The URL can be used to link to this page

3 Subdivide Planning Case 05-08 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boutevard PO Bo,147 Chanhassen, MN55317 Administration Phone 952.227.1100 fa,952.2271110 Building Inspections Phone 952.227.1180 fax 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone 952.227.1160 fax 952.2271170 Finance Phone 952.227.1140 Fax 952.2271110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.227.1120 fax 952.2271110 Recreation Center 2310 Couller Boutevard Phone: 952227.1400 fax: 952.2271404 Planning & Na1urai Resources Phone 952.2271130 fax 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.2271300 fax 952.2271310 Senior Center Phone 952.227.1125 fax 952.2271110 WebSile www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us g MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Shanneen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: April 4, 2005 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat with Variances to Subdivide 2.77 Acres into 6 Single-Family Lots, Fox Den - Planning Case 05-08 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot right-of-way, Fox Den. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 15, 2005 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the proposed development. The summary and verbatim minutes are item la of the City Council packet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the motion approving the preliminary plat with a variance as specified in the staff report dated March 15, 2005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Staff Report dated March 15, 2005. 3. Plans. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-08 fox. den\executive summary.doc The City o! Chanhassen . A growing communlly wilh clean lakes, qualily schools, a charming downlown, Ihrivlng businesses, winding lrails, and beaulllul parks A great place 10 live, work, and piay CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: Application of Fox Den Planning Case 05-08 On March 15, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of a Preliminary Plat with variances to Subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots, Fox Den. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was 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 RSF, Single-Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential- Low Density (1.2- 4.0 units per net acre). 3. The legal description of the property is attached as exhibit A. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) effects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; c) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; d) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; e) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; f) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and g) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2. Lack of adequate roads. 3. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 5. 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: a) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. b) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. c) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. d) 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. 6. The planning report Planning Case 05-08, dated March 15, 2005, prepared by Shanneen AI-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat with variances. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of March, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: VIi Sacchet, Chairman ~ z -< u ~ ~ t -< -< ~ -< Q ~ ~ ~ 7J:J PC DATE: March 15,2005 w CITY OF CHANHASSEN CC DATE: April 11, 2005 REVIEW DEADLINE: April 12, 2005 CASE #: 05-08 BY: AI-Jaff, MS, TH, LH, JS STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat with variances to Subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots, Fox Den. LOCATION: North of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Pleasant View Road. APPLICANT: 10 Spring, Inc. 622 West 82nd Street Chaska, MN 55318 (952) 215-8535 Roger Bongard 18195 County Road #30 New Germany, MN 55367 (952) 353-2150 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 2.77 Acres DENSITY: Gross 2.16 UnitsJAc Net 2.8 UnitsJAc SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat Approval to Subdivide 3.77 Acres into 6 single-family lots with a street width variance, Fox Den. 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. "" ..... Location Map Fox Den 6500 Chanhassen Road Planning Case No. 05-08 I IU :I: --~ ~ G> a !!< -0 .- 3 . '" " ~ Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15,2005 Page 2 PROPOSA~UMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family, and is located north of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Pleasant View Road. The site contains a single family home which is proposed to be demolished. Access to the site is currently gained via a driveway off of Highway 101. This driveway will be closed and a street off of Fox Hollow Drive will serve the subject site. On April 16, 1984, the City Council approved the Fox Hollow Subdivision. The plat included a 50 foot right-of- way to facilitate the future access into the subject site. As a result, the street width of the cul-de-sac that will serve this site will maintain a 50-foot width. The city code requires 6O-foot right- of-way width. Staff directed the applicant to apply for a street width variance. The roadway width (31' back of curb to back of curb) will comply with the city code. All lots are proposed to be served via proposed Fox Drive. PLliASA.NT WEW RD =: ~ õ - '" 'C ro ~ ;:Ow 'ct Ç)ro fOX HOLLO~ ~ DR The average lot size is 15,452 square feet with a resulting gross density of 2.16 units per acre and a net density of 2.8 units per acre. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Lots 1 and 4 meet the requirements of the ordinance; however, staff expressed concern to the developer about the width of these lots. Specifically, both lots become extremely narrow toward the rear lot line. The developer provided plans for a home that he has built in the past which will fit on these lots without variances. There are no wetlands on the site. The site has some mature trees. 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. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15,2005 Page 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.77 acre site into 6 single-family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2.16 units per acre (gross) and 2.8 units per acre (net) after removing the road. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 15,452 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the nnmmum width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff expressed concern about lots 1 and 4, specifically the width of these lots. The applicant provided plans of a residence with a three car garage that will fit on these lots without variances. The applicant also provided hard surface calculations for Lot 4, Block 1 to demonstrate that the impervious coverage will remain under 25%. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS No jurisdictional wetlands exist on this property. GRADING. DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL Grading The existing site has tree cover over approximately 1.5 acre of area. The plans propose to grade about 80% of the site for the new house pads, public street and cul-de-sac. The proposed grading will prepare the site for two look-out and four full basement house pads. The grading plan shows that, on average, the pad areas are being filled three to five feet for the new homes. Also, additional grading will take place south of the parcel to connect the proposed street with Fox Hollow Drive and to expand the existing storm pond. Staff is recommending that a small (1 '-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right-of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately-owned property will require a temporary easement. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. Drainage The existing site drains from the northwestern comer to the southeastern comer of the parcel. Under developed conditions, all of the drainage from the house roofs, driveways and the cul-de- sac will be conveyed via storm sewer to the existing stormwater pond. A storm water quality pond exists adjacent to the site on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. Outlot A is owned by the City of Chanhassen. Staff is recommending this pond be expanded to provide water quality treatment for the proposed development. The pond should be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement should be maintained or replaced. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15,2005 Page 4 The existing outlet of this pond is a 24" corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with no trash guard or skimmer to control potential floatables and it is not designed to prevent short-circuiting of the system. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN Rl0000l, Section C, Subsection ID, Page 11 or 26) should be installed. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site and only minor changes remain. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Grading and Erosion Control Note 15 states that dewatering will be done from the top of the water column. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities are needed on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan is needed with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation. At the March 15, 2005 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, the PC requested staff to explore possibilities of an alternate pond design using available space within the existing pond outlot property. Specifically, staff was asked to look at utilizing the available upland area in the southeast corner of the pond outlot. This corner of the outlot property contains the existing neighborhood development sign. Staff has explored this option with the developer's engineer. If this area were excavated for the pond construction, the existing development sign would have to be moved to another lot within the development. Staff does not believe that any lot owner would want the development sign on their property. Also, the area in the southeast corner of the outlot is not large enough to contain the entire pond storage volume that is required. For these reasons, staff is not in favor of revising the pond design from what is proposed on the current plans. Erosion Control Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap are needed for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared-end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. If the right-of-way for Fox Drive is going to be mowed within the first year, the Category 3 blanket should be replaced with staked sod. The netting of the blanket could pose problems for lawn mowing until the netting biodegrades. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 5 These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. Sediment Control A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control is needed for the CB between Lots 2 and 3. A Wimco-type inlet control is recommended. An alternative could be monofilament silt fence with metal T -posts and I y," rock berm 2 feet high and 2 feet wide. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Surface Water Management Fees Water Qualiiy Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $1,093/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.77 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $3,028. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,705 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $7,493 for the proposed development. SWMP Crediis This project proposes the expansion an existing NURP pond off-site. Because the pond is off- site, it is not eligible for credit. However, credit will be given for the replacement of one outlet structure ($2,500). At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $8,021. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Conttol Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 6 UTILITIES The plans propose on extending the sanitary sewer from an existing sanitary manhole in Fox Drive. Water will be extended from an existing watermain along the east side of the site and looped with the watermain in Fox Hollow Drive. The sanitary sewer and watermains will be considered public utility lines since they will serve more than one lot. As such, a minimum 20- foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. Installation of the private service utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer hookup and that assessment has been paid. As such, the sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. However, the water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water- main. Sanitary sewer and water-main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also 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. