Loading...
3. Boulder Cove, Planning Case 06-10 CITY OF CHANIlASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 3 --- MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner Ij~ KY DATE: August 28, 2006 SUBJ: BOULDER COVE, Planning Case 06-10: Request for Rezoning of 12.99 acres of property from Residential Single Family, RSF, to Residential Low and Medium Density District, RLM; Preliminary Plat with Variances to Subdivide 13.69 Acres into 39 Lots and 1 Outlot; and Site Plan Approval for the Construction of 4 Three-Plex Units. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a rezoning, subdivision with variances, and site plan approval for property located north of Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 62nd Street. Access to the site is gained off of a proposed cul-de-sac, south of West 62nd Street, Boulder Cove. At the Planning Commission public hearing, issues were raised by the surrounding property owners. Staff prepared a list of the issues and answers. Staff is still recommending approval with two modified conditions to the site plan application. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 1, 2006 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to approve the proposed development. The summary and verbatim minutes are item 1a of the City Council packet. RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: On August 1, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for this item. A number of issues were raised by the Planning Commission and neighboring property owners. These issues have been paraphrased and are followed by staff's responses: The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Mr. Todd Gerhardt Boulder Cove - Planning Case 06-10 August 28, 2006 Page 2 1. Can more trees be saved on the site? The only locations in which additional trees could be preserved would be at the grading limits. Depending on the amount of cut/fill and the species, health and location of an adjacent tree it may be able to be preserved. This is best determined in the field just prior to grading. The tree replacement plan will meet city ordinance requirements. 2. Who controls access off of Highway 7? MnDOT controls the access along Highway 7, as stated in the report. 3. Why does the City limit the length of a cul-de-sac? Public safety and potable water quality: Public safety: If the street becomes impassable due to a fallen tree or watermain break (for example), this limits the number of homes/residents that will be inconvenienced. Potable water quality: Typically watermain at the end (or "bubble") of cul-de-sacs is not looped. Water within long watermain runs tends to stagnate since there is not many users pulling water from the system. In the case of Boulder Cove, this is not an issue since the watermain will loop under Highway 7. 4. Can the pond be moved to the east? No, the east side is the high side of the property. 5. Can the watermain loop be installed in the same trench as the sanitary sewer connection? Why does the watermain loop have to extend through two adjacent properties? The easement is too narrow. I was told that a 5' wide drainage and utility easement was too narrow when I wanted to extend water to my property. The sanitary sewer is being extended from the Met Council Interceptor line at 620d Street and Strawberry Lane. The City of Chanhassen does not have watermain at this location and does not want to interconnect Chanhassen's watermain with Shorewood's. The watermain looping is critical since the existing service area north of Highway 7 is currently served by only one watermain crossing under Highway 7. Looping the watermain will minimize service disruptions should a watermain break occur north of Highway 7, as stated in the report. There is is-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the Mr. Todd Gerhardt Boulder Cove - Planning Case 06-10 August 28, 2006 Page 3 proposed watermain extension: 10 feet on the Navratil property and 5 feet on the Miller property. The watermain can be safely installed/excavated within the IS-foot wide easement using a box. 6. Why are storm sewers only designed for a to-year storm? It seems we've had several tOO-year storms in the last several years. The engineering industry standard for storm sewer design is a 10-year design storm and a 100-year design storm for storm water ponds. It is not cost effective to install storm pipe to handle the 100-year storm; therefore, emergency overflows, or above-ground routes are identified for excess runoff when a storm exceeds the 10-year design criteria. The rainfall amounts for design storms are based on MnDOT's Intensity- Duration-Frequency Curves, which are based on the US Weather Bureau Technical Paper Number 40. 7. If the sump pumps for the properties west of Boulder Cove are connected to the French Drain, can the developer assume liability if there are adverse effects to these properties? If a resident is concerned about connecting directly to the French drain system, they may elect to discharge their sump pump on the ground surface on top of the French drain system. The developer's engineer will provide further clarification at the City Council meeting if requested. 8. Considering the existing traffic volumes on 620d Street and Strawberry Lane, I feel this development is premature until the streets are widened and sidewalks or trails are installed. Improvements to Strawberry Lane are entirely under the City of Shorewood's jurisdiction. Both the City of Chanhassen and the City of Shorewood have jurisdiction over 620d Street. Improvements to 620d Street are not in either City's 5- Year Capital Improvement Plans. The existing width of 62nd Street is 24 feet, which provides a l2-foot wide travel lane in each direction. 9. There is a 50-year old drain tile that runs from Smithtown Road, 14-mile north with an invert elevation of 964.2', as determined when the Miller home was built. If this drain plugs up, it's not just the three homes west of the development that will be affected, but all homes from Smithtown Road south will be affected. The French drain will be about two feet higher than the existing drain tile, so the French drain will not be useful. There are no as-built drawings showing the location or elevation of this tile. If this tile is encountered during construction, the developer shall redirect the runoff or provide an alternative solution to convey discharge Mr. Todd Gerhardt Boulder Cove - Planning Case 06-10 August 28, 2006 Page 4 from this pipe. The proposed drain tile will be 3 feet below the lowest floor of the adjacent homes. 10. Why won't MnDOT allow a right-inlright-out access onto Highway 7 since there are four existing accesses within the development area? Adding an access point requires adequate spacing. Any access to Highway 7 is governed by MnDOT. 11. The proposal is 79 livable units; each unit would likely have two cars, which is 158 cars. If this area was developed as single-family homes, there would be 24 units; each unit would likely have 3 cars, which is 72 vehicles. The proposal is for 38 units, plus one existing single-family home within the development, plus one home that is not within the final plat, but will access the proposed local street. Page 10 of the staff report includes trip generations based on the current proposal and if the property was a single-family development. Attached is a copy of the report prepared by TDI, the developer's traffic consultant. 12. Can a bike path be constructed from the proposed cul-de-sac to Freeman Park? It would run parallel to Highway 7, as the bike path does on the south side of Highway 7. It would allow total access to the regional trail that runs behind houses. Construction of a trail within the northerly ditch of Highway 7 is possible but would require the investment of significant public resources by three separate agencies - the Cities of Shorewood and Chanhassen and the State of Minnesota. Area residents and the future residents of Boulder Cove already have access to the Regional LRT trail and Freeman Park from 62nd Street. 13. Are there any plans for a path going west on 62nd to get to Cathcart Park? No, not at this time. If 62nd Street is improved in the future it would be appropriate to consider the construction of a sidewalk at that time. A significant hedge of very large Arborvitae trees will need to be removed to facilitate any future improvements on the south side of 62nd Street at this location. 14. When Church Road 2nd Addition was platted, the city required a trail easement be granted along Church Road. "... a 20-foot wide Mr. Todd Gerhardt Boulder Cove - Planning Case 06-10 August 28, 2006 Page 5 easement for potential trail purposes be required along Church Road." The construction of a sidewalk within the right-of-way of Church Road should be considered concurrently with the potential future installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Church Road and Highway 7. 15. Adding a trail will accommodate people who constantly run and jog down the trail to Church Road to Minnewashta Parkway. Construction of a sidewalk or trail along Church Road or 620d Street is not recommended at this time. Future events that will trigger additional consideration of these improvements include the following: a. The installation of Traffic Signals at the Intersection of Church Road and Highway 7. b. The improvement (urbanization) of 620d Street. 16. Was the Minnewashta Landings subdivision required to construct improvements that would be considered extraordinary? Is the proposed stormwater infrastructure in Boulder Cove adequate to accommodate the additional hardcover that will result from the subdivision? Will the additional stormwater being routed through Minnewashta Landings contribute to existing drainage issues? The City requires subdivisions to provide ponding to meet the City's water quality and water quantity requirements in order to mitigate for the water quality and water quantity changes associated with increased hard cover. It is standard practice for ponds to be constructed in upland areas that would otherwise be useable as parts of lots. The standards to which Minnewashta Landings was held and the fees that were paid with the subdivision were no different than with any other subdivision. The Boulder Cove subdivision, as proposed, meets the City's stormwater quality and quantity criteria. The City has rate control criteria, but does not regulate the volume of water leaving sites. The City's consulting engineer has reviewed the Boulder Cove proposal and has concluded that imposing volume control for the stormwater discharges will not significantly help resolve the issues downstream (Attachment 2). In reviewing the calculations for the Minnewashta Landings subdivision, the City recently discovered that the stormwater calculations did not reflect the 10 acres (ditches along the north and south of Highway 7), so the ponds are not sized properly. This is why there have been issues with the ponds overflowing. The City's consulting engineer has provided four (4) options for resolving the drainage issues within Mr. Todd Gerhardt Boulder Cove - Planning Case 06-10 August 28, 2006 Page 6 Minnewashta Landings (Attachment 2). If the City wishes to pursue any of these alternatives, staff recommends it be done independently from the Boulder Cove subdivision. 17. What is the hard surface coverage for this development? Staff assumed that the "Pairhaven" units, which have the largest floor plan (1,810 square feet), were built on all lots with the exception of the middle lot in a tri-plex. Each lot has a 10' x 12' patio, and a 75 square foot sidewalk to the front door of each unit. Staff calculated 24.9% hard surface coverage (attachment 4). The applicant's engineer also calculated the hard surface coverage on the site and is showing 24.9% (attachment 5). RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends adoption of the motion approving the rezoning, preliminary plat with a variance, and site plan as specified in the staff report found on page 22, dated August 1, 2006. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Roger Knutson, City Attorney dated August 10,2006. 2. Letter from Charles J. Howley, P.E. dated August 18, 2006. 3. Letter from Kathy Widen, Plant PathologistIForestry Consultant dated December 2, 2005. 4. Staff's Hard Surface Calculations Table. 5. Applicant's Engineer Hard Surface Calculations. 6. Staff Report dated August 1, 2006. g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-10 boulder cove\executive summary.doc Thornas J. (:arnph~1I RogcrN. Knutson Thon13s M. Scot t Elliott B. Knctsch Joel J. J3rnnik Andrea 1\lcI)owcll Poehler tv1atthc"\\/ K. Brokr John F. Kelly Sorcn M. Mattick I-I t' n r \' :\. S (' h a e fl"(. t. III Alina Schlvartl (: Ll i g R .1\:1 c I ) 0 W' c 1I 1\-1 a r gu c r it c rVL iYl c C: a r r 0 n (;ina M. Brandt. t;f- Also l.icc11.'icd in Wii..cons;n 13S0 Corporate Center Curve Suite 3 1 7 -E a g;J n, )\1 N 5 5 1 2 1 hS 1-452...5000 F~lX 651-452-5550 www.ck-Itlw.con} CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association RECEIVED AUG 1 5 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN *** Direct Dial: (651) 234-6215 E-mail Address:rknutson@Ck-law.com August 10, 2006 Ms. Sharmeen AI-Jaff City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.o. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 5531 7 RE: BOULDER COVE Dear Sharmeen: You asked me to review the legal standards for rezoning property and granting subdivision variances in conjunction with the proposed Boulder Cove development and to comment on Tom Croskey's legal arguments. REZONING A City's decision to rezone or not rezone property is very broad. The only statutory requirement is that the City is prohibited from adopting an amendment to its zoning ordinance that conflicts with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Minn. Stat. 9 473.858, Subd. 7. In adopting or amending a zoning ordinance, a municipality acts in a legislative capacity. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409,414 (Minn. 1981) (citing State. by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. 1978)). In Honn, the supreme court stated: A city council has broad discretion in legislative matters, and even if the city council's decision is debatable, so long as there is a rational basis for -'.,vhat it doe~, the courts do not interfere. Honn, 313 N.W.2d at 415. The supreme court has further emphasized the judiciary's obligation to accord strong deference to municipal decisions: The mere fact that the trial court might have reached a different conclusion, had it been a member of the council, does not invalidate the judgment of the City officials if they acted in good faith and within the broad discretion accorded them by the ordinance itself. The setting aside of routine municipal decisions should be reserved for those rare instances in which the City's decision has no rational basis. Except in such cases, it is the duty of the judiciary to exercise restraint Ms. Sharmeen AI-Jaff City of Chanhassen August 10, 2006 Page 2 and accord appropriate deference to civil authorities in the performance of their duties. White Bear Docking & Storage.. Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake, 324 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Minn. 1982). The standard of review for legislative zoning decisions is narrow. "As a legislative act, a zoning or rezoning classification must be upheld unless opponents prove that the classification is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Ronn, 313 N.W.2d at 414-15 (quoting Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods, 268 N.W.2d at 888). "The standard of review is whether the municipal body~s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, with review focused on the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for the reasons given." Swanson, 421 N.W.2d at 313. The supreme court has defined unreasonable in this context as "whether the reasons assigned by the governing body do not have 'the slightest validity' or bearing on the general welfare of the immediate area." VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503,508 (Minn. 1983). A challenger to the City's actions, bears the burden of showing that the stated reasons are either without factual support in the record or are legally insufficient. Hubbard Broadcasting. Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757,763 (Minn. 1982) (citing Barton Contracting Co... Inc. v. City of Afton, 268 N.W.2d 712,717 (Minn. 1978)). VARIANCES A subdivision variance authorizes a landowner to deviate from the requirements or standards of the subdivision ordinance. The pertinent section of state law provides: Variances. Subdivision regulations may provide for a procedure for varying the regulations as they apply to specific properties where an unusual hardship on the land exists, but variances may be granted only upon the specific ground set forth in the regulations. Unusual hardship includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Minn. Stat. 9 462.358, Subd. 8. The City Code, 9 18-22, sets forth the City's standard for a variance from the City's subdivision requirements: The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: (1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; Ms. Sharmeen AI-Jaff City of Chanhassen August 10, 2006 Page 3 (2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the land; (3) The conditions or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; ( 4) The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. TOM CROSKEY'S ANALYSIS Mr. Croskey lumps the variance applications and rezoning together, applying the standards for granting a zoning variance to the rezoning application. His email refers to a "rezoning variance". There is no such thing. The standards for approving a zoning variance do not apply to the rezoning application. Rezoning requires an ordinance amendment, not a variance. Nothing in the United States Constitution, state law, or City ordinance provides that property can only be rezoned if the property does not have a viable economic use without the rezoning. The City has very broad discretion on a request to rezone property. Mr. Croskey's analysis of the City's variance standard refers to Section 20-50 of the City Code. That section of the City Code refers to variances from the City's zoning ordinance, not the subdivision ordinance. The developer has not requested any variances from the City's zoning ordinance. The requested variances are from the City's subdivision ordinance requirements concerning cul-de-sac length and the number of homes that can be accessed by a private street. The standard for a variance under the zoning ordinance differs from that under the subdivision ordinance. The subdivision variance standards are quoted above. ///- Reg~~ds:~ AMPBELL KN;1TSON ro fession:!fAssociati on "j/" _/--- ~>--- ------------ /gogerNKnutson RNK:sm "l~ . I Engir.M~ering.$urveying "7ll' L~Cape Arc~l~ture , L ":~~~i... ..:;/;"'. . 7510 Market Place Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952.829-0700 952-829-7806 fax August 18, 2006 Lori Haak City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147 Re: Minnewashta Landings Ponding Dear Lori: We have investigated the hydrology for the Minnewashta Landings subdivision in order to determine the cause of unanticipated stormwater runoff onto the neighboring property to the east. After doing so, we have come to the conclusion that the original calculations did not take into account all of the tributary drainage areas. Specifically, a portion of the south ditch of State Highway 7 (TH7) should have been included with the original analysis. We have come to this conclusion based on a field survey, multiple site visits and by reviewing the GIS information provided by the City. This finding could be the possible cause for the unanticipated runoff onto the adjacent property. To address the issue, various optiOl1S are presented and are listed below. 1. Create more ponding volume in ponds 2 and 3 by re- grading and/ or constructing berms. It is not certain that there is enough room to accomplish this without encroaching to far into the platted lots of the subdivision or by jeopardizing low floor elevations, but it appears to be feasible. Estimated cost $50,000 Modify the existing outlet control of pond 2 in combination with grading for additional volume in ponds 2 and 3, thus allowing greater stormwater flows to travel westerly to pond 1 and Lake Minnewashta's outlet channel. Estimated cost $30,000 2. 3. Add an additional outlet to pond 3 that will route stormwater along the eastern property line and into Lake Minnewashta. Estimated cost $35,000 4. Modify the south ditch of TH7 to get the stormwater flows in the ditch to bypass the Minnewashta Landings subdivision and continue westerly, eventually discharging into the channel that connects Lake Minnewashta and Lake Virginia. Estimated cost $45,000 On a related note, imposing volume control for the stormwater discl1arges form the proposed Boulder Cove development will not significantly help in alleviating the unanticipated runoff onto the affected property, but would help slightly with the length of time that the drainage event occurs. There has not been any detailed analysis done for any of these options and the stated costs are estimates only. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns you may have. Sincerely, HANSEN THORP PEL //1/ EN OLSON, INC. Charles J. Howley, P.E. Project Manager PLANT HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC. Katharine D. Widin, Ph.D, 13457 6th St. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 (651 )436-8811 kdwidin @comcast.net Date: 12/2/05 To: Otto Associates 9 Division St. Buffalo, MN Re: Cottage Homesteads - proposed development, Chanhassen Tree Inventory 7/05 This site has approximately 327 significant trees on it. These trees are composed of 23 different species. The trees are between 6 and 50 inches in diameter, with the majority being less than 20 inches. Tree condition ranges from good to very poor and the majority of the trees are within the "fair" category. The site as a whole is a poor quality woodland and has very few trees of any value. The majority of trees are fast-growing pioneer species which tend to not be of very good form or structure as they mature. There are some planted trees but most have grown up as "volunteer", naturally seeded trees. The trees which have been planted are generally over-mature, poorly maintained and/or in fair-poor condition. I cannot recommend any particular trees or tree groupings for specific preservation due to their species and/or condition. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this report. Kathy Widin Plant PathologistIForestry Consultant Boulder Cover Impervious Surface Calcualtions 8/21/2006 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RLM DISTRICT Area (sq. ft.) Frontage Depth Setbacks: Hard Surface Hard (feet) (feet) front, side, Area (square Suraface Garage, rear, feet) Coverage Highway 7 (Percent) Code Single 9,000 50 110 25,5,25,50 Family 35 % Max Lot 21, Block 1 19,066 237 140 25, 10, 5, 25, 3,389 50 17.8% Lot 23, Block 1 9,398 51 159 25, 10, 5, 25, 3,089 na 32.9% Lot 24, Block 1 9,517 56 168.5 25, 10, 5, 25, 3,289 na 34.6% Lot 25, Block 1 9,592 59 171.5 25, 10, 5, 25, 3,089 na 32.2% Lot 26, Block 1 9,202 55 167.5 25, 10, 5, 25, 3,089 na 33.6% Lot 27, Block 1 9,682 54 168.5 25, 10, 5, 25, 3,089 na 31.9% Lot 28, Block 1 11 ,139 51 176 25, 10, 5, 25, 3,089 na 27.7% Lot 37, Block 1 11,856 56 215.5 25, 10, 5, 25, 3,089 na 26.1% Lot 38, Block 1 11,943 55 213.5 25, 10, 5, 25, 3,089 na 25.9% Lot 39, Block 1 17,414 130 212.5 25, 10, 5, 25, 3,089 na 17.7% Code Two 7,260 30 100 25,10,30,50 Family 400/0 Max Lot 1, Block 1 24,134 78 204 25/25, 10/10, 3,089 na 12.8% Lot 2, Block 1 9,691 50 194 25,10,30,na 3,089 31.9% Lot 3, Block 1 9,920 50 198 25,10,30,na 3,089 31.1% Lot 4, Block 1 10,083 50 201 25,10,30,na 3,089 30.6% Lot 8, Block 1 8,387 52 158 25,10,30,na 3,089 36.8% Lot 9, Block 1 10,021 40 153.5 25,10,30,na 3,089 30.8% Lot 19, Block 1 10,512 52 209 25,10,30,50 3,589 34.1% Lot 20, Block 1 9,729 54 190 25,10,30,50 3,089 31.8% Lot 29, Block 1 11,557 45 192.5 25,10,30,na 3,089 26.7% Lot 30, Block 1 12,866 46 221 25,IO,30,na 3,089 24.0% Lot 31, Block 1 14,289 48 257 25,10,30,na 3,089 21.6% Boulder Cover Impervious Surface Calcualtions 8/21/2006 Area (sq. ft.) Frontage Depth Setbacks: Hard Surface Hard (feet) (feet) front, side, Area (square Suraface Garage, rear, feet) Coverage Highway 7 (Percent) Lot 32, Block 1 14,567 50 291 25,10,30,na 3,089 21.2% Lot 33, Block 1 8,332 51 164.5 25,10,30,na 3,089 37.1% Lot 34, Block 1 8,930 57 169.5 25,10,30,na 3,089 34.6% Lot 35, Block 1 8,620 50 171 25,10,30,na 3,449 40.0% Lot 36, Block 1 11 ,403 72 165 25/25, 10/10, 3,489 na 30.6% Code Three A verage of 5,445 30 100 25,10,25,50 Family 50% Max Lot 5, Block 1 10,105 Avg. 50 201 25, 10, 25, na 3,089 30.6% Lot 6, Block 1 6,848 10,297 34 201 25, 0,25, na 2,779 40.6% Lot 7, Block 1 13,939 60 185 25, 10, 25,na 3,089 22.2% Lot 10, Block 1 10,309 Avg. 32 156 25, 0, 25, na 3,089 30.0% Lot 11, Block 1 7,622 10,403 34 225 25, 10, 25, na 2,779 36.5% Lot 12, Block 1 13,280 46 218 25, 10, 25,na 3,089 23.3% Lot 13, Block 1 11,576 Avg. 48 214 25,0,25,50 3,089 26.7% Lot 14, Block 1 7,260 9,860 34 213.5 25,10,25,50 2,779 38.3% Lot 15, Block 1 10,745 50 215 25,10,25,50 3,089 28.7% Lot 16, Block 1 10,829 Avg. 50 216.5 25,0,25,50 3,089 28.5% Lot 17, Block 1 7,411 9,724 34 218 25,10,25,50 3,089 41.7% Lot 18, Block 1 10,933 50 218 25,10,25,50 3,089 28.3% Outlot A 57,935 25,0,25,50 1 ,417 2.4% RLM Lot Total 480,642 119,629 24.9 % RSF 15000 90f 125 30, 0, 30, 50 25.0 % Lot 22, Block 1 30,419 1661 130130, 0, 25, 50 7,604 25.0% Subtotal aU lots 511,061 127,233 24.9 % 2 TTO SSOCIATES ENGINEE.RS It LAND SURVEYORSt INC. PROJECT J3Q~_~_JOBNO. l....:-oS.,.ooSl- CALCULATED BY C- ~ Q DATE_c& { '2-l1J~J~__.._ SHEET NO. ( OF 9 WeST DIVISION STREET. BUFFAL.O. MlNN.55313 · (7ti3) 682,.4127 FAX (763) 682--3522 i'- ..".... ,.., .... ..,........ ..... .,...... ,,,,.,---... ..-....~.,... ..., "..... ,. "'" .-...' .". 1 -.--.. -- -. -..., T.... ... ... ........ .....' .... r......~ .....~_..._...~-....r'.. .......- - .. eUl40.~GS:; (INLL..lr'2-01>~ P~'TI~ I , : } I ; !! ~ ! , t.. ... ......,.... ...~... ..... ".....l,~~~':\__2~" -. . ~.." .....?l1.. .... *-ddS~..... ...:., t.....,...,.~..?-:J....Q'prl~~...~E...... ..,t..~.." ........ .... ............ ....1. . ... ..... 1 12-\0'--\ ~ ~ 4-\ vti",-ts ~l ~4' l-(j$~ I; i : t ! { I! 1 :, ~ ; ~. .j.' ~ ; 'Df!..,\~~wA'l ~.: I 2J..\ ..'. '1~. p.' ~~ I j : ... I ! l' .' : I f .. ._.0...... ..... ...... ...,--. ....j....-.. ~"."._.. ..... .....,.. .-~--_.. ...-.., -,. . ... . '0 ~....o~.. __'w '-' ......-.j _..-.. -. ......,....",.. _. ....... t.. _""~rl_.~'_"__" --J.-- ~_."........."" ,,'....', 1-.... i G A1:eBe I: I '2-00 i ~\=I ! : 1 i : ! I ~ :! t ! i! I . i -+-P ~ , L. i : : t u ") ! SF ! \f"-" 1 ! " j ~ i ~ I i ........~. .....~......."' .._.. ..... _..... .. . , ........ .~~. ................. ....... .....................'...c..',........, l ,,_. ....... ..,., .~, -.. ..... ',,".' .........w.:..........,....._.... . ,..-. ''''W' j. . ..." .... ,., ... , 12'1--\-bT. Ho~~ ''/5q~i S.F j I I i I I i f S, ok.~ ~ y,-b Ho~4' {e.,'!;Ct1t N\ $l\1'TC: 11;!.. ~ SF} ~ :,1 ~ 15 SO! <;~ I .. i ~ '! 1 L..-.. .........-..-----..... _....j...... .... .. ."" '- .. ....... .. ..... .. f---...... ........- ~..- . ".., ....+,. l....... ............,-~.. .. .0... ..+ . ."" .. .. .. . ... ..................+"..- ..." .."..... ......... .. -1 I ~O-ro....' - \ ~ ~ li@.~~.r 1 2. .. -:] -=Ii i l'L1tl\::''J <;~1 2...'11- ~.<k . .,....r4=~.~~. ...... ~,~C> ....i... ,...!:: ... ... . .. ,t , .... f:l ~...hc-..I ..._,,~...........................: I...... ............... ....... .. : i.:' l -mperjV1ovS> ?.. .9'-t;;- ~'-\ 19 OI_ I ".,~ ; I I .. r-" .. . .. ............ ........ ...t'.. ..:....... .. ;..... .. ... .. .. .... f .. ,.. ..",........ , · .. ..! ... ..... ........... ~................ ...; -.... ..... . ....... .. ....,... ......... ...., j ! ! i i ! L ... ........ ........ ....... .. .......:--...- ....'.. ..... ...... ..., .........,. " '-f' .' ! i n- .-. n.. .. . ... J....... ...................~ ..........'........,....... ,...'''''....~........-<II..__........-. :.-....-. ....1....., ! I I I I . ., ..... .. "."".~w.,..".."''''''_.,,'',..,~ J ! ! I I I ...,..,~........N.........._...........w--i I ; ( } ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~""N"" ... ~ i I J "'-"j i ! ! I ......1 I i , ;. . ~..... .6...... .." .......... '''~'''''''''..;" -#...,_.", ...._ .....___,y_..-.-.:.... [: } ~ z < u ~ ~ ~ ~ < < ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 PC DATE: August 1, 2006 OJ CC DATE: August 28,2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: Waived CASE #: 06-10 BY: AI-Jaff ST AFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. Preliminary Plat with Variances to Subdivide 13.69 Acres into 39 lots and 1 outlot, Boulder Cove. Site Plan Approval for the construction of 4 Three-Plex Units North of Highway 7, East of Church Road and South of West 62nd Street. Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC 7300 Metro Boulevard, #360 Edina, MN 55439 Attn Roger Derrick (952) 830-0161 Ext. 326 r02er@chofamerica.com LOCATION: APPLICANT: PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 13.69 Acres DENSITY: Gross 2.8 Units/Ac Net 3.32 Units/Ac SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a rezoning, subdivision with variances, and site plan approval for property located north of Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 6200 Street. Access to the site is gained off of a proposed cul-de-sac, south of West 62nd Street. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to replat 13.69 acres into 39 lots and one outlot. Eleven of the lots will house single-family homes, 16 lots will house duplexes, and 12 lots will house three-plexes. The outlot will contain a storm pond and a gazebo. There are variances attached to the application dealing with the length of the cul-de-sac serving this development and the construction of a private street. Both variances deal with eliminating access off of Highway 7 and improving safety. The property is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. The applicant is also requesting a site plan approval for the construction of three-plexes. The gross density of this subdivision is 2.85 units per acre and the net density is 3.32 units per acre which falls under the low density designation of the comprehensive plan. All lots are proposed to be served via the proposed cul-de-sac. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 3 All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the RSF and RLM Districts. The site consists of two parcels being assembled into one tract of land, and then subdivided. A single-family home and accessory structures exist on these parcels. Only the single-family home on Lot 22, Block 1, is intended to remain. The zoning for Lot 22 will remain as RSF. One issue that needs to be pointed out is the fact that there are currently four driveways accessing off of Highway 7. All these driveways will be closed off and are proposed to access off of the proposed cul-de-sac which is an improvement from a safety standpoint. In summary, staffbelieves that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. Weare recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RSF, Single Family Residential District, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District, except Lot 22, Block 1. The areas to the north (City of Shore wood), east and west (City ofChanhassen) contain single-family homes and are zoned Residential Single Family. The area to the south is zoned Residential Single Family but is separated from the site by Highway 7. All the surrounding property is guided for Residential Low Density. There is one development located within approximately 1,000 feet of the subject site in the City of Shorewood which contains four-pI exes totaling 58 units. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 4 The 2020 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. Appropriate zoning for this land use is RSF, R4, RLM, or PUD-R. RSF R-4 RLM PUD-R PUD-R Attached Detached Units 24 40 38 54 34 Min. Lot Size 15,000 10,000 Single family - 9,000 N .A. 4 units 11,000 with an Two-family - 7,260 per acre average of Townhouse- Avg. 5,445 15,000 Site Coverage 25% 30% Single family - 35% 30% 30% Two-family - 40% Townhouse- 50% The applicant is requesting rezoning to RLM. This proposal has a gross density of 2.85 units per acre and a net density of3.32 units per acre after subtracting the area of the streets. This area is in the MUSA. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RLM and finds that the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is creating 39 lots with the following breakdown: 11 single family lots, 16 duplex lots, and 12 three-plex lots. The outlot will contain a storm pond and a gazebo. The total hard surface coverage of the gazebo and path is 0.3%. There are two variances attached to the application. The first deals with the length of the cul-de-sac serving this development and the second for a private street. Both variances will be discussed in detail later in the report. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2.85 units per acre gross and 3.32 units per acre net after removing the roads. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. There is one outlot shown on the plat. Lot 22 contains a single-family home that is proposed to remain. The hard surface coverage on this lot exceeds the minimum 25% permitted by ordinance. The applicant has posted an escrow with the city to guarantee the removal of a gravel driveway that extends along the east and north portions of the lot. This will bring the hard surface coverage into compliance. Lots 11 through 22, Block 1, abut Highway 7. The plans reflect a 50-foot setback from the highway right-of-way. Original plans showed the gazebo on Lot 8, Block 1. Staff informed the applicant that the gazebo should be located on an outlot rather than a private lot. The applicant revised the preliminary plat (sheet 1 of 5) to contain the gazebo and the path leading to it. Sheets 2, 3, 4, and 5 must be revised to reflect the new layout for Outlot A. This revision can be easily accomplished. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 5 WETLANDS EarthTech ofMN completed a review of the site for wetlands on January 26, 2006. No wetlands were found to exist on site. GRADING.. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Easements Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all storm water ponds and storm water conveyance features outside of the public right-of-way. Erosion and Sediment Control The future storm water pond should be constructed prior to mass grading of the site and should be used as a temporary sediment basin. A temporary outlet should be installed (perforated standpipe with rock cone) in the temporary sediment basin. A detail should be provided within the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Energy dissipation is needed at the flared-end section outlet of the storm water basin within 24 hours of outlet installation. Area inlets and curbside inlet control (Wimco or similar) are needed within 24 hours of inlet installation. A detail should be provided in the SWPPP. The proposed rock construction entrance should be a minimum 20 feet in width and 75 feet in length with a filter fabric installed under the rock. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Tvoe ofSlooe Steeper than 3: 1 1 0: 1 to 3: 1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. A pickup broom should be used at a minimum of once per week or as conditions warrant. The plans should be revised to include a typical erosion control detail for individual lots and multifamily lots. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 6 At this time the total estimated SWMP fees payable upon approval of the final plat are estimated at $67,384. The applicant will receive a water quality credit of 50% of the per-acre water quality charge for each acre treated by the on-site pond. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. GRADING The 13.69-acre site currently has two single-family homes on flat, partially wooded land. The existing home on the west side and the gravel driveways to Highway 7 will be removed. The home on the east side will remain and will be within a platted lot. The developer proposes to mass grade the site. The grading plan proposes to raise the site to accommodate development. A storm water quality pond is proposed in the southwest comer of the site. SURFACE DRAINAGE The graphics below illustrate the existing and proposed drainage areas within the Boulder Cove property. Yellow indicates the area draining to the north, pink indicates the area draining to the south, green indicates the area draining to the west, and blue indicates the area draining to the pond (proposed condition only). '.,' '-0.... IN ,'.. , ~"V (f.=OO', :,.> "EX1ST/NG DRAINAGE MAP .~,.PR6pOSED DRAINAGE MAP Residents to the north, west and south of the proposed development have indicated that there are drainage problems within their neighborhoods. The table below summarizes the existing and proposed surface runoff conditions, which indicate that the area draining off-site, the volume of runoff and the peak discharge rate to the north and west will decrease under the post development condition. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 7 Area drainin to the north Drainage area Drainage volume (100-yr) Peak (I OO-yr) discharge Existin Condition (EI and E2) 3.67 acres ~ 0.634 acre-feet 5.15 cfs Pro osed Condition (P 1) 1.45 acres 0.284 acre-feet 4.72 cfs Drainage area Drainage volume (100-yr) Peak (IOO-yr) discharge 5.31 acres +:+ee 1.346 acre-feet -I4:+{) 14.82 cfs 0.28 acres 0.074 acre-feet 1.53 cfs Drainage area Drainage volume (IOO-yr) Peak (IOO-yr) discharge +:+4 8.63 acres +:&()4 1.819 acre-feet -I4:+{) 15.62 cfs ~ 15.98 acres ~ 4.246 acre-feet ~ 14.11 cfs The proposed grading plan shows that runoff from the majority of the development will be directed towards storm sewer and conveyed to the proposed storm water pond in the southwest comer of the property. Hydrology calculations have been submitted and reviewed. The calculations were reviewed by a consulting engineer who is reviewing the drainage for the entire subwatershed. It was discovered that calculations previously submitted by the applicant did not include the entire area drained by the north ditch of Trunk Highway 7 (Attachment 5). The revised calculations should include these areas since concentration points have been established at the inlets of the two existing culverts heading south underneath Trunk Highway 7. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat application for staff review. GROUNDWATER Soil boring information has been submitted and indicates that groundwater elevations fluctuate from approximately 962' on Lot 7 to approximately 971' on Lot 33. The lowest floor elevations of the proposed buildings are at least three feet above the groundwater elevation. Due to the topography of the site, the storm water pond is located in the southwest comer of the site and the emergency overflow elevation of971.5' is fixed due to the elevations within the Highway 7drainage ditch. Barr Engineering completed an analysis and determined that the proposed high water elevation would not significantly increase the groundwater elevation near the existing homes west of the site. The developer will reimburse the City the cost of the Barr analysis upon final plat approval. The developer will install a French drain system on the west side of the pond to lower the groundwater elevation to approximately 966', which would provide a three-foot separation between the groundwater elevation and the lowest floor elevations of the adjacent homes. This Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1,2006 Page 8 French drain system will be a significant benefit from the existing condition and will allow for the properties to the west of the project to connect sump pumps to the French drain system. RET AINING WALLS The developer proposes to construct a retaining wall between Lots 22 and 23 to accommodate the existing building on Lot 22. The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan. If the retaining wall is four feet high or taller, it must be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and requires a building permit. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer service to the proposed development will be extended from the Metropolitan Council trunk sewer at the intersection of West 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and the street must be restored. Rim and invert elevations of all sanitary and storm sewers must be shown on the final utility plan. Watermain for the project will be directionally bored under Highway 7 and will wet tap into the existing 12" trunk watermain on the south side of Highway 7. Eight inch watermain will be installed within the proposed street. Watermain will also be extended between Lots 7 and 8, north of the pond, and west through the drainage utility easements within 6311 Church Road (Miller property) and 3751 62nd Street West (Navratil property) and connect to the existing 6" watermain. The looping is critical since the existing service area north of Highway 7 is currently served by only one watermain crossing under Highway 7. Looping the watermain will minimize service disruptions should a watermain break occur north of Highway 7. The plans do not accurately show the drainage and utility easements on these two properties. The drainage and utility easement on the southern portion of the Navratil property is 10 feet wide. The drainage and utility easement on the northern portion of the Miller property is 5 feet wide. The developer shall be responsible for any damage to the Miller's fence as a result ofthe watermain installation. The developer will extend water service to 3520 Highway 7, which is located east ofthe development and currently uses a private well. Six-inch watermain will be extended along the south side of Lot 22 and shall terminate at the east property line of Lot 22 at a hydrant. The existing homes within the development area are not connected to City sewer or City water. The existing wells and septic systems must be properly removed/abandoned. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1,2006 Page 9 The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. STREETS The developer proposes to extend a 1,200-foot long public cul-de-sac from the existing intersection of West 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. Staff supports the variance for the cul-de- sac length due to the safety benefits associated with only accessing from West 62nd Street and since the watermain for the majority of the project will be in a looped system. Access to Highway 7 is not proposed for the following reasons: 1. MNDOT classifies Highway 7 as a high-priority regional corridor and will not allow access to Highway 7 if there is an alternative access from a local street, 2. MNDOT is minimizing the number and controlling the spacing of accesses along Highway 7, and 3. City Code requires minimum ~ mile (1320-foot) access spacing along Highway 7. The distance between Church Road and Shorewood Oaks Drive is only approximately 2,100 feet, therefore, an access from the Boulder Cove development to Highway 7 would not meet City requirements. Recent developments within the Highway 7 corridor include Hidden Creek, Hidden Creek Meadows and Boyer Lake Minnewashta Addition, as shown below. Access to Hidden Creek extends from Highway 7 at Pipewood Curve. The old access was removed due to poor sight lines. Old Plpewood Curve access I'- Accesses to Hidden Creek Meadows and Boyer Lake Minnewashta were extended from existing local streets adjacent to these developments. In December, 2005 MnDOT determined that the Church Road intersection at Highway 7 did not meet warrants for the installation of a traffic control signal. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 10 Four driveway accesses to Highway 7 will be removed with this project - two from the house that will be demolished, one from the home that will remain within Lot 22 and the one from 3520 Highway 7. Access to Lot 22 and 3520 Highway 7 will be from a 20-foot wide private street that will extend from the cul-de-sac to the northeastern edge of the driveway on Lot 22. This private street must be constructed to a 7-ton design. Residents in the area are concerned that the proposed RLM zoning will generate higher traffic volumes than a single-family development. The current proposal would generate traffic from 38 twinhome/townhome/detached units and one existing single-family home in the plat and one existing single-family home east of the plat. If the property were developed as a single-family development, traffic would generate from 24 single-family homes (23 new and one existing) within the plat, and one existing single-family home east of the plat. Based on the 6th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, the traffic generated from the Boulder Cove project would be as follows: Current Proposal: Single family only: Difference 38 twinhome/townhome/detached and 23 new homes and 2 (current proposal - 2 existing single family existing single family only) Total Daily Trips 5.86 trips/unit x 38 units = 222.68 trips 9.57 trips/unit x 25 + 2.57 trips 9.57 trips/unit x 2 units = 19.14 trips units = 239.25 trips Total = 241.82 trips Peak A.M. Trips 0.44 trips/unit x 38 units = 16.72 trips 0.75 trips/unit x 25 - 0.53 trips 7 a.m. - 9 a.m. 0.75 trips/unit x 2 units = 1.50 trips units = 18.75 trips Total = 18.22 trips Peak P.M. Trips 0.54 trips/unit x 38 units = 20.52 trips 1.01 trips/unit x 25 - 2.71 trips 4 p.m. - 6 p.m. 1.01 trips/unit x 2 units = 2.02 trips units = 25.25 trips Total = 22.54 trips MISCELLANEOUS A high-tension power line exists along Highway 7. Any work or landscaping must be approved by Xcel Energy. PARK DEDICATION PARKS This property is located within the neighborhood park service area for Cathcart Park. Future residents of Boulder Cove will have convenient access to the park from West 6200 Street. Cathcart Neighborhood Park is unique in that the park is owned and operated by the City of Shorewood, but is located in the City of Chanhassen. The two cities operate the park with an agreement that Shorewood provides for all capital improvements and daily operations and Chanhassen mows the lawn and trims the trees and bushes. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 11 Cathcart Park is 4.75 acres in size and features a playground, basketball court, hockey rink with shelter, tennis court, and a ballfield. Ample off-street parking is available at the park. The amenities at the park have been updated within the past 10 years. No additional parkland acquisition is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. The 2006 park dedication fees are $5,800 per single family dwelling, $5,000 for each unit in a duplex, and $3,800 for each unit within a three-plex. TRAILS The subject site does not have direct access to a trail; however, convenient access to the Southwest LRT Trail is available from West 6200 Street. The Southwest LRT Trail is situated within a corridor owned by the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA). Three Rivers Park District manages the corridor as a multi-use trail through an agreement with HCRRA. This particular section of the trail travels west to the City of Victoria and to the east to Minneapolis. Access to this trail is a very desirable recreational amenity and will be widely utilized by the future residents of Boulder Cove. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. TREE PRESERV ATIONILANDSCAPING The applicant for the Boulder Cove development has submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 13.69 ac. or 596,336 SF 500/0 or 298,665 SF 350/0 or 208,717 SF 8.50/0 or 51,059 SF Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore, the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 157,658 SF 1.2 189,189 SF 173 trees The total number of trees required for the development is 173. Applicant has proposed a total of 174 trees. Bufferyard requirements are as shown in the table: Landsca in Item Bufferyard B - South property line 1140',15' width Re uired 23 overstory trees 45 understory trees 68 shrubs Pro osed 25 overstory trees 45 understory trees 108 shrubs Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 12 Applicant meets total minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings. The applicant has also provided bufferyard plantings along the north and west property lines. The land uses along each of these property lines is low density and matches the proposed land use of this development. There is a row of existing evergreens along the west property line that the applicant is proposing to remove for grading and utility installation purposes. The grading and the storm sewer alignment shall be shifted as far east as needed in order to protect and save these trees. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) 7 Code Single 15,000 90 Fa mil Lot 22, Block 1 30,419 166 130 40,40,120,50 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RLM DISTRICT Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth Setbacks: front, side, (feet) Garage, rear, Highway 7 Code Single 9,000 50 110 25, 5, 25, 50 Family Lot 21, Block 1 19,066 237 140 25,10,5,25,50 Lot 23, Block 1 9,398 51 159 25, 10, 5, 25, na Lot 24, Block 1 9,517 56 168.5 25,10,5,25,na Lot 25, Block 1 9,592 59 171.5 25,10,5,25,na Lot 26, Block 1 9,202 55 167.5 25, 10, 5, 25,na Lot 27, Block 1 9,682 54 168.5 25,10,5,25,na Lot 28, Block 1 11,139 51 176 25, 10, 5, 25,na Lot 37, Block 1 11,856 56 215.5 25, 10, 5, 25,na Lot 38, Block 1 11,943 55 213.5 25, 10, 5, 25,na Lot 39, Block 1 17,414 130 212.5 25, 10, 5, 25,na Code Two 7,260 30 100 25,10,30,50 Family Lot 1, Block 1 24,134 78 204 25/25, 10/10, na Lot 2, Block 1 9,691 50 194 25,10,30,na Lot 3, Block 1 9,920 50 198 25,10,30,na Lot 4, Block 1 10,083 50 201 25,10,30,na Lot 8, Block 1 8,387 52 158 25,10,30,na Lot 9, Block 1 10,021 40 153.5 25,10,30,na Lot 19, Block 1 10,512 52 209 25,10,30,50 Lot 20, Block 1 9,729 54 190 25,10,30,50 Lot 29, Block 1 11,557 45 192.5 25,10,30,na Lot 30, Block 1 12,866 46 221 25,10,30,na Lot 31, Block 1 14,289 48 257 25,10,30,na Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 13 Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth Setbacks: front, side, (feet) Garage, rear, Highway 7 Lot 32, Block 1 14,567 50 291 25,10,30,na Lot 33, Block 1 8,332 51 164.5 25,10,30,na Lot 34, Block 1 8,930 57 169.5 25,10,30,na Lot 35, Block 1 8,620 50 171 25,10,30,na Lot 36, Block 1 11,403 72 165 25/25, 10/10, na Code Three A verage of 5,445 30 100 25,10,25,50 Family Lot 5, Block 1 10,105 Avg. 50 201 25, 10, 25, na Lot 6, Block 1 6,848 10,297 34 201 25, 0, 25,na Lot 7, Block 1 13,939 60 185 25, 10, 25, na Lot 10, Block 1 10,309 Avg. 32 156 25, 0, 25, na Lot 11, Block 1 7,622 10,403 34 225 25, 10, 25,na Lot 12, Block 1 13,280 46 218 25, 10, 25, na Lot 13, Block 1 11,576 Avg. 48 214 25,0,25,50 Lot 14, Block 1 7,260 9,860 34 213.5 25,10,25,50 Lot 15, Block 1 10,745 50 215 25,10,25,50 Lot 16, Block 1 10,829 Avg. 50 216.5 25,0,25,50 Lot 17, Block 1 7,411 9,724 34 218 25,10,25,50 Lot 18, Block 1 10,933 50 218 25,10,25,50 Outlot A 1.33 AC 25,0,25,50 R-o-W 1.96 AC 25,10,25,50 Total 13.69 AC na Not Applicable SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RLM and RSF Districts and the zoning ordinance if the private street and length of cul-de-sac variances are approved. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site is guided for a density ranging between 1.2 - 4 units per acre. The subject site is proposed to have a gross density of 2.85 and a net density of 3.32 units per acre. 3. The physical characteristics ofthe site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 14 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause excessive environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The three-plexes must comply with the design standards established in Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for multi-family units. This division addresses items such as signs, gathering places, curb appeal, architecture, lighting, etc. Section 20-108 exempts the single-family and duplexes from this review. Samples aBB.e siBgle family and ffiijJleK meades will he SB.OWB at the meetiBg. However, staff requested the applicant submit facades and materials for all buildings. The design of the exterior of the buildings and the materials have been changed. The main building materials on the single-story three-plex units aFe were brick, stucco, and vinyl lap siding. The brick wiD was proposed to be used at the base of columns and the front of the buildings. The stucco is-was proposed along the upper half of the front elevation, and the vinyl lap siding will he used along the rear and side elevations. Although these materials are permitted by ordinance, staffhelieves there is ream fer recommended improvements. The proposed overall faryade appeared to be dated. Staff is reeammeadiBg recommended the applicant utilize cultured stone in a variety of elevations, i.e. an entire garage elevation or an entire entryway elevation, rather than stopping at the midpoint of a wall. Staff also recommended the use of Hardie board siding versus stucco. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 15 Example of Cultured Stone used on the entire entryway elevation and Hardie board on the garage elevation The applicant submitted revised plans that are in keeping with staff's recommendation. :.~ ,'.' ___~ :;J~~~.:.. , "i,t i i : ~ L !..... ,l'(f ~) ,\' I ~, ,:',: i,LI ~ ~3 ~ ~_ r,.f ():\J I I i-if ;:.41 ,,!r-1A '/rl'\l (:;.Ii~ Revised Elevations for the Three-Plex Units Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 16 ~) 0 r',. ~te ~ ,r-J, ,. L: . ,_"'\ . ~~ .~_ :-";r't', Q ~ ~ ., . ::. ~ '\ I' ~~)6 . I,> . -"~'I ./ -"'- . -_.- ...---'" ----"'-------.- ;;.--::::..-~ ~~",",::.._-- ---'-- ~ .......... ......-..- ,,~ ......--.......--..-. .. """~5"~~~,.,O~~~;~~,:~~;;;~ _ . _- -.. :-"----::.___ .".,.,....--.... ..--'" -.~,.,OOOO~.:':,05,.,~;;:~""""-~'''''''~~''''~,,..~ \ II I "':" . -\ - ~':.-~- /1 Original Three Plex Design The buildings have defined entryways, and an interesting roof line. The architecture provides visual interest. The roof line provides a variety in pitch while the building provides variety in height, articulation and materials. Each unit has a two-car garage and a patio. Staff is recommending the applicant adds a pitched element above each entryway to further add to the articulation of the roof line. Twin home without a pitched element above entryway Twin home with a pitched element above entryway The proposed building maintains a minimum setback of 50 feet from Highway 7 right-of-way. The city code requires a minimum setback of25 feet from local public right-of-way. The building maintains a 30-foot setback from proposed Strawberry Court right-of-way. The buildings are proposed to maintain an average height of 15 feet. The RLM district allows a maximum height of 35 feet. The gazebo area is proposed to be located under an oak tree. ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE Sec. 20-1088. Architectural style. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 17 . Architectural style shall not be restricted. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and in relationship to its surroundings, guided by the provisions of this section. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building components and detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation. Designs that are incompatible with their surroundings or intentionally bizarre or exotic are not acceptable. . Monotony of design, both within projects and between adjacent projects and its surroundings, is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and sighting shall provide visual interest. Site characteristics that may be used for this purpose include building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building components and detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation. . All building shall have a minimum of 20 percent of accent material. Accent material may include brick, stone cut face block or shakes. The use of any EFIS shall not be on the first story of any building or one story in height. Findine:s: The proposed development has been well situated within the site. It attempts to fit into the environment in which it is located including incorporating primarily single-family and two-plex units along the north portion of the property and two- and three-plexes along the south and west portion of the site. The buildings offer much variety including colors, finishes, roof lines and materials. Sec. 20-1089. Land use. All development shall create a unified design of internal order that provides desirable environments for site uses, visitors and the community. The following design elements shall be incorporated into a project: . The project shall create a unique neighborhood identity. · Creation of interconnecting neighborhoods in collaboration with adjoining landowners (street, walkways, preservation of natural features, parks and gathering places). · Each neighborhood has a focal point or gathering place including parks, greens, squares, entrance monuments, historic structures (siloslbarns) or public furniture (gazebos, benches, pergolas). Community features may include: landscaping, lighting, benches, tables. . Recreation facilities (playgrounds, tot lots, swimming pools and gardens). · Diversity of product type and design to accommodate different age groups and individuals in different socio-economic circumstances. · Broad variety of housing choices--twin homes, row houses, town homes, flats above garages, apartments over shops, garden apartments, senior living opportunities and condominiums. Findine:s: This project creates its own little unique setting. It offers a variety of houses to meet the different needs of the community. The common area consist of a path that leads to a gazebo which will be located on Outlot A. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 18 Sec. 20-1090. Curb appeal. To encourage roadway image or curb appeal projects shall create a variety of building orientation along the roadways; attractive streetscape and architectural detail. All projects shall incorporate two or more of the following design elements: . Orientation to the street or access road: · Setbacks · Spacing between buildings and view sheds. · Architectural detail/decorative features. · Windows. · Flower boxes. · Porches, balconies, private spaces. · Location and treatment of entryway. · Surface materials, finish and texture. · Roof pitch. · Building height and orientation. . Location of garages. · Landscaping including fencing and berming. . Street lighting. . Screening of parking, especially in apartment and condominium developments. · Variations/differentiations in units including, but not limited to, color, material, articulation etc. Findin2S: The homes have elements such as windows, shutters, entry stoops, landscaping, patios, panel garage doors, decorative lighting and articulated fronts. Sec. 20-1091. Transportation diversity. All developments shall incorporate multi-modal transportation including two or more of the following elements: . Streets with trails incorporated. . Off-road trails and bike paths. · Provisions for mass transit with bus stops and shelters incorporated into the developments. · Sidewalk connecting internal developments. · Undulating sidewalks. Use of pavers or stamped concrete. · On-street parking and use of roundabouts. · Landscaped boulevards or medians. Findin2S: Due to the fact that the surrounding area is developed and does not contain any sidewalks, staff did not require the applicant to provide a sidewalk along the cul-de-sac. The boulevard will be landscaped. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 19 Sec. 20-1092. Integration of parks, open space, natural historic or cultural resources. · Integrate nature and wildlife with urban environment. · Trails and sidewalks. · Vistas. · Historic features. · Preservation of natural features that support wildlife and native plants (slopes, trees, wetlands). Findines: The proposed development will preserve some of the trees on the site and provides ample green space. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: 1. Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; 2. Consistency with this division; 3. Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; 4. Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; 5. Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 20 6. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Findin2: The proposed development is consistent with the City's design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements with the exception of the length of the cul-de-sac and the private street, which will require a variance. Staff is recommending approval of both. The site design is compatible with the surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. The overall design is sensitive to the City's image based on location. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan with conditions outlined in the staffreport. VARIANCE There are two variances attached to this subdivision. Both variances are related. The first deals with a private street across Lot 22, Block 1. Access to Lot 22 and 3520 Highway 7 will be from a 20-foot wide private street that will extend from the cul-de-sac to the northeastern edge of the driveway on Lot 22. This private street must be constructed to a 7-ton design. The second variance addresses Section 18-57 (k) of the City Code which requires the length of a street terminating in a cul-de-sac not to exceed 800 feet. The length of the proposed Strawberry Court is approximately 1,200 feet. Staff supports these variances due to the following: 1. MNDOT classifies Highway 7 as a high-priority regional corridor and will not allow access to Highway 7 if there is an alternative access from a local street, 2. MNDOT is minimizing the number and controlling the spacing of accesses along Highway 7, and 3. City Code requires minimum ~ mile (1320-foot) access spacing along Highway 7. The distance between Church Road and Shorewood Oaks drive is only approximately 2,100 feet; therefore, an access from the Boulder Cove development to Highway 7 would not meet City requirements. Providing access to the two existing single-family homes is forcing a longer cul-de-sac. In addition, there is no other alternative to provide access to these properties since the surrounding area is developed. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS Section 18-57. Streets. (r) Private streets serving up to four (4) lots may be permitted in the A2, RR, RSF and R4 if the criteria in variance section 18-22 are met and upon consideration of the following: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 21 existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, including wetlands and protected areas. There is an existing single-family home on Lot 22, Block 1 that is proposed to remain. Extending the cul-de-sac across Lot 22 is not a viable option nor is it warranted. Staff received a request from the owner of 3520 Highway 7 to incorporate their access into the proposed subdivision. They expressed concern with the volume of traffic on Highway 7 and difficulty accessing their property from the highway. The applicant of Boulder Cove agreed to grant access over Lot 22, Block 1. Elimination of the access points to Highway 7 is a safety improvement. Staff is recommending approval of the variances. VARIANCE FINDINGS Sec. 18-22. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: VARIANCE FINDINGS WITHIN SUBDIVISONS The city may grant a variance from the regulations of the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street and cul- de-sac length promote public safety. 2) The hardship is due to the removal of access to Highway 7. Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land. 3) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique to this site and not generally applicable to other properties due to its location next to Highway 7 and the fact that all properties north of the subject site are developed making a second access unfeasible. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 22 4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and comprehensive plan. The applicant is providing local access to properties that currently access via Highway 7. The applicant's request is reasonable. Staff is recommending approval of this request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motions: REZONING "The Planning Commission reeomnloods appro~/al of City Council approves Case #06-10 to rezone 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for Boulder Cove as shown on the plans dated received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006 with the following condition: 1. Lot 22, Block 1, Boulder Cove shall remain under the Residential Single Family zoning district." PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission reeomm8flds approval of City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #06-10 for Boulder Cove for 39 lots and 1 outlot as shown on the plans received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006 subject to the following conditions: 1. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat application for staffreview. The revised calculations should include the entire area drained by the north ditch of Trunk Highway 7 since concentration points have been established at the inlets of the two existing culverts heading south underneath Trunk Highway 7. 