Copyright Cogxrratiun. Lennzrandthe not be construed to ® 2012 Lennar Lennar logoare registered service marks Corporation and/or its of Lennar ^ subsidiaries. 7 = f MN Bldr. Ljc6 BC0 01 413 3112 Iluary 2 Stories 14 Bedrooms 13 Baths 13 -Bay Garage 2,469 Sq. Ft. Total i op 1 .. Great Room The Sinclair Kitchen �Ing, { � P%1111 � Flex / Study 4 Bedrooms _. 3 Baths 2,469 Sq. FtJotal Bedroom 2 Suite �2 I • EVERYTHING'S rr _ INCLUDED' ■■�y�'��I • HOMES ,■, ■_ — LENNAR.COM I i"■�� J Plans and elevations are artists renderings and may contain options, which are not ®', �+ standard make charges o Lerner these reserves plans, We right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and lions and square prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should - •• not be used as representation of the home's r precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or f th written, regarding gentler off' y "finished area" or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the -- manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright 912012 Lerner corporation. Lenrrar and the Lerner logo are registered service marks of Lennar^ corporation and/or its subsidiaries. u MN Bldr. Lick BG001 413 3112 W"-"§ 2 Stories 14 Bedrooms 13 Baths I 3 -Bay Garage 2,564 Sq. Ft. Total The Sinclair II ME I� 4 Bedrooms opt 3 Baths Flex Room 2,564 Sq. Ft.Total • Bedroom 2 Will 9/, (� EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED' _ HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings u• . (� and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Len= reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, without prior, dimensions and elevations square prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should ' �I not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, ® _ - verbal or written, regarding "under air' or `finished area" or any other description y modifier of the square footage ion of any r home is a which the description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright © 2012 Lennar Corporation. aLennarlogoare registered service rvice marks rks ofLennar ^ Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. 12m f MN Bldr. LicB BC001413 3112 r,N 2 Stories 14 Bedrooms 13 Baths 13 -Bay Garage 2,719 Sq. Ft. Total Nook The St. Croix Wtchen II ►� Dining ��I /'1�� II _ Living Foyer 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths _— 2,719 Sq. Ft. Total Bedroom 2 Owner's 121.10"X 1114, 1 Suite • E V ERYTX I Nt2'S - ■ INCLUDED mom E5 LENN/AR.COM Bedroom Plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options, which am not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, � specifications, dimensions and elevations without efoota eweappro approximate and square footage are approximate and should not be is used as representation y statement, precise or actual verbal d written, regarding ' under ti n or regarding g " der air' or "Finished areae or any other description h odfier of the square footage size of any y home is a shorthand description of the manner in which ch the square footage was estimated and not construed to indicate certainty, Copyright a 2012 Lenar Cor the Lenall ogo are register ed service m ark s of Lennar^ Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. 12 f MN Bldr. Lief BCDD1413 3112 0.= 2 Stories 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 13 -Bay Garage 2,806 Sq. Ft. Total o� K; chen Great Room Nook 1'' The St. Croix II i1,Ci� • II Dining II ' 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,806 Sq. Ft.Total 0 WIN i 101-10, X 12W II II II EVERYTHING'S N C L U D E D HOMES LENNAR.COM II Bedroom 3 Plans and elevations are artist's rendenngs and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennarresev*s the right to make changes to these floor plans, II specficalkons, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, "under verbal or written, regarding air' or "finished area" or any other description or footage modifier of the square size of any home is a description of the manner in which hick the the square footage was be to estimated and should not construed indcat certanly. Copyright Le Lennar he Lennarlogoare — II and registered s ervice mark s of Lennar^ Corporation and/or its subsitliarm& 12. f MN Bldr. Lich B0001413 3112 W.9 2 Stories 14 Bedrooms 13 Baths 13 -Bay Garage 2,660 Sq. Ft. Total 001170—Oji I MW The Taylor M, - 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths —. 2,660 Sq. Ft. Total �• it EVE R Y T N I N G' S INCLUDED NOME 5 LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings am ot and may contain options, which are not standard on all rootlets. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations Bedroom 2 without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation ofthe home's precise or actual size. Any statement, 'under Bedroom 3 verbal or written, regarding air" or 'finished area' or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the =_ manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright O 2012 Lennar Corporation. Lennarand the Lennar logo are registered service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. MN Bldr. Lic #BC001413 M2 MW 2 Stories 14 Bedrooms 14 Baths 13 -Bay Garage 3,112 Sq. Ft. Total 2 Stories 14 Bedrooms 14 Baths 3-Bay Garage 3,328 Sq. Ft. Total —= r, iL ritchen Nook Great Room 18W X 15W The Washburn iii I �i�i• Dining ® a: M ILAN. 3 Car Garage 4 Bedrooms ' 4 Baths 3,328 Sq. FtJotal Owner's Suite 17W X 1 SW ._ Bedroom 2 IN ■I". EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED HOMES glpY' V L� LENNAR.COM si Plans a elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, I) specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and ' _ square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's Bedroom 3 precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, any other ' under tit' or "finished area" or any other description or b' modifier i of the square footage size of any home is a the description of the h manner in which hick the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright @ 2012 Lennar Corporation. Lerner and the Lennar logo are `J -- registered service marks of Lenkkar^ f Corportion andfor its subsidiaries. 12t MN Bldr. Lic# BCDO1413 3/12 =WW 2 Stories 14 Bedrooms 14 Baths 13 -Bay Garage 3,270 Sq. Ft. Total March 11, 2014 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us Kate Aanenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed Boulder Cove Development Dear Ms. Aanenson: RHEA ON)" MAR 1 1 2014 CITY OF G9 ANHAGSFc� Shorewood has received notice regarding a development application for the proposed Boulder Cove. This project is located immediately south of our common city boundary, and roughly centered on the intersection of West 62 "d Street and Strawberry Lane. This matter was presented at the February 24, 2014 meeting of the Shorewood City Council, and we heard comments from City staff and area residents who addressed the Council. The Council forwards this letter as its comments for Chanhassen's public hearing, now scheduled for April 1, 2014: As with our review of the 2006 proposal for this same property, the two most significant concerns Shorewood has at this time are drainage and traffic /circulation in the area. As we mentioned in 2006, the area in question is poorly drained and characterized by heavy clay soils and a high water table. The Shorewood Oaks development to the north of the subject property has a very sensitive drainage system that will not support additional storm water runoff. While it appears that the developer has recognized this issue and has designed his project to drain to the south, drainage remains a concern. Traffic and circulation are undoubtedly our greatest concerns. Boulder Cove will be served by West 62 "d Street; which lies half in Shorewood and half in Chanhassen, and by Strawberry Lane. Both of these are relatively narrow local streets. Strawberry Lane, which leads directly north to the Minnewashta Elementary School, is narrow at 22 feet, with no sidewalk. This route has considerable pedestrian traffic to and from the school. The Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail also crosses Strawberry Lane and area residents walk to Cathcart Park along West 62 "d Street. n %f' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Re: Boulder Cove Development 11 March 2014 Page two The traffic. concern is compounded by the developer's proposal to build its "NextGen" housing product which, on its face appears to simply be two - family residential homes, in which case the potential exists for 62 units, rather than 31. In addition to these significant concerns, our staff has identified several other issues: 1. The proposed intersection with Strawberry Lane and West 62nd Street should be a "T ". 2. The name "Strawberry Court" has already been used on a Shorewood street about two blocks to the north. 3. Shorewood should request that the water main serving the project include an interconnection to the Shorewood system on Strawberry Lane. 4. It appears that the developer has paid particular attention to drainage on the site. Shorewood asks that there be no increase in runoff volume to the north. 5. In light of the density question raised above (31 units vs. 62), Shorewood requests that a traffic study be prepared, evaluating the effect of as many as 62 units on the local streets (Strawberry Lane and West 62nd Street). 6. West 62nd Street should be upgraded to City standards. This street lies in both Shorewood and Chanhassen. 7. Thirty one homes (potentially 62 units) are a lot of homes to be served by one very long (1200 feet) cul -de -sac. Staff has examined this, but does not expect that MNDOT would allow an access directly to Highway 7, especially considering the short distance to Church Road. 8. Chanhassen is its own LGU (Local Government Unit) for purposes of storm water management. We expect that the City will require a long -term maintenance agreement for the proposed drainage facilities. We are concerned that the development as proposed will have an undue impact on local streets in the area. Your residents on Church Road may share this concern. We also trust that Chanhassen will work to ensure a project that complements existing development in the immediate area. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Sincerely, CITY OF SHOREWOOD fe Scott Zerby Mayor On behalf of the Shorewood City Council Richard Woodruff Laura Hotvet Debbie Siakel Kris Sundberg Meuwissen, Kim From: AI -Jaff, Sharmeen Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:17 PM To: Meuwissen, Kim Subject: FW: Boulder Cove thoughts from an outsider From: Mark Diede [mailto:mark_diede @msn.