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of Health, MnDOT, and Watershed District. STREETS The plans propose to extend Fox Drive from the south side approximately 370-feet ending with a cul-de-sac. The required right-of-way for a new public street is 60-feet wide with a 60-foot radius for cul-de-sacs. The existing platted right-of-way for Fox Drive south of the site is 50- feet. For continuity with the existing Fox Drive right-of-way, the applicant is proposing a 50-foot wide street right-of-way and a 60-foot wide cul- de-sac radius. Staff is in favor of the applicant's proposal for this right-of-way variance. PARK DEDICATION COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN This site is wholly within the neighborhood park service area of North Lotus Lake Park. This park offers a wide variety of amenities including tennis Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 7 courts, ball fields, a children's playground, picnic shelter, lighted hockey and open skating rinks, open space and a walking trail. Residents of Fox Den will access the park via Fox Hollow Drive. It should be noted that sidewalks are not available in Fox Hollow. No additional parkland dedication is required in this area of the City; therefore park dedication dollars will be required in lieu of land dedication for the five new lots (5 lots X $4,000 per lot = $20,000). Park Service Area Map ! COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN ,. 11 Three of the six lots (4, 5 and 6) have direct access to a section of the city's comprehensive trail plan. This eight-foot wide city trail is located parallel to State Highway 101 on the eastern edge of the subject property. The other three lots will access the trail via Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this development. TREE PRESERV A TIONILANDSCAPING ~ frbthl.GU~Pwk ,GIf"__ · ~:;;.""i::- I::. I North Lotus Lake Park Map Canopy coverage and preservation calculations have been submitted for the Fox Den development. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 2.77 ac. or 120,661 SF 56% or 67,110 SF 35% or 42,231 SF 19% or 23,185 SF Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 8 Developer 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 (42,231-23,185) 19,046 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 22,855 SF Total number of trees to be planted 21 (22,855 + 1089) The total number of trees required for the development is 21. Applicant has proposed a total of 20 trees. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. No more than one-third of the trees may be from anyone species. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan will be required prior to final approval. The subdivision is also required to have bufferyard plantings along Highway 101. Requirements are as follows: Location Hwy. 101- bufferyard B - 20' width 240' len th Re uired 5 overstory trees 7 understory trees 12 shrubs Pro osed 4 existing ash trees 4 overstory trees 3 ever reen trees The applicant does not meet the minimum requirements for bufferyard planting along Highway 101. Staffrecommends that the minimum quantities be met. In reviewing the tree inventory, staff would like to note that many of the elm and boxelder trees specified on the inventory are actually green ash. This makes a difference since green ash will not succumb to Dutch elm disease as the elm will and it isn't considered an 'undesirable' tree as boxelders are. For these reasons, preserving as many of these trees as possible will help to make this development more appealing. Green ash are generally tolerant of construction and should do well through the process. Also of note on the tree inventory is the absence of some existing trees along the south property line. At least 4 green ash, 2 of which are double-stemmed, are not shown on the tree inventory. These trees are located between the existing shed and the south property line. These trees plus trees #142-144 should be protected during construction and remain on site. Staff recommends that the silt fence be installed in front of all of these trees prior to grading in order to preserve them during development. When the building permit for Lot 1, Block 1 is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation. The applicant is expanding the pond on city property and in doing so will be removing a number of evergreen and deciduous trees. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant boulevard trees along Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive to replace the city trees lost. To create a partial buffer for Highway 101, staff recommends that evergreens be considered for the boulevard trees along Fox Drive. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 9 COMPUANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setbacks: front, side, rear Code 15,000 90 125 30,10,30 L 1, Blk 1 17,567 93 257 30, 10, 30 L 2, Blk 1 15,014 93 @ front setback line 189 30, 10, 30 L 3, Blk 1 15,015 10 1 @ front setback line 166.5 30, 10, 30 L 4, Blk 1 15,065 90@ front setback line 242.5 30, 10, 30 L 5, Blk 1 15,041 90@ front setback line 191 30, 10, 30 L 6, Blk 1 15,014 90@ front setback line 152 30, 10, 30 ROW 27,945 Total 92,716 A veraQ:e 15,452 @ Meets 90 foot width at the building setback line. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 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 and subdivision ordinance. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15. 2005 Page 10 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. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. Sec.18-22. Variances. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in 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 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; 3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; 4. 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. Finding: The applicant is requesting a street width variance. This variance was recommended by staff. The ordinance requires a 60-foot right-of-way width. The plat reflects a 50-foot right- of-way. This right-of-way is consistent with the existing right-of-way that will provide access to this development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #5-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a variance for a 50 foot right-of-way width as shown on the plans Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15,2005 Page 11 prepared by Otto Associates stamped "Received February 11, 2005", subject to the following conditions: 1. The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. 2. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN RI0000I, Section C, Subsection ID, Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 3. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for dewatering. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation, shall be provided. 4. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared-end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Tvne of Slove Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 6. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots 2 and 3. 7. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 8. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 12 Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering» and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. Building Department conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Existing wells on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 11. Fire Marshal conditions: a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. b. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. d. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 12. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be planted. b. A minimum of two 2 Yi' deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. c. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from anyone species. d. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. e. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches. f. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan will be required prior to final approval. g. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum,S overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs. h. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved. i. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the city. j. Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the north of the pond and consider alternate design on the pond using available space. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 13 k. Developer will work with staff to consider buffer plantings around the pond. I. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north of the cul-de-sac on Lot 4. m. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens versus deciduous for buffering purposes. 13. On the Utility plan: a. Show all easements. b. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled. 14. Add the following City detail plates: 1005,2001,5300 and 5301. 15. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 16. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water-main. Sanitary sewer and water-main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 17. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also 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. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH. 18. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 19. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately-owned property will require a temporary easement. 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. 21. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer. will have to be designed for a to-year, 24-hour storm event. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 14 22. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 23. Staff is recommending that a small (1'-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right- of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. 24. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. 25. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Application. 2. Affidavit of Mailing and Public Hearing Notice. 3. Memo from Aaron Mlynek, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District, dated February 23, 2005. 4. Memo from Jason Ashline dated March 4, 2005. 5. Letter from MnDOT dated March 11,2005. 6. Impervious Calculation Example for Lot 4, Block 1 and a floor plan. 7. Preliminary plat dated "Received February 11, 2005". g:\plan\2005 p1anning cases\05-08 fox den\staff report pc.doc ,~ "" ~ 05-00 CITY OF CHA1IIHASSEN RECEIVED APPLICANT: ADDRESS: rOSPl2-/NG I(\Jc.. G" "2:z.. <.c.) . B";' r-'ß s V '>~'l~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION OWNER: _R.D~ ~ 12.. BON 6.4 12.. D ADDRESS: I ~ f <15" CO. go. t::I--SÖ N E l.c.) G. E rz.. f>'I À f-J '1 I 1'1 N <;' 5 ~"'7 TELEPHONE: '15"2. -?S- ~ - "2.,1 SO FEa 11 Z005 CHANHAssEN PlANNING DEPT c. tt A 5 L'-A f"l N. I TELEPHONE (DayTime) ~ ~'- -"2..l5" ~ ð5"' 5"' Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Perm~ Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements X SO'R.p-w. :I (Y<7'étZ'A-Þ Interim Use Permit Variance , <> ¡os ~ Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review --X Notnication Sign X Escrow for Filing Feesl Attorney Cost" Site Plan Review' - $50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAPlMetes & BoUnds - $400 Minor SUB -X Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 5DO feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this bO~ Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED "" "'"" PROJECT NAME: F D )<.. () E K LOCATION: (0500 c.H A No H A SSi2 r-.J. t;2..o A. D LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ¡-.¡ 1/4 o¡:;- THé. N'I+ of S¿c..TIO¡..t.1... TO<......JN 5/-HP U..CO , /-..Ioi2.TI". fl.ANG.t 2"3. '-VG<Sí <:"IY'Y or- C,!t/l/'-&I-lASS(2.¡..L .c.f.\:/z;"G/Z (.OÙt-l7'(. NN , . I· TOTAL ACREAGE: L... 77 WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: (Z S ç REQUESTED ZONING: (2. PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: '/2.2$1 OEr4TIA: L..- S / 1'16<..«:: FA. M II... Y -Low Df!.f12.!þf REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: I2.E$1 Dé,...l'l" L" 51 Nt;, Lé FA M LI...'f-UJi.V f)PfJ5Ily REASON FOR REQUEST:(D SuBDIVISION 11....11'0 '" LoTS fb YI<(Z.'Â/'otc..'¿ FOR 501 RIGHT of l...JII'Y XN sTeAD of' <õO' 1" H ~ E1<.15' IN G. 1="0,<.. Höu...ð I..J iZ..o. t...; - ¡:5 50 -:. YES x 'NO This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all infonnation and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to detennine the specitic ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A detennination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that J am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owne~s Duplicate Certiticate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep mysell infonned of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulling fees. feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and infonnation I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ~ Pf2.1 H<:!> / ::r: N <:; /2- ~~ Sig e of Applicant S'-oTr (2.0$ ¿t-J LVr--¡.,Þ tET2- 8C:>MGAr:z.P 7.. ¿to ( (}; ~ ate -z. (¡ole» Date Application Received on ~ Fee paidJ 71,.7. {)() , Receipt No. E-E/5SLt 7 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Thursday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to theappllcanfs addréss. G:\plan\forms\Development Review Application.DOC ......' ." j "" ""' 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 3, 2005, 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 Fox Den - Planning Case No. 05-08 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. ~ eputy Clerk Sub cribed and sworn to before me this . day of f)I\ (l rch , 2005. I' I KIM T. MEUWlSSEN Notary Public-Minnesota Comml_ ExpinIo Jon 31, 2010 ;Ä C) c .- - a> a> :æ C)5 c·- -.: f/) ø as._ a> E ::I: (,)E ._ 0 :cO :;,c) D.c -'- o 2 ~.!2 .- a. - Oc Za> ø ø as J: c as J: o :,¡:: a> a> :æ c c)o c'- .