The URL can be used to link to this page

7 Plat Subdivision/Marsh Glen I- Z ~ ~ :J 1.. 1- c:( ~ ~ lJ.J I- - rn ·71~~= ..- CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: 05/17/00 CC DATE: 06/12/00 REVIEW DEADLINE: 6/12/00 CASE #: SUB 00-1 ~. ". , ~ TT STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A preliminary plat request to subdivide 13.41 acres into 19 single-family lots and 2 outlots LOCATION: East of TH lO I and north of Mission Hills APPLICANT: MSS Holdings, LLC 8905 Cove Point Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (934-0750) Andrew and Linda Freseth Attorney: Bruce Hanson (607-7593) PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential, Low Density ACREAGE: 13.4l DENSITY: 2.;!3 units per acre-net, 1.4 units per acre-gross SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant would like to subdivide the property and construct single family homes on the site. The project complies with the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. The development will be accessed via the extension of Mission Hills Lane and, in the future, TH lOJ. 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. T- o --- ....... -. ~ 0J~ .~ 91- ~ ()' rt -- =' 2 Marshlan 3 BLACKBI 4 Heartland 5 MISSION 6 RICE CRT T Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On May 17,2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously approved the preliminary plat request. During the discussion of the item, the Commission expressed concerns about flag lots (i.e., orientation of the home), how lot depth is measured and the adequacy of the proposed stormwater pond. Flag lots are permitted by ordinance. The positioning of the home on the lot cannot really be specified so long as the setbacks and other relevant requirements are met. Table 1 of this report displays each lot area and average width and depth. Staff averages the lot depth for those that are irregularly shaped. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the preliminary plat has been revised resulting in the elimination of the private street and extension of the cul-de-sac. The change involves extending the cuI-de sac and rearranging the lot configuration around it. The difference between the two plans appears minimal. The advantage is less grading, saving a few trees at the rear of Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, less utility infrastructure and minimizing impacts to neighboring properties to the east with the private drive. The major impact is the pond on Block 2. The plans have been revised to reflect the ponding necessary to meet the city's storm ponding requirements. This involves additional mature tree loss from the previous plan as staff envisioned. There still is an issue with conveying storm water runoff from the intersection of future TH 101 and Mission Hills Lane. The plans fail to provide storm water treatment of the runoff from this intersection. The plans still need to visit this issue. Staff believes that the runoff can still be routed to the proposed pond; however, the applicant has not demonstrated it to the city. The revised plans have not been thoroughly reviewed by the engineering staff to determine if there are any other issues. We reserve the right to add further comments and recommendations prior to final plat considerations. Overall the revised plans with the out the private driveway appears acceptable and preferred over the private drive scenario. Staff will apply any further conditions at time of final plat consideration This report has been updated. All new information is in bold and all outdated information has been struck-through. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 13.41 acres into 19 single family lots and 2 outlots. The property is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential and the land use plan guides this site residential, low density (J.2-4 units per acre). The site is located east ofTH lOl, south of Villages on the Ponds, north of Mission Hills and west of Rice Lake Manor. Access will be gained via the extension of Mission Hills Lane and, in the future, TH 101. The development will allow the Mission Hills development to have an additional access to TH lOl, when it is upgraded. The applicant has submitted a revised proposal that addresses many ofthe concerns the planning staff expressed in the previous report. All the new proposed lots meet the minimum RSF zoning Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 3 requirement.s. ~~:' :;;: ~~e let5 àe aet.meet minim.um ,....i~ FeE¡liiremeRt5.. 8taff is . reeemmeaàæ R h lag take f'laee m pfØpe14y haas aaà Hi a street lseatteR 18 aeæeV'e tfie mHH!ßIIffi let wiàths. The average lot area is 19,121 sq. ft. and the net density is 2.3 units per acre. All lot areas, width and depths have changed from the preliminary plat reviewed by the Planning Commission. The private drive has been eliminated and replaced with a cul-de-sac. This public road extension and enlarged stormwater pond result in the loss of numerous mature oak trees. The property has two natural features, numerous significant trees and Rice Marsh Lake, a natural environment lake. The applicant proposes to preserve ;6-31 percent or 4.-H 3.53 acres of the existing tree canopy. The amount of canopy removed exceeds the amount permitted by ordinance therefore additional plantings are required. The applicant has proposed to plant 19 trees, when 24 are required. An additional 5 trees must be added to the planting plan. Hewever, after :y:~:~~:;~~: ;~;~::~e=:::::~:e~a:==~ :;::r:~ :=:;~i=~' ;.: ~ ,¿:E: ¡;;;,.,. wü' "",. ""~- -~."";;; ;- G d EH 4: t BReeds t8 13e revIsed ta IRelade æsëe ·¡anety. ..\s propeseà, ÐftI:y three f!lants are sf!eeiHeà. The tree preservation shown on Lots 6-8, Block 1 appears to be questionable since the trees are extremely close to the proposed house pad. Staff is recommending the preservation plan be revised to take into consideration this comment. Rice Marsh Lake is located on the northeastern portion of the site. The shoreland ordinance requires a 150 foot structure setback from the ordinary high water level. Outlot B extends over the water and the 75 foot lakeshore buffer. a small f!ertieR efthe IIjJlaael area. StaiTis reeemmeReliflg tile eHtlet ee ~mteßdeà t8 the 75 feet 19affer frem the eràiøary kigfi·sater ley;el. The grading plan indicates that the rolling features of the site will generally be maintained. Stormwater runoff is to be conveyed via storm sewer systems into an existing pond, which is to be expanded to accommodate this development. However, based upon proposed grades at the west end of Mission Hills Lane, the proposed storm sewer will be too low to drain into the existing pond. Therefore, the applicant may need an additional pond on the northwest portion of the site, which may result in a loss of one of the lots. The City's comprehensive trail plan identifies a trail within this proposed development. This trail segment connects Marsh Glen to the Rice Marsh Lake/Lake Susan trail. A trail easement will be required between two of the lots to the proposed trail around Rice Marsh Lake. Further, the sidewalk on the east side of Mission Hills Lane is proposed to be extended to Outlot A, the right-of-way for future TH 10 J. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the conditions outlined in this report. BACKGROUND In January 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved the request for a land use plan amendment, a rezoning and preliminary plat to subdivide this site into 32 lots for detached town homes and twinhomes. The City Council tabled this proposal on February 14,2000 so the developer could address the concerns of adjacent property owners. On March 13,2000, the City Council tabled Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 4 the proposal for 60 days so the applicant could redesign the plat to provide more transition between Mission Hills and the proposal. In response to the concerns that took place at the City Council meetings, the applicant changed the proposal to a traditional single family development. Since the project has changed significantly, staff believed the Planning Commission should review the new proposal. Hence, staff recommended that the City Council remand the single-family development proposal to the Planning Commission for review. The City Council did so on March 27, 2000. The applicant has given a 60 day extension to expire May 22, 2000. Since the item is scheduled for the June 12,2000 City Council meeting, another extension has been granted until this date. ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is requesting a preliminary plat to subdivide 13. 41 acres into 19 lots for single family homes and 2 outlots. Outlot A extends over the right-of-way for future TH WI and Outlot B extends over Rice Marsh Lake and the future trail. This site is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential and guided residential low density (J.2-4 units per acre). The development is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The minimum requirements for properties zoned RSF are as follows: 15,000 sq. ft. for area, 90 feet for width and 125 feet for depth. As proposed, all lots meet the minimum lot area, width and depth requirements and have been revised since the Planning Commission reviewed the request. The average lot area is 20,356 19,121 sq. ft. The gross density is 1.4 units per acre and the net density is 2.;! 3 units per acre. The site is 13.4l acres however, only 8.64 acres are available for development after the outlots and right-of-way are deleted. The following table depicts the area, average width and depth and applicable wetland or lakeshore setbacks for each lot. The properties will have to maintain the required 30 foot ITont yard setback, 30 foot rear yard setback and 10 foot side yard setbacks as required by ordinance. Table I COMPLIANCE TABLE Legal Proposed Lot Width in feet Depth in Wetland Lakeshore Description Area in sq. ft. (average) feet Setback Setback (avera2e) RSF District 15,000 90* 125 Requirements Block I Lot I 19,002 -lW ;wg 40'+lO' 21,051 110 201 buffer Lot 2 23,351 +00 W 40'+lO' 21,335 93 238 buffer Lot 3 31,230 m ~ 40'+10' 24,774 99 265 buffer Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 5 Lot 4 28,728 +Hi ~ 40'+10' 150' 29,946 141 238 buffer Lot 5 21,847 9é m 150' 19.426 108 185 Lot 6 19,152 9& +9& 150' 15,674 104 151 Lot 7 18,286 é! l84 150' 15,209 73 (120 @ 30' 141 setback) Lot 8 21,121 % m 150' 19,731 100· 174 Block 2 Lot I 15,028 m ill 15.000 109 138 Lot 2 17,086 H+ .¡.Q 15,830 104 160 Lot 3 22,730 H4 m 21,612 109 W) Lot 4 20,816 Hé +94- 28,429 110 ~ I· Lot 5 15,351 .l@ M9 16,652 91 212 Lot 6 18,758 ~ m 20,589 120 224 Lot 7 17,720 H4 ~ 16,645 98 156 Lot 8 22,lá8 ~ m 15,172 63 (100 @ 30' 214 setback) Lot 9 lá,715 +00 .µ() 15,000 111 157 Lot 10 lá,!J12 W ffi 15,000 104 143 Lot II 18,610 ill m 16,228 125 177 Average 20,35á 19,121 *The minimum width for a flag lot is 100 feet. ~:: ~i:~t Let 3, Bleek 2 àees Bet meet the FellHÎreà 90 fee~ e!~~~ ~ ~ ~~ :::~~. ~ ~ I~~~:::~~~ = ~~~ t~ ~hi&ve this .mÏniimHR ':viàth. Let~, BloÐ~ ~ àe:; .~~t ~:~~~~ i~~ :;~~:ï7-B ~ r. 11 r. ag lets. Agæn, ~behe\:e5 that miner sluJtlBg efthe prepffij' lInes ,lei:: 1 ~.vtll be reEt~UFetl t8 meet the æUflæwR \~}i~ fer Let 8, :Bleak 1. Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 6 Outlot B extends over a portion of Rice Marsh Lake, a future trail and the 75 foot lakeshore buffer, as recommended by staff. The zeRiRg eFdil1!lRee àefiRes a riparian let as any tat wit.~i¡¡ 73 ftet ~/the er-dinary high H'..w£r k~;2! e/' sla.'œ, pend 81" H'st/and. Lots 1 &, Bleek 1 meet this àøf.initiea, aev:ever, they àe aet meet the millimwH area re~uireà by the sheælßfld eFdiRanee. The sherelaad eràiRanee r.eEluires 49,Q09 SEl· ft. ef afea and 125 feet efwiàtH ea aatufal eR'¡irenmeot lakes. 8taff reees::: that Outlet B be e¡l{eaàeà te 75 feet Hem the eFdiRary high water le':el efthe lake, whish is g';~'ft the 75 feet bHffer eR the prelimiaary plat. Thea Lets 4 8, Bleek y.ill have te maiRtaiR l5,09 " and 90 feet ef wiàth as re¡¡lIired by the sherelaad eFdiRlll1ee. The ealargemeot ef the This outlot will ensure that the 75 foot buffer is protected ITom degradation and encroachment, since the zoning ordinance prohibits structures ITom being constructed on outlots so this will remain open space. The only access to Rice Marsh Lake will be through the proposed trail between Lots 3 and 4, Block I. The future structures on Lots 4-8, Block I must maintain the 150 foot setback ITom the ordinary high water level of Rice Marsh Lake, which is 877.0. Staff is recommending that a conservation easement be extended over the portion of Lots 4-8, Block 1 that is within the lakeshore setback. An ag/urban wetland is located to the west of Rice Marsh Lake and north Lots 1-4, Block. The zoning ordinance requires a 40 foot setback and 10 foot average buffer. Staff is recommending a conservation easement be extended over the required setback and buffer. Private Driveway The preliminary plat has been revised thus eliminating the private drive proposed in the previous proposal. The prepesed plat iRàieates that Lets Ii 7, Bleek 2 will have aeeess via a private driveway Hi3m Missien Hills Ceurt. The miaimllffi driv6·,vilj· easemeRt shall be 39 feet ia ...lidth. SeetieR 18 57 (e) states that private streets may be permitteà if the fullÐ'::iRg eeaàitieRs e¡¡ist: I. The pre'"lliliag develepmeat pattere makes it ill!feasible er iRappreprillte te eeastruot a pubHe street. Ia makiag this àetermiRatieR the eit)' may eeRsider the !eeatieR ef e¡¡i5tiag prepefty liaes anà hemes, leeal er geegFapme eeRàitieRs ßfld the e¡dsteRee ef wetlands. 2. f.fter re'lfevliRg the SHffi3H11diag area, it is eeaeludeà that aa e)[teRsieR ef the puelie street system.s is net r~qHireà to selTe other 13areels iß the area, im13reye aeeess, Sf to previde a street system eeRsisteot ':ith the eeH!j3reheRsÎ':e plaa. 3. The use ef a pri·¡ate street '.vill permit efllianeed preteetiea ef the City's aatuFal resellrees illel¡¡àiag wetlanàs and ferested areas. FiRdiftg: The uoe ef a private street is justified eeeallse the pre'lailiag develel'meRt patteres and prel'erty Haes malce it iRfeasiele te eeastruet a poolie street. FlJFthcr, a poolie str.eet '.vill aet serve ether par€els ia the area elltsièe ef tllis àevelepmeot. The pri·:ate àriye ....ill alse pri3teet e¡dstiag matare trees ia the ar.ea. f. poolie street may ereate àeuele Hi3Rtage lets fer these iR the MissieR Hills àevelepmeRt. Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 7 GRADING The site characteristics are rolling in nature with wetlands and dense woodland areas over the northerly portion of the site. Mature oak and maple trees are scattered throughout the westerly and southerly portions of the site. The property also contains an existing homestead and bam, which will need to be razed. The bam was used as a horse training facility in the past. As a result of this use, an extremely large amount of manure was deposited behind the bam area. The developer is proposing to remove and dispose of the manure off site. The plans propose mass grading a majority of the site to prepare the streets, lots, house pads, and stormwater ponds. The proposed grading plan will generally maintain the rolling features of the site, as it exists today. Outlot A which is proposed to be future Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way also contains a number of larger oak and maple trees. This outlot is not proposed to be graded at this time except for utility extension and a temporary cul-de-sac. In the future when Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded, the road will be shifted easterly within Outlot A and the property leveled off. The grades offuture Trunk Highway 101 will be significantly lower which will result in removal of the trees in Outlot A. The proposed centerline grade of Trunk Highway 101 and Mission Hills Lane is approximately 890.0±. The westerly end of Mission Hills Lane is proposed at 894.0 and therefore will need to be lowered approximately three feet to match future Trunk Highway 101. An existing stormwater pond located in the southwest corner of the site that pretreats stormwater runoff from the Mission Hills development is to be expanded and utilized to accommodate drainage from the entire development. The grading plan needs to incorporate an emergency overflow from the pond along Outlot A to Mission Hi.lls Lane. No berming is proposed nor is it feasible along Trunk Highway 101 due to the grade difference and recommended overflow swale from the pond. Screening/noise abatement should be accomplished through the use of landscaping. The proposed building pads blend fairly well with existing topography to maintain the site's characteristics. The building sites range in elevation from 888 to 914. The building units on Lots 1- 8, Block I are located in the most environmentally sensitive area of the site. Staff is recommending . that Lots 6-8, Block 1 be custom graded at time of building to minimize grading and tree loss. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit for Lots 6-8, Block I. The home styles throughout the development vary between walkouts, ramblers and lookout-type dwellings. On Lots 2-5, Block 2, the lowest floor elevation of the dwelling must be raised to be two feet above the high water level ofthe pond (up to 902.0). The dwelling type on these lots appears to be restricted to a slab-on-grade rambler or split entry-type dwelling unless the proposed grades in the area are raised significantly (four to six feet). Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 8 DRAINAGE For the most part, the site sheet drains in a north-northeasterly direction towards Rice Marsh Lake or the adjacent wetland body. Based on the grading plan, the adjacent neighborhood drainage patterns will be maintained with the proposed development. Stormwater runoff is proposed to be conveyed via storm sewer systems into the existing stormwater holding pond located in the southwest corner of the site for pretreatment prior to discharging off site. The existing pond is to be expanded to accommodate this site development. The plans need to incorporate an emergency overflow swale from the existing pond along the rear yards of Lots 1-3, Block 2 to Mission Hills Lane. Based on proposed street grades at the west end of Mission Hills Lane, the proposed storm sewer will be too low to drain into the existing pond. The applicant will most likely need another pond somewhere in the northwest corner of the site. This may result in the loss of a lot. All pond designs shall conform to NURP standards. The side slopes shall be 4:1 or 3:1 with a 10:1 bench for the first one foot depth of water. The plans have the pond inlet and outlot discharge points to close together to provide valuable water quality treatment. The outlet/inlet pipe shall be separated at least 50 feet apart. If another pond is created in the northwest corner of the site to address the project's storm runoff, then the proposed outlet pipe from the existing pond could be eliminated. The development's storm sewer system shall be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Ponding calculations including pre- and post-development runoff conditions for a 10-year and 100-year, 24- hour storm event will need to be submitted to city staff for review and approval. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Maintenance access shall also be a consideration in the easement width/location. EROSION CONTROL The grading plan proposes Type I erosion control fence along the perimeter of the downstream grading limits. Tree preservation fencing will need to be denoted on the final grading and drainage plan. A rock construction entrance will also need to be required at entrance points to the site. Watershed District and NPDES permits will also be required in conjunction with this development. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. Sanitary sewer service is available from along Trunk Highway 101 or by Rice Marsh Lake. The plans propose on extending water and sewer service from the existing lines along Trunk Highway lOl through Outlot A and the City's property to serve the site. The water line will also be connected at the current terminus in Mission Hills Lane. This will provide a looped system and improve water service to the existing neighborhood in Mission Hills. The construction plans shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The plans shall be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff review and formal City Council approval. The developer will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the public improvements and Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 9 conditions of final plat approval. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City over the public lines outside of the right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. The existing farmhouse is connected to city sewer. However, water service has not been extended. There is an existing well located behind the farmhouse that will need to be abandoned in accordance with State health codes. The sewer line will also have to be disconnected in accordance with City policy. The property was previously assessed for trunk sewer and water hook up charges in conjunction with the Lake Riley Boulevard Trunk Improvement Project No. 93-26A, however, only one ofthe 19 hookup assessments was levied; the remaining 18 were deferred. Since the applicant is creating more lots than was previously assessed, those lots will also be subject to city sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at time of building permit issuance. The 2000 trunk utility hook up charges are $1,300 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,694 per unit for watermain. STREETS The applicant is proposing a combination of public and private street systems. The plans propose to extend Mission Hills Lane from its current terminus to Outlot A (future Trunk Highway 101). At this time, there will not be a street connection to existing Trunk Highway lOl due to inadequate sight lines and impacts to the City's property which lies between Outlot A and existing Trunk Highway 10J. Mission Hills Lane will be connected when Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded. Staff believes the current timeframe for the extension and upgrade of Trunk Highway 101 is approximately five to seven years. Until Trunk Highway lOl is upgraded and the street connection made, access to this development will be limited to existing Mission Hills Lane and West 86th Street. In conjunction with the Mission Hills development, West 86th Street was designed and constructed to act as a neighborhood collector street (36 feet wide). The additional trips generated from this project will not adversely impact traffic through the Mission Hills neighborhoods. It is estimated the increased traffic volumes on Mission Hills Lane and West 86th Street will be approximately 200 vehicle trips per day once the site has been fully developed. The preliminary plat proposes a 60-foot wide right-of-way for the street extension (Mission Hills Lane) along with a private street at the end of the cul-de-sac to serve two lots. A cross-access easement and maintenance agreement will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots which access the private street. The minimum driveway easement width shall be 30 feet wide. In addition, drainage and utility easements shall encompass the proposed utilities along the private street. Currently, on Mission Hills Lane, a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk has been constructed along the easterly side of the street. A 5-foot wide sidewalk is to be extended through the development down to Outlot A on the north side of Mission Hills Lane. The plans do not propose a trail connection from Mission Hills Lane down to and along Rice Marsh Lake. There is a proposed trail system around Rice Marsh Lake that will eventually provide access to the trail system just south of Villages on the Ponds development north of this project. Staff believes there should be a trail connection down to the trail at Rice Marsh Lake from Mission Hills Lane between Lots 4 and 5 or 5 and 6, Block I. Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page lO The extension of Mission Hills Lane to the development may require the relocation of an existing fire hydrant and catch basins. The applicant shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities and street improvements in conjunction with the extension of Mission Hills Lane. An existing wood fence is located within the City's right-of-way by the property owner on Lot 9 (Mission Hills Court) that will need to be removed from the City's right-of-way to avoid impacts from the extension of Mission Hills Lane. WETLANDS The northern border of this property is Rice Marsh Lake, which has been classified as a natural environment lake by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The natural environment classification is due to the large areas of shoreline that have not been influenced by development. Rice Marsh Lake has a large amount of emergent vegetation that discourages traditional recreational activities such as boating, swimming or fishing. Because of this classification, a 150 ft. building setback from the OHW (ordinary high water level) is required. The original proposal indicated that there are two ag/urban wetlands located on the site. This plan only indicates one. However, staff will address both wetlands in this report. The first is a small ditch section approximately 2,500 sq. ft. located in the west-central portion of the site. This area appears to be part of a larger drainage swale that once drained runoff through the site. The water runoff has been interrupted by the storm water pond built with the Mission Hills development to the south. There is no existing buffer along this wetland. The wetland edge is defined by an existing horse run, fill and a driveway. This is a low quality wetland dominated by cattails, willow herb and reed canary grass. The original application indicated that this wetland would be filled entirely and mitigated on site. The second ag/urban wetland is located on the northwest edge of the property and is adjacent to Rice Marsh Lake. This wetland is slightly higher in elevation than the lake and there is an upland area at ih edge, which separates it from the lake. This wetland is an emergent marsh dominated by reed canary grass and cattails, with an impressive buffer of dense woodland consisting of oaks, maples and willows. The original plan for Marsh Glen proposed to expand the wetland edge to mitigate for the filling of the smaller, lower quality wetland. However, due to the quality of this wetland, staff is recommending that the City permit the applicant to use the WCA (Wetland Conservation Act) de minimis exemption, and allow the filling of2,000 sq. ft. oflower quality wetland without replacement. This recommendation is in an effort to minimize the grading and disturbance of the northern, higher quality wetland. The applicant will be required to re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. The wetland buffer area should be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide a vegetative barrier to define the buffer edge. The applicant will install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 11 Conservation Easement Staff is recommending that a conservation easement be extended over the area shown on the plat as the "Drainage and Utility Easement" outside of the delineated wetland boundary on Lots 1-4, Block 1, with the exception of the 20 foot trail easement. This is essentially the 40 foot setback and 10 foot buffer required by the wetland ordinance. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) Water Oualitv Fees The water quality fees for this proposed development would be based on single family development rates at $800.00/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 10.06 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project would be $8,048.00. The applicant will be credited water quality/quantity fees where they provide NURP basins to treat runoff from this site. This will be detennined upon review of the ponding and stonn sewer calculations with final plat consideration. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP. Outlots and wetlands/mitigation are not assessed SWMP fees. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. Water Ouantitv Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city- wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and stonn water ponding areas for runoff storage. Low Density developments have a connection charge of$I,980 per developable acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 10.06 acres, the applicant will be responsible for a $19,918.80 water quantity connection fee. These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. IANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERV AnON The tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations submitted for the Marsh Glen development are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 11.5 ac. 54% or 6.16 ac. 35% or 4.02 ac. 36% er 1.11 00. 31% or 3.53 ac. The proposed landscaping plan does not meet minimum canopy coverage required; therefore the disparity is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement 21,344 SF or .49 ac. 1.2 25,613 SF Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 12 Total number oftrees to be planted 24 trees The landscape plan indicates that 19 trees are to be planted. An additional 5 trees must be added to the planting plan to meet ordinance requirements. These trees will not be included as part of any buffer planting, All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. The J3roJ3esal meets the miRimllm eaRoJY eevemge alle·md. He'l:e'ier, after review efthe ~::~~ plans staff Be1iø~les tkese ealsalatisf1s are s·:ør estimated. Þ.fany sf tae fJrepeseà trees t8 ee" e iR loeæieRs that willl3e ~i~Rifiean~ly altereà for the eeR~traetieR ef reaà.s and ho.mes. . ~s;::~ ~:':~:e the trees are 1 feet Belew 1ft elevatlen, er greater thlHl the 13£OJeseà gradlftg that IS taln .'dt 10 f-eet, are eSfl1ffi8B and s}:¡eulà net he ee1:lflteà as 13reserv-ation. Large trees are l3artieularly sllseefltiBle te eeRstFlletieR dama~e aRà thei~ resilieaee eamet Be everestima~ed. Staff ~e;~~a:::s that the eaneJ3Y eeverage ealelllatleRs Be reVlseà te aeellrately Felleet the realIty of gradlR ea tree loss. Staff believes that proposed tree removal on Lots 6 - 8, Block 1 are underestimated. Tree removal limits are shown within 5 feet of the proposed building pad. This misrepresentation does have an impact on the total canopy coverage albeit a minor one. Staff would like to see the tree removal areas revised to a minimum of 15 feet from the building pad for these lots and the additional removal measurements be added to the overall canopy coverage calculations. Staff is recommending that a conservation easement be extended over the area shown as the "Drainage and Utility Easement" on Lots 4-8, Block 1, with the exception ofthe 20 foot trail easement. This area is within the 150 foot setback required from the ordinary high water level of the lake. Additieaally, the flreflosed landseßfJe filaR shev:s IHI e)ctremely limited IIse of 13laRt materials. ORe speeies eE àeeiàu8Hs tree, eRe sf 0":ergFeea and eRe tYf>e of Sh.ï.iB is the tet81 sitAe IanàseB:j3e plant sehedule. MeaeellltlH'es are aeither attraetive aor a wise deeisiea as the flast Dllteh elm disease epidemie has demeRstrated. Staff reeommeRds that the ßfJ131ieaRt revise the 13laRt seheàllle te inelllde a meFé~ ":arieà seleetisa ef trees anà ShrUBS. This revised plan shows a larger pond being constructed in the southwest corner of the property. In doing so, four very large oak trees will be removed. Staff believes that there may be other options to accommodate the required pond area without having to remove these trees, Staff recommends that the applicant work with staff to re-evaluate ponding options. The City Code requires buffer yard plantings along the west property lines abutting TH 101 right-of- way. The requirements are shown in the following table. Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page I3 Table 2 MARSH GLEN PROPOSED BUFFERY ARD PLANTINGS LandscaDing Item ReQuired ProDosed West property line - 5 overstory trees & 6 overstory trees Buffer yard B* II understory trees & 20 understory trees (30' width) 11 shrubs & 11 shrubs .According to city buffer yard ordinance, the project developer is responsible for only 75% aCthe required plantings. Abutting property owners may plant the remaining 25% on their property. Staff reeemœ.eaàs that the 8fJplieaftt ¡Release bttf:f-er yard plantiags to meet æiniæum 8relinanee reElHiremeRts. Although the proposed buffering meets the intent of the landscaping ordinance, the subdivision ordinance permits the City to require berming in addition to landscaping when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets. Given the traffic volumes and noise of future TH 101, staff recommends the applicant install a 100 percent screening (or a berm) on Lot 1, Block I and Lots I-~ 4, Block 2. Since the Planning Cømmission meeting, the applicant has revised the landscape plan to include a berm and coniferous trees along the right-of-way for future TH 101. However, staff is requesting that more detailed plans be submitted to determine the effectiveness of the berming and plantings. PARK AND TRAIL DEDlCA TION The City's comprehensive trail plan.identities a trail to be extended through the northeast portion of the development. This trail segment will connect the development with the Rice Marsh Lake/Lake Susan trail. Construction of this trail section will enable residents to access the Rice Marsh Lake Park and the City-wide trail system. The proposal does not link to the City's park and trail system. Staff'we¡¡là reeemmeaà that (A 20 foot wide trail easement is shown to extend from Mission Hills Lane between either Lots 3 and 4 and 3 er Lets 3 anà á, Block 1 to the future trail around Rice Marsh Lake.) This development would generate $7,600 in trail fees and $22,800 in park fees. Staff recommends these fees be utilized to construct the proposed trail along the lake. The applicant can coordinate this construction and be credited appropriately or the City will collect the fees and construct the trail independently of the . development. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed and recommended approval of this proposal on May 23, 2000, with the following conditions: J. Collection of full park and trail fees per city ordinance. 2. The City will construct the trail. Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 14 SIGNAGE/LIGHTING A signage plan has not been submitted with this proposal. The zoning ordinance permits monument signs for residential developments. The sign cannot exceed 24 sq. ft. in display area and 5 feet in height. Staffis requiring that any future signage be limited to the entrance off the future TH lO I. Light fixture locations have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed by ordinance. Residential street lighting shall be required along Mission Hills Lane and Mission Hills Circle. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: 'The City Council approval the request for the preliminary plat (SUB #00-1) to subdivide 13.4l acres into 19 single family lots and 2 outlots as shown on the plans received .^.pril 10, May 31, 2000, with the following conditions: I. The prepeR)' !iRes fer Let 3, Bleek 2 shall be revised to maiRtaiR the æqllired 99 feet widtH at the 30 f(Jet setbaek. 2. Outlot B shalllJe e¡¡teRdeà SOlltH aRd 'Nest te the 75 feot bllffer iadiaateà OR the preliminary plat. It shalllJe àemORstFated that Lets 1 8, Bloak I maiataia the miaimlliH 15,999 sq. ft. let area ßfld 99 feet let width as reqlliæà lJy the shorelßfld oràiaanee. 3. The prepeRY liRes fer Let 8, Bleek I shalllJe r.eviseà to maiataiR a mmimwn 190 feet ef width. I. All signage shall comply with article XXVI of the City Code. A monument sign shall be limited to the access to TH I 0 I. 2. Park and trail fees are required. Park fees are $1,200.00 per dwelling unit and trail fees are $400.00 per dwelling unit. One-third of these fees are required with the final plat and the remaining two-thirds will be paid with each building permit. The applicant can coordinate this construction and be credited appropriately. 