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:09 PM To: AI -Jaff, Sharmeen Cc: Scott Zerby; Debbie Siakel; Laura Hotvet; Kristine Sundberg; Richard Woodruff; Bill Joynes; Chris Freeman; Dustin Maddy (dustinmaddy @gmail.com); Jennifer Labadie (jenniferlabadieesq @hotmail.com); Larry Muehlberg (muehlberg @hotmail.com); Michael Garelick (mediationmaven @gmail.com); Patti Helgesen; Steve Charbonnet (scharbonnet @gmail.com); Sue Davis (bisquite @earthlink.net); Thomas Geng; Furlong, Tom; Brad Nielsen Subject: RE: Boulder Cove thoughts from an outsider Part deux What I am having trouble grasping is this parcel must have been zoned medium density sometime ago. My guess is the zoners assumed access was to be on highway 7. Now that higway 7 is not accepting any more "connections ", it seems like there is a loophole in the zoning law. Loophole meaning diverting access to a cattle path to the north all the while meandering your way through low density homes. It seems like zoning should change since the county is not allowing direct access to highway 7. A medium density development would work fine there if access was off 7 or a frontage road connecting with highway 7. The address and the intended trunk for this development is 3670 HWY 7. The proposed plat should be converted to low density housing. Mark Diede Eden Prairie From: mark diede @msn.com To: bnielsen @ci.shorewood.mn.us: saliaff @ci.chanhassen.mn.us CC: scott @g amersdigital.com; dsiakel @ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet @ci.shorewood.mn.us, ksundberg @ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwood ruff @ci.shorewood.mn.us; bioynes @ci.shorewood.mn.us: cfr33man @email.com; dustinmaddy @gmail.com; ienniferlabadieesg @hotmail.com; muehlberg @hotmail.com; mediationmaven @gmail.com; phelgesen@ci.shorewood.mn.us; scharbonnet @gmail.com; bisquite @earth link. net; tgeng @bremseth.com; tfurlong @ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Boulder Cove thoughts from an outsider Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:25:09 -0600 To me NextGen Series homes should not be considered for this site and that type of house should be considered medium to high density housing for this area. This project is really pigeonholing 62 homes in this property. If the zoning accommodates 62 homes, then so be it and all the power to the developer. However, you have to think worst case scenario and all those folks could rent or have 2 households in each lot. That property and area cannot handle 62 homes. Two separate entries means a duplex. NextGen seems like a marketing ploy used to bypass zoning laws as buildable land in the Minnetonka school district is non - existent. The amount you benefit from an increased tax base by craming more people in there could come back to haunt you later. Please enforce the rules and keep this area similar to what exists today. The people that live around there are all like minded people and any new development should fit into that mold - big lots and single family homes. Mark Diede Eden Prairie P.S. I had recently written a letter to the city of Shorewood regarding how unsafe Strawberry lane is for kids walking to Minnewashta Elementary. Keep that in mind if 62 homes are added in the Cove. Meuwissen, Kim From: AI -Jaff, Sharmeen Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:17 PM To: Meuwissen, Kim Subject: FW: April 1 - Boulder Cove Planning Commission meeting From: Patrick R. Johnson [mailto :patrickreidjohnson @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 10:13 AM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI -Jaff, Sharmeen Cc: Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; Scott Zerby; Ihotvet @ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel @ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg @ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: April 1 - Boulder Cove Planning Commission meeting Chanhassen Planning Commission: As a homeowner off of Strawberry Lane, I write to you with concern over the proposed Boulder Cove development Planning Case 2014 -09. First and foremost, I request that the planning commission postpone the April 1 hearing to a date that is not during the public school spring break session as the majority of affected residents are in the Minnetonka school district and are currently out of town, including myself. Second, I understand that the developer has provided a notice of the hearing to residents within 500' of the proposed borders. Given that the entrance to the proposed cul de sac will be connecting with Strawberry Lane within the Shorewood borders, significantly more attention needs to be made to residents who connect off of Strawberry Lane. Strawberry Lane is one of two roads that connect with Minnewashta Elementary School and therefore has significant foot traffic and currently has no sidewalk. Any increase in vehicular traffic is of great concern as Strawberry Lane already has major safety concerns. The parents of Minnewashta Elementary, especially those whose children walk along Strawberry Lane should be included in the notifications of public hearings. Again, given the spring