¡: = as·- ~E (,) E ._ 0 -0 .c :;,C) D. .= -c °c a> as (,)- ._ D. - o Z -0 0) '" Õ ~g£ ..c -..s::"C - -.......... :J õ.8Ji? g .c..c: 'U ctJ 0)= " :::IC;;;: c ctJ 0 C:.: ....... CÞ >. CD ca ~c -0 EJ:::J::: 0:;.......-0 Cõ>c ""'oBOEø _0 ~CI::;::Ooëo..cU; Q)u" ..u .-......_0- -i: I ~ c: s::: 0- - Q) EmU) ~~.!-'5g>û) ",:¡¡; 91 .- "',£; '" 0..- '" u..... Iœ_';,.s:mc ooc: _.cO 0)-- oR.~ oCCD'£'£E3= t-.:l"--ctJ>.... t;ro:5!èaS!2 Q)..c:U)Q)..Q(])o -æ~.c ;:ü:..c o£- LOQ):!::: ~o6000>Q) 0..0 s: 0>0>=_ c..c 0Ee .~LOCD..c"'Cl=- C\I as 0 .... CD ... :J c: :J..c h ~.;¡;; a-CD c.ctSO C) LO-"" ::>"C-5 rn_ :J ~o·> ð"'":<:,,,,..,e ..c--:C =Oo_CDu..c ou.c oa::",_:Ja>- ....c::J ÓIs:-=OtTë5'cn CtI 5 ø -= >< Q) ~ en ~ 0...£ ~_o.E I....-&>E~_(J){/)m ..... I': _s:::o.-.-Q) éå(ijø ·§õc.2:'@£..c -g1J:, ~ co ~ J::: g¡ 1i 0..2:;.2 CD I ?I ~ 9 en t ctJ () Q) ï:S.. 0 L) :J:!::: Q)LOO o~.2..c: o..o:J ¡....OCI:o,....za..ct....ctSctSo. CD .!! E ¡¡: .. ï= 511 g ~ oiI- 0-'" CÞ Oil º 2 ~= -Uoca 2J.3ð:iï:< >0" 1::.2 CÞ_ 0.10 o ... _ 0 D...J C) c -0", Õ ~8£ ..c ::-E~ "5 õ.8~ ~ .0£_ "'0 ctJ 0)= c: :J'ã) s: c '" 0 ".'= ....... CÞ >. (]) ctS :;: c "'C EJ::: J::: 0:;.....-0 m>c ""'o3.EEm ã) tl. ~a::g .f: e:5 ~ ~I 3:c:co-~Q) Et'd(fJ "á~.!!-"5g>t; . ~ ~ 92 .- (I) ~ CI) 0..- en :u..... Ica::'-cmc: o 0 c: _ .r::. 0 0).- CD .- oe.~ oCCD,£cE;: .. ,- .... - «J't:J '-'(ij 0 ...... "'> (I)...c'ii ~- <1:1= - - Q)o ......'o...cO ctS (I)...c 3= 8I...c 0_- LOQ):!:::: ~O;¡¡OoenID 0.0 3= <1:10>:'=_ e:...c 0Ee: .E:~!.g"tJ'§~ C\lctSO a-CD o.æa en LÔ...c·(ñ :>"tJ:5 (I) _ :J ,......0·5 5mc::C:(/J~e .c:~:a =OO_IDo...c ......0 O((._:JID_ 2 ":::I Ò J: ;:,"!i 0 g-o '" ~ ð ~ c: x.~ CIS ~ '- c..§ ""00 _-.í:>Eo_"'",,,, I~Ctš~ .£-"Eðe-"E:c:~ "tJ <1:1 þ; 0 ctS- :J m- ""~':1 co 000 J::: '" 1i o.g :; g <1:It?i ~ 9 1:: ctS 0 <1:1 a. 0 .0 :J:!:::: IDLOO o~B...c o..o:J I-O((o,......zc...«r-ctSctSo. c a> ø ø as .£: c as .£: o ä; .! E ~_ t=8ig¡ oiI:;::2c~ SBöcã cao....!!g C.J D..D.. < >oc 1::.2 a>_ 0.10 0'" _ 0 0.....1 _o:::t Q) (/J a. :J M ...c:: 'j: Q) 0 0...... - ~ êi) .g~.8.8~~ ~ ~ :J Q) ~ ~ ~ ID ~'5::: CD.5 ã5 ~ ~EO,(/JOOCD-5'i 'o~ :a ~ ci.Q)~ g 0 c.:ë~ CD '- 0 c: 0.0 E (j) ...c:: <1:1 = - c E o..~ 0 - M 0 _ 0 c: ,- ... == "Cp "fñ en..(/JctS:Jo3=0.DC Q)- UJ .£o:::tO:t::OID:t::::CD.2 UJo.o·- 1i)o-ctS>.>ctS...;tCD oQ):.=E <1:I-~....,_m-o~CD 0.0 £ .0:::1 E E E· Ctš . -...c:: ø Q.u;J- o -:«'0 CÞcóE c. 5 ~() Q) cd .s e: ~::: cit'" "": E Q),^...cQ) £0 Q) ':JC:=OO ...c ë:-.c: Q)~-æ IDE "EC.~S",,:o "'E- ~co'- _","co- ::=.- "tJ .E -3=,-¿Q)Ea>o",'c Oo.oc: Q)(I):JcuQ).c: "cC'\l- ~"E:;ctS .o5offi~.~Q)t-~c 's;<1:IQ)"2 UJo>'_co:!::::£ ~¡ LUJ>...... c:...c::!::o...c ~_¿=_ ~ [,CD ~ ~ Q) . S c: ~ 0 o.c D. 0="",0 o.O>'C:~C:ID·ü)_Q) Q):EctSo.......Q)owca.c C:'- '- (I) "tJ 0 0 E ".- 3='- £o'¡::",';-¿ asECDC- as _ ~ C) Q) enLL (/) ;;;. E > E == .s ~c:as.§ . m,§...cm;;:8"9o c... 'ëj) ~ (I) as - w :J en~ _ ~u () 0 0 = ~ "E Q) ~ .s "tJ ð o.:m ffi ,£ Q) CD .~ '-a.Q).c:.: -,- ~as::::-...c-~ 3= as Eg g"ECtš£'t5 (/).¡:: 55-~ ~ :t:: <D E::o J..j co I >.'~= 3= E .s = ca co...cO:JQ) 3= >.ctS ° ctS_ ca"C û5l-üc...£ :JO:!::::"tJ c.~'Ë1ij.~ ¡; r! o C:(/)<D.oo.a. ::::J >.>.o.-....:J (I) 0 CD"c ......NMoq: ::!::.o~£O(/)"tJo.Dt- "co c C a>._ 0.- 0.3: ~::E _cþ IOJ::: J:::- 3:m oil .. ..:/ c c o CÞ :;::E g: E " 0 00 _" a. ð~ ~ .j: :ß .8 .0';" 0 E -' w (I) ctS"".s-~CD u ~ (1):- ~ ~ Q) ~'S:::: CD.5 ~ ~ j ~ g ~ g 8 K~ ; i 'o~ o.oEm.c:Q)=-cE '-0 c: -__0_01::'-"'= o..~ 0 C)',,:~ (I) (t :J 0 ~ O.c c ....... 0 It. c:o:::t _- CÞ 0 ã5 ã. .'~ ~ oB1ã g.g:'æt: ;të¡ ~ Q)g'Ë Q)-:~7::!::~û5 8.ÙS.!! g.£ .g E E E .$:« . 0 a> có E '-c:a.0 Q)cci.sc:~=t:ñ"''''':E 0.0(1)0 ...co Q) ':JC:=OO Q) Q) -o.c: Q) c:_.- ca,....o ...c ~ £ .c: ~.. .!:Q E E .Q.. 1i) 1;; cDl _ .:: ~ E :::: 0 ex) 3= .... ¿ Q) Q) 01 ~ Oo.oc ã5U>:J~Q)...c::E.!~.5 :: -.::: ctS .0:; g.ø ~.~ Q) t-::: 2 .~æ:"tJ"tJ wo _(t:!::::£ ~ca ~(I)Q)Q) c:...c::!::o...c -_¿=_ Q) ~.~ (1)0 ~ Q) .S c:£2 0 o.cD. >0.Q)- o.O>'C:~C:Q)·Uj_Q) 0__"",0 Q):EctSO.......CDowCD.c -0,," E ".- C'§ '-.!:Q :5 o.¡:: CD'~ (t E!- (t Q) en <1:1 enLL w If:t\ E > E == .s Q)"E~c: ID,§...c(t~8~oc... .~ (t (I)'¡:: ~ (/) :J C)~ - 0 0 0 en~"E m 0.s"tJ ð o.~ ffi£ CD CD·~ == a. Q) ...c .~ _ = '- ....: co :::: "E ...c ~ ~ ;: [ij-E2 g ¡ij~£ ~~.~ "'~.!! iâ 1ã Q) E::o.... 3: >.~ï5·(t_ E;"ii"C - .r.. 0 :J ~ :J:!::::"tJ a.. E 'E t Q) > r! ø I- 0 c... - 0 ü I:: C/J <boO ~'õ.. ca ::::J >'>.0._ ,-:J Q) 0 o.c ......NM...t ::!::.o~£O(/J"tJo.c.... "'", c c a> ._ 0.- 0."' 10 "' :¡:::E _a> 10.1:. .1:.- 3:m oil.. ..:/ c c o CÞ :;::E g: E " 0 00 ..... -õ CJ) ~ r.... 0 0 ~ .r: t·- Q) ~.r: - ~~~ §~ 2 Q) ~o èa õ Q Q) a. ~.... ë >..- a. Q) ~.... QjQ)"O i¡q~:~ ¡:¡:o ~~:? .QS ~.r:c ~£Œ) ~Q){I .!! g«'C Q);: Q).{Io «~E Q)ð~.sg !5:a.i~ ¡;_~ ~~~ ~oo E-ttlttI>.>. ttI(¡jcn"O> :;JU ttlQi~ E~~Q)"E'E .Q)c..!!! ~~ eg,:ß ~.c ~ 0 ~ a.~ tIS 0 (ij.r: E.... ~ 0 ttI:!:: ° ..... ... U.....e"·a.·~·_.... ~ 0- rn ~ ~:?g ~~a.E~Ë~~8~ ~ $~Q) ui'~$ ttlQ)Q)-g°Q).gÆ:!.9t ~.g ê·g£ $!~ ~.~£ttI~c..~§rn~ ·G~ ~g§ ::> 013 ttI 0)"5 E.r: E ttI rn:5 Q) Q) > U u E~Q) ~~OŒ)~~->'~O .r:ttI ~ Q) ~~E g~.g~~ttI~~~cn =g g~E .!1 a.~ ttl1ij~!'C Q) E 0_.5 £(ij {lU ê EttI! ê.~;O~E~~§ ~5 8!~ -0&.... £da.{IE{I8->~ ....~ -0-0 ¡ij·Sõ .5.~f/)130ëoÉ~1l. 52! 'õ~~ -g-Ólë~.9·!!ls::II.J=~Cb! uu) ~t:¡o ~~Œ)cQ)lI.Jo"OçEttlu~_ ~. :;Jo~ ~2æ~£EßuE~~$2!S II.J~ 8is _~oll.Jt :;JcttlŒ)lI.Jrn>.- urn ~U) 'CQ)oll.JQ)§a.ttI ·E"08tt1~ ·:;;0 i:'«!;. §~~E~~Œ)~~ttI~oE! e~ 6:5~ O~~.sttl~~~~Œ)!!!~~! ~~ !£§ uf~·iU~EO!Q)~E~xo -~ -Urn E<c >.~uo:; 0 ~og ~:2 -gS ti.g¡:¡: ·_Œ)t~~OŒ)=ttI~{IgE:;J O)cn .5.~Q) ¡;"CQ)ttlgCJ)~~EttI'E{Io~ æ.5 ~g.s a: ° g. ° .-.5. a. 0.= Œ) II.J COrn ::I"C Q).-.... ~U~-~coQ)g{lEg·~rn 8~ ~Q)~ ttI"Ca."C~~Q).r::;J:;JuttlQ)rn '~CJ) £.0_ -~=$-ttl.c""8"Ccu.r:Q)CJ)Q)Q) -=~ ~::.~§¡:¡:;=~ ¡ijQ)'B.B~·~.~; '§.·~8 ~'E.~~~!~.Q~~~tQ)a.$Q)o Q)§~ (l)Q)~-g=E~u3Q)=:;JQ)Ei~ .r:;rn uiEQ)>'c..<CQ)=Q)crnttlU£_ttl~ -ttlQ) ëU"'~a. :!:::~.r:ë:::I{I~.r:·Gë.8 ~~"ã' Q)¡ij~a.~t5!§I-ß-g·ê.QfSI§~.r: _08;t [E g"C iÈ ~I-(ii= Q)~ ~~ e8 !!!'~ûi'.r: ca ~ .Q«ttI!E~·~ga:u~g:5>.a.~~§Q)Qj Q)~£Q):;J~~E::I'c a. :!:::~Q)o-S~ ¡; ~ 'E (j) rn >.g E ° § tIS mOo E u ì:::5 ~ .1; CJ Q) oll.°'EQ).c~oU;~~ttI~Q)°.r:Q)E£:5 ~~~-£~~u~gs_~~:5~~a.E'E.5. ~~6~~.c~Q)u~c~ottl~&§-gottl"O ..::>~ <c05E~Q)~ß.!1°o~.E{II&U~Q) fi!g ·~1o .:5E&2~g~1 ~:?~g ªC&~~a.ttliÈ~oo-S~.E=&E.!1~oTI Q)§a.~E~~~8~iÈioogo.grn£.5.~~.5. 8¡:¡:EE~cacattloo...~.!1~~Q)~"C>.5"OQ) 0E rn0"C"';0Q)ttI~ .r:OQ)~Il.~.c Q. ufO 0.5 ~ t ~ a.g -~ = ëñ 0 ~ g ~ ~ ttI Q) 8..9 ~.§ gu § ~8.~ ~~.~ g ~:Ë.~"C:S 5:ê:5 ic ~.~.5.:?~ ~ ~8..~ E·~ g g-;: ¡ij:ê 8! $~:Ê: Q)·~~~oa.Q)Q)Q)EEUQ)~§rn~~~~8(¡j ~E~C=tm"'~oE>.C>ø::lQ)Q). ~ E ~::IQ)5a~.r:Q)Q)~0~,Ë~Qj~~~~~~0 -OOa:ll.ttlOOI-:5:5...UU~~a.&<Cttla.mca0 õ.. ... - œ ~ ~Q) ÕO.5Q) ~ ì'ã .Q £ c~~ §:5 "1::~-ê Q)", -g.r: ~ 0 QQ)a. ttI-~..... 0._ ttI.9 (j)Q)"C .g·~ca ¡:¡:~ ~.i~ OS ~.r:¿ ~~~ ~~~ !a ~Q)~ I~ li~ "g,Eg Er¡¡(ijttl;';' t(¡j~ "0.:;; S:;J~ ca B E € 8. CD t: - Q) c.. !! ~ ~ ~ g,!ß 1ii .8 ~~e~E~~Æ;~~ ß_~ :=g ~,£ "'ttla. :SE~00E .~ li~ mm~ :~!-g~~~~£i ~~ .5.§~ 0.r: ø ~.- - ttI Õ a.S ::I ø Q. 13 ~ .~ 0 0 ~g~ ~~~~'i.~.!!? ~E~ ! ìû ~Oi ~~E g;:i~>.ttI~I~CJ =g g~E Q)a.::I ~~ Q)~Q)E ~ 0_ Uttl 'EttI{I E~tS~~ i~~ ~: ~Q)~ ~~I :S~&~EBE8.5.CDj S·- g£§ ~,-_ ~~{I:;J~2 .r:¡;~ ~1ij -Of/) ttI:;JO ·_~OUOCO~{I 8- ·G-.~ -g_ ·ët5-.~s::Q)- :5-Q)Q) U) ~t ~"'$~Q)Q)gu,~E~"O~:5 ttI~ go= 02-~~ED~~-gE~S.r: Q)~ uittl ~ ~S< $i ~ õ.§ ~Q)-8 ~~'i ~ ~ ~~ëñ § E Ù') E a..~ Q) ~ ~ ~"iii g E ~ e g. ð:5 ~ u-g~!~.~:5·cQ)Q)~~>.iÈ a.a Q)~~ Q)....- E...ttI>"OE ~.r: o~ .r:-~ ~E~"CmE.E!~o B~o ....~ ~¡5 .~<C >.~güO¡.2 ~~,g 01i~ !:5 ~g~ >Q)~~~ -E~{I-Eo CJ ~-Q) Q)"'8~ttI~CJ¡ij.g caë:øo.c: ~~ ttlg:5 CC 0 0·- ~ a. 0.= Q) Q) 5 U {I :::J '6 Q).- .... ~U...-~·EoQ)g{lE;.~{I 8~ .r:Q)~ 5~~i:5~Q):5::1:::Ju~!~ÓlcCJ g~ë Il.ca(iji~~~Q)8-g~=-g.5:~ ~jO .!12~.5gQ)j!3>.~E8;Bai·~"'8 a.~~ ~~~~~6E~Buf~~~Q)E~0 !.Q~ -E.... >..-.... - CJ""(ij"O.r: .....r: ....-.~ E"C ~t "§:<c,.m'¡!·É ~ ø ø~'B~.8 -3.~~ Q)¡ij~~~~!~1-2~~~~§~.r: õi¿ [E g¡ ~ ~I-'~= Q)~ ~i¡j 28 ~.~v;.r: ~ 9 £<CttI&EU ·~ga:~Q)g:5>.a.~~5Q)~ Q)~SQ)::IQ)~E::IC~~ ""~Q)o·æ£~ 1~'E~{I~8Eo§ttI~ttI~ðì::6~~CJ! cll.°'EQ).cloU~~~ :!:::Q)0.r:Q)E.Ë.... :!:::~~·-S~~U~I£_~~:5~:!:::a.E~.5 ~~ð~~.cQ)Q)occ~o~...&~io~"O ..~~ <Co.~~Q)~ßSOO~S{li&U~Q) ~¡!g ·~8.~o .SE~2~g~~E~~;g ª~~~~ ttI~~ooa~~S=8. $~o~ m~a.{I;~Q)~Q)-~Q)øgo~rn£~~~._ g~E~jtlS~ttlg§...~.!1c~¡"'8"O·~5~B ~ 0E rn{l-O~~{IQ)tlSttI~.r: &~Il.~ Q,. uiU 0.5 ~ t ~ a.g -~ = û) &:E íA ~ ttI ttI Q) 8.£ ~ § uiU ~ ttI 8. «I :? c.2 g ca.~.~ U :s 5? S .6c ~~~gi~~Ä~~~~~6~~:ê8~~ê~ ~~c~~a.Q)~Q)EEUQ)~§{I~c¡:::J8(¡j ~E~~'B.tm .r:RE~ê~ø2Q)Q)·_~>.E ~~Ælim~~~~8G~·~RI~~im~g 0.. ... ,... Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, ¡nlonTlatien and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding lhe area shOYm, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant Ihal1he Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this rTI8¡) are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement 01 distance or direction or precision in the depiction 01 geographic features. " errors or dscrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota StaMes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user ollhis map acknowledges that the City shalt nol be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all clairÆ, and agrees to defend, indermily, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its errployees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. ! Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a sUlVey and is not intended to be used es one. This map \s a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other SOUI'CfIS regarding the area Shown, and is to be used lor reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. " enors or discrepancies are found please contact 952·227-1107. The precedng disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shatl not be liable lor any damages, and expressly waives all daims, and agrees to defend, indern"lify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its errployees or agenìt, Of third parties which arise out of the user's acœss or use of data provided. ~ "" "" Public Hearing Notice Area {500 feet) Fox Den 6500 Chanhassen Road Planning Case No. 05-08 '" ¡¡ !'! ." .- .. ø <II " ~ Subject Property 1 , j ---"1 f-- J ~ ox. ---1 ---j I ---- -jQ \-! ~--- I ~_n~-¡ FOxtalICO\) -ï~ l I ~- ~ ---- ï '-1\' I--J{ I I . ,~J l---Ä~-i'''~C~~~\\- ~ ~ I ¡ ,"{ / I ! XJ '\ \ I I /2)~~~V1'\~0t;;:~/ '-1 / \_"~f\ I ¡ \ "\;' . / ì , ~~ / \ \ ! " I d JASON P & TONIA R ASHLINE 10 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ORHAN A & PATRICIA J UNER TRUSTEES OF TRUST 110 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD A & RHONDA G HERR 120 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARGARET A NELSON 135 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYNE A & JULIE K SIEBER 150 GRAY FOX LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY M & DEIDRE L BISHOP 170 BLUFF RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARL F & MARGARET A MCNUTT 185 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JUNELLE J CHRISTY TRUSTEE OF TRUST 2600 CHERRYWOOD RD HOPKINS MN 55305 ROGUE L SWENSON JR & SUSAN C CONNOY 35 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARIA VANDERZANDEN 50 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i "" NATHAN A WASGATT & LORIE L COLE 100 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL E O'CONNOR & MARCIA L O'CONNOR 110 GRAY FOX LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRANK & MELODY K KLOIDA 130 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICKI L & MARY B CARLSON 140 BLUFF RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT & EDNA PETERSON 160 BLUFF RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PATRICIA K NICOL 180 BLUFF RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JULIE M FURY 20 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BROOK S BOLEST A & PETER G & CINDY S BOLESTA 30 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CONSTANCE M KEEFE 40 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GARY J & VICTORIA G ALEXANDER 55 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ,.... ROSEMARY A MARQUART 101 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HERBERT J & ELLA KASK 115 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN G & SUSANNE THEISSEN 130 GRAY FOX LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN & CHERYL PETERSON 150 BLUFF RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL & MARGARET SCHRIEBER 160 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROGER B BONGARD 18195 CO RD 30 NEW GERMANY MN 55367 DAVID B ROBINSON 25 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK A & WAI-MING T HENDERSON 31 FOX HOLLOW DR PO BOX 1147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFERY B & CYNTHIA SHALL 41 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN W & KELLY K LEN 60 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST CIO CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR 600 4TH ST E CHASKA MN 55318 ARNOLD E & MARIE C SCHROEDER 6430 PLEASANT VIEW LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES & JOYCE NICHOLLS 6451 PLEASANT VIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JUDY SUNDERLAND 6502 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHY ANNE STUDER & JAMES DONALD CHARLES STUDER 6505 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW J & LINDA M HOFMEISTER 70 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY S MULCRONE 85 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATT 0 EVJEN & JENNIFER ANNE SHAW-EVJEN 89 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC J ZORN 91 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS J & JAYNE MALLEN 95 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 .j " JAMES M THEIS 6400 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY J MCNEILL 6441 PLEASANT VIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL D & JULIE M DOUGLAS 65 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW C LEITH & KATHERINE MOORE LEITH 6503 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN J MACHACEK & L YN A NOEL TING 6521 QUAIL XING CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL J BUJOLD 80 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES E & KAMI M VAN DUSEN 87 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JUANE VANEYLL 90 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS C & HEIDI J NAUMAN 92 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK L & LAURA L LARSON 97 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ,.... BRIAN P & SARA B MUENCH 6400 NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS W & CHRISTINA HANSEN 6450 PLEASANT VIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY J & DIANE L BROWN 6500 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS M & NANCY J ANDERSON 6504 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES R KLlNGELHUTZ & MARY JANE KLlNGELHUTZ 6570 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD R & BARBARA J VERNES 83 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIK M & JENNIFER A KITT 88 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KENNETH H CARLSON & CATHERINE J CARLSON 90 HUNTERS CRT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LEE & KAREN BORIL 93 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL P & JAMIE L MANNING 99 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 "" ~ RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 i CAlDE. a '0;(EJiJì]] ..