The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-08_FOX DENCITY OF CHANHASSEN • • 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: 10 SPRING INC Date: 03/15/2005 Time: 10:45am Receipt Number: DW / 5954 Clerk: DANIELLE GIs LIST #05-08 ITEM REFERENCE AMOUNT ------------------------------------------- GIs GIs LIST #05-08 GIs LIST 180.00 --------------- Total: 180.00 Check 9579 180.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! OS -off SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 OF (952) 227-1100 CU}N To: 10 Spring, Inc. 622 West 82nd Street Chaska, MN 55318 Ship To: Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 3/3/05 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 60 Property Owners List within 500' of 6500 Chanhassen Road (60 labels) $3.00 $180.00 TOTAL DUE $180.00 Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #05-08. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! gAplan\2005 planning ma N05-08 fox den\05-08 invoice-gis.doc SCANNED Public Hearing Notice Area 1500 feet) Fox Den 6500 Chanhassen Road Planning Case No. 05-08 Town Lt I c Gs Om N Ir S m 4 IC Or O yg� �s�wP m � I � m `a m r m Near Mountai Mountain Way nBti°, �ry i i sant View Road Pleasant View Road I i I 1 Subject Property e °+ Q LL j L _ I FO{Ho/bw DOve n m ollow Drive 00 + o 4° 0h x I2` O a 01 ox n 0 Foxtail CAS f i Y �Y ° • • JASON P & TONIA R ASHLINE NATHAN A WASGATT & ROSEMARY A MARQUART 10 FOX HOLLOW DR LORIE L COLE 101 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 100 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ORHAN A & PATRICIA J LINER MICHAEL E O'CONNOR & TRUSTEES OF TRUST MARCIA L O'CONNOR HERBERT J & ELLA KASK 110 FOX HOLLOW DR 110 GRAY FOX LN 115 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD A & RHONDA G HERR FRANK & MELODY K KLOIDA STEPHEN G & SUSANNE THEISSEN 120 FOX HOLLOW DR 130 FOX HOLLOW DR 130 GRAY FOX LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARGARET A NELSON RICKI L & MARY B CARLSON KEVIN & CHERYL PETERSON 135 PLEASANT VIEW RD 140 BLUFF RIDGE CT 150 BLUFF RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYNE A & JULIE K SIEBER ROBERT & EDNA PETERSON MICHAEL & MARGARET SCHRIEBER 150 GRAY FOX LN 160 BLUFF RIDGE CT 160 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY M & DEIDRE L BISHOP PATRICIA K NICOL ROGER B BONGARD 170 BLUFF RIDGE CT 180 BLUFF RIDGE CT 18195 CO RD 30 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARL F & MARGARET A MCNUTT JULIE M FURY DAVID B ROBINSON 185 PLEASANT VIEW RD 20 FOX HOLLOW DR 25 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JUNELLE J CHRISTY BROOK S BOLESTA & MARK A & WAI-MING T HENDERSON TRUSTEE OF TRUST PETER G & CINDY S BOLESTA 31 FOX HOLLOW DR 2600 CHERRYWOOD RD 30 FOX HOLLOW DR PO BOX 1147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROGUE L SWENSON JR & CONSTANCE M KEEFE JEFFERY 6 & CYNTHIA S HALL 35 PLESANASANT C CONVIE 40 FOX HOLLOW DR 41 FOX HOLLOW DR 35 PLEASANT VIEW 53 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARIA VANDERZANDEN GARY J & VICTORIA G ALEXANDER STEVEN W & KELLY K LEN 50 HUNTERS CT 55 PLEASANT VIEW RD 60 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 E STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST C/O CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR 600 4TH ST E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARNOLD E & MARIE C SCHROEDER 6430 PLEASANT VIEW LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES & JOYCE NICHOLLS 6451 PLEASANT VIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JUDY SUNDERLAND 6502 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES M THEIS 6400 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY J MCNEILL 6441 PLEASANT VIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL D & JULIE M DOUGLAS 65 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW C LEITH & KATHERINE MOORE LEITH 6503 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHY ANNE STUDER & STEPHEN J MACHACEK & JAMES DONALD CHARLES STUDER LYN A NOELTING 6505 GRAY FOX CRV 6521 QUAIL XING CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW J & LINDA M HOFMEISTER 70 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY S MULCRONE 85 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATT O EVJEN & JENNIFER ANNE SHAW-EVJEN 89 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC J ZORN 91 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL J BUJOLD 80 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES E & KAMI M VAN DUSEN 87 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JUANE VANEYLL 90 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS C & HEIDI J NAUMAN 92 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN P & SARA B MUENCH 6400 NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS W & CHRISTINA HANSEN 6450 PLEASANT VIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY J & DIANE L BROWN 6500 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS M & NANCY J ANDERSON 6504 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES R KLINGELHUTZ & MARY JANE KLINGELHUTZ 6570 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD R & BARBARA J VERNES 83 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIK M & JENNIFER A KITT 88 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KENNETH H CARLSON & CATHERINE J CARLSON 90 HUNTERS CRT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LEE & KAREN BORIL 93 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS J & JAYNE M ALLEN MARK L & LAURA L LARSON MICHAEL P & JAMIE L MANNING 95 CASTLE RIDGE CT 97 CASTLE RIDGE CT 99 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHA HASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.d.chanhassen.w.us 3r.S ��,ei137 `ray C0100 S53 C ETURN ToI SENDER prprallitrn 06 O3J04/05 R FILE NO FON UNABLE TDDMR FORWARD RETURN TO SF1370-06779 03- 41 C; SS317925100 PM This map recorded mad,is neither a legally recomad,nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a corn elation of records, mfooretion and dam located m vabous city, county, state and homml offices and Other sources raganing the area shown, and Is to be used for reference Purposes only. The City does not waoant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the CM does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, twWng or any other puryose lecturing enacting measurement of distance or direction or precision to the depiction d geographic features If errors n dspepancles are found please contact g 2-227-1107. The Precedng dedaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 066.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user, of this nap ac"oWedges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and evressly waives all dams, and agrees to defend indemnity, and held harmless the City from any and all chums brought by User, hs employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the usels access or use of d®lyiged; 7 S �_j3SP 1 V a49990 fl Re M pYL 319 l�S rwe PATRICIA K NICOL 180 BLUFF RIDGE CT D CHANHASSEN MN 55317 (� 1 1 I �III�I III It II"11111"111'�f�lltl'III'I tlltl'f�ll�l'�111llll l� O Notice of Public Hearin Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for subdivision with variances — Fox Den Planning File: 05-08 Applicant: 10 Spring, Inc. Property North of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Location: Pleasant View Road (6500 Chanhassen Road) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4, Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Questions & or e-mail saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at htto://206.10.76.6/weblink the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation, The item wil! be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial4ndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s) • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. It you wish to have somethinif to be included in the reportlease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. I subject Property I This nap 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, coumy, stale and federal offices and Met sources regarding the area shown, and is to De usetl for reference purposes only. The Cary does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are anon free, and Me City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring ,+ Mng measurement of distance or direction or prepsion in Me depiction m geographic features. d ermm or discrepancies are found please contact g-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to 1Mnnesota Statutes §4W.03, Subd, 21 (20(30), and the user of this mrs, acknowledges that the Gy shall not be liable for any damages, and epressy waives all claims, and agrees to defend, tromadify, and hold harmless the Cry, from any and ail claims brought by User, ids employees or agents, or third parties which ease ud of the users access or use of data provided. 55317%0147 =�1 l%�7T77 NIX= 553 1 06 03/Cubs RETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH STREET UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: SS317014747 *1370-06750-03-41 �r �1�n�r�nr��nn��n r��unu��r�n��ul�r�n ��u r�t ��u� • uldunasseu, mmunwa aam11 www.d.chanhassen.mn. us JUNELLE J CHRISTY TRUSTEE OF TRUST 2600 CHERRYWOOD RD JI 00-1�--r\S MN 553os oC/ ��!r�n!r�ui!flur!lldulldle!r�ll!1!IY!rlru!dulrLlr!�r� Notice of Public Hearir* Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, March 15 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 77r00 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for subdivision with variances - Fox Den Planning File: 05-08 Applicant: 10 Spring, Inc. Property North of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Location: Pleasant View Road (6500 Chanha en Road) A location me is on the reverse side of Is notice. The purpose of this public hearin is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain i put from the neighborhood about this project. During them ling, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the follow steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of he roposed project. 2. The applicant will present tq�''ns t the project. 3. Comments are received frrl#r th' public. 4. Public hearing is closed an� the Commission discusses the roject. If you want to see the plans befrpre the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 88:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AWaff at 952-227-1134 Questions & or e-mail saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at htto://206.10.76.6/weblink the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation, These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. Tl is item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezoning^, and land use amendments from residential to commercial/Industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard, Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • neighborhood spckespersonAepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city Often developers re encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal, Staff is also available to review the roject with any Interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not, Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. It you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification, Subject Property This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not internal to be used as one. This map m a compilation of records. information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regan9ng the area shown. and is to as used for reference purposes only. The City does hot aamant that the Geographic Infouradon System (GIs) Data used to prepare this Mo are error treeand the City does not represent that the GIs Data can be used for run,rWimeal, hddckng or any other purpose requiring erecting measurement of distance or desertion or precismn in the deduction of geographic leanums. If errors a discrepancies are found Please contact 952!-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §41%09. Subd- 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknoMedges that the City shall net be liable for any damages. and eVresay waives all clams. and agrees to defend. mdeol and hold harmless the City from any and all dams brought by Userits employees or agentsor third padres which arise out of the users access or use of cR deS. Y 4j a �R 3 s;=0,3 ri CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard • P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www. Ci. chanhasse n. mn. us C (Y co Alk STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST C/O CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR 600 4TH ST E C-hctskr,`. M-N 553i� 111111111111111111.fill. 1IIIr111. 111, If, Ill. 11111. Ill 1/1/11111 Notice of Public Hearin Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for subdivision with variances — Fox Den Planning File: 05-08 Applicant: 10 Spring, Inc. Property North of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Location: Pleasant View Road (6500 Chanhassen Road) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Questions & or e-mail saljaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/woblink the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ortlinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. Al the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person($). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Subject Property This map is neither a legally retarded rrap nor a survey and is not irnended to be used as one. This map is a tornola ion of records, inforrration and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regar6ng Me area shown. and is to be used for reference purposes only The City does not warrant that the Geographic Herniation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and Me City does not represent Mat the GIS Data can be used for navigational, traclong or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the deptcron of geographic features a errors or dwrepancies are foi ard please contact 952-227-1107. The precedng disdainr is provided pursuant to Mnnesom Statutes §4 03, Sulxd. 21 (2000). and the user of this ,rep acknowledges that Me City shall net be liable for any canal and expressly waives all clan, and agrees to defend, Tram miry, and hold haremss the City front any and all dam brought by User. its er p oyees or agents. or third paMes which arse out of the bases access or use of data provided. 5331Ti U14T U2 0 CITY OF CIIANIIASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us r� r'Ir ROGER B BONGARD O 18195 CO RD 30 New (-,,errAarna MN S53�7 p 1 It lilt tltlntllnnlllt ulllt ntnlltlt tllt ulrin llurltll nl 0 Notice of Public Hearil* . Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday,March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for subdivision with variances — Fox Den Planning File: 05-08 Applicant: 10 Spring, Inc. Property North of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Location: Pleasant View Road (6500 Chanhassen Road) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input fr m the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, tQo Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the Wproject. 2. The applicant will present plansject. 3. Comments are received from th 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. _ If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Questions & or e-mail saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at htta://206.10.76.6tweblink the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: . • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, '-.Rezenings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the ,application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. .!'Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commissions recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have samethina to be included In the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DA: March 15, 2005 CC DATE: April 11, 2005 11 REVIEW DEADLINE: April 12, 2005 CASE #: 05-08 BY: Al-Jaff, MS, TH, LH, JS PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat with variances to Subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots, Fox Den. LOCATION: North of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Pleasant View Road. APPLICANT: 10 Spring, Inc. Roger Bongard pip 622 West 82°d Street 18195 County Road #30 U Chaska, MN 55318 New Germany, MN 55367 (952) 215-8535 (952) 353-2150 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 2.77 Acres DENSITY: Gross 2.16 Units/Ac Net 2.8 Units/Ac SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat Approval to Subdivide 3.77 Acres into 6 single-family lots with a street width variance, Fox Den. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Fox Den Subdivision • • Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 2 PROPOSAUSUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family, and is located north of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Pleasant View Road. The site contains a single family home which is proposed to be demolished. Access to the site is currently gained via a driveway off of Highway 101. This driveway will be closed and a street off of Fox Hollow Drive will serve the subject site. On April 16, 1984, the City Council approved the Fox Hollow Subdivision. The plat included a 50 foot right-of- way to facilitate the future access into the subject site. As a result, the street width of the cul-de-sac that will serve this site will maintain a 50-foot width. The city code requires 60-foot right- of-way width. Staff directed the applicant to apply for a street width variance. The roadway width (31' back of curb to back of curb) will comply with the city code. All lots are proposed to be served via proposed Fox Drive. The average lot size is 15,452 PLLASANT MrSW RD x Subject Site �0 a m Dm CC ;° �s_ yox xoLLo W T DR square feet with a resulting gross density of 2.16 units per acre and a net density of 2.8 units per acre. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Lots 1 and 4 meet the requirements of the ordinance; however, staff expressed concern to the developer about the width of these lots. Specifically, both lots become extremely narrow toward the rear lot fine. The developer provided plans for a home that he has built in the past which will fit on these lots without variances. There are no wetlands on the site. The site has some mature trees. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. Fox Den Subdivision r Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 3 PRELINIINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.77 acre site into 6 single-family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2.16 units per acre (gross) and 2.8 units per acre (net) after removing the road. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 15,452 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff expressed concern about lots I and 4, specifically the width of these lots. The applicant provided plans of a residence with a three car garage that will fit on these lots without variances. The applicant also provided hard surface calculations for Lot 4, Block 1 to demonstrate that the impervious coverage will remain under 25%. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS No jurisdictional wetlands exist on this property. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL Grading The existing site has tree cover over approximately 1.5 acre of area. The plans propose to grade about 80% of the site for the new house pads, public street and cul-de-sac. The proposed grading will prepare the site for two look -out and four full basement house pads. The grading plan shows that, on average, the pad areas are being filled three to five feet for the new homes. Also, additional grading will take place south of the parcel to connect the proposed street with Fox Hollow Drive and to expand the existing storm pond. Staff is recommending that a small (1'-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right-of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. Drainage The existing site drains from the northwestern comer to the southeastern comer of the parcel. Under developed conditions, all of the drainage from the house roofs, driveways and the cul-de- sac will be conveyed via storm sewer to the existing stormwater pond. A storm water quality pond exists adjacent to the site on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. Outlot A is owned by the City of Chanhassen. Staff is recommending this pond be expanded to provide water quality treatment for the proposed development. The pond should be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement should be maintained or replaced. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 4 The existing outlet of this pond is a 24" corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with no trash guard or skimmer to control potential floatables and it is not designed to prevent short-circuiting of the system. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C, Subsection 1D, Page I 1 or 26) should be installed. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site and only minor changes remain. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Grading and Erosion Control Note 15 states that dewatering will be done from the top of the water column. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities are needed on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan is needed with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation. Erosion Control Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap are needed for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared -end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. If the right-of-way for Fox Drive is going to be mowed within the first year, the Category 3 blanket should be replaced with staked sod. The netting of the blanket could pose problems for lawn mowing until the netting biodegrades. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slone Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 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. • Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 5 Sediment Control A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control is needed for the CB between Lots 2 and 3. A Wimco-type inlet control is recommended. An alternative could be monofilament silt fence with metal T-posts and 1'/2" rock berm 2 feet high and 2 feet wide. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $1,093/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.77 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $3,028. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,705 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $7,493 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the expansion an existing NURP pond off -site. Because the pond is off - site, it is not eligible for credit. However, credit will be given for the replacement of one outlet structure ($2,500). At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $8,021. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval. UTILITIES The plans propose on extending the sanitary sewer from an existing sanitary manhole in Fox Drive. Water will be extended from an existing watermain along the east side of the site and looped with the watermain in Fox Hollow Drive. The sanitary sewer and watermains will be considered public utility lines since they will serve more than one lot. As such, a minimum 20- foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. Installation of the private service utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 6 According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer hookup and that assessment has been paid. As such, the sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. However, the water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water - main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of Health, MnDOT, and Watershed District. STREETS The plans propose to extend Fox Drive from the south side approximately 370-feet ending with a cul-de-sac. The required right-of-way for a new public street is 60-feet wide with a 60-foot radius for cul-de-sacs. The existing platted right-of-way for Fox Drive south of the site is 50- feet. For continuity with the existing Fox Drive right-of-way, the applicant is proposing a 50- foot wide street right-of-way and a 60-foot wide cul-de-sac radius. Staff is in favor of the applicant's proposal for this right-of-way variance. PARK DEDICATION COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN This site is wholly within the neighborhood park service area of North Lotus Lake Park. This park offers a wide variety of amenities including tennis courts, ball fields, a children's playground, picnic shelter, lighted hockey and open skating rinks, open space and a walking trail. Residents of Fox Den will access the park via Fox Hollow Drive. It should be noted that sidewalks are not available in Fox Hollow. No additional parkland dedication is required in this area of the City; therefore park dedication dollars will be required in lieu of land dedication for the five new lots (5 lots X $4,000 per lot = $20,000). Park Service Area Map Fox Den Subdivision • • Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 7 r F pq 4% K i 4 µ 1bNLpM1S We Wrk ■ — gacr.s. North Lotus Lake Park Map COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN Three of the six lots (4, 5 and 6) have direct access to a section of the city's comprehensive trail plan. This eight -foot wide city trail is located parallel to State Highway 101 on the eastern edge of the subject property. The other three lots will access the trail via Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this development. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING Canopy coverage and preservation calculations have been submitted for the Fox Den development. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 2.77 ac. or 120,661 SF Baseline canopy coverage 56% or 67,110 SF Minimum canopy coverage allowed 35% or 42,231 SF Proposed tree preservation 19% or 23,185 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 (42,231-23,185) 19,046 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 22,855 SF Total number of trees to be planted 21(22,855 --1089) 46 Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 8 The total number of trees required for the development is 21. Applicant has proposed a total of 20 trees. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. No more than one-third of the trees may be from any one species. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan will be required prior to final approval. The subdivision is also required to have bufferyard plantings along Highway 101. Requirements are as follows: Location Required Proposed Hwy. 101 — bufferyard B 5 overstory trees 4 existing ash trees — 20' width 7 understory trees 4 overstory trees 240' length 12 shrubs 3 evergreen trees The applicant does not meet the minimum requirements for bufferyard planting along Highway 101. Staff recommends that the minimum quantities be met. In reviewing the tree inventory, staff would like to note that many of the elm and boxelder trees specified on the inventory are actually green ash. This makes a difference since green ash will not succumb to Dutch elm disease as the elm will and it isn't considered an `undesirable' tree as boxelders are. For these reasons, preserving as many of these trees as possible will help to make this development more appealing. Green ash are generally tolerant of construction and should do well through the process. Also of note on the tree inventory is the absence of some existing trees along the south property line. At least 4 green ash, 2 of which are double -stemmed, are not shown on the tree inventory. These trees are located between the existing shed and the south property line. These trees plus trees #142-144 should be protected during construction and remain on site. Staff recommends that the silt fence be installed in front of all of these trees prior to grading in order to preserve them during development. When the building permit for Lot 1, Block 1 is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation. The applicant is expanding the pond on city property and in doing so will be removing a number of evergreen and deciduous trees. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant boulevard trees along Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive to replace the city trees lost. To create a partial buffer for Highway 101, staff recommends that evergreens be considered for the boulevard trees along Fox Drive. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setbacks: front, side, rear Code 15,000 90 125 30,10, 30 L 1, Blk 1 17,567 93 257 30, 10, 30 L 2, Blk 1 15,014 93 @ front setback line 189 30, 10, 30 L 3, Blk 1 15,015 101 @ front setback line 166.5 30, 10, 30 L 4, Blk 1 15,065 90@ front setback line 242.5 30, 10, 30 Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 9 • 0 Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setbacks: front, side, rear Code 15,000 90 125 30,10, 30 L 5, Blk 1 15,041 90@ front setback line 191 30, 10, 30 L 6, Blk 1 15,014 90@ front setback line 152 30, 10, 30 ROW 27,945 Total 92,716 Average 1 15,452 @ Meets 90 foot width at the building setback line. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; 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. Fox Den Subdivision • Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 10 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. Findine: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. Sec.18-22. Variances. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; 3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The applicant is requesting a street width variance. This variance was recommended by staff. The ordinance requires a 60-foot right-of-way width. The plat reflects a 50-foot right- of-way. This right-of-way is consistent with the existing right-of-way that will provide access to this development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: 17:i lull► "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #5-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a variance for a 50 foot right-of-way width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto Associates stamped "Received February 11, 2005", subject to the following conditions: 1. The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. Fox Den Subdivision • Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 11 2. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C, Subsection 1D, Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 3. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for dewatering. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation, shall be provided. 4. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared -end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Sloe Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 6. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots 2 and 3. 7. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. 8. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. Building Department conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 12 c. Existing wells on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 11. Fire Marshal conditions: a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. b. A 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. c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. d. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 12. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be planted. b. A minimum of two 2'h" deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. c. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species. d. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. e. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. f. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan will be required prior to final approval. g. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum, 5 overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs. h. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved. i. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the city. 13.On the Utility plan: a. Show all easements. b. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled. 14. Add the following City detail plates: 1005, 2001, 5300 and 5301. 15. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 13 16. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water -main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 17. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH. 18. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 19. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. 21. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. 22. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 23. Staff is recommending that a small (F-T) retaining wall be installed along the western right- of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. 24. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. 25. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees." Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 14 ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Application. 2. Affidavit of Mailing and Public Hearing Notice. 3. Memo from Aaron Mlynek, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District, dated February 23, 2005. 4. Memo from Jason Ashline dated March 4, 2005. 5. Impervious Calculation Example for Lot 4, Block 1 and a floor plan. 6. Preliminary plat dated "Received February 11, 2005". gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-08 fox den staff report pc.doc Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- CITY OF CHANHASSEN lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal PLANNING CASE NO.05-08 newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that amended. the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.Syu¢y hearing on Tuesday, March 15, 2c; was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said at Chanhassen ha a the Council Chambers Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of in d- The Purpose oftHall, s he Market Blvd- The purpose of this hearing is the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both to consider a request for subdivision inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition with variances on property located and publication of the Notice: north of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Pleasant abcdefghuklmnopgrstuvwxyz View Road - Fox Den. Applicant: 10 SPRING, INC.. A plan showing the location of �} f J ti l Q, l '1 the proposal is available for public AAv b 111///ttt... review at City Hall during regular Laurie A. Hartmann business hours. All interested Persons are invited to attend this Public hearing and express their opinions withrespectto this proposal, Subscribed and sworn before me on Sharmeen Al- Jaf, Senior Planner Email: sabaffAci ch nhssen mn us � � � / Phone: 952-227 this day of L��/.�« 2005 WEN �a, ER 1134 (Published in the Chanhassen WARY PL"-MBIIFSOTA Villager on Thursday, March 3, 2005; AMl Ccnur�sbn t Jtn 71, 2010 No. 4369) Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $11.18 per column inch CITY OF CHANHASSEN • 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: 10 SPRING INC Date: 04/04/2005 Time: 2:29pm Receipt Number: DW / 6009 Clerk: DANIELLE FOX DEN FINAL PLAT ITEM REFERENCE ------------------------------------------- AMOUNT DEVAP FOX DEN FINAL PLAT USE & VARIANCE 250.00 Total: --------------- 250.00 Check 9625 250.00 Change: --------------- 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! O S -c a QSTTO SOCIATESS Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. To: City of Chanhassen Attu: Sharmeen Al-Jaff Transmittal Date: 4/1/2005 Project: Fox Den Location: Chanhassen Project No: 2-04-0702 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 4 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT We are sending to you: x Attached _ Separately _ By Messenger _ By Fax _ By Mail Shop Drawings _ Specifications _ Contracts _ Reports Prints s Correspondence Number Documents Copies Number Date Description: 3 sets Construction Plans & Specifications l set Drainage Calculations (Ponding & Storm Sewer Design) I Engineer's Estimate 10 set Final Plat — full size I set Final Plat — 8 V2 x i l I Lot Tabulations 1 1"=200' of final plat _ No exceptions taken _ For your use _ For your information Rejected e For your approval _ _ For your review _ Revised and resubmitted For your distribution _ As you requested _ _ Note Markings _ For your processing Remarks: Sharmeen, Please call with any questions or if you need additional information. I will email you & Matt Saam the digital requirements (legal description, AutoCad drawing of final plat and of of final plat). CC: I OSpring, Inc. (I set of final plat, const. plans & BY: Cara Schwahn Otto estimate) cara@ottoassociates.com Web Site: www.ottoassociates.com 7 w ,S t DI V INIUtN M KEE I - BUFFALO, MINN 55313 - (763) 6824727 - FAX (763) 682-3522 SCANNED CITY CP CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 4 2005 CHANHASSEN PANNING DEPT FOX DEN Lot Summaries Job No. 2-04-0702 3-29— 05 Web Site: www.ottoassociates.com SSOCIATES Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. 9 West Division St. Buffalo, MN 55313 Ph: (763)6824727 Fax: (763)682.3522 User Name: Troy • Date: 03-29-05 • Froject: 04-0702 ROSENLUND Time: 13:13:45 Create Lot Report Page: 1 Create Lot Report ----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name Square Feet Acres BLOCK 1 92701.38 2.13 BLOCK 1 LOT 1 17585.50 0.40 BLOCK 1 LOT 2 15022.45 0.34 BLOCK 1 LOT 3 15000.69 0.34 BLOCK 1 LOT 4 15017.59 0.34 BLOCK 1 LOT 5 15025.91 0.34 BLOCK 1 LOT 6 15049.23 0.35 PLAT 120685.28 2.77 SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: �USt�ti.r N Zi, �l`rG 6.2.2. Contact:[ZGS(E (4 1-1P Phone: Fax:45z-4ov-+5'5S Email: s�ose.,l��di«caP1 I" Lk .r� Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Subdivision` -%N Planning Case No. 05-o� I CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED APR 0 4 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Owner Name and Address: R' c G ,= CL 00 L-4 4ak lz- 7 isGt95 <_o. r2y- �30 S> 34-/ Contact IZ7Gctz 3 rG�tzr� Phone: 2Sz-3S3-zrso Fax: Email: Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRNACNARMAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ 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. ' Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital 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 PROJECT NAME: F-C) >,,, We LOCATION: 6>5Ob G f-f A t•.l R,1 $ 5 c t-L R-0A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: jl I/�{ OF Tl-tc to '/4 cr- 5,c-trur4 �r rdwt�75t+rr� jJ(P t40rz-T1-f ,rzAr-j&� 7-3 , c-tT-1 of G0v,�T7 /'th[ TOTAL ACREAGE: -z- - 7 % WETLANDS PRESENT: YES_ NO PRESENT ZONING: R REQUESTED ZONING: R - I PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: [Z&5io6rtT/h4-- 5rr-JGC.& REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: 5 t D= ty T t /} t_ 5 t NG L t= FA r n 7 L V REASON FOR REQUEST& 5 03 D] \l 1 5 10 t-4 l r` T o Co L.O! S n-7-VARIAr c-C Fog 501 jzj&reT vF c..-�rly I "5-CC-^D GCS/- Trtt= ExtSi Irvta Fc X HOt_LoL.� i S SO• 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 whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 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. 1o5Piz It-4a, :rn,r= ofApplicaq; sLo Of Application Received on tz Bc� tit G ek iz P Fee Paid Date .4l, a5- Date Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Thursday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. G:\plan\fo \Development Review Appfication.DOC SCANNED CHANHASSEN PLANNING REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe, Steve Lillehaug and Jerry McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; and Josh Metzer, Planner PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF FOX HOLLOW DRIVE, WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, AND SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD (6500 CHANHASSEN ROAD), FOX DEN. APPLICANT,10 SPRING, INC., PLANNING CASE 05-08. Public Present: Name Address Richard Herr James Rosenlund Cara Otto Scott Rosenlund Tonia & Jason Ashline Tim & Melissa McNeill James Nicholls Maria Vanderzanden Kim & Dave Robinson Rogue Swenson Jim Theis Devin Talberg 120 Fox Hollow Drive 771 Hyacinth Circle Otto Associates, 9 West Division St, Buffalo 622 W. 82°d Street, Chaska 10 Fox Hollow Drive 6441 Pleasant View Circle 6451 Pleasant View Circle 50 Hunters Court 25 Pleasant View Road 35 Pleasant View Road 6400 Chanhassen Road 3304 1" Avenue Sharmeen Al-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Yep, I think we'll have a few questions Sharmeen. Thank you. Who wants to start? Start on this side? Want to start Jerry? McDonald: Yeah, I have some questions for staff. Okay, how's that? Is that on? Okay, I have some questions for staff. One of the things that I guess I'm unsure of as I read through the report, I'd like to ask you about the retaining pond. Reading here about this floating fair cloth Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 skimmer and some of the other work that you intend to do, as part of the development then will the retaining pond be drained so that it can be expanded? Is that what we're talking about here? Saam: Yeah. Based on preliminary talks that I've had with the applicant's engineer, I believe that's what they plan on doing is temporarily pumping it down, expanding it and then allowing it to fill back up. McDonald: Okay, and currently on that pond there is no grate covering over the metal pipe that drains into the area, is that correct? Saam: I'll say currently the outlet, the pipe that controls the outlet for the pond or that drains down the pond, doesn't meet our current specifications. We're requiring them to update that to current standards so after this project it will have the metal grate, the manhole. What we call an outlet control structure so. McDonald: Okay. Then you had mentioned on the roadway going into the new Fox Drive in the area where we're talking about a retaining wall, that they may be able to raise the road a little bit and at that point eliminate the retaining wall. Okay, on the west side that would bring that up but on the east side, that is a significant drop off toward the pond. What's the effect over there as far as the road? Saam: Yeah, that's a good point. I mean when we raise the road we lessen the slope on one side. We may be increasing it on the other so we may need a small wall on the east side. And we do have those adjacent to ponds. Just at Highlands on Bluff Creek, about half a year ago that has one along an entire side. What we'd be talking about here would maybe be one course of block. You know a one foot type wall. Something small. 1 and 2 feet. McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I've got, the question about the trees on the lines came up. When I looked at these, they looked to be right on the line. What's the concern there? Is there a problem as far as construction maybe destroying those trees or are there other trees that are concerned with here? You know the ones I'm talking about? As you look down, most the trees are right on the fence, and then the question is, is the fence right on the lot line or is it off and those trees are in jeopardy or what's the concern with the trees at that point? Al-Jaff: Well the fence is, according to surveys that we have looked at, it appears as if the fence is on the neighboring property. We are working with the developer to ensure that trees are saved. McDonald: Okay, so at this point we really don't know the impact on those particular trees then? A]-Jaff: In looking at, and I spoke to the City Forester as well. She said that the trees on site are fairly tolerate to construction and the applicant should make an effort to save them. Again, we will work with the developer to make sure that as many trees are saved as possible. Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 McDonald: Okay. And on the issue about the width of Fox Drive itself. Of taking that down to I believe 21 feet as far as surface area. You say that that's wide enough for 2 vehicles to pass but no parking. Saam: Yeah. At least it would have to at least go down to parking on one side of the street. Our private streets are 20 feet wide. We don't allow any parking there. So here at 24 feet we're a little less than half where we allow both side parking so we would definitely be restricting the parking if we would decrease the street width. McDonald: Okay, and there's no plans for this to be a private street, is that correct? Saam: No. Private streets are limited to 4 lots so based on them applying for 6, that kind of threw out that option. McDonald: Okay. And then the other questions I guess I have would be for the developer so I'll wait for those. Sacchet: Okay Jerry. Questions Rich? Debbie, any questions? Larson: I think he covered. Sacchet: Okay, Dan. Keefe: Just a couple follow up's. The proposed retaining wall on the west side is, how far is that from the curb? Would that be the proposed retaining wall. Just out of curiosity. Saam: It would be just inside the right-of-way so it'd be approximately 9. Well let me throw my scale on it quick. Yeah, approximately 9 feet, give or take you know half a foot. Keefe: Okay. And in regards to the trees in the buffer, I'm kind of paging through some of this information you gave us right before and it looks like the neighbor wanted to have, it says 1 conifer tree shall be planted every 6 to 14 feet. I saw that. Code says 30 feet, is that correct? Al-Jaff: That's correct. Keefe: And then, am I reading this correctly? That planning would like them to see, be planted 20 feet? Is that your? Al-Jaff: No. What we did was, we took Mr. Ashline's suggestions and we wanted to respond to them. Why have we made the recommendations that we have? We can't just pick numbers arbitrarily. We have guidelines. We need to follow those guidelines. Keefe: Yeah, which is 30 feet right? A]-Jaff: Which is 30 feet. Planning Commission Meeting —March 15, 2005 Keefe: Yeah, it just states in here, and I'm looking at number 6 on the second page of the response to questions. And it says we would like to see and planted 20 feet apart, as opposed to 30 feet, and I just want to make sure I'm clear on what. Saam: I think that's Mr. Ashline's memo. Keefe: Is it? It just says... Sacchet: It has his words and inbetween are the answers. Keefe: Okay so, number 6 is actually what he's saying, is that correct? Al-Jaff: Correct. Where the number is... Keefe: The answer is the city's sticking by 30 feet. AI-Jaff: ...why have we made our recommendation. Keefe: Just trying to be clear. The answer is the city says 30 feet, is that right? Al-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: Okay, that's what I want to know there. One more question on the street width. If we were to take it down to 24 feet and not only allow parking on one side of the street. The houses which are in the back, that would mean that, or in the development itself, that means people who visited them would have to park on the opposite side potentially if we were to take it down. They wouldn't be able to park necessarily in front of the house if they came to visit them, correct? Saam: Correct. Keefe: Reasonably. Saam: Yeah, correct. Keefe: Would we typically sign that to say parking only allowed or what is it? Saam: Yeah, if we would impose no parking on one side of the street, yeah. To be able to enforce it, ticketing, that sort of thing, we'd have to have it sign. The sheriff wouldn't enforce it otherwise. Keefe: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: Steve. N 0 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 Lillehaug: Couple questions. Matt and Sharmeen, is there any potential for expanding a regional pond downstream at all or have you guys looked at that at all? hi lieu of expanding the one on Lot 8. Saam: No, I didn't look downstream and the reason why is the outlet for this goes under 101 into Eden Prairie so drainage from this area goes into Eden Prairie and out of the county so. Lillehaug: Let's see. On your response to question sheet. One of the answers regarding they need to show a contour elevation at 912 in the bottom of the pond, is that a condition we need to add or that you're recommending that we add? Saam: We thought we caught that by, we said there are minor changes needed in the stormwater calculations. You can certainly add it. I've alerted the developer's engineer to it. I don't think it's a huge, I believe it's going to be taken care of but we can add it if it's not there. Lillehaug: Okay. Now the big question. One of my biggest pet peeves. Sharmeen, can you explain to me what the code is regarding a, is the 60 by 60 pad in the code or isn't it in the code? Al-Jaff It's not in the code. Lillehaug: It's not in the code. Are we absolutely sure? I can't believe it's not in the code. AI-Jaff: It's not in the code. It is not. Lillehaug: Is this something we reviewed recently where we, as a planning commission wanted to add it in the code? And it's going forward to the council. Sacchet: We discussed it. I know we discussed it but I don't think it became code Steve. Lillehaug: Got to be kidding me. Okay. I'm done with questions. Sacchet: I have a few questions too. First of all, the property to the west of the subject site, is that being accessed from Pleasant View? Al-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: So we're not land locking those? AI-Jaff: No, and we looked at potential future development of those parcels, whether they can subdivide and they couldn't. Sacchet: And they have currently access. AI-Jaff: They do have existing access off of Pleasant View Road, or. Saam: There's a private drive I think. Planning Commission Meeting —March 15, 2005 AI-Jaff: There is a private drive. Sacchet: In terms of the expansion of the pond, right now the developer is proposing to pretty expand it to the north. Use the whole space there, I guess it's a question for you Matt. Trouble is there's some nice evergreens there, so has there been efforts to explore how the pond could be expanded without using that whole space to the north there? Saam: Yeah, I believe we have. We've looked at that. Myself and the City Forester brought that issue up. She would like to keep those if we can. Let me go up here. Really the only decent size area that we have to get some significant volume is, as I see it in this area. We can't pond in the right-of-way. We have to keep that on private property. We own the property but still, consider it private. But in this area, I believe the entrance monument to the development is in that area. Sacchet: Oh, that's used, okay. Saam: Yeah, excuse me. So I guess it would be possible to dig that out. Relocate the entrance monument somewhere. And then we could maybe cut some of this down. That would be in my opinion about the only option you have. There's a little comer here but again with sloping up and everything, I don't think you're going to get the water quality. What we need is the below water level. That volume. So we really need some area down low because by the time you come up to the top then at a slope, you know you start to get out so we could, we can investigate this further. We probably have to talk, I believe they have a homeowners association and talk with that to see if they would mind moving that. Sacchet: Thanks Matt. I don't know whether this is related on page 8 of the staff report, on the bottom. It talks about replacing city trees that get lost. Are we talking about those trees around the pond or? Al-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. Let's see. That might be it for my questions. Yep. So with that I'd like to invite the applicant, if you want to come forward. We'll hear from the applicant and after that we do the public hearing. So if you want to add how happy you are with what and which ones maybe you're a little less happy with. Scott Rosenlund: Yeah, my name is Scott Rosenlund. I live at 622 West 82nd Street, Chaska. And I'm an owner of 10 Spring Inc. with my son Jamie. And we have worked with Cara Otto from Otto Engineering extensively and with the city staff and I think pretty much it's been covered. We're pretty, you know there are some issues. One issue I had, want to bring up on the trees. I think Jason did have his property surveyed and we were out there. We met with him. I think the trees are pretty clearly on the property on Fox Den and someone asked if we could maintain them. It is in our best interest to leave the trees there. It just increases the value of the property but there are a few of them that are leaning quite extensively to the north and they might interfere with, if we put a two story home up there. So those we would look at, if they might Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 have to come down. But if possible we'd like to maintain the trees. That was one issue on the trees. The issue on the pond, I know Matt had brought up the fact that some of the ponding, the existing pond, the staff is not up to city code and it just seems like it's an unfair burden that all of a sudden now it's our responsibility to bring it up to code when maybe things have changed so that was just an issue. As far as the issues with the grading and the depth of that, if that's our burden, it's our burden. It just seems maybe a little unfair to, if you do have something that's out of date, that maybe the city needs to address that. But we'd be happy to answer any questions and Cara is here from Otto Engineering, if you have any technical questions. Sacchet: Maybe Matt, could you address the point that he just brought up. I mean how far is this pond off of code? Are they being stuck with an undue burden to bring it up to code plus to accommodate the new thing? What's the proportion? Can you give us an idea please? Saam: Sure. Yeah, I think there may be a little miscommunication. The current pond is sized just for the developed area of Fox Hollow that's going there. Sacchet: It's properly sized for that. Saam: Yes. We're not asking this developer to increase it to bring it up to cover the existing area. He's being asked to increase it for his area and then the 912 contour is for additional area to the north. A regional area if you will. The code allows for a small credit of the SWMP fees, the Surface Water fees at time of final plat for doing that. I don't think the 2 foot depth will, you'll see a large increase or decrease I should say of his fees but, so just to clarify. We're not asking him to bring the current up to any code. We are asking the outlet structure to be updated. He's asking to expand that so to control the rate, that's got to be updated. We feel that's well within his burden. Sacchet: Is that a satisfactory answer to you? Scott Rosenlund: It was more of a grading issue....a grade even if we add onto it. Sacchet: Do we have questions? Slagle: I've got one. If I may. The application as I see it with 6 lots, staff mentioned some concerns, perhaps 2 of the lots, I don't want to read into it but at any point did staff share with you the concerns that perhaps you're trying to put too many lots into a parcel this size? Scott Rosenlund: Yeah we had, the point we talked about was specifically Lots 1 and 4 and the width of those and the question came up, can a house even fit on there so we actually provided a picture and plans that we have. We have this house built in Mound and I think we shared the address, and that is the exact plan that we built. It's probably about a $600,000 house that we have built in Mound on a 50 foot lot. Slagle: Is that on the lake? Scott Rosenlund: No. Not a $600,000. Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 Slagle: So you, if I can just ask again, so you're comfortable with the number of lots? I mean you think it's not going to appear as though 2 are being squeezed. At least I for sure, being squeezed into this development. Scott Rosenlund: No I do not. I'm comfortable with it. Slagle: Okay. McDonald: Can I ask a follow up to that? Have you looked at the rest of the development as far as lot sizes and houses and spacings and those things and will what you put in here be in character with the rest of the neighborhood? Scott Rosenlund: You mean with Fox Hollow? McDonald: With Fox Hollow. Scott Rosenlund: I would say that the, this will probably be you know obviously newer but probably a little bit the price point I think will be quite a bit higher just based on the value of the property today. McDonald: I'm not talking about price. What I'm looking at is spacing and the way houses fit on the lot. The size of the lots in comparison to the rest of the development. Is this going to be comparable to that or is this going to be smaller to where it looks out of place compared to the rest of the development or is it bigger? Where is it in relation? Al-Jaff: May I answer that question? McDonald: Sure. Al-Jaff: I'm more familiar with the area of Fox Hollow. That subdivision is actually a planned unit development. Parcels were permitted to go down as small as 11,000 square feet. The overall average lot size for the entire Fox Hollow had to maintain 15,000. There will be some parcels within the Fox Hollow subdivision that are below the 15,000 square feet. The subdivision you're looking at before you today is 100% 15,000 or larger. McDonald: Okay. And then the other questions I've got concern Lots 4, 5, and 6. On the backs of those lots is now a trail. That is also out to 101. It's very flat at that point. All those lots are pretty much open to the trail and also to 101. Do you have any plans as far as barriers or buffers or berms or anything such as that for the back of those lots? Scott Rosenlund: We have built on similar sites like on Highway 5 before that back up to Highway 5 and usually it's in our best interest to put some sort of berm or trees on the back side there. I know we're a little bit limited with the trailway there and the possible easement there, widening of Highway 5 but definitely some planting many trees back there would help that site. If there was room we could put a berm in there. I'm not sure if we had planned. 91 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 Cara Otto: Drainage wise it would be tough. Scott Rosenlund: Drainage wise it would be tough so we'll probably just end up with a tree. McDonald: Okay, and have you given any consideration to a barrier fence or something along those back lines? Scott Rosenlund: I really haven't gotten to that point but that's not a bad idea. Might be a little uncharacteristic for the neighborhood but. McDonald: Well it would actually fit in with the neighborhood if you go north of Pleasant View, there's a fence there. If you go south. Scott Rosenlund: The Eden Prairie side? McDonald: Right on the Chanhassen side and also on the Chanhassen side within Fox Hollow itself as you go down there are fences. Cara Otto: I just wanted to note, Cara Otto with Otto Associates. One of the project engineers. There is, as part of the staff conditions, some additional buffer planting that is in addition to what we had originally proposed. And that's mentioned I believe in one of the conditions. It lists a certain number and type that they want of that so, we would comply with that buffer planting. McDonald: Okay. That's all I have. Sacchet: Any questions this side of the crowd? No? Anything you want to add from your end? Scott Rosenlund: Maybe just a chance to respond later if necessary. Sacchet: Okay. You can always come back. With that I'd like to open the public hearing. We'd like to invite any of the residents that have comments to this item in front of us to come forward and express what you want to tell us. I do want to point out, since we have quite a good number of people here tonight, that if I could ask you not to keep repeating the same thing over and over in the interest of time. Then ideally if you have like a spokesperson of the neighborhood, that's the best solution. But certainly everybody's welcome to speak up so is anybody here that wants to address this proposal in front of us? This is your chance. Yes, please come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say please. Jason Ashline: Hi. I'm Jason Ashline, 10 Fox Hollow. Sacchet: Do you want to put the mic a little in front? There you go. Jason Ashline: Okay. As you guys are aware, I have some concerns about the proposed development. I'm not opposed to development in general but I do not support this development Ifl Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 in it's current form. Further study and modifications need to be made. I will cover several issues as timely as possible. I'll try to get through these as fast as possible. I would refer you to my memo, I think all of you have that, and further information. First of all I'd like to point out that in Section 20-1182 regarding foundations and aesthetic plantings, it specifically states that boulevard plantings are at a minimum of 1 tree for every 30 is required. So it's a minimum standard. It's not a maximum standard. It's a minimum. So I would like to focus on the word minimum and I would refer the commission to my asking for a modification of the condition attached to the staff report, page 12, number 12, letter (I), to say one conifer tree should be planted for every 6 to 14 feet except within the sight triangle. I would refer the members to my proposals and condition add on's and maybe possibly friendly amendments. I would also like to see adherence to Section 20-1176, Section F(8). Basically this section of the code says in instances in which the city deems it necessary to provide year round screening, the city may designate that all plantings be conifers. So that's the first area that I wanted to cover. The second area is Section 18-61(D)(4). It's in regards to providing relief to preserving trees in adjusting lot lines and advocating modified grading. I would refer you to the expanded language that I included in the current condition in the staff report, page 12, number 12(H). I would remind the commission that trees 142 and 143 may possibly be considered boundary line trees and be co -owned by myself and then the current owner of 6500 Chanhassen Road. Number 3, regarding the proposed retaining wall on page 3 of the staff report, we'd like to explore the retaining wall option with the developer if it is passed by the commission here and also work with the city and the engineer if they don't have an objection to that. I've had discussions with the developer and his engineer and if a wall is put in, we'd like to make sure it's fit in as aesthetically as possible with our property to minimize it's length as much as possible as well. We'd like to see a landscape architect's rendition of how the retaining wall would look like and what type of stone material could be used. We'd also like to see how the street would look like if the wall did not go as well, and I would refer you to a friendly amendment that I've proposed as add on language that I've submitted as well. The next area that I'd like to cover regarding the street width variance on page 10 of the staff report. I believe that a 24 foot wide street is more than adequate and I believe that there is an environmental hardship and safety reason for going to 24 feet and also adjusting the cul-de-sac radius accordingly. I've gone out there and I've measured it, you know 9'/2 feet off my property line to the east for a 31 foot paved surface, back of curb to back of curb, and basically the edge of the curb on the eastern side of the proposed Fox Drive comes extremely close to the edge of the current pond slope. There would be virtually no room to plant boulevard trees which is what the environmental resource coordinator is advocating. And I want to be very clear, we do not want, we do need at least a partial buffer with evergreens because of the noise and the headlights and other visual impacts from Route 101. As you know all of the buffers, the 15 large trees that are currently north of the pond are being removed, and also there is a safety issue of the road being located so very close to the edge of this pond. I believe there is a true hardship reason here and as far as addressing the concerns for on street parking and access to emergency vehicles, and in my memo I referenced an 8 year study conducted by a consulting firm, Swift Associates in Longmont, Colorado and I'm sure there are other studies out there that basically concluded that the safest street in residential neighborhoods is a 24 foot wide paved street. Basically it concluded that speeds were slower, provided ample room for emergency vehicles. It decreased impervious surface, which reduced storm water runoff, which in turn reduces the size of storm water ponds. Additionally a 24 foot wide paved surface reduces maintenance costs for the city and also construction costs for the 10 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 developer. It will also increase for the developer front lot size, and who wouldn't want that? Other municipalities in Minnesota use 24 feet wide, 24 feet wide streets very effectively. I would refer the commissioners to Afton, Minnesota, Lake Elmo as examples. Parking could be on one side of the street, and we're talking about a very small area here between the pond and east of my property line. And we're only talking with access to this proposed subdivision, only 60 trips a day. So really instead of asking for maybe an after the fact variance, you know maybe we can do it right the first time around and look at ways to address low impact development. Lastly I want to address the proposed pond expansion. I believe that the current proposal is premature. Basically on September 21, 2004 Lori Haak wrote to Todd Gerhardt a memo about the storm water management program basically saying it is out of date and there are also specific design standards for storm water ponds. Not just NURP standards but other standards that must be adhered to for an effective storm water pond. Before we go ahead with this pond expansion I think the commission really needs to ask itself you know several questions. First of all, are there any reasonable alternatives than to expand the pond that would lessen the impact and wipe out the needed buffer? Have we looked seriously at the alternatives and are we absolutely sure there are no alternatives to expand the pond by such a large amount? And third, is there anything else that we can do to reduce impervious surface that will reduce runoff. And I propose you know one area where we could reduce the street width. I mean I think most engineers would agree that reducing impervious surface reduces runoff. And are there any other unintended consequences with the decision to expand the pond? Basically there are alternatives. I proposed some. I'm sure there are others. I would recommend that before we approve this plat, the City should hire an independent firm to look at the proposed expansion, and this is why an expansion may not be necessary. The contributing watershed would be, is still rather small. It's a little over 12 acres. According to the Metropolitan Council, which is the regional planning agency serving the Twin Cities area, in their best management practices for urban small sites, the wetland size to a watershed area ratio should be a minimum of 1 %. According to storm water center.net, this type of pond should not consume more than 2 to 3 percent of the contributing drainage area. Based upon the calculations submitted, the area consumed would be at least 3.8%. It's really too large for this drainage area. The last thing we want to do is increase the size of our pond and then MnDot decides to comes in and expand 101 to 4 lanes which may happen in the future. Furthermore the design and shape of this pond, if you go through with this, is not consistent with how storm water ponds should be designed. Firstly, the pond length to width ratio should be at least 3 to 1. This pond, if expanded, will be as long as it is wide. Or nearly so. The length to width ratio of the sediment forebay should be 2 to 1 to avoid short circuiting. No one even seems to be able to address this issue regarding the forebay. I've raised it several times and no one can really seem to respond to it. The riser, is there a riser associated with this pone near the outlet? All inlets really should enter through the first cell of the storm water pond. There are multiple inlets. In fact at least one inlet is very close within 2 feet of the outlet, and then the pond really should be a tear drop shape. The pond is very rectangular. Tear drop shapes minimize dead zones caused by corners. And then also there should be emergent wetland vegetation planted. Long natural grasses and shrubs, plantings such as soft stem bulrush, arrowhead, wild rice. This all should be planted along the side of the pond for full visual enhancement and to reduce runoff. Slagle: Excuse me Mr. Ashline, if I can ask Mr. Chair. 11 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 Sacchet: Sure. Slagle: First of all I appreciate everything you've done and researched into this. I guess the simple question is, did you have discussions with the developer? It sounds like you have, and of what areas of those discussions did you guys reach any mutual agreement or was everything that you're bringing up not agreeable with the developer? Jason Ashline: Well we did meet I believe last Thursday for the first time, and we did raise some of these issues. Actually most of these issues were raised. The pond, the road width, the trees in my back, trees 142, 143 and 144 on the tree inventory. So all of these issues, maybe not as in depth as what we're presenting here, or what I'm presenting here or in my memos but they were raised in generalities. There were no agreements. There's no signed agreements. Slagle: Was there any just outright refusal to work with you on them? Jason Ashline: No. I mean there was, no. Slagle: Okay. Jason Ashline: But then again there were no agreements, I think it was more of an informational exchange of ideas type meeting more than anything else. Slagle: And just what I'm trying to gather is sort of where we are today, tonight. Common ground, if any and how we proceed. I mean just as one voice up here. As an example, if I may. As an example, on your lot, what I will call the eastern boundary, and I apologize for not having been out there but you know are there, do you have your own trees? Have you considered planting your own buffer? Have you talked to the developer about helping you out in that respect? Jason Ashline: Not specifically about along my eastern line, no. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Before we get into questions, do you mind wrapping up. You've been going for about 20 minutes. Jason Ashline: Oh sure, no. I was just going to wrap up and basically you know, before we rush to judgment you know I think we need to investigate here a little further. There are several issues that need to be resolved and basically in closing you know, I presented to the commission a memo and some proposals for additional conditions and friendly amendments and I would like you guys to consider those. Obviously if you do vote in favor of this, obviously I still remain opposed for the reasons that I've mentioned but I would, you know I appreciate your full consideration and thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else who would want to address this issue? This is your chance. 12 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 Please come forward. State your name and your address and let us know what you have to say please. Kim Robinson: Council members, my name is Kim Robinson and I live at 25 Pleasant View Road so I'm on the opposite side from Fox Hollow people. Sacchet: Right next to it or, you want to point it out? Kim Robinson: This is our lot right here. It's our back garage. And my question, or I'm glad to hear that trees are an issue with the planning but, and trees that were on the same lot line and stuff but I have trees in my yard that I inherited. We didn't plant them. I would have never planted them this close to the lot line but they exist. They're mature ash trees and there are 4 of them within feet of the property line. And a weird circumstance. We have also directly behind our lot, the ground slopes away quite steeply and for some reason not so much here and here but right here, and so my tree roots are primarily on that side of the trees are in that steeply sloping area. And what we're wondering there is what's going to happen to that slope during construction, because it looks like if it was mine to do, I would dig that out and put a retaining wall there because who's going to want to mow it? Mr. Bongaard didn't like doing it when he had to, and so my concern is the trees. Sacchet: Matt can you address what the grading is happening there... I don't see too many grading lines there but can you give us an idea please. Saam: Yeah. Of course the developer's going to be staying on their property, but it sounds like the concern is that the roots may go in off of the resident's property into the south property. What the developer is showing there is a drainage swale. A small swale for drainage along that north side of the house. Sacchet: Okay. Saam: So it does look like there will be a little cutting. Doesn't look to be severe as in multiple feet. More like 6 inches to a foot. Without looking at how far the roots come into the property out there, I'm not sure if they can be saved or what the impacts would be. I guess I would maybe suggest we explore this further later maybe with the City Forester. Definitely if we can save those trees, you know we would. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Thank you, good concern. Anybody else want to address this item? Please come forward and state your name and your address for the record. Maria Vanderzanden: Hi. Maria Vanderzanden at 50 Hunters Court and that is right here. Trees are popular tonight. Just some clarification. In the outline along the entire perimeter of this property I believe the trees are like 100 years old minimum. They're beautiful, gorgeous trees. Is the proposal to remove all of those trees around the perimeter? AI -Jaffa What you see in green in areas that, there will be a silt fence out here. Anything beyond the silt fence will not be removed. It will remain natural. 