6. The eaRe!!y ealeulatieRs shalllJe revised te refleat the full peteatial ef gradiag im!!aets to tree loss er the ßJ3plieant shall previde ether àeewneats to SlIppOR preposeà ealeHlatieRs. 7. f. detailed tree préservatioR plaR aftd a re-¡i5eà laRdseapiRg plaR iReludiRg a greater variety of trees aftà shrubs shoulà be submitted to staff for approval. THe plam seHeàøle shalllJe reviseà te iRelllde a mere varieà seleetiea ef trees and sh.-ues. 8. BHffcr yarà plaRtiRgs shalllJe iaereased te meet miaimHm erdiRßflee reqlliremeRts. Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 15 3. One hundred percent screening shall be installed along Lot I, Block 1 and Lots I-J 4, Block 2 to provide buffering ITom future TH 101. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the City for review. 4. The Fire Marshal conditions are as follows: a. On Block 2, Lots 6 and 7, additional address numbers must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification pursuant to Policy #29- 1992. Submit plans to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and ChanhassenBuilding Official for review and approval. b. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection are required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. c. A ten-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, 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. d. If any trees or shrubs are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off sight due to close proximity of neighboring homes. No burning permits will be issued. e. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Two will need to be relocated. This will be reviewed with the City Engineer and corrections will be made on his plans. 5. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 6. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition ofthe City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum ofthree weeks prior to final consideration. 7. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 16 based on Walker's Pond net model. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. 8. The applicant will be responsible for a $19,918.80 water quantity connection fee and $8,048.00 for water quality fees due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. II. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within the City's right of way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained along the City's right of way. 12. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 13. The drive aisle width on the private street shall be a minimum of20 feet wide bituminous surface and built to 7-ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-570-1 and 20-110J. On street parking on the private street shall be prohibited. Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared and recorded by the developer over Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2 in favor of the property owners. The minimum driveway easement width shall be 30 feet wide. 14. The developer shall dedicate to the City a 20 foot wide trail easement between Lots 3 and 4 aaà 3 er Lets 5 aaà é, Block I to Outlot B. The exact alignment shall be determined in the field by staff. Compensation for the easement shall be applied to the developer's trail fees. 15. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat the following easements to the City at no cost: a. A 50-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing sanitary sewer line through Outot A. b. Utility and drainage easements over all utilities, storm water ponds and wetlands outside of the right of way. The minimum easement width over the utilities shall be 20 feet wide depending on the depth of the utility. Drainage easements over all ponds and wetlands shall be up to the 100-year flood level. 16. The plans shall be revised as follows: a. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to stormwater ponds and wetlands shall be a minimum of two feet above the lOO-year flood level. Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 1 7 b. The street grade at the west end of Mission Hills Lane shall be lowered to 891± to match grade with the future intersection of Trunk Highway 101 and Mission Hills Lane. c. Provide emergency overflow swales for all ponds. d. Designate dwelling types on grading plan, Le. walkout, lookout, and rambler, with lowest floor, top of block and garage floor elevations. e. Show existing structures and well location on grading plan. f. The sanitary sewer and watermain lines through Outlot A and the City's property (underneath future Trunk Highway 101) shall be cased. g. Provide ponding in accordance with NURP standards for development runoff. Pond slopes shall be 3:1 with a 10:1 bench for the first one foot depth of water or 4:1 slopes overall. h. Denote Lots 6-8, Block 1 as "custom graded" on the grading plan. 1. Tree preservation fencing will need to be denoted on the final grading and drainage plan. J. Show a rock construction entrance at access points to the site. 17. All lots, except the first building permit, shall be subject to current City sewer and water hook-up charges. The hook-up charges are due at time of building permit issuance. 18. The developer and future property owners should be aware there may not be any noise abatement improvements constructed in conjunction with the upgrade of Trunk Highway 10I. Provisions for noise abatement (landscaping/berming) should be included in these development plans. 19. Mission Hills Lane is a temporary dead end street. In the future when Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded to urban standards Mission Hills Lane will be connected. 20. Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1, shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval at time of building permit application. 21. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the appropriate building permits for demolition of the building, disconnection of the sanitary sewer and well abandonment. 22. The proposed residential development of 10.06 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $8, 152. Once the applicant demonstrates that the ponding provided Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 18 on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion oftbis fee may be waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $20, I 76. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 23. The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or an approved seed mix for wetland soil conditions. 24. The wetland buffer area shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. In addition the applicant shall provide a vegetative barrier to define the buffer edge. The Applicant will install wetland buffer edge signs, under the supervision of City Staff, before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. 25. Staff and the applieaat shall 'Nark tegether te efw¡¡re that the depth efLet 5, Bleck 2 meets the erdiR!lflee, and te shew a 30 feet rear yard setbaek fer Let 5, Bleck 2. The applisllllt 'Nill alse re'iÎse the plat te shew a 30 foot setBask fur beth street :!featages ea Let I, Blesk 2. Correct the aame of the lalla te Rise Marsh Lalce eR all plans. 25. The applicant shall add a second NURP pond unless the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate the single pond will suffice. 26. The applicant shall add 5 overstory trees to landscape plan for a total of 24 trees in order to meet replacement plantings requirements. 27. The applicant shaU expand tree removal limits on Lots 6 - 8, Block 1 and add the increase in removal to overaU canopy calculations. 28 . The applicant shaU work with city staff to explore other options for a retention pond in the southwest corner of the property that does not remove the four, large oak trees. 29 . A conservation easement shall be extended over the area noted on the preliminary plat as 'Drainage and Utility Easement' excluding the 20 foot trail easement on Lots 1-8, Block I." Attachments J. Application 2. Memo from David Hempel dated April 26, 2000 3. Memo from Steve Torell dated April 26, 2000 4. Memo from Mark Littfin dated April 25, 2000 5. Report from Todd Hoffman dated May 23, 2000 6. MnDOT letter dated February 14, 2000 7. Preliminary Plat 8. Public Hearing Notice 9. Letter from neighbor Marsh Glen June 7, 2000 Page 19 10. Memo from David Hempel dated June 7, 2000 11. Minutes from May 17, 2000 Planning Commission meeting g:\plan\ck\plan comm\marsh glen sub DO-I.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (61~ .937-1900 iO!1'WOFCJoI~"'S$EN Cl'r.'""'~I\~D DEC 0 8 1999 CHANnt'\';''''''-I'i rU'\nl'UI'iIJ uEPT l:JEVElOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION IPPlICANTJV\S5. iliLD//J lPS I L.U!.- ." IDDRESS: eQ05 CøIÆ. (blvr "Pi>A-O. 'fuefJ PMIR,J<= I r141V 5G'ó4I/ . Of'{ 60 OWNER: AoofIJ::LV t LY¡UfJlt- ~E.,ni ELEPHONE (Daytime) ADDRESS: A.T1o(ly.Æ~ fi1.z bf;.LLf¡¿ : &t.CE: /4.v5 TELEPHoNE:leJ~ -tdJ7- '76l13 ~ Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Temporary Sales Permit -Îat>W - Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROW/Easements - Interim Use Permit - Variance _ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit . ..lL Planned Unit Development- :¢r')-'bLD _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits _ Sign Plan Review L Notification Sign $160/0 - Site Plan Review· -X.. Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost.. ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAP/Metes and Bounds. $400 Minor SUB) .~ Subdivision- ~ß8).CO, TOTALFEE$ 3-, ~º . A list of all property owners wIthin 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. . Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submItted, IncludIng an 8Y>" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet .- Escrow will be required for other applications 1f1rough the development contract TE - When multiple applications are processed, the apprDpriate fee shall be charged for each application. LEGAL DESCRIPTION V'Æ m H (PL.-f:.1\J MIL.~ &witl- OF- fJ,w~ 6 ~D aM).. fWf of 101 PROJECT NAME LOCATION \/4 TOTAL ACREAGE \~AI kAE.S WETLANDS PRESENT Y/"VES NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PvD PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Puo Mocn - F- A-M ( 01 OJ: LA,vD REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Du?:>DI (; 150 A.) This application must be completed in full and be- typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A detennination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. "This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the Cify and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and infonnation I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensi re appro ed by the a :Ilicant. ... Id--<ð r99 , Date Date Fee Paid ~1;?5V .00 Receipt No. [fW \ 7 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on 18-' 0· C( q C1fiCAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY . SchcdulcA LcgalDcsaiption Continued Fùe Number. CA 16843 Carver County, Minnesota That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, png Easterly of the center line of State Trunk Highway # 101 and northerly of the following descnbed line: . Co=encing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence on an I!ssu.med bearin¡:t of South 0 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds East, along the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a dìstance of SI9.2.6 feet to the point of begilining of the line to be described; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 463.90 feet; thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 108.00 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 112.69 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 265.45 feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 143.04 feet; thence North 15 degrees 33 minutes 37 seconds West a distance of 239.59 feet; thence North 69 degrees 17 minutes 02 seconds West a distance of 491.20 feet to the centerline of State Trunk Highway #101, and there terminating; Excepting therefrom that part described as follows: Co=encing at the Northeast corner of said Quarter Quarter; thence West along the North line thereof, 903.8 feet to a point in the center line of State Trunk Highway #101, as now laid out and traveled, being the actual point of beginning; thence East along said North line 137.51 feet; thence South 17 degrees 17 minutes West 247.43 feet; thence South 33 degrees 59 minutes West 271.52 feet; thence North 48 degrees 37 minutes West. 184.51 feet to said center line; thence Northeasterly along said center line 402.82 feet more or less, to the actual point of beginning. Abstract. FROM PHONE NO. 949 8653 Apr. 12 20ØØ 01:53PM P2 Apti112, 2000 City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive ChaIÙ1assen MN 55317 To Whom It May Concern: MSS Holdings, LLC, is proposing a 19 lot development on 8411 Great Plains Bowevard, Chanhassen. This development will be known as "Marsh Glen." The subdivision will be constructed by S} Kroiss of Eden Prairie. S} Kroiss is a long time builder and the owner Steve Kroiss is a long time resident of the western suburbs. We are proposing to the city of Chanhassen this project for your approval. We have met several times with the city staff working on this proposal. We are not asking for any variances or zoning changes for this particular project. We appreciate your consideration of our new Marsh Glen development. ~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 90Ciry Center Drive, PO Box 147 ChmdJ/1Ssm, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 Genem! Fax 612.931.5739 Engillming Fax 612.931.9152 Publi, 54'0' Fax 612.934.2524 U'éb 1/'11'/('. ci,Cf¡l/llhtlJ"JC1I./IIIl. tfS MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Kirchoff, Planner II David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer \øÐ' FROM: DATE: April 26, 2000 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Marsh Glen Land Use Review File No. 00-01 Upon review of the plans prepared by Development Engineering dated April 10, 2000, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING The site characteristics are rolling in nature with wetlands and dense woodland areas over the northerly portion of the site. Mature oak and maple tree_s are scattered throughout the westerly and southerly portions of the site. The property also contains an existing homestead and bam which will need to be razed. The bam was used as a horse training facility in the past. As a result of this use, an extremely large amount of manure was deposited behind the bam area. The developer is proposing to remove and dispose of the manure off site. The plans propose on mass grading a majority of the site to prepare the streets, lots, house pads, and stormwater ponds. The proposed grading plan will generally maintain the rolling features of the site as it exists today. Outlot A which is proposed to be future Trunk Highway 101 right-of-way also contains a number of larger oak and maple trees. This outlot is not proposed to be graded at this time except for utility extension and a temporary cul-de-sac. In the future when Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded, the road will be shifted easterly within Outlot A and the property leveled off. The grades of future Trunk Highway 101 will be significantly lower which will result in removal ofthe trees in Outlot A. The proposed centerline grade of Trunk Highway lOl and Mission Hills Lane is approximately 890.0±. The westerly end of Mission Hills Lane is proposed at 894.0 and therefore will need to be lowered approximately three feet to match future Trunk Highway 10I. An existing stormwater pond located in the southwest corner of the site which pretreats stonmvater runoff from the Mission Hills development is proposed to be expanded and utilized to accommodate drainage from the entire development. The grading plan needs to incorporate an emergency overflow from the pond along Outlot A to Mission Hills Lane. Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review April 26, 2000 Page 2 No benning is proposed nor is it feasible along Trunk Highway 101 due to the grade difference and recommended overflow swale from the pond. Screening/noise abatement should be accomplished through the use of landscaping. The proposed building pads blend fairly well with existing topography to maintain the site's characteristics. The building sites range in elevation from 888 to 914. The building units on Lots 1-8, Block I are located in the most environmentally sensitive area of the site. Staff is recommending that Lots 6-8, Block I be custom graded at time of building to minimize grading and tree loss. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building pennit for Lots 6-8, Block I. The home styles throughout the development vary between walkouts, ramblers and lookout-type dwellings. On Lots 2-5, Block 2, the lowest floor elevation of the dwelling must be raised to be two feet above the high water level of the pond (up to 902.0). The dwelling type on these lots appears to be restricted to a slab- on-grade rambler or split entry-type dwelling unless the proposed grades in the area are raised significantly (four to six feet). DRAINAGE For the most part, the site sheet drains in a north-northeasterly direction towards Rice Marsh Lake or the adjacent wetland body. Based on the grading plan, the . , adjacent neighborhoGd drainage patterns will be maintained with the proposed development. Stonnwater runoff is proposed to be conveyed via stonn sewer systems into the existing storn1water holding pond located in the southwest comer of the site for pretreatment prior to discharging off site. The existing pond is proposed to be expanded to accommodate this site development. The plans need to incorporate an emergency overflow swale from the existing pond along the rearyards of Lots 1-3, Block 2 to Mission Hills Lane. Based on proposed street grades at the west end of Mission Hills Lane, the proposed stonn sewer will be too low to drain into the existing pond, The applicant will most likely need another pond somewhere in the northwest corner of the site. This may result in the loss of a lot. All pond designs shall confonn to NURP standards. The side slopes shall be 4:1 or 3:1 with a 10:1 bench for the first one foot depth of water. The plans have the pond inlet and outlot discharge points to close together to provide valuable water quality treatment. The outlet/inlet pipe shall be separated at least 50 feet apart. If another pond is created in the northwest corner of the site to address the proj ect's stonn runoff, then the proposed outlet pipe from the existing pond could be eliminated. Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review April 26, 2000 Page 3 The development's storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Ponding calculations including pre- and post-development runoff conditions for a 10-year and lOO-year, 24-hour storm event will need to be submitted to city staff for review and approval. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Maintenance access shall also be a consideration in the easement width/location. EROSION CONTROL The grading plan proposes Type I erosion control fence along the perimeter of the downstream grading limits. Tree preservation fencing will need to be denoted on the final grading and drainage plan. A rock construction entrance will also need to be required at entrance points to the site. Watershed District and NPDES permits will also be required in conjunction with this development. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. SanitaIY sewer service is available from along Trunk Highway 101 or by Rice Marsh Lake. The plans propose on extending water and sewer service from the existing lines along Trunk Highway 101 through Outlot A and the City's property to serve the site. The water line will also be connected at the current tern1inus in Mission Hills Lane. This will provide a looped system and improve water service to the existing neighborhood in Mission Hills. The construction plans shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The plans shall be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff review and formal City Council approval. The developer will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security in the fonTI of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City over the public lines outside of the right- of~way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage an~ utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. The existing farmhouse is connected to city sewer. However, water service has not been extended. There is an existing well located behind the farmhouse that will need to be abandoned in accordance with State health codes. The sewer line will also have to be disconnected in accordance with City policy. Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review April 26, 2000 Page 4 The property was previously assessed for trunk sewer and water hook up charges in conjunction with the Lake Riley Boulevard Trunk Improvement Project No. 93- 26A, however, only one of the 19 hookup assessments were levied; the remaining 18 were deferred. Since the applicant is creating more lots than was previously assessed, those lots will also be subject to city sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at time of building permit issuance. The 2000 trunk utility hook up charges are $1,300 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,694 per unit for watermain. STREETS The applicant is proposing a combination of public and private street systems. The plans propose on extending Mission Hills Lane from its current terminus to Outlot A (future Trunk Highway 101). At this time, there will not be a street connection to existing Trunk Highway 101 due to inadequate sight lines and impacts to the City's property which lies between Outlot A and existing Trunk Highway 101. Mission Hills Lane will be connected when Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded. Staff believes the current timeframe for the extension and upgrade of Trunk Highway 101 is approximately five to seven years. Until Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded and the street connection made, access to this development will be limited to existing Mission Hills Lane and West 86th Street. In conjunction with the Mission Hills development, West 86th Street was designed and constructed to act as a neighborhood collector street (36 feet wide). The additional trips generated from this project will not adversely impact traffic through the Mission Hills neighborhoods. It is estimated the increased traffic volumes on Mission Hills Lane and West 86th Street will be approximately 200 vehicle trips per day once the site has been fully developed. The preliminary plat proposes a 60-foot wide right-of-way for the street extension (Mission Hills Lane) along with a private street at the end of the cul-de-sac to serve two lots. A cross-access easement and maintenance agreement will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots which access the private street. The minimum driveway easement width shall be 30 feet wide. In addition, drainage and utility easements shall encompass the proposed utilities along the private street. Currently, on Mission Hill Lane, a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk has been constructed along the easterly side of the street. A 5-foot wide sidewalk is proposed to be extended through the development down to Outlot A on the north side of Mission Hills Lane. The plans do not propose a pathway from Mission Hills Lane down to and along Rice Marsh Lake. There is an existing trail system around Rice Marsh Lake which will eventually provide access to the trail system just south of Villages on the Ponds development north of this project. Staff Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review April 26, 2000 Page 5 believes there should be a trail connection down to the trail at Rice Marsh Lake from Mission Hills Lane between Lots 4 and 5 or 5 and 6, Block I. The pathway should be redesigned to meet ADA requirements. The extension of Mission Hills Lane to the development may require the relocation of an existing fire hydrant and catch basins. The applicant shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities and street improvements in conjunction with the extension of Mission Hills Lane. An existing wood fence is located within the City's right-of-way by the property owner on Lot 9 (Mission Hills Court) which will need to be removed from the City's right-of-way to avoid impacts from the extension of Mission Hills Lane. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 2. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approvaL The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. 3. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for IO-year and I OO-year st01l11 events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for lOO-year st01l11 events and nonnal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pond net modeL Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review April 26, 2000 Page 6 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within the City's right of way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained along the City's right of way. 7. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 8. The drive aisle width on the private street shall be a minimum of20 feet wide bituminous surface and built to 7-ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-570-1 and 20-1101. On street parking on the private street shall be prohibited. Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared and recorded by the developer over Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2 in favor of the property owners. The minimum driveway easement width shall be 30 feet wide. 9. The developer shall install an 8~foot wide bituminous trail from the sidewalk along Mission Hills Lane to Outlot B between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 or Lots 5 and 6, Block I to the existing trail easement. The trail grade shall meet ADA requirements. 10. The developer shall dedicate the following easements to the City at no cost: a. A 20-foot wide trail easement over the proposed trail from Mission Hills Lane to the existing trail easement on Outlot B. b. A 50-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing sanitary sewer line through Lot 12, Block I. c. Utility and drainage easements over all utilities, stonnwater ponds and wetlands outside of the right of way. The minimum easement width over the utilities shall be 20 feet wide depending on the depth of the utility. Drainage easements over all ponds and wetlands shall be up to the 100-year flood level. Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review April 26, 2000 Page 7 lJ. The plans shall be revised as follows: a. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adj acent to stormwater ponds and wetlands shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100- year flood level. b. The street grade at the west end of Mission Hills Lane shall be lowered to 891± to match grade with the future intersection of Trunk Highway 101 and Mission Hills Lane. c. Provide emergency overflow swales for all ponds. d. Designate dwelling types on grading plan, i.e. walkout, lookout, and rambler, with lowest floor, top of block and garage floor elevations. e. Show existing structures and well location on grading plan. f The sanitary sewer and watern1ain lines through Outlot A and the City's property (undemeath future Tnmk Highway 101) shall be cased. g. Grade Outlot A for a tempormy cul-de-sac with 40-foot radius at the end of Mission Hills Lane. h. Provide ponding in accordance with NURP standards for development runoff Pond slopes shall be 3: I with a 10: I bench for the first one foot depth of water or 4: I slopes overall. L Denote Lots 6-8, Block I as "custom graded" on the grading plan. J. Tree preservation fencing will need to be denoted on the final grading and drainage plan. k. Show a rock construction entrance at access points to the site. 12. All lots, except the first building pennit, shall be subject to cun-ent City sewer and water hook-up charges. The hook-up charges are due at time of building permit issuance. Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I Marsh Glen Preliminary Plat Review April 26, 2000 Page 8 13. The developer and future property owners should be aware there may not be any noise abatement improvements constructed in conjunction with the upgrade of Trunk Highway 101. Provisions for noise abatement (landscaping/berming) should be included in these development plans. 14. Mission Hills Lane is a temporary dead end street. In the future when Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded to urban standards Mission Hills Lane will be connected. Jms c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer \\cfsl\voI2\eng\dave\pc\marsh glen 2.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN o City Center Drive, PO Box 141 Chonhossen, Minnesoto 55317 Pholle 612.937.1900 eel/fTo! FIIX 612.937.5139 :lIgillfer/llg Fox 612.937.9152 lib/if Safety Fax 612.934.2524 li'tb W/l'IlI,ci.C!JOI1!ltlSSen.ml1.lIS MEMORANDUM TO: Gndy Kirchoff, Planner" FROM: ¿:-~ ./ ,/ Steven Torell, Building Official DATE: April 26, 2000 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for: Marsh Glen I have reviewed the revised site plans for the above project dated 4/10/00 by the design engineer (no other revision date is indicated) and received by the Planning Department on April 26, 2000. My comments in my memo to you on December 28, 1999 still apply; I have no additional comments at this time. G/safct)'/st/mcmos/plan/marshglen2 690 City CenttT Drive, PO Box 147 FROM' Cb.nbaslen, Minnesota 55317 . Pbont612.9311900 DATE: GmtTa/ Fax 612.937.5739 fllgilleerillg Fax 612.937.9152 SUBJECT: Public S.ftry· F.x 612.934.2524 n'tb u'ww.ci.chanhfwfIl.mll,us CITY OF CHANHASSEN MEMORANDUM TO: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner II Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal April 25, 2000 Plan review for preliminary plat approval, Marsh Glen I have reviewed the preliminary plat for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information supplied at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. I. On Block 2, Lots 6 and 7, additional address numbers must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification pursuant to Policy #29-1992. Submit plans to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. 2. I do have some concerns with the length of the private drive at the end of Mission 1-Hlls Circle. Fire code requires anything over 150 feet be provided with an approved turn around however. there is an exception that when there are not more than two group R division 3 (single family dwellings), the requirements may be modified. I would prefer to see some type of turn around at the end in the vicinity of Lot 7, Block 2. One possible alternative may be to residential fire sprinkler the houses on lots 6 and 7, Block 2. At this point further discussion should occur between planning and the fire department. 3. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection are required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. 4. A ten-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, 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. 5. If any trees or shrubs are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off sight due to close proximity of neighboring homes. No burning permits will be issued. 6. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Two will need to be relocated. This will be reviewed with the City Engineer and corrections will be made on his plans. g:\safety\ml\plreviewmarshglen CITY OF CHANHASSEN o City Ctnttr Drive, PO Box 147 7hanhtwen, Minn"ota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 'ngineering Fax 612937.9152 ubli, Saftty Fax 6129342524 Veb www.â..hanhllJ!en.mn.us CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY General PREMISES IDENTIFICATION Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. Other Requirements - General 1. Numbers shall he a contrasting color from the background. 2. Numbers shall not be in script. 3. If a structure is not visible from the street, additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. 4. Numbers on mail box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement #3 must still be met. 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers if deemed necessary . Residential ReQUirements (2 or less dwellinq unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4". 2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department. Commercial Requirements 1. Minimum height shall be 12-. 2. Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Page 1 of 1 ~ Approved - Public Safety Director J- Z « u :J 0... Q.. « ~ ~ W 1- - en CITY OF CHANHASSEH PRC DATE: 5-23-00 PC DATE: 5-17-00 CC DATE: 6-12-00 2. HOFFMAN:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A preliminary p1a.t request to subdivide 13.41 acres into 19 single-family lots and 2 outlots LOCATION: East ofTH 101 and north of Mission Hills APPLICANT: MSS Holdings, LLC 8905 Cove Point Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (934-0750) Andrew and Linda Freseth Attorney: Bruce Hanson (607-7593) . PRESENT ZONING: RSF-Residential Single Family ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N: Open SpaceNillages on the Ponds S: PUD-R; Planned Unit Development-Residential E: RSF; Residential Single Family W: Highway 101 COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this development as lying within the Park Service Area of Rice Marsh Lake Park. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: The Comprehensive Trail Plan identified a trail within this proposed plat. This trail segment will connect this development to the Ricè Marsh LakeILake Susan trail. Construction of this trail section will give residents the opportunity to visit Rice Marsh Lake Park and gain access to the citywide trail system. After several meetings, the applicant has designated a path connection to Mission Hills Lane from the "Rice Marsh trail." The trail will be constructed between Lots 3 and 4 as shown on the attached diagram submitted by the applicant. Mr. Kroiss has objected to the condition of having the trail constructed as an element of their project. I recommend that the City construct the trail concurrent with the improvements being completed by the applicant. Marsh Glen May 23, 2000 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Park & Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require the following conditions of approval regarding parks and trails for Marsh Glen: I. Collection of full park and trail fees per city ordinance. 2. The applicant dedicat,e an ,~asement for the purpose of const~cting the tr~.i.l ~~t~tt t~~~ ., \ 3. The City will construct the trail. g:\park\lh\marsh glenldoc ....-.-----'-- -----=--- ... -,";'.:i . ...... ../..........-"'.... ----~-, .... .... - ..... ... ..... .... ..... , \0: \ dl" ,J "" ,~~ ~ I ¡ á9"U s> ~ / /[ o ø$ ¡~/" t¡{gìfh 1:6' -~ ~ (jJ ffi ffi --1 : /- / . . .., . "e /T f/ /~~/~'" ,,~ If C, (J.AlA/Æt: 7?JZ MA/L I ?:- ' t:';z,1.~ I ....~~ ......, ..to: ~è ~e..! re¿c. , I I . - ! / ,i N~elll;lLK ¡¡/RtF EJi7GN/JE~ fKf$P~~ ~/)ëtV~ / / /' / .' ,/ / // .... / / ~ S'.~~ :<, ~~ .... . -::;,. . ~ \~). --- I--~,~ , .~~''''~ --2,~,.~~ ....,~.... -...:;:. , .,;;( ~ 0 , <3 ~ ..... r: ... :I: ¡::! .. s CD .. V> ¡¡ W <If ~ . a: ~ .. ¡; <C ~ !! ~ is i3 ..; .,- "'--..-.- ............--... ~ .... tI ~ ! III .. ~ ) ~ :z ~ 0 ;= - '. <: - w " :z ( ::::; l.J 0 D :z I « ... .., ~ 1 ... u < )l / ~c::,.l(J -I-r<?b 7. ~ .....,1; ·-;'f -{1 . ~;·Jf.··~P,;n-.~ '" ...--.---.----.-..-.... -------. ~ FEB--14-2000 11:28 STATE AID tt'I"" \ Minnesota Department ofTl'llnsportatlon ~J1 Metropolitan Division Waters .Edge 1500 West County Road 82 Ros8\lille, MN 55113 651 582 1368 P.01/Ø2 February 14,2000 Po8t'¡t" Fax Note 7671 o.lI~_""_ø'"I~..~ ~ To be.viJ. W,_"" From ~_\ "--'" CoJDopl ¿\.,..."" "''''$~'"", Co. NI.../i)S\ f'IIone' Phon·'I.