break schedule, this hearing should be postponed and suggest that a public hearing be scheduled with the residents of Strawberry Lane and the connecting cul -de -sacs as well as school officials of Minnewashta Elementary prior to any recommendations from the Chanhassen Planning Commission. Regards, Patrick Patrick R. Johnson 347.728.9452 AI -Jaff, Sharmeen From: Rachel D. [rachel.c.dahlen @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 12:10 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI -Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby @ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet @ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel @ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg @ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff @ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Re: Boulder Cove Development Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, I would like to add to my original email regarding Case 2014 -09. It has come to my attention that MN -Dot is not willing to allow an exit off Highway 7 for the Boulder Cove Development. This changes my position from concerned to vehemently opposed. As aforementioned, I am the homeowner off the first house off Highway 7 on Shorewood Oaks Drive (26000). I already have concerns walking to my mailbox with the amount of traffic that enters the road on which I live at any given time of day. My husband and I are expecting our first child this year. How will we know our front yard will be a safe place to play with the proposed Boulder Cove Development and the major traffic increase that would accompany it? Addtionally, I enjoy exercising along the LRT trail and Strawberry Lane. I have already noticed a significant increase in traffic since the most recent cul -de -sac development broke ground. Strawberry Lane used to be quiet on my runs - -I'd be passed by one vehicle, maybe. Now, it is bustling, and I have redirected my route frequently to avoid this road due to the heavy traffic. I implore you, for the safety of residents and families on Shorewood Oaks, Strawberry Lane, and Church Road, to postpone further planning until a traffic study is completed, paid for by the City of Chanhassen. Again, please think of your own home and your own families and how you would feel if you lived on one of these roads. Respectfully, Rachel Dahlen On 4/1/14, Rachel D. <rachel.c.dahlenogmail.com> wrote: > Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, > I am writing to request a postponement of the April 1st planning > commission meeting and public hearing (at least in as far as it > relates to discussions of the proposed Boulder Cove development and > requested variances (Case 2014 -09). > I am the home owner of 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive, which is the first > house off Shorewood Oaks Drive from Highway 7, and would have changed > my work schedule to attend the hearing had I known further in advance. > Please consider this email my representation. > We are concerned with the Boulder Cove development for several reasons: > 1) Safety on roads. If there is no main entrance to the Boulder Cove > development from Highway 7, this greatly increases traffic flow from > highway 7 directly in front of our home. I and am worried that those > using Shorewood Oaks as a "drive through" (since they do not live in 1 > the neighborhood proper), may not be careful, especially with small > children playing. > I already take strong issue with the speed vehicles take the corner > into Shorewood Oaks and am concerned that my husband and I may find > the traffic change significant enough to move. I love our home and our > neighborhood, but believe creating a development without a main Hwy 7 > entrance would be dangerous. If anyone disagrees this point, you are > welcome to sit in my driveway during rush hour and watch how congested > Shorewood Oaks Drive already is as well as how fast vehicles enter > this 30mph neighborhood. > 2) Water /waste /roads. Technically this development is Chanhassen, but > the residents of Shorewood will end up having to pay more for water > and waste as a result of the increased human footprint in the area. I > feel it would be best to have the homes in Boulder Cove as > single - family, like the rest of the surrounding neighborhood. > 3) Quality of the area. Why can't the area be a community open space? > It's unnecessary to develop every inch owned by Chanhassen. I > understand, in the end, it's about income for the city, but it's sad. > I feel like we would be losing our neighborhood to some degree. > 4) Minnewashta Elementary School. Some neighbors in Shorewood Oaks > have chosen to send their children to private schools due to the large > class sizes at Minnewashta Elementary School (which is still > open - enrollment). How would the proposed multi - family developments > impact this elementary school and the quality of education there? Is > the school board involved at this time? Has it been discussed with the > school board that if this development is built, that perhaps zoning > should take place for the elementaries in the area to prevent > exceedingly large class sizes? > Thank you for your time and representation. Please have empathy for > the residents of Shorewood