2. The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan. 3. The developer will reimburse the City the cost of the Barr analysis upon final plat approval. 4. Any retaining wall four feet high or taller must be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and requires a building permit. 5. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits for the sanitary sewer extension from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and West 62nd Street must be restored. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06- J 0 August J, 2006 Page 23 6. Rim and invert elevations of all sanitary and storm sewers must be shown on the final utility plan. 7. The utility plan must show the existing drainage and utility easements on the Miller and Navratil properties. 8. The developer shall be responsible for any damage to the Miller's fence as a result of the watermain installation. 9. The existing wells and septic systems must be properly removed/abandoned. 10. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. 11. The private street must be constructed to a 7 -ton design. 12. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear yard areas and bufferyards. 13. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the dripline for tree #71 or as close to that location as possible. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. 14. All landscape planting shall be field located. No plantings will be allowed within the dripline of tree #71 or below the NWL of the proposed pond. 15. No evergreens shall be planted in the front yards within a space less than 40 feet in width between driveways. 16. The grading and the storm sewer alignment shall be shifted as far east as needed in order to protect and save the evergreens along the westerly property line. 17. Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a condition of approval. The 2006 park dedication fees are $5,800 per single family dwelling, $5,000 for each unit in a duplex, and $3,800 for each unit within a three-plex. 18. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all storm water ponds and storm water conveyance features outside of the public ROW. 19. The future storm water pond shall be constructed prior to mass grading of the site and shall be used as a temporary sediment basin. A temporary outlet shall be installed (perforated standpipe with rock cone) in the temporary sediment basin. A detail shall be provided within the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 20. Energy dissipation shall be installed at the flared-end section outlet of the storm water basin within 24 hours of outlet installation. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 24 21. Area inlets and curbside inlet control (Wimco or similar) shall be installed within 24 hours of inlet installation. A detail shall be provided in the SWPPP. 22. The proposed rock construction entrance shall be a minimum 20 feet in width and 75 feet in length with a filter fabric installed under the rock. 23. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Tvoe of Slo~e Steeper than 3: 1 1 0: 1 to 3: 1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. A pickup broom shall be used at a minimum of once per week or as conditions warrant. 25. The plans shall be revised to include a typical erosion control detail for individual lots and multifamily lots. 26. At this time the total estimated SWMP fees payable upon approval of the final plat are estimated at $67,384. The applicant will receive a water quality credit of 50% of the per-acre water quality charge for each acre treated by the on-site pond. 27. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 28. Building Department conditions: a. Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. b. Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 25 constitute separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included in the floor area threshold. c. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. d. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name( s) and an addressing plan for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. e. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and proposed mitigation reports. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems but be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. f. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. g. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. h. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 1. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. J. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. k. The developer must coordinate the address changes of the two existing homes with the construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times. 29. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. b. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1,2006 Page 26 d. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3. e. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. f. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable. 30. All existing buildings on the site, with the exception of the house and garage on lot 22, block 1, shall be removed. 31. Lot 22, Block 1, shall maintain a maximum hard surface coverage of 25%. 32. Sheets 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be modified to reflect the new layout of Outlot A. 33. A cross-access easement agreement shall be granted in favor of the property located at 3520 Highway 7. 34. Work with the developer to resolve the back flow on the drain tile at the vicinity of the French tile outlet. 35. Work with the developer to see if the additional significant trees can be saved." SITE PLAN "The Planning Commission reeommeBds approval of City Council approves Site Plan Case #06-10 to construct four three-plexes as shown on the plans dated received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for wing walls between the patios on the three-plexes. 2. The Single Family, Two-Plexes, and three-plexes shall be built as shown on the elevations and floor plans dated received August 18, 2006 .Febmary 3, 2006. 3. The applicant shall utilize ealtared stone OR a variety of ele1/atioRs, i.e. an 0fttKe garage elS'/ation or an eRtire entry\'t~ay ele~/ation, rather than stopping at the midpoiat of a \'/al1. The applieant shall also lise Hardie board siding versas stucco. 4. The applicant shall submit two additional colors for the Hardie Board siding. dra\YiBgs shov{ing the eKterior ele~fations and materials for the single family and oopleK units. 5. The applicant shall add a pitched element above each entryway to further add to the articulation of the roof line. Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-10 August 1, 2006 Page 27 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Letter from the applicant waiving the 120-day deadline for review of the Boulder Cove application dated March 28, 2006. 3. Development Application. 4. Affidavit of Mailing and Public Hearing Notice. 5. Memorandum from HTPO dated July 25, 2006. 6. Memorandum from Minnesota Department of Transportation dated March 6, 2006. 7. Letter from Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District dated February 22, 2006. 8. Letter from the City of Shorewood dated March 3, 2006. 9. Email from Stacey Klein dated February 28, 2006. 10. Letter from Stacy Klein dated March 6, 2006. 11. E-mail from Eric Paul, dated February 28, 2006. 12. E-mail from Michael H. Barga, dated March 01, 2006. 13. E-mail from John Haesler, dated February 27, 2006. 14. E-mail from Dan Cole, dated February 28, 2006. 15. E-mail from Dan Torgerson, dated March 2, 2006. 16. E-mail from John Haesler and family, dated March 2, 2006. 17. E-mail from Marcus Hoffinann. 18. E-mail from Todd Wagner, dated February 28, 2006. 19. E-mail from Brad Nielsen, dated February 23, 2006. 20. E-mail from Robert Willock, dated March 06, 2006. 21. E-mail from Leah Schneider, dated March 6, 2006. 22. E-mail from Todd Wagner to the Sun Sailor, dated March 10, 2006. 23. Sample Gazebo. 24. Sample Cluster Mailboxes. 25. Preliminary plat dated received July 7, 2006 and Revised July 25, 2006. 26. Building elevations and floor plans dated received February 3August 18, 2006. g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-1 0 boulder cove\staff report pc 8-I-06.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Boulder Cove Subdivision #06-10 On August 28, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of a Rezoning of 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District, Preliminary Plat with Variances to Subdivide 13.69 Acres into 39 lots and 1 outlot, Boulder Cove and Site Plan Approval for the construction of 4 Three-Plex Units, Boulder Cove. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak. The City Council now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential- Low Density (1.2- 4.0 units per net acre). 3. The legal description of the property is attached as Exhibit A. 4. With respect to the proposed rezoning from RSF, Residential Single Family District, to Residential Low and Medium Density District, RLM, The City Council finds: a. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and furthers its goals and policies. b. The proposed rezoning is compatible with present and future land uses in the area. c. The proposal conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) effects and our findings regarding them are: 1 SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RLM and RSF Districts and the zoning ordinance if the private street and length of cul-de-sac variances are approved. b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site is guided for a density ranging between 1.2 - 4 units per acre. The subject site is proposed to have a gross density of 2.85 and a net density of 3.32 units per acre. c. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause excessive environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2. Lack of adequate roads. 3. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 2 Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. 6. Variances. Section 18-57. Streets. (r) Private streets serving up to four (4) lots may be permitted in the A2, RR, RSF and R4 if the criteria in variance section 18-22 are met and upon consideration of the following: ( 1 ) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, including wetlands and protected areas. There is an existing single-family home on Lot 22, Block 1 that is proposed to remain. Extending the cul-de-sac across Lot 22 is not a viable option nor is it warranted. Staff received a request from the owner of 3520 Highway 7 to incorporate their access into the proposed subdivision. They expressed concern with the volume of traffic on Highway 7 and difficulty accessing their property from the highway. The applicant of Boulder Cove agreed to grant access over Lot 22, Block 1. Elimination of the access points to Highway 7 is a safety improvement. VARIANCE FINDINGS Sec. 18-22. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street and cul- de-sac length promote public safety. 2) The hardship is due to the removal of access to Highway 7. Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land. 3) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique to this site and not generally applicable to other properties due to its location next to Highway 7 and the fact that all properties north of the subject site are developed making a second access unfeasible. 3 4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and comprehensive plan. The applicant is providing local access to properties that currently access via Highway 7. 7. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b) Consistency with this division; c) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; d) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; 2. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 3. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and 4. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light 4 and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Findine:: The proposed development is consistent with the City's design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements with the exception of the length of the cul-de-sac and the private street, which will require a variance. Staff is recommending approval of both. The site design is compatible with the surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. The overall design is sensitive to the City's image based on location. 8. The Planning Case #06-10, dated August 1, 2006, prepared by Sharmeen AI-Jaff, et aI, is incorporated herein. DECISION The City Council approves the Rezoning, Site Plan and Preliminary Plat and subdivision variances. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 28th day of August 2006. ATTEST: CITY OF CHANHASSEN Todd Gerhardt, City Clerk/Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor 5 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OF RECORD: All that part of Section Five (5), township One Hundred Sixteen (116) North, Range Twenty Three (23) West, described as follows: Beginning at a judicial landmark on the north line of said Section Five (5), a distance of 478.5 feet East of the South Quarter Comer of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West; thence East along the north line of said Section Five (5), a distance of 491.84 feet to a point which is the point of beginning of the land herein described; thence deflecting right and forming an interior angle of 102 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds and running a distance of 53.17 feet; thence deflecting left and forming an exterior angle of 195 degrees 18 minutes 35 seconds and running a distance of 152.4 feet to a point on the north line of State Trunk Highway No.7; thence Southwesterly along the north line of State Trunk Highway No.7, a distance of 150.01 feet; thence Northwesterly, a distance of 296.70 feet to the north line of said Section Five (5) and which said point is 185.82 West of the place of beginning of this description; thence East along the north line of said Section Five to the place of beginning containing 1.2 acres of land more or less according to the government survey thereof. All that part of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West described as follows: Beginning at a judicial landmark on the north line of said Section 5, a distance of 478.5 feet East of the South Quarter Comer of Section 32, Township 117 North of Range 23 West; thence East along the north line of said Section 5 to the Northwesterly line of the right-of-way of State Trunk Highway No.7 which right-of-way is set forth and described in Case No. 9902 on file in the office of the Clerk of District Court, Carver County, Minnesota; thence Southwesterly along said right-of-way to its intersection with a line drawn through the point of beginning and forming an interior angle of 90 degrees 35 minutes with the north line of said Section 5; thence North to beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Carver County, Minnesota. Excepting all that part of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West, described as follows: Beginning at judicial landmark on the north line of said Section 5, a distance of 478.5 feet East of the South Quarter Comer of Section 32, Township 117 North of Range 23 West; thence East on said Section line, a distance of 491.84 feet to a point which is the point of beginning of the land to be hereinafter described; thence continuing East along said Section line 317.85 feet to a point; thence South 76.2 feet, more or less to the North right- of-way line of State Trunk Highway No.7 which right-of-way is described in Case No. 9902 on file in the office of the Clerk of District Court, in and for Carver County, Minnesota; thence Southwesterly along the North right-of-way line 260.5 feet; thence at right angles Northwesterly 152.4 feet to a point; thence Northwesterly 51.9 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting also all that part of Section 5, Township 116, Range 23 described as follows: 6 Beginning at a judicial landmark on the north line of said Section 5, a distance of 478.5 feet East of the South Quarter Comer of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23; thence East along the north line of said Section 5 to the Northwesterly line of the right-of-way of State Trunk Highway No.7 which right-of-way is set forth and described in Case No. 9902 on file in the office of the Clerk of District Court in and for Carver County, Minnesota, which is the point of beginning for the tract to be conveyed hereby; thence Southwesterly along said right-of-way a distance of 236 feet; thence due North 57 feet; more or less, to the north line of said Section 5; thence East along said section line for the place of beginning. All that part of Section 5, Township 116 North, Range 23 West described as follows, to wit: Commencing at the Southwest Comer of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West; thence Easterly along the north line of said Section 5, Township 116, Range 23, a distance of 478.5 feet; thence South 585.2 feet; thence South 62 degrees West 687.5 feet; thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes West 196.6 feet; thence South 73 degrees 18 minutes West 198.5 feet; thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes West 795.8 feet to the north line of said Section 5; thence Easterly along said north line of said Section 5, a distance of 598.2 feet to point of beginning, the East line of said property above described runs in a North and South direction. Excepting from above the following described parcel of land: That part of Section 5, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest Comer of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence Easterly along the north line of said Section 5, a distance of 478.5 feet; thence south, a distance of 585.2 feet; thence South 62 degrees West, a distance of 445.5 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing South 62 degrees West, a distance of 242.0 feet; thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 196.6 feet; thence South 73 degrees 18 minutes West 198.5 feet; thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes West, a distance of 795.8 feet to the north line of said section; thence East along the said north line of said section a distance of 313.7 feet to a point 284.5 feet West of the Southwest comer of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence South 25 degrees 12 minutes East 868.1 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting from above the following described parcel of land: All that part of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West described as follows, to wit: Commencing at a point which is determined as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23 West, thence Easterly along the north line of said Section 5, Township 116, Range 23, a distance of 478.5 feet; thence South 585.2 feet; thence South 62 degrees West, 687.5 feet; thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes West 196.6 feet, to a point of beginning of land to be described; thence South 73 degrees 18 minutes West 198.5 feet; thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes West 219.45 feet; thence Northeasterly 198.5 feet 7 along a line parallel with the Southerly line of the tract conveyed herein; thence Southeasterly 219.45 feet along a line parallel to the Westerly line of the tract conveyed herein to point of beginning, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. 8 Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC. b.Cr c~~\J -~ n ~- . , ';'; \, ~,J AP~ 0 a 2006 c: l~' OF Ct-L, I~SSEN 7300 Metro Boulevard #360 Edina, MN 55439 TEL: (952) 830-0161 FAX (952) 831-1215 E-mail: info~chofamerica.com March 28,2006 Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 SENT VIA FAX AND US MAIL FAX: 952-227-1110 Dear Sharmeen: Please accept this letter as our request to waive the 120-day deadline for the City to review plans for Boulder Cove. Please contact me should you have any questions. Roger erric Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC. Planning Case No. Dto-lO CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, M N 55317 - (952) 227-1100 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 0 3 2006 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PL.A,NNING OEPT PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: r-->l.,\ifi..je. \1Wl~S. ~-\- k\~.a:: (' fIVe l..bG 1~Qt) I\e.-\ib ~\v C\. \ ~ 3LDO 1 &\\Y\{i) N ~ 5,5 L..IL~l1 Contact: ~~~~((\( ~. Phone~'S - \ Fax:(l\5~) &~\ - \~ \~ Email: (N'S (@c.-nrrt2-t1O"Y"fi (' a I C..DYYJ Owner Name and Address: ~ SAHF-J Contact: Phone: Email: Fax: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is reauired prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements 0/AC) Interim Use Permit (IUP) )< Variance (VAR) Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal '" Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review X Notification Sign ~ (City to install and remove) X. Site Plan Review (SPR)* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPRNACNARIWAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTALFEE$o1)sBD.l"'i) (~~ 'ooL 'A Subdivision* An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8Y2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a diQital COpy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 0 3 2006 CHANHASSEN PL,A,NNING DEPT PROJECT NAME: rst:::>~~<le f ~V~ LOCATION: ~lo'\) lli~'n, ,.)0"",'1 "1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Je:t' A:lli'l-i'Xte..d TOTAL ACREAGE: \3 \::J Ar..;(e.s WETLANDS PRESENT: YES 'X NO l&c. \.})eX\6S\~ \.-e-\Tef) PRESENT ZONING: ~es\ derrba...\ ~,F. REQUESTED ZONING: ~. L, H PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: L \ D, ~ , REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: L, \'), ~, REASON FOR REQUEST: ~e, -n,. \f) I Q.J\~ ~(e.e \ }.Y"\\-\- -TD\U'\\ \\{}~ c..o m 0\ U-n\ "1 This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that 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 vvhom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to 1his 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. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. e.. ~e.. LC- ~D.rL ~D{){o Date Signature of Fee Owner Date SCANNED G:\plAN\forms\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 12/05 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDA VIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SSe COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on July 20, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Boulder Cove - Planning Case No. 06-10 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me thi~+0-day o~, 2006. ICANNED -0 C CU - 0 ~ .-:. ~ c::E - 0) .....J 0) :Q 0:: OC en ....... 0) E CU . 0:: '- ~E:6~ COoO)c .....J:::::E..!! I ~ ~~ Q. ::E . (ij 0) ~S E 0.. 0 .- 0) a .::E e.....J (I) c - 0 0..- CU .- en 0 0 '+- "~ -0 ...enOl'-o..... m .-E r:.-: I'- 0) ~ ~ "c :J: -c-O:l E -= en .- "- en E u ,'" '- C en Q) .-o<o~oO)oE :COOEstO::;o :J ~ CU a: 0.- 0 Q..5 _.t::. ;: ~ 0) ~cor-()"LL.>E oc..... Wen 0 Q)asen15>o::€.t::. u-:lco.......~c ;:Q.:l:l0~ ~ oc<(o ==Co Z CD () a: E .2 ..... en -_Wcuen~ en CU (ij C u.. .> c as "0 I ..J 0).- =t .c en ::) t;):E 0) ; ~ ~ O"~ :J ~ .cl-umencn-5 o CD E i= c fti ~:8 ~ oS ~ ca. as 0 e C ..J D. O)-g~ ..... .t::.0..... en ......t::."o 0) ..... '- CU ~ 5~~ '0 ~ "5>= -5 :l'Ci) ~ ::J 0 C.!:::: o ~O)CU en E.t::..t::. -0 cD'-.....() Uc ~OEO) .....J CU .... 'E o.t::. en .....J -0 0 . - '- ..... 0.. - CU ;.9= 0;2 0)>0 - ::Jcen o 0:: s::. en 0...- C) ().t::. ~'0.5: ~ .5: '- ~ G) .5: c E 3: ~::J :2 (ij'ca 0 - .t::. . 0) 15 0) = ::JU !.t::.0=~ o '+- ., CO 0 ~ .2 0 C) ~ C6 en ~ :c ; .~ ..... encu ~::JC:l.t::. "0 0) G) 0.. CU 0 C) CU - == en ..... ::J 0) I'- c :.c en ..; e ..... ~ 0..... 0) 0 .t::. en CU . '+- :l 0) ..... 0) ~ - 0 C".-- C) E.t::. O)O)ec as en '- 0.."L: ~~Q5Eo_enenCU O),+-O)ce-c:.c~ o '::'.2 :l CU ..... ~ CU .t::. en 7i 0...2 "5 "2 . = t"2 g 0) c.. 0 :c <0 0 0 C\J - .t::. 0...0 ::J oUZ<Oc.tl-cucuo.. .! i:L >-c 1::.2 Q).. ca.ca o U ... 0 Q...J "0 ffi 0) -g ~ _ ..... .t::.0..... - 0 en..... ..c: "0 CU C! 0)..... '- '" E~~.. ~ 5.8~ 0) .....J 0) '0 ~ "5> = ~ ~ 5 -5 ::J 'Ci) ~ 0) E CU ::J 0 C .!:::: .0:: '- 0 ~O) CU "0.2: E ~ ~ en E .t::. .t::. """ "0 ,,: '- ..... () cooO)c U -OE ..... J::: :E ..!! .....J ~ .!:! '+- 0) en CD ~ ~ ~ Q. .....J"O '0 .~ e = 0.. ::E . = 0) :> ..CD cD CU ;.9 = 0; 2 E ,'" 0..;> 0 .- ::J C en cill::::O ;^ 0> 0:: s::. en 0...- ~ en 0 ....::: e.....J v I C ..... """, c .- 0 0.. - CU U..c: ~ .~.- ~ .!: .- en 0 0 '+- .~ "0 '- ~ G) .5: c E ~ ...001'-0.....-..... Q)::J ~'- 0 ~ .e- .:.... I'- fIft CO) ca "C"O .- CU.ca - ~ I -- .. C""'.,..... :l - u..c: · Q) 15 0) <5 ::J: e -= en .- "~ en E:l !! ..c: 0 = '+- U ''''O)'-cenCD 0,+-., 0) ._ 0 <0 .0 0 0) U E CO 0 ~ .2 0 C)..c: :c 0 g E at 0:: i 0 C\1 en ~ :c ; 'E ..... :J C\JCUa:g~o encu ~:lc::J..c: D. c ...t::. -. as 0) "0 0) G) 0.. CU 0 C) .- u.. > E '" - ;; en ..... :l ~ C or- U .. 0)'''' I'- c .;::: en ~ P oc....._Wen 0 ......0).....--- Q) ... en'" > a: € .t::. ..... ~ 0..... 0 .t::. u~::JcO.......:>c encu .'+-:l0)..... ;: Q. _ :l 0 ~;> ~ O)E ~ - 00) g.e- g> o c <(oJ 0 .- c 0 as en '- 0.."L: ZQ) Oa:E~..... IO.I~""'O)EO~~CU o .. _ W CU 0 ;t::: 0....... v I 0) o '" - C u.. .- CO)'+- 0) C '- c :.c - as ,'" CU > :l 0 .::. 0 ::J CU ..... ...... .c ~ I :::! ~:c cb 0 CU .t::. en:; 0...2 "5 .2 C Q) ~ C).c 0) or-. = t-c U 0) Oc oocC\J_o c..0:C as :l ~ ._:J ~ <0 Z ,^ ~ .t::.1- S- -9 0..::J .c I- () m en (I) = 0 0 ~ ~ ,'" ,'" o CD e i=c o ~;I Q) as .. u ca 0 C..J .! i:L fti o o ca. o ... D. >-c 1::.2 Q).. ca.ca o U ... 0 Q...J .8 ;t:: Q) c 0) _ .c en ..... .t::.O)cen'+- .. 0) 'Ci) en 0) 0 ..... 0 · c 0 ~ 'S; .~ E .t::. ~ 0) 5 0 .. ..; ::J 0) ::J Ca 0.. E g 'ii) CD 0 o 0 en O.t::. ~ E CU en.5 .- o~..; ~ m ~cn ~ 0 ~ oE 'E Q. '-0 c c.. t)oocuEo~ 0.. .~ 0 0; E CU en ~ c 0 Q) ~ "0 e 'Ci) c ..... C ~ = := ():c en ~ 0.. ..~ '';:; .t::. 0 C 'L: C Q) as ... oQ)gE 0) ooE~O).t::.=:J 0) 0). E ..... as .c o....c: .0 E E "'7", c :!:: 0 > I- o.....::Jo <0 Cd 0) Et..... as a. 5 ~() 0) Q ~ ~ .0 ~ en CD ~ 0) en..c: Q) -:5 c 0.. CU ~ 0) .~ .c .. .t::. c ..... .t::. 0) oS! ...:.t::. "0 0.. = Q) ..... CU E ..... 0 ____ 0 ~ .9 0) 8.;: > · '0 c.. 0 -g '+-.. c: O).t::. O)..c: ~ 0 C ~ C ~ CU ~ C6 0) 'e- q en -; ~ E i ;: .~ 0) ~ "0 en 0) ~ 0..'0 g ..... .S; Q)" I c: en > 0) c ~ ~ .~ @.r:. ~ e :t:: Q) E 0) ~. - ~ oS! 0.. ..t::.:::: 0 0 o...!! 1n > 0.. 0) - a..o c ..... CU ::J 0 = .c = c o - ~ 0 0) E -s ~ 0 0) .- .. 0 c == '- en 0). 0 CU ~ ~... Q) .U; CU ~ 0) .- -5 3: 55.0 en ~ 5 :::: o:t:: en ..... '- C) 0) en ", CU ~. CU ~ 0 .- ~ ~ CU .5: Q) t) US 0) ,'" ~ 0) ..... 1::.c E '0,.2 J!3 Ca t5 en.~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ en 0 ~ E =a.c 0) Q).8 0 c 0 E,.....t::. . ca.~ 0 .~ 0.. ~ ~ 'e ..... a. CU ~ Q) ~ .9 g>! 1:) 0 CU .- C en..c: ~ C\J .- := Q) :::: 0) E :c cu.. q 0 .0 C\J "S Q) ca .~ c CU .t::. 0 :l 0) ~ Z"o en '+- · 0. Q) .. 0 .- Ci5 ..... U Q. -:5 ::J (3 i. .9 10 f?! Q) E 0 D- 2 ~O) ~7cn..c:0)!Q)ca ~ N M ~ ~ -5 $ <c C6 .~ -:5 I- = ii: en .. ctn Q).5 ca." ca.Q) ca Q) :J:::E ..Q) ca.c .c" ~-;; en 0) en en ..; :l o 0 0) en .0 ..; :a '- 0 C o...~ 0 -0 e 'en ~ 0.. 0 .~ OQ):::E o...t::. .0 E O.....::Jo a. C 0.. U o 0) 0) en..c: 0) .t::.c.......c: ::~E; Oo..oc 3: C J::: CU .~ Q)"O "0 c: en 0) 0) Q) O).~ en > C5.0).Q o=~o C'~ '-.~ CU O)C) Q)cCaC .~ CU en .~ ..; ~gcQ)~ == 0.. Q) ..c . ~ g- E .2 e 1ijO)E:CO) ......t::.o::J_ en.....uQ.= NM~ o .. cO) Q).5 ca." ca.Q) ca Q) :J::E ..Q) ca.c .c" ~-;; ~ en.!! c c o Q) ;:E Xl E :J 0 ao o ..... Q) ..... CO).. .c ..... ..c:Q)cen'+- .. 'Ci) en Q) 0 ..... 0 . c 0 "S; .~ E ~ ~ Q) 5 0 .. CD ::J Ca 0.. E g . en Q) 0 en O..c: ~ E cu en.5.- m ~ en ~ 0 -E; 'E c D- c.. UoocuEo>- cuenccoQ)ca 52> .5c~~=()^"E ~ ..c:oc~cQ)ca~ 0) ooE~O).c:=:J Q) ~Q)c:_E-C1S.c E <0 ~ 0) 'E t .9 i; I- 0) Q~~.o ~en Q)! -:5 c 0.. CU ~ 0) .~ .c .. CD ~ ....... ~ "0 0.. = Q) '- --.. 0 ~ .9 0) 8 -;: > · ~..~Q)~Q)..c: ~oc 0) C6 ~ '0' (,) en ..... Q) e .c .- .0 0) ,-. 0"0 ca" en 0) ~ 0..'0 g ..... "S; CD " Z c ~ ~ .~ @..c: ~ e:t:: Q) E ~ 0.. . = ::= 0 0 o...!! 1n 0...0 C ..... . cu ::J 0 = .c = c 0) 0) ~ ::J (ij ~ 0) "~ .. Q) .2 ..c: :> C o,^ c ... .. en ..... ;> 0).0 VI ~ 0 :::: 0.- 0 0) en en cu...... cu ~ en .- O)t)en cu~O)""'1::.cE enCDcu~~C")~cnoQ)E o '0' -E 0 E ;:..c . ca. ~ 0 :: c.ca EO) Q)~.8 g>!1j0 C en ..c: ~ C\J .- = Q) cu.. q 0 .0 C\J "S Q) as .-.- c ~ Z"- en . '+- Q) .. 0 ._ . - 0 0 :::: C\J 0.. en'" c ::J U i. ..... cu L() Q) E ca. c ~CD ~7cn..c:Q)~Q)as ~ = $ <c C6 "~ = I- = ii: ~ 0.!! c c o Q) ;IE Xl E :J 0 ao en - 0 C) ~ c ~ . 0 1:: .5 Q) ~ ~ ~ 5~~ 2= - ~ Q) ~o ~ Q) 0 ~ .~ ~ ~ 0 c ~.o 8- ~ ~ ~ . ~si ~Q)0 ~~ ~<~ ~i Q)~g < Q) ~ Q) ~ ~ ~ 0 a. cD Co ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ -g ,g g E 70 ~ ~ ;. ~ g-i C) "0 ~ ; 5.g ~~ Q) ~-e 8.~:e~cij ~ a.~ ai ~ Co~~ Q)O)~ ~~e~~omo.5;E8~ 8- ~-c: ~~- ~ma.E~E~0 E ~ s~! g~j ~~~~~~~~Si ~~ ~~~ 0.I::. 0 c 05 - (5 a. S :J ~ a. () ~ ~ 0 0 ~()O ~_SE.I::.E~0-Q) Q)> ()"O E = .S!. c ~ 0 ~ ~ 00'0 ~ 5 0 = m '5 ~ Q) .t: .g .g ~ == ~ oa; ~ m CD "0 E ~ ~ ~ c.~ E ~ a. 0 ~ ~ ~ .I:; 13 Q) E 0 - .- - 70 0 () ~ 5:~ eum;~jE~m~ ~~ ~~c: -g .: :: ~ 0) ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 :E ~ a: c 1ij ~ ~ ~ ~ :J 0 .-.~ 0 () 0 c: 0 :t::: 0 8 - '0 - CD - g - . C Q) - .~ ~ Q) - ~ Q) Q) (j) c t= ~~Q)~Q)Q)()"O~E7O"O~= ~. :JO ~S~~~E~-g~-g~ms= ~~ 8~~ :6 ~ 8 Q) i c a ~ . Q) ~ 0 ~.i .S: 0 ~ Q) (j) c E LO E a..2 Q) C) m E.0 g E ~ 0 g. <3 .I:; 8 ~ ~ ! ~ .~ = .~ CD : ~ a. ~ ~ a. a. Q) ~ o~ . Q) - - E ~ ~ > "0 E .~ .I::. 0 ~ .I:;.- c ~ E .~ -g ~ E S ! ~ 8 0 ~ ~ ~ ; .Qi -. ~ ~ .~ < ~ Q) -g 00 i.2 ~"O -= 0 a. "3 & = ~ -g ~ > Q) t= == "0 c - E c: 0 - E 0 C).C: - Q) Q) "0 8. ~ c C) Q) .g ~ c 0 0 .I:; ~ .c ~ g = a: ()O 0 0 .- .~ 0. a. == Q) Q) g () 0 :J i5 Q) .- _ c ~-~cOQ)g0E~~0 8~ .I::.Q)() ~~~~=~~=5~~~!~oai~ g~~ ~ m ~'S: c ~ - Q) () C Q) = - g.~ 0 ~ .g.- 0 ~ S ~ .5 ~ Q) ~ 0 ~ ~ E 8: S ~ Q) .- "0 a. ~ () .- C 0- 0 m.I:; .Q:t:::. m m Q) a. Q) Q) 0 Q) g m ~ Q) 6-.- 02 = E ~ () ~ Q) = ::J ~ E ~ 2 = ~ ~ 0EQ)~a.<Q)==Q)C:0m"O_-~.8~ ~Q) C "0 ~ Co a. .~ ~ .I:;.2 :J 0 0 .I:; 00 C ,cg 02 - Q)~~a.m~~c~2~~~~~m.I:; (5~1:: 5. E g ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ == Q).!!! 6- ~ e 8 ~.~ c;i- .I:; ~ 0 02 ~ ~ U "E g c: o~ g a: -g ~ ~ = ~ ~ C c: g ! Q) ~ m 13 ~ ~ ~ .2 ~ 5 c: m 0) 8: E <3 ~ ~ ~ .~ -; ~ ~a: o~ Q)~~ o{)~ a~ m~ Q) o~ CD .E.~= .~ ~ ~.~ = ~ ~ () ~{g.~ U; ~ C = ~.i ~ E "E .5 ~~6cg~E!6~5Q)0~~a._~{)0~"O .. C < ==E~Q)EN-(j);>_0Q)0 Q)Q) ! ~ ~ g 0 t=8. ~ 0 . = ~.a. g ~~ Q) ~ ~ ~-g -6 C ~.0 g m 0 0 0 ~ - .! "E .E = 8. E ~ 02 ~ C3 CD ~ a..~;e ~ ~ ~ ~ - () ~ (j) {g O.g 0.9.~ c: c.~ 8a:EE~~~mgg~~~c-;Q)"o"O~~~Q) ~ oE 00"O~~0Q)mmC.I:;0Q)c~c~ ~en{)0~~t=ca.m~==mu:E~2~~Q)os ~5en{)c~8.m~~~()~~~"O~~==~ CD .0 C) C).2 ~ Q) t= .t: Q) ~ 5 (5 = o~ C ~ 0 o~ Q) ~.5 .- .-.5 C - ~ ~ 0 m E.- 0 0 ~ .I:; () _ 0 ~ .I:; > o~ C .- ~ a. Q) a. Q) E E () Q) 0 c 0 C) C (,) :J 0 - ~"Oo~==0~.I:;oE c~~:J~Q)Q)m()Q) .g ~ ~ a..!! Q) Q) () 0 ~ o~ Ocu ~ ca C Q)'O ~ ~ E ~(j)a:~g-(j)~==~{)O~~~U<Coa.m~~ o . en Q) -0 C) ~ c = . 0 t= .5 Q) ~ ~ ~ 5~m 2= _ ~ Q) ~ ~ 0 ~.~ a. m - c ~.- 0. Q) m S CDQ)"O ~~~ a:O ~c~ 02= c.I:;c: == = Q) ~ Q) 0 ~ g < 13 Q) ~ Q) .~ 0 <Q):E Q)>m !O a..~ ~Q) ~~~ "0 ~ (5 E 0 70 - > a. ~ m "0 .- .!:J ~ cSc 700~~~ ~~C) ~ Q)og Jg .2l Q) ~ -e 8. ~ t= og cij ~ a. ~ ~ ~ Co ~:g Q) C) ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~'m.t: - ~ c 5 - 0 - c ~~S ~ma.E~E~~()~ ~ ~~! g Co .~ ~ Q) ! -g ~ ~ "0 ~ S t= .~ ~ 05 g - o ! 0 c .~ - ~ 15 a. ~ ::I 0 ~ () 'cu ~::I 5 ~(,)O ~~SE.I:;Em0=Q) Q)> 8"0 E = Q) C == 0 Q) ~ .0.- ~ C 0 .I:; ~ ... Q) ot: .g :g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {g ~ C) ~ ~ g ~ E ~ a. 0 m 1ij ~ .I:; 13 Q) E 0 - .5 - 70 0 () ~ 5:~ eUm;~jE~m~ ~~ ~~C -g .: :: ~ 0) ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 :E ~ a: C 1ij ~ ~ ~ m ::I 0 o_.~ 0 0 0 c 0 :t::: 0 0 - '0 - CD 70 g - 0 C Q) - .~ E Q):: ~ Q) ! (,) (j) c t= c~Q)cQ)Q)(,)"O~Em"O~- m. :JO .2 ~ ~ ~ .5 E ~ ~ ~ -g ~ m s = ~ ~ 8 ~~ :6 ~ 8 Q) i c am. Q) ~ 0 ~ Oi 'S: 0 ~ Q) (j) c E LO E a..2 Q) C) Q) E.- B E ~ 0 a. 5 .I:; 8 -g ~ ~ ~ o~ = .2 ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ c. ~ Q) .~ o~ . Q) - - E ~ m > "0 E .- .I:; 0 ~ .r:. c ~ E .~ -g ~ E .g ~ ~ 8 0 ~ ~ ~ ; OQi -. i ~ Q)<~Q)-go"O(,)~"O'::oc.:i Q)= ~"O(l. 'S: Q) t= == - 0 Q) = ~ c 0 - E C) C) .C: ..2 Q) Q) "0 8. ~ g C) ai .g E ~ C 0 0 2 ~ o~ ~ g = a: 00 0 0 .- .~ 0. a. == Q) Q) g (,) 0 :J "0 Q) .- ~ c ~ - 1U c 0 Q) g 0 E ~ .: 0 8 ~ .I:; Q) U ~ "0 a. i .I:; c: Q) .I:; :J :J"O m Q) 0 . c: ~ .2 ~ s a:~~~~~~;8-g~g=~~:~ ~~g ~ ~ ~ o~ g Q):;; 0 ~ ~ E 8:,g ~ Q) .- "0 a. ~ (,) 0- c 'S 0 m.I:; :0. .Q:t::: . m ~ Q) a. Q) Q) 0 Q) g m ~ Q) CT'- 02 = E ~ () ~ Q) = ::I ~ E ~ 2 = ~ m 0EQ)~a.<Q)~Q)cmm"O_-m~ ~Q) c "0 ~ m 0. :t::: ~ .I:;.2 ::I 0 0 .I:; '0 C .8 ~ .2 - Q) ~ ~ a. m ~ ! c ~ 2 ~ .~ o~ ~ 5 m.I:; . (5 ~ t="" KEg "0 ~ ~ ~ .~ == Q) ~ 6- ~ e 8 ~.~ en .I:; ~ 0 .Q < ~ "* "E CT c: o~ g a: "0 ~ g = ~ 5t c: c: g ~ Q) Q) C .- Q) :J ~ 0 E:::J . C a. E:t::: ~ Q) 0 .0 _ ~ ~ ~"E CD 0 ~ ~ E 0 g m ~ a. () C ::; ~ .~ C) Q) o ~ 0 - Q).D m 0 () 0- 0 . m ~ Q) 0 Q) E c ::; _Q)~~SQ)~{)~~~~Q)~.I::.~ia.E~C: '2 .~.- ~ c: J5 Q) Q) :t::: -g '2 LO E ~:: Q) ~"O 0 Co'- .. ~ ~ () ..i 0 ~ E .I:; ~ Q) 2 ~ ~ ~ S g.- * () ~ i ! "0 ! c: ."E'cu E ~ .I:; E Q)::I .02 0) ~ ~ Q) C) ~ -g ~~~~~a.~8~~~~i"E~~&Ei~~C3 i~a.~;e~~~~~~~(j){g0.g0S~C~~ 8a:EE~mmmgo~~~c-;Q)"o"O~~"OQ) ~ oE 00~~~0Q)~mc:.I:;0~c~c.D ~ en () 0 oS: ~ t= c: a. ~ .c ~ m U:E ~ ~ g>> m Q) 8. S ~5en{)c~&m~c~(,)m~~"O~~=::;0 CD .0 C) C).2 it Q) t= .t: Q) ~ 5 (5 = ~ C .0 8 o~ Q) ~ .~ 'S; :~ .~ .~ ~ 0.. ~ 8. m ~ .E 8 ~ 0 C : "5 c: t) ~ ~ = ~"OO~~=0~.I:; E C~~:::J~Q)Q)m(,)Q) ~.g~~&.!!~~80~~~CDEC:~~~~~ ~(j)a:~~(j)~;;~O{)~~a.0<~a.m~0 o . Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 9466.03. Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational. tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 9466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map aCknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages. and expressly waives all cJaims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. CRAIG ALAN KOUBA 3520 HWY 7 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8872 COTTAGE HSTDS AT BOULDER COVE 7300 METRO BLVD #360 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439 -2302 WADE A NAVRATIL 3751 62ND ST W EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -6401 MERL YN H & BETTY WANOUS 6231 CHURCH RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8836 STEPHEN R MARBEN & ROSALIE A DEHN 6201 FIR TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8856 HILDEGARD E & MILDRED A FORNER 6200 FIR TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8855 BRYAN N & ARANA F PETERS 6236 FIR TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8855 THOMAS & ROSE RUHLAND 6211 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8861 EDWARD J & JUDY A EVANS 6220 FIR TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8855 JAMES & PAULA HAGAN 6221 FIR TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8856 HAYLEY FORREST 3502 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 SEAN G MATCHAN & JAYNE A BAUMAN 6241 CHURCH RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8836 MICHAEL MAXWELL 6230 FIR TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8855 MARVIN G & PATRICIA S ONKEN 6221 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8861 SHAWN D & DENISE J HEITZ 3510 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 MICHAEL L & CARRIE L MILLER 6311 CHURCH RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8838 CHRISTOPHER M STEINKRAUS NICOLE R JOL Y 3520 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 DAVID E THOMAS IV 6240 FIR TREE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8855 JAMES A & ELIZABETH A THOMPSON 6231 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8861 DONALD J & WENDIE A SEAMANS 6301 CHURCH RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8838 VINCENT D TURK 3530 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 JOEL A MELLENTHIN & KATHARINE M KOCINA 6301 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8863 ROBERT J & PAULA A CRIPPA 3503 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 JULIE A HIRSCH 6321 CHURCH RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8838 KENNETH C DURR 4830 WESTGATE RD HOPKINS, MN 55345 -3931 CHARLES & PAMELA E RIENSTRA 3511 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 STEINKRAUS CHURCH RD STORAGE C/O COURTLAND REAL ESTATE 11 07 HAZELTINE BLVD SUITE 535 CHASKA, MN 55318 -1063 WILLIAM S & DANIELLE J MODELL 3521 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 PHILIP B WARTMAN JR 3531 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8886 VERLAN J WISSINK 6401 LANDINGS CT EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9713 JAMES 0 JR & CHRISTAN GINTHER 3611 IRONWOOD RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8890 STEVEN A SMRELA & BARBARAJBOERBOON 6415 LANDINGS CT EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9713 WILLIAM H & KIMBERLY A KOHMAN 3780 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 MOMCILO SPASOJEVIC & SMILJANA SPASOJEVIC 3771 MEADOW LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7840 KEITH R KORINKE 6310 CHURCH RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8837 WAYNE M HARTUNG & TONIRJOHNSON 2306 RUSSELL AVE N MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55411 -2443 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8927 M & K HOFFMAN 6195 STRAWBERRY LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 D & L BECKER 6165 STRAWBERRY LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 K & L LEVINE 26325 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 D & T CROSKEY 26265 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 B & M THORSON 26205 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 T & L WAGNER 26145 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 J & B HUGO 26110 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 B & A PALM 26170 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 J & M JIBBEN 26300 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 B & L THOLEN 26175 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 D TORGERSON 6185 STRAWBERRY LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 D & S HALBMAIER 26395 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 M & M BARGA 26305 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 J & J TUTTLE 26245 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 D WYDMAN 26185 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 J & J GAGNON 26125 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CABARELLO LLC 26130 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 R & K WILLOCK 26190 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 W & M COLOPOULOS 26215 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 J SCHNEIDER 26420 62ND STREET WEST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 S & S BRADLEY 6175 STRAWBERRY LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 J & PTUMA 26345 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 T & J BIATCK 26285 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 J & E HAESLER 26225 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 K & J TAYLOR 26165 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 P & H SNEDE 26105 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 D MARTIN & D COLE 26150 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 P & L STEFFENS 26250 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 P & M HODAPP 26195 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 R FASCHING 26450 62ND STREET WEST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 M HEILANE 26510 62ND STREET WEST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 P & P HALGESEN 6120 STRAWBERRY LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 G KOEHNEN 26505 MAPLE AVENUE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 J &J BLUM 6155 CHURCH ROAD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 R ZUEHL 6180 CHURCH ROAD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 M & B MORFORD 6150 CHURCH ROAD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 A & K BURMEISTER 26155 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 BOB GAGNE 24850 AMLEE ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 M PLEWKA 26450 62ND STREET WEST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 J LINDER 6150 STRAWBERRY LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 A & A THILL 6185 CHURCH ROAD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 R & VWETHERALL 6135 CHURCH ROAD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 T & S LENZEN 6170 CHURCH ROAD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 A HAAS 26085 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 S & D KLIMOWICZ 26135 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 E CAMERON 26580 62ND STREET WEST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 W & J OELFKE 6170 STRAWBERRY LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 R & S SELL 6175 STRAWBERRY LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 R & L DETRUDE 26620 62ND STREET WEST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JP KLICK & SJ COOL 3703 CASCO AVENUE WAYZATA MN 55391 D & M SETTERHOLM 26090 OAK LEAF TRAIL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 S CHARBONNET 26115 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Boulder Cove Planning Case No. 06-1 0 3670 Highway 7 City of Chanhassen Lake Minnewashta "1"-' ,:', J I Engirw~ringfSurv~ying 7) l:"\ L~cape Ar.Ch,~ture . L 1 h'~""",..\~i" ,. ,~~ " ,'c,./" July 25, 2006 Lori Haak City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147 Re: Boulder Cove Dear Lori: Per your request, we have reviewed the provided drainage plan and calculations for the Boulder Cove development. Our investigation concludes that the proposed improvements will not adversely affect the existing drainage patterns in the area or neighboring property. An item not addressed in the plans, however, is the ditch flow on the north side of State Highway 7 (TH7) that comes from the east. This flow should be modeled in conjunction with the overall subdivision modeling since concentration points have been established at the inlets of the two existing culverts heading south underneath TH7. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns you may have. Sincerely, HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLS ., INC. C/I/- Charles J. Howley, P.E. Project Manager 7510 Market Place Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-829-0700 952-829-7806 fax HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, INC. ~[~\llNEIS01:t"o Minnesota Department of Transportation I ~ i E Metropolitan District ~ g,O ~ OF TFt~~t:j Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 March 6, 2006 RECEIVED MAR 0 7 2006 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Sharmeen AI-Jaff Senior Planner - City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 553 1 7 SUBJECT: Boulder Cove, MnlDOT Review #P06-0 16 North side ofTH 7, east of Church Road Chanhassen, Hennepin County Control Section 1005 Dear Ms. AI-Jaff: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced plat, in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. MnlDOT's staff has reviewed the plans and has the following comments. Please address these comments prior to further development. Traffic: Our agency is very pleased to see the elimination of three access points on TH 7 and local roadway utilized for access to this development. As you are aware, MnlDOT is working hard to inform local communities of the benefits of access management as well as our new access guidelines. TH 7 is an important principal arterial through this area of the metro, with high traffic volumes and high speeds. As such, the highway is classified as a high-priority regional corridor, and private access to the highway is allowed only if reasonably convenient and suitable access is not available from the local street network. The city has properly utilized the local street network for access for this development. If feasible, our agency would recommend that the one remaining private access on the east side of the development be provided access through this development and this access closed as well. In a recent phone conversation you had requested information on the request for a signal at Church Road. This intersection had a warrant analysis completed in December of2005, and does not meet warrants for a signal installation. Consolidating access, as this development has, is one way to improve the traffic counts for an intersection to meet warrants. For more information on this issue please contact Lars Impola in MnlDOT's Traffic section at (651) 634-2379. Drainage: A MnlDOT Drainage permit will be required. The proposed construction will need to maintain existing drainage rates to Mn/DOT right-of-way. The following information will need to accompany the permit: 1) A grading Plan of the existing & proposed project. An equal opportunity employer 2) Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing both existing and proposed drainage areas and flows (with flow arrows) 3) Hydrologic, and hydraulic computations/modeling before and after proposed reconstructions (ie., Hydro-CAD input assumptions, calibration data, results for 10, 50 and 100 year storm events). Please submit any further documentation electronically as Adobe Acrobat (.pdt), and HydroCAD (.hc) files. Ifplans change, you must resubmit for review. The electronic model and pdf file can be emailedtoThomasMitchell@dot.state.mn.us. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Thomas Mitchel 651) 634-2403 of MnlDOT' s Water Resources section. Permits: The city will need to submit a long form permit for the water lines crossing TH 7. The developer will need to submit a short form permit for the removal of the three access points. In addition, the developer will need to subnlit a drainage permit, as noted above. Any use of or work impacting MnlDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/utility . Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-582-1447) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Plat: The southerly line of Boulder Cove adjacent to TH 7 shows a circular curve, a tangent section and part of a spiral curve. Boulder Cove shows a tangent distance of 446.54 ft between the PT of the circular curve and the TS of the spiral. This does not agree with the distance of 495.1 ft as shown on MnDOT R/W map no. 12-28. The southerly plat boundary of Boulder Cove needs to be revised to agree with the northerly R/W line ofTH 7. Please contact Rick Bruss in MnlDOT's Survey section at (763) 797-3113 with questions regarding this issue. MnlDOT's Access control needs to be shown on the plat. We request that the existing openings to the highway be dedicated as access control, in which access control would be across the entire site. Please indicate the 75-foot offset from the centerline of the highway. Please send a copy of the final plat for MnlDOT's files and review to the following address: David Torfin Mn/DOT - Metro West Surveys 2055 N. Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 Phone: (763) 797-3113 Noise: Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. .. ... Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to eXIstIng highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582-1293. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 MnlDOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay MnlDOT's 30-day review and response process to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582- 1378. Sincerely, ~ ~U~~?JtJtL Brigid bold Senior Transportation Planner Copy: Rob Wied / Hennepon County Surveyors Section Bob Byers / Transportation Planning Section Cara Schwahn Otto / Otto Associates ~\"g c~ .( ,. .., 1946 ... ,sJ 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN 55387 Phone: 952-442-5101 Fax: 952-442-5497 C..SI.rAn.. IISr.,er htto:J/www.co.carver.ma.aslSWCD/SWCDmain.html &r1SSio" SIiIte..e"t: To provide leadership in conservation and teach stewardship of the soil, water, and related resources throuJ!h a balanced, cooperative proJ!ram that protects, restores, and improves those resources. February 22, 2006 Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Boulder Cove Ms. AI-Jaff: The SWCD has taken the opportunity to review the Boulder Cove plan. The plan reviewed is dated with revisions on 01/23/06 and a City stamp of 02/08/06. Please review and consider the following comments and suggestions regarding erosion and sediment controls. A NPDES permit and SWPPP will be needed for this development. The developer / owner should apply for and receive the permit; the engineer should develop a SWPPP in accordance with the NPDES permit. Erosion Control 1. Seed and erosion control blanket should be applied within 24 hours of final grade in the areas where culverts and accesses are being removed. 2. Erosion control blanket must be applied from the energy dissipation at the FES to the ditch along Hwy 7. 3. Energy dissipation is needed at the FES inlet and outlet of the storm water basin within 24 hours of installation. Sediment Control 1. Perimeter control is needed to contain disturbed areas in the ditch for removal of accesses and culverts during the work. 2. Silt fence is needed around the pond at or above HWL within 24 hours of outlet installation. 3. The future storm water pond should be used as a temporary sediment basin and a temporary outlet should be installed (perforated standpipe with rock cone). A detail is needed within the SWPPP. 4. Area inlets and curbside inlet control are needed within 24 hours of installation. A detail is needed in the SWPPP. 5. The FES inlet in Block 1, near Lot 35 and 34 needs temporary protection within 24 hours of installation. A detail is needed. A rock weeper or biorolls could be used. 6. Individual home control-typical details are needed for building lots. A typical is needed for individual lots and multifamily lots. Storm water Management The storm water basin could be designed to short circuit. It is recommended to install a baffle / diversion to increase the flow distance threw the pond to prevent short-circuiting the treatment potential of the basin. If there are any questions or if I can be of further assistance please contact the SWCD office. Sincerely, AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPWYER Aaron Mlynek, CPESC Urban Conservation Technician c. Lori Haak, City of Chanhassen (email) March 3, 2006 RECEIVED CITY OF MAR 0 SHOREWOOD C1TYOFC 82006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 5533~~ 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 · www.cLshorewood.mn.us · cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 Kate Aanenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317-0147 Re: Proposed Boulder Cove Development Dear Ms. Aanenson: The City of Chanhassen is considering a development application, which would include rezoning, for the proposed Boulder Cove development. It is located immediately south of our common city boundary, and roughly centered on the intersection of West 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. This matter was on the agenda of the February 27,2006 meeting of the Shorewood City Council, and we heard comments by from City staff and 13 area residents who addressed the Council. The Council wants to use this letter as its comments for Chanhassen's public hearing on this matter on March 7, 2006. A number of concerns were raised by our staff and the residents that attended the meeting. Most significant were drainage and traffic/circulation in the area. You are no doubt aware that the area in question is relatively poorly drained and characterized by heavy clay soils and a high water table. The Shorewood Oaks development to the north of the subject property has a rather sensitive drainage system that will not support additional storm water runoff. We believe that this issue can be managed with very careful engineering and request that we be kept apprised of proposed grading, drainage and erosion control solutions. Traffic and circulation are undoubtedly our greatest concern. Boulder Cove will be served by West 62nd Street, which lies half in Shorewood and half in Chanhassen, and by Strawberry Lane. Both of these streets are relatively narrow local streets. Strawberry Lane, which leads directly north to the Minnewashta Elementary School is as narrow as 22 feet, with no sidewalk. This route has considerable pedestrian traffic to and from the school. Similarly, area residents walk to Cathcart Park along West 62nd Street. n t.J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Re: Boulder Cove Development March 3, 2006 Page two We understand that Boulder Cove is within the density range prescribed by your Comprehensive Plan; due to the concerns relative to traffic, however, we would hope that something more in the middle of the range (i.e. two units per acre net) would be approved, as it would be more consistent with the existing surrounding development in both Chanhassen and Shorewood. Weare concerned that the development as proposed will have an undue impact on the infrastructure in Shorewood. We urge the City of Chanhassen to consider zoning on the proposed Boulder Cove property that is consistent with its neighborhood as well as Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan. This good, sensitive planning will result in desirable, complementary development throughout the immediate area. Thank you for the opportunity to include Shorewood's comments in the record. Woody Love Mayor On behalf of the City Council Christine Lizee, Ward 1 Laura Turgeon, Ward 2 Paula Callies, Ward 3 Martin R. Wellens, Ward 4 ...* ,.;,~ .'~... Stacey E -:~ KleinIMinneapolisJlBM ~, 02128/2006 03:39 PM Custom expiration date of 02/28/2008 To tfurlong@ei.ehanhassen.mn.us cc bee Subject Opposed to current plans for Boulder Cove Development Tom, I am a resident of the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood and a member of the Shorewood Oaks.Strawberry LanelWest 62nd Street Association (SOSLWSS). Although I am not a city of Chanhassen resident, I consider myself a good neighbor. A good neighbor who will be negatively affected if you and your council approve the current plans for the Boulder Cove Development along Hwy 7. I am not opposed to development. Single family homes on this site could compliment and blend in with the surrounding area's current demographics. But I am opposed to townhomes or other such development that is more dense than the adjoining neighborhoods. In addition to the density factor, I'm also concerned about drainage. Basic reasoning says that drainage won't be toward Hwy 7, which means that it will be toward the existing Shorewood Oaks neighborhood. This land is already at a high water table and additional drainage would result in damage to our homes and property. Traffic is also another serious concern. We are the first house off of Hwy 7 on Shorewood Oaks Drive and I do not welcome additional traffic at this intersection. In addition, Strawberry Land and 62nd Streets are substandard roads and would not bear additional flow of traffic without reconstruction. The larger, more dense, the plans are for Boulder Cove Development, the greater the negative impacts on our neighborhood in terms of: 1) safety of our children in the neighborhood due to increased traffic, 2) drainage of water off of the proposed development onto ours, 3) impact to class size at Minnewashta Elementary. Please restrict the zoning of this development to single family homes that are comparable to your immediate neighbors. It is unfair to the existing community and City of Shorewood to build townhomes or multi-unit homes, which will potentially decrease our property values and require the City to address issues stemming from this development. I look forward to the March 7th City of Chanhassen meeting where you have an opportunity to restrict the Boulder Cove Development to single family homes - like the adjoining neighborhoods. I will be there to express my concerns and ask for your support. Stacey KI , PMP@, MBA IBM Certified Managing Consultant IBM PM & PGM Supporting AXP Project Services Delivery Phone: (612) 656-8830 E-mail: staceyk@us.ibm.com Stacey Klein 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive Shorewood, MN 55331 RECEI'l;~ MAR 0 9 ~~Gtj6 CITY OF CHANHASSEN March 6, 2006 Sharmeen AI-Jaff Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Dear Sharmeen, I am a resident of the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood and a member of the Shorewood Oaks/Strawberry LanelWest 62"d Street Association. Our neighborhood directly borders the proposed site for the Boulder Cove Development along Highway 7. Although I am not a city of Chanhassen resident, I consider myself a good neighbor who will be negatively affected if the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the current plans for the Boulder Cove Development. My primary concerns are about zoning, drainage and traffic. Zonina When the d~veloper purchased this land in the spring of 2005 he was aware that it was zoned as Single Family Residential but is now asking for it to be rezoned to Medium Density Residential. This rezoning request only benefits the developer. If the city deviates from their plan and permits a densely populated development, it will be inconsistent with the immediate surrounding area and negatively impact the adjoining neighborhoods. The drainage and traffic issues will be compounded if the rezoning request is granted. Drainaae The proposed site and surrounding land drain poorly due to soil conditions and a high water table. This problem is made worse by the existing storm sewers, which struggle to carry even normal amounts of runoff. The general area drains to the North, meaning that the homes in the Shorewood Oaks/Strawberry LanelWest 6200 Street neighborhoods will be at greater risk of flood damage. Restricting the zoning to single family homes would increase the permeable land surface and improve water absorption versus run off to some degree. Regardless of how this parcel of land is zoned, please work closely with the developer and the City of Shorewood to engineer proper storm sewer capacity, grading, drainage and erosion control. 1 Traffic The proposed main entrance to the Boulder Cove Development is on the comer of Strawberry Lane and West 6200 Street. Both of these streets are substandard residential streets that will not support a significant increase in traffic. There are numerous children that live and play along these narrow streets. Many of these children either ride the bus or walk to Minnewashta Elementary, which is at the North end of Strawberry Lane. The surrounding residential streets will likely experience an increase in through traffic and excessive congestion. Other, safer, alternatives could be considered such as dedicated Highway 7 access or other entrances (such as Church Road) into the new development. I believe that the intentions of the Shorewood Oaks/Strawberry LanelWest 6200 Street Association are consistent with those of the city. My neighbors and I are not asking for special consideration. Our request is simple and straightforward - that on March 21st you rule in accordance with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan, which states: · Land will be developed "... in a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single family neighborhoods... ." · "Designing storm drainage facilities as an integral part of the development plan... ." · "Residential street systems should be designated to discourage through traffic and to be compatible with other transportation modes including transit, bicycle and walking." Thank you for your time, attention and consideration to these matters. Sincerely, ~fc~ Stacey Klein Isjek 2 From: Eric.H.Paul @wellsfargo.com [mailto:Eric.H.Paul @wellsfargo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 20065:16 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: It is doubtful I will be able to change a previous engagement so I may not be able to attend your meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 7. I would also like to apologize for not having specific details or correct description of the property that is in question for a re-zoning from single family to multi family along highway 7 and fronting Shorewood Oaks sub-division. I have a feeling you are well aware of the property in question, however. I do not wish to get into a philosophical debate about what this mayor may not do regarding property values. Given the price of land in this area it would seem logical to assume the value of the units will be such that not everyone would qualify. In fact, I would not be surprised if some of the "older" home owners in the area would give consideration to a unit since most of us truly love the area, and may wish to stay well into retirement. I would like to voice my opinion over two items. First, where is all of the run-off water going to go? Given the history of Shorewood Oaks and what has happened in the past few years as a result of Shorewood Ponds senior housing, it became obvious that little planning by our City was done. As a result, many of the homes on the East end of Shorewood Oaks, close to Freeman Park, have had terrible water damage to their homes, basements, and foundations. To date I am not sure this problem has been alleviated. What assurances can the City of Chanhassen give we property owners that the drainage engineering will be capable of handling the increased run-off from the project? Am I correct that the height of the project will actually be raised from its present elevation? Sorry to make any comparison to Hurricane Katrina and the levies in New Orleans come to mind. Well, perhaps this is a bit melodramatic but the point is the same, but we don't want the results to be the same.. . flooding. There has unquestionably been a difference in the past few years of the way in which the water drains, or does not drain, from our lots. Add to this the type of clay like soil and it can make for a very precarious situation given even nominal amounts of rain. There are some home owners that literally have trouble sleeping a night if there is heavy rain in the forecast for fear they will be bailing water out of their basements. . . again. I have been lead to believe there was or is a burm that follows a portion of Shorewood Oaks but not the full length of the proposed development. Perhaps this might be an addition for added protection, I do not know. Please, if this proposal goes forward at least protect property values, and property, by making sure there is proper drainage and proper flow of water away from the homes in the area. If this means tapping into the current system of Shorewood, or Shorewood Oaks, please reconsider or the entire area will be needing boats. Talk to those that have experienced the damage directly, some multiple times. The second concern I have is for the safety of the residence and the children specifically. Currently there are not paths or sidewalks for people to use when walking the sub-division of Shorewood Oaks. If families or children care to use Cathcart Park, many will walk the relatively short distance from their homes. It troubles me to think of an additional 38 units, most I assume with at least one vehicle, using Shorewood Oaks drive, then turning right on to Oak Leaf Trail to get to highway 7, and believe me this is exactly what will take place. If you are headed home from the east it probably will make sense to exit right on to Church Road. However, with the significant change of traffic coming from the west during rush hour, it is much easier, not easy, but easier to enter highway 7 from Shorewood Oaks Drive. This could add significant traffic into the Shorewood Oaks sub-division and could create very unsafe situations. So there you have the two issues, significant in my view, that I would like addressed by your city council. I have been in the area for the past 17 plus years and have been very pleased with how Chanhassen has developed over these years especially considering the speed at which it grew. I am hopeful that you will take the time to properly address these issues, and other issues, before breaking ground. These are serious issues and ones that I feel very strongly about as should you. I am writing this from my place of employment but these views are mine personally and most likely those of many in the surrounding area. Eric Paul Financial Consultant Wells Fargo Investments, LLC Private Client Services MAC N9305-101 10th Floor Wells Fargo Center, Minneapolis 55479 Telephone (612) 667-6079 800-835-2265 Ext. 76079 Fax 612-667-7963 From: Mhbarga@aol.com [mailto:Mhbarga@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 01,20069:46 AM To: council @ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Boulder Cove Development Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council members, As residents of Shorewood Oaks, we have been and continue to be distressed about the proposed development on Strawberry Lane and 62nd Street. Strawberry lane is a substandard road for the proposed development. The street is very narrow and has no shoulder or any area that can be widened to handle a walkway or necessary expansion. Today, traffic congestion in the mornings and evenings makes walking on the road dangerous. Traffic volume through Shorewood Oaks, both in the morning and evening, going east to route 7 and west to either Smithtown or 62nd Street, is already too high for a residential neighborhood. The impact of 39 units and potentially 78 new cars to the mix will be disastrous. Currently, cars pass through the neighborhood and exceed speed limits with little consideration for children, adults or pets walking or playing in the streets. Adding the new traffic to the area will make the situation much worse. Traffic volumes on Highway 7 are already very heavy and exiting the area is difficult during rush hours. Adding high density housing will further exacerbate all the above conditions. If plans are approved for this development, this area should be accessed only from Church Road and then a new traffic light installed at the Highway 7 intersection. This area also has a high water table and almost all yards now flood in heavy rains and water stands in my yard and my neighbors' yards for long periods of time (days) after the rain stops. Many basements have been flooded and repairs are very expensive. The projected development will only contribute to making the problems worse. We all recognize that normal growth means the loss of green space, but this is a single family neighborhood and is should be kept so or at the very least the impact should be minimized. Respectfully, Michael H. Barga Mary Kathleen Barga 26305 Oak Leaf Trail From: JDHAESLER@ao1.com [mailto:JDHAESLER@ao1.com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 20069:38 PM To: tfurlong@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Boulder Cove Development Opposition Dear Mayor Furlong, I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposed Boulder Cove Development just north of Hwy 7. While I realize that this land will one day be developed, I oppose how the developer is planning to do it on the following grounds: Density: He purchased the land knowing he would need it to be rezoned to higher density (up to 4 units per acre.) The current zoning is more than sufficient and is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Drainage: They propose to raise the elevation by 3 feet. That will cause water run off to flood into the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood and the surrounding areas, including land owned by Chanhassen. These areas already experience flooding on a regular basis. Traffic: Based upon the proposed road, all traffic to this development will naturally cut through the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood both in a western and eastern direction. This neighborhood is home to almost 100 children, all of whom will be put at risk as there are no sidewalks on any of the adjoining roads. I implore you as a good neighbor to refuse the request for rezoning and to vigilantly review their plans for storm water and surface run-off. Signed, a very concerned citizen. Thank you very much. John Haesler 26225 Oak Leaf Trail Shorewood, MN 55331 John D. Haesler From: Daniel M Cole [mailto:dan cole@uhc.