\1\9 C..,. ... \ CI!J 1946 .. 'ty S\~ 2~ast Frontage Road Waconia, MN 55387 Phone: 952-442-5101 Fax: 952-442-5497 cø.SflrAROII IJISlIlCT httu:/lwww.co.carver.mn.uslSWCDISWCDmaio.html Mission Statement: To provide leadership in conservation and teach stewardship of the soil, water. and related resources throu,:?h a balanced, cooperative proj!ram that protects, restores, and improves those resources. February 23, 2005 Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Fox Den Ms. AI-Jaff: The SWCD has taken the opportunity to review the 6-lot subdivision Fox Den. The plan reviewed is dated 1/20/05. Please review and consider the following corrunents and suggestions regarding erosion and sediment controls and stonnwater / dewatering concerns. Erosion Control --Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap is needed for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared- end inlets to the stonnwater pond and the outlet ofthe pond on the east side of Hwy 101. --If the area of the ROW adjacent to 10 Fox Hollow Drive is going to be mowed within the ftrst year, the Category 3 blanket should be replaced with staked sod. The netting of the blanket could pose problems for lawn mowing until the netting biodegrades. Sediment Control --A detail for the CB sediment control is needed for the CB between Lots 2 and 3. A wimco-type inlet control is recorrunended. An alternative could be monoftlament silt fence with metal t-posts and 11/2" rock benn 2 feet high and 2 feet wide. Stonnwater / Dewatering 1. In Grading and Erosion Control Note 15, it states that dewatering will be done from the top ofthe water column. It is recommended to use a floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method. 2. The flow route / distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the stonnwater basin and dewatering activities are needed on the plan. 3. A detailed dewatering plan is needed with method, rate and erosion / sediment control considerations such as energy dissipation. 4. The existing outlet is a 24"CMP with no trash guard or skimmer to control potential floatables nor is it designed to prevent short-circuiting of the system. An outlet meeting NPDES Pennanent Stonn Water Management System Requirements is needed for this project. (NPDES Permit No. MN RIOOOOl, Section C, Subsection ID. Page 11 or 26). If there are any questions or if! can be offurther assistance please contact the SWCD offtce. Sincerely, Aaron Mlynek Aaron Mlynek, CPESC Urban Conservation Technician c. Lori Haak. City of Chanhassen (email) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER "" !"'\ March 4, 2005 FlECEI\4ED MAR 0 8 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Ms. Sharrneen AI-Jaff Senior Planner City ofChanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: FOI Den Preliminary Plat Issues Dear Sharrneen: I submitted to you, Matt Saam, Jill Sinclair, and Lori Haak, on Thursday, March 3, 2005, a document titled "Fox Den Preliminary Plat Issues." I have made some modifications to this document and I do not wish to include it as an attachment the Staff Report to the Commission. I have enclosed the revised document for your review and comment. This revised document should be included with the Staff Report to the Commission and I ask that it be included as an attachment to that Report. Thank you. ~ Jason Ashline 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 "" 1"\ Fox Den Preliminary Plat Issues To the PlaDDiDI!: CommissioD. PIaDDiDI!: Staff. aod City CouDcll Members With any proposed development, there are several real impacts. Although aware that development is always a potential in any area, it must fit in with the area and it must consider the existing conditions currently in that community, and work in cooperation with the affected parties. There are several problems with this development's proposal and there are several inconsistencies with the Chanhassen City code, especially how they relate to Landscape & Tree Preservation. There are also several potential inadequate design or premature practices proposed as it relates to the proposed pond expansion. All of these must be solved before the development should go forward. For these reasons, we can not respectfully support the proposed development at this time. We would suggest that the Preliminary Plat be redesigned and resubmitted for consideration. Five areas will be addressed in this statement (1) Landscape & Tree Preservation (2) Surface Water Management & Proposed Pond Expansion (3) Grading and Erosion Control (4) Streets (5) Proposed Plat Alternatives I. Landscaping & Tree Preservation Sec. 18-61 (d)(2) of the City ofChanhassen code states: Prior to the submittal of development plans. a tree survey of t/w site shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect. licensed forester. or ot/wr professional approved by t/w city. This survey shall include t/w species. DBH size (DBH means diameter measured at breast /wight. four and jive-tenths ftet above t/w ground). condition. location of all trees over six inches in diameter and any damaged or diseased trees on site. All significant special. damaged or diseased trees shall be tagged and identified by number on t/w survey. A delineation of the existing canopy coverage area(s} which outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be included as part of t/w survey. Additionally. all damaged and diseased trees shall be cataloged with t/w nature and extent of any damage or disease specified Response: There are several trees that are missing from the Tree Inventory/Survey submitted by the developer. For instance, there is a tree immediately to the East of tree number 144 that is not listed. This tree has two trunks (see picture left): There are also three trees south of the existing shed and between the wooden fence of the property of20 Fox Hollow Drive (see picture below) 1 "" ~ ~ "~ .. ~1''M II, ""1 " that is not listed on the tree inventory. Even if all other trees are accounted for, then these omissions cause incorrect canopy coverage statistics. Also, it is unclear whether or not the developer can count the trees in their tree inventory on the Outlot A sight because Outlot A is not on 6500 Chanhassen Rd. The Outlot is located in a PUD, it is also subject to different zoning conditions. Sec 18-61 requires the species of each tree. However, only the genus name is listed on the inventory (e.g. pine, maple). Species requires the person conducting the inventory to establish the scientific name such as Norway Pine or Sugar Maple. Trees #142 &143 could be considered boundary line trees. The tree trunks begin either on the line or slightly North of the property line between 10 Fox Hollow Drive and 6500 Chanhassen Road. The trunks cross the boundary line, and continue to grow into the property owner's yard of 10 Fox Hollow Drive (see picture left): The current and previous owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive have maintained these trees by, but limited to, (1) raking the leaves that fell into the backyard of 10 Fox Hollow Drive (2) Incurring the costs to dispose of the leaves that fell ÍÌ'om the trees to the appropriate disposal sites in Carver County. The leaves fell ÍÌ'om the limbs and branches that grew out ÍÌ'om the trunks that were clearly located on the property owner of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Holmbergv. Bergin, 172 N.W. 2nd 739 (Minn 1969) establishes the definition for boundary trees. A tree is a boundary tree if it was planted jointly or treated as common property by agreement, acquiescence, or course of conduct. The course of conduct clearly establishes the fact that the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive co-own the tree with the owner of 6500 Chanhassen Road. Additionally, the tree could not be considered a nuisance since by its nature, it is not patently offensive, causing ill will or health, or damaging to the property of others. Even if the nuisance argument could be remotely posed, 2 "" -"'"". Section 18-61 (d)( 4) provides for relief: Minimizing the tree loss should be achieved by any combination of the fol/owing: a. Realignment of streets, utilities and lot lines. b. Consideration of alternative utility configurations such as the use of ejector pumps. force maills. or revised home elevations to minimize grading. c. Reductions in roadway width and right-ol-way and increase in street grade up to ten percent when the applicant can demonstrate that significant tree preservation is directly related to the modification. d. Use of private streets in lieu of public streets. e. Variation in street radius and design speed f Modified grading plans. Resoonse: The property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive strongly request that the developer and the City should propose implementing modified grading plans, and realignment of internal lot lines of the proposed development to accommodate the property owners request regarding saving trees 142, 143, & 144. 2. Suñace Water Management & Proposed Expansion of the Storm Water PondlWetland/Outlot AlUtility and Drainage Easement. Background: The developer is proposing a significant increase to the size of the pond located at the comer of 101 and Fox Hollow Drive. The developer states that the increase in storm water runoff warrants the increase of the size of the pond. Although there will be some increases in storm water runoff, there are other issues that need to be addressed and solved first before automatically increasing the size of the pond. The current pond area is 24,900 square feet or .57 acres. This area is just the area where the water currently is. This appears to be an adequate enough area, given the other issues that need to be addressed in this section. There are others things that can be done to limit the increase in impervious surface. There needs to be a critical analysis of the proposed storm water pond design, and also a thorough review of the NRCS TR-55 methodology or other methodology used as the design methodology of the pond and the proposed expansion. We propose an independent engineer be hired. Given the issues below, we maybe rushing to judgment to expand the pond to such a design that clearly conflicts with proper storm water pond design criteria. There are several problems increasing the size of the pond by a significant size and outmoded design, without addressing other issues first. A strategic expansion of the pond in certain areas is would be the more prudent course of action. Additionally, any further expansion should focus more on expanding the length rather than the width. The Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) has been in place since 1994. In a memo to Todd Gerhardt wm Lori Haak dated September 21,2004, in reference to the SWMP she writes "the 1994 plan is out of date." The City has hired an outside consulting firm SEH to review the SWMP. Among its area of focus are (1) water quantity and qnality (2) inspection of every public storm water structure (3) comprehensive wetland management program (4) revised storm water and wetland management ordinance (5) protocols for inspection and maintenance. 