Oaks as you receive these emails. What if > you lived on the corner where I do? How would you feel about Boulder > Cove? > Sincerely, > Rachel Dahlen z �VMinnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building °`" 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 March 6, 2014 Sharmeen Al -Jaff City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Boulder Cove, MnDOT Review #P14 -012 North Side of MN 7, East of Church Road Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1004 Dear Ms. Al -Jaff: MnDOT has reviewed the plans for the proposed Boulder Cove development ( #P14 -012) and has the following comments: Traffic: There is concern about safety and the proposed pond location. While the pond is currently outside the clear zone, MnDOT is re- evaluating practices for protecting deep ponds, and this pond may require protection after construction. Contact Chad Erickson in Metro Traffic, at 651- 234 -7806 or chad.ericksongstate.mn.us, for further information about MnDOT's work on pond protection. Noxious Weeds: The right -of -way adjacent to the property is infested with leafy spurge. This is a state listed noxious weed and falls under the requirements of MN Statute 18.75- 18.91. Any soil removed from weed infested areas must be stockpiled separately from non - infested soils. The infested soil can be replaced on the right -of -way only in areas previously infested. Additional soil must be used and discarded in a manner that conforms to the MN statute. For questions concerning these comments, contact Tina Markeson, MnDOT Environmental Stewardship, at Tina.Markesonna state.mn.us or 651- 366 -3619. Noise: MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities having the authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities, listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use would result in immediate violations of established State noise standards. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas. The project proposer is required to assess the existing noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact to the proposed development from any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in Metro District's Noise and Air Quality Unit at 651- 234 -7681 or Peter. Waskong,state.mn.us. Right of Way: Attached to this letter is a copy of the right of way in the area (12 -28) which does not show the jog in that is shown in the proposed plans. The property owner may own underlying fee in the area and that should be labeled the right of way on the plansheets. For questions concerning these comments, contact Doug Nelson, Metro Right -of -Way, at Douglas.nelsonkstate.mn.us or 651- 234 -7583 Water Resources: A MnDOT drainage permit and a wetland delineation may be required. To determine if a drainage permit is needed, please provide a grading plan showing existing and proposed contours. Also provide drainage area maps for the proposed project showing existing and proposed drainage areas with flow directions indicated by arrows. This information should be submitted to: Nicholas Olson Water Resources Engineering 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 If it is determined that the project does drain to MnDOT right -of -way, a drainage permit will be required to ensure that current drainage rates to MnDOT right -of -way will not be increased. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted to: Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District - Permit Office 1500 W. County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1. A grading plan showing existing and proposed contours, 2. Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing existing and proposed drainage areas. Any off -site areas that drain to the project area should also be included in the drainage area maps. The direction of flow for each drainage area must be indicated by arrows, 3. Drainage computations for pre and post construction conditions during the 2, 10, 50 and 100 year rain events, and 4. An electronic copy of any computer modeling used for the drainage computations. Drainage permit application can be found at: htti):/ /www. dot. state. mn. us /utility /files /pdf/ permits /drainage - form- coml2lete.pdf. For questions concerning these comments, contact Nicholas Olson, Metro Water Resources, at nicholas.olson n state.mn.us or 651- 234 -7542. Permits: In addition to a possible drainage permit, access permits are required for this development. Any use of or work within or affecting MnDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mii.us /tecsup /utility . Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. A Long Form Permit will be required for the water main crossing of TH7 and a short form permit will be required for the access removals. The private drive and cul -de -sac must be completely on the subject property. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig, Metro Permits, at buck.craig(a state.mn.us or 651- 234 -7911. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent electronically can usually be turned around faster. Submit one of the following: One pdf version of the plans. MnDOT accepts plans at metrodevreviews .dotgstate.mn.us, provided that each e-mail is less than 20 megabytes. Three sets of full size plans. Submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Send plans to: MnDOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One compact disk. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's external FTP site. Send files to: ftp: / /ftp2. dot. state. mn. us / pub /incoming /MetroWatersEdge /Planning. Internet Explorer may not work using ftp, using an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Send a note to metrodevreviews .dotng,state.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review contact me at 651- 234 -7789. Sincerely, Molly McCartney Senior Transportation Planner Attachment: Borate -wood noise barrier specs.pdf Copy sent via E -Mail: April Crockett, Area Engineer Pete Wasko, Noise Buck Craig, Permits Nancy Jacobson, Design Nicholas Olson, Water Resources Doug Nelson, Right -of -Way Tina Markeson, Environmental Stewardship Tod Sherman, Planning Chad Erickson, Traffic Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor Pg 1/1 docpath � R cpuN AI -Jaff, Sharmeen From: Jolene Scott 0olene0205 @gmail.comj Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:24 PM To: Ryan A.Johannsen Cc: Aanenson, Kate; AI -Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby @ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet @ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel @ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg @ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff @ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Re: Proposed Boulder Cove development; planning commission meeting of April 1 st Ryan, We can't make it tomorrow, as we will be out of town for spring break. Will you be going? Our main concern is traffic on Strawberry and 62nd. Crazy! There shouldn't be that many homes packed into such a small acreage. The outlet should be on 7, on the existing service road. Let us know what happens at the meeting. Jolene Scott Sent from my iPhone On Mar 31, 2014, at 4:02 PM, "Ryan A. Johannsen" <riohannsenkpe- law.com> wrote: This message has nc conteni. AI -Jaff, Sharmeen From: Ryan A. Johannsen [rjohannsen @tapg- law.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 10:43 AM To: AI -Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: RE: Proposed Boulder Cove development; planning commission meeting of April 1st Sharmeen, Thank you for your response. I did already have the project documents in my file. The residents of Shorewood Oaks and Strawberry Lane are concerned about proceeding with the meeting tonight as they were not made aware of it, and have not had time to voice their concerns over the technical aspects of the proposed development. Most of the residents live in the Minnetonka school district and are off on spring break vacations this week. They are requesting postponement of the hearing for a week in order to attend. Please let me know if the postponement will be granted. Thank you. Very truly yours, Ryan A. Johannsen I Attorney TERHAAR, ARCHIBALD, PFEFFERLE & GRIEBEL, LLP Main 612 573 -3000 1 Direct 612 573 -3024 1 Fax 612 573 -3030 1 rjohannsen @tapg- law.com From: AI -Jaff, Sharmeen [mailto:SAI- Jaff @ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 10:35 AM To: Ryan A. Johannsen Subject: RE: Proposed Boulder Cove development; planning commission meeting of April 1st Mr. Johannsen, The following is a link to the staff report and other documents that relate to the Boulder Cove Development. http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=963 Sincerely, Sharmeen Al -Jaff Senior Planner 952.227.1134 From: Ryan A. Johannsen [ mailto :rjohannsen(o)taDg- law.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:02 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI -Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby(aci.shorewood.mn.us; IhotvetOci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakelCalci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg(a)ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruffCalci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Proposed Boulder Cove development; planning commission meeting of April 1st Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, I am writing to request a postponement of the April 1� planning commission meeting and public hearing (at least in as far as it relates to discussions of the proposed Boulder Cove development and requested variances (Case 2014 -09). I am the home owner of 6070 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood, and just recently became aware of the proposed Boulder Cove development, and of the April 1" planning commission meeting and public hearing. As a resident on Strawberry Lane, I find it quite upsetting that I was not made aware of the planned development and have not been given a chance to speak my concerns relating to the proposed development and the proposed variance for the cul de sac at the intersection of Strawberry Lane and 62na I have had a chance to review the developer's proposal for the 31 planned units (some of which are NextGen duplex style homes), as well as their request for the variance for the cul de sac. I am completely against allowing the developer a variance for the cul de sac, and completely against allowing multiunit dwellings to be built as part of the Boulder Cove development. The cul de sac as