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 9: 12 AM To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Boulder Cove Development Dear Council Members. My name is Dan Cole and I own a home in the Shorewood Oaks subdivision (26150 Oak Leaf Trail) just north of the proposed Boulder Cove Development. As you consider the request to change the zoning of the land to accommodate this new development, I would ask you to also graciously consider a few concerns that we have as their soon-to-be closest neighbors. Drainage: As you may not be aware, Shorewood Oaks and the surrounding areas have an extremely high water table. We flood in dry years. If this development involves raising the surrounding ground, this will certainly increase the flooding in our neighborhoods and will likely result in a great deal of damage to our properties. Please ask that the developers be very vigilant in the design of that area's new drainage systems and that they appropriately construct the necessary berms and preventative measures. Traffic: Please require that the new development have their own access to Highway 7. There are well over 100 kids in Shorewood Oaks; young bikers, rollerbladers, and skateboarders are constant presence on Oak Leaf Trail. I truly fear for the safety of these children if those new residents begin cutting through Shorewood Oaks to gain that access to Highway 7. Thanks you so much for your consideration. Dan Cole 26150 Oak Leaf Trail Shorewood, MN 55331 From: Dan Torgerson [mailto:dtorgerson@Dexma.com] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:09 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: Planning considerations for Boulder Cove Dear Sharmeen, Will you please include this letter with information for the Planning Committee? Thank you. I am writing as a Shorewood resident that borders on the proposed Boulder Cove development. Specifically, my family resides at 6185 Strawberry Lane which is 1 house away from the development's proposed entrance to 62nd Street. Before I express my concerns about the development or options to the proposed development, I feel it is important to note that I understand the property will be developed at some point. One of my concerns focuses on the type of development and the resulting increase in traffic and required road improvements that have not been taken into consideration by the developer. The property is a little 'odd' because of its physical location in relation to Chanhassen and Shorewood. Specifically it is on the north side of Highway 7 which separates it from the larger Chanhassen community. There are few Chanhassen homes that directly touch the property with a few more in the area. However, they will all be affected. A few points I would like to make regarding the roads: 1. The proposed development is designed to open directly onto 62nd Street. This street is shared by Shorewood and Chanhassen. 62nd is a wonderful neighborhood street that doesn't have any curbside, is lined with trees overhanging the street on both sides, and is only 24 feet wide. Strawberry Lane is similar to 62nd in this manner. There are 9 children under the age of 6 in the 4 houses directly at the intersection with more as you go both directions from the 62nd & Strawberry intersection. The streets are not currently developed to handle the increase in traffic that will be created by rezoning to the higher density development. The proposed development will more than double the amount of traffic (residential and commercial) given the increased density. Unfortunately, given the development is on the border of two cities, it will be easy for the developer to complete the project work, dissolve the LLC set up specifically for this development and move on before either city can address adverse changes the development created. 2. The developer is building rambler style town homes wI basements that are "targeted to seniors" which supposedly reduces traffic. When questioned last Saturday, the developer said there are no age based rules in the association's charter so they can be sold to anyone. A proposed senior development sounds very appealing but the viability of this needs to be questioned. The location doesn't offer specific amenities to support senior living and the development isn't close to businesses catering to seniors, activities, or other needs. The town homes are actually two stories which aren't attractive to seniors. There would have to be significant marketing to attract seniors to this location compared to other offerings in the cities that better meet their needs. My point is that while it is desirable to say the development is for seniors, there are no requirements and the town homes will be sold to anyone interested. This means that the traffic will most likely represent family development and because of the density will be too much for the surrounding road system and safety. 3. The developer purchased the property spring of 2005. As part of this purchase the developers knew the existing zoning. There certainly wasn't enough time to determine the viability of 20 single family homes which surround this property. Given the success of Hidden Creek Estates development just down Highway 7, there is a need for more single family housing. Single family homes are consistent with all the surrounding properties. Changes to this property would represent spot zoning since the property is surrounded by single family homes on all sides and this is inconsistent with the Chanhassen plan. Given the 3 brief points above, I request that the planning commission and city council seriously consider denying rezoning the property to a higher density. Both cities will be better served by leaving the existing zoning as it is today. The land was previously planned for the needs of the surrounding community and the roads were built to meet the original need. There are options to the above that the Planning Commission should take into consideration. 1. Foremost is to keep the zoning as it was originally planned by the city and develop it as such. 2. Since the development is eliminating 2 driveways and 2 existing access roads to the proposed development that directly access Highway 7, the proposed cul-de-sac could open across from Greenbriar Ave. Highway 7 was widened and there is a turn lane provided at this location. This could be accomplished with no cost or impact to either city. This needs to be explored with MNDOT since there is a consolidation of entrances to one controled point. Also, there isn't any other property along that corridor to be developed so this would be the last street with direct access. One last thought is that the proposed plan creates an entrance to 62nd street which does not exist today versus the alternative of 4 existing entrances being consolidated on Highway 7. 3. Another option is to develop a direct connection to Church which is wide and curbed to handle the additional traffic. There is interest by some residents to sell and this should be explored. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dan Torgerson VP Client Business Solutions DEXMA, Inc w: 952-229-1365 c: 763-443-5609 From: John Haesler [mailto:john@mhslicensing.com] Sent: Thursday, March 02,20069:12 AM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: Opposition to current plans for Boulder Cove Development Dear Ms. AI-Jaff, I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposed Boulder Cove Development just north of Hwy 7. While I realize that this land will one day be developed, I oppose how the developer is planning to do it on the following grounds: Density: He purchased the land knowing he would need it to be rezoned to higher density (up to 4 units per acre.) The current zoning, (single family homes), is more than sufficient and is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Drainage: They propose to raise the elevation by 3 feet. That will cause water run-off to flood into the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood and the surrounding areas, including land owned by Chanhassen. These areas already experience flooding on a regular basis due to a high water table and clay soil. Traffic: Based upon the proposed road, all traffic to this development will naturally cut through the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood both in a western and eastern direction. This neighborhood is home to almost 100 children, all of whom will be put at risk as there are no sidewalks on any of the adjoining roads. I implore you as a good neighbor to refuse the request for rezoning, to vigilantly review their plans for storm water and surface run-off, and to challenge their proposed placement of their entrance and exit. Signed, a very concerned citizen. Thank you very much. John Haesler and Family 26225 Oak Leaf Trail Shorewood, MN 55331 Sharmeen - After much reading into the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan and 2020 Land Use, as well as MnDOT's Access Management Guide, the following is list of our greatest concerns and proposed remedies to each: 1) Traffic/Access - We oppose the proposed access to the Boulder-Cove development for the following reasons: a) The minimum standards for Driveway Distance from intersecting Street is not being abserved. b) The road classification of West 62nd and Strawberry Lane cannot support the additional traffic of roughly 380 units per day according to Figure 4 of the Trip Generation for Selected Land Use in MnDOT's Access Management Guidelines, without major improvements to those existing roads. c) According to MnDOT's Access Management Guidelines, "All legally authorized public and private access to the trunk highway system that existed prior to the adoption of these guidelines (July 1, 2002), but does not fully comply with the recommended spacing or allowance of access for the applicable acess category, shall be considered "grandfathered" and will be allowed to remain in use." d) The City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive plan also suggests that development should be planned to avoid running high traffic volumes and/or non-residential traffic through residential neighborhoods. Resolution - a) Maintain one of the existing entrances off Highway 7 for the only access to the proposed development. Item (c) above addresses this situation. b) Allow access from Church Road through the use of easements to gain access as the road can already handle heavier volumes of daily travel due to earlier upgrades to the road. 2) Zoning - We oppose any type of zoning that is not RSF, Residental Single Family. a) An inconsistency exists with your Comprehensive Plan as "current zoning of a parcel of land with a less intensive land use designation, may remain. Intensification of land uses may only happen with the provision of urban services" b) Also, your plans mandates that you are to "Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single family neighborhoods while promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods of similar quality" c) Lastly, your plan addresses that "In order to attempt to meet the higher density projections, the city will need to encourage development of single family homes at the higher end of the permitted density range. However, in order to protect the character of existing neighborhoods, the city will need to transition density within new developments, preserving the EXPECTATIONS AND INVESTMENTS of existing residents. Resolution - a) While development is imminent at this site, we want homes of similar stature to the existing neighboring homes. b) The developer has to prove that the current zoning is unsuitable for RSF development prior to the authorizing of re-zoning or "spot-zoning". 3) Drainage - We oppose the raising of the development 2-3 feet. a) Due to extremely high water tables in the area, raising the elevation can only intensify the existing run-off from this lot. Resolution - a) Berming, diking or other means have to be incorporated to protect flooding to the existing neighboring homes. According to your Plans" 1 DO-year Flood protection for all persons and property" has to be assured. Marcus P. Hoffmann Senior Estate & Tax Analyst 2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle A venue Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 (612) 349-8250, fax (612) 339-4181 mphoffmann @rkmc.com From: Wagner, Todd R. Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 5:47 PM To: 'council @ci.chanhassen.mn.us' Cc: 'wlove@cLshorewood.mn.us'; 'lturgeon @cLshorewood.mn.us'; 'lbrown @ci.shorewood.mn.us' Subject: Boulder Cove Development Concerns Dear Chanhassen City Council, I am a resident in Shorewood in the Shorewood Oaks single family residential neighborhood on the border of Chanhassen. I learned last week of the intentions of Roger Derrick and his development company to rezone the land just south of our neighborhood from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential. I have seen the preliminary plans for this higher density development and have two serious concerns: 1. All of the surrounding zoning is Single Family--changing zoning to a higher density is inconsistent with the surrounding developments and is inconsistent with other recent new developments (all single family) in the area on parcels of similar size. It appears that this rezoning is being done simply to maximize the profits of the developer at the expense of the character of the area. The developer bought this land knowing it is zoned Single Family and other developers have profitably developed similar parcels without rezoning. I see no hardship that would justify the rezoning of this land. 2. The land to be developed contains a lot of water. In its current largely undeveloped condition it collects water during heavy rains and can generate significant runoff that flows northward into Shorewood Oaks and the Shorewood city storm sewer system. I have video from a heavy rain storm in 2005 that shows this. The high density of the proposed development will dramatically increase the amount of impermeable cover compared to what is on these parcels today. My understanding is that the developer also plans to fill and increase the ground level of the area by roughly three feet. This will make these parcels higher than the surrounding areas and increase the likelihood that the northbound runoff into Shorewood Oaks will increase and flood our homes. I am requesting that you give serious and thoughtful consideration to these issues. These parcels should remain zoned Single Family Residential. By keeping the zoning unchanged you will: Preserve the compatibility of the development with the surrounding area Allow profitable development of single family homes and increased tax base Reduce the amount of impermeable cover to be built on these parcels and reduce the runoff impact to Shorewood Oaks Thank you for your stewardship in guiding the development of our community. Regards, Todd R. Wagner Accenture CRM Practice Lead - North America Communications and High Technology (0) 612-277-6037 (m) 612-802-9112 todd. r. wagner@accenture.com From: Brad Nielsen Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:46 PM To: 'saljaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us' Cc: Craig Dawson; 'Chris Lizee'; 'Laura Turgeon (E-mail)'; 'Martin Wellens'; 'Paula Callies'; 'Woody Love (E-mail)'; 'Woody Love(wk) (E-mail)' Subject: Boulder Cove Development Sharmeen, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed rezoning for the Boulder Cove Development. Our staff has two areas of rather significant concern: 1 )area drainage; and 2)traffic. As you may be aware, the area in question is characterized by a relatively high water table. This coupled with flat terrain has resulted in serious drainage problems for property to the north of the subject site. While we expect that this issue can be overcome with careful engineering, we are interested in seeing the stormwater runoff calculations for the project. Of even greater concern is the traffic that will be generated by the project. Both West 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane are somewhat substandard as local streets. It is important to note that Strawberry Lane serves as both a vehicular as well as pedestrian route to the Minnewashta Elementary School located at the other end of Strawberry Lane. It is our understanding that your Comprehensive Plan currently designates the subject site as Residential - Low Density, with a density range of 1.2 - 4 units per acre. In light of the traffic concerns, our initial reaction to the plans is that the density should perhaps be in the middle of that range, keeping it consistent with the existing surrounding development in both Shorewood and Chanhassen. Our City Council will be discussing this matter at its meeting on Monday, 27 February, after which we will forward "official" comments from Shorewood. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Brad Nielsen Planning Director Larry Brown City Engineer/Public Works Director From: Robert Willock [mailto:rwillockjr@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 6:41 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Cc: City Council Subject: Boulder Creek Development I live at 26190 Oak Leaf Trail in Shorewood Oaks, the Shorewood neighborhood immediately to the north of the proposed Boulder Creek development. I am writing you to express a few concerns I have with this proposed development. Overall I am not opposed to developing this property but I do have some concerns with the development that I would like to be considered by the Chanhassen city council. My first concern is that of drainage. I am concerned that raising the ground level 2-3 feet (as proposed by the builder) and replacing a large relatively open grass and tree covered area with hard surfaces will cause additional water to flow into the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood. Normally the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood is a very wet area with a high water table. Flooding of streets and yards is a regular occurrence when it rains, and heavy rain events easily over whelm the area drainage system. Last summer during one particularly large storm we had almost waist deep water flood most of Oak Leaf Trail. Wet basements are not uncommon through out the neighborhood. I myself have had water in my basement twice in the last two years. I am very concerned that without careful consideration given to the drainage and how the water will be controlled in the Boulder Creek development that additional flooding problems will be forced upon the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood. My second concern is that of increased traffic and its impact on and safety and road conditions. The Shorewood Oaks Neighborhood is already a convenient cut through for people traveling to and from Hwy 7 from Strawberry Lane and W 62nd. Street. There are well over 100 school aged children living in our area and adding additional cars to these roads will decrease the level of safety in our quiet neighborhood. Even if only a percentage of the cars from the Boulder Creek development travel through Shorewood Oaks the safety levels will be reduced. Beyond the safety aspect right now Strawberry Lane and W 62 Street are both sub-standard roads and neither is equip to handle an increased traffic load without costly redevelopment. Considering these factors is the entrance to Boulder Creek in the best place? Is there an alternative entrance that would not so negatively impact the surrounding community? My third concern has to do with density and rezoning of the area. As I am sure you are ware all the other neighborhoods surrounding the Boulder Creek development are single family homes. Altering the zoning and allowing the builder to create a higher density neighborhood would create a unique neighborhood out of place for the surrounding area. It would seem that the builder is only trying to achieve rezoning to maximize his profits at the expense of the surround neighborhoods, particularly Shorewood Oaks. The developer purchased the land knowing it was zoned for single family dwellings now he is looking to change things with little consideration for those who live in the community. With the success of other single family developments in this area I see no reason why a neighborhood consisting of single family homes would not be profitable for the builder and a better fit for the surrounding community. I ask that you please carefully consider the impact the proposed Boulder Creek development will have on the area surrounding it. To ensure against property damage, protect property values, and maintain safety levels in the community; I ask that you take into account the concerns I have raised when making your decision. Thank you for your consideration on the matter. Rob Willock March 6, 2006 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147 Re: Proposed Boulder Cove Development I am a Shorewood resident that borders on the proposed Boulder Cove development and have some concerns I would like to address. My family and I reside at 26420 W. 62nd Street (the inside comer of West 62nd and Strawberry), directly across the street from developments proposed entrance. As you may know, West 62nd Street is directly on the border of Shorewood and Chanhassen. Though this proposed development is located in Chanhassen, many Shorewood residents, as well as Chanhassen residents, will be affected. My concerns are as follows: 1. Re-zoning to higher density housing. The developer is proposing 34 units of town homes on this property that is not consistent with the bordering properties in the area and is inconsistent with the Chanhassen plan. 2. The proposed entrance to the development will only add to an already increasing traffic problem on West 62nd Street and Strawberry. The streets are not currently designed to handle the increase in traffic that this development will likely create. This is of particular concern because there are currently 9 children under the age of 6 directly at this intersection as well as many more children further down West 62nd Street and Strawberry. The pedestrian traffic on these streets is already quite heavy due to the parks, trail system (LRT) and the elementary school (Minnewashta) located only within a couple blocks of this proposed development. I think that is necessary to consider some alternative entrances to this development, such as accessing the property directly from Highway 7 at the 2 current driveways or 2 current roads that the developer is proposing to eliminate. Another option would be to explore the possibility of an entrance from Church Road. 3. Finally, I am concerned about drainage issues due to the proposed development. The land on which the development and neighborhood properties reside has a rather high water table as well as a clay soil that does not allow for appropriate drainage. The developer is planning on raising the level this development 3 feet which will very likely have an affect on the water run-off of neighboring properties such as my own. Many of us currently have an issue with standing water on our property in the spring and after any rainstorm that can take weeks to disappear. The homes along West 62nd Street and the east side of Strawberry are mainly older homes that are sitting on lower land than those "newer" homes built in the late 1980' s which only adds to the water issues. To give you an idea of the amount of water in the area, our sub-pump runs every day of the year at 10-minute intervals or less. It is critical that any development on this property look very seriously at this issue, so as not to detrimentally affect the already established neighborhoods in the area. I understand that this property will be developed at some point and would like to make sure every effort is taken to inform the planning commission of the issues that need to be addressed when assessing whether to move forward with any development of the land currently proposed as Boulder Cove. On a final note, my husband and I have lived in both Chanhassen and Shorewood throughout the past 10 years and have enjoyed what each community has to offer. In addition, my husband has enjoyed serving the community of Chanhassen for the past 13 years as a Chanhassen Firefighter (currently as a Captain of the Station 2/Minnewashta Parkway Fire Department) and looks forward to many more years working for the city. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Sincerely, Leah Schneider 26420 W 62nd Street Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone: (952)474-9865 E-mail: Ims8898@msn.com From: toddrwagner@mchsi.com To: sunsailor@mnsun.com Subject: "Boulder Cove" Development Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03: 19:23 +0000 Dear Editor, We in Shorewood appreciate Mike Hanks bringing attention to the pending higher density development that Chanhassen would like to put on its border with Shorewood. I think it is important to clarify the main issue related to this pending development. The main issue is not traffic, drainage, or the fact that someone would like to develop 13 acres of property. The core issue is the indiscriminate rezoning of property for the sole benefit of the developer. The developer bought this land from two homeowners for $1.1 million in AprillMay of 2005 knowing that it was zoned Single Family Residential. He also knew that the surrounding residential areas are zoned Single Family Residential. He probably also observed that other developers in the immediate area have successfully acquired similar sized parcels of land and have profitably developed them under Single Family Residential zonIng. You have to give credit to the Boulder Cove developers for attempting to maximize their profits by convincing the City of Chanhassen to rezone this property as Medium Density Residential. This will allow them to pack as much as 6 units per acre into this property. Overall they are proposing to add 38 units with an expected price tag of $350 -$500k per unit. If you do the math you can get a sense of the type of profit they are pursuing. This is a case of rezoning solely for the profit of a private developer in a way that is incompatible with the surrounding areas. I would expect the City of Chanhassen and its Planning Commission to be serving not just the interests of the developer but also the interests of the surrounding community. This is not as big a deal as eminent domain, but it is another case where residents in a community need to be aware that the zoning interests of the city government may not be in the best interest of those living in the neighboring areas. Regards, Todd Wagner 26145 Oak Leaf Trail Shorewood MN (952) 474-2205 SCANNED , '. '..;' cji' ,t, ~,;::' 'J.t~; - /:;j;.ln:~.' r~,"i,!: . h,; ,"~ :;:: -. ;'" -' ~'- OJ, ". ,.~ J'~ .".." < 4~ -... :i .,. ",,~, ,f k, · _,J".. 'to ^" /!, .. :;:-C~:?;1.~ ..,..... ,., I" ,~.,~~:~t~~frL:;~.~:~:~1~~t~;4~ :i~:' ~~~<.~-:~~,~.~~~"~:::~ .~- ~ ____ . ,01".... ... ~ ~ Jr ..1.\~C ~ '.J'" .~ rHit . .~ ~ ' !;-r ' ~.~ ..... ,..... . I , ,..IL- 6Ja ..~~ ~ ~ ~l "i- t \~ --~ ~ ~ ~- ...:,;.-:: -----.:.... ,:,' 1"1; ~..~ ~ 1& A .\f" +-...., - .tlt; ., ,- ,~- -r' . · ,_~~~li--- . - ~ ~ ::l ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ !;; ! ~~lIl~Q ~ ~~~~~ ~~;'t! I ~~~ 'l~ l!I8,<~al I II I l; I I I j I i li).~~ I S ~lli ~~i =~~!!!!l II; III .' 'I II~ ~~ ,!~ I~; I I =' I!!..", I I II I!! ! l-t .-J i ~ !;~ ~~ I:L j IIi ;; L"j 11:1 I T-' 1111 ~.. 'Ia li!f I · : I I · 5 i ~ I~ I' --j :1111 i' ~ i Ii I II g! II i! ~~ . ! 1.. ~ut -f .. IU~ ] I -::1; ! I' iP~ ::t J J..hl !1 i -illn t- J l bait 11 t...lIJI .. ~ \"A" Iii I J,~l:; g J I ,. HIII~l t l I ~ t :\.. l~nL!!iiU ! ~ 'I." nl~ll!i ! \ ill fl~in ! I ~Ii;'"l I..~~I en W w ~ Vi >- It) i ~ ~ .. w ~ g w w :c en \ \ i B1 I :loC ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ! B! I ~ 0 ~ ~ >c . I ). ::i ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~i 8 It: . ~ffi --- o~i o~i !l!~ { ] ct:..... w~ ~~~ ~ --- ~ ..c ~fa C:) ~ (~ () ~ ~~ [,J e ~ & ~" !,~~ V) 8 ~f 5 \ ~ \ ~.- -9. "~\ --,- -- ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .-.... !~ \ \ 11\ \ \ \ Ii \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ -\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ I II I ,,-..---- \ _ _ \-l-- ~ :: :::::\ ~ \ _ _ --:::- - .... Ci\Urd' - - -- ..l---- - - --:::- - - -- -- -- ---------- -------- ,,/ ~ \1 ~. 1M .,.'\. -..... l 1\ 1\ 1 \ I \ I~-\ '- \ \ N II'l ~ ~ ~~~ % ~ j~~ii~e i ;~l!l~~5~ !~IlI~ ~ b i~ 2i~~rn~ o~ ~~~~~ ~ii~ .f5~~ ~ iJj~....~ ~~~~ ~ !~~e ooa.:)~~ ~u 1O~C1~~~ u~ ~~~~i = ~= U t ~~ ! !\{] ..J !l!l] J !I!~ r:-'J \ \ I~. \ I ~ .--;.' a" ... \ I d.. \ <.:) ~ ~ c~ ..'t\ (:) '.:) P ro~ Cc:: !~~ Q ti ~...l ~1 '\\l ~ ~0 0/ ./ ,/ ,/ \ \ \ ..-- - .----- - - ~ ~~~ "s ~ I \ I \ 1\ I \ I \ I ~"- \ I '\ I :~ \ I~ ~! z ; . ! it. I Il!~ R Ii! ~~ I!H Pi ~ Ii" f I!'; i III I ~~ ! ~~ r11!1 t ~~ i i~ l 11'~ ~ ~! ~ ~J I ii,tlj U !~!~i IID'l!' ~ t 11 i · u ~III :l't t! 11111, ( i~!~~~~ I~~I \ \ .-.-- ~ I ;~ J ~a I it I ~J L- !~!f t--1 -,;. ~;jt ~ !Ib l:) C) ~) ~ D, () ] ll~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~r ~7 -rJ.1 i) /' ./ ./ \ \ \;-- , \ \ \ \ \ ~! ~ Ii ~ < ~! .m. i I .. ; 'I": oeU. ,I '(II! S i Ii ,Ii 'J~ iJW'iIBi'llli I d! f d~i ~ ' ~ ~I'I ~!, !2 w!ni ill I ~11!ln I 1:11 ~ I III. Ii ;51111 il.l,i! @ II' ~I ~ · d hi.~ II ~II- t ' ; II Ii 1111111 II"I~~ iil:1 IIII!!; i; ;ii~! .1 !.II ;!!.I Ii Ii .!i. h~: 1!!!;lj !;iiil ill !Ii!. i11Iili!; II !!~ 111111:11 nil ~ II HI I!!!! !II~I~I 1::~~IBrj~lllll. ,i Illn II ii_I 101; ;:. dlllll ~I! ~I !:~;.:ii JI1!I;il:5 ; ill ,i.. III !~~ la~'llj eb~ II elllll'li"t; "~. .1 211 .d~. .di~ IIIII1 ill~1 ! ~ol I.,i II ~ ..14n ..!h~i~1 ~ _In I h@'llliB'lla-lfall'lv .... u" " 01" r,' :Ii~ I! II ..- II f:: ~~. ",I ., I-III ~ . .... I ~~ _ 511 II ~ 1I1111~i ~ I~~I; D ~ ~~ g it ~ 1 · ~, jl 'ffl .. ",... IoJ ~t ~ !;~ I~ t!lll I ~ . I J ! t ii , J .1 II I.. Jjj ~ ; ~I ~~Ii I ql- H H .1-. mntl _ f ffH +f Will H H f1 Hll' I T"T d I a:q 'rl IJ,LLL tt ttLJ htHftttltU mtllfTl~_ I~ ~~ I. 1~ .. +HH- 1 !f I Trtt l- 111 ffifi ~ ttitIf ~ t :tI ~ Ll _ ttt jlllll H H \ _ ""... I q.!l" rt u lrttf tift tt fm 1M ~ JJ~lt ~I 11,11 :,~ ~illjjffl ~ 'tIl~ t litH jJ j: ~, 1\ . t f-..... -,mr.rpnrl 1 II~ 1 1 fF ~ \ I tf ! t TTTTT """ ~ 10 il ,. P l' I -, ~I'I \ \ I ~A rl:H -j 1+tii ~ttj 11. ~ ~ij fj+li rt HiJ+llll- ~~~ ~W H' ~ ~.. - It: \ \ '...--- -:~~....!; lililili lili III~'I!! iliiU!ii!i Jill I J ~g ~ " I I . I J .' IBI! :51 .. , a D III ~ ; .1 II~~~~II "I .. . .. ! ~ \ ~.. f./ ..~~.~~ I I ~ ! \i . ;'_1 = R . I- b 1~ ~s " !; . ; t z w en UJ ...c:c :J:W ~~ :x:W 00 ~~ ~ (3 I1III111 I c.c C) C) N co ,.-t (..!) ::::::> c:::( . :::> N I · S CJ ~ :3 ...L S:3 V'I C) H :3 ~ ~ ...L...L C) :::> t \) ~ ; ~ It b:: (/') J-- Z o ~ -J lLJ en lLJ :r: J-- : - -..l"1 I I I I I I Z 0 I - I ~ I I ~: I I - -".J >~ :a : W~ Q::: ~~ J I W~ \ '2: (t:" 0 ~ ~ ~ W -J It: l&J I CO . l&J I :r: I t-- :, I I I I I I - -".J z o ~ ~. >b w l .J ,. Wi ~ 1-' Z ,. o ~ h. II i I III .-.". I:J- ... >>-:.GI L r- I 'I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I III I I ~- I I I I = z ei~ .... J b z 11. I o ~ ~ I Lj It: ~ aJ 0 ~ li ~o ii:i ~J =; h. - -'"1 ill . I - -T1 III I II ;1 I . I I I Ii:: t I Z ~~ I 0 - Z r- 0 0 4 I - > I:: r- b r- W I !t ~ ~ I J : II-- > r- 81:: w ; :z W II i~ : \ .. 0 J I ~ w .. r ~ Ck: r- ILj \ ~ (J') U. en I- W t- r tZ l.a.J I I~ J :r: I- ~ w-J ~ ~ IlLJ il - I~ rr Ittl lLJ :r: I- :: - -T1 I I 1Ia': 12 I ~I ID I ~t I ... I I .. I I -~ i 11111111 I .ON. .SCl~::3..LS::3~OH ::3D'V..L..LOO ';1 j t ~ o II ~ Bill b::: z V> 0 Z ... l&J ~. :> >0 ~ w ~ :r: J r a:: w .- -- ~ ~ ...~ Z l&J 0 :r: It: .... :: lL b::: z U') 0 - ~ z r ~o l&J >~ ::> I ~ w~ :t: J I . 9: w. I ~ \ I Q:r I l&J ~ :r: w I-- r! :: --r1 I I I I :I I I !II' I I ~ I t. .1 , I I I I "11: --w i: ~f ,I. .. o.li'l :,:,! .. -.& .1.... ..... - All. II ~ ~ D b: Z U') ( I 2: J: 0 1;;1 ~ 0. .1 I r .I~ I I I !!: ll~ ~- ~ O~ lAJ 0 :t: J to- lL - ..J'1 II I I -f"1 I I I I I I I I =- fl I~ ~I ~ Z ~ 1k z lill 0 V) 0 I~ ~O z ~b b:: 41 I l.a..J ::> 41 I V') > . , ~ ~ I :t: > ~ z W II ~ ~ I l&J W II :> J. ... ~ '<C Wi I J: .. :t: ; l&J W ; I ~ \ :r: \ ; ~ ~ r J- ::: r- I r- l&.J ~I :t: ~ U. I- s~ : - I w (k: 1111 J ~I ~~ : I! ,: I ,I III i~ S II --lJ I I I I I I I -lJ I I I I - -,.." i 11111111 I III, -. I 'I · I II: i: '. ,I. .. "IIi " :.:,! . ~ ~ tl ~ · ::> N I · S CJ V ::3 ..J... S ::3 ~ C> H ::3 D V ..J.....J... C> ::> ~~ NI I~ I~ II i I III b:: V) 2: l.a.J ::> ~ :J: Q:: -- ~ z 0 l.a.J r :r: 10- ~. ::: >0 w 1 J r W .- , b:: r' z .. U) 0 t- Il Z h.. 0 ~ -J lLJ en LLI J: t-- :: - -J""1 I I I I I I z o ~b ~I > ~ W II J: W ' \ ~ ~ u. z W I 0 J t~ ad lco Lu ::c J- - -""1 I I I I I I I I I I I I -~ :I ~ I~ ql- "Z o ~ ~ z I co Q , I..aJ ~ I :r: ~b .- I- >1 ~ w. I J I w~ \ Il" ~ V) W ~ ~ ~ :> I~ ,~ I L:: I IlLJ :t: ~ ~~7 '_.L- ..., F ~ J~-- L~ ____ ~ '01) ..... ~ . ~I i I Ll ~ it ? _ I ~ t " I ;n:::; ~ , ~ if I ~,.,-- .? c -~ D~ rt:j ~ J! % I' ~ .. I_! t .,... I c= 525-.J ~ I 'iJ _I ~ 1I ~..llJ." ~ ;Ii ~ ~ ~ ~ L3;rzla ~~ I ___ '1 .w.:i .....- - - Do" ~ ~ 1 \If -,~ I - '" , ~ I- _.. I !J' ---. ~ II "'".of '~"I · - =11 ~ tI~~ ,)'-' ..... I n. '-~ I II _ ~ II I I : · % ~~ ~ Ill] ra! ~I~ I I 'I .! I~ .' ~I~' ~ ~i/ii ~nJ.:1 ,~~ I r----t :It I ~ ..Ii. I l.,.L I 1 . ~ I/i 1...;;;1 - --- I r % I~ ~ _ r lIJHD~ Wl Ill!. I ~ j~ 111,,-11 iii I .. "'..~ ~~ '\ llill7" I I,' ~ M' .... IICiI -I l .. ... . .....""IF.J ~." . cO; It ~i' ~ Ii I ...~ --.:; T Y" :- )0-" ~ . . I . I; I ~li::i1 .... · :- ~ ... I!~- g I ( h..........,....~ ill ,J ~ I · \ -- lJ --; !'i!,!'I -.~...I \!J l.l.. I . ! I $l~J ..., I ~ 7' ~:, f2Dn ~ ~~ ~~ ~I~ p ., I bd....:-"'..-:... ~ ..... ~ ., ,~..:I 'I ~ lil - ~~ .... =.:. -- --- · Iii I - --- - ~ ':1 ~ -----I ~ , t .. . ""'-J--- · I- ~ 51'. ."!iIiiI .....'.1 I .,' - _ iI!i ~~ iGl lit ~ f: to::: ~ III.. I:J:~ r. I I-I ~ IW...-J ~I '" i l:r 121. 2 ~~, ~ JI - il I i iI~!I _..... ~ WiT I jl~1 (~ ~,~ :: ! ds roo "" .,. ~ 1 II; 1('. ,ij-j' .L lIlw;iiBIJ I'" ~! iii D-.t ~ tI .0-.01 iIj '-- L-.-.- I t t .-.1. .La._ W'., - "".. " II ~ ..... II ~ 4 lil ~: I . ~~! ~ ~ ~ II ," ii ~" ... .. wn ~1 II .P ~AJr-:J' ~ I I~JrIH !~! lil -= ~ l l ! ~ · I .... , \~ ~ % ~ - ~ t : ~ : .1 ~ a . .' la ~ -1 ! ~ . : ~ ~ ~ ~ .: i , I l ; a H ~ ~ ; ~~ l ~ "',1.1: ~-~,~~ · as Ii ~ ~i ~ !! foil ..t _-'1- .. '1- ~.I. v.~ .,..., I~ 5~ ~ i 911 .. i J il:l~i,~ I i 1 R!III;;! Ra~ ~~ . I I .;;d,t~ ~~; =; 1111 J~ ~ M I ~ !i ag ~!I~I ~~~I~all~ ~9! I~ m' I ;!!!I;DI "1i$lIu I t ~ _t:~~,~~I~ ~~ I~ I! CD i~ ....1. ..~ -. -:J:T1 I d=;l ~ ....., III . II -.., ! ~ o ~ i r - I I , : I 16 I ~ I --I .... ....-.- ;r~ "J" ... .01 ~..Dt v.l'l ""lFT - .o-AIi -- ~~ rrr ~ , ~ ~ z .:I~ l ;I~ ~ z ~ 4 ~ J. : n. ~ . ---1----- i Il~ h: 0 ~ (f) 0 ..... J ~ i~ Ii. ~j~ - :I~ s g lLJ :r: ..... 2 t I l ..... i IIIIII11 I - III I. -. I .!I i: 1;:1'1 fll. .i. i~lill I:.; ,! - -::>NI * ~ . ~ GI ~II i Ii> I: I J ~J ~9~ tl$~~ J IJUbc ~ I. t~~ ~~i . t:...... - ~; Wli I~ · SCl~:3.i.S:3 ~ 0 H :3 O~ ..L.i.O::> , I~I 'III I 1111 9 r11lr I ~! I~ I ~ t 51~ ~11~111!1111I ~lli' II ~ .: 'II I 111111 ~ r ~ ..r ~ II II ,II I" '1111 -'AI I ~ t4 : ~U Ilill hi I 'III IIII -, II ~I ~ I- :It III I~I ,liP 1'1 I I _ I iii r 1'1 III 1111 IIIIII I ~ II ~ _ ~II .' III' ~ III il U ~ I!!I ill I ~III~ I !i~':1 ~ rt: II II IIII1I II Ii! ,III I~ ~JW rl'~ ill I' ! :.1 ~I! ~ ~111!f I ~, "II! , I III 1''1 r 'n 'III ~ I I I I III II! Ii I ~;I d. ~ I~ III, II I" "II I111 I!II II, I I' t I ' I I ~p II II II I IIII I! !:!I III II I h' f. I ~I I I , II II I ~II ~ 1'1111I II I rl IllY I 1.= ~ III It rl. ~ ! t II ._ II ~ . -, ~'ft~ !E!, -- -- -- -- . I ml!ll I ~ =-:=- ~ J-f .. III .. i" .. .!I I~i .. III . . . . ..-.- . ' .. III :: :Ii IIi .. III . . . . ~ ""'l I . ,""~"1-l ~ I I .....~ ~, .. I I""'" P :::rw'1. , ~ II 11111t I I I IIIIII I IIJlllt, Ii I"' ' ~I , 'I 1"1 II ~ IIIII!II ;!! !ill! I " III II 111'1 '1111 1111 ~ ,II III ~ III Ill' II! in 'Iii ~! I ~ ~I I~ I I~I 1~~1 . 1111'111 'Ir 1III 1III ~ I, 1111. 111'111 'i I II"""" II 11"111 II, ~ I !I........ 'II Iltl III" I ~ J I I 11111111 I ~ ~ ~ 1.1 ~ I !1: I~ : I'! IIII 1m Ell tir, I I I J.-.-.-. , -~ ~~I. .. II I ~ ~ ~ .. le. ~ I Irl ~!' '"' ..- .. 1'.11,1 Ii ill" ~' _ il: ~ ~ II~i 1.1, 'II 'ir~ .8 ~Il rr, ~ I" - .. IIII f'l III 111'1111 . . ; I 111111 III'! ~ I' III t . . I I "II tll III ~ 11111 " III, I" lllllj 11" III ~,. II I"' tltl' ,I . !tIll I III' ""-L ~-- ~ I ,II, 111'"111 tl .~ I 1111 III ,It I "" ,II r-, ...I~I'1 II1I !II' IHI 11111 I 1 ~I!t 1111'1 ~h 't I II I 2 IIII III,~ ":1 III ,,, I tt ~II 'II, 111',11 mCl lib IIII Itll 'III _ I 1,1 . tlIIIIH' ..... ~ III 1IIItlllll II III I'll -. I~I !It ISI ~ I ~ " 11:1 ~H -~ \) ~~~ ~ 1e~~ l~ ~ ~ ~~ \) - ...",,- ~~ () ~ _ A o ~= :11 :-, I~ I ~ ~Sl! ~51 I <-.c::::> c:::::::> S Ck: V) Z la.J ::::> '<( :r: ~ ~ l.a.J :r: t- II i ~ I III i-- z o ~ -J lU CO la.J J: t-- z o I- ~. > b w .' J ... W 1 , 1-' Z ,. o ~ h. b::: V') t-- Z o ~ -J la.J CO la.J :r: I- -'i~ :: - --n II , I I I z o r- ~ . > r W II J : W i \ r- u. ~ W I ~ J ~-J &Lu I~ J: ~ :: - --n I I IH~ ' : 121 I ~I I~ I it I ~: : --u - -J"1 II I I I I I I . I I I :: -~ a:: :I V') I .. - ~ I . I I I :: ---"1 II I I I I z o t- ~. >, W~ J I W~ \ Ill" ~ W Il i- z o ~ -J 1l&J .: CO II -~ l&J :I ~ I ,= .. I - I I II -~ ~ b:: V) z I ll.J > . <( I :r: I e: I ~ lLJ :r: -~!- I I .. :I I I I I .. I - I I II --u I I ~~ I~ I!m I~ ll:!!l!: ~ I' i i Bl1Iii;! &~ ii~ i I ~ If I! ~I hi I ~;;h,~~ ~fi~ p.~ .1. B I ~ IB ~!I~ i~~I~!&~ i!! I~ 19 i!!II;~1 i~~,~~li b:: CI') I j 1111 j. .1 .',1: .' 'I .- j I'. . oUl'.'. . II: ': .DI-a .D-. :.. I. E, - - --- ---------------- -- ------- --- --- - ---- - - ------ I ....----- - ---- -- -- ------- ----------- - - -- -- - -- - --- - -. , , I , I I E, I , I I I I ~~i ~ \t) :~ , I I , , , I I , , I r=-------...J I I ~-------~ I I I r -- -- - -----, ~ .,.... -- ~ ~- - 2 ~.. :~ :: ~------_..... L____ I --- -- I r- - -, !f! : ~, I ,-. ~.I1 \::;) I rl""\1 11'".""\ I Q.l1 ~Q.I I I ~ I I ~ 1 I ft~ (t)~ Ki? , , ~~~ I I ,,~~ 1 I :: I ~:8 I ~ ~ I ,., (l----------:~j ,.~. -.. 11 I~ ~ -------------------~ L !I::! _ - - - - - - - ~:!:.I- - - - - - ~ I ,DI." , . .---.- .---.-. . .-. .-. .-. .-. -- '---- I -. F~Z--- ------ -- - - ------------------ 1 r-- - - - -- - "\:: ~ I I I I I I ~ I~ ) I I I .D-.- II I-M I I I (f) ~ I I I \T)' I~ 'I~ _.J I) .. , I , I I ~ ~ I I ~ I I > , E~ ft- , !~ L - - --- - - -' ~~ r------- ------------- ~~~ r: -- --~ ~ E~ ~ ,,~~ 1 I - - ~:s I r :: I I .,..... E:> % ~t:! ---------------~ :~ J .1 I ---- ---------=-J L _____ --- - - -- - :: ( e r----- ------ - - - - - - --- -- -- '\,;; - l ,- -- - E~- --- - ..., I --.=:n I CTJ:1 :<:tJ '-(j II U ~.. I I-~I I I I lL I :: \T) I~ , : I I I 1 I ~ ~ I I , E, : I , g I I I L.. _ --- - - -- - -' I I L--- - - - ---- I E, I rJ' rr\ % .D-.l r-"" - -~ :'V _____..J I :: I ,...-- - - , r - -- I I ~ E~ ' ~ .D-A ~ I I ~.J. % I I ------------~ I~- ~ I I ,.... -- ------------ , ~ I I I ,.- - - - -- - - - ------------- , . I I E~: I E, L _ ~I I I I ~ I I I ..-.. ' .D-~ I I I , I ~--------- -~ I !6D - - - -- E~ ij . 1-.11 ..... ... t .It- "I ".R ~ .-AlIi "-.11 ....u 0::: (f) 2 ~ I ~ s ~ a ~ I t- ;x ~ 1- Z o ~ -J l.a.J en UJ J: ...... z ~ J n. Zb o ~ ~ I ~~ 0' Z r J o II.. ~ Q:: (f) ~ I ~ s ~ a Lu .1 J: ;X .... i ~: ~o wi ~ u. ------..., If .1" I I I ~ . ~ I b: I !!;~ ~\ C/) ... ,---- ~ ~.. I II i I I :> r----J..---- ~ ~ ~ I a: ~ ~ .... ~ I I ~ .0 I I i I ~I L4I I ..I ~ II II! I a I , ._~ gb ~ I e ~I I 1- Z ~ l&J · ~ I 2 en" ~ I 0 ;i L6J If l&J I ~ : ci (!) ~ ~ ~ ~ 0: J~ !!I~ ~" .J N (!) ... ~\ ~ L~ i ~I" En ..J ~ I ~ ~ J: h,i u ii: t- O~ ~ ~ _, ._. -:"1 i I e 0 a I r ~~ I h: I ..J . ~ en :co .... i:jl 2: Q. i 0 w" ~ en I ~~ ..... l&J CD 0' l&J ~.. J: a&: .... 0 0 Q 1&.1 ~ D: ~ 0 ~b ti, ~~ ~ I it JI i 01" .1111 Ii P11:te t- w II !. Iii' I, : 1 Il~:t . en ;:) I! II ,!. I: · · .. ;"1 0 12;:11 % (II rl "11 "I Ii I ~ ~ il~1 I ~ u c::: "I)~' bli I. l~ I ii: I 11 · 11 il ~ lei~l! ~ ~ w Iii II :111 il I. i (!) . ~ ~I "t ilil :' I': <( 1 .. I I I w .11" -III II "I. g: --l 1&.10 U 1.1 Ii! I:i I I j ..JI (/) Ii, I~' i:a:,llt :1', ~ . ~ U.. I . . ,I I I II' en II 0 .11 I!: ill. )11. -. ~ 0 % . i Iii .p &ti Ilf Ii I; ::j\ .. 1 I . 11 ". 11 ~ .. ~i III 111'1 - ;..1 ~ ~ t · -t- 'ill I~: II.: l&.I I II: I i III: ,'I I. II 1&.1 en ~ElII" ~ J J J I- I jt .1 I . . . J f II. r"j ~t I "1!~4 ~ tfl ill t I Ii ~ 1 i t 'It J . t .. 1.;11 I~ I Jl;ljh Ihjl~ 1;1 ... f HI li.J - 4 -!.. I! 4.. Jf! .,,~ J J1,tlfJ=) ~J i'.Ii 1. i.1 - f II.ttl."~ !I I i.~ t J. .. 1 ; I_ ~I".. I.'h 1 " , ~ I ~- 11 . II! .i~:!Li ~i Ith ! lj !!!i:h~j !IJ!!llf ~lffiI4!!iI bij;IU!iI!~!f J I i"l! Jij!1! h It!i ~ th ~'.i~~1 tl.l1. ;!jl!d f~ll~lif- r!f; ! Jf t8111f!'~i-l~J iI~~11 'I ~I; h~l~~~J:!_J~:!I~IIJ"f~~H illlIIJI~td;!f2~;I~ 1111'lllfiO jU III t rhn!!Jll~~IIt-.t~" t~ II"",, I I' Ie It-I :J;I.I iji Ii Ib5illif1 il~! Ji~fi J .:,!:~ d!ii ~iP'IJjif!!~: BII!!! Ii! ~~jit:b i!ii~!ifj Illfli~~~~J~:!111JIJ~JIJ~tJ,:jJ~IJ-I~Jli:ill;lif~;~ltJj:t;:JJlllj.jll~- i JD ~ ~~ ~fi .9.....S ~i .- i . Ii .. III .::: . Ila . . aiM - 1111 ii~ - I i ~a - II; il . 11M II 0' SI:l' I - II~ .~~~AI ~ - II; :6 11:l' . - il~ ! ii: l!l I:~ n j I:!!I- f 9 · l li~ I ~ !B . pl-: ft !! . j "JU ~ 1l!1~ ~ I~o I;: III I .0 0, e f -:: a~.; II W!C 8~ ~~ e ;~ ~ ~I sa.n i~ :..- ~ ~ I si t!;I- ~~ :! ~ i I . ~II i!~.2 I <l ~ f!1~ 10 !~;;; f i I ~ l ~!C~ e 11I1~ ~ ~~ JI(j 9.,JI 9 :::trg:3~ . . Ii II .. !~ ~! ~I:: ~III 91- I~- o . ~II . .:- III -I SI .Z III id III1 II ~ I~: II !C aal il si ~~ ~ 1- z o ~ -J .UJ Ql UJ J: ~ ! i!lid Ilalli i 1:51 . ~ s; I~ Ii ~~ IUI ..> I~ % .I!!~ I~ # i- Iz I~ I!m 'I~ it- I II II" ~: I~I. Iii ..' ...., ~./. \ ~ LlJ :> ~ (k: ~ LlJ ~ ~i ~R ., it:~ ;;. ~~ I~ ftjl!1 ~'Ii! II! @! I l!~ b ~I~ III~ ~lli 1~2~~ fI~I~~ ...i~B Di*S~ i