13 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 Maria Vanderzanden: Okay. And what is the distance between the homes? From here to here. I want to get to your question in terms of it being consistent with what's really going on in the neighborhood. Al-Jaff: Sure. The city code requires a 10 foot side yard setback, so at a minimum you'll have a 20 foot separation. Rarely, a typical parcel is 90 foot wide. Maria Vanderzanden: Between two homes? Al-Jaff: From this, per ordinance, from this point to this point you have a 90 foot minimum. Assuming a 10 foot separation from setback from the property line, your house is going to be 70 feet wide. Now rarely do we see 70 foot wide homes, but that's a possibility. Maria Vanderzanden: Okay. It's clearly not consistent with what is going around, going on along the perimeter of this property. I mean we have minimum 30 feet between our homes so I'm real concerned about changing the look and feel of the neighborhood with this type of set-up. That's one thing. I wonder too, if any consideration has been given to move this road elsewhere and what I'm really concerned about is the distance between 101 to here. This neighborhood is full of children, and there's not a whole lot of opportunity to slow down on 101 before you turn onto this road, and cars whip around that corner as it is. They already take this whole street just to turn this comer. It's not safe already and then you're going to have additional vehicles coming at us here and trying to turn either way. I'm very concerned about the safety of that. Not only for the children but for the pure speed of the vehicles going this way, so has consideration been to perhaps reduce the homes from 6 to 4 and relocate this road. Where the existing road already is on 101, if they went down to 4, it would be a much safer access and you could use the existing access. You wouldn't have to mess with other people's property. You could maintain those beautiful trees that area already there. You wouldn't have to change the landscaping so drastically. This is a real security issue. Sacchet: Matt, what's the speed limit on what is this, Fox Drive? Fox Hollow Drive. Saam: I would guess it's 30. I mean 30 maximum. It may be at 25 but in terms of moving the street access. Sacchet: There isn't any no alternative is there? Saam: No. And Highway 101 is a state road. Arterial roadway. I don't believe, again going back to Yoberry, I don't believe they would allow access, direct access onto 101. Wouldn't be the first preference, especially when we have street right-of-way dedicated for the sole purpose as Sharmeen said. We're trying to limit access to those type of highways. And that, frankly in my opinion this access will be safer than a direct street coming out onto 101. Another street coming out onto 101. There are already many access points onto 101 so we want to try to limit those. Sacchet: It's probably not what you want to hear but. 14 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 Maria Vanderzanden: Well but wasn't there a comment made earlier about if they were 4 houses, the access could be different than 6 houses... Sacchet: It could be a private road. And it wouldn't change where it comes out. Maria Vanderzanden: Okay. And how tall are these houses going to be? They look like... A]-Jaff: Our city code permits up to 35 feet in height. Maria Vanderzanden: I'm just, I'm not clear on how the houses as scoped here are really you know, I don't get how only this much can be house. My concern is that the house is actually going to be much closer to the property line. I don't understand how you can have such a big house this size that's 60 by 60. I'm not clear on that. Slagle: If I can, Sharmeen, do we have a picture? Did you have a picture earlier, a photo of, I'm assuming it's something that they've built. Al-Jaff: Somewhere else, correct. I also want to point out that our city code has requirements for hard surface coverage. Slagle: I think you wrapped it in a piece of paper. I saw it earlier. Al-Jaff: Is that what I did? Slagle: I didn't see where you put it but I did. AI-Jaff: And I know I had it in my hand. Maria Vanderzanden: Well I understand if there's floorplans, and that's okay, you don't have to present the floorplans. I'm just, I don't see how you can have... Sacchet: And we don't know what they're going to build. I mean this is, it's not to the stage of knowing what they're going to build. This is just an example. Do you want to zoom in to it Nann? Al-Jaff: If I may add, there are several things, several mechanisms in which what's built on a property is regulated. Number one, you have a 25 foot, 25% hard surface coverage. Now when it's 25% hard surface, that includes the house, the driveway, sidewalks. Anything that water does not penetrate through. That is calculated as hard surface coverage and the developer or ... right there. You can't just pave the entire parcel and put a house on the entire thing. That's not an option. Sacchet: So there are some safeguards in place. Al-Jaff: Correct. There are mechanisms and then you have the setbacks. That's another thing. 15 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 Slagle: But this photo that we're seeing here, if I can ask, does this resemble the house in Mound, the floorplan that you? Scott Rosenlund: Exactly. Slagle: Okay, so this would be something that you might see on Lot 4? Scott Rosenlund: Exactly. Slagle: Okay. Saam: I'll mention one thing too in regards to a resident brought up building back toward the rear lot line. The silt fence is shown on this plan. They're not going to be taking out trees in back of that. We inspect that. There's penalties if something like that would happen so there are safeguards in place. We get financial security from the developer if he would do something so we can use that to correct... Sacchet: So in other words what you see in green on this plan is what the developer agrees to, and the city's going to hold him to it. Maria Vanderzanden: Okay. And maybe I can just, I don't know who I can talk with after this but all over my property are all these little flags and now I'm getting concerned that people think that it's their property so I really want to make sure I'm clear on property lines. Sacchet: Flags as in little marker things? Maria Vanderzanden: Well you know, little markers and orange tags and you know, I mean they're all on my property. Several feet. Sacchet: You want to address that Matt? Or you want to talk with her? Maria Vanderzanden: Well I can speak to him afterwards. I can meet you in my yard, you know. Saam: Yes, we can set that up. Sacchet: Excellent, thank you. Anybody else? Public hearing's still open. Yes, please come forward. Tell us who you are and what you have to say. Tim McNeill: This will be real quick. Sacchet: That's alright. Just get up there and tell us. Tim McNeill: I'm Tim McNeill. I live actually right behind Lot 3. Over there. And definitely happy to hear that the green areas are saved because there are a lot of good trees back there. The 16 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 water in that area just basically builds up. There's no, we don't have any sewer in our small subdivision. It's a private road with no sewer and I was just wondering whether or not there were any plans to maybe use city sewer to get some of the water out of that area otherwise the water from Lots 1, 2 and 3 will probably pool somewhere you know in this area. Sacchet: What's the drainage? Can you explain the drainage a little bit Matt and how that would affect them? Generally it should improve. Saam: Yes. And the engineer's done a relatively good job I think in this area. They are installing a rear yard catch basin that will collect storm water in this low area back here. Now they're not going to be going again into the green area so there might be, if there's pooling there today, that will continue but as it builds up, it will drain in here versus going to the existing homes or the new homes so. Sacchet: Is that what you asked about? Tim McNeill: Yes, that's exactly it. Keefe: So it may not be perfect but it will be improved probably over... Saam: Yes. Yeah, I would say it'd be an improvement. Sacchet: It's a trade off. We don't want to go into the trees. We want to preserve the trees, right. Tim McNeill: Okay. And I had that same question about the actual survey of the land and different tags on different trees so. Sacchet: Yeah, basically all the trees get inventoried so a tag on a tree doesn't mean it's going to be cut. It means that it was actually surveyed. Tim McNeill: Right. There's also stakes in the middle of our yard so you know, we just think you know, well actually it brings up another question. Our subdivision, the 4 houses on Pleasant View Circle which are off the private road, there's no official survey by the City of Chanhassen on file. And it might be a good idea. Sacchet: To know where you are. Tim McNeill: To know you know, for the City to know where we are. Sacchet: So you're on Pleasant View Circle. I wondered about that when I drove by, and that's the property right adjacent. Okay, that was my question earlier. Okay. Tim McNeill: Thank you. Sacchet: Alright, thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. 17 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 Lillehaug: Matt, can you comment on who's responsibility it is to actually verify that their lots are their lots. Saam: Yeah. As you probably know it's the homeowner's responsibility. The City, we don't do mass surveys of the entire city. That would be nice to have every lot. Certainly when every new lot comes in, we require one now but we don't have existing, older neighborhoods we don't have a lot of those surveys on file. Sacchet: Sometimes not even that old. Saam: No. Sacchet: But I just want to ask the question of the applicant. I mean I assume you verified where you're lot lines are. Is it possible that there are some possible unclarities with the neighbors to the west? I think that's an issue since we have heard it from two people now that maybe you could say something about. Cara Otto: I don't know how much definition I can give to it other than yes, there is a boundary survey that was done as part of the property. I have not been brought up to any, know of anything that was you know ambiguous with any of the property lines. I'm not sure what the stakes are. I can check in and see if that's something that is from our stakes or not. I don't know if Matt. Saam: I was thinking maybe it might be utility locates. If you guys were. Cara Otto: Oh like a Gopher, yeah. Private utilities. Saam: Yeah, maybe your, their survey crew had called in for those to get them on the plans. Sacchet: Definitely important to clear that up. Cara Otto: But typically if there's something that is researched that's a gap or ambiguous with the description, usually that's pointed out and further research. I haven't heard that at this point. McDonald: Yeah excuse me. Is that property abstract or Torrens? Cara Otto: I would have to look. I believe it's just abstract. McDonald: And when you did the survey, did you do it according to the property description within that document? Cara Otto: The property's description from an abstract, yeah. McDonald: Were there any irregularities that you found in verifying the information on the abstract? IE E Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 Cara Otto: That's what I'm saying. I don't, I'm not aware of it. I'm not the person who does, I'm an engineer, not the surveying end but typically if there's some issue with a property line, that's brought up fairly early because the boundary survey is the first piece of work that we do do SO. Lillehaug: The bottom line is, a registered land surveyor is doing this period, right? Cara Otto: Yes they are, yep. And a new one has been done. We're not going off of old information. Saam: And I'll just add at time of final plat, what they do is reviewed at the County too so it's not like Otto's surveyors are the only ones to do it and nobody else looks at it so. Cara Otto: Yeah, the final plat is sent for plat checking with all the neighboring properties. Slagle: But if I can throw out though, it might be helpful if the applicant, along with your survey, could work with staff and the neighbors. Saam: Oh sure, yeah. Cara Otto: Oh yeah. Yeah. I'm just saying that I don't know, this is the first I've heard of anything. I don't know if it's our stakes or just like a Gopher One call, but I'm not aware of anything that's ambiguous. Sacchet: Thank you. Public hearing is still open so please come forward. Let us know who you are. There you go. Richard Herr: I'm Richard Herr and I live at 120 Fox Hollow Drive so I'm not adjacent to the property. Sacchet: Little further down on Hollow Drive. Richard Herr: Little further down the line and I'm not sure if this is necessarily the right forum for this but the one thing that I have thought about that would be of general value to the neighborhood would be, like some other neighborhoods have further down 101. They have a neighborhood pool, and I guess I bring that up as an idea that may change the layout here and could potentially change this from a 5 property, or a 6 property to a 5 property area and might address some of the runoff concerns and that type of thing so I just thought I'd bring that up. I don't know even how to approach such a thing but only to say maybe that the neighborhood might have an opportunity to purchase one of the lots, or to be involved in one of the lots or half lot. Sacchet: Well you met the developer. Better talk to him afterwards. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Yes, please come forward. 19 0 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 Dave Robinson: My name's Dave Robinson. I'm at 25 Pleasant View. Right there. Sacchet: Okay. Dave Robinson: And I guess my only question is, when construction starts, what can we expect as far as, are all the houses going to be built pretty much at the same time and sold, or is it going to be people buying lots and building houses one at a time? By the developer. Sacchet: Does the developer want to address that quickly? It's my understanding you're also the construction so you're actually the builder? Scott Rosenlund: All of the above. Sacchet: Okay. You're the whole thing. Scott Rosenlund: It's pretty hard to predict at this point exactly how it will go down but if they were all sold out immediately, that'd be a good thing for us. Sacchet: So it's market driven. Scott Rosenlund: Yeah, exactly so I can't... Sacchet: From your experience would you say likely 2-3 years? Scott Rosenlund: Probably 2 years. Sacchet: About 2 years? Okay. Alright, thank you very much. Anybody else wants to speak up at this public hearing. This is your chance. So you'd better come forward before I close the hearing. State your name and address. Let us know what you have to say please. Jim Theis: My name is Jim Theis. I live at 6400 Chanhassen Road. I'm the bigger corner lot here. I guess I've kind of looked over some of the stuff and I'm up to speed on it some. My only issue was when Kim brought up about the have to grade here. My only concern is here there, again there are most of the trees I believe that are on this line are actually on these properties. Off the Pleasant View side. I have some concerns here when I heard Matt say that they were going to maybe do a swale, if they are going to inbetween here, that I want to make sure that we're up on that before we start getting into any kind of roots on those things because those are mature trees that are our buffer right now and are going to buffer us from that development. Otherwise, I don't really have anything. I guess I would also say, I'm on the fire department too. The road wise, I'll just say from the public safety side of it that our ladder, when we set it up, if we have something in here, we got you know 2 story houses going up. If we go to the 24 foot road and we set our ladder up, it's 16 feet wide so you basically shut that road off for anything else getting in or out. So it's just a consideration and ... happy with 31 foot. And I only say that just more so from the public safety side. I don't know how much impact there really is visual or on any of the other stuff but from the public safety side I think that is an issue so. Other than that, it's just I want to make sure that the developer, that we can work along with that 20 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 because I would be concerned about trees and stuff there, and I'm sure both sides, there are people that are going to be buying the lots are going to want the buffer both ways, so we just want to make sure that we don't lose anything that way. Sacchet: Thank you. Good comment. Keefe: Quick question. Matt, maybe you can answer this. What safeguards are there in regards to protecting trees that are on adjacent properties that may have root systems which go in? I mean anything that you can comment on? Saam: That's a good, I mean other than putting up the tree fence. You know walking it. The City Forester always walks it as do our inspectors and other than putting up tree fence, you know where we see kind of the edge of the root or the drip line, I don't know that there's a lot. I mean basically you've got to move away from them as much as you can. Keefe: So it's making the developer aware that the Forester typically has a discussion with the developer. Saam: Well she's out there with his contractor and everything so. I think it's something we can work through. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, public hearing is still open. Do we have any other people who'd like to speak up? Yes. Cara Otto: I was going to just speak to a few of the engineering comments that were made. Sacchet: Please. From the developer's viewpoint. Cara Otto: Probably one of the most important ones is possibly the pond. There was a lot of discussion on the pond. It really makes a lot of sense water quality wise and maintenance wise. Space wise to have a larger existing pond than to have several ponds throughout every single 2.77 acre development. We did try to do what we could to save the trees and I understand that it's tough to have those trees removed. I wouldn't want it if I were Jason sitting there too. There's a lot of things that Jason, or Mr. Ashline I should say, you know has a hardship because he didn't have this originally. A lot of times the city requires that road to be extended to the property line and built as part of the development. In this case it wasn't done and now we're taking over, or the developer's taking over that cost of it and some of the political back fire that comes with that. It's sort of unfortunate and we're doing the best we can. As far as with the pond design, we are meeting the city standards. I would suggest that the independent party that's looking at it is the city. I certainly don't have any kind of relationship with Matt that I think he's going to tell me that I can do a pond different than anyone else in the city. There are things that we have to change. We're working through that with staff. There also are some of the criteria that was thrown out, and there's a lot of different design criteria. Not all of it is any sort of bible. There's different methods. There's different means. You can say a lot of different types of design criteria to use, but that is not all inclusive of what the requirements are for the city, so we did meet volume requirements, depth requirements and some of those issues. There's certainly 21 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 things that you'll find in text books that they a pond should do this or a pond should have that. In an ideal world we might have all those but there's very few ponds that do so we're doing what we can... Sacchet: Basically have to work with what we've got, right? Cara Otto: Right. The only other thing is just to mention that the buffering on the pond that is currently existing is all on the north side of the pond so in thinking about what we would do for replacement, the developer's fine with doing buffer replacement along 101 that's required. The boulevard trees, but the 6 to 11 foot trees along Fox Hollow and Fox Hollow Drive, there's no existing buffer in that area now so I think that the boulevard trees would provide something for that. If that cover it, thank you. Sacchet: Excellent comment, thank you. Alright, we have somebody else who wants to speak up. Please come forward and let us know who you are. Rogue Swenson: Rogue Swenson, 35 Pleasant View. Right over here. A question I have is just to understand this. The developer was talking about $600,000 houses. Is that correct in this area or was he just giving an example of an area in Mound that has a house of that amount? Is that the type of homes we're looking to building this area? Scott Rosenlund: Probably in that range. Rogue Swenson: Okay. I'm just curious with 101 there, what happens if nobody wants to buy a house that costs $600,000 along the highway there? What happens to the property then? Just a question. Thank you. Sacchet: I don't know whether we're qualified to answer that question. It's the way the real estate market is going, I wouldn't necessarily be personally too concerned about it. What probably happens is the price comes down a little bit. I mean that's the risk that any developer accepts. Rogue Swenson: Lot size ... to ask for homes then to pay for everything else? Sacchet: To put more homes? No. He cannot put in more homes. Definitely not. That stands firm. Anybody else? Rogue Swenson: It will always remain single family then too? No townhomes or... Sacchet: That's the zoning. Single family and not more than 6. That's the maximum that fits in there. Anybody else? If I don't see anybody else getting up I will close the public hearing. Alright. Well, I want to thank you all for your comments. Very interesting, good comments. We'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. Comments from this side. Saam: Mr. Chair, could I correct one thing I said earlier? 22 Planning Commission Meeting —March 15, 2005 Sacchet: Please. Saam: It goes to the point of two residents. In just looking at that north lot line, where I think Mr. Theis and the Robinson's brought up, initially I thought they were cutting. It does look like they're filling there slightly so maybe that will help ... that was brought up. I just looked at it again and I just wanted to point that out. Looks like just along the north side of that Lot 4, they are filling for that swale in there. They don't need to cut so I think that will maybe even help if there are exposed roots in that area, it might not be as much of an issue. Sacchet: They'll fill a little bit but then after that they cut down, right? Saam: It does look like they're filling just because the house pad's being raised up in that area SO. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, yeah that's a good point. Appreciate your clarifying that. So it's back to the commission. Further issues to clarify. Things to discussion. There's certainly plenty of material in front of us from all the comments from the residents and we have to make a decision about this tonight. A recommendation that is to City Council. Anybody want to start? Lillehaug: I can start. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Pond design. It's an adequate pond design. Absolutely. I think you summed it up very well. It's not ideal pond design. It's not perfect but it does meet our standards. You've got to, that's all there is to it. The access on Fox Hollow, that is the safest spot for the access so I fully support that's where the access does need to be. Not off 101. The roadway should be 31 feet. Why would we consider anything different? I mean there's some pretty valid points raised but it is safer to have a 31 foot, especially for fire trucks. Also needed for snow removal to get our trucks turned around there. The roadway next to the pond, I don't totally agree with that. There's, it's curb and gutter. It's a 6 inch curb. That's considered a barrier. It's not a safety hazard for that road to be next to the pond. Absolutely not. I always kind of, it's hard to weigh out taking out trees to put in a pond, but I think there's been a valid point that most of these trees are at the north end of the pond. The applicant is putting pretty adequate trees as a buffer there. So I do support how the trees are laid out at this time. The question with staff would be, good questions about having changing trees to conifers. Are we okay with what's shown here? What were the trees lined up on the west side of the pond, if I can ask that question quick like. Al -Jaffa They are evergreens and... Lillehaug: Okay, there we go then. My big hang up and it's, if you look, if you can switch to the overhead there, what's wrong with that layout? You can see it, it just stands right out to you. It's Lot 4 and Lot 1. You've got a 60 by 60 foot pad on Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 5, Lot 6. You don't have it on Lot 1 and 4. Why not? Because it can't fit. So what happens, the lot size is pretty sub -standard and simply put, I'm not happy with Lot 1 and 4. Is it the developer's fault? Absolutely not. I mean he's adhering to our city code. So I would almost like, not like to 23 Planning Commission Meeting —March 15, 2005 support this because it doesn't meet a 60 by 60 foot lot, but I can't do that because it meets our code. So I challenge the commission as well as our city council and staff that there should be a 60 by 60 foot pad requirement on our lots in Chanhassen. I fought for this for 3 years, and this is a prime example of why, I mean I don't know what else I can say. I do support the proposal based on current city code. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Dan, you want to go next? Keefe: Just a couple of comments. One is in regards to, I guess it would be in regards to, well maybe I add these a little bit later but one of the conditions talks about the retaining wall and Matt, you talked about we're going to kind of reassess that and whether we actually need that or not. Perhaps raise the road up a little bit so it doesn't require, maybe we need to have some word smithing on number 23 in regards to that because if we put it onto the east side, because right now I think it refers to the west side. We may need to look at rewording that. And then in general I support the proposal. I think the developer's actually done a pretty good job in regards to this. I appreciate all the comments by the residents. I think they're all very valid but I do also think the developer's done a good job of trying to you know, preserve some of the trees. I think he's worked with city staff to preserve a lot of the trees. The street width, I'd like to see a 24 foot width in a situation like this but actually I think from a safety perspective I think you've got to keep it at 31 feet just you know so that (a), that new residents who are in there have enough room to park. Also there's room for fire trucks to get back in there and other emergency vehicles to go back in there if needed, so I support this. Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Debbie. Larson: Just my main concern or question. Not necessarily concern, regarding the pond and the removal of all the trees. I was out there today and it's really a lot of beautiful trees along that edge and what I would like to see possibly is the conversation about re -shaping the east edge where the signage is. And if we could somehow you know expand the pond more that way, which would lessen some of the tree loss on the other side. If that's something that could be done, I mean they really are some old gorgeous trees in there and quite a few trees are going away that is. When I was looking at the property today, pretty much everything in the middle gets cleared out so that's my main concern. Other than that, the proposal, as you said, it's within the city code and I would support it. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Rich. No comments? Jerry, any additional comments? McDonald: I guess the only thing I would say is I've lived in that area for 20 years. I knew what it was like. Pleasant View and 101 used to flood all the time. The City went in there to correct the pond. They corrected that drainage. I have confidence in what the City says as far as the drainage pond so I feel quite comfortable in leaving that up to them. The comment about the access to 101, I do have to speak to that because that is also, that is a major safety hazard. You're 25 feet away from Pleasant View. That road's already bad enough. I believe they need a light there, especially in the morning and the evening. You would just really make that a very bad situation so that is not even close to being easy as far as safety. That we would be creating a hazard. You talk about dangers, there would be wrecks there for sure. As far as the road and 24 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 everything, I did go out to the property. I've looked at it. It's consistent with the neighborhood. I do not believe that you can make that road narrower and at that point be inconsistent with the neighborhood. I was surprised to know that you're going to try to put $600,000 houses there. Good luck with that but again, that's the risk that the developer takes. The other thing on the two lots. I do have to address that because a couple weeks ago we did bring that up about the, both the pad size and everything, and as was pointed out and one of my concerns at that point is that, what do we do about developable land, and if you now, again a 60 foot pad, you now have lots that cannot be developed and I think that is a problem and you're right. I would agree with that the council needs to address it but that's not an issue here. As far as some of the other concerns, I think that the trees are being addressed. I did walk the property lines and everything and as long as the surveys have been done correctly and everything, I think most of the trees, especially along the lot lines, should be saved. So I don't have any major concerns there. The barrier trees that you talk about, I remember a lot of those were new so I think that if we could, and again that comes back to pond design, if you could save a couple of those, they are mature trees but I would defer to the City Engineer on that. I guess as far as some of the other issues, the comment I would make about the gentleman about the swimming pool is I think you need to address that with the homeowners association and if there's something that can be done there, you probably need to come back to the city and petition something because there is a park down at Lotus Lake and there's a lot of land there and that's something that should be addressed through them. And I guess that's it. Sacchet: First of all I want to thank all the neighbors who spoke up and certainly Mr. Ashline who seems to have done a tremendous effort researching all this. And I'd like to invite, where is he? There he is. I'd like to invite you to continue giving input to the city. The difficulty that we're facing is that when we have a proposal like that in front of us, and I mentioned that in the beginning. We're not at liberty to change the rules. We have to apply the ordinances and codes of the city as they are now. Now are they necessarily perfect? Well no, they're not. None of us is perfect. That's why we try to improve them as we go. We do the best we can but we can't hold something up because we know it's not perfect because it's never going to be perfect. That way we never get anything done. So a couple of the issues that were raised by several residents. Reducing the number of lots in order to reduce traffic. We hear that quite routinely with ... and the number of homes. This is not determined by the number of traffic. It's determined by the size of the property. And the city code makes it very clear that we allow, in this zoning which is clearly single family residential, a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Now all of these lots fulfill that requirement. Are they necessarily the perfect shape? I mean I would think it could be better but under the circumstances can be done better, I don't think it's that easy to improve this. I really think the developer did a very admirable job to make the best out of this situation. With the details of boulevard planting and all that, I would refer those details to staff. To work with staff. Work with the City Forester. The street width, you know street width of Fox Hollow Drive right now I believe is standard sized streets so that's 31 feet wide. The people are going to live in that Fox Den place. They're going to want to park their cars. To just allow parking on side of the street is in my opinion unenforceable. It would be a very unhappy situation and we heard about the safety concern about getting in and out with fire trucks and all that. So I do think that we have to live again by our city ordinance and rules that say we ask for the 31 feet curb to curb, and there is lots of reasons on when to do that. That doesn't, can it be changed? It can get changed but it can't be changed just for one development. It's something that I would invite 25 Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 anybody who has an interest to think, that thinks that some of these rules are not quite right, to work with city staff. Work with us. Apply for commissions and make an effort to line things up that you think need to be lined up. The ponding design, we have to work with the code as it is now and obviously there are some areas it can be improved. The developer you mentioned that you felt it was a little bit of a concern that you have to bring it up to standard while it wasn't before. Engineering clarified that it wasn't necessarily sub -standard in terms of what's already there. With exception maybe of that outlet structure and stuff like that, which is not that big a deal. The tree cutting, I looked at the tree survey and really relatively few trees are very old growth that get cut. I mean I think there's one tree that's over 20 inches in diameter that gets cut, and most of the significant trees, the way I've been able to determine by looking at the survey and the lot, are around the periphery so I think that is reasonably mitigated. However the things I think we can do something about is, and I don't know whether that justifies a condition is to make sure the boundary survey is correct because we have had situations in this city where, especially something that has not been official surveyed, I think we want to make doubly sure that we don't drawn into any bad surprises there for either developer or some of the neighbors. The pond, the pond. What I think we can do is we can ask that the developer work with staff to evaluate alternative designs. Maybe to use available space, as far as it's available to minimize the cutting into the trees to the north of the pond. I wouldn't want to make it a condition that it has to be that way but certainly that it gets further explored. Then also to look into putting plantings around the pond. I think that's a very valid concern that was brought up. That a pond with just sod going over the edge is not really an ideal situation. And then the other concern that was brought up was the trees to the north side where there was a concern about cutting into the roots. That's also something I would like to ask that the developer work with staff to evaluate what can be done. How much impact those trees will have. I mean there might be a compromise necessarily if there's some cutting into the roots that maybe the trees have to be cut down in size a little bit so it gets balanced so that they have a fair chance of survival. But ideally of course we would like to have no impact to those trees so that buffer gets preserved. That's in the interest, as much of the neighbors as of the developer. It's equal, of equal benefit. Okay. Let's see, what else? The retaining wall, same thing. Work with staff. I don't think that's an item that warrants holding this up or something that be worked out. It's a detail in the overall scheme of things, and I would want to address you once more Mr. Ashline. I'd like to encourage you to work with the city staff and also with the developer. A lot of the comments I believe you made, specific comments, very constructive. To some extent into a detail level that is not in our discretion as a planning commission but it certainly a good thing to work with the developer. We have to keep in mind that the developer, the owner of the land has obviously the right to develop it and according to the plans and the rules that are in place at this time. So that's my comments. Unless somebody has any other aspects you want to bring up, I'd like to ask for a motion. Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case #05-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a variance for a 50 foot right-of-way width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto Associates, stamped received February 11, 2005, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 25. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? McDonald: I second. OTI Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 Sacchet: Any friendly amendments? Friendly amendments? I'll have some, if I may. I'd like to make, I don't know whether that integrates anywhere in particular. Let me see, do we want to keep trees where trees are mentioned or, well let's make a new ones. Condition number 26. Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the north of the pond and consider alternate design on the pond using available space. Or space as available. Is that acceptable? Keefe: You want to add it to 120)? Make it 120). Sacchet: Make it 120). Okay. We can make it 120). That's fine. So that's that one. And that can go with the same one, staff work with developer to consider buffer plantings around the pond. Lillehaug: Sure. Sacchet: Staff, developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north of the cul-de-sac, or we can mention Lot 4. Lillehaug: Yep. Sacchet: Okay. And do we want to say something about boundary survey? I guess that's just a request from staff. That's not a condition. Lillehaug: Yeah, there's through the final plat. Sacchet: Through the final plat, that should be an automatic verification in there, okay. Do we want to say anything about the type of trees? We have a request for emphasis of conifers versus deciduous trees. I guess that goes with work with city staff on plantings. Lillehaug: Is that an added condition then? Sacchet: We can state it. Work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens versus deciduous for buffering purposes. Lillehaug: Sounds good. And then one more. Condition 23. Staff is recommending. Maybe add that developer work with staff, because there was a comment about it may not even be necessary so how do we make that compatible with number 23? Saam: Yeah, well these conditions are per what was submitted. So based on those street grades we would need... Sacchet: Okay, so we would need it. Okay, so we leave that one alone. Saam:... they be working to try to eliminate that as they do all these conditions. They try to get them down by the time of final plat. 27 Planning Commission Meeting —March 15, 2005 Sacchet: So no amendment to that. I think that's it. Anybody else? No? Lillehaug moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #05-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a variance for a 50 foot right-of-way width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto Associates stamped "Received February 11, 2005", subject to the following conditions: 1. The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. 2. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C, Subsection ID, Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 3. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for dewatering. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation, shall be provided. 4. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared -end inlets to the stone water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slone Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 6. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots 2and 3. 7. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. `EV Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 8. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-BluffCreek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase I1 Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. Building Department conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Existing wells on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 11. Fire Marshal conditions: a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. b. A 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. c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. d. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 12. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be planted. b. A minimum of two 2 %:" deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. c. No more than one -thud of the required trees may be from any one species. d. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. e. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. f. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan will be required prior to final approval. g. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum, 5 overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs. ar Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 h. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved. i. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the city. j. Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the north of the pond and consider alternate design on the pond using available space. k. Developer will work with staff to consider buffer plantings around the pond. 1. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north of the cul-de-sac on Lot 4. in. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens versus deciduous for buffering purposes. 13.On the Utility plan: a. Show all easements. b. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled. 14. Add the following City detail plates: 1005, 2001, 5300 and 5301. 15. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 16. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water -main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 17. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH. 18. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 19. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. T Planning Commission Meeting — March 15, 2005 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. 21. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. 22. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 23. Staff is recommending that a small (1'-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right- of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. 24. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watennain that is outside of the right-of-way. 25. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Sacchet: Motion carries 6 to none. Good luck with this. Thanks again to all the residents for your input. This will go as a recommendation to City Council. City Council will look at it on April I Vh. I don't know whether they will take further comments from residents or not. That's up to their discretion, but you certainly can follow it through that way. I don't think we need to summarize for council. I think it's pretty clear with the comments we made and amendments so do we want to take a 5 minute recess before we continue? Let's take 5 minutes. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE USE OF A APPLICANT GARY AND MAUREEN CARLSON, PLANNING CASE 05-09. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Jerry. McDonald: I have a question that concerns property. Seem to remember from 2 weeks ago, isn't there a plan that at one point this becomes one of the outlet properties to put a street through to get up to West 62°d Street? Al -Jaffa If at the time this property comes in for development, we will definitely research that. apologize, I don't have. 31 10 3 CITVOF 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 6 Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax:952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227,1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning A Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.2271110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web She www.ci.chanhasseo.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: April 4, 2005 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat with Variances to Subdivide 2.77 Acres into 6 Single -Family Lots, Fox Den — Planning Case 05-08 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot right-of-way, Fox Den. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 15, 2005 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the proposed development. The summary and verbatim minutes are item la of the City Council packet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the motion approving the preliminary plat with a variance as specified in the staff report dated March 15, 2005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Staff Report dated March 15, 2005. 3. Plans. gAplan\2005 plauning casesx05-08 fox den\executive sunmimyAoc The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A geat place to live, work, and play. 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Fox Den Planning Case 05-08 On March 15, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of a Preliminary Plat with variances to Subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots, Fox Den. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Single -Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (1.2 — 4.0 units per net acre). 3. The legal description of the property is attached as exhibit A. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) effects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; c) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; d) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; e) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; f) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and g) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2. Lack of adequate roads. 3. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. 5. Variances. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: a) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. b) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. c) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. d) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. 6. The planning report Planning Case 05-08, dated March 15, 2005, prepared by Sharmeen Al-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat with variances. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15m day of March, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION V" Mi Sacchet, Chairman 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DA7*March 15, 2005 ❑ CC DATE: April 11, 2005 REVIEW DEADLINE: April 12, 2005 CASE #: 05-08 BY: Al-Jaff, MS, TH, LH, JS PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat with variances to Subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots, Fox Den. LOCATION: North of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Pleasant View Road. APPLICANT: 10 Spring, Inc. Roger Bongard 622 West 82°d Street 18195 County Road #30 Chaska, MN 55318 New Germany, MN 55367 (952)215-8535 (952)353-2150 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 2.77 Acres DENSITY: Gross 2.16 Units/Ac Net 2.8 Units/Ac SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat Approval to Subdivide 3.77 Acres into 6 single-family lots with a street width variance, Fox Den. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. 4-ocation Map 0 Fox Den 6500 Chanhassen Road Planning Case No. 05-08 -- Town Line R i ,m�� Casca a e i �o 'pm 2 u�d Corr �.ou pl a Cd it ass a�B rappers x 3m ?� is Cir_ ^a% o6p 4) 'm aP fr Gasa � u m Mountain Wa New Mountain n 0 � easant View Road J Pleasant View Road m Subject Property e a+ Q� LL Fokf/ol/ow Drive n is +Hollow D �$ I a 0 ?c o+ 4 k K m � 2 oaa Q m c r ox aa� a 3 n Foxtall Coy 3 No m 4 ray o+ u Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 2 PROPOSALSUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family, and is located north of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Pleasant View Road. The site contains a single family home which is proposed to be demolished. Access to the site is currently gained via a driveway off of Highway 101. This driveway will be closed and a street off of Fox Hollow Drive will serve the subject site. On April 16, 1984, the City Council approved the Fox Hollow Subdivision. The plat included a 50 foot right-of- way to facilitate the future access into the subject site. As a result, the street width of the cul-de-sac that will serve this site will maintain a 50-foot width. The city code requires 60-foot right- of-way width. Staff directed the applicant to apply for a street width variance. The roadway width (31' back of curb to back of curb) will comply with the city code. All lots are proposed to be served via proposed Fox Drive. The average lot size is 15,452 PL&A&kNT V EW RD Subject Site d} 0 a� o FOR BOLAO Y1 DR square feet with a resulting gross density of 2.16 units per acre and a net density of 2.8 units per acre. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Lots 1 and 4 meet the requirements of the ordinance; however, staff expressed concern to the developer about the width of these lots. Specifically, both lots become extremely narrow toward the rear lot line. The developer provided plans for a home that he has built in the past which will fit on these lots without variances. There are no wetlands on the site. The site has some mature trees. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.77 acre site into 6 single-family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2.16 units per acre (gross) and 2.8 units per acre (net) after removing the road. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 15,452 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff expressed concern about lots 1 and 4, specifically the width of these lots. The applicant provided plans of a residence with a three car garage that will fit on these lots without variances. The applicant also provided hard surface calculations for Lot 4, Block 1 to demonstrate that the impervious coverage will remain under 25%. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS No jurisdictional wetlands exist on this property. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL Grading The existing site has tree cover over approximately 1.5 acre of area. The plans propose to grade about 80% of the site for the new house pads, public street and cul-de-sac. The proposed grading will prepare the site for two look -out and four full basement house pads. The grading plan shows that, on average, the pad areas are being filled three to five feet for the new homes. Also, additional grading will take place south of the parcel to connect the proposed street with Fox Hollow Drive and to expand the existing storm pond. Staff is recommending that a small (F-3) retaining wall be installed along the western right-of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. Drainage The existing site drains from the northwestern corner to the southeastern comer of the parcel. Under developed conditions, all of the drainage from the house roofs, driveways and the cul-de- sac will be conveyed via storm sewer to the existing stormwater pond. A storm water quality pond exists adjacent to the site on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. Outlot A is owned by the City of Chanhassen. Staff is recommending this pond be expanded to provide water quality treatment for the proposed development. The pond should be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement should be maintained or replaced. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 4 The existing outlet of this pond is a 24" corrugated metal pipe (CUP) with no trash guard or skimmer to control potential floatables and it is not designed to prevent short-circuiting of the system. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C, Subsection 1D, Page 11 or 26) should be installed. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site and only minor changes remain. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Grading and Erosion Control Note 15 states that dewatering will be done from the top of the water column. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities are needed on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan is needed with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation. At the March 15, 2005 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, the PC requested staff to explore possibilities of an alternate pond design using available space within the existing pond outlot property. Specifically, staff was asked to look at utilizing the available upland area in the southeast corner of the pond outlot. This corner of the outlot property contains the existing neighborhood development sign. Staff has explored this option with the developer's engineer. If this area were excavated for the pond construction, the existing development sign would have to be moved to another lot within the development. Staff does not believe that any lot owner would want the development sign on their property. Also, the area in the southeast corner of the outlot is not large enough to contain the entire pond storage volume that is required. For these reasons, staff is not in favor of revising the pond design from what is proposed on the current plans. Erosion Control Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap are needed for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared -end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. If the right-of-way for Fox Drive is going to be mowed within the first year, the Category 3 blanket should be replaced with staked sod. The netting of the blanket could pose problems for lawn mowing until the netting biodegrades. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: TyW of Sloe (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days 0 • Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 5 These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. Sediment Control A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control is needed for the CB between Lots 2 and 3. A Wimco-type inlet control is recommended. An alternative could be monofilament silt fence with metal T-posts and IVY' rock berm 2 feet high and 2 feet wide. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $1,093/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.77 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $3,028. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,705 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $7,493 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the expansion an existing NURP pond off -site. Because the pond is off - site, it is not eligible for credit. However, credit will be given for the replacement of one outlet structure ($2,500). At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $8,021. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase IT Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval. a 9 Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 6 UTILITIES The plans propose on extending the sanitary sewer from an existing sanitary manhole in Fox Drive. Water will be extended from an existing watermain along the east side of the site and looped with the watermain in Fox Hollow Drive. The sanitary sewer and watermains will be considered public utility lines since they will serve more than one lot. As such, a minimum 20- foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. Installation of the private service utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer hookup and that assessment has been paid. As such, the sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. However, the water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water - main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of Health, MnDOT, and Watershed District, STREETS The plans propose to extend Fox Drive from the south side approximately 370-feet ending with a cul-de-sac. The required right-of-way for a new public street is 60-feet wide with a 60-foot radius for cul-de-sacs. The existing platted right-of-way for Fox Drive south of the site is 50- feet. For continuity with the existing Fox Drive right-of-way, the applicant is proposing a 50-foot wide street right-of-way and a 60-foot wide cul- de-sac radius. Staff is in favor of the applicant's,, proposal for this right-of-way variance.�r. PARK DEDICATION COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN This site is wholly within the neighborhood park service area of North Lotus Lake Park. This park offers a wide variety of amenities including tennis 4 Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 7 courts, ball fields, a children's playground, picnic shelter, lighted hockey and open skating rinks, open space and a walking trail. Residents of Fox Den will access the park via Fox Hollow Drive. It should be noted that sidewalks are not available in Fox Hollow. No additional parkland dedication is required in this area of the City; therefore park dedication dollars will be required in lieu of land dedication for the five new lots (5 lots X $4,000 per lot = $20,000). Park Service Area Map w•wursw � ____— �� i North Lotus Lake Park Map COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN Three of the six lots (4, 5 and 6) have direct access to a section of the city's comprehensive trail plan. This eight -foot wide city trail is located parallel to State Highway 101 on the eastern edge of the subject property. The other three lots will access the trail via Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this development. TREE PRESERVATIONILANDSCAPING Canopy coverage and preservation calculations have been submitted for the Fox Den development. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 2.77 ac. or 120,661 SF Baseline canopy coverage 56% or 67,110 SF Minimum canopy coverage allowed 35 % or 42,231 SF Proposed tree preservation 19% or 23,185 SF El Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 8 Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage (42,231-23,185) 19,046 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 22,855 SF Total number of trees to be planted 21(22,855 =1089) The total number of trees required for the development is 21. Applicant has proposed a total of 20 trees. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. No more than one-third of the trees may be from any one species. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan will be required prior to final approval. The subdivision is also required to have bufferyard plantings along Highway 101. Requirements are as follows: Location Required Proposed Hwy. 101— bufferyard B 5 overstory trees 4 existing ash trees — 20' width 7 understory trees 4 overstory trees 240' length 12 shrubs 3 evergreen trees The applicant does not meet the minimum requirements for bufferyard planting along Highway 101. Staff recommends that the minimum quantities be met. In reviewing the tree inventory, staff would like to note that many of the elm and boxelder trees specified on the inventory are actually green ash. This makes a difference since green ash will not succumb to Dutch elm disease as the elm will and it isn't considered an 'undesirable' tree as boxelders are. For these reasons, preserving as many of these trees as possible will help to make this development more appealing. Green ash are generally tolerant of construction and should do well through the process. Also of note on the tree inventory is the absence of some existing trees along the south property line. At least 4 green ash, 2 of which are double -stemmed, are not shown on the tree inventory. These trees are located between the existing shed and the south property line. These trees plus trees #142-144 should be protected during construction and remain on site. Staff recommends that the silt fence be installed in front of all of these trees prior to grading in order to preserve them during development. When the building permit for Lot 1, Block 1 is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation. The applicant is expanding the pond on city property and in doing so will be removing a number of evergreen and deciduous trees. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant boulevard trees along Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive to replace the city trees lost. To create a partial buffer for Highway 101, staff recommends that evergreens be considered for the boulevard trees along Fox Drive. 4 0 Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 9 COMPLIANCE WITII ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setbacks: front, side, rear Code 15,000 90 125 30,10, 30 L 1, Blk 1 17,567 93 257 30, 10, 30 L 2, Blk 1 15,014 93 @ front setback line 189 30, 10, 30 L 3, Blk 1 15,015 101 @ front setback line 166.5 30, 10, 30 L 4, Blk 1 15,065 90@ front setback line 242.5 30, 10, 30 L 5, Blk 1 1 15,041 90@ front setback line 191 30, 10, 30 L 6, Blk 1 15,014 90@ front setback line 152 30, 10, 30 ROW 27,945 Total 92,716 Average 15,452 @ Meets 90 foot width at the building setback line. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; 0 Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 10 Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause excessive environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. Sec.18-22. Variances. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; 3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The applicant is requesting a street width variance. This variance was recommended by staff. The ordinance requires a 60-foot right-of-way width. The plat reflects a 50-foot right- of-way. This right-of-way is consistent with the existing right-of-way that will provide access to this development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: PRELDVtINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #5-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a variance for a 50 foot right-of-way width as shown on the plans 0 Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 11 prepared by Otto Associates stamped "Received February 11, 2005", subject to the following conditions: 1. The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. 2. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C, Subsection ID, Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 3. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for dewatering. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation, shall be provided. 4. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared -end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 6. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots 2and 3. 7. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. 8. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES 1 Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 12 Phase H Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. Building Department conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Existing wells on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 11. Fire Marshal conditions: a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. b. A 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. c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. d. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 12. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be planted. b. A minimum of two 2 SIN' deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. c. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species. d. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. e. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. f. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan will be required prior to final approval. g. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum, 5 overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs. h. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved. i. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the city. j. Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the north of the pond and consider alternate design on the pond using available space. a 0 Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 13 k. Developer will work with staff to consider buffer plantings around the pond. 1. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north of the cul-de-sac on Lot 4. m. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens versus deciduous for buffering purposes. 13.On the Utility plan: a. Show all easements. b. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled. 14. Add the following City detail plates: 1005, 2001, 5300 and 5301. 15. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 16. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water -main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 17. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH. 18. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 19. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. 21. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer. will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. i 0 Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 14 22. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 23. Staff is recommending that a small (1'-T) retaining wall be installed along the western right- of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. 24. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. 25. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Application. 2. Affidavit of Mailing and Public Hearing Notice. 3. Memo from Aaron Mlynek, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District, dated February 23, 2005. 4. Memo from Jason Ashline dated March 4, 2005. 5. Letter from MnDOT dated March 11, 2005. 6. Impervious Calculation Example for Lot 4, Block 1 and a floor plan. 7. Preliminary plat dated "Received February 11, 2005". gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-08 fox den\staff report pc.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 11 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT APPLICANT: (U 5 F R I N Gay 11 N C, OWNER: Rocs C— 1?— B 0 1-4 CAA 1Z 17 ADDRESS: &'LZ 4i . 57- rt ST ADDRESS: I e I'I S Ca. 9 Q r-13d C. LIA-5lLA . t~t bA 13_S31� TELEPHONE (Day Time) `Z S Z —z i s �S 3 5 TELEPHONE: 95 Z f Sy Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit_ SGt R.n.:.J. SrsZ�:�ra Variance o P 60 Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision` TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this boxx Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: Fo PD (_. r- - 0 LOCATION: CoS 0 O C. H A t-t IJ A SSc t-' P.O A D LEGAL DESCRIPTION: H 1 (4 o a T N c Iq t 1 o f 5 Ec-Tt o r-t 1, TO t,--jty 5H t P 11� (`t0j'2T'l-tt RAi-tG% Z.3 ,�C-5Tcti7 or C- 14 A t--4 H AS -5 et4 cAP--4`2 coOrr7tMN TOTAL ACREAGE: -4 ,-77 WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: R 6) E REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: RE51 REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: R t= t✓ - 51 t_ - REASON FOR REQUEST: U 5u$Dfvl 5 tort 1 1'tT0 -Loin 6D VA241knt0(:-f Fo(z Sot RIGMr of C✓otY Xt,1 5i cAa OF Coo T R C E oc i 5-r i "cs Fo?> , I -to t_t-.O w 2 . ©, w . 15 50 ', 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 whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. / o 5 P)Z1 t-tp v 5 7Sign t e of Applicant 5 t_c Tr 905 C N i_t>1-kP Date (e� d 5 lgidnVeofFee wner 1-2,Erz pyot-c&ArLp Date Application Received on 0 Fee Paid Receipt No. CF- Jc9 • f 7 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Thursday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. GAPMVo \Developm t Review Appfim im,DOC • CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on March 3, 2005, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. d and sworn to before me day of ro. rch , 2005. Public n J. n elhaz eputy Clerk KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota " � My Commissim Expires Jan 31, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for subdivision with variances — Fox Den Planning File: 05-08 Applicant: 10 Spring, Inc. Property North of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Location: Pleasant View Road (6500 Chanhassen Road) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Questions & or e-mail saliaffOci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation, Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciawndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s), • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for subdivision with variances — Fox Den Plannin File: 05-08 Applicant: 10 Spring, Inc. Property North of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Location: Pleasant View Road (6500 Chanhassen Road) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the proiect. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Questions & or e-mail sall'aff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alter. Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notilietl of t application in writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial, • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. 0 Subject Property This map is neither a legally recorded mu) nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a connotation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to Oe used for reference Purposes only. The City does hot ""ant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the CM does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigationa, tracking or any other purpose requiring evicting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. g errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466 03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that Me City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all dams, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold hamiess the Gty from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arse out of the users access or use of data provided. I Subject Property I This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey aM is not imende0 to be used as one. This erep is a compilation of records, information and dam 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 he used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depction of geographic featuresd errors or discrepancies are found pease confect 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the Gry shall not be liable for any damages. and expressly waives all darts, and agrees to defend, Indemnity, and hold hamiless the G y from any and all dams brought by User, 4s employees or agents, or Nib panes which arse out of the users access or use of data pmvidetl. Public Heari g Notice Area (�00 feet) Fox Den 6500 Chanhassen Road Planning Case No. 05-08 I —_. - own Li TPeTPmP it I / m e 44 it 1 m yg � � v d I 4 x Z Mountain Wa Near Mountai nBti� o/,? n I aSent View Road Pleasant View Road Subject Property o` m o+ F oxNoWIN Drive i i o po /n �� Hollow Drive m+ G�Ho i o+ ok 0 � e x c 2 O m m_ ox- O Faxlail CAS 0 w My 0+ 0 JASON P & TONIA R ASHLINE NATHAN A WASGATT & ROSEMARY A MARQUART 10 FOX HOLLOW DR LORIE L COLE 101 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 100 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ORHAN A & PATRICIA J LINER MICHAEL E O'CONNOR & ASK TRUSTEES OF TRUST MARCIA L O'CONNOR 115 PLEASANT T J & VIELLA RD 110 FOX HOLLOW DR 110 GRAY FOX LN CH PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD A & RHONDA G HERR FRANK & MELODY K KLOIDA STEPHEN G & SUSANNE THEISSEN 120 FOX HOLLOW DR 130 FOX HOLLOW DR 130 GRAY FOX LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARGARET A NELSON RICKI L & MARY B CARLSON KEVIN & CHERYL PETERSON 135 PLEASANT VIEW RD 140 BLUFF RIDGE CT 150 BLUFF RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYNE A & JULIE K SIEBER ROBERT & EDNA PETERSON MICHAEL & MARGARET SCHRIEBER 150 GRAY FOX LN 160 BLUFF RIDGE CT 160 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY M & DEIDRE L BISHOP PATRICIA K NICOL ROGER B BONGARD 170 BLUFF RIDGE CT 180 BLUFF RIDGE CT 18195 CO RD 30 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NEW GERMANY MN 55367 CARL F & MARGARET A MCNUTT JULIE M FURY DAVID B ROBINSON 185 PLEASANT VIEW RD 20 FOX HOLLOW DR 25 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JUNELLE J CHRISTY BROOK S BOLESTA & MARK A & WAI-MING T HENDERSON TRUSTEE OF TRUST PETER G & CINDY S BOLESTA 31 FOX HOLLOW DR 2600 CHERRYWOOD RD 30 FOX HOLLOW DR PO BOX 1147 HOPKINS MN 55305 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROGUE L SWENSON JR & CONSTANCE M KEEFE JEFFERY B & CYNTHIA S HALL 35 PLESANASANT C CONVIE 40 FOX HOLLOW DR 41 FOX HOLLOW DR 35 PLEASANT VIEW 53 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARIA VANDERZANDEN GARY J & VICTORIA G ALEXANDER STEVEN W & KELLY K LEN 50 HUNTERS CT 55 PLEASANT VIEW RD 60 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 a 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST C/O CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR 600 4TH ST E CHASKA MN 55318 ARNOLD E & MARIE C SCHROEDER 6430 PLEASANT VIEW LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES & JOYCE NICHOLLS 6451 PLEASANT VIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JUDY SUNDERLAND 6502 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES M THEIS 6400 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY J MCNEILL 6441 PLEASANT VIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL D & JULIE M DOUGLAS 65 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW C LEITH & KATHERINE MOORE LEITH 6503 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHY ANNE STUDER & STEPHEN J MACHACEK & JAMES DONALD CHARLES STUDER LYN A NOELTING 6505 GRAY FOX CRV 6521 QUAIL XING CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW J & LINDA M HOFMEISTER 70 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY S MULCRONE 85 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATT O EVJEN & JENNIFER ANNE SHAW-EVJEN 89 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC J ZORN 91 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIELJ BUJOLD 80 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES E & KAMI M VAN DUSEN 87 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JUANE VANEYLL 90 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS C & HEIDI J NAUMAN 92 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN P & SARA B MUENCH 6400 NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS W & CHRISTINA HANSEN 6450 PLEASANT VIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY J & DIANE L BROWN 6500 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS M & NANCY J ANDERSON 6504 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES R KLINGELHUTZ & MARY JANE KLINGELHUTZ 6570 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD R & BARBARA J VERNES 83 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIK M & JENNIFER A KITT 88 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KENNETH H CARLSON & CATHERINE J CARLSON 90 HUNTERS CRT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LEE & KAREN BORIL 93 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS J & JAYNE M ALLEN MARK L & LAURA L LARSON MICHAEL P & JAMIE L MANNING 95 CASTLE RIDGE CT 97 CASTLE RIDGE CT 99 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 0 0 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARVER <JVn9 Ca,.` 2 fast Frontage Road y 1946 conia, MN 55387 & WASTER �o Phone:952-442-5101 °Iht S`° Fax: 952-442-5497 NSERVATIOH DISTRICT htto://www.co.me er.=.us/SWCD/SWCD mainhtml Mission Statement: To provide leadership in conservation and teach stewardship of the soil, water, and related resources through a balanced, cooperative program that protects, restores, and improves those resources. February 23, 2005 Sharrneen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Fox Den Ms. A] -Jaffa The SWCD has taken the opportunity to review the 64ot subdivision Fox Den. The plan reviewed is dated 1/20/05. Please review and consider the following comments and suggestions regarding erosion and sediment controls and stormwater / dewatering concerns. Erosion Control --Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap is needed for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared - end inlets to the stormwater pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. —If the area of the ROW adjacent to 10 Fox Hollow Drive is going to be mowed within the first year, the Category 3 blanket should be replaced with staked sod. The netting of the blanket could pose problems for lawn mowing until the netting biodegrades. Sediment Control --A detail for the CB sediment control is needed for the CB between Lots 2 and 3. A wimco-type inlet control is recommended. An alternative could be monofilament silt fence with metal t-posts and 11/2" rock berm 2 feet high and 2 feet wide. Stormwater / Dewaterine 1. In Grading and Erosion Control Note 15, it states that dewatering will be done from the top of the water column. It is recommended to use a floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method. 2. The flow route / distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the stormwater basin and dewatering activities are needed on the plan. 3. A detailed dewatering plan is needed with method, rate and erosion / sediment control considerations such as energy dissipation. 