proposed would greatly impact Church Road, Shorewood Oaks Drive and Strawberry Lane. Strawberry Lane is already in a state of disrepair. Increased traffic from 31 -62 more family units would have dire consequences for the roads, not to mention the safety of kids at play along those roads, etc. Currently there are no stop signs on Strawberry Lane from the proposed cul de sac to Minnewashta School. Likewise there are no sidewalks, storm drains or street lights. Allowing more development without addressing road concerns /issues is not a wise decision. Traffic between Boulder Cove and Minnewashta School will no doubt increase substantially once the development is built. The variance should not be granted without requirements for road improvement on Strawberry Lane and 62 "a. Public safety and fairness warrant those improvements should the variance be awarded. As far as the NextGen homes are concerned, they are for all intense and purpose duplexes /multifamily units. Yet the developer proposed the site for single family home use. They should not be allowed to get around zoning laws by simply calling them NextGen homes. Allowing the NextGen homes would increase the development to that of high density housing, something it is not zone for at this time. This should not be allowed. Again, I ask that the April 1'` planning commission meeting, as it relates to Boulder Cove, should be postponed so that the numerous residents that will be impacted by the proposed development have a chance to be heard. Very truly yours, Ryan A.Johannsen I Attorney TERHAAR, ARCHIBALD, PFEFFERLE & GRIEBEL, LLP 600A Butler Square Building 1 100 North Sixth Street I Minneapolis, MN 55403 Main 612 573 -3000 1 Direct 612 573 -3024 1 Fax 612 573 -3030 1 riohannsen0Dtaoe- 1aw.com This message contains confidential information intended for use by the named addressee(s) and may contain proprietary and /or legally privileged information, and be subject to federal and /or state privacy laws. If you are not the designated recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or retain this message. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail, and destroy and delete it from your system. Thank you. 2 AI -Jaff, Sharmeen From: Leah Schneider [Ims8898 @msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 1:10 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI -Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby @ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet @ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel @ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg @ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff @ci.shorewood.mn.us Cc: Jassen Schneider Subject: Boulder Cove Development Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, I am writing to request a postponement of the April 1" planning commission meeting and public hearing for the Boulder Cove development and requested variances (Case 2014 -09). We are the home owners directly across from the proposed entrance to the Boulder Cove development, at 26420 W 62nd Street, Shorewood, MN 55331. As mentioned 9 years ago, when the proposal to develop this area was first discussed, we continue to have concerns with the entrance located on the corner of W. 62 "d Street and Strawberry Lane. We have seen the new developers plans and our main concerns have to do with the increased traffic in the area, the state of the roads and the impact this increase in traffic will have on them, safety concerns with the number of children in the neighborhood and proximity to the school, and issues with drainage on the property impacting neighboring homeowners. The development, as proposed, would greatly impact Church Road, W 62nd Street, and Strawberry Lane, which are currently narrow neighborhood roads and require improvements as is. Increased traffic from 31 -62 more family units would create some serious issues for the roads, not to mention the safety of kids /families walking or biking (to school, parks or trail). Currently there are no stop signs on Strawberry Lane from the proposed cul de sac to Minnewashta School. Likewise there are no sidewalks, storm drains or street lights on Strawberry Lane and W. 62nd Street. Allowing more development without addressing road concerns and issues is not acceptable. Traffic between W. 62 "d Street, Strawberry Lane, and Boulder Cove to Minnewashta School will no doubt increase substantially once the development is built. The variance should not be granted without requirements for road improvement on Strawberry Lane and W 62nd Street public safety and fairness warrant those improvements should the variance be awarded. The cost of these improvements should not be the responsibility of the existing homeowners on these streets as we are not the ones approving the development of a potential of 31- 62 family units. The proposed development will be on land that could be considered marsh land given the nature of the soil. Many of the homeowners in the area deal with water issues on their property due to poor drainage. The increase in this much impermeable surface area this close to our home raises these concerns and the impact it will have on our property. We feel it is necessary to address these concerns before making any final decisions