<;.,--)1"l- 1,,\ Fax'("I~ _cUi-"W:>J- Fax' Mr. Dave Hempel Assistant City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Post Office Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: Marsh Glen POO-OO I (plat R.eview) East of Trunk Highway (111) 101 and North of 86'" Sl1'eet West Chanhassen, C31Ver County C.S. 1009 Dear Mr. Hempel: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnIDOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, PJats. Before any further development, pJease consider the folJowing comments; · For primarily safety reasons, Mn/DOT wiJI not aJIow a permanent or temporary access to TH 10J. Mn/DOT inspections of the property reveal that there is inadequate site distance for a street or any other type of access connection. As we discussed, if there is a jurisdictional transfer (i.e., tumback) of TH 10 I, it wm be the responsibility of the regulating governmental agency to determine the appropriateness ofany future access to this road. Please direct questions concerning access issues to Lars Impola (612- 797-3126) of our Traffic Section. · The final plat will need to identify Mn/DOT right of way including dimensions from the centerJine of :H 101. Please direct questions concerning Mn/DOT right of way to JeffHoffstrom (612-797-3108) of our SW'Veys Section or John Isackson (651-582-1273) of our R.ight of Way Section. · Any work on or affecting Mn/DOT right of way win require a permit. Questions regarding Mn/DOT pennit applications may be directed to Keith Van WagTIer (651-582-1443) of our Permits Section. · Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibiJity between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often results in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise fi'om this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Conl1'ol Agency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. The project developer should assess the noise situation and take the åction deemed necessary to minimize the impactS of any highway noise. Please address all future correspondence for deve10pment activity such as plats, site plans, environmental reviews. and comprehensive plan amendments to: An equal opportunity employer FEE-14-2ØØ0 11:28 STATE AID -----......--. 6S1 582 1368 P.02/02 . Sherry Narusicwjcz MnlDOT - Mctro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minncsota SS 113 We regret the delay in responding to this development review. Fee] tTee to contact me at (65 I) 582-1771 if should have any questions. Sincere]y. ~ Paul Czech Senior Transportation PlannerlLocal Government Liaison cc: Jolm Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer Development Engineering, P,A. LaIr)' Stein - 1. steinØ1Js. West. net MnlDOT Division File C.S. 1009 MnlDOT LGL - Chanhassen - :~'--- ~ .. - ~ . ~ ... tì ~ ~ e:-; ~ E: ¡~ i~ :>-. ". , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~~1q '~ J,('1 ii·:;;·¡"1H ::'''^''; ....... .. I SQO'u.,n I elUT \ I I ... l I I I __1- ---- ! I ¡ .. '" !I ':: !'T' ' ~: "'N, .;;¡". '.... --I _J ;:1 I \ ¡. " "') --- ...--! :¡ \ \ \ \ "''',tt.oos "..t..'{.Otl$. -'~) , Wle ;/' U' ~ I ..,::: '. ': :>î ~:; I; ;! !; ,. :¡ ., :1 w" ~ ~ ë .~~ - IIi I ·1· . tll . . !~!; I ~ !nf .f I ~ il¡1I! ~ ~ ~ , ¡' í i I . II I Uillb!i '1111 ;ï!1 I I / I I :ï C> C> ~ .-< '" ::;: ::& ~ ...:¡ c.j ~ ~ ~ &-; ~ >-. ~ ~ ~ ~ g: , 1 I' 1'- - ~Y" 1 , C It! -:._:-:-.J__JI)^ ...... -::-_~_~.-.~ ___,/ I "- ~.. ~~:!IO /',/ I ..... / I' /; / ""../. / / '- "' r' II I " ',I /' >- -< II' /' "- II <.. " I " "- / ...... )', '> / ,/ ,/ / '(...../ '/ r"""" " I '¡,,</ ;>- ',./ / / / / '\. / / " // ( ¡Y, I):;: " "/ ,,/ "', '< ¡Y '" '-<./ " ... ..." I ;~,,, ''II -'1 if") .". (.;¡¡...¡ ::~;":ï .. H., $00"1.',,,, I "t.2,- ... ! I" · ¡ ,.,--- ~ " ~--¡ -( wi' , ,~~ ~ . '" ~ '" , U' '" ~ t N .-. .. .. ., . >- 1 ~ \ , , " ," ·If I,' . II ¡I, I. 1- ,·,.I¡ I Iii' 'Ii. ~ t J ~ "¡1m c.; UJ. ~ ····;1 \lJ I J r ~ .. :"t: ,II If ~ !Ii! rl!!li I . :; / I I -- l ,: IJ ¡': ::i .~: .,.... mi': . § ¡ c.; ~ ,,,:: V.I. I:: ~ ¡¡~ :<w ~¡: .iiifrl i ,E. L I , ! , , I I ¡ , ò ¡ ~ ---1 ~ " "" / "<-- "" / '-./ .'.i¡.,..""". "" ~, i [I; "" c: E-< ", :s ¡¡! i Cl. :>-;, ~ ~ - $1 ~ g: ¡ w w ~ " ~ ! x . ~ i 1) O! ¡ o . ~ :JI ~ ~/ " x i I xi L ii, .' .1 I i i· i, ,Ii .i I r I i I, I ~, I II , I I I . . <. 1';Lc.Cf.(,,, , I -- 51~ ~ I , ":;~1~ 'I IC'I ....',Aju : ~.' :.1,C' SDO',,',n '''.IT i i..¡ : jl I ¡. ¡ , , ~ , ¡. -; , . b I , . ~~'i 'I I . .. . ., " I .¡ '. , I , " , I ::~'1.' .1 ¡ hi ~I' I . ., I !1 i i¡>, I ., , -"':'-... .. ' III ",i .,Ii I , J ······1 I~¡ ~I!I, Ii;. i·~·I'imm~ 'Ih:¡¡!:i~ i,'1 ,.i I~m~~~, '!~!'h.. ;!~! w;:¡m¡, I 1'&:"1;& g "!II¡lli&mmíil II~h¡¡¡' . ~II! ¡ i;l¡mm, !i!I!!,.!~ I i;i~. l¡tl¡i!~~~m¡ IJ;;;¡ild ¡ I J!d ~J¡¡!anl¡!'t !'I¡!lllil~1 , "II! ~be tlllletltlbebtl~ ! øg!! , e;! " lig II,! ¡'¡Inm, glít,~Ší¡, ¡ ~ ih~a II mh I --l :~ ,.; __1__- Iii ! I" t,' I . li I . z 101 t; I Pt:J II! I II! ë:5'Ii U~ . " "I I ~ i j r I. ~ II I :<t: 'I'¡ Ib!¡ ~ !II'Ii , 'J \. I, i ï I I , , ~ , , I .. , U . J , i I " :q . ':' ., II " 1IIIYl $1'ftH Ha'~~1N i j ¡ ¡ I I , . ¡; , 'I 1 !IIII !i1¡1 Iii Ii , , " --I ) f., . ~; 3 , , I i. l " ~ \ ¡j¡ ~ '" "I ' :;: ! > ___ /( ¡¡i \ \ :1 '"..".~ \ , \ ¡I; o'a~n ,; 1__' -.:----~ ·r'lI x I I \. .-,".".} , .. "d ·t". : I '~I 11Ì-!!.- J "nT1J Iln'T1\ :"', " r--. ~ iU~ '¡ I ..' L. ' I ^ II '. - -.;" I nQ'.i ,i .¡ /';1';" .I. '11 f'...... / .....,. /' < ,"I, ~ " "/, / Á. '/" " "- /< .. "; ,)... ' " .. / "/. Y m ~~~,>"~ ::: .' / < ' ), "",/. / ../., / '" ~ '\,.. I:' "'::::- V i, . ! " § I I I , I' "I'.'&;:, y , . " ¡ ! . '----.1 . ¡ I , " . , ! I · 4 ¡ , , " ¡ · · " " i i .. ~ ¡ "'! i ¡ ,~: ~~ ~§ ~I ~~ ::;j~ ~~ ~I ~~ &51 @~ ~~ '-' ... ., ::(;:.J ,~\~J~;~;:~. .~~'I :¡:m¡ .,.,., ;;;r' . ! ' I ! i ¡ ¡p l "I ,-- , . : y l_~ "I ) .. \-~- .( " , ;" \ '. .~~... /'-- )i ; ,: :," :=: ~--"T-J I ~ ~ I ---¡ ~ .I " 'I "- /1 , /; Ì' / i'¡/ ""- "- "- "- / '..( "- "- "- ! ¡ ~ !J .' ~,¡i¡~~~ is ;~I ~ -l ~~ III S ! ~I !g !~; ~~lf -0 0 :: 1: ¿ " 1: . l; .', po r '. " 8~ = N .... '" " >-i ~l ¡ ó .- Iii I I' ¡!¡ '. ~ I .¡ f .. ~i §iihl: ji II!! ¡: ... 1'" I .11 - I~' . I. ~ II 11- Pt:J I'i!' I ~ .1..' I C-' I! II!! I- ,IJ,~ ~ ~ , l' .. !! I ¡I,P Ii : , ¡ Ë-,; ~ >... ~ ~ ~ ~ æ :.; ~, .. .., I SIIO''''U''; I ,...r ~ C-' .. ::r: ~ ~ .~--- ~ ! _!-'="r. -.-.... .'" ,,~_...~-=- . "':-'¡ ~1111' ¡'Œ~~~ ..... . f:". ( -, \ ,', I);. ; ". rn I :" ;... I , :111 ¡'!:') '" ,; ," ,.,l_. ". .:\ i i. ),1 -=-..,: :,1 . ... ,,' 'I "". \;;'.'\.L,! \ ,." /-- ".,it.'.::.::..r: . " ¡ill . Ii I · llil Wi· ,III ;;. I I ¡ . . , : , ' , ' ....~ _ ,~_.1 ..-.! \ ) / / ¡ ~ ", ~I;·· ~ ~ -····1' I .> ~ "- / ~l< "-,,- / -....¿ i "- \:;" " . ¡: /' / ' / ' " " / '\. / / ':~: " "" /..:': "- "- "- "- ...... ...... '" ...... ...... T -^ / , / " II ¡I! IlIum 'I' I' .' I' i i I . , , / fi ~I I I. a t.... , I ...... "- ...... ...... ...... ... ...... .......;.; ...... ~,;,...... <..,\...... / ...... ....../ ...... ...... ...... Ii: ...... ...... ...... , w " ~ " ....u ., i;Í' ...... b.tl CO) o( ~ ¡ :& / / W\i 01' u . "'I I ,/ -- / / ~ï ,I 11 ,'" .j "I , ':h~· 'I' ¡¡(¡,"],,';-, :::-f~ -, "." ".. ,;.' ! , ¡ . ! 'Ïí l I I I -_I ..---............... - -- .......~ -=--~.Q~ - ,¡~,,"~,~,~......::--- , ,,-:- ì ¡¡ ) ". ( ", " ¡' \' \ /'- , , :--'i , .- " r,: 1 : ;~: [ '~ ! ~ :z; ~ e-; ~ ~ f2 g: ~ ~ ~ / / -..... / Z. -..... ..... -..... / '-{ -..... -..... -..... ~ ¡ . . ~ ~ ~ ~I ,. t .' I,ir~~¡~ il ;!i ~ ~ ¡¡ S~ ;i~ ! §~r ii ill i ~;jf _0 o(:í< , ' Iw ~ ..1 ~u .... ~ ~k ~ j I: :::> , o .'""'> Ii ~ - I'j ~ WI~ ¡!i ; ~. l!ll I· ~. r;;¡ - ! ~ I!id~ J ~ i!I!!! B5 (¡·ur (Y :. ..... Ii If ~ i:il ¡hli ..!~ I ~I ¡ I / I . , " ,- , c - " ~^ ... ... ... / o .<::; Go:¡ c.J Go:¡ .....:¡ .. -1 S :î: 9 "" ¡,:¡ D:; ¡,:¡ ¡,:¡ ¡:: G., a ;<; a ¡:: S ~ ~ D:; Il. tJ ¡:: G., a tI¡. '1;' ¡,:¡¡ D:;~ '1;N tI¡. ~~ D:;~ '1;" IIIIffiJJ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 890 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat for 19 SIngle Family Lots APPUCANT: MSS Holdings, LLC LOCATION: East of TH 101 NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, MSS HoIdiOgs, LLC, Is requesting preliminary plat to subdivide 13.41 acres Into 19 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. The property Is located east of TH 101, north of Mission Hills and south of Villages on the Ponds, Marsh Glen. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to Infoon you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair willlèad the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing Is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during offICe hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, It Is helpful to have one copy to the department In advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 20, 2000. - o /111;J;,J 5M9P Smooth Feed Sheets™ IL TON R A BATHKE 04 GREAT PLAINS BLVD iANHASSEN MN 55317 TY OF CHANHASSEN o CITY CENTE JBOX I jA SSEN MN 55317 TY OF CHANHASSEN o CITY CENTER DR )B_OXI4~ ~EN MN 55317 )NALD L GALE 02 GREAT PLAINS BLVD IANHASSEN MN 55317 )BERT W ARMSTRONG JR )0 GREA T PLAINS BLVD IAN HASSEN MN 55317 MES J & TRUDI A AMUNDSON JO GREAT PLAINS BLVD IANHASSEN MN 55317 IRLEY M ROBINSON J2 GREA T PLAINS BL VD IANHASSEN MN 55317 GENE 0 & MARTHA J KLEIN 12 GREAT PLAINS BLVD IANHASSEN MN 55317 MES P & KATHRYN L JACOBY 10 GREAT PLAINS BLVD IAN HASSEN MN 55317 _AWRENCE & TAMMY A HARRIS J8 GREAT PLAINS BLVD IAN HASSEN MN 55317 MARK T & LORI JESBERG 8407 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW A FRESETH & N77W36498 SADDLE BROOK LN OCONOMOWOC WI 53066 MILTON RA BATHKE 8404 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASS~ 690 CITY CENT ci)1{ PO BOX I CH ASSEN MN 55317 JAMES A & MARILYN L CRA WFORD 8581 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 553 I 7 SUN ITA GANGOPADHYAY & 8571 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 553 I 7 RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS 8561 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LA WRENCE D & NANCY E STEIN 8541 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN A & CATHRYN P MAZEIKA 8525 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT E & SHANNON L FIEDLER 8511 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~"'^-sh (p~ Use template for 5160® TONY L & PATRICIA J FERGUSON 8495 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY 8580 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD S & BARBRA T EWING 8570 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE J CARLYLE & 8560 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING 8550 MISSION1JILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID 451 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY G & LEA J NORDOS 461 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN G & MARl GO N GEROGEORGE 470 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT A & LISA K GAUVIN 460 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RANDY V ROSETH & 450 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed Sheets™ CITY OF CHANHASSE 690 CITY CEN POBO C ÀSSEN MN 55317 MISSION HILLS LTD PTRSHP 7808 CREEKRIDGE CIR #310 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439 VERLE R & BETTE M POFFENBERGE 593 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LENORE J MOLSTAD 589 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VIRGINIA A WELLUMSON 585 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER W & GLORIA JEAN WILCZEK 581 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LYLE H & ARDIS M OLUFSON 565 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VERNIS M STROM 569 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VIOLA M COLLING HAM 573 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BARBARA J WELLUMSON 577 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRANK J HANISH & 561 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WALTER J & LUCY K BURKE 557 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERWIN C & CLARA M SIDER 553 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RUTH M THONANDER 549 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHY J MCKIM 533 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 IRVING L & GERALDINE M JOHNSON 537 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS C & KATHREEN A FAUST 541 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 D JACQUELINE FLEMING 545 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD P & ADELINE R HARRIS 529 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HARLOW A NELSON 525 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Use template for 5160® BEVERLY E CHRISTENSEN 517 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BERNARD M & JOANN C GA YTKO 521 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT C & SUSAN J ERICKSON 513 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MONICA M GALUSKA 509 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DEAN D & NANCY E SCHUENKE 505 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JANET E BROWN 501 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARL P & VIRGINIA R PRIOR 500 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT J & JOYCE H ZINNEL 504 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTINE A HUGHES 471 FRISCO CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROSEMARY B WILL 475 FRISCO CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed Sheets™ A.RY A AINSWORTH 8 MISSION HILLS DR IANHASSEN MN 55317 )NALD R& MARY M TAYLOR 2 MISSION HILLS DR IANHASSEN MN 55317 .DlNE N NELSON ¡ FRISCO CT IANHASSEN MN 55317 NEEN D LANDSBERGER ) FRISCO CT AN HASSEN MN 55317 NIEL J SIMPSON t MISSION HILLS DR ANHASSEN MN 55317 .RCIA J JOSEPHSON . MISSION HILLS DR ANHASSEN MN 55317 X D EDISON & ,MISSION HILLS DR ANHASSEN MN 55317 YMOND E & ELEANORE E FROM MISSION HILLS DR AN HASSEN MN 55317 ROLD JR & POLLY L HARTIN MISSION HILLS DR AN HASSEN MN 55317 THRYN M KRAGNESS MISSION HILLS DR A.NHASSEN MN 55317 RODERICK J MCKENZIE & 536 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROGER A WAINWRIGHT 532 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALLEN J COLE 8525 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & EVELYN J KETTLER 8521 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VERNON W & BARBARA L LINDEMA 552 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DIANE M DEPOE 548 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KARLA K THOMSON 8524 MA YFIELD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARY R FISCHER 8520 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PATRICK S & CONSTANCE SULLlVA 8500 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BONITA R MENDEN 8504 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN MN 553 I 7 Use template for 5160® GERRING PROPERTIES INC 1405 EAST WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA MN 55391 JO C THOMPSON 580 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES J & TRUDI A AMUNDSON 8540 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN A & JUDITH A HRUBY 8544 MA YFI ELD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PHILLIP N GRONSETH 592 MISSION WILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARCELLA HOWE-TRUSTEE 596 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN M HOAGLUND 588 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE D STACY 584 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES 2681 LONG LAKE RD ROSEVILLE MN 55113 JOSEPH & GA YLE HAUTMAN 8551 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed Sheets™ Use template for 5160® BEVERLY A FIEDLER 852\ TlGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRENT W POPPENHAGEN & 8501 TlaUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID & SHARON NICKOLA Y 8500 TlGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DA VID T & CORRINE A NAGEL 8550 TlaUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN R HARPER 8590 TlaUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC PO BOX 235 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC PO BOX 235 / --- - CHANHASSE~//MN 55317 ~ AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC PO BOX 235 /~- CHAN://MN 55317 AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC PO BOX 235 .