4. The existing outlet is a 24"CMP with no trash guard or skimmer to control potential floatables nor is it designed to prevent short-circuiting of the system An outlet meeting NPDES Permanent Storm Water Management System Requirements is needed for this project. (NPDES Permit No. MN 11100001, Section C, Subsection 1D, Page 11 or 26). If there are any questions or if I can be of further assistance please contact the SWCD office. Sincerely, Aaron Mlynek Aaron Mlynek, CPESC Urban Conservation Technician c. Lori Haak, City of Chanhassen (email) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER March 4, 2005 Ms. Sharmeen Al-Jaff Senior Planner City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Fox Den Preliminary Plat Issues Dear Sharmeen: DECEIVED MAR 0 8 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN I submitted to you, Matt Saam, Jill Sinclair, and Lori Haak, on Thursday, March 3, 2005, a document titled "Fox Den Preliminary Plat Issues." I have made some modifications to this document and I do not wish to include it as an attachment the Staff Report to the Commission. I have enclosed the revised document for your review and comment. This revised document should be included with the Staff Report to the Commission and I ask that it be included as an attachment to that Report. Thank you. Jason Ashline 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 0 Fox Den Preliminary Plat Issues To the Planning Commission, Planning Staff, and City Council Members With any proposed development, there are several real impacts. Although aware that development is always a potential in any area, it must fit in with the area and it must consider the existing conditions currently in that community, and work in cooperation with the affected parties. There are several problems with this development's proposal and there are several inconsistencies with the Chanhassen City code, especially how they relate to Landscape & Tree Preservation. There are also several potential inadequate design or premature practices proposed as it relates to the proposed pond expansion. All of these must be solved before the development should go forward. For these reasons, we can not respectfully support the proposed development at this time. We would suggest that the Preliminary Plat be redesigned and resubmitted for consideration. Five areas will be addressed in this statement (1) Landscape & Tree Preservation (2) Surface Water Management & Proposed Pond Expansion (3) Grading and Erosion Control (4) Streets (5) Proposed Plat Alternatives 1. Landscaping & Tree Preservation Sec. 18-61 (d)(2) of the City of Chanhassen code states: Prior to the submittal ofdevelopment plans, a tree survey of the site shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect, licensed forester, or other professional approved by the city. This survey shall include the species, DBHsize (DBH means diameter measured at breast height, four and five -tenths feet above the ground), condition, location of all trees over six inches in diameter and any damaged or diseased trees on site. All significant special, damaged or diseased trees shall be tagged and identified by number on the survey. A delineation of the existing canopy coverage area(s) which outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be included as part of the survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased trees shall be cataloged with the nature and extent of any damage or disease specified Response: There are several trees that are missing from the Tree Inventory/Survey submitted by the developer. For instance, there is a tree immediately to the East of tree number 144 that is not listed. This tree has two trunks (see picture left): There are also three trees south of the existing shed and between the wooden fence of the property of 20 Fox Hollow Drive (see picture below) L] L that is not listed on the tree inventory. Even if all other trees are accounted for, then these omissions cause incorrect canopy coverage statistics. Also, it is unclear whether or not the developer can count the trees in their tree inventory on the Outlot A sight because Outlot A is not on 6500 Chanhassen Rd. The Outlot is located in a PUD, it is also subject to different zoning conditions. Sec 18-61 requires the species of each tree. However, only the genus name is listed on the inventory (e.g. pine, maple). Species requires the person conducting the inventory to establish the scientific name such as Norway Pine or Sugar Maple. Trees #142 &143 could be considered boundary line trees. The tree trunks begin either on the line or slightly North of the property line between 10 Fox Hollow Drive and 6500 Chanhassen Road. The trunks cross the boundary line, and continue to grow into the property owner's yard of 10 Fox Hollow Drive (see picture left): The current and previous owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive have maintained these trees by, but limited to, (1) raking the leaves that fell into the backyard of 10 Fox Hollow Drive (2) Incurring the costs to dispose of the leaves that fell from the trees to the appropriate disposal sites in Carver County. The leaves fell from the limbs and branches that grew out from the bunks that were clearly located on the property owner of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Holmberg v. Bergin, 172 N.W. 2°d 739 (Minn 1969) establishes the definition for boundary trees. A tree is a boundary tree if it was planted jointly or treated as common property by agreement, acquiescence, or course of conduct The course of conduct clearly establishes the fact that the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive co-own the tree with the owner of 6500 Chanhassen Road. Additionally, the tree could not be considered a nuisance since by its nature, it is not patently offensive, causing ill will or health, or damaging to the property of others. Even if the nuisance argument could be remotely posed, Section 18-61 (d)(4) provides for relief: Minimizing the tree loss should be achieved by any combination of the following: a. Realignment ofstreets, utilities and lot lines. b. Consideration of alternative utility configurations such as the use of ejector pumps, force mains, or revised home elevations to minimize grading. C. Reductions in roadway width and right-of-way and increase in street grade up to ten percent when the applicant can demonstrate that significant tree preservation is directly related to the modifcatiom d Use of private streets in lieu of public streets. e. Variation in street radius and design speed f. Modifed grading plans. Response: The property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive strongly request that the developer and the City should propose implementing modified grading plans, and realignment of internal lot lines of the proposed development to accommodate the property owners request regarding saving trees 142, 143, & 144. 2. Surface Water Management & Proposed Expansion of the Storm Water Pond/Wedand/Outlot A/Utility and Drainage Easement. Background: The developer is proposing a significant increase to the size of the pond located at the corner of 101 and Fox Hollow Drive. The developer states that the increase in storm water runoff warrants the increase of the size of the pond. Although there will be some increases in storm water runoff, there are other issues that need to be addressed and solved first before automatically increasing the size of the pond. The current pond area is 24,900 square feet or .57 acres. This area is just the area where the water currently is. This appears to be an adequate enough area, given the other issues that need to be addressed in this section. There are others things that can be done to limit the increase in impervious surface. There needs to be a critical analysis of the proposed storm water pond design, and also a thorough review of the NRCS TR-55 methodology or other methodology used as the design methodology of the pond and the proposed expansion. We propose an independent engineer be hired. Given the issues below, we maybe rushing to judgment to expand the pond to such a design that clearly conflicts with proper storm water pond design criteria. There are several problems increasing the size of the pond by a significant size and outmoded design, without addressing other issues first. A strategic expansion of the pond in certain areas is would be the more prudent course of action. Additionally, any further expansion should focus more on expanding the length rather than the width. The Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) has been in place since 1994. In a memo to Todd Gerhardt from Lori Haak dated September 21, 2004, in reference to the SWMP she writes "the 1994 plan is out of date." The City has hired an outside consulting firm SEH to review the SWMP. Among its area of focus are (1) water quantity and quality (2) inspection of every public storm water structure (3) comprehensive wetland management program (4) revised storm water and wetland management ordinance (5) protocols for inspection and maintenance. Furthermore, in the memo, it states "the vertical element (z coordinate) will allow the City to employ detailed storm water modeling techniques to anticipate, assess, and resolve surface water issues and problem areas." Based on 1994 standards, this development may or may not be premature as it relates to storm water management. At the very least, consideration must be given to an outdated S WMP and how it relates to the proposed expansion of the pond. Issue 1: Design of the Pond. I would refer the planners and commission members to a couple of websites. www.cigolden-valley.mn.us/environment/ponding.htm (contact Al Lundstrom 763-593-8046) and www.state.ri.us or search for "the State of Rhode Island & Storm Water Manual." I'm sure Minnesota has similar protocols. Generally speaking, there are several things to keep in mind when designing an effective storm water pond. (1) Ponds are generally three times as long as wide (2) There is a 3:1 minimum ratio along the flow path between the inlet and outlet (these requirements allow for polluted sediment more time to settle before the outlet pipe releases the water). (3) The forebay length to width ratio should be a Minimum of 2:1 with a preference for 3 to 1. The condition and design of the forebay (between the pipe inlet and the main pond) is critical. It should be 4-6 feet deep. This is the main area where polluted sediment is filtered out. Response: The proposed pond will be nearly as wide as it is long. According to the resources and experts that I have cited, this design is generally not a very effective design. Although a larger pond may in some cases filter out more pollutants, if it is not designed correctly, it will cause more harts than good. The 3:1 ratio between the outlet and inlet is not maintained. There are questions about the condition of the current forebay and its design. Furthermore, there is not other development along 101 (North of 5) that would have such a large pond next to the road. For safety issues, if a car were to go over the side of the road, or if a pedestrian were to slip down the embankment into the pond, there could be serious liability issues for the City. 101 is a very busy road. Creating such a large body of water next to the road is not a good idea. At the very least now, barriers should be installed. Issue 2: According to the experts, natural landscaping should be in place around the pond (see attachment to the paper). This should include bushes, natural grasses, and shrubs because these stabilize the pond by preventing erosion, preserves an environment for microorganisms that remove pollutants, improves pond's appearance by hiding debris, creates an environment for dragonflies which eat mosquitoes, discourage geese from visiting and contributing to pollution through their droppings, making the pond less attractive for wading and swunmmg. Response: The South and West end of the pond is mowed grass. It does not have natural habitat of bushes, natural grasses, and shrubs. It invites geese (which are a constant nuisance and populate this pond in significant numbers) to further pollute the water. The existing embankment to the North has bushes, natural grass, and shrubs. It provides for a natural buffer. It is in line with how storm water ponds should be designed. An expansion of the pond would remove all of existing area to the North with no planting of natural grasses, bushes, and shrubs (or that is how the landscape plan is submitted). (See pictures above and below): Furthermore, by entirely eliminating the North end of the pond, this removal would be in direct conflict with section 18-61 (d)(1) It is a policy ofthe City of Chanhassen to protect the integrity ofthe natural environment through the preservation, protection, and planting of trees. The city finds that trees provide many benefits including: stabilization ofthe soil by the prevention oferosion and sedimentation, reduction ofstorm water runoffand the costs associated therewith, improvement of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat island effect, protection and increase ofproperty values, protection ofprivacy, energy conservation through natural insulation, control ofdramage and restoration ofdenuded soil subsequent to construction and grading, protection from severe weather, providing habitat for birds and other wildlife, conservation and enhancement of city's physical and aesthetic environment, reforestation ofopen lands, and general protection and enhancement ofthe quality oflife and general welfare ofthe city. It is therefore the purpose of this section to provide regulations related to the cutting, removal, or killing of trees on construction and development sites and to ensure the protection and preservation ofthe natural environment and beauty of the city. Response: All of the trees will be eliminated in the current plan. Some of the most vital ones (conifers) reduce noise pollution and headlight impacts on a year round basis from the traffic on highway 101. These conifers protect the privacy of the first homes along the entry of Fox Hollow ]hive. By removing the mature conifer trees, you remove the element of privacy. The proposed replacement planting are mainly deciduous in nature and do not maintain their leaves for 6 months of the year, thus drastically reducing the potential buffering effect. They do not provide good protection from visual impacts, noise, and protect privacy like large conifer trees do. Additionally, these large trees reduce storm water runoff and control drainage especially right next to a storm water pond. By eliminating the trees around the pond, it exacerbates and creates additional runoff. The trees are also habitat to birds and other small animals. In eliminating the L] trees, you not only create additional problems but you also eliminate the aesthetic benefits that they provide, and the potential increase in property values they pass on to members of the Fox Hollow community (see pictures below) Furthermore, the pond outlot is located in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Fox Hollow. There are different codes that apply to developments in a Single Family Residential (RSF) zone compared with a PUD. The pond outlet and the trees and area to the North of the pond provide necessary buffering from the visual impacts from collector highway 101. Section 20-1176. Intent, scope, and compliance address these requirements. (n Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses, between a site and major streets and highways, and in areas where buffering is required by the comprehensive plan Such buffering shall be located within a required buffer yard The buffer yard is a unit ofyard together with the planting required thereon The amount of land and the type and amount of planting specied for each buffer yard required by this subsection are designed to ameliorate nuisances between adjacent land uses or between a land use and a public road The planting units required of buffer yards have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, junction to "buffer. " (1) Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel extending to the lot or parcel boundary line, except where easements, covenants or natural features may require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line. Subject to review and approval by the city engineering department, buffer yards M that are compatible with the typical city boulevard planting requirements may be located within a portion of an existing municipal public collector or arterial right-of-way. Additionally, 09(8) In instances in which the city deems it necessary to provide year-round screening, the city may designate that all planing be of conifers. (g) The city shall encourage reforestation through boulevard and streetscape planing. (h) Mature stands ojtrees shall be preserved. The landscaping and tree replanting plan submitted by the developer does not adequately address the loss of buffering that an expansion to the pond and the loss of the stands of conifer and long line of deciduous trees will cause. In fact, the developer only proposes to three deciduous trees and two conifer trees in this area and these plantings are dozens of feet from 101. The City should insist on the developer complying with Section 20-1176 (f)(8) as it relates to the ponding area. The City should also insist that additional reforestation occur through more boulevard and streetscape planting on the South and West side of the pond area. Issue 3: Pond Maintenance and Statistics As discussed in issue I above, a larger pond is not necessarily a more effective pond. If natural landscaping is not included as part of the design, then the pond effectiveness to filter out pollutants is decreased significantly. An additional area that needs to be fully examined is pond maintenance and the statistics associated with this particular pond regarding its effectiveness. There are several questions that the City and the developer need to answer: (1) Can the City provide documentation as to what the pond water quality is and what it has been in the last 5 years from this pond? (2) Have there been any water test results that indicate that runoff rates do not meet water quality standards? (3) Can the City state what it has done in the the last five years to control sediment in the pond? According to the Fox Hollow file maintained by the City of Chanhassen, in 1984 when Outlot A was being established, one of the main concerns was sediment. In a March 13, 1984 letter from Stanley Wendland from the U.S. Dept of Agriculture to Bob Waibel, it is stated: ... the ptans for providing ponding areas should include a provision jor removing trapped sediment " (4) When was the last time the outlets, inlets, ditches, and culverts associated with this pond were cleared and cleaned? (5) When where the last time the catch basins were cleaned? (6) What are the water reading depths over the last five years? Is the pond too shallow? Too full? If there is evidence that it is trapped with sediment and too full, can it not be dredged? (7)lf the pond is expanded, what happens if the pond becomes too shallow? (8) Is drainage from the pond an issue, and if it is, what is being done to solve it? (9) When was the last time the formula was evaluated for storm water runoff? (10) How many homes does this pond serve? Given the fact that the SWMP is out of date and given the fact that the City may not have effective and up-to-date protocols for evaluating water quality, storm water run-off issues, an outdated stone water ordinance, outmoded protocols for maintenance and inspection, it maybe premature to declare that this pond has to be increased by such a significant size. The recommendation would be to focus intently on Issues 1-3 and as a last result expand the size of the pond by no more than 10% (if even necessary). Proper pond design, natural landscaping, maintenance, inspection, and drainage from the pond, are the best ways in the short to long terms to address the issues associated with this pond. A small expansion of the pond without fully implementing and addressing all of the issues raised in 1-3 fails to address the real issues with storm water pond management and storm water runoff. The inlet pipe from the West of Fox Drive should run at a 45 degree diagonal under Fox Drive and then enter into the existing storm water pond on its West side. Furthermore, the City needs to seriously look to adopting, for future developments, the potential to use the practice of Low Impact Development (LID). The City should provide financial incentives to developers, perhaps initially as a pilot project, to use LID as the way to handle storm water management issues in the future. The SEH consulting firm will probably make this as one of their recommendations. I would refer interested people to www.lowimpactdevelopment.org and www.tahomaaudobon.or¢ for information on this landscape storm water management concept. LID has reduced the size of storm water ponds sizes by 75% while still retaining open spaces and dry basements. Construction costs could be reduced by up to 200/6. Retaining vegetation and reducing road width and impervious surfaces is the key. Search the web for a title of a document conducted by CH2MHILL from Bellevue, Washingtion called "Pierce County Low Impact Development Study." See also Wisconsin's Natural Resource Magazine (www.wnrmag..com/sgpps/2003/feb03/stem.htm). 3. Grading and Erosion Control According to the Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan, the developer is requesting that the existing fence at the North and East ends of the 10 Fox Hollow Drive be removed by the property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The existing grading plans call for extensive grading right up to and potentially on to the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The extensive proposed grading plans for the area around the pond are not necessary for the reasons stated in the previous pages. Response: Steeper slopes typically increase the rate of erosion. One impact of land development is soil compaction which decreases soil infiltration and ground water recharge, which contributes to storm water runoff. 3:1 grading is too excessive. That is the maximum. A 3:1 grading slope would make the house and the lot at 10 Fox Hollow Drive appears that it is "higher" off the ground than the other homes in the area. The lot and the home would appear aesthetically out of place with the excessive grading. The lot and the home would appear if it were sitting on a 13 "crown." It is recommended that the natural swales and slopes be maintained as much as practicable to the East and North of the 10 Fox Hollow Drive property. In a survey commissioned by the property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, the wooden fence located to the East of the existing home is entirely on the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, it does not enter the right of way. The property owners are not going to remove the wooden fence on the East side of their home for any reason nor grant the developer an easement to perform excessive grading. Furthermore, the property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not know and are not aware that the irregular shaped or wire fence is their property or who installed the wire fence The current owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not know where the developer obtained the information or drew the conclusion that the wire fence belonged or was put in place by the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not have an objection to the future removal of this fence only if (1) if the developer does not damage the existing wooden fence (2) the developer disposes of the fence (3) the developer does not damage any trees in the removal of the fence. The property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive find the grading plans extensive, intrusive, and unnecessary as it relates to their property line on the East. Potential damage to the property is probable and the grading will not benefit them. Additionally, the owners have serious concerns about the closeness of construction equipment, traffic, insurance and workers compensation issues as they relate to potential earthwork on or near their property. Furthermore, special assessments should not be passed on to the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. They are not going to benefit from the grading but their privacy and property lines are going to be severely disturbed. 4. Streets According to the Preliminary Plat, a 31 foot wide road will be going in right next to the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The width of the may be consistent with the other street widths, but it is excessive for the area that it is proposed. The closeness of Fox Drive to 10 Fox Hollow Drive and to the pond is of great concern for safety and aesthetic concerns. A 31 foot wide road ending in a cul-de-sac greatly increases the impervious surface and thus increases runoff which is unnecessary. The developer and City would save costs by going to a 24 foot wide street, it would also create more lot area, reduce impervious surface, create less runoff, and fit in better with the area The proposed road would only serve 6 homes. There are other alternatives. Response: Research shows that narrow streets are the safest. For example, a study conducted by Swift Associates and the City of Longmont Colorado looked at 20,000 car accidents over 8 years. Zhe study found: "the most signifucant casual relationships to injury and accident were found to be street width and street curvature D "...as the sired widens, accidents per mile per year increases exponentially, and that the safest residential street width is 24 feet" Furthermore in the same report it is stated, "In neo•traditioeal design, on -street parking is only provided where densities exceed 4 dwelling units per acre." In fact, the study went on to point out: "Reducing road widths from 32 feet to 20 fed will produce a 6% reduction in impervious area" Typically, street systems account for more than 50% of the total amount of imperviousness on site. Studies have shown that where cul-de-sacs are built, the radii of turnaround should be minimized. Reducing the length and width of a road reduces the impervious surfaces and thus reduces runoff. Additionally, the use of porous pavement reduces impervious surfaces. There is no indication on what is being done to make effective use of porous pavement to reduce storm water runoff and the impervious surface. (see www.nemo.uconn.edu) for a more detailed explanation on the above information. It also addresses the concern over some individuals have about an emergency vehicle having enough room to turn around. The area for the proposed Fox Drive has been a grassy area maintained by the residents of the Fox Hollow Development for over 20 years. The property owners pay $12-15 a year to maintain this area. It is well maintained. Who would maintain these areas once a development is put in? The City? A private maintenance company? Who would pay? The name of the proposed development is Fox Den. Fox Den would be located in a totally different zoning district than the original Fox Hollow. A 31 foot wide between 10 Fox Hollow Drive the Outlot A would look out -of -character for the community. A 24 foot wide road through a variance request would serve better purposes. It would not be so close to the property line (a proposed 9 feet) to the 10 Fox Hollow Drive residence, and it would not be so close to the West end of Outlot A. Furthermore, the road will be very close to 101. If MN Dot decides to expand 101 to 4 lanes in the future, then the pond at the comer of 101 and Fox Hollow Drive may have to be relocated. The entry to Fox Hollow, without any buffers, will not look like an entry to a well established and sought after residential PUD, but it will look like one solid slab of pavement and concrete. The property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive request that the road, if installed, be located at least 12 feet off of their property line to the East. This distance is a safe distance because in the event of snow plowing in the winter, the snow will not be plowed directly into the fence that will be maintained by the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Additionally, the turning area for Fox Drive, as currently proposed on the Preliminary Plat is literally 2-3 feet off of the property line. Again, this turning radius begins too close to the property line. The owners strongly request that the entire road be moved further to the East. For safety reasons, there are serious concerns. Without proper natural buffering and protection, a car may roll down the embankment or drive off of Fox Drive and into the pond —whether intentionally or unintentionally. The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive request that buffering and boulevard plantings occur, in addition to the natural buffering and landscaping proposed above because 10 Fox Hollow Drive will now be located on a street corner; the owners would request serious consideration of these issues. The owners would like a Norway spruce planted on the comer of Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive, on the corner of their property. MN Dot needs to establish a wider and longer turn lane 10 off of 101 into the Fox Hollow Development. The turn lane is too narrow its current length does not provide enough time to slow down from 45 mph to near 0 mph safely. Lastly, 101 is a very busy road. The addition of any more traffic to this road will cause more harm than good. 5. Proposed Plat Alternatives (See Pages Attached) Besides the alternatives proposed above, the attached mark-ups of the Preliminary Plat provide further guidance in how to modify the existing proposal while still providing a win -win solution for the developer, the neighborhood, and the property owners most affected by these changes. There are several inconsistencies in the Fox Den proposal as they relate to the Chanhassen City Code, and there are several design flaws and inadequacies proposed that would prevent effective storm water management practices. There are several alternatives that should be considered and implemented before this Plan is approved. Respectfully Submitted, Jason Ashline 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 March 2, 2005 11 6 '/// 1i � —'I � tD r � tM_�yay•��wt v � N_Iwn �r.�r rr( OnWA a Nyy oF tol St��+NE71J Ccu+fvi I I ��uawmrvisas�wm ewe• FOX DEN PNEORI/SENFR PLANiww,NaNrsr,rEEra _ 1ws�4 MG STM �— CHANKASSEN, MN SNFFf ND. OF SHEE75 1 69 ALiC(t WA % / Vc- PL A�✓ Aw Miz aa.a�aaa�� 0 • I , 1 I I I I I I I I I I � \' m.00ve rmrwn we 02L, 1 s 4LT FENCE-51M Ymawsrsrrv@ o —�•—• � e s ' i YIIM pp n.rewusar 1. ��5..�.Y3� .mom,rr...m.w FOX DEN xzEu�aua r cn�aNc a rnca,aN cavrna vuN zoN ar Oxwl unauayaa.. 1%wIuvaauaa • rayc 1 Vl V Design Example 1: Residential Development - Swann Center This section presents a sizing example for a medium residential subdivision, Swann Center. The layout of the Swann Center subdivision is shown in Figure 1. In this design example, the NRCS TR-55 method is used as the design methodology. i 1. Swann Center r _ T aF r? INUkMi''' l- 1 - 1 � 1: 1 Is i XW All Location: Anywhere, USA tine Area = Total Drainage Area IA) = 38.0 ac Prt POO Measured Imperious Area - 13.8 ac; I-13.W38 — CN 63 78 36.3% t, .35 hr .19 hr Soils Ts pts: 60% " R". 40% "C" Strern List Designation - 1 Zoning: ResWential (% acre lots) Step 1. Compute WQ, Volume Criteria: • Size for the 90% rainfall event. • Use a minimum runoff coefficient of 0.2. Step Ia. Compute Runoff Coefficient A This runoff coefficient is derived from Schuelers Simple Method. http://www. stormwatercenter.netIManual_BuilderlSizing_CriterialDesign%2OExample%201 /example... 3/5/2005 ucar,rr ikwiucirua • 0 1 asc 4 vi v R„ = 0.05 + (I) (0.009) Where: I = Impervious Cover (%) R„ = 0.05 + (36.3) (0.009) = 0.38 Step 1b. Compute WO, W%= (Pr) (R�) (A) Where: Pr = 90% Rainfall Event (Inches). Assume 0.9" in this example A = 38.0 acres WQ„ = (0.9) (0.38) (38.0 ac) (1ft/12in) = 1.08 ac-ft Check Minimum: (0.2 ) (38.0 ac) (1ft/12 ) = 0.63 ac-ft [okay) Step 2 Compute Recharge Volume (Rev) Step 2a. Determine Recharge Equation Based on Hydrologic Soil Group (Table 1). Table 1. Recharge Based on Soil Group HSG Recharge Requirement (0.38) (Rv) (A) / 12 (0.25) (Rv) (A) 112 (0.13) (Rv) (A) 112 (0,06) (Rv) (A) / 12 Assume imperviousness is located proportionally in B and C soils. Step 2b. Compute Recharge Volume For "B" soils=[(0.25 inches) (.38) (.38 ac)/12"/ft] (0.60) = 0.18 ac-ft For "C" soils=[(0.13 inches) (.38) (.38 ac)/12"/ft] (0.40) = .06 ac-ft Add recharge requirement for both soils Re„ = (0.18 ac-ft) + (0.06 ac-ft) = 0.24 ac-ft tlThis requirement can be met either with a structural practice, or with Stormwater Credits. Step 3 Compute Stream Channel Protection Volume LpvL Requirement: Provide 24 hours of extended detention for the 1-year event. 14 Please note that the length of detention may be smaller based on the stream resource. In cold water trout streams, for example, the detention time may be as small as 6 to 12 hours. Step 3a. Develop site hydrologic and TR-55 Input Parameters Table 2 presents Input Parameters Per attached TR-55 calculations (see Figures 2 and 3), http://www.stormwatercenter.netIManual_BuilderlSizing_Criteria/Design%2OExample%201 /example... 3/5/2005 OW11"wawl LGAlgu rAamplc. r"UV • rani 1 V1 1J Stormwater Design Example: Pond s�Fm wtF Foal ^VY, WFFflx,"w .BIER � _ PROFILE POND DESIGN EXAMPLE The following design example is for the "wet extended detention (ED) pond," from STP Group 1 (stormwater ponds). On this site the developer is required to provide control for the following: 1. Recharge (Based on soil type) 2. Water Quality (90% event) 3. Channel Protection 4. 10-year Flood Control 5. Safe Passage of the 1D0-year Hood with 1' of freeboard. }_ Based on the specific criteria in a region. These criteria may vary. See Sizing -Options. \1� http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Manual_Builder/pond_ design_exarnple.htm 3/4/2005 btunuwa�cr uc�ryu nnaruyrc. rVrru. • 1 �V L VL 1J Figure 1. Swan Center Site Plan Base Data Location: Anywhere, USA Site Area = Total Drainage Area (a) — 38.0 ac Measured Impervious Area=13.8ac; or 1-13.8+38-36.3% Soils Types: 60% W. 404E "C" Site Data: y The site area and drainage area to the pond is 38.0 acres. Eristing ground at the pond outlet is 320'. Soil boring observations reveal that the seasonally high water table is at elevation 318'. The underlying soils are SC (sandy Gay) and are suitable for earthen embankments and to support a wet pond without a finer. The stream invert at the adjacent stream is at elevation 316. TR-55 analyses results are in Table 1. Talk 1. HydmWp Summary Condnwn CN t Q r „.. Q f.r.. Q al Q w- u lours cfs cfs cis cfs Pre developed 63 0.35 4.62 13.58 1550 50.38 102.6 RP4l lrrdgnl 78 0.19 35.0 131.0 216.3 Step 1. Compute Design Volumes Required volumes for 1-4 were computed under Example 1 of the sizing options section and are presented in Table 2. h4://www.stormwatementer.net/Manual_Builder/pond_design_example.htin 3/4/2005 March 13, 2005 Ms. Kate Aanenson/Community Development Director Ms. Sharmeen A]-Jaff/Senior Planner City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Fox Den Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Staff Report # 05-08 Dear Ms. Aanenson and Ms. AI -Jaffa In preparation for the Public Hearing on March 15, 2005, regarding the proposal above, I would like you to deliver to the Planning Commission members the following proposals for additional conditions or friendly amendments to the Staff Report prior to the Public Hearing on March 15'". Although I remain opposed to the development at this time for reasons stated in my memo of March 0 (see my memo attachment to staff report), in the event the Commission does vote to refer this matter to the City Council, I would like the Commission to consider adding the following changes to conditions or adding friendly amendments to the Staff Report. The changes and amendments are underlined. 1. Condition: Page 12, # 12(h): Trees 142-144 and six green ash not shown on the Tree Inventory shall be preserved by adherence to Section 18-61(d)(4) of the Chanhassen City code which provides for relief to preserve tree loss by realignment of streets, utilities, and lot lines, and by instituting modified grading plans. Background to Condition: On page 8 of the staff report, it states that when the building permit for Lot 1, Block I is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation. These trees should be preserved by implementing Section 18-61(d)(4) of the Code. 2. Condition: Page 12, #12(n: The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 Feet e*eept within the sight kiangle Speeies shall be ., .ed by the City: -One conifer tree shall be planted every 6-14 feet except within the sight triangle along the Eastern Right -of -Way of Fox Drive. The species will be Norway Spruce or another fast growing conifer tree similar to the species of tree that is currently located directly North of Outlot A of Fox Hollow, and approved by the City. Adherence to Section 20-1176(f)(8) will be recommended. A total of 8-10 trees is recommended to be planted along Fox Drive, and 3-4 along Fox Hollow Drive. Background to Condition: On Page 8 of the staff report, the staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant boulevard trees along Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive to replace the City trees lost. To create a partial buffer for Highway 101, staff recommends that evergreens be considered for the boulevard trees along Fox Drive. The buffer of over a dozen evergreen trees would be eliminated with a proposed expansion of the pond. Plantings of every 30 feet are not adequate and they would not provide as much of a buffer as exists now. 3. Variance Request: Page 10 of Staff Report: The applicant is requesting s street width variance. This variance was recommended by Staff. The ordinance requires a 60 foot Right -of -Way width. The plat reflects a 50 foot Right -of -Way. The Right -of -Way is consistent with the existing Right -of -Way that will provide access to this development. The 50 foot Right -of -Way street width variance will be approved with 24 feet of paved road surface. Background to Variance and Street Issues. As pointed out in pages 9-11 of my memo, there are several issues with the proposed 31 foot street width paved surface. Studies have shown that a 24 foot wide paved surface is safer, slows speeds, can provide ample parking room on one side of the street, provides enough access to emergency vehicles, reduces impervious surfaces, decreases maintenance and construction costs, will increase lot size, and will fit in better where the road is proposed. It is very questionable whether or not a 31 foot wide paved surface could be placed safely being over 9 feet of the property line of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, and between the boulevard to the West of Outlot A. The road would be extremely close to the edge of the pond, and aesthetically it would look out of place for the area it would serve: 6 single family homes with only 60 trips per day. Other communities in Minnesota use various paved street widths very effectively. Examine Afton and Lake Elmo are examples. 4. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Page 3—Staff is recommending that a small retaining wall (F to 3') be installed along the western Right -of -Way of Fox Drive of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. Background on the above issue: I have met with the developer and his engineer. It is not yet determined if a retaining wall will be put in or if the existing area to the East of my property line will be slightly graded. I would like to find out first, how exactly high this retaining wall would be? what material it would it would be made out of? How long would it be? How it would look? Basically, I need to see the developer's landscape architects' depiction of what this would look like. The developer and his engineer have given me the option to examine this retaining wall option. I would like to see a friendly amendment that states: The developer, his engineer, and Drive the ontion to forgo the retaining wall and work with them on a modified grading option. 5. Condition: Page 10 #1 The pond in Outlot A, Fox Hollow, shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designated. Any inlet and outlet structures requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. 6. Condition: Page 11 #2 An outlet meeting NPDES permanent storm water management system requirements shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 7. Condition: Page 13 # 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. Background to all of the conditions in 4,5,6: On page 4 of the Staff Report it states that the pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. On page 3 of the Staff Report it states that: Staff is recommending this pond be expanded to provide water quality treatments. To what size? To what the developer wants? As pointed out in my memo on pages 4-8, there are several problems with the stormwater pond enlargement proposal and design. First, who would clean and replace the inlet and outlets? The City or the developer? What structures need replacing? How is the applicant going to clean the pond? What method is going be used? The Commission needs to ask itself: Are there any other reasonable alternatives than to expand the pond that would lessen the impact and remove the buffer? Have we looked seriously at the alternatives and are we absolutely sure that there are no alternatives? Is there anything else we can do to reduce impervious surface? Because from my research, there are alternatives that we are not considering. There are issues with this pond's proposed design even after expansion. I would refer you to the Metropolitan Council. This Council is the regional planning agency serving the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area. They have published a Best Management Practices Manual for Urban Small Sites. One of the sections is titled "Wet Ponds." According to the Metropolitan Council, a Wet Pond is also known as a NURP pond. Its primary pollutant removal system is sedimentation. An issue that was raised with this very same pond back in 1984. There are several design characteristics that need to be met for a NURP pond. 1.Pond Shape: To maximize stormwater contact and residue time in the pool, a length to width ratio of 3:1 is recommended. This pond with its expansion would be nearly as long as it is wide. 2. Sediment Forebay. The length to width ratio should be 2:1 to avoid short circuiting. No one seems to be able to address this issue regarding the Forebay. 3. Riser. Is there a Riser associated with this pond? There should be a riser. 4. Avoidance of short circuiting. The ratio of flowpath length to width ratio from the inlet to the outlet should be 3:1. (the flow path length is defined as the distance from the inlet to outlet measured at mid -depth). 5. All inlets should enter though the fust cell. If there are multiple inlets, the length to width ratio should be based on average flow path length of all inlets. The problem with # 4 & #5 is that it does not appear that these ratios are maintained. Also, there are multiple inlets. In fact, at least one very close (within 2 feet) of the outlet. This is very bad NURP pond design. 6. The pond should be a tear drop shape as opposed to a rectangular shape. Tear drop shapes minimize dead zones caused by comers. 7. The side slopes of the permanent pool should be no steeper than 3:1. Flatter slopes protect against erosion, they are safer, easier to maintain and mow. 8. There should be emergent wetland vegetation planted. Long natural grasses and shrubs. Plantings such as soft stem bulrushes, arrowhead, various exotic grasses, wild rice. This all should be planted along the side of the pond for full visual enhancement. I would propose that before the Commission approves this plat that a feasibility study going examining all of these issues in depth be done. Given that the SWMP is out of date, it would be prudent for long range planning to do this and do it right at this time. 8. There is a reference in the Preliminary Plat Plans submitted by Otto Engineering that requires the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive to remove their wooden fence along the East of their property line and the wire fence to the North of their property line. I'd like to see a friendly amendment that states: The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not have to remove their wooden fence along the east of their property, nor do they have to remove the wire fence. The wire fence can be removed by the contractor assuming he takes care in its removal not to damage the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Thank you. Jason Ashline 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Response to questions Proposal Summary page 2--Since the applicant is already filing for a variance for street width, can the commission consider a 24 foot roadway width (back of curb to back of curb) in lieu of the 31 foot proposal? Answer Staff would be against a variance to decrease the street width to 24' for the following reasons. a) It would limit the street to parking on only one side or prohibit on - street parking all together. This would conflict with all other public residential streets in town that allow parking on both sides. b) There is no major environmental reason why a street meeting current design requirements (31' wide) cannot be constructed; in other words, staff does not see a hardship why the street width needs to be decreased. 2. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control page 3--regarding the proposal for the 1-3 foot retaining wall along the western Right -of -Way (ROW) of Fox drive, would this proposed wall run the entire distance of the ROW of Fox Drive beginning at the corner of Fox Hollow Drive? If I am understanding it correctly —my fence would remain, then my grass area to the East of my property would remain with the current slope, then the retaining wall be built at the same level as my grass, and then there would be a 1-3 foot drop-off to the street curb. Is this correct? Again, we want to emphasize we think that the 3:1 slope is excessive in this area and is not needed. Aesthetically the retaining wall if not designed and configured correctly, it will not make our property look attractive. Answer Based on the submitted plan, a retaining wall would be needed for approx. 90' along the western right-of-way line of Fox Drive. This length of wall may be able to be lessened by revising the street grades. Staff has mentioned this to the applicant's engineer and they have agreed to look into this further. The description of the proposed retaining wall is correct. 3. Drainage page 3--Conceming the expansion of the pond, staff is recommending expansion of the pond but how much larger? To what the developer wants? Who is also going to maintain or replace any inlet or outlet structures? The City or the developer? Answer Staff has reviewed the developer's proposed pond expansion. Our only comment is to add an additional contour elevation line (912) at the bottom of the pond for additional water quality purposes. This will ensure that the pond is sized to NURP standards for the entire drainage area. The City will take over ownership/maintenance of the pond and storm sewer at the conclusion of the project and after the warranty period. 4. Page 4 it states --the pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. However, NURP standards mainly pertain to water quality? Are further studies going to be done to see if the area North of the pond can be better preserved as a natural buffer? I posed a series of questions (in my memo) on this pond and the proposed expansion —will these questions be answered? Has any real consideration been given to what the Minnesota Erosion Control Association advocates and other individuals, organizations I cited in my memo as far as the overall design and do other landscaping items to limit impervious surface and street width? There are several ideas that need to be fully considered in my memo. Answer As previously stated above in #3, staff has reviewed the pond expansion design and is in agreement with the proposed layout of the pond. The pond, as currently exists, is not sized for the entire developed drainage area that will be going to the pond. As such, the pond must be enlarged in order to meet the water quality requirements of NURP. Additionally, the pond will store the storm water during a rain event so that the outlet rate of water leaving the pond is less than what the current runoff rate is. This is how the pond will meet the water quantity requirement of the City. Finally, the developer will be installing a new outlet control structure, per City detail plate #3109, to control the outlet rate. The city code regulates impervious surface and street width. 5. Tree Preservation & Landscaping Page 8—"When the building permit for Lot 1, Block 1 is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation." As stated in my memo, the City Code provides for adjustment of lot lines and revised grading for tree preservation. Answer In this instance, adjustment of lot lines will not lead to additional tree preservation. At the time of building permit, staff will work with the builder to preserve trees were feasible. 6. Page 8—The City Code states that the City has the right to require the planting of evergreens to be used as a buffer where necessary. We would be in favor of that, and we would like to see them be planted 20 feet apart as opposed to 30 feet. Please keep in mind, all of our buffer, if the entire pond is expanded will be wiped out. Plus, we would like fast growing Norway Spruce planted for best impact from noise, light, and wind buffering. There should be 6-7 of these evergreens planted along the Fox Drive boulevard at a minimum. Answer The city code requires boulevard trees be planted 30 feet apart. 7. Page 12. Under Environmental Resources Coordinator Concerns: (This question relates to question 6 above). Under H,1: "the applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive re replace trees lost due to pond expansion." How many trees will be planted, we would recommend 6-7 along just Fox Drive. Again, we would request that the City mandate evergreen plantings here as there is a provision in the City code for it. As far as the plantings around the pond of Fox Hollow Drive, we do not have a specific type of tree. However, again as pointed out in my memo, natural long grasses and shrubs should be planted around the entire pond site. This would reduce nmoff and it is in line with proper pond design standards. Answer The City will insure that the development complies with the buffer ordinance requirements_ �NNESOtq ° Minnesota Department of Transportation °F�Pd� Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 132 Roseville, MN 55113 March 11.2005 Bob Generous ,Senior Planner City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 • SUBJECT: Fox Den Mn/DOT Review P05-023 SW Quad of TH 101 and Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 2736 Dear Mr. Generous: FIRIV VED MAR 1 5 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats, and has the following comments: A drainage permit will be required for this project, as the pond outlets via a 24" CMP crossing Trunk Highway 101. Additional drainage information is required. The proposed construction will need to maintain existing drainage rates to Mn/DOT right- of-way. Please provide the following: 1) A grading Plan of the existing & proposed project. 2) Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing both existing and proposed drainage areas and flows (with flow arrows) 3) Hydraulic computations/modeling before and after proposed reconstructions (ie., Hydro-CADinput assumptions, calibration data, results for 10 and 100 year storm events). Please submit any further documentation electronically as Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), and HydroCAD (.hc) files. If plans change, you must resubmit for review. The electronic model and pdf file can be emailed to richard.cady(a),dot.state.mn.us. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Richard Cady (651-634-2075) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources Engineering section. • Any use of or work within or affecting Mn/DOT right of way requires a permit, permit forms are available from Mn/DOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsui)/utility. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Keith Van Wagner (651-582-1443), or Buck Craig (651-582-1447) of Mn/DOT's Metro Permits Section. The Right -of -Way Section has reviewed the plans and has determined that one dimension is wrong on Sheet no. I of 5. The 40' dimension should be 33' in one location. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to John Isackson of Mn/DOT's Right-of-way Section at 651-582-1273. An equal opportunity employer Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. ➢ Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582-1293. • As a final request, could you please send an electronic .pdf file copy of your plan submittal for our record keeping purposes to juanita.voigt a,dot.state.maus Please refer to Mn/DOT Review #P05-023 / Fox Den / CHN when emailing the .pdf file. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 634-2083. erely, J uan�ta Vorgt' Transportation PIanner Copy: Roger Gustafson / Carver County Engineer Paul Otto / Otto Associates — Engineers/Surveyors E Blind copy via Groupwise to : Ann Braden — Met Council Tod Sherman — Program Management John Isackson — Right of Way Keith Van Wagner - Permits Paul Kachelmyer — Design Richard Scarrow - Design Blind copy to Division Files: Metro LGL files — Chanhassen Metro Division File —CS 2736 Paul Otto Otto Associates 9 West Division Street Buffalo, MN 55313 • Impervious Calculation Example Lot4, Block 1, FOX DEN. 15,065 SF x 25% = 3766 SF allowable impervious area Home Foundation provided by Builder = 2281 SF Driveway (24' wide at street, 33.5' wide at garage) = 1040 SF If deck is impervious, (22.5'x10' deck) = 225 SF Total Impervious = 3546 SF 220 SF left for sidewalk, shed, etc. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 1 1 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT a `J [e 37 72 I- �\ - \10 1 \ N desk I � LO o � � c� O LO A I / I 91 rc -- ! R Jil| k� y w ;|_2 " a� f p mw %eo w p otapll9 6 | &` § ' ,' ! i m !q auoH Imma � ~ ■ !� % ; � !�� \__ W Ul im O C N a =W UV I w O¢ m aNi � W i � z U = U eae lei 1 ':ail r-- — ____—_____ An 4 pUW �Q¢yyyyy gam; �3! C `yVj vCF JeR ; �y`�yQ e �O Qi�l ------------------------- LVL VIV i/ J k g- Q$$ 5 g 2A •� o IF ^ 'f A p0� f !6 ife fj � � � �•L I 3$ � � "� IS°iv4�i �i �� €5#3$g z J w �•: ci �N � u � FAe • gg p $ � A$k c 1' f ° Eg @y �'ip EF �9# Fp• S 9� t= � pp as tt_• � F4! d' ! 8 � . . � �C i # 4° A off` x�l� $ifta HE ° Fe 6�d7FF#ei k�f.e� Il�ld@��d1 d��F=.El�lil�$A��Se'e� EFi•k ! A ��e€. kc Wp z $ef .$SFee, E .P k:,i. . °.• .A.k $e�=ie�..#.e�en a W w k8�a#d Fg� x 'f 3W S III s IE:`t� iff a dx x � � g — ZgW a ¢< .11 "v .,;;vif,' i'1 vim t o w E a X gZ - O 3 I 1 _ t'•`� aT ; � �1 ffl�l E ' oc I e 01 c 9 j r PI x 1 Ib \ (k I \off\ 1 CAc �4 '1 01, CITY OF CIIANNSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952227.1110 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 A Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner April 25, 2005 Fox Den Final Plat Approval, 10 Spring, Inc. Planning Case #05-08 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The developer is requesting final plat approval to subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots and a variance for right-of-way for Fox Den. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. BACKGROUND On April It, 2005, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #5-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a variance for a 50 foot right-of- way width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto Associates stamped "Received February 11, 2005", subject to the following conditions: Planning 6 1. The pond on Outot A, Fox Hollow shall be maintained to ensure it meets the Natural Resources size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and Phone: 952.227.1130 outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement shall be Fax:952.227.1110 maintained or replaced. Public Works 1591 Park Road This condition still applies. Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:952,227.1310 2. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Senior center permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit Phone:952.227.1125 MN R100001, Section C, Subsection 1D, Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at Fax:952.227.1110 the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. Web She www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us This condition still applies. 3. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another pre -approved method should be used for dewatering. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities shall be The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chaffing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 2 included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation, shall be provided. This condition still applies. 4. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing and pFepesed flared end inlets to the steFm water pend and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. This condition has been partially met. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Tvae of S1oW Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 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. This condition still applies. 6. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots 2and 3. This condition still applies. 7. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. This condition still applies. 8. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021. This condition still applies. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. • Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 3 This condition still applies. 10. Building Department conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Existing wells on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. This condition still applies. 11. Fire Marshal conditions: a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. b. A 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 fine hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. d. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. This condition still applies. 12. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be planted. b. A minimum of two 2 /Y' deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. c. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species. d. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. e. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. f. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. will be Fequir-ed prior te final appFeN%I. This condition has been partially met. g. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum, 5 overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs. Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 4 This condition has been partially met. The applicant must plant 4 additional shrubs to meet the minimum requirements of the landscape ordinance. h. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved. This condition still applies. i. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the city. This condition has been amended by adding "A total of 4 trees shall be planted on the city property along Fox Drive." j. Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the north of the pond and consider alternate design on the pond using available space. Staff evaluated the design of the pond and concluded that the proposed design was most appropriate. k. Developer will work with staff to consider buffer plantings around the pond. This condition has been met. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north of the cul-de-sac on Lot 4. This condition still applies. m. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens versus deciduous for buffering purposes. This condition has been met. 13. On the Utility plan: a. Show all easements. b. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled. This condition still applies. 14. Add the following City detail plates: 1005, 2001, 5300 and 5301. This condition has been met. Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 5 15. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. This condition still applies. 16. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water -main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. This condition has been modified by adding the following language "and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 17. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH. This condition still applies. 18. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. This condition has been met. 19. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. This condition still applies. 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. This condition still applies. 21. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The stone sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. This condition has been met. Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 6 22. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. This condition still applies. 23. Staff is recommending that a small (F-T) retaining wall be installed along the western right- of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. This condition has been met. The plan has been changed to alleviate the need for a wall. 24. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. This condition still applies. 25. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees. This condition still applies. GRADING. DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The existing site has tree cover over approximately 1.5 acre of area. The plans propose to grade about 80% of the site for the new house pads, public street and cul-de-sac. The proposed grading will prepare the site for two look -out and four full basement house pads. The grading plan shows that, on average, the pad areas are being filled three to five feet for the new homes. Also, additional grading will take place south of the parcel to connect the proposed street with Fox Hollow Drive and to expand the existing storm pond. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. The existing site drains from the northwestern corner to the southeastern comer of the parcel. Under developed conditions, all of the drainage from the house roofs, driveways and the cul-de-sac will be conveyed via storm sewer to the existing stormwater pond off the southeasterly comer of the site for treatment. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site and only minor changes remain. Storm sewer design data has also been submitted for staff review. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 7 UTILITIES The plans propose on extending the sanitary sewer from an existing sanitary manhole in Fox Drive. Water will be extended from an existing watermain along the east side of the site and looped with the watermain in Fox Hollow Drive. The sanitary sewer and watermains will be considered public utility lines since they will serve more than one lot. As such, a minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. Installation of the private service utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer hookup and that assessment has been paid. As such, the sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. However, the water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees are due at the time of building permit issuance and may be specially assessed against the parcel. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of Health, MnDOT, and Watershed District. STREETS The plans propose to extend Fox Drive from the south side approximately 370-feet ending with a cul- de-sac. The required right-of-way for a new public street is 60-feet wide with a 60-foot radius for cul-de-sacs. The existing platted right-of-way for Fox Drive south of the site is 50-feet. For continuity with the existing Fox Drive right-of-way, the applicant is proposing a 50-foot wide street right-of-way and a 60-foot wide cul-de-sac radius. Staff is in favor of the applicant's proposal for this right-of-way variance. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $1,093/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.77 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $3,028. Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 8 Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,705 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $7,493 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the expansion an existing NURP pond off -site. Because the pond is off - site, it is not eligible for credit. However, credit will be given for the replacement of one outlet structure ($2,500). At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $8,021. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval. PARK DEDICATION COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN This site is wholly within the neighborhood park service area of North Lotus Lake Park. This park offers a wide variety of amenities including tennis courts, ball fields, a children's playground, picnic shelter, lighted hockey and open skating rinks, open space and a walking trail. Residents of Fox Den will access the park via Fox Hollow Drive. It should be noted that sidewalks are not available in Fox Hollow. No additional parkland dedication is required in this area of the City; therefore park dedication dollars will be required in lieu of land dedication for the five new lots (5 lots X $4,000 per lot = $20,000). Park Service Area Map Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 9 North lotus Lake Park Map COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN Three of the six lots (4, 5 and 6) have direct access to a section of the city's comprehensive trail plan. This eight -foot wide city trail is located parallel to State Highway 101 on the eastern edge of the subject property. The other three lots will access the trail via Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this development. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING Canopy coverage and preservation calculations have been submitted for the Fox Den development. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 2.77 ac. or 120,661 SF Baseline canopy coverage 56% or 67,110 SF Minimum canopy coverage allowed 35 % or 42,231 SF Proposed tree preservation 19% or 23,185 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 (42,231-23,185) 19,046 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 22,855 SF Total number of trees to be planted 21 (22,855 -1089) Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 10 The total number of trees required for the development is 21. Applicant has proposed a total of 21 trees. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. No more than one-third of the trees may be from any one species. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. The subdivision is also required to have bufferyard plantings along Highway 101. Requirements are as follows: Location Required Proposed Hwy. 101— bufferyard B 5 overstory trees 4 existing ash trees — 20' width 7 understory trees 4 overstory trees 240' length 12 shrubs 3 evergreen trees The applicant does not meet the minimum requirements for bufferyard planting along Highway 101. Staff recommends that the minimum quantities be met. In reviewing the tree inventory, staff would like to note that many of the elm and boxelder trees specified on the inventory are actually green ash. This makes a difference since green ash will not succumb to Dutch elm disease as the elm will and it isn't considered an `undesirable' tree as boxelders are. For these reasons, preserving as many of these trees as possible will help to make this development more appealing. Green ash are generally tolerant of construction and should do well through the process. Also of note on the tree inventory is the absence of some existing trees along the south property line. At least 4 green ash, 2 of which are double -stemmed, are not shown on the tree inventory. These trees are located between the existing shed and the south property line. These trees plus trees #142-144 should be protected during construction and remain on site. Staff recommends that the silt fence be installed in front of all of these trees prior to grading in order to preserve them during development. When the building permit for Lot 1, Block 1 is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation. The applicant is expanding the pond on city property and in doing so will be removing a number of evergreen and deciduous trees. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant boulevard trees along Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive to replace the city trees lost. To create a partial buffer for Highway 101, staff recommends that evergreens be considered for the boulevard trees along Fox Drive. COMPLIANCE WrM ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setbacks: front, side, rear Code 15,000 90 125 30,10, 30 L 1, Blk 1 17,567 93 257 30, 10, 30 L 2, Blk 1 15,014 93 @ front setback line 189 30, 10, 30 L 3, Blk 1 15,015 101 @ front setback line 166.5 30, 10, 30 L 4, Blk 1 15,065 90@ front setback line 242.5 30, 10, 30 Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 11 Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setbacks: front, side, rear Code 15,000 90 125 30 109 30 L 5, Blk 1 15,041 90@ front setback line 191 30, 10, 30 L 6, Blk 1 15,014 90@ front setback line 152 30, 10, 30 ROW 27,945 Total 92,716 Average 1 15,452 @ Meets 90 foot width at the building setback line. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council grants final plat approval of Planning Case #05-08 creating 6 lots, with street width variances for a 50-foot right-of-way, as shown on construction plans and final plat received April 4, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing water service to the site from Highway 101 must be removed to the existing watermain. 2. The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. 3. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C, Subsection 1D, Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 4. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for dewatering. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation, shall be provided. 5. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. 6. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slone (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 12 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. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots 2and 3. 8. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. 9. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase H Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 11. Building Department conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Existing wells on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 12. Fire Marshal conditions: a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. b. A 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. c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. d. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 13. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be planted. b. A minimum of two 2 W' deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. Fox Den - Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 13 c. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species. d. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. e. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. f. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. g. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum, 5 overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs. The landscape plan must show 4 additional shrubs to meet the minimum requirements of the landscape ordinance. h. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved. i. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the city. A total of 4 trees shall be planted on the city property along Fox Drive. j. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north of the cul-de-sac on Lot 4. 14. On the Utility plan: a. Show all easements. b. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled. 15. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 16. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water -main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 17. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH. 18. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 April 25, 2005 Page 14 19. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. 20. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 21. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. 22. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees." ATTACHMENTS 1. Final Plat. giplan\2005 planning mm\05-08 fox den\rinal platdm r - - O °Z Z W U LL p F I ! � I p i d-+{{ 2}} fif + i i t !# tl ff �{I <0 N z l�d 'fFy ';t I t I '• !! ,� I la 1! ,t <> �N a tld 3! [tS fi I ; li �� liiat♦te' jl {!�# it � t �• 1 i � �! > Q i t f •aa fI I� f� a i! �`Ctf j` gglj'z j,! F- = Si °� lit U a ft�{{ it tat t d 1e 1 �' + •a �ift24 , f+ I {f I'f • i ttt i f +41 !1! EI: i; I I ai j 1 fit ii z w Q O U. I ' T tOl 'ON .IMH 31V1S " , t I 1` O;�i°' is 1 "`• �' 44 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 ; N I , I 1 1 11 I 1 I ! i I 31 t,a+ �f. 2 it� Ii' li+ -o CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES,IIIINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Fox Den — Planning Case 05-08 On March 15, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of a Preliminary Plat with variances to Subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots, Fox Den. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The property is currently zoned RSF, Single -Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (1.2 — 4.0 units per net acre). 3. The legal description of the property is attached as exhibit A. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) effects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; c) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; d) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; SCANNED A • • e) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; f) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and g) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2. Lack of adequate roads. 3. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. 5. Variances. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: a) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. b) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. c) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. d) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. 6. The planning report Planning Case 05-08, dated March 15, 2005, prepared by Sharmeen Al-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat with variances. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15'h day of March, 2005. CHANHASSENJ)ING COMMISSION BY: Uli Sacchet, Chairman 05-0Fr ' City Council Meeting — April , 2005 • Julie Fuecker: My name's Julie Fuecker, 6751 Manchester Drive. I live on Manchester Drive and it's going to be opening it up to that and I guess I'm not sure what you're talking about with easements. I'm very naive on this. We have a group of homes in this area here that have an easement that has a bunch of trees. Are you getting rid of that and widening that or what's the point of impact on these homes that butt up against the new development? Matt Saam: Sure. Your easements are not being affected. It'd be the easements on the property to the north of you. We're vacating or releasing the existing ones because they're being replaced with the development of the property by new easements and in fact wider ones. Julie Fuecker: Okay, so the one here in Woodridge Heights remain the same? Matt Saam: Correct. Julie Fuecker: Okay. Mayor Furlong: If anybody else would like to come forward on this topic. Interested parties. If not, without objection then I'll close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to council. Any additional questions for council on this matter? For staff. If not, is there any discussion from council? Hearing none, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Resolution#2005-41: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the resolution vacating the existing public drainage and utility easements as defined on the attached vacation description. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. DRIVE, WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, AND SOUTH OF PLEASANT VHsW ROAD): FOX DEN: APPLICANT 10 SPRING, INC., PLANNING CASE 05-08. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. 