3 d "" 1""1\ Furthermore, in the memo, it states "the vertical element (z coordinate) will allow the City to employ detailed storm water modeling techniques to anticipate, assess, and resolve surface water issues and problem areas." Based on 1994 standards, this development mayor may not be premature as it relates to storm water management. At the very least, consideration must be given to an outdated SWMP and how it relates to the proposed expansion of the pond. Issue 1: Design of the Pond. I would refer the planners and commission members to a couple of web sites. www.cigolden-vallev.mn.us/environment/vonding.htrn (contact AI Lundstrom 763-593-8046) and www.state.ri.us or search for "the State of Rhode Island & Storm Water Manual." I'm sure Minnesota has similar protocols. Generally speaking, there are several things to keep in mind when designing an effective storm water pond. (1) Ponds are generally three times as long as wide (2) There is a 3:1 minimum ratio along the flow path between the inlet and outlet (these requirements allow for polluted sediment more time to settle before the outlet pipe releases the water). (3) The forebay length to width ratio should be a Minimum of 2: 1 with a preference for 3 to 1. The condition and design of the forehay (between the pipe inlet and the main pond) is critical. It should be 4-6 feet deep. This is the main area where polluted sediment is filtered out. Response: The proposed pond will be nearly as wide as it is long. According to the resources and experts that I have cited, this design is generally not a very effective design. Although a larger pond may in some cases filter out more pollutants, if it is not designed correctly, it will cause more harm than good. The 3:1 ratio between the outlet and inlet is not maintained. There are questions about the condition of the current forehay and its design. Furthermore, there is not other development along 101 (North of 5) that would have such a large pond next to the road. For safety issues, if a car were to go over the side of the road, or if a pedestrian were to slip down the embankment into the pond, there could be serious liability issues for the City. 101 is a very busy road. Creating such a large body of water next to the road is not a good idea. At the very least now, barriers should be installed. Issue 2: According to the experts, natural landscaping should be in place around the pond (see attachment to the paper). This should include bushes, natural grasses, and shrubs because these stabilize the pond by preventing erosion, preserves an environment for microorganisms that remove pollutants, improves pond's appearance by hiding debris, creates an environment for dragonflies which eat mosquitoes, discourage geese from visiting and contributing to pollution through their droppings, making the pond less attractive for wading and swimming. Response: The South and West end of the pond is mowed grass. It does not -¡ "" ""'" have natural habitat of bushes, natural grasses, and shrubs. It invites geese (which are a constant nuisance and populate this pond in significant numbers) to further pollute the water. The existing embankment to the North has bushes, natural grass, and shrubs. It provides for a natural buffer. It is in line with how storm water ponds should be designed. An expansion of the pond would remove all of existing area to the North with no planting of natural grasses, bushes, and shrubs (or that is how the landscape plan is submitted). (See pictures above and below): Furthermore, by entirely eliminating the North end of the pond, this removal would be in direct conflict with section 18-61 (dXl) It is a policy of the City of Chonhassen to protect the inJegrity of the natural environmenJ through the preservation. protection, and planting of trees. The city finds that trees provide many benefits including: stabilization of the soil by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation. reduction of storm wate,. runoff and the costs associated therewith, ¡mprovemenJ of air quality. reduction of noise pollution. control of urban heal island effict. protection and increase of property values, protection of privacy. energy conservation through natural insulation, control of drainage and restoration of denuded soil subsequent to construction and grading. protection from severe weather, providing habitat for birds and aIM,. wildlife. conservation and enhancement of city's physical and aesthetic environment, reforestation of open lands. and general protection and enhancemenJ of the quality of lift and general welfare of the city. It is therefore the purpose of this section to provide regulations related to the cuning. removal. or killing of trees on construction and development sites and to ensure the protection and preservation of the natural environment and beauty of the city. ResDonse: All of the trees will be eliminated in the current plan. Some of the most vital ones (conifers) reduce noise pollution and headlight impacts on a year round basis from the traffic on highway 10.1. These conifers protect the privacy of the first homes along the entry of Fox Hollow Drive. By removing the mature conifer trees, you remove the element of privacy. The proposed replacement planting are mainly deciduous in nature and do not maintain their leaves for 6 months of the year, thus drastically reducing the potential buffering effect. They do not provide good protection from visual impacts, noise, and protect privacy like large conifer trees do. Additionally, these large trees reduce storm water runoff and control drainage--especially right next to a storm water pond. By eliminating the trees around the pond, it exacerbates and creates additional runoff. The trees are also habitat to birds and other small animals. In eliminating the 5 i "" I"" trees, you not only create additional problems but you also eliminate the aesthetic benefits that they provide, and the potential increase in property values they pass on to members of the Fox Hollow community (see pictures below) Furthermore, the pond outlot is located in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Fox Hollow. There are different codes that apply to developments in a Single Family Residential (RSF) zone compared with a PUD. The pond outlet and the trees and area to the North of the pond provide necessary buffering from the visual impacts from collector highway 10 I. Section 20-1176. Intent, scope, and compliance address these requirements. (j) Buffiring s/wll be provided between high inlensily and low intensity uses, between a site and major streets and highways. and in areas where buffering is required by the comprehensive plan. Such br4Jèring shall be located within a required huffir yard The huffir yard is a unit of yard together with the planting required thereon. The amount of/and and the type and amount of planting specijiedfor each huffir yard required by this subsection are designed to ameIiorOle nuisances between a4jacent land uses or between a land use and a public road The planting units required of huffir yards have been calculated to ensure that they do. in fact. fimction to "huffir. " (Jj Buffir yards shall be located on the outer perimeter oj a lot or parcel extending to the lot or parcel boundary line. except where easements. covenants or 1UltUraJ features may require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line. Subject to review and approval by the city engineering department. huffir yards 6 . "" ~ that are compatible with the typical city boulevard planting requirements may be locaJed within a portion of an existing municipal public collector or arterial right-aI-way. Additionally, (/)(8) In instances in wmch the city deems it necessary to provide year-round screening. the city may designate that all planting be of conifers. (g) The city shall encourage reforestation through boulevard and streetscope planting. (h) Mature stands of trees shall be preserved. The landscaping and tree replanting plan submitted by the developer does not adequately address the loss of buffering that an expansion to the pond and the loss of the stands of conifer and long line of deciduous trees will cause. In fact, the developer only proposes to three deciduous trees and two conifer trees in this area and these plantings are dozens of feet trom 101. The City should insist on the developer complying with Section 20-1176 (f)(8) as it relates to the ponding area.. The City should also insist that additional reforestation occur through more boulevard and streetscape planting on the South and West side of the pond area. Issue 3: Pond Maintenanee and Statistics As discussed in issue 1 above, a larger pond is not necessarily a more effective pond. If natural landscaping is not included as part of the design, then the pond effectiveness to filter out pollutants is decreased significantly. An additional area that needs to be fully examined is pond maintenance and the statistics associated with this particular pond regarding its effectiveness. There are several questions that the City and the developer need to answer: (1) Can the City provide documentation as to what the pond water quality is and what it has been in the last 5 years trom this pond? (2) Have there been any water test results that indicate that runoff rates do not meet water quality standards? (3) Can the City state what it has done in the the last five years to control sediment in the pond? According to the Fox Hollow file maintained by the City of Chanhassen, in 1984 when Outlot A was being established, one of the main concerns was sediment. In a March 13, 1984 letter trom Stanley Wendland trom the U.S. Dept of Agriculture to Bob Waibel, it is stated: "... the plans for providing ponding areas should include a provision for removing trapped sediment. .. (4) When was the last time the outlets, inlets, ditches, and culverts associated with this pond were cleared and cleaned? (5) When where the last time the catch hasins were cleaned? (6) What are the water reading depths over the last five years? Is the pond too shallow? Too full? If there is evidence that it is trapped with sediment and too full, can it not be dredged? (7)If the pond is expanded, what happens if the pond becomes too shallow? (8) Is drainage trom the pond an issue, and if it is, what is being done to solve it? (9) When was the last time the formula was evaluated for storm water runoff? (10) How many homes does this pond serve? 7 ,.,." ~ Given the fact that the SWMP is out of date and given the fact that the City may not have effective and up-to-date protocols for evaluating water quality, storm water run-off issues, an outdated storm water ordinance, outmoded protocols for maintenance and inspection, it maybe premature to declare that this pond has to be increased by such a significant size. The recommendation would be to focus intently on Issues 1-3 and as a last result expand the size of the pond by no more than 10"10 (if even necessary). Proper pond design, natural landscaping, maintenance, inspection, and drainage from the pond, are the best ways in the short to long terms to address the issues associated with this pond. A small expansion of the pond without fully implementing and addressing all of the issues raised in 1-3 fails to address the real issues with storm water pond management and storm water runoff. The inlet pipe from the West of Fox Drive should run at a 45 degree diagonal under Fox Drive and then enter into the existing storm water pond on its West side. Furthermore, the City needs to seriously look to adopting, for future developments, the potential to use the practice of Low Impact Development (LID). The City should provide financial incentives to developers, perhaps initially as a pilot project, to use LID as the way to handle storm water management issues in the future. The SEH consulting firm will probably make this as one of their recommendations. I would refer interested people to www.lowimpactdevelopment.org and www.tahomaaudobon.org for information on this landscape storm water management concept. LID has reduced the size of storm water ponds sizes by 75% while still retaining open spaces and dry basements. Construction costs could be reduced by up to 20%. Retaining vegetation and reducing road width and impervious surfaces is the key. Search the web for a title of a document conducted by CH2MHILL from Bellevue, Washingtion called "Pierce County Low Impact Development Study." See also Wisconsin's Natural Resource Magazine (www.wnrmag.com/supps/2003/feb03/stem.htrn). 3. Grading and Erosion Control According to the Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan, the developer is requesting that the existing fence at the North and East ends of the 10 Fox Hollow Drive be removed by the property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The existing grading plans call for extensive grading right up to and potentially on to the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The extensive proposed grading plans for the area around the pond are not necessary for the reasons stated in the previous pages. Response: Steeper slopes typically increase the rate of erosion. One impact of land development is soil compaction which decreases soil infiltration and ground water recharge, which contributes to storm water runoff. 