____/- CHAN~EN MN 55317 April 20, 2000 Mr. Steve Kroiss S. Kroiss Homes 8905 Cove Pointe Road Eden Prairie, MN. 55347 Dear Steve: This letter is in follow up to our telephone conversation on 4/14/00, my conversations with the Chanhassen planning department and Tony Ferguson, in reference to your proposed plat for Marsh Glen. First, I want to compliment you on the over all site plan, it appears to be well designed for the topography of the site and most of the adjacent neighborhoods. However, as I discussed with you, Lot 8 Block 1 brings up the same identical issues I brought to your and the City's attention earlier this year. The lot next to my property and the Ferguson property is too small. The lot size at a minimum should have a buildable square foot area similar to the Ferguson lot You can not count the square feet of land north of the wetland setback line and say this lot is larger then the City's minimum lot size. Like my property, much of it is north of the setback line and is not buildable. As I discussed with you, Tony Ferguson and Cindy Kirchoff, I am totally opposed to how you have laid out the long driveway, which runs almost three quarters of the way down the Ferguson property line and faces directly into my front yard. Please change the proposed plan so that Block 1, Lots 7 & 8 are combined into one single family lot and put the house pad, so it is aligned with the Ferguson house pad and other home sites on Mission Hills Lane to the south. By doing this, you will allow for a transition from the home sites on Mission Hills Lane and my home in the Rice ~. ~arsh developments. Please call me at 974-5285 if you want to discuss this further and prior to the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Respectfully submitted, / S~-~~-: ¡\1--- David F. Nickolay ~ ccy-dndy Kirchoff, Chari. City Planning Dept, for attachment to the staff report Tony Ferguson -., ,- ~ t:, ~-- '~ ,-; j:. ~ ')OOf1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Cen/(' Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minn"ota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 EnginteTing Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 web www.cí.chanhl1Ssen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Kirchoff, Planner II David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer ~ June 7, 2000 FROM: DATE: SUBJ; Review of Revised Preliminary Plat for Marsh Glen Land Use Review File No. 00-01 Upon review of the plans prepared by Development Engineering dated April 10, 2000, revised May 23, 2000 I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING The revised plan, after review by the Planning Commission, resulted in changing the private drive to a public street The change involves extending the cuI-de sac and rearranging the lot configuration around the cul-de-sac. The difference between the two plans appears minimal. The advantage is less grading, saving trees at the end of lots 5&6, blk.2, less utility infrastructure and minimizing impacts to neighboring properties to the east. The major impact is the pond on Block 2. The plans have been revised to reflect the ponding necessary to meet the city's storm ponding requirements. This involves additional tree loss from the previous plan as staff envisioned. There still is an issue with conveying storm water runoff from the intersection of future Th 101 and Mission Hills Lane. The plans fail to provide storm water treatment of the runoff from this intersection. The plans still need to visit this issue. Staff believes that the runoff can still be routed to the proposed pond however; the applicant has not demonstrated it to the city. The revised plans have not been thoroughly reviewed by the engineering staff to determine if there are any other issues. We reserve the right to add further comments and recommendations prior to final plat considerations. Overall the revised plans with the out the private driveway appears acceptable and preferred over the private drive scenario. Staff will apply any further conditions at time of final plat consideration c: Teresa Burgess, City Engineer/Director of Public Works g:\eng\dave\pc\marsh glen revised plat.doc The Cit"¡ of Chanhassen. A fJowin~ community with clean lakes, quality schoob, a charmin~ downtown. thriviM business". and beautiful parks. A rreat ølace to live, work. and øl CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, VIi Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, and Matt Burton STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Cindy Kirchoff, Planner II; and Teresa Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 13.41 ACRES INTO 19 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF TH 101. NORTH OF MISSION HILLS AND SOUTH OF VILLAGES ON THE PONDS. MARSH GLEN, MSS HOLDINGS. LLC. Public Present: Name Address Tracy Scheid Penny White Tony Ferguson Barb Lindemann Steve & M. Kroiss 451 Mission Hills Court 450 Mission Hills Court 8495 Mission Hills Lane 552 Mission Hills Drive 8905 Cove Point Road Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff? Sidney: Okay Mr. Chair, one question. We had this in our packet for the last Planning Commission. It was withdrawn at that time. What has changed since then, if anything? Kirchoff: Nothing has changed. It's the same proposal that was on the May 3rd agenda. Sidney: Okay. Burton: Mr. Chairman. I was looking at the report, it talks about this is zoned low density residential which is 1.2 to 4 units per acre. And this is 19 units and 13.4 acres. I'm just trying to figure out how that works out. It seems it doesn't even meet 1.2. Kirchoff: The outlots and the water level area are taken out for the net density. Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Burton: With the outIots and all and everything we've got \3.4? Kirchoff: Yes. The total site area is \3.4. Burton: Yeah, so that even goes further the other way. Now you're saying 19 units on 8.6 acres. So it's .6, rough math units per acre. Peterson: Why don't you walk through your question again Matt. Now that all those numbers. Burton: Right on page 2 of the report, of our staff report, at the first paragraph it says it's guided low density residential which is 1.2 to 4 units per acre. And this entire project is 13.4 acres and there are 19 units. But they're actually only building on 8.6. So even if you go with the 13, you're I think it's about.7 units. A unit for every. Kirchoff: It could be 4 units per acre so it could 4 times 13. Conrad: Matt, you can build on 15,000 square feet and this is really low density. Kind: Yeah, it could be 4 units per acre. Conrad: Yeah. Peterson: He was thinking about it backwards. Burton: I'm going in reverse. Conrad: They're way down. Kind: It could be 4 times 8 which is 32. Burton: I knew that. Okay, I'm sorry. It might have been the math difference, never mind somehow. Kirchoff: No problem. Peterson: You're using the old math versus the new math. I do it often. Burton: The other question I had, hopefully it's more. .. than the first was you had mentioned that the preservation areas appear questionable and can you expand on that? Are there any conditions that address that? I just noticed that as I was reading it again. Kirchoff: Yes. There is a condition that, let's state it backwards. There is a condition that the canopy calculations be reconfigured. That is number 6. The Forester did review the plan and according to the applicant 36% of the site will be saved. Of canopy will be saved. And that will 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 have to be revised before it goes to the council. And 35% is the minimum that's permitted to be saved. They're I % over that. According to their proposal. Burton: Okay. I did have actually one other question. In reading the Fire Marshal's memorandum he's discussing that private drives in Block 2 and he states that he'd prefer to see some type of turn around and then he goes on that one possible alternative may be a residential fire sprinkler and at this point further discussion should occur between Planning and the Fire Department. I didn't see any conditions relating to that and I was just wondering if there were other discussions and whether that was evaluated at all. Kirchoff: Yes. After further discussion the Fire Marshal decided to leave that condition and that's why it wasn't included in the conditions of approval of the subdivision. Sacchet: Mr. Chairman. In the staff report it says that a second storm water pond may be necessary. Is it or isn't it? What does it depend on? Can you elaborate on that one? Kirchoff: Maybe I can defer this question to Teresa, our new Public Works Director/City Engineer. Burgess: There's some concern that the grades won't work. The developer feels that they will work. The engineering department has identified that we have some concerns. That's why we have put it in there. It is a possibility. lfit works with only one pond, we're open to that idea but we do want to make sure that the developer's aware that looking at it from our end, we're thinking that a second pond is probably necessary. Sacchet: So at this point there is a disagreement between the staff and the developer on that? Burgess: The developer believes that he can make it work with one pond, but staff looking at the grades as they are shown has some concerns and so we have put in potential for a second pond. Sacchet: So you're not sure yet? Burgess: We're not sure. Until we have the actual development is actually built, there is some gray area until the actual design is done. At this point we believe that a second pond is necessary. Sacchet: But you can't say until you see the final. Burgess: Until we see the final design of the homes to see if the final grading does work. At this time we're not requiring a second pond. We're just saying it's a potential need. Sacchet: Okay. Now my second question is kind of a math question too. In establishing those percentages of tree cover, is that including the outlots? Kirchoff: Yes it is. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Sacchet: It is? Okay. Peterson: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Where would the second pond go? Burgess: We've identified the potential for it to go on the northwest corner of the property, or to the property just to the south of the public street in the northwest corner of that property. The lots would need to be reconfigured to allow for that and there's a potential that one lot may be lost. Kind: And question for Cindy I believe. When we were presented this project as a PUD there were 30 homes. And the question was asked at that time how many homes, if this went in as a straight subdivision, how many homes would there be and the answer was 30. And to me that was part of the rationale for approving the PUD and now we see it as a straight subdivision with 19 homes. That's a pretty big gap from what we were told. Could you speak to that at all? Kirchoff: Certainly. I think it was around 27,28 that we projected. It was an error on staffs part that that many could conceivably be placed on the lot. However we were approving it based upon it meeting the density requirement that is required as part ofthe comp plan. That was our basis for recommending approval. Kind: The 4 number that Matt was talking about earlier is 8 something acres times 4 gives them 32. And that's kind of roughly. Kirchoff: Actually it met the low density requirements. However they had to change the comprehensive plan designation to medium density because ofPUD requirements. Kind: To me this is an example of where the math and the reality don't match and they really can't get 30. I don't see how you could get 30 and meet our setbacks in here and it was an interesting lesson for me to learn. I wanted that part of the public record so that maybe some of my fellow commissioners would also notice that. Also, a question about the flag lots and the private drive lots. Can we include conditions that restrict how they're oriented on those lots? I'm thinking about that Creekside home where there's a front door in somebody's back yard because the house is oriented funny on the lot. Can we include a condition about orientation? Kirchoff: We could. However Lot 8, which is I believe the one you're speaking about. It would be logical for the back of the house to overlook the lake, not towards the side of the house. Kind: But like the front, that one's probably not as big of a deal to me as number 5. Or number, actually number 6 on Block 2. They could put their front door in number 5's back yard if they oriented the house differently. So it would be acceptable or legal for us to include conditions about home orientation? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 Al-Jaff: The way the ordinance reads is you have a buildable area. It doesn't talk about how you should orient the house. Kind: Right, which is I think what happened in Creekside. There was no rules about how to orient it and the builder or homeowner decided to turn the house on the house pad. I think they look fine the way they're shown on this plat but somebody else might decide they want to put their front door facing house number 5. Kirchoff: The applicant had spoken to me today regarding this issue and they indicated to us that they would be placing the homes. Kind: In a normal way? Kirchoff: That fashion on the lot. Not guaranteeing exac~ly where the garage would be on the site but that configuration. That the front door would be facing, or the garage would be facing this direction. Kind: Okay. Kirchoff: Using logic. Kind: Yeah, I mean to me any logical person would never have done what was done at Creekside though. So I'm trying to avoid that happening again. So it would be okay to include a condition to that? Peterson: I doubt it. Kind You doubt it? Okay. I'll put it under my strongly consider that. Peterson: Exactly. Kind: Oh and then speaking of private drives, is there a rule as far as how many homes can be serviced by a private drive? Kirchoff: Yes. The subdivision ordinance says four homes. Kind: Really? Kirchoff: Yes. Kind: Interesting. And then future 101 will be coming in along the back side of I, 2 and 3 on the west side. Will those homeowners be notified that, where lO I is going to be? Is that part of a waiver that they need to sign with the city or how does that work? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 Kirchoff: It's included into the conditions and then into the developers agreement that those homeowners when they're purchased will be informed. The developers agreement is recorded against the property so any future homeowners purchasing this property, doing their due diligence will locate that agreement. Kind: Did I miss that? Is that condition in here? Kirchoff: It's in the agreement. The developers agreement. Kind: Which we don't see? Peterson: No. Kind: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Sure. Cindy, when we made the motion to approve, when this came in before a couple months ago, we did have some recommendations. I don't know what they were. I'm curious if they were incorporated. Kirchoff: The main condition was the exterior of the proposed home. Conrad: Well, we had some conditions on the flag lot. That Block I, number 8 in terms of screening. We had some conditions for Block 2, Lots 5, 6 and 7 in terms ofthe screening for the neighbors in terms of where the drive came in. I'm just curious how you handled those. Kirchoff: In that particular proposal it was a PUD so we could request additional screening. This is a straight subdivision. Conrad: And we don't have that control, okay. Kirchoff: Yes. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, just one more question. The reason the City Council did not like what we sent forward was what? Density? Kirchoff: The comprehensive plan change was a big concern. And also the transition between the existing homes in Mission Hills and then the townhomes that were proposed. Conrad: Okay. Kirchoff: They did like the proposal itself. They thought it was a fine addition to the community. However they were concerned about the comprehensive plan change. They wanted to make sure it was within that low density range. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 Conrad: Okay. Peterson: Okay, other questions? Okay, thank you. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Steve Kroiss: Good evening. Steve Kroiss with MSS Holdings. Thank you for looking at our proposal again tonight. As you are well aware, we did promote this as a PUD before. . . with the neighbors and everything, it just didn't seem to work out so here we are with a single family subdivision. The biggest thing that I really want to address with everybody here is the fact that all our lots are meeting all the necessary requirements. All the side setbacks. Front setbacks. Everything we had done here meeting all the city requirements. I've even gone so far as to actually show homes that we have done in the past so these are very realistic pads with the homes that we'll work on the pads that may go out there. These homes will probably be in about 1,700 to 2,800 square foot range. We'll probably end up doing some ramblers and two story. Price range will run from anywhere from $200 to about $450. Probably two's on the, facing lOl and obviously the four's abutting Marsh Glen. Really I don't have a lot of other things to say at this time other than the fact that we will work with staff. I am working with my engineer now. I know that this pond will work. There will not be a need for a second pond. I've already talked to Dave Hempel a little bit more about that and I don't think that's going to be a problem at all. . We will be screening out here as well with a berm and landscaping along lOJ. I've also worked with Todd Hoffman over at Park and Rec and we have come to an agreement that we are actually going to be putting the trail down between our houses to connect to the future trail and to the park system. So we have no, I'll leave it at that if you have any questions for me. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Questions of the applicant? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. On page 2, Sheet Number 2 of5, it's been labeled the utility plans. For me that's the easiest one to look at because that's got the houses on it. Lot number 5 on Block 2, see the rear yard setback is to the south and so should that be 30 feet? That setback line be 30 feet? Steve Kroiss: That is correct. That is 30 feet. Kind: Tell me which lines are the setback lines. Steve Kroiss: Oh, she's over here. Yes, that is 30 feet. Are you referring to here? Kind: The dark lines are the building pads, right? Steve Kroiss: Yes. Kind: And then there's a dotted line that indicates the setback? That's at least what the arrow says, setback line. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Steve Kroiss: Oh, this is an easement line that's allowed through all of the properties. So are you asking me what my setback is here? Kind: I'm guessing it's 30 feet. Steve Kroiss: Yes. Kind: That bold line. Steve Kroiss: That is correct. That is 30 feet. Kind: And then what's labeled as the setback line, what I'm trying to clarify and to a potential homeowner and to where they can put their deck. Steve Kroiss: Oh, the decks? You would still have enough room here. You've got to realize that this house may not be the house that will be built. Kind: Right. Steve Kroiss: We have over, I think I've got like 55 feet here to work with so we're a custom builder. We would make that work out so they would not have an issue with that. Kind: As far as clear communication though to a client, they need to know that that should be 30 feet from that property line. The setback. Steve Kroiss: They will definitely know that, yes. Kind: And then the same issue on Lot 1, Block 2. That home is on the corner and so it needs to be 30 feet off of both streets? Steve Kroiss: Yes it is. The computer has made an error there. They have not shown the side setback and what would be abutting the Mission Hills. And we apologize for that but even with that you will have over 70 feet to make a house work. Kind: I just want to make sure. Steve Kroiss: It's a computer error mostly. Kind: Yeah. And then Cindy mentioned that you would like to put the trail between Lot 3 and 4. Steve Kroiss: That is correct. Kind: And would it go through the wetland or kind of skirt around it? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 Steve Kroiss: No, no. It will skirt, we'll skirt around the wetland here. I actually did a little drawing for Todd and Todd was acceptable... That's what it would look like. Kind: So that will go quite a bit into that person's property, of Lot 4? Steve Kroiss: No, really it just touches the edge of it here. What you see here, we've already been working on revisions. The new lot lines are really going to be here along the wetland so this, it's been revised already and so you're looking at what would be the new revision. Kind: And will there be monuments out at the corners so the homeowners know where they can mow to? This kind of came up with Longacres. People seemed to mow further into the wetland and put swingsets and things. Steve Kroiss: I believe there are posts now that are usually put for wetland areas showing the wetlands. They do that in other places so I'm assuming the city is going to require us to do it here. I don't have a problem with that. Kind: Is that something that we require? AI-JaIT: Our ordinance requires wetland buffer monumentation so we could incorporate those into the plan. Kind: And then I noticed on the landscape plan that there is no landscape berm between, you mentioned that you were going to put one in between that private drive and the adjoining property. But it's not on the landscape plan. Steve Kroiss: You mean over here? Kind: Right. Steve Kroiss: No. We're putting a landscape berm over here on 10I. Kind: Okay. I thought I heard you say along the private drive so glad I asked. So what the landscape plan shows is what you're going to do. Okay. Oh, on Lot number 5. Maybe this is a staff question, I'm not sure but on Lot number 5, Block 2, the depth is supposed to be 125 feet. When I measure it I come up with 114. How do you measure a lot that's irregularly shaped like that? Kirchoff: We take this distance and this distance and average it. ¡fit's not a nice rectangular shaped or square lot, it can be a little more difficult. Kind: Because of the angle though you don't get nearly that depth that's kind of the spirit of the rule I don't think. Steve Kroiss: What the depth is is what you're asking? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Kind: Yes, of Lot number 5. Our ordinance requires 125. Do you measure it from the curb? Steve Kroiss: 112. Kind: Right, which is short because we require 125. If from the middle it's 112, 114, something like that. To me that's how I would measure it. I think that one's a little short. That's the one that I'm concerned about seeing a variance for a deck on in a few months because they're not going to have room. And I'll just keep going, is that okay? I have a couple of nits to add. The lake is labeled as Marsh Glen Lake. The name of the lake is Rice Marsh Lake and I think it should be changed on the plat to be what the real name of the lake is. I know that's a nit but there's some confusion in our neighborhood as to what the name of the creek behind us was. A lot of people assume it's Stone Creek. Some people in Trotter's Ridge think it's Bridle Creek and it's really Bluff Creek. And if neighbors had known that that was Bluff Creek, their ears would have perked up for Bluff Creek Overlay District but they thought they were living on Stone Creek and were very surprised to find out it was actually Bluff Creek. So I think the name of the lake needs to be right so homeowners know what lake they're on and if there's any stuff happening on Rice Marsh Lake, they'll know what their lake is. A property line for Lot II, Block 2, that's that funky shaped lot. I call it the funky shaped lot. Could it be revised so that the back lot line is off that point rather than having a little triangle shape for that homeowner to mow or figure out where their property is? Steve Kroiss: You mean here? Kind: Yep. Steve Kroiss: Sure. I suppose as long as we meet the requirement of the size of lots. Kind: Yeah, it's 18,000. It seems like it wouldn't. Steve Kroiss: I think we can accommodate it. Kind: I know I can't make you do that but ljust kind of aesthetics wise and knowing, trying to figure out where to mow. Steve Kroiss: Cindy, it all depends whether that can still be considered the rear lot line there. Or rear yard. I only say that if it can be considered still as a rear yard. Kind: Yeah. Since there's an angle there I'm sure it can. Kirchoff: This area right here would be considered a rear yard. .. Kind: It would be straight. Steve Kroiss: Then I do have... 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 Kind: It would not be straight. It would be a slight angle. Whatever. Whatever. I think it could still be a rear but, yeah. I know how mowing in our neighborhood is. I would hate to mow a lot that that's shape. And speaking oflot shapes, number 7, Block J. That house, the orientation I understand probably preserves some trees. Steve Kroiss: Yes, we'd like to preserve some trees. To be honest with you, this particular lot probably could handle several different types of homes. Ijust happened to put that one up there. We could do a courtyard. I have choices there. Kind: It just seems aligned a little funny to me and I thought it was to preserve the trees. Steve Kroiss: I'll probably have a few trees in there that I'd want to take into consideration. Kind: Yeah. Steve Kroiss: Trees are an issue here. I want to save as many as I can. That's what is so important along here especially. Kind: I really appreciate that effort because I love the trees in our neighborhood and what's sad in our neighborhood, and I'm afraid it's going to happen here is that the homes that were oriented around trees, now look kind of funny because the trees have died and are gone. Steve Kroiss: Along here you have, there are some really awesome trees. Kind: Yeah, it's beautiful and I appreciate that. I just want to caution you against two goofy positioning of homes and then you end up with nO...That's aliI have for now. Peterson: Any other questions? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. The applicant. One of the conditions in the staff report addresses a change or a revision in the plan schedule. Are you okay with revising the landscape plan? Steve Kroiss: Oh absolutely. Sidney: You have? Steve Kroiss: We're already in the works of doing that to accommodate the tree loss and so on and so forth, so yes we have. Sidney: Okay, and then also I guess I was prepared to modify that condition so that it included an instruction to have a detailed tree preservation plan. Steve Kroiss: We will have that. II Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 Sidney: You will have that? Okay. Steve Kroiss: Yes. That's part of our. Sidney: Very good. Peterson: Thank you. Steve Kroiss: Thank you. Peterson: Any more questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I have one more question. Peterson: Wait, wait. We've got one more question. Sacchet: Can I ask you one more question. With the path going between those two lots, does that affect the width of the lot at all? Steve Kroiss: The what of the lot? Sacchet: The width. Steve Kroiss: No. It's, what the city's asking for is a 20 foot easement to go through there which actually works out so my buildable pad that would work right between that and it's an 8 foot trail. It wasn't exactly my desire but I'm working with staff on that and the city would like to see that and so I'm going to work with the city on that. It seemed to be the most logical place to go through. Sacchet: And you're confident you can do that without having to revise? Steve Kroiss: Yeah, and it works out the best for elevations too. The elevation is somewhat... through there. I mean it's the least break. Sacchet: What kind of jumped out at me is, by having the Lot 8 being a little too narrow and then having the path having to go in, and then potentially needing another pond. It all kind of adds up a little bit and ultimately would probably translate into losing a lot for you. Now you're totally confident that you can do without that second pond? Steve Kroiss: Yes. We have actually worked out the numbers, the calculations so we know that it will work. Sacchet: Because I think it would also play into the issue with the tree cover percentage. Like if that has to be revised and you're pretty much at the limit already, if you would have all these 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 other components, have one lot less, you probably could make a better tree cover percentage that way too. Steve Kroiss: No, we'll be just fine. We'll make our tree, the amount of trees against, the ponding will be. It will work out just fine. And we have no need for a second pond. We've already worked on it so. Sacchet: Okay. That answers my question, thanks. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, BIackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward and state your name and address please. Tony Ferguson: Good evening. My name is Tony Ferguson. I live at 8495 Mission Hills Lane. And I can point to that on the map. This is my home. Mr. Chairman, council members. I have some brief comments to make regarding the plan. First I want to express that I have had the opportunity to review the preliminary plat and speak with Mr. Kroiss in an informal meeting prior to this meeting about my feelings. I'd like to take this opportunity to express my feelings to you as well. I have sent an e-mail into the city regarding my thoughts and feelings. First I guess I would like to compliment Mr. Kroiss for working on, working with the city planners and putting together a very nice single family home. It's a much better plan than, I feel than was previously presented. The new plan provides much better continuity with the existing homes and falls within the current zoning which is also a nice, which is what the residents asked for. However there is one issue that remains and this is not a new item as it was also expressed as a concern during the proceedings related to the original plan. On Lot 8, Block I, in this area of the plan, there is a flag lot with a home that is completely out of place and contrary to the orientation of the original, to the other homes in the neighborhood, this home is tucked back behind the other h"mes and has the appearance of being in our back yards. From my back yard I'll be looking into the front of this home and also from Block 1, Lot 7, they'll have a home situated in the rear of their lots similar to what you find on Stone Creek, and I think that was the home that was referred to earlier in our discussions. Which is completely out of place in that position. So I would like to state that I am completely opposed to the layout of that one lot and would like to see that eliminated and I would request to the council to please eliminate that lot from the plan and provide a more consistent look, more consistent curb appeal and alignment of the homes along the street in that area. Thank you for your consideration. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Penny White: Hi. My name's Penny White and I live at 450 Mission Hills Court, and I'm right here on the map. I just have a question and it might be in the staff report. I have not looked at it yet but I'm wondering if the sight lines at this curve have, I'm just, because I had trouble figuring I3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 out... I'm wondering how sharp of a curve that is coming in. Is it like a direct right turn? And I'm just curious just for a safety issue. Who to ask best of staff or to ask the developer. Peterson: Teresa, can you speak to that? Burgess: I'm not sure what the actual design speed is on there but it is looked at when it comes in as a public street for meeting sight lines and that is purposely set back... When it comes in for final plans we will be looking at it as well. But I know that Dave Hempel as part of his review to look at the street as being a safe street. So we are aware of it. Penny White: What if just by chance, when he does look at it they decide it's not safe, is there even any room for them to do anything? I mean do they just still go forward with it or how do they, because this is you know, there's not a lot of room for them to push it back this way into the wetland. I mean not that they'd push the road back that far but you can't push the homes back any further. So I just wonder, I mean I guess I feel like probably nothing would really happen because there's nowhere to move it so. Burgess: The review would have been done with the preliminary plat.. .at that time. I didn't go through the actual review on this plan. Dave Hempel, our Assistant City Engineer would have looked at that and he would have been looking at for design speeds to make sure that it can meet the design speeds of the neighborhood. If there is a problem in the future once it's constructed ~ and you start to see a problem, people are going around this corner too quickly, we would address that working with the neighborhood. And we would try to work with them to find out why there's a problem and address the cause... Penny White: Okay. And then I just had one other question, just an aesthetics question, and maybe no one can even answer. I'Ip wondering if we have, you know there's a lot of trees back here. I'm wondering if you know how many will be going, just for planning. We're planting. This is petty but we're plenty things back there so we just kind of know ifthere's still going to be a lot of shade or is it going to be gone. .. .Are they marked by any chance? SIeve Kroiss: Yes they are. Any trees that are marked are significant trees and will be preserved or taken out depending. In your particular case there probably is not going to be any need to take down trees except for what will need to make the road right-of-way. ... we would save those trees. Penny White: Okay. I was just curious... paint on there or? Steve Kroiss: No, there's actually a metal tag.. . and the significant trees are numbered. Penny White: Okay, that's all. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for your time. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Motion to close? Burton moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 Peterson: Commissioners, your thoughts on this one? Second time around. No thoughts? Sidney: Looks good to me. Peterson: Deb. Kind: I'm wondering if staff could speak to flag lots and when they're allowed and not allowed and private drives. I'm concerned about Mr. Ferguson's situation and also the private drive lots too. As long as they meet the square footage for the lot size, that's kind of the measure, is that how it works? Al-Jaff: There are a couple of criteria they need to meet. 30 foot frontage on a public street. Then wherever they reach the 100 foot width, that's where we measure the 30 foot setback. I mean basically that was the only two conditions. Those were the only two conditions for a flag lot. They were intended for long lots that were farmed many years back and then someone wants to sell it and build on it. I don't know if you have specific questions on flag lots. Kind: I share his issue. Flag lots just kind of bug me. They're like, just sticking them in there and if! had bought the home, Mr. Ferguson's home, I would have never dreamed in a million years that there would have been a house kind of shoe horned in back there. And I guess with the new high water mark that we're measuring from, does that lot still meet the 15,000 number? The way we're not measuring the lot sizes. Kirchoff: The applicant will have to demonstrate that it does. Otherwise it will have to be removed from the plat. Kind: Okay. Peterson: Other questions or comments? Kind: I'll just keep going. I think the plan is, meets all our setbacks. All our ordinance rules. I think it's pretty clear that it does. I may not like some of the rules that it meets but not my choice. There's a couple conditions that I think need to be added that LuAnn pointed out and the plan needs to be revised to include the right setbacks. But otherwise I think staff did a good job with the report. Everything looks good. Peterson: Okay, other comments? Cindy. Kirchoff: I just have a comment regarding Lot 5, Block 2 that Commissioner Kind brought up. We could put a condition of approval that says the applicant shall demonstrate that Lot 5 has 125 feet of depth as you had mentioned. Kind: Yeah. Measured from where? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Kirchoff: We could, right down the middle as you had shown. Kind: Okay. Kirchoff: Could you shorten the cul-de-sac perhaps? We can add that in as a condition. Kind: Yep, good. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I just have a couple of comments. I would like to see a condition addressing the second NURP pond. Something to the effect that the applicant must add a second· NURP pond unless they can satisfactorily demonstrate that a single pond will suffice. And I'd also like to see a condition regarding the wetland buffer monuments and just incorporate that into the record. I like the Lot 5, Block 2 comment regarding depth. And I too am not a big fan of flag lots and I'd certainly like to see 7 and 8 combined in some way and things shifted. I don't know that that can happen but 8 seems just like an after thought. It's not you know it's there to squeeze an extra house in and that's, other than that I don't see it really serves a purpose to, kind of an after thought to the neighborhood. That's how I see it. But aside from that, with those couple conditions, it meets the requirements. Peterson: Other comments? Burton: Mr. Chairman. I agree with the comments. I'm not really going to duplicate them and just to have something on the record, I'm not happy with Block 1, Lot 8 either but it does appear that it's met the zoning requirements so I don't know there's much we can do about it. Peterson: Okay. Sacchet: Talking about this flag lot. Personally I feel it's a little bit jammed and I think it's inconsistent with having a price range of close to half a million dollar house back there. I think if you're aiming at having houses back there against a marsh that are approaching half a million dollar value, it would be much more consistent in giving them a little more space. That in addition to jamming in a path which probably will work, but that also I consider inconsistent with trying to make them a little higher value homes. Plus the question with the pond is still being open. I do feel it's crowded. That stretch. That's really the best part of your development there which is a wonderful development I think. There could be a value in leveraging it as high value as. Steve Kroiss: Are you inviting a comment from me? Peterson: Well, we're just planting seeds. Sacchet: That's my comment. Peterson: Thank you. Anything Ladd? I'll entertain a motion. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Kind: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat (SUB 00-1) to subdivide 13.41 acres into 19 single family lots and two outlots as shown on the plans prepared April 10, 2000 with the following conditions, I through 27 with a few additions. Number 7 be revised to say, a detailed tree preservation plan and a revised landscaping plan including a greater variety of trees and shrubs should be submitted to staff for approval. Are you adding that to that one LuAnn? Sidney: That's it. Kind: That's it. Okay, for number 7. Number 20 should be revised to indicate that the trail easement will be between Lot 3 and 4. Okay, moving right along. Number, and adding a number 28 that says homes on the flag lot and private drive lots must be oriented as shown on the approved plat. Number 29. Or wait, we decided I couldn't say that didn't we? Never mind. Not 28. Strongly encourage you to do that. 28. Revise the plat to show increased depth of 125 feet and show a 30 foot rear yard setback for Lot 5, Block 2. And revise the plat to show a 30 foot setback for both street frontages on Lot I, Block 2. And then number 30. Correct the name of the lake to Rice Marsh Lake on all plans. Peterson: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Blackowiak: Is this the time where I'd like to make my amendments? My friendly amendments. I think it would be 31 and 32. Is that where I'm at? Kind: Yep. Blackowiak: 31 would be to add the second NURP pond unless the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate the single pond will suffice. Kind: I think that's number 30. Blackowiak: That would be 31 I believe. Kind: I only added two. Burton: Well we can just say the next number. Blackowiak: Okay, the next number. Somebody else can renumber. And then the final condition that I'll add was that wetland buffer monuments be placed on all applicable lots to delineate property lines... Kind: Thank you for remembering that. Friendly amendments accepted. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 Peterson: An additional point of discussion. I'm a little bit leery about Block 2, Lot 5 when we say we're going to reposition to meet that setback or to meet the 125 feet. I'm leery to say we're requiring that without knowing the impact of moving it. rfwe move it, whether it would change the cul-de-sac, r don't want us to force to move it back at the cost of, at a more significant cost. Kind: Our ordinance requires 125 foot depth. Peterson: Well but historically, we just changed the way we measured tonight. r don't know whether that's the most prudent way to move ahead. rfwe historically have always measured it the other way than we just made a pretty dramatic change tonight and I don't know whether or not we should be doing that. I'm just leery about, if we force that, what's this going to look like up here and we won't be able to see it. It could be more onerous than the other way. Kind: r get your drift. Peterson: And I don't know the answer to that but it could potentially be a big change. Kind: It's off by about lO feet right now. It's 114. They need to add II feet or. Peterson: Maybe would you be open to letting staff and the applicant work together on that with the desire to do that unless it's onerous the opposing way? Kind: So revise that number 28 to have staff and the applicant review the depth of Lot 5, Block 2 and make sure it meets ordinance. Peterson: With a desire to move it to 125, if at all possible. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman. lfwe're approving this and it doesn't meet it, don't we have to have a variance? Peterson: Well if we considered measuring it in the first way, it met it. Blackowiak: Did it? Okay, is that true? Kirchoff: Yes. Peterson: And that's the way we've measured lots before so again I'm just concerned that we make a unilateral change about how we measure lots across the city tonight. Blackowiak: Yeah. Well then r would certainly concur with you saying staff and applicant work together. Peterson: Okay. Any further discussion? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval ofthe preliminary plat (SUB #00-1) to subdivide 13.41 acres into 19 single family lots and 2 outlots as shown on the plans prepared April 10, 2000, with the following conditions: J. The property lines for Lot 3, Block 2 shall be revised to maintain the required 90 foot width at the 30 foot setback. 2. Outlot B shall be extended south and west to the 75 foot buffer indicated on the preliminary plat. It shall be demonstrated that Lots 4-8, Block I maintain the minimum 15,000 sq. ft. lot area and 90 foot lot width as required by the shoreland ordinance. 3. The property lines for Lot 8, Block 1 shall be revised to maintain a minimum 100 feet of width. 4. All signage shall comply with Article XXVI of the City Code. 5. Park and trail fees are required. Park fees are $1,200 per dwelling unit and trail fees are $400 per dwelling unit. One-third of these fees are required with the final plat and the remaining two-thirds will be paid with each building permit. The applicant can coordinate this construction and be credited appropriately. 6. The canopy calculations shall be revised to reflect the full potential of grading impacts to tree loss or the applicant shall provide other documents to support proposed calculations. 7. A detailed tree preservation plan and a revised landscaping plan including a greater variety of trees and shrubs should be submitted to stafffor approval. 8. Buffer yard plantings shall be increased to meet minimum ordinance requirements. 9. One hundred percent screening shall be installed along Lot I, Block I and Lots 1-3, Block 2 to provide buffering from future TH 101. 10. The Fire Marshall conditions are as follows: a. On Block 2, Lots 6 and 7, additional address numbers must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification pursuant to Policy #29-1992. Submit plans to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. b. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 c. A ten-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. d. If any trees or shrubs are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off site due to close proximity of neighboring homes. No burning permits will be issued. e. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Two will need to be relocated. This will be reviewed with the City Engineer and corrections will be made on his plan. II. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 12. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed storm water calcµlations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet Model. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. 14. The applicant will be responsible for a $19,918.80 water quantity connection fee and $8,048 for water quality fees due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording. 15. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies i.e. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 17. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within the City's right-of-way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained along the City's right-of-way. 18. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 19. The drive aisle width on the private street shall be a minimum of20 feet wide bituminous surface and built to 7 ton axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-57 0-1 and 20-110 I. On street parking on the private street shall be prohibited. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared and recorded by the developer over Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 2 in favor of the property owners. The minimum driveway easement width shall be 30 feet wide. 20. The developer shall dedicate to the City a 20 foot wide trail easement between Lots 3 and 4, Block I to Outlot B. The exact alignment shall be determined in the field by staff. Compensation for the easement shall be applied to the developer's trail fees. 21. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat the following easements to the City at no cost: a. A 50 foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing sanitary sewer line through Outlot A. b. Utility and drainage easements over all utilities, storm water ponds and wetlands outside of the right-of-way. The minimum easement width over the utilities shall be 20 feet wide depending on the depth of the utility. Drainage easements over all ponds and wetlands shall be up to the 100 year flood level. 22. The plans shall be revised as follows: a. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds and wetlands shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100 year flood level. b. The street grade at the west end of Mission Hills Lane shall be lowered to 891± to match grade with the future intersection of Trunk Highway 101 and Mission Hills Lane. c. Provide emergency overflow swales for all ponds. d. Designate dwelling types on grading plan, i.e. walkout, lookout, and rambler with lowest floor, t.op of block and garage floor elevations. e. Show existing structures and well location on grading plan. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 f. The sanitary sewer and watermain lines through Outlot A and the City's property (underneath future Trunk Highway 101) shall be cased. g. Provide ponding in accordance with NURP standards for development runoff. Pond slopes shall be 3: I with a 10:1 bench for the first one foot depth of water or 4:1 slopes overall. h. Denote Lots 6-8, Block 1 as "custom graded" on the grading plan. 1. Tree preservation fencing will need to be denoted on the final grading and drainage plan. J. Show a rock construction entrance at access points to the site. 23. All lots, except the first building permit, shall be subject to current City sewer and water hook-up charges. The hook-up charges are due at time of building permit issuance. 24. The developer and future property owners should be aware there may not be any noise abatement improvements constructed in conjunction with the upgrade of Trunk Highway 10J. Provisions for noise abatement (landscaping/berming) should be included in these development plans. 25. Mission Hills Lane is a temporary dead end street. In the future when Trunk Highway lO I is upgraded to urban standards Mission Hills Lane will be connected. 26. Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block I shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading, drainage, (ree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approvaì ·at time of building permit application. 27. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the appropriate building permits for demolition of the building, disconnection of the sanitary sewer and well abandonment. 28. Staff and the applicant shall work together to ensure that the depth of Lot 5, Block 2 meets the ordinance, and to show a 30 foot rear yard setback for Lot 5, Block 2, The applicant will also revise the plat to show a 30 foot setback for both street . frontages on Lot 1, Block 2. 29. Correct the name of the lake to Rice Marsh Lake on all plans. 30. The applicant shall add a second NURP pond unless the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate the single pond will suffice. 31. Wetland buffer monuments be placed on all applicable lots to delineate the property lines. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LuAnn Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 3, 2000 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Kind: I have a question. Do we elect our chair today? And Vice Chair? Peterson: No. Kind: When do we do that? Peterson: Next time. Sidney: I'm wondering when these items that were deleted will be back. Kirchoff: Thank you for asking. They will be on the next Planning Commission meeting which is now moved to Tuesday so it will be on June 6th. Sidney: Okay. Kind: We're meeting on Tuesdays now? Kirchoff: Yes. Kind: Forever and ever? Kirchoff: Yes. Kind: I must have missed that meeting. Peterson: Did you get my e-mail? Kind: No. Peterson: You're the only one who didn't respond to my e-mail. Kind: I bet you have an old e-mail address. Peterson: I got it from Kate. Kind: Doesn't mean it's any good. I did not get that e-mail. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 Peterson: Is Tuesday an issue? Kind: No. Peterson: Open Discussion. Anything? Kind: Yes. I have something that I want to hand out. This is kind of a synopsis from our joint meeting with the City Council of some of the items that we discussed and some potential projects for our planning department. And I don't know that it makes sense to discuss them tonight but I wanted to kind of jot them down and maybe include this as an item under old business at a future meeting for discussions as to whether we should direct staff to work on any of these projects or not. Peterson: I think it's a great idea. I also kind of followed up with the Mayor afterwards and I think that we have an opportunity as a commission to be, as Ladd said it very well, be more proactive and think about the future instead of thinking about today and what's in front of us and being forced into having a developer come in and say I'm ready to do this now but I have to do it this way otherwise I'll move. So if we accept those parameters, and prior to the developer coming in, they would know a lot more and we would have gotten probably a better product. I think it's a great idea and we just, we as a group should probably dedicate some quality time to, whether it's a strategic planning session or just talking about those kind of issues, you know off the record and I think it'd be extremely valuable to set aside time to do that. Kind: Do we have a work session coming up that it makes sense to do that? Peterson: We haven't got one scheduled now but it's on the thing that I'll talk to Kate about getting one in there. During one of the low meetings. Kind: So what do you think makes sense for next steps for addressing some of these ideas? And I know other people have other ideas I'm sure too. Should this be put on our next agenda? Pderson: You know I think a work session is about the only effective way to do that. I don't think public meeting is going to really have the right tone and context of the meeting. I think it's a matter of sitting down and going through these items and others and saying, how can we as a group of people help the city staff through some ofthese issues and how can we give them recommendations so I'd say we have a work session that's not a public hearing and push it forward then. Kind: And how do we, just direct staff to set up a work session for one of our next meetings? Yeah, okay. And hopefully this makes people think of other ideas. You know you read this and say oh yeah. That reminds me of this or that and we can come up with a really long, long list of things for staff to do. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 Conrad: Well the good thing that you should be doing is, tonight your issue was flag lots. That strikes something, you should direct staff to come back. You know we don't have to do all 20 things at one time. Kind: Right. And you notice flag lots is at the bottom of my list there. Conrad: Well they're always an issue. They look out of sorts but there is a purpose for them, but again flag lots is an issue so when it comes up in a project, deal with it. Have staff work on it. We don't direct staff to do squat. Kind: I know. Conrad: We really don't. Really, they're doing what they want to do. And they love it. They just love it. They're totally in control of the seven of us. But ask them to do some research for you. Kind: Weill think the flag lot one, since that came up tonight, I think maybe that might be a good one to pull off of this laundry list I just passed around and have staff educate us a little bit about it and make some recommendations on what can be done to avoid some of the problems. Al-Jaff: A couple of years ago I did a paper on flag lots. Kind: Well just pull it out then and photocopy it. Conrad: Well you're done. It's over with. Al-Jaff: I can have it ready for you by next meeting. Kind: That would be great. So that's my new stuff. Peterson: Good work. Kind: And Pulte status? Eckankar update? I'm interested. Nothing? Kirchoff: Eckankar is scheduled to be on the council meeting next Monday night. Pulte, they haven't submitted new plans as far as I know. AI-Jaff: Power Ridge is coming back. Kind: Who? Al-Jaff: Powers Ridge. Kind: What? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17,2000 AI-Jaff: The site plan for the rest of the buildings. Kind: Oh, we only did building. Al-Jaff: You did Building A. Peterson: A and B I thought. Al-Jaff: A only so they're coming back with B, C, D and the community space. Peterson: But we've essentially seen. Al-Jaff: You're seeing everything. Peterson: But we saw everything before. Al-Jaff: Correct. And there was a condition that it be consistent with the master plan. So it's going to be a straight site plan. Kirchoff: That will be on the next agenda by the way. On June 6th. Kind: On Tuesday. Kirchoff: On Tuesday. And there will be a conditional use permit as well so there will be four items on the next agenda. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, what was that? Kirchoff: There will be a conditional use permit as well for a contractor's yard so we'll have four items on the next agenda. Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 26