on the development and access into the proposed development. Sincerely, Leah and Jassen Schneider (Chanhassen Firefighter) 26420 W 62nd Street Shorewood, MN 55331 Ims889N)msn.com ,41 -JafP, Sharmeen From: Rachel D. [rachel.c.dahlen @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 12:10 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI -Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby @ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet @ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel @ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg @ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff @ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Re: Boulder Cove Development Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, I would like to add to my original email regarding Case 2014 -09. It has come to my attention that MN -Dot is not willing to allow an exit off Highway 7 for the Boulder Cove Development. This changes my position from concerned to vehemently opposed. As aforementioned, I am the homeowner off the first house off Highway 7 on Shorewood Oaks Drive (26000). I already have concerns walking to my mailbox with the amount of traffic that enters the road on which I live at any given time of day. My husband and I are expecting our first child this year. How will we know our front yard will be a safe place to play with the proposed Boulder Cove Development and the major traffic increase that would accompany it? Addtionally, I enjoy exercising along the LRT trail and Strawberry Lane. I have already noticed a significant increase in traffic since the most recent cul -de -sac development broke ground. Strawberry Lane used to be quiet on my runs - -I'd be passed by one vehicle, maybe. Now, it is bustling, and I have redirected my route frequently to avoid this road due to the heavy traffic. I implore you, for the safety of residents and families on Shorewood Oaks, Strawberry Lane, and Church Road, to postpone further planning until a traffic study is completed, paid for by the City of Chanhassen. Again, please think of your own home and your own families and how you would feel if you lived on one of these roads. Respectfully, Rachel Dahlen On 4/1/14, Rachel D. <rachel.c.dahlenogmail.com> wrote: > Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, > I am writing to request a postponement of the April 1st planning > commission meeting and public hearing (at least in as far as it > relates to discussions of the proposed Boulder Cove development and > requested variances (Case 2014 -09). > I am the home owner of 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive, which is the first > house off Shorewood Oaks Drive from Highway 7, and would have changed > my work schedule to attend the hearing had I known further in advance. > Please consider this email my representation. > We are concerned with the Boulder Cove development for several reasons: > 1) Safety on roads. If there is no main entrance to the Boulder Cove > development from Highway 7, this greatly increases traffic flow from > highway 7 directly in front of our home. I and am worried that those > using Shorewood Oaks as a "drive through" (since they do not live in 1 > the neighborhood proper), may not be careful, especially with small > children playing. > I already take strong issue with the speed vehicles take the corner > into Shorewood Oaks and am concerned that my husband and I may find > the traffic change significant enough to move. I love our home and our > neighborhood, but believe creating a development without a main Hwy 7 > entrance would be dangerous. If anyone disagrees this point, you are > welcome to sit in my driveway during rush hour and watch how congested > Shorewood Oaks Drive already is as well as how fast vehicles enter > this 30mph neighborhood. > 2) Water /waste /roads. Technically this development is Chanhassen, but > the residents of Shorewood will end up having to pay more for water > and waste as a result of the increased human footprint in the area. I > feel it would be best to have the homes in Boulder Cove as > single - family, like the rest of the surrounding neighborhood. > 3) Quality of the area. Why can't the area be a community open space? > It's unnecessary to develop every inch owned by Chanhassen. I > understand, in the end, it's about income for the city, but it's sad. > I feel like we would be losing our neighborhood to some degree. > 4) Minnewashta Elementary School. Some neighbors in Shorewood Oaks > have chosen to send their children to private schools due to the large > class sizes at Minnewashta Elementary School (which is still > open - enrollment). How would the proposed multi - family developments > impact this elementary school and the quality of education there? Is > the school board involved at this time? Has it been discussed with the > school board that if this development is built, that perhaps zoning > should take place for the elementaries in the area to prevent > exceedingly large class sizes? > Thank you for your time and representation. Please have empathy for > the residents of Shorewood Oaks as you receive these emails. What if > you lived on the corner where I do? How would you feel about Boulder > Cove? > > Sincerely, > Rachel Dahlen F1