3:1 grading is too excessive. That is the maximum. A 3:1 grading slope would make the house and the lot at 10 Fox Hollow Drive appears that it is "higher" off the ground than the other homes in the area. The lot and the home would appear aesthetically out of place with the excessive grading. The lot and the home would appear if it were sitting on a 8 "" ~ "crown." It is recommended that the natural swales and slopes be maintained as much as practicable to the East and North of the 10 Fox Hollow Drive property. In a survey commissioned by the property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, the wooden fence located to the East of the existing home is entirely on the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, it does not enter the right of way. The property owners are not going to remove the wooden fence on the East side of their home for any reason nor grant the developer an easement to perform excessive grading. Furthermore, the property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not know and are not aware that the irregular shaped or wire fence is their property or who installed the wire fence The current owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not know where the developer obtained the information or drew the conclusion that the wire fence belonged or was put in place by the owners of 10 Fox ijollow Drive. The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not have an objection to the future removal of this fence only if (1) if the developer does not damage the existing wooden fence (2) the developer disposes of the fence (3) the developer does not damage any trees in the removal of the fence. The property owners oflO Fox Hollow Drive find the grading plans extensive, intrusive, and unnecessary as it relates to their property line on the East. Potential damage to the property is probable and the grading will not benefit them. Additionally, the owners have serious concerns about the closeness of construction equipment, traffic, insurance and workers compensation issues as they relate to potential earthwork on or near their property. Furthermore, special assessments should not be passed on to the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. They are not going to benefit uom the grading but their privacy and property lines are going to be severely disturbed. 4. Streets According to the Preliminary Plat, a 31 foot wide road will be going in right next to the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The width of the may be consistent with the other street widths, but it is excessive for the area that it is proposed. The closeness of Fox Drive to 10 Fox Hollow Drive and to the pond is of great concern for safety and aesthetic concerns. A 31 foot wide road ending in a cul-de-sac greatly increases the impervious surface and thus increases runoff which is unnecessary. The developer and City would save costs by going to a 24 foot wide street, it would also create more lot area, reduce impervious surface, create less runoff, and fit in better with the area. The proposed road would only serve 6 homes. There are other alternatives. Resoonse: Research shows that narrow streets are the safest. For example, a study conducted by Swift Associates and the City of Longmont Colorado looked at 20,000 car accidents over 8 years. TIle study found: "the ""'at sipifktmt CtlSuøi reilltiolfShips to injury and øccidmt were found to be street width and street cunatllre. » "mas the street wúlem, IJ£cidents per mlIe per year increases exponentially, and that the safest residential street width is 24 feet." 9 " ~ Furthennore in the same report it is stated, "In neo-traditional design, on-street parking is only provided wbere densities exceed .. dwelling units per acre." In fact, the study went on to point out: "Reducing FtHld widlJrs from 32 feet to 20 feet wUl produce /I 6% redMctJolf In impervWIIS /lreø" Typically, street systems account for more than 50% of the total amount of imperviousness on site. Studies have shown that where cul-de-sacs are built, the radii of turnaround should be minimized. Reducing the length and width of a road reduces the impervious surfaces and thus reduces runoff. Additionally, the use of porous pavement reduces impervious surfaces. There is no indication on what is being done to make effective use of porous pavement to reduce storm water runoff and the impervious surface. (see www.nemo.uconn.edu) for a more detailed explanation on the above information. It also addresses the concern over some individuals bave about an emergency vehicle having enough room to turn arOlmd. The area for the proposed Fox Drive has been a grassy area maintained by the residents of the Fox Hollow Development for over 20 years. The property owners pay $12-15 a year to maintain this area. It is well maintained. Who would maintain these areas once a development is put in? The City? A private maintenance company? Who would pay? The name of the proposed development is Fox Den. Fox Den would be located in a totally different zoning district than the original Fox Hollow. A 31 foot wide between 10 Fox Hollow Drive the Outlot A would look out-of-character for the community. A 24 foot wide road through a variance request would serve better purposes. It would not be so close to the property line (a proposed 9 feet) to the 10 Fox Hollow Drive residence, and it would not be so close to the West end of Outlot A. Furthermore, the road will be very close to 101. IfMN Dot decides to expand 101 to 4 lanes in the future, then the pond at the comer of 101 and Fox Hollow Drive may have to be relocated. The entry to Fox Hollow, without any buffers, will not look like an entry to a well established and sought after residential PUD, but it will look like one solid slab of pavement and concrete. The property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive request that the road, if installed, be located at least 12 feet off of their property line to the East. This distance is a safe distance because in the event of snow plowing in the winter, the snow will not be plowed directly into the fence that will be maintained by the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Additionally, the turning area for Fox Drive, as currently proposed on the Preliminary Plat is literally 2-3 feet off of the property line. Again, this turning radius begins too close to the property line. The owners strongly request that the entire road be moved further to the East. For safety reasons, there are serious concerns. Without proper natural buffering and protection, a car may roll down the embankment or drive off of Fox Drive and into the pond-whether intentionally or unintentionally. The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive request that buffering and boulevard plantings occur, in addition to the natural buffering and landscaping proposed above because 10 Fox Hollow Drive will now be located on a street comer; the owners would request serious consideration of these issues. The owners would like a Norway spruce planted on the comer of Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive, on the comer of their property. MN Dot needs to establish a wider and longer turn lane 10 "" A off of 101 into the Fox Hollow Development. The turn lane is too narrow its current length does not provide enough time to slow down from 45 mph to near 0 mph safely. Lastly, 101 is a very busy road. The addition of any more traffic to this road will cause more harm than good. 5. Proposed Plat Alternatives (See Pages Attached) Besides the alternatives proposed above, the attached mark-ups of the Preliminary Plat provide further gnidance in how to modify the existing proposal while still providing a win-win solution for the developer, the neighborhood, and the property owners most affected by these changes. There are several inconsistencies in the Fox Den proposal as they relate to the Chanhassen City Code, and there are several design flaws and inadequacies proposed that would prevent effective storm water management practices. There are several alternatives that should be considered and implemented before this Plan is approved. Respectfully Submitted, Jason AsWine 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 March 2, 2005 11 i_ ,---- i ! I I -'- '" "'" PLr'fNS I I ¡ +' ¡ 1'....,'~.. A ,: , ,t. ¡ll$IF""~...r'~· ' .. I ..' 12>.-a"~'¡- :. '! ....~~1-o11..-;.:::t1 _f - ",.__.-&{t;l:"--'" __~77-""" .. ,..&..~.:D'I"¡~-1I"'''' Zf1NI!II'-- , DPfOI-'"JII",dI- ~ co I ~..J;'-rP~ >. .~ .' I,,:!':;'~(þ*"" f~' . I'.tf" ..,,,:::;::a- cS ,"'2. ,.:....s <Sf/ SJliP/""'''' -:;=-~- ;. ,~~"",vp.,.a,1 'I c.""'" ~éIl..... ~~, ~~ðlJ".....~J. =!!-: . ;! " ðP~~:.6~~=:- -... ~ p(J~~1"S =- æ.....- , o-;¡¡ø., ~'::.ts ~=.C=L ~': " cÞfICJIBIP'" I ~ t~, IIHP/lIl. 101 ~......_..- ) " . p(¡:IV.e: .. . A ~~.ç ,.,. d9,Jo,' A ... , . N:!"o..J ~ . I~IÕ" .. . ' -Af..... .. piP -n u ~o:, J:I\'A!4~'::: 1'P..;:!:,. .:;;': ~;isri/<II. . rsP.rOP 101 . : O""iEI',,J ~) I . . R : J1- ~µvIñi'f"e .... I . I I I I I 1 I '1 I 'I . I '..1 ~- \ \ \ \ \ I \ 1 . \ \. \ ,...-- . \ . _.1.~~~1III ~:)....---''#'" . .r:'"'" 1''-''':.----- --- .....::: - - - ~ T· . ~~-.~: ~_...un _A_~ q"- . ....... w_·..............'-- -~- - ........---.1.. -. "~I""'_. I'IIEU&IINAIIY STOR&I sawR PWla .... NO. OF· "" ....... .: { :<1 " .. PLAN5 ft L jellN Æ /1 v6 .I I 1 1 I. 1 1 1 0 I., I, ',\( , , J¡-'" r - -- - -- T ¡ . .........., / I ---,- \ - -B! I'NI.MIrWn'11EEMØIIIfVA,1QI ...,.liCIWIrr.... 2-M NQ.ði0F'5SHEETS " ".., ~ L:í£l-tJlVíl ve ~ PLANS - , I 1 I. I I I I I' I : n I I . ../ulJ ,\ \ , , +, , , r 1 , , "1 , i ".' , 1 ., , I , i , , 1 , ~'J ' ·ë I >- , (¡) I 1 , ,. - I .,., , ''7__ I·· , . , I I: ¡ f , - I , i i FOX DEN -- CHANHNISEN. UN ~, ~ , .- I ., 1- , -g. . , :. ='='-.. - =-_. . -:.. ~-~y........ ...~::~.. ."~_...... -"~' - :::=:.:-.:=:.::--_....- .~--- ~...~~ ~ ==-- "SILT FFNr.F'_!\..'V1n .~~,£ . . '- ..- : "_r_ . r_ .'. .r-....~.. - .., --- r t ----. .,..------ --=-..::-.::..--.. :::::=:--- ---- ---- . -=.:.:.==------- ", -~--_._- .------ ~.... :-.:.:.=-==-=-..:.~.. -"Y.:æ!"&-:!iL=.¡'~ a__._ - i':=::'''=~-''''''- ... :æ;-.: -=--=--=-..:!. A::,:'.::--:.-:----- :..:::::rE':=.ær.Y="'-= ::æ=.-_.__:. e==i-:EC-:=-":.':I .....__=t'ft-.,r.·-.:':=--n ~-_. .. .-- =. ::::.-.~=-~-- :;':"--.-' I~_O:=-""'- , .~..-===_-::.::.:~ ·:æ=r'--- ·,:==~E-=:==- ..:-- ------ .~===..:==--:=-- :!F'=~Z~-:"=: ._--_._..~._-- -_.:.---- ====:a-:::---=:- :==..:..--;:-:::Jf!!ft--:., :=..- :.'="==-.:= :-..=-.....::0==--= ~===-==-.. I\r.l&~- .-- --....... ...... u.....¡).1!9.. .L:-AQ.U.1Y"". .I."-'-'¡)..U.....llUQ..1 ,..., ~ r~ç 1 UIU DesIgn ExMIpIe 1: _identIaJ Development - Swann Cenl8r This section presenlll a sizing example for a medium residential subdivision, Swann Center. The layout of the Swann Center subdivision is shown In Figure 1. ~ In /his design e.ample. tile NRCS TR-55 method is uæd as tile design methodology. Flpnl. SwauC..It. . I F , I ," /1 ( 1 I If'-~~ I J ...... POST - :JtVEloP rr:: 'l" ..._ 111' 11.1;-.. ".AT.. ::,,' ~~- .. D_-DMa LocatIaa: .u,wbeíe. USA SIœ Area .. TOIaI ÐraInatt Area (A) = 38.' at Meaured Impomous Ana .. 13.8 lit'; I ~ 13.1/38 ~ 36.3"1- Soils Type¡: 61.. .... 40\\ ·C· &r.a Va O8I"-¡- - I 1AaIac: IIesIdeIltial t"4 IICft ....) Hylll-.&o~ Daía l'n CN 63 t, .J5 hr rœ 78 .19 IIr SleD 1. Comoute wa, Volume Criteria: . Size for the 90% rainfall event. . Use a mininum runoff coefficient of 0.2. Step 1a. Compute Runoff CoefficJent ~ This runoff cœfflclent is deriwd from Schuelers Simple Method http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Manual_ Builder/Sizing_ Criteria/Design%20Exarnple%201/exarnple... 3/5/2005 ., ·~l!91.LJA41U!,l~. .1,,"~IU~I1UCU "'" ,... .1 a.g~ ¿,. U.1 U R, = 0.05 + (I) (0.009) "",",re: I = tmpervlous Cover (%) R, = 0.05 + (36.3) (0.009) = 0.38 step 1 b. Compute we, we,= (P,) (R,)(A) "",",re: P, = 90% RainfaH Event (Inches). Assume 0.9" in this example A = 38.0 acres we, = (0.9) (0.38) (38.0 ae) (1ft/12in) = 1.08a<>-ft Check Minimum: (0.2 ) (38.0 ac) (1ft/12 ) = 0.63 ac-ft [oI<ay SleD 2. ComDute Recharae Volume IRe,) Step 28. Detelmine Recharge Equation Based on Hydrologic Soil Group (Table 1). Table 1. Recharge _ on Soil Group I HSG II Recharge Requirement I A \I (0.38) (R.,) (A) /12 I B II (0.25) (R,) (A) /12 I C II (0.13)(R,)(A) /12 I D II (0.06) (R,) (A) /12 I Assume impervlous.- is located proportionally in B and C soils. Step 2b. Compute Recharge Volume For "B" soils =[(0.25 inches) (.38) (.38 ac)/12"IfI) (0.60) = 0.18 a<>-ft For"C" soils ={(0.13 inc:l1e8) (.38) (.38 ac)/12"Ift) (0.40) = .06 a<>-ft Add recharge requirement for both solla Re, = (0.18 ac-ft) + (0.06 ac..fI) =0.24ac..f1 ~ This tequirement can be met eNher with e sf1Uctural practica. or with Stormwater Credits. SteD 3. Comoute Stream Channel PrDtedion Volume (CDyl;. Requirement: Provide 24 hours of extended detention for the 1-year event. ~ Please nota that the length of detention mey be smeller besed on the sI1øam resource. /n cold water trout _ms, for exempJe. the detention \. Ume mey be as sme" as 6 to 12 hours. Step 38. Develop site hydrologic and TR-55 Input Parameters Table 2 presents tnput Parameters Per attached TR-55 calculations (_ Figures 2 and 3). Ii II II T_ 2. Input Parameters for STP Sizing II II II II II !I http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Manual_ Builder/Sizing_ Criteria/Design%20Example%201/example... 3/5/2005 .;)LUIWW(UCJ J..IÇ~I~ .c.A.ölU}JJç. ruu~ ,.". r~" 1 Ul 1.) Stonn_ Design Example: Pond l.----...-..- , ----... , , ~ '~- '......- ~...., -'---..-.-.------.-. ........EDt.-r ..., _-...~....J- PLAN VIEW y u:r-..~CiCIJf1Itf;IL ~T - ~._~ - -- 'jl-..... -.....". -¥ MOm - r-~ PROFILE! POND DESIGN EXAMPLE The foUowing design example is for the "wet extended _ (ED) pond, - from STP Group 1 (stonnweter ponds). On \hit site the developer it requiRld to provide conlrol for the following: I. Recherge (Besed on soil type) 2. Water Quality (90% _nl) 3. Channel Protection 4. 1o-yeer Flood Conlrot 5. Safe Passage of the 100-yeerttood with l' of freeboard. ~ Based on the specific ctileria in a region. These ctileria may vary. See Sizina Oolions. http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Manual_Builder/pond_design_example.htm 3/412005 'i:)Wfll1Walt:l J...It:i~IJ9.1 LJUlJI1V1Ç. .c UllU.fIII\ ~ .l.u.e;....""'V.l. "'J FICIft 1. Swan Center Site Plan ~,.-", "".- '-'::~N-i_ " _ ./ -~~y--- J ___. , I -'-.- ~', , I ," ~ pnr;':'~nr'lt',~(Ð-' ,f" :' . '-- ~: rLl)W PUM '.:,;/--.:.... ').--. - . . ':'s.~"T[ HI~HI¥I.Y·- -" '._'-'-- ¡ , ---. -I ') ,i ,~' '11--/ "- ~: "¡ [\."", \. i ..'t#'_A...", -~- , !' ~, , I Bale Dna Location: Anywhere, USA Site Area = Total Drainage Area (a) - 38.0 ac Measured Impervioos Area= 13.8 ac; or b 13.&I38~36.3% Soils Types: 60% "8",40" -C' Site Data: The site area and drainage area to \he pond is 38.0 acres. Existing ground at the pond outlet is 320'. Soil boring _Nations reveallhat \he seasonally hlg/l water table is at elevation 318'. The undertylng soils are SC (sandy clay) and are suitable for earthen ....1>8_ and to support a wet pond without a liner. The stream invert at the adjacent stream io at elevation 316'. TR-55 analyses results are in Table 1. TaItIt 1. Hydrology SUmmary CondJnon CN t" ,9.L~~" QJ'J"II!., QJI}~ Q- ....... cþ cis cIS c!$ "",-.Ioped 63 0.35 4.62 IBa SO.3a 102.6 """-¡bm.,.., 18 019 35.0 55.0 131.0 216.3 Steo 1. Carnotite Desia" Volumes Required volumes for 1-4 were computad under Examole 1 of the sizino ootions section and are presentad in Table 2. http://www.stormwatercenter.netIManual_Builder/pond_design_example.htm 3/4/2005 March 13,2005 Ms. Kate Aanenson/Community Development Director Ms. Shanneen AI-Jaff/Senior Planner City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Fox Den Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Staff Report # 05-08 Dear Ms. Aanenson and Ms. AI-Jaff: In preparation for the Public Hearing on March 15,2005, regarding the proposal above, I would like you to deliver to the Planning Commission members the following proposals for additional conditions or friendly amendments to the Staff Report prior to the Public Hearing on March 15th. Although I remain opposed to the development at this time for reasons stated in my memo of March 4th (see my memo attachment to staff report), in the event the Commission does vote to refer this matter to the City Council, I would like the Commission to consider adding the following changes to conditions or adding friendly amendments to the Staff Report. The changÐs and amendments are underlined. 1. Condition: Page 12, # 12(h): Trees 142-144 and.six green ash not shown on the Tree Inventory shall be preserved bv adherence to Section 18-61(d)(4) of the Chanhassen Citv code which provides for relief to preserve tree loss by realignment of streets. utilities. and lot lines. and by instituting modified grading plans. Background to Condition: On page 8 of the staff report, it states that when the building pennit for Lot 1, Block 1 is submitted, these trees will be re-eva1uated for preservation. These trees should be preserved by implementing Section 18-61(d)(4) of the Code. 2. Condition: Page 12, #12(1): The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. ORe tree shall èe plRBteå ever! 30 feet except withiR IRe sigAt tFi¡¡¡¡gle. Species shall èe appreveå by the Gity,-Qne conifer tree shall be planted every 6-14 feet except within the sight triangle along the Eastern Right-of-Wav of Fox Drive. The species will be Norwav Spruce or another fast growing conifer tree similar to the species of tree that is currentlv located directly North of Outlot A of Fox Hollow. and approved bv the Citv. Adherence to Section 20-1176(f)(8) will be recommended. A total of 8-10 trees is recommended to be planted along Fox Drive. and 3-4 along Fox Hollow Drive. i Background to Condition: On Page 8 of the staff report, the staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant boulevard trees along Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive to replace the City trees lost. To create a partial buffer for Highway 101, staff recommends that evergreens be considered for the boulevard trees along Fox Drive. The buffer of over a dozen evergreen trees would be eliminated with a proposed expansion of the pond. Plantings of every 30 feet are not adequate and they would not provide as much of a buffer as exists now. 3. Variance Request: Page 10 of Staff Report: The applicant is requesting s street width variance. This variance was recommended by Staff. The ordinance requires a 60 foot Right-of-Way width. The plat reflects a 50 foot Right-of-Way. The Right-of-Way is consistent with the existing Right-of-Way that will provide access to this development. The 50 foot Right-of-Wav street width variance will be approved with 24 feet of paved road surface. Background to Variance and Street Issues. As pointed out in pages 9-11 of my memo, there are several issues with the proposed 31 foot street width paved surface. Studies have shown that a 24 foot wide paved surface is safer, slows speeds, can provide ample parking room on one side of the street, provides enough access to emergency vehicles, reduces impervious surfaces, decreases maintenance and construction costs, will increase lot size, and will fit in better where the road is proposed. It is very questionable whether or not a 31 foot wide paved surface could be placed safely being over 9 feet of the property line of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, and between the boulevard to the West of Outlot A. The road would be extremely close to the edge of the pond, and aesthetically it would look out of place for the area it would serve: 6 single family homes with only 60 trips per day. Other communities in Minnesota use various paved street widths very effectively. Examine Afton and Lake Elmo are examples. 4. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Page3--Staff is recommending that a small retaining wall (1' to 3') be installed along the western Right-of-Way of Fox Drive of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. Background on the above issue: I have met with the developer and his engineer. It is not yet detennined if a retaining wall will be put in or if the existing area to the East of my property line will be slightly graded. I would like to find out first, how exactly high this retaining wall would be? what material it would it would be made out of? How long would it be? How it would look? Basically, I need to see the developer's landscape architects' depiction of what this would look like. The developer and his engineer have given me the option to examine this retaining wall option. I would like to see a friendly amendment that states: The developer. his engineer. and landscape architect will work with the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive to design a retaining wall that will aestheticallv complement their existing home. or give the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive the option to forgo the retaining wall and work with them on a modified grading option. 5. Condition: Page 10 #1 The pond in Outlot A, Fox Hollow, shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designated. Any inlet and outlet structures requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. ~ 6. Condition: Page 11 #2 An outlet meeting NPDES permanent storm water management system requirements shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 7. Condition: Page 13 # 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. Background to all of the conditions in 4,5,6: On page 4 of the Staff Report it states that the pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. On page 3 of tbe Staff Report it states that: Staff is recommending this pond be expanded to provide water quality treatments. To what size? To what the developer wants? As pointed out in my memo on pages 4-8, there are several problems with the stonnwater pond enlargement proposal and design. First, who would clean and replace the inlet and outlets? The City or the developer? What structures need replacing? How is the applicant going to clean the pond? What method is going be used? The Commission needs to ask itself: Are there any other reasonable alternatives than to expand the pond that would lessen the impact and remove the buffer? Have we looked seriously at the alternatives and are we absolutely sure that there are no alternatives? Is there anything else we can do to reduce impervious surlace? Because from my research, there are alternatives that we are not considering. There are issues with this pond's proposed design even after expansion. I would refer you to the Metropolitan Council. This Council is the regional planning agency serving the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area. They have published a Best Management Practices Manual for Urban Small Sites. One of the sections is titled "Wet Ponds." According to the Metropolitan Council, a Wet Pond is also known as a NURP pond. Its primary pollutant removal system is sedimentation. An issue that was raised with this very same pond back in 1984. There are several design characteristics that need to be met for a NURP pond. I.Pond Shape: To maximize stonnwater contact and residue time in the pool, a length to width ratio of3:1 is recommended. This pond with its expansion would be nearly as long as it is wide. 2. Sediment Forebay. The length to width ratio should be 2: 1 to avoid short circuiting. No one seems to be able to address this issue regarding the Forebay. 3. Riser. Is there a Riser associated with this pond? There should be a riser. 4. Avoidance of short circuiting. The ratio of flowpath length to width ratio from the inlet to the outlet should be 3: 1. (the flow path length is defined as the distance from the inlet to outlet measured at mid-depth). 5. All inlets should enter though the first cell. If there are multiple inlets, the length to width ratio should be based on average flow path length of all inlets. The problem with # 4 & #5 is that it does not appear that these ratios are maintained. Also, there are multiple inlets. In fact, at least one very close (within 2 feet) of the outlet. This is very bad NURP pond design. 6. The pond should be a tear drop shape as opposed to a rectangular shape. Tear drop shapes minimize dead zones caused by comers. 7. The side slopes of the permanent pool should be no steeper than 3:1. Flatter slopes protect against erosion, they are safer, easier to maintain and mow. 8. There should be emergent wetland vegetation planted. Long natural grasses and shrubs. Plantings such as soft stem bulrushes, arrowhead, various exotic grasses, wild rice. This all should be planted along the side of the pond for full visual enhancement. i I would propose that before the Connnission approves this plat that a feasibility study going examining all of these issues in depth be done. Given that the SWMP is out of date, it would be prudent for long range planning to do this and do it right at this time. 8. There is a reference in the Preliminary Plat Plans submitted by Otto Engineering that requires the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive to remove their wooden fence along the East of their property line and the wire fence to the North of their property line. I'd like to see a friendly amendment that states: The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not have to remove their wooden fence along the east of their propertv. nor do thev have to remove the wire fence. The wire fence can be removed bv the contractor assuming he takes care in its removal not to damage the Pfopertv of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Thank you. Jason Ashline 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 '.\ ii-im. ! Response to questions 1. Proposal Summary page 2--Since the applicant is already filing for a variance for street width, can the commission consider a 24 foot roadway width (back of curb to back of curb) in lieu of the 31 foot proposal? Answer Staff would be against a variance to decrease the street width to 24' for the following reasons. a) It would limit the street to parking on only one side or prohibit on- street parking all together. This would conflict with all other public residential streets in town that allow parking on both sides. b) There is no major environmental reason why a street meeting current design requirements (31 ' wide) cannot be constructed; in other words, staff does not see a hardship why the street width needs to be decreased. 2. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control page 3--regarding the proposal for the 1-3 foot retaining wall along the western Right-of-Way (ROW) of Fox drive, would this proposed wall run the entire distance of the ROW of Fox Drive beginning at the corner of Fox Hollow Drive? If I am understanding it correctly--my fence would remain, then my grass area to the East of my property would remain with the current slope, then the retaining wall be built at the same level as my grass, and then there would be a 1-3 foot drop-off to the street curb. Is this correct? Again, we want to emphasize we think that the 3:1 slope is excessive in this area and is not needed. Aesthetically the retaining wall if not designed and confignred correctly, it will not make our property look attractive. Answer Answer Based on the submitted plan, a retaining wall would be needed for approx. 90' along the western right-of-way line of Fox Drive. This length of wall may be able to be lessened by revising the street grades. Staff has mentioned this to the applicant's engineer and they have agreed to look into this further. The description of the proposed retaining wall is correct. 3. Drainage page 3--Concerning the expansion of the pond, staff is recommending expansion of the pond but how much larger? To what the developer wants? Who is also going to maintain or replace any inlet or outlet structures? The City or the developer? Staff has reviewed the developer's proposed pond expansion. Our only comment is to add an additional contour elevation line (912) at the bottom of the pond for additional water quality purposes. This will ensure that the pond is sized to NURP standards for the entire drainage area. The City will take over ownership/maintenance of the pond and storm sewer at the conclusion of the project and after the warranty period. 4. Page 4 it states--the pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. However, NURP standards mainly pertain to water quality? Are further studies going to be done to see if the area North of the pond can be better preserved as a natural buffer? I posed a series of questions (in my memo) on this pond and the proposed expansion--will these questions be answered? Has any real consideration been given to what the Minnesota Erosion Control Association advocates and other individuals, organizations I cited in my memo as far as the overall design and do other landscaping items to limit impervious surface and street width? There are several ideas that need to be fully considered in my memo. Answer As previously stated above in #3, staff has reviewed the pond expansion design and is in agreement with the proposed layout of the pond. The pond, as currently exists, is not sized for the entire developed drainage area that will be going to the pond. As such, the pond must be enlarged in order to meet the water quality requirements of NURP. Additionally, the pond will store the storm water during a rain event so that the outlet rate of water leaving the pond is less than what the current runoff rate is. This is how the pond will meet the water quantity requirement of the City. Finally, the developer will be installing a new outlet control structure, per City detail plate #3109, to control the outlet rate. The city code regulates impervious surface and street width. 5. Tree Preservation & Landscaping Page 8--"When the building permit for Lot 1, Block 1 is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation." As stated in my memo, the City Code provides for adjustment of lot lines and revised grading for tree preservation. Answer In this instance, adjustment of lot lines will not lead to additional tree preservation. At the time of building permit, staff will work with the builder to preserve trees were feasible. 6. Page 8--The City Code states that the City has the right to require the planting of evergreens to be used as a buffer where necessary. We would be in favor of that, and we would like to see them be planted 20 feet apart as opposed to 30 feet. Please keep in mind, all of our buffer, if the entire pond is expanded will be wiped out. Plus, we would like fast growing Norway Spruce planted for best impact from noise, light, and wind buffering. There should be 6-7 of these evergreens planted along the Fox Drive boulevard at a minimum. Answer The city code requires boulevard trees be planted 30 feet apart. 7. Page 12. Under Environmental Resources Coordinator Concerns: (This question relates to question 6 above). Under H,I: "the applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive re replace trees lost due to pond expansion." How many trees will be planted, we would recommend 6-7 along just Fox Drive. Again, we would request that the City mandate evergreen plantings here as there is a provision in the City code for it. As far as the plantings around the pond of Fox Hollow Drive, we do not have a specific type of tree. However, again as pointed out in my memo, natural long grasses and shrubs should be planted around the entire pond site. This would reduce runoff and it is in line with proper pond design standards. Answer The City will insure that the development complies with the buffer ordinance requirements. ~Eso., (I> Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 82 Roseville, MN 55113 ------- March 11,2005 ~ECEI'i;:[!i MAR 1 5 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Bob Generous ,Senior Planner City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Fox Den MnlDOT Review P05-023 SW Quad ofTH 101 and Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 2736 Dear Mr. Generous: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats, and has the following comments: · A drainage pennit will be required for this project, as the pond outlets via a 24" CMP crossing Trunk Highway 101. Additional drainage infonnation is required. The proposed construction will need to maintain existing drainage rates to Mn/DOT right- of-way. Please provide the following: I) A grading Plan of the existing & proposed project. 2) Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing both existing and proposed drainage areas and flows (with flow arrows) 3) Hydraulic computations/modeling before and after proposed reconstructions (ie., Hydro-CADinput assumptions, calibration data, results for 10 and 100 year stonn events). Please submit any further documentation electronically as Adobe Acrobat (.pdt), and HydroCAD (.hc) files. ¡fplans change, you must resubmit for review. The electronic model and pdt'tile can be emalledtonchard.cadvriVdot.state.mn.us. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Richard Cady (651-634-2075) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources Engineering section. · Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a pennit, pennit fonns are available trom Mn/DOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/utilitv. Please direct any questions regarding pennit requirements to Keith Van Wagner (651-582-1443), or Buck Craig (651-582-1447) of Mn/DOT's Metro Pennits Section. · The Right-of-Way Section has reviewed the plans and has detennined that one dimension is wrong on Sheet no. I of5. The 40' dimension should be 33' in one location. Please direct any questions regarding pennit requirements to John Isackson of Mn/DOT' s Right-of-way Section at 651-582-1273. An equal opporlunity employer . Mn/DOT'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 are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. ~ Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582-1293. . As a final request, could you please send an electronic .pdffile copy of your plan submittal for our record keeping purposes to iuanita.voigt(âJ,dot.state.mn.us Please refer to Mn/DOT Review #P05-023 / Fox Den / CHN when emailing the .pdf file. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay MnlDOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions conceming this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 634-2083. d-fr Copy: Roger Gustafson / Carver County Engineer Paul Otto / Otto Associates - Engineers/Surveyors '" ,..., ImPervious Calculation Examl2!!. Lot 4, Block 1, FOX DEN. 15,065 SF x 25% = 3766 SF allowable impervious area Home Foundation provided by Builder = 2281 SF Driveway (24' wide at street, 33.5' wide at garage) = 1040 SF If deck is impervious, (22.5'x10' deck) = 225 SF Total Impervious = 3546 SF 220 SF left for sidewalk, shed, etc. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEe 1 1 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 8CAIIIIID "..." _______ . 0 37 .-. 72 I I ~I ('-¡. x-x- ~ I " " I 2 ~ -" I . . Q " ~ ( I \ " I / I / V ~ -,x ./ 91 ./ ""' ~ ãì t m~~~t .§¡ ~r1 ~ ild :O.s:J ! ð J ~Jl ~ if _._----~ NVld 13^31 NlVW ~ ~ i ~ Ii ~ - punow 'pEO~ POOMi3IPI 9L6S ':)UI '~u!JdS OL Áq i3WOH W01sn:::> . . ¡'Li! ~ ! 1'1 ~ M « ! ¡ ~! · . . ~~ i h if . ~ ! "'4 £! ~. r· ~ s ~. ;,..~ c ~ h~ · ....~ ~. ,.- ~, n·g . h . . ~ . . .. ~.. · - I I ; i: ~I -I ~ ~ ~.~ .o-"t % zæ :)0 tl. ..J' w~ >- w: ...J~ z· «~ ::;;~ -~ . ~ . r :;..,. ;'i; ¡ ~ s - . ."-./1 (~~~.l:=ul :1 "F===Tó . ¡ I ~i i ~ ¡ - IJ 3q ~ ~ ! : ~.~ H I ~ ~; . ~i · ~s .N = ~ ¡?o.9I'-.I.IiIOf', ; ~ C)Ol;j1~.fll.U - --I !==I 1 I 1 I I ~ . ~=~I~ -- - -I " . . ~·i~ - ....- ~ ~- ~-- "".£1 ".t ".e ~ n-.. ~O"'t'tiMnIUitXJtJ) .~'.8 .ø-,., .t-.9I: ~., .".K ~ ~ , ~ '" I * ~ " >- IS ~ '§ . ... w g~g C> OJ: '-' -;, ~ '" ~!, ~ Iii >- '" ~ ~ 0 I~ 0.., 5! ~~g «", ijj ó ~~, :Eto '" z ç~ Q. t;¡ !~I~ i:! w Z~ ~ OJ: ~ V> .I~i U~ IJ h ~ >~ <> ¡¡ ~ e ~ .... ., is " " '-' bj ~ : ~~ ! . lJð ~I 01-1 13 ~ ~~. I¡ ! I~~¡,~h j ,~~ d~.~ iif If~II!{~~~~~IJ== _~ ~~ .!~.\ ~~'I IUlllUh ~ r! '¡;~~~'-ìt'l ·'1,1 g , ¡:j,,~ ~~. i '''J"'), I, ~ ,,-{ ~ ~~iJ& !~f 'Ii I I i ~~ ~'j -- !~~ ~ j" - --1~ ~~~ ~ :z ·Z LU~w Q~:¡ ðP u.. -~ ã -71'_11::; ::i _J-,-V...J-~ ~ 'n~ I '/I\lA"~Lf V," I ~ __I¡;_ ~ ~H ~ ~,,-,:~-,-- " I I Ift~g ~ : e~~ !i¡, I!I, I- I I I I ',I It! ¡¡ 'I <I I I I I \ \ " \ \ \ ,,\ "\ S? \ '- \ I'm I I. I ! d, I! I I", J.-l/¡" .- -::..- ,~,.~, '_," '""0 ,i." -/ ; \ \ \ -> <- CJ f= "'''of, ~ ~'.~/ . ~ '> ;:::-, ~~ L'J '- ~ '- :: I~ I _ 1/ I I 6: z on I!! w = i ifil = <" ~ ~?: .-< ~ :¡:W .-< z o¡n a:> II! ~a: w ~ > '-'- z ... .. Õ :J: 0 SCANNED ~ ~ - - ----^v- - _ _ =,,=,d~-- " " . ~ ~-. ~ :. ,.' Æjt ~\2¡ iW .t~il ~ , ~ I ~ !I! Ih~~· ~ d!~um~~~~i lUullul ~ uol"d I~I lr!1 III w . ¡;~ I~ ",goVl§ .~i~~ ". ~ ~~~¡.' .~.." w ~. dÕ!i~' ð' So! I 2: '" ~ "'o¡:¡~ ali .. i. ,. ~"w .u. , . .ê~ ·U~;" , â.· ..... ,. ~.,;¡ ,é~~'~~ ,...b~ ¡:;;H:!f?iI~ ~g~: . ;.~i Q¡ª ~g¡Š}j ~ijf!EZ5i II: . ~~¡Qà ¡.'~h Š ~~!.~,~··ªd~~~~· ~.~ !I/.....,~~;c,~<~' ~~ '" ..;.; ori"; ~..iIi...:!iit; , ~ _j1~'y~~' ~ )~~ ---Ji- / ~~~ .,.~.~ , ~ ,.=1"",..,\ /Vv~U ""¡f;:; /f!.l£9...L ," ~ II i ,. ¡r-c/: "LJl1 IT <:> , ~: ~ :! '.I I dl iii! i1tsI II ..' . ' 1 .~J , . ) \. \ .'. '. " / ;.. í i I '. \ , I I I I I ~_;~~.._ - - - ~ - _--It:r III \ \ \ \ - - - - -\ -- ' C5 ¡ ,\ " I ~!-~\------.....-- \',> '" ' -0.t ". " 'Z". ",". ';:"', '" , , , , , , '\ ~-';;>.~==-- -I \ I I ! -'~·"'·i'_ I I I i ~ ~ p ",. ~ ~ /:: v> ;;;¡ I- ,.. ::>0 >- ~ ó ::¡ z ~ I:J 0:: w Q. iJi z :z ~ IJJ~Z a-UJ ò"' )(~~ f2U 5 II ¡!II I !iI. . I 13 . I" I~ j ~ ---- ------^v- - ~ -- - - - - ---.-., ----- ----- ---- :: :: ------ _~~=_,..=_"O_ - - - - - - - - - - - -1f - - - - - - - ~-; :lIUI~:::¡ ¡ :::¡ _J..J..V-'-~ ij~ ------!ii--- :¡J1!.~;;..!- ,-...:f.W;""'; ~A ~i~ 'o:.¡ .:3., ~! ~~:::¡ , j¡--i"~~' ~~-=- -------¡\o (}Ç I u I In;! G : e~~ -~U ( I ~d r I I I. IIi .* I!! '~m . i e }:I 'e I ,- I - I 0> I I \ \ ,,\ ()\ k\ \ ,... ,... ~ ~::, , ~'" ~~ JJ:~ iI!" ~ ~~" li~~~ - ~ J, ~to~5- ~~" ~~~i j¡ 1:I~:fj n ·h '!~t Io'õ!!¡ *î ,ª~f[ ~ ~ o ¡ ~ ¡II Ih!~,,~~ !f¡~um~~~~~ IllIIlUh e"l"o} It! t ~ I I III J ¡ ~f H ¡ 1 ¡¡ j ~.! 1 " ;>!"h! ~ ." ~"! ¡ III"' 2m> H.h~~ h $.u~t~ ~Ii ~""""N"" _ ..ð < ;¡ ¡ . ~. :l !~ ~ - 0 d j. ~ Ii i¡;¡~ - 'ã i. n ,¡ .~ t~ h ....... ....5 '.. -~--- ----- :: líìl ~ l.l /r -nA I . I AALJ VI ~ I'\I~II I .:r~-_ """<1,,," -..'''-- ~.- -.J,<1k" . i I I '-n\,.. ,- /\ nC¡1< 'c- . t~ -'_n ~,-- , , " I ¡~ I ~. I ,II - ~. _ -\~.. \:.~ \ \ \ \ _--I , t} ,.~"'- , (\ \ ' \ '.'\ ¡ ·1 . .", ---.--" )...;;--- C\ ~ '. .~, " , i '~"'1 ,', ~'''-- " '''',. "'. , , , " " " " - - - - - - ---,--~...::..~.~-=..----, '1 'I I I I I I _ ,""'" ,0 ;'~ -. I~ -~ ).- i ~ ~ ~ - " I .. ~ ~ ......z ~ ~ tlJ:s to . ~a. ~ ~~ ~ ; he ~ :Jo Z ~ ~I- W ; tl (I) I.&J :I: I to ~~ :z ~ Z"Z lJ.J .w a~~ ><: ~ J: o~:z u.. -~ " I~ I ~ I~ u ¡il I I. I "II". Iii 'I' I. 11111j1 i " I :111, '11111 II ,I In " ,¡II ! 11,1 I ; M,I, II ! ¡ I"¡ II' 'II' II¡!! ' !' I lib I'il! I Ii. £ I¡ ¡ Ii ! i :1','1', :I,!I ii! I Ii!,!! I!II~III: II !;i¡! il!I"!'I,,II~¡,I!;I¡! ~'â I ¡ , II ii' II' , .', I I ¡ II;! I ,I' I ilil II " ~h i'I! I' III:!: i'il·,I! Iíi¡: III!I ¡llil ¡ 'I !''!i!iI}'\'1I ~~:. II hill!111 I:IIII'!I!II i¡~I¡ ,I ,'I,IIIII!I .!Iil, 1,111"11111 mt II Ii ¡¡I ¡!¡ I li!!ii !1¡il¡¡¡¡I¡¡¡¡¡¡tiili¡!¡!¡i¡¡lli,!1 ¡¡!III!i !III! Iii!! . I ~ I : I II,!. i ¿ I · I . ~ I Ij _ ! I ~ ; I I I' I: I ~ :1 ~! t ;II!¡¡ _ ~ ¡¡Wi 1; ¡ ~ . I ~ ' . }I} 111~~,,~~ Y. iii, ~ I ~~, I ~ ~ I 111!i! ~~ ~I!~ 1.1 dJ~Umi~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 21 ~~ 1 ~~!J!U1t !I I~ ~~ ¡! ¡I! I ~ ~ U \J i ~ z J !!, II".. I ,i.' .. ~3 . ::; III ¡. t1 ii!" ... -.. :;z .;¿ 1\\ lIJ ~."' ---------------------------------:¡¡------------ Q ~~ "' .., 'n^' 'IAALJ :1JU1C:::¡ ~.., ~~.. l:::¡ ><~J: .., - I ,ì I "..., . J 0 Z ., ¡"'/v V/¥ ""V", _J..L...L~ lll:~ /~ ~Q~ __ _< /ig¡::::¡ ,."",-... ~ (IE --~-~-- !11 u. ð -.. '_J~.. ,'~'""''' .,..., .!~ ~ . "'.1.= ¡:.~. ~ ' ~ ! ,, ,- ~¡¡ ..,.,,',....~.~ ,- ".'..,. ·"·"'Fl . "'" "'" ~ ~ ~~ . ,~~ lii.~ ..~ - ~~J, It~ éil::~ ~~ ~~~""~ < ~~~¡;¡¡ ~ ~ - -;:¡~- -.01'......- " / / '. ~,~'I-~/ ..,;,,,,./ ---- 10 / v \. ../:,.7'-..... I n¡" ""~..,..... / ......./1;-" ~I'.. _ 1:; " ,,J,"..",J,-'~r""~-~'~' / I ",,- ""'-1"'" ,)",.... // 1 ,/1 / 1/ i I ~ .. "' z I:: co'l r z¡¡: "' ~6 It) co!!: ~ )..~ 0 ~o " ,"is ' _¡¡¡ 0 irlö Z Œffi t;¡ .. "' r "' .1 ¡III I !it. . I I I! II :¡: -;§ ¡, _III I~ I~ I~ u ~ "" "'" . I '~ U'l¡~'I¡ 1111111" ~; a" t ¡¡i~i illll hill 11111 ~ 3~'v'..:.S ::¡ ----Ji~---------- ~:~ :¡ . ~ . ~~ l. c(¡:,' Ii .. ~ - -l\r- - ........ ' '/11 ~ l./ j.. "n^' "I ULJ VI v "\1 ~ J¡ I ;¡ ...'...~... -.. -.; "" -dQ.b.,· , ''!!...l'' ,.. ,':i:J::';J;J "''''''.... """-"',""" ,,-...>..,~, .-- ~ u/ / / \ '. J'" .~" ~~ r(n'\~- "'L!li /¿- ".0. ,- L//\ .,~> /---'~'6'¿'<1 '( 1\ 1\ I I ---\Q- \ I \ \ \ ........--'"\ , / , c J: ~S I· '" ---....~"- 'IUn dmn ; 1I':n ~ nl! II :It *~ ~ ~ i ---"-~";::..--~--",,--.J.,' " , . I II rl I.il I I I I I '~., "j.6 'I I I I I I 1/ I I I ~u ",. ~ IS ~ w ~ I ~ ~ '" ~ ~ '" ~ i "- w ~ 0 ~ ~ '" he ~ "" z ~ t:J . I '" :z ~ 2:tiz UJ~UJ a .~ ><~~ O~:;; u. -J: u Ij i!11 I ¡if. I I! ~!¡ I~:¡¡ " ,II :: I~