10 Spring Inc., the applicant is requesting to subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 lots. The site is just north of the Fox Hollow subdivision has direct access, or abuts Highway 101. Access to the site is via Fox Drive. Again that was a paper street that was put in place at the time that the subdivision, again as staff, when we look forward to how the property would be served in the future. We take that into consideration. There is an existing home on the site. That will be removed. The average lot size is 15,452 square feet so all the lots do meet the minimum standards as far as the zoning ordinance. The staff did have some concerns on Lots I and 4, and I'll show you the home plans L9 ECM HED City Council Meeting —1 11, 2005 • for those in just a minute. Again the majority of the site will be graded. As you can see the perimeter, working to save the existing trees. The stub street to the site, as I indicated, was proposed by staff at the time that this plat went in. That was done as a PUD. Little bit narrower streets and they have variances on the front yards. Because the existing right-of-way is in place, staff is recommending that the 50 foot remain. Although we are recommending, that we are recommending that variance, continuation of that. And then the pavement width would be the same. It's just the right-of-way that would be different. Some of the issues that came up on this plat would be the drainage. There's an existing pond. The Planning Commission did spend some time discussing whether or not that pond could be sized. In reviewing it with the applicant it appears that that's the appropriate place to put the pond. Again that's detailed on page 4 of your staff report. Looking at other locations, there's existing monument sign and some of those sort of things, and as you're aware with the storm water management plan, it's our goal to combine those and make the best of that site that's already there. Again our ordinance hasn't changed since the original Fox Hollow went into place and the City would then take ownership and maintenance of that. So there will be some water quantity and quality fees paid to that and then ultimately would take over the maintenance of that. The other area, I mentioned the street going with the 50 foot right-of-way. That is going to be our recommendation and the other, we'll be taking park fee extraction. There is a park, North Lotus just immediately adjacent to this property and inclose proximity. With that, I just want to take a minute to talk about the homes. One of the things that we noticed our lot size, our width requirement is 90 feet. In some of those areas where they're right at 90 feet we start to get concerned because when that ordinance was put in place, as we've discussed with the Planning Commission, it was typical to have a 2 car garage. Now everything that we see is a 3 car garage, so we wanted to make sure that a reasonable sized home could be placed on that. So if you look at Lots 1 and 4, which were the ones that were right at the 90. We wanted to make sure, so the applicant did show us the house plan that they would propose for those lots, and again that does meet. Again it has a 3 car garage, which we believe is the acceptable kind of size that would be built for the community right now. So those lots do work. We have had some recent subdivisions, some smaller ones have gone in that for some reason a homebuyer wanted to increase the square footage and we did not support the variance and those were replatted to accommodate the bigger house size. Again, it's not our goal to put a lot in place to have variances. We would consider that self created because this is a brand new subdivision. So we're relying on the developer that these would be the similar size style home that would fit on those lots. Again there was some concerns from one of the neighbors, and I'd just like to take a minute to go through that. This neighbor right here again. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, could you point again. Kate Aanenson: This neighbor right here. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: In existing Fox Hollow subdivision. This did go to the Planning Commission on March 15'h. There is some of the records that we addressed during that meeting but there was some additional information. One was regarding the lot width. Why couldn't it be 24 feet? There was a lot of information specifically given from public safety regarding, if you parked on 10 n3o"A :8 City Council Meeting — April, 2005 the street, those sort of things, it would really prohibit because it is a public street to go that narrow, so the current design at 31 feet is our standard and we believe that that's the appropriate width for that area. There was also a question regarding boulevard plantings. The neighbor did want to look at some evergreen trees, again for sight line reasons. If you look at where that Fox Hollow Drive goes all the way to North Lotus Park. Turning movements through there. We haven't approved street trees, evergreens for boulevard. If we do, we'd look at pines would be the one permitted. The spruces. Again they're fuller on the bottom and they cause some sight distance and snowplowing storage so if the City Council did want to approve that as an alternative we would recommend that they be pines. Again provide some additional screening. Planting width. There was some indication that the staff mis-informed, and I think it's how it's interpreted and we interpret it that the, and we have always interpreted that there's a minimum tree every 30 feet. Again, they could be spaced such but we found that putting them too close together actually does detriment in the long run as far as the growth, so we'd recommend that. There was a retaining wall originally proposed on the site and that retaining wall has been removed. You do not have the current construction... There's a little bit more detail on that regarding some blockage on the other side. That was field investigated and it appears that there might be some outlet control measures that need to be fixed on the Eden Prairie side. That contact has been made to see, to get them to fix that portion of, that may be causing problems. Again that will be further delineated and described in the final plat. And ultimately there was a question regarding a land survey. Some errors. I think that was just described and the notes that were described on the survey, but we believe that they close appropriately and there's no discrepancy. Just some call outs in certain elements of the survey themselves. So with that we are recommending approval, as did the Planning Commission, with the conditions outlined with the variance for the right-of-way, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Kate, you talked about the utility pond will be taken over. Kate Aanenson: This one, correct. Councilman Labatt: Which one? Kate Aanenson: This part right here. Councilman Labatt: Alright. The one that's existing right now. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It's existing right now. It would be enlarged. Councilman Labatt: What's our long term exposure or expense as far as, the fees we're going to be taking in, are we going to be covering ourselves? Kate Aanenson: correct. Councilman Labatt: For how long? 11 City Council Meeting — • 1 11, 2005 • Kate Aanenson: That's the whole storm water management plan maintenance and that's part of what we're doing with the SEH update. Getting all those inlet/outlet structure points. And that will be part of the management plan, what ponds we need to be maintaining at what time point. Point in time, correct. Councilman Labatt: Well what do you foresee as far as maintenance or. Kate Aanenson: We already have quite a few of them on a maintenance schedule. Some of the older ones. Maybe Matt wants to address... Matt Saam: Sure, Councilman Labatt. As far as maintenance, what we're talking about is typically once every 5 years we might go in and remove a sand delta, which is usually a few feet in front of the inlet apron to the pond. You know sediment that gets in the storm sewer then washes into the pond. It typically forms like a sand bar near the inlet to the pond. That's what usually needs to be dredged out. With this development however, because they're increasing the size of the pond, they're going to be draining it all down, as I understand, and I think at that time we'll be using that, since the pond will be drained, now using that time to dredge out the pond to make sure it's operating effectively. Kate Aanenson: It's a pretty old pond, yeah. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff? Couple here. There was, you answered most of my questions in the staff report, so I appreciate that. The Planning Commission, after hearing the public hearing comments added a few additions to the requirements under item 12 I believe. Some of these you've addressed. Some of them are more a staff work with developer to explore this. I guess my question is, as you look at this and as we're considering this for the preliminary plat this evening, have some of these already been taken care of? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: ...if I understand your thoughts on 0) through (m). Kate Aanenson: Sure. As I indicated, looking at the pond location, that is the best place for the pond location. Trying to preserve some of those trees. It's counter productive to pond versus trees. Mayor Furlong: So just for expediency, it would be staff's recommendation that you've done this already? Kate Aanenson: Correct, yes. We have looked at all those issues. Mayor Furlong: You have looked at all these issues that were addressed, okay. 12 ' • City Council Meeting — April 11, 2005 11 Kate Aanenson: And it goes specifically back to the evergreens on the street. If we wanted evergreens instead of a deciduous, just the recommendation on the species type. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I think that would fall within this proposed condition here, is getting staffs recommendation on anything different. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff. At this time. No? If not, is the applicant here? Is there any items you'd like to address to the council. Scott Rosenlund: Good evening. I'm Scott Rosenlund, 622 West 82°d, Chaska and with 10 Spring Inc. Part of the developer. And no, I don't have anything to add but if you did have questions our engineering firm, Cara Otto is here too to address any questions you might have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Very good. Thank you sir. Appreciate you being here. With that I'll bring it back to council for discussion. Any discussion on this? Councilman Peterson: No, I think it's straight forward and I think staff has worked with the applicant in making a better project, along with Planning Commission so I'd recommend approval. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anything? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Peterson that it's pretty straight forward. The Planning Commission did a great job of ironing out all the wrinkles and no problem. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I don't disagree at all with my counterparts. Mayor Furlong: Okay. The one thing I was checking out too was the issue that Councilman Labatt raised earlier with regard to the ownership of that pond. I think what we're doing is we're accepting the improvements to that pond, but the city already owns it. Kate Aanenson: The city owns it, that's correct. Mayor Furlong: The city owns it now and is responsible for the current maintenance on it so we're going to allow the developer to improve the pond and then we'll accept those improvements. Kate Aanenson: Yes, and also... Mayor Furlong: And do everything else we've talked about. Kate Aanenson: Correct, and we're also getting storm water quantity and quality fees as a part of it. 13 City Council Meeting — April 11, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. No, I would concur with my fellow council members. I think the issues that were raised at the public hearing, the Planning Commission and staff worked on a number of those and while there may be differences of opinion, I think this is a reasonable proposal for the property and so I would support the preliminary plat. Any other discussion? Hearing none, is there a motion? Councilman Labatt: Move approval for staff's recommendation. Mayor Furlong: For the staff report? There's no rezoning required on this at all so it would just be, you're moving the preliminary plat motion beginning on page 10 of the staff report? Councilman Labatt: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #05-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a variance for a 50 foot right-of-way width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto Associates stamped "Received February 11, 2005", subject to the following conditions: 1. The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. 2. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C, Subsection ID, Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 3. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for dewatering. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation, shall be provided. 4. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared -end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: 14 City Council Meeting — April 1, 2005 Tyne of SloM Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 6. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots 2and 3. 7. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. 8. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. Building Department conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Existing wells on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 11. Fire Marshal conditions: a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. b. A 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. c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. d. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 15 City Council Meeting — April 11, 2005 12. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be planted. b. A minimum of two 2 W' deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. c. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species. d. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. e. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. f. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan will be required prior to final approval. g. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum, 5 overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs. h. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved. i. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the city. j. Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the north of the pond and consider alternate design on the pond using available space. k. Developer will work with staff to consider buffer plantings around the pond. 1. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north of the cul-de-sac on Lot 4. in. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens versus deciduous for buffering purposes. 13.On the Utility plan: a. Show all easements. b. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled. 14. Add the following City detail plates: 1005, 2001, 5300 and 5301. 15. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 16. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water -main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 16 City Council Meeting — Apri• , 2005 17. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH. 18. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 19. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. 21. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. 22. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 23. Staff is recommending that a small (F-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right- of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. 24. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. 25. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I think the only thing I'd like to bring up is that the farmers market is going to happen again starting June 4m so let's start advertising that and hopefully it will get bigger and better and better attended than last year so we can continue to grow that. 17 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1160 FAX (952) 227-1170 TO: Campbell Knutson,PA 317Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Drive Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 5- 2(, -d5 05-10 ATTENTION Sue Nelson RE: Fox Den ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 5/24/05 Signed Full Size Final Plat M lars 1 5/24/05 Receipt of City Admin. fees 1 5/24/05 Signed Development Contract 1 5/24/05 1" = 200 'scale m lar reduction of the plat 1 3/10/05 Title Work / ALTA Commitment THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ® For Review and Recording ❑ FORBIDS DUE ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints REMARKS Sue, here are the items to record for the Fox Den project. The City has received the required admin. fees and Letter of Credit. If you have questions or need anything else, please call. Thanks COPY TO: Paul Oehme Sharmeen AI-Jaff Cara Otto, Otto Associates Dan Remer SIGNE0.J/�� Bill Bement, (952) 227-1166 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN Payee: FOX DEN DEV Date: 05/24/2005 Receipt Number: DW / Clerk: DANIELLE MN 55317 ADMIN FEES 05-10 FOX DEN Time: 11:35am 6174 ITEM REFERENCE AMOUNT ------------------------------------------- ADMFE ADMIN FEES 05-10 FOX DEN 3% OF PUB IMP 5,920.00 FINAL PLAT 450.00 RECORD FEES 100.00 PARK FEES 20,000.00 SWMP FEES 8,020.00 GIS FEES 85.00 Total: --------------- 34,575.00 Check 87240 34,575.00 Change: --------------- 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FOX DEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) TABLE OF CONTENTS SPECIAL PROVISIONS PAGE 1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL............................................................................SP-1 2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL........................................................................SP-1 3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS............................................................................................SP-1 4. IMPROVEMENTS........................................................................................................SP-2 5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE.........................................................................................SP-2 6. SECURITY ....................................................................................................................SP-2 7. NOTICE .......... .. ..................................... ..... ................. ..... .... ....................................... ..SP-3 8. OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS ........ ........................................................................ SP-3 9. GENERAL CONDITIONS............................................................................................SP-6 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. RIGHT TO PROCEED.................................................................................................GC-1 2. PHASED DEVELOPMENT.........................................................................................GC-1 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS................................................................................GC-1 4. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS......................................................................GC-I 5. IMPROVEMENTS.......................................................................................................GC-1 6. IRON MONUMENTS..................................................................................................GC-2 7. LICENSE......................................................................................................................GC-2 8. SITE EROSION CONTROL........................................................................................GC-2 8A. EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING OR OTHER BUILDING....................................................................................................................GC-2 9. CLEANUP...................................................................................................................GC-3 10. ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS....................................GC-3 11. CLAIMS........................................................................................................................GC-3 12. PARK DEDICATION..................................................................................................GC-3 13. LANDSCAPING..........................................................................................................GC-3 14. WARRANTY...............................................................................................................GC-4 15. LOT PLANS.................................................................................................................GC-4 16. EXISTING ASSESSMENTS.......................................................................................GC-4 17. HOOK-UP CHARGES.................................................................................................GC-4 18. PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING.....................................................................................GC-4 19. SIGNAGE...................................................................................................................:.GC-5 20. HOUSE PADS..............................................................................................................GC-5 21. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS.................................................................................GC-5 22. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT.........................................................................................GC-6 22. MISCELLANEOUS A. Construction Trailers........................................................................................GC-6 B. Postal Service....................................................................................................GC-6 C. Third Parties......................................................................................................GC-7 D. Breach of Contract............................................................................................GC-7 E. Severability.......................................................................................................GC-7 F. Building Permits...............................................................................................GC-7 G. Waivers/Amendments.......................................................................................GC-7 H. Release..............................................................................................................GC-7 I. Insurance........................................................................................................... GC-7 I. Remedies...........................................................................................................GC-7 K. Assignability.....................................................................................................GC-8 L. Construction Hours...........................................................................................GC-8 M. Noise Amplification..........................................................................................GC-8 N. Access...............................................................................................................GC-8 O. Street Maintenance............................................................................................GC-8 P. Storm Sewer Maintenance................................................................................GC-8 Q. Soil Treatment Systems....................................................................................GC-9 R. Variances...........................................................................................................GC-9 S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations......................................GC-9 T. Proof of Title.....................................................................................................GC-9 U. Soil Conditions.................................................................................................GC-9 V. Soil Correction..................................................................................................GC-9 W. Haul Routes.........................................................................................................GC-10 X. Development Signs..............................................................................................GC-10 Y. Constriction Plans...............................................................................................GC-10 Z. As -Built Lot Surveys ...........................................................................................GC-10 ii CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) FOX DEN AGREEMENT dated May 23, 2005 by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and, FOX DEN DEV, LLC, a limited liability company (the 'Developer'). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Fox Den (referred to in this Contract as the "plat'). The land is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A". 2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 30 days after the City Council approves the plat. 3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A: Final plat approved April 25, 2005, prepared by Otto Associates. Plan B: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated March 25, 2005, prepared by Otto Associates. Plan C: Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated March 25, 2005, prepared by Otto Associates. Plan D: Landscape Plan dated March 25, 2005, prepared by Otto Associates. SP-1 4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: A. Sanitary Sewer System B. Water System C. Storm Water Drainage System D. Streets E. Concrete Curb and Gutter F. Street Lights G. Site Grading/Restoration H. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV) I. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments J. Surveying and Staking K. Landscaping L. Erosion Control 5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements by November 15, 2005. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the form attached hereto, from a bank acceptable to the City, or cash escrow ("security") for $226,952. The amount of the security was calculated as 110% of the following: Site Grading/Restoration $ 48,285.00 Sanitary Sewer $ 13,582.00 Watermain $ 25,920.00 Storm Sewer, Drainage System, including cleaning and maintenance $ 30,578.00 Streets $ 56,092.00 Street lights and signs $ 600.00 Erosion control $ 4,325.00 Engineering, surveying, and inspection $ 17,938.00 Landscaping $ 9,000.00 TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $ 206,320.00 SP-2 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The security shall be subject to the approval of the City. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the terms of this Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the security may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid, but in no case shall the security be reduced to a point less than 10% of the original amount until (1) all improvements have been completed, (2) iron monuments for lot comers have been installed, (3) all financial obligations to the City satisfied, (4) the required "record" plans have been received by the City, (5) a warranty security is provided, and (6) the public improvements are accepted by the City. 7. Notice. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Scott Rosenlund FOX DEN DEV, I I.0 622 W. 82°d Street Chaska, MN 55318 Phone: 952-215-8535 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100. 8. Other Special Conditions. A. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $226,952 and pay an administration fee of $34,575. B. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the construction plans to meet City standards. C. The existing water service to the site from Highway 101 must be removed to the existing watermain. D. The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. E. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C, Subsection 1D, Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. SP-3 F. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for dewatering. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation, shall be provided. G. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. H. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 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. I. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots 2 and 3. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed K. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021. L. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase 11 Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. M. Building Department conditions: 1. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued 2. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. WO] 3. Existing wells on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. N. Fire Marshal conditions: 1. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 2. 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 #94. 3. 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. 4. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. O. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions: 1. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be planted. 2. A minimum of two 21/2" deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. 3. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species. 4. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. 5. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 6. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. 7. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum, 5 overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs. The landscape plan must show 4 additional shrubs to meet the minimum requirements of the landscape ordinance. 8. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved. 9. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the city. A total of 4 trees shall be planted on the city property along Fox Drive. 10. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north of the cul-de-sac on Lot 4. P. On the Utility plan: 1. Show all easements. SP-5 2. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled. Q. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. R. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water -main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. S. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH. T. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. U. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. V. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. W. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. X. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees. 9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract are attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. SP-6 (SEAL) RV N:11 Y Wi)WU l i v `2l�i]I�GI (ss. CKI1111►Y0111110;ayO S CITY OF�CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor AND: 9,7v A -h d Gerhardt, City Manager FOX DEN DEV, LLC BY: GLe�-• Scott Rosenlund, President The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this A 4 aay of 2005, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. A �V. KAREN J. ENGELHARDT STATE OF MINNESOTA) . Notary Public -Minnesota COUNTY OF �r v' __; My Comm ssbn Exp es Jan 3,, 20,( The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thise2'0' day of 2005, by Scott Rosenlund, President of FOX DEN DEV, LLC, a limited liability c pany, or behalf of the company. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 NOTARY "' =4 JEAN M. STECKLING y otary Public -Minnesota s ..:i" ,y�C rnlssion Jen 31,'N09 SP-7 EXHIBIT "A" TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: The South 240.00 feet of the North 451.00 feet of the East 503.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. mom: MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT KleinBank which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this 24thday of May 20 05 . K1einBank STATE OF M NNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF Carver The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24 th day of May 2005. by Alan W. Henninger Vice President o''1E/I NOTARY rJJBIJC Ri' No DANA A MEYER tary Public Minnesota =DAN E+�Iftl JYuay 31, 2010 DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 SP-9 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. _ Date: TO: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Sir or Madam We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $ , available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank. The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. , dated 2 , of (Name of Bank) b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) on or before 4:00 p.m. on November 30, 2 This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty- five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. FISI Its SP-10 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) EXHHfIT "B" ►I DI II I I Y II►`b9 1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Title's Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City Engineer has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer may proceed. 2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary plat, the City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges for sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks. 3. Preliminary Plat Status. If the plat is a phase of a multi -phased preliminary plat, the preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless final platted into lots and blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after preliminary plat approval. 4. Changes in Official Controls. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Contract. 5. Improvements. The improvements specified in the Special Provisions of this Contract shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and plans and specifications which have been prepared and signed by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and other pertinent GC-1 agencies before proceeding with construction. The City will, at the Developers expense, have one or more construction inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer shall also provide a qualified inspector to perform site inspections on a daily basis. Inspector qualifications shall be submitted in writing to the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its project engineer/inspector to respond to questions from the City Inspector(s) and to make periodic site visits to satisfy that the construction is being performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the engineers design. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. 6. Iron Monuments. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, all monuments must be correctly placed in the ground in accordance with Minn. Star. § 505.02, Subd. 1. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed 7. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with plat development. 8. Site Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion at the Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developers and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. Erosion control needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored, even if construction has been completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion control, the City will authorize the removal of the erosion control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. The Developer shall remove and dispose of the erosion control measures. 8a. Erosion Control During Construction of a Dwelling or Other Building. Before a building permit is issued for construction of a dwelling or other building on a lot, a $500.00 cash escrow or letter of credit per lot shall also be furnished to the City to guarantee compliance with City Code § 20-94. GC-2 9. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 10. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance by the City of the work and construction required by this Contract, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a representative of the contractor, and a representative of the Developers engineer will make a final inspection of the work with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and the Developer and his engineer shall submit a written statement to the City Engineer certifying that the project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The appropriate contractor waivers shall also be provided. Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City Council resolution. 11. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from laborers, materialmen, or others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial guarantees posted with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety (90) days before the security required by this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attomeys' fees. 12. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay full park dedication fees in conjunction with the installation of the plat improvements. The park dedication fees shall be the current amount in force at the time of final platting pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions. 13. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Plan D. Trees which can cause a public nuisance, such as cotton producing trees, or can be a public hazard, such as bug infestation or weak bark, are prohibited. The minimum tree size shall be two and one-half (21h) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the boulevard (area between curb and property line). In addition to any sod required as a part of the erosion control plan, Plan B, the Developer or lot purchaser shall sod the boulevard area and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil as a base. Seed or sod shall also be placed on all disturbed areas of the lot. If these improvements are not in place at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested, a financial guarantee of $750.00 in the form of cash or letter of credit shall be provided to the City. These conditions must then be complied with within two (2) months after the certificate of occupancy issued, except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued between October 1 through May 1 these conditions must be complied with by the following July 1st. Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will be conducted by City staff to verify satisfactory completion of all conditions. City staff will conduct inspections of GC-3 incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted from the escrow fund for each inspection. After satisfactory inspection, the financial guarantee shall be returned. If the requirements are not satisfied, the City may use the security to satisfy the requirements. The City may also use the escrowed funds for maintenance of erosion control pursuant to City Code Section 20-94 or to satisfy any other requirements of this Contract or of City ordinances. These requirements supplement, but do not replace, specific landscaping conditions that may have been required by the City Council for project approval. 14. Warranty. The Developer wan -ants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the improvement, or 2) a letter of credit for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements. A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City acceptance of the work. B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to two (2) years from the date of final written acceptance. C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is eighteen (18) months following acceptance by the City. 15. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acceptable Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control including silt fences, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot for review and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from buildings and that tree removal is consistent with development plans and City Ordinance. 16. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be re -spread against the plat in accordance with City standards. 17. Hook-up Charges. The Developer also acknowledges overall sanitary sewer and water trunk availability to the site and the hook-up charges established by the City as reasonable compensation for oversizing costs previously incurred, as well as, long-term maintenance. Said hook-up charges are collectible at time of building permit unless a written request is made to assess the costs over a four year term at the rates in effect at time of application. 18. Public Street Lighting. The Developer shall have installed and pay for public street lights in accordance with City standards. The public street lights shall be accepted for City ownership and maintenance at the same time that the public street is accepted for ownership and maintenance. A plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's approval prior to the installation. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $300.00 for each street GC-4 light installed in the plat. The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity and maintaining each public street light for twenty (20) months. 19. Signage. All street signs, traffic signs, and wetland monumentation required by the City as a part of the plat shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the Developer. 20. House Pads. The Developer shall promptly furnish the City "as -built" plans indicating the amount, type and limits of fill on any house pad location. 21. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the installation of the plat improvements. This fee is to cover the cost of City Staff time and overhead for items such as review of construction documents, preparation of the Development Contract, monitoring constriction progress, processing pay requests, processing security reductions, and final acceptance of improvements. This fee does not cover the City's cost for construction inspections. The fee shall be calculated as follows: i) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than $500,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs; if the cost of the construction of public improvements is between $500,000 and $1,000,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs for the first $500,000 and two percent (2%) of construction costs over $500,000; if the cost of the construction of public improvements is over $1,000,000, two and one-half percent (2'h%) of construction costs for the fast $1,000,000 and one and one-half percent (1'/2%) of construction costs over $1,000,000. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the City a fee based upon construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon actual construction costs. The cost of public improvements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special Provisions. B. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City for providing construction inspections. This cost will be periodically billed directly to the Developer based on the actual progress of the construction. Payment shall be due in accordance with Article 20E of this Agreement. C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees GC-5 for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. D. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attomeys' fees. E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges and special assessments may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availability charges ("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees. G. Private Utilities. The Developer shall have installed and pay for the installation of electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television service in conjunction with the overall development improvements. These services shall be provided in accordance with each of the respective franchise agreements held with the City. H. The developer shall pay the City a fee established by City Council resolution, to reimburse the City for the cost of updating the City's base maps, GIS data base files, and converting the plat and record drawings into an electronic format. 22. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is fast given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 23. Miscellaneous. A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on -site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre -construction meeting for installation of public improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the local Postmasters request. VI C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract. The City is not a guarantor of the Developer's obligations under this Contract. The City shall have no responsibility or liability to lot purchasers or others for the City's failure to enforce this Contract or for allowing deviations from it. D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. The City may also issue a stop work order halting all plat development until the breach has been cured and the City has received satisfactory assurance that the breach will not reoccur. E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. F. Building Permits. Building permits will not be issued in the plat until sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer have been installed, tested, and accepted by the City, and the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the site graded and revegetated in accordance with Plan B of the development plans. G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. H. Release. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the Developer's request the City Manager will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the issuance of such a certificate, individual lot owners may make as written request for a certificate applicable to an individual lot allowing a minimum of ten (10) days for processing. I. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $500,000 for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. J. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, expressed or implied, now or GC-7 hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. K. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. L. Construction Hours. Construction hours for required improvements under this contract shall be from 7:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Under emergency conditions, this limitation may be waived by the consent of the City Engineer. Any approved work performed after dark shall be adequately illuminated. If construction occurs outside of the permitted construction hours, the Developer shall pay the following administrative penalties: First violation Second violation Third & subsequent violations $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 All site development and construction must cease far seven (7) calendar days M. Noise Amplification. The use of outdoor loudspeakers, bullhoms, intercoms, and similar devices is prohibited in conjunction with the construction of homes, buildings, and the improvements required under this contract. The administrative penalty for violation of construction hours shall also apply to violation of the provisions in this paragraph. N. Access. All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway improvements shall be the responsibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat. O. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until streets within the plat are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to detours. If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface drainage. The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to approve or reject the request. The City shall not be responsible for reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of snow plowing operations. The provision of City snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of the streets by the City. P. Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for cleaning and maintenance of the storm sewer system (including ponds, pipes, catch basins, culverts and swales) within the plat and the adjacent off -site storm sewer system that receives storm water from the plat. The Developer shall follow all instructions it receives from the City concerning the cleaning and RM maintenance of the storm sewer system. The Developer's obligations under this paragraph shall end two (2) years after the public street and storm drainage improvements in the plat have been accepted by the City. Twenty percent (20%) of the storm sewer costs, shown under section 6 of the special provisions of this contract, will be held by the City for the duration of the 2-year maintenance period. Q. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are fast provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit. R. Variances. By approving the plat, the Developer represents that all lots in the plat are buildable without the need for variances from the City's ordinances. S. Compliance with Laws Ordinances. and ReMilations. In the development of the plat the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities: 1. City of Chanhassen; 2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions; 3. United States Army Corps of Engineers; 4. WatershedDistrict(s); 5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions. T. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers to enter into this Development Contract. U. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or pollutants were caused to be there by the City. V. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. On lots which have no fill material a soils report from a qualified soils engineer is not required unless the City's building inspection department determines from observation that there may be a soils problem. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi -lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City IWAM issues a building permit for the lot. On lots with fill material that have been custom graded, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City inspects the foundation for a building on the lot. W. Haul Routes. Bluff Creek Drive from Trunk Highway 212 to Pioneer Trail (CSAH 14) may not be used by the Developer, the Developer's contractors or subcontractors as a haul route for the import or export of soil, construction material, construction equipment or construction debris, or any other purpose. X. Development Signs. The Developer shall post a six foot by eight foot development sign in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5313 at each entrance to the project. The sign shall be in place before construction of the required improvements commences and shall be removed when the required improvements are completed, except for the final lift of asphalt on streets. The signs shall contain the following information: project name, name of developer, developer's telephone number and designated contact person, allowed construction hours. Y. Construction Plans. Upon final plat approval, the developer shall provide the City with two complete sets of full-size construction plans and four sets of 11"xl7" reduced construction plan sets and three sets of specifications. Within sixty (60) days after the completion of the utility improvements and base course pavement and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar as -built plans, (2) two complete full-size sets of blue linelpaper as -built plans, (3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets, (4) location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, (5) location stationing and swing ties of all utility stubs including draintile cleanouts, (6) bench mark network, (7) digital file of as -built plans in both .dxf & .tif format (the .dxf file must be tied to the current county coordinate system), and (8) digital file of utility tie sheets in either .doc or .tif format. The Developer is required to submit the final plat in electronic format. Z. As -Built Lot Surveys. An as -built lot survey will be required on all lots prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. The as -built lot survey must be prepared, signed, and dated by a Registered Land Surveyor. Rev. 3131/04 GC-10 t va TITLE MARK Qjihe C�ym6ol o f dxceUence in Tide (E§ezviem 5/13/2005 Fox Den Dev, LLC 622 West 82°d Street Chaska, MN 55318 RE: 20050035rm IIINZ1IVA.Y/012MM&PICOMN M.9 MAM117:111Wlei 013M Owner's Policy PLEASE KEEP THIS OWNER'S POLICY WITH YOUR OTHER IMPORTANT PAPERS (I.E. A SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX OR SOME OTHER FIRE PROOF CONTAINER IN YOUR HOME). You may wish to make a photocopy and keep it readily accessible. If we are required to furnish a copy to you or someone on your behalf, we will charge a $25.00 processing fee. Sincerely, Joyce S. Litfin 952-442-7739 Waconia Office: 121 West Main Street, Suite 200, Waconia, MN 55387-1023 (952) 442-7777 Fax (952) 442-1360 Chaska Office: 112 West Second Street, P.O. Box 67, Chaska, MN 55318-0067 (952) 442-7777 Fax (952) 442-1360 Belle Plaine Office: 215 North Meridian, Belle Plaine, MN 56011 (952) 442-7777 Fax (952) 442-1360 Production Office: 121 West Main Street, Ste 200, Waconia, MN 55387-1023 (952) 442-7777 Fax (952) 448-4269 ALTA Owner's Policy Schedule B 1992 SCHEDULE B Exceptions from Coverage Order Number: 20050035 Policy No.: 0-9993-3652399 This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Taxes due and payable in the second half of the year 2005 and years subsequent thereto. 6. Special assessments not yet due and payable. 7. A permanent easement for public trailway purposes over, under and across the West 5 feet of the East 38 feet of the above -described property. Together with a permanent easement for public trailway purposes over, under and across the West 5 feet of the East 43 feet of the South 60 feet of the above -described property. 8. The above easements were created by Final Certificate as to Parcel No. 29 - Roger B. Bongard, dated August 25, 2003, recorded on September 15, 2003, as Document No. 366355. 9. Reservation of all minerals and mineral rights by the State of Minnesota. 10. Unpaid municipal utilities will become liens and will be certified to future taxes. 11. Standard exceptions 1 thru 4, Schedule B, are hereby deleted. 12. A Mortgage given by Fox Den Dev, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, in favor of KleinBank dated May 11, 2005; recorded May 12, 2005 as Document No. 413967 in the office of the Carver County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota, securing notes in the original amount of $751,000.00 and $780,000.00. An Assignment of Leases and Rents between Fox Den Dev, LLC, a Limited Liability Company and K1einBank; dated May 11, 2005; recorded May 12, 2005 as Document No. 413968 in the office of the Carver County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY Schedule B of this Policy consists of 2 page(s) Exceptions from Coverage STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY Schedule B of this Policy consists of 2 page(s) ALTA Owner's Policy Schedule A 1992 SCHEDULE A Order Number: 20050035 Date of Policy: May 12, 2005 at 11:30 A.M. Amount of Insurance: $550,000.00 1. Name of Insured: Fox Den Dev, LLC, a Limited Liability Company 2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this policy is: FEE SIMPLE 3. Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in: Policy No.: 0-9993-3652399 Fox Den Dev, LLC, a Limited Liability Company under the laws of Minnesota 4. The land referred to in this policy is located in the County of Carver, State of Minnesota, and described as follows: South 240 feet of North 451 feet of East 503 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY Schedule A of this Policy consists of 1 page(s) ALTA Commitment 1982 Schedule A SCHEDULE A Commitment No.: 20050035rm Abstract Property Inquiries should be directed to: Title Mark 121 West Main Street Waconia, MN 55387-1023 1. Effective Date: March 10, 2005 at 7:00 AM 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount of Insurance (a) ALTA Owner's $550,000.00 Proposed Insured: Fox Den Dev, LLC, a Limited Liability Company (b) ALTA Loan $1,531,000.00 Proposed Insured: K1einBank, its successors and/or assigns. and/or its successors and assigns. 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is fee simple and is at the effective date hereof vested in: Roger Bongard 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is located in the County of Carver, State of Minnesota, and described as follows: South 240 feet of North 451 feet of East 503 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. Commonly known as: 6500 Chanhassen Road, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY ALTA Commitment 1982 Schedule BI SCHEDULE B - Section I Requirements Order Number: 20050035rm 1. Warranty Deed from Roger Bongard and spouse, if any, to 10Spring, Inc. Provide Title Mark with a Well Disclosure Certificate or the conveyance documents must contain the following language: THE SELLER CERTIFIES THAT THE SELLER DOES NOT KNOW OF ANY WELLS ON THE DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY. The subject property is located within the SE Quarter of the NE Quarter of Section 01, Township 116, Range 23. 2. If there is a private septic system, it is necessary to obtain certification to be submitted to Carver County that the private septic system is compliant. 3. On all transactions in which a Certificate of Real Estate Value is filed, Title Mark must be supplied with the seller's and buyer's social security numbers or tax identification numbers. 4. A properly executed mortgage from 10Spring, Inc. to First National Bank of Waconia. 5. Identification will be required from all parties required to sign documents at closing. 6. An inspection of the premises discloses vacant land. For purposes of obtaining priority, we require no visible improvements on the site through closing, subsequent recording of documents and our priority pictures. Please call our office for confirmation of our completion of these objectives prior to commencing any construction work. 7. Certificate of Survey and Topographic Survey dated January 27, 2005 by Otto Associates Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. shows an encroachment by the chain link fence located on the neighboring parcel to the Northwest of the subject property onto the Northwest corner of the subject property. 8. Title vested in Roger Bongard on July 12, 1985, per Deed Document No. 73576. 9. A plat drawing will follow by endorsement. If the plat drawing is not received within five working days of receipt of this Commitment, you are requested to please contact Lois Green at 952-442-7764 or LAGreen@TitleMark.com. We reserve the right to make further requirements/exceptions based upon our examination of the said plat drawing. NOTE: The closer assigned is Roseanne Malberg who can be reached at Direct Dial 952-442-7774, Direct Fax 952-442-7704 or via e-mail at rmalberg@titlemark.com. 5TEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY File No.: 20050035 EXHIBIT A South 240 feet of North 451 feet of East 503 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. ALTA Conunitment 1982 Schedule BI SCHEDULE B - Section I Requirements Order Number: 20050035rm STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY ALTA Commitment 1982 Schedule B Section B SCHEDULE B - Section II Exceptions Order Number: 20050035 STANDARD EXCEPTIONS A: Facts which would be disclosed by a comprehensive survey of the premises described herein. B: Rights and claims of parties in possession. C: Mechanics', Contractors', or Materialmens' liens and lien claims, if any, where no notice appears of record. D: Any change in title occurring subsequent to the effective date of this Commitment and prior to the date of issuance of the Title Policy. E: Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. F. Reservation of minerals or mineral rights appearing in the public records. IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS, CONDITIONS, STIPULATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED HEREIN AND IN THE COMPANY'S USUAL FORM OF POLICY, THE LAND REFERRED TO IS, AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. There are no levied or pending special assessments. NOTE: We certify that the above information is current as of the effective date of the commitment as shown in Schedule A. NOTE: Any final Owner's policy issued by this Company will NOT INSURE that any charges for water bills, weed, grass, garbage or debris removal, municipal hookup or any other fees imposed by the municipality have been paid. INFORMATIONAL NOTE: A check should be made with the local government unit to see when the specials payable for 2005 are fixed. There may be some additional interest charges for the calendar year 2005 if they are not paid by the local government unit time deadline. 2. Taxes payable for the year 2005 and any special assessments certified thereto, are not yet available. Taxes payable for the year 2004 in the amount of $3,074.00, are paid. (Base tax amount $3,053.00) (Tax No. 25-0011900.) NOTE: Carver County tax records indicate property is non -homestead for taxes payable in the year 2004. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY Schedule 1311 of this Comntitment consists of 2 page(s) ALTA Commitment 1982 Schedule B Section B SCHEDULE B - Section II Exceptions Order Number: 20050035 3. A permanent easement for public [railway purposes over, under and across the West 5 feet of the East 38 feet of the above -described property. Together with a permanent easement for public trailway purposes over, under and across the West 5 feet of the East 43 feet of the South 60 feet of the above -described property. 4. Final Certificate as to Parcel No. 29 Roger B. Bongard dated August 25, 2003, recorded on September 15, 2003 as Document No. 366355. Said Final Certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOTE: The commitment was typed by bws/sjn/lag on March 28, 2005. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY Schedule BB of this Commitment consists of 2 page(s) RURhtNRiER Minnesota Rural Water Association 217-12th Avenue SE Elbow Lake, MN 56531 t,tzir,r,rx,tx:r :tr fr fri;i;sx;tx is ,r y: rx 3—DIGIT 553'_::.• A453 S3 P1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RELLEY JANE S RECME!1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN _ PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0147 JUN 3 0 2005 I�I�Lil�lu�llm�III��JIInm�IhhdLiddnlh��L11�J -"'" ENGINEERING DEPT. You know you are living in 2005 when... 1. You accidentally enter your password on the microwave. 2. You haven't played solitaire with real cards in years. 3. You have a fist of 15 phone numbers to reach your family of 3. 4. You e-mail the person who works at the desk next to you. 5. Your reason for not staying in touch with family and friends is that they don't have e-mail addresses. 6. You go home after a long day at work and still answer the phone in a business manner. 7. You make phone calls from home and accidentally dial "9" to get an outside line. 8. You've sat at the same desk for four years and worked for three different compani 10. You learn about your redundancy on the 10 o'clock news. 11. Your boss doesn't have the ability to do your job. 12. You pull up in your own driveway and use your cell phone to see if anyone is ho 13. Every commercial on television has a website at the bottom of the screen. 14. Leaving the house without your cell phone, which you didn't have the first 20 of your life, is now a cause for panic and you turn around to go and get it. 15. You get up in the morning and go online before getting your coffee. 16. You start tilting your head sideways to smile.:) 17. You're reading this and nodding and laughing. 18. Even worse, you know exactly whom you are going to forward this fist. 19. You are too busy to notice there was no #9 on this list. 20. You actually looked back to check that there wasn't a #9 on this list. AND now you are laughing at yourself! Go on, forward this list to your friends... you know you «ant to! MEMORANDUM �p TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager �p �l l l OF FROM: Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer DATE: July 11, 2005 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJ: Approve Amendment to Development Contract for Highcrest Meadows Meadows Second Addition Project No. 05-08 (Simple Majority Administration Vote Required) Phone: 952.227.11 Fax: 952.227,1110 Building Inspections On June 13, 2005, the CityCouncil approved the Development Contract Phone:952.227.1180 PP P Fax:952.227.1190 Highcrest Meadows Second Addition. The name of the Developer should have appeared as Hurrell, LLC., instead of David Hurrell. The developer remains the Engineering same. The count will not accept recording of documents unless the names match Phone:952.227.1160 Y P g Fax:952.227.1170 exactly. The city will not allow the developer to proceed with development unless Finance the Development Contract has been recorder. A name change requires City Phone:952.227.1140 Council approval. Fax: 952,227.1110 The developer has requested a modification to the development contract; Park 6 Recreation Phone:952.227.1120 specifically, changing the name of the developer from David Hurrell to Hurrell, Fax:952.227.1110 LLC. Attached is a revised development contract incorporating the new name and Recreation Center date of approval. The conditions of approval remain as previously approved on 2310 Coulter Boulevard June 13, 2005. Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax:952.227.1404 It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the revised Planning i development contract dated June 13, 2005. Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax:952.221.1110 Attachment: Revised Development Contract Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center gAeng\pmjectsWighaest meadows 2nd additionxamended dc.doc Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.d.chanhassennn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chanting downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A geat place to live, work, and play. GSA CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 11 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: 1 O S f R l N G , _11M C- OWNER: Koc> tC 1Z N (SA 7Z 17 ADDRESS: CoZZ 4J . )3Z S T ADDRESS: 1 g I `� 5 Co. FZ f7 3C7 C_ Lt A 5 (LA Ivt bA S5 3 l � TELEPHONE (Day Time) N t= w (� G rz,1-1 /a r+ i e 111 r! SS 3c 7 TELEPHONE: 15 Z- 3 S 3- Z 1570 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: Fox, OE 1-4 LOCATION: G S O o LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N t y4 0 P7 TN c /V y+ o f 5 c c-Tt 0 r-4 1. To Iry 5H t R t1-0 r`10(Irlfi.1 RArvGi Z3 wCSF� <1T r oG CNAr�iiASS�r�.L[2R�� 2 Co�,rr7rhilJ TOTALACREAGE: -4,77 WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: R S REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: &A1L -L0LQ I REASON FOR REQUEST: (t) 51�r3DI V l 510t`4 l I-qTo 6,� L.�T5 CD VAfZ1A,-tGl FC7R 50(-L1G(-f T 0r C.�tPy x11 51 CAD fob I HC ExtSTtNt; Fc�1C If�L-j-6w 2.0, 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 whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 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. A j C> 5 P12-1 ,v.c, IN C, -1- 4 v o,S Date Z !� 5- Date Application Received on Fee Paid 7 Receipt No. S 7 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Thursday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. GAplan\fm \Dcvelopment Review Application.DOC 1. Issues a. The proposed Development exceeds the capacity of a local road on the proposed Highover-Drive / Gunflint Trail through -street. Matt please provide finding b. The direct connection of the Highover and Longacres neighborhoods as proposed conflicts with the City Code requirement of discouraging through -traffic on a local street. (18-57) a & j Matt and Sharmeen provide finding c. In several respects, the proposed development fails to adequately mitigate negative impact on the surrounding properties, as required by the City Code. Sharmeen d. In seeking to crowd as many residential lots as possible into the parcels, the proposed development requires dramatic alteration of the topography and vegetation, contrary to Municipal Code Section 18-39(f). Matt and Sharmeen provide finding 2. Solutions a. Pursue access on Highway 41. b. Two cul-de-sacs. c. Road behind Harrison Hill Trail. d. Construction traffic off of 41. e. Less grading, tree removal and more open space. 1. Issues a. The proposed Development exceeds the capacity of a local road on the proposed Highover-Drive / Gunflint Trail through -street. Matt please provide finding b. The direct connection of the Highover and L.ongacres neighborhoods as proposed conflicts with the City Code requirement of discouraging through -traffic on a local street. (18-57) a & j Matt and Sharmeen provide finding c. In several respects, the proposed development fails to adequately mitigate negative impact on the surrounding properties, as required by the City Code. Sharmeen d. In seeking to crowd as many residential lots as possible into the parcels, the proposed development requires dramatic alteration of the topography and vegetation, contrary to Municipal Code Section 18-39(f). Matt and Sharmeen provide finding 2. Solutions a. Pursue access on Highway 41. b. Two cul-de-sacs. c. Road behind Harrison Hill Trail. d. Construction traffic off of 41. e. Less grading, tree removal and more open space. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Fox Den Planning Case 05-08 On March 15, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of a Preliminary Plat with variances to Subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots, Fox Den. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. The property is currently zoned RSF, Single -Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (1.2 — 4.0 units per net acre). 3. The legal description of the property is attached as exhibit A. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) effects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; c) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; d) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; e) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; f) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and g) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2. Lack of adequate roads. 3. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Variances. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: a) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. b) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. c) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. d) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. 6. The planning report Planning Case 05-08, dated March 15, 2005, prepared by Sharmeen Al-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat with variances. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15s day of March, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Uli Sacchet, Chairman North Lotus Lake Park ^- �^- °R°•� CRY of chanhaman, Mlmasom �.. i March 13, 2005 Ms. Kate Aanenson/Community Development Director Ms. Sharmeen Al-Jaff/Senior Planner City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Fox Den Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Staff Report # 05-08 Dear Ms. Aanenson and Ms. Al-Jaff: In preparation for the Public Hearing on March 15, 2005, regarding the proposal above, I would like you to deliver to the Planning Commission members the following proposals for additional conditions or friendly amendments to the Staff Report prior to the Public Hearing on March 15t°. Although I remain opposed to the development at this time for reasons stated in my memo of March 4th (see my memo attachment to staff report), in the event the Commission does vote to refer this matter to the City Council, I would like the Commission to consider adding the following changes to conditions or adding friendly amendments to the Staff Report. The changes and amendments are underlined. 1. Condition: Page 12, # 12(h): Trees 142-144 and six green ash not shown on the Tree Inventory shall be preserved by adherence to Section 18-61(d)(4) of the Chanhassen City code which provides for relief to preserve tree loss by realignment of streets, utilities, and lot lines, and by instituting modified grading plans. Background to Condition: On page 8 of the staff report, it states that when the building permit for Lot 1, Block 1 is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation. These trees should be preserved by implementing Section 18-61(d)(4) of the Code. 2. Condition: Page 12, #12(I): The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. ^vnvzfeesi+ali be planted eveff 30 feet a e. t within the sight triangle. Speeies shall be o ,ed by the Qty.—One conifer tree shall be planted every 6-14 feet except within the sight triangle along the Eastern Right -of -Way of Fox Drive. The species will be Norway Spruce or another fast growing conifer tree similar to the species of tree that is currently located directly North of Outlot A of Fox Hollow, and approved by the City. Adherence to Section 20-1176(f)(8) will be recommended. A total of 8-10 trees is recommended to be planted along Fox Drive, and 3-4 along Fox Hollow Drive. Background to Condition: On Page 8 of the staff report, the staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant boulevard trees along Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive to replace the City trees lost. To create a partial buffer for Highway 101, staff recommends that evergreens be considered for the boulevard trees along Fox Drive. The buffer of over a dozen evergreen trees would be eliminated with a proposed expansion of the pond. Plantings of every 30 feet are not adequate and they would not provide as much of a buffer as exists now. 3. Variance Request: Page 10 of Staff Report: The applicant is requesting s street width variance. This variance was recommended by Staff. The ordinance requires a 60 foot Right -of -Way width. The plat reflects a 50 foot Right -of -Way. The Right -of -Way is consistent with the existing Right -of -Way that will provide access to this development. The 50 foot Right -of -Way street width variance will be approved with 24 feet of paved road surface. Background to Variance and Street Issues. As pointed out in pages 9-11 of my memo, there are several issues with the proposed 31 foot street width paved surface. Studies have shown that a 24 foot wide paved surface is safer, slows speeds, can provide ample parking room on one side of the street, provides enough access to emergency vehicles, reduces impervious surfaces, decreases maintenance and construction costs, will increase lot size, and will fit in better where the road is proposed. It is very questionable whether or not a 31 foot wide paved surface could be placed safely being over 9 feet of the property line of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, and between the boulevard to the West of Outlot A. The road would be extremely close to the edge of the pond, and aesthetically it would look out of place for the area it would serve: 6 single family homes with only 60 trips per day. Other communities in Minnesota use various paved street widths very effectively. Examine Afton and Lake Elmo are examples. 4. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Page 3—Staff is recommending that a small retaining wall (I' to 3') be installed along the western Right -of -Way of Fox Drive of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. Background on the above issue: I have met with the developer and his engineer. It is not yet determined if a retaining wall will be put in or if the existing area to the East of my property line will be slightly graded. I would like to find out fast, how exactly high this retaining wall would be? what material it would it would be made out of? How long would it be? How it would look? Basically, I need to see the developer's landscape architects' depiction of what this would look like. The developer and his engineer have given me the option to examine this retaining wall option. I would like to see a friendly amendment that states: The developer, his engineer, and landscape architect will work with the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive to design a retaining wall that will aesthetically complement their existing home, or give the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive the option to forgo the retaining wall and work with them on a modified grading option. 5. Condition: Page 10 #1 The pond in Outlot A, Fox Hollow, shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designated. Any inlet and outlet structures requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. 6. Condition: Page 11 #2 An outlet meeting NPDES permanent storm water management system requirements shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 7. Condition: Page 13 # 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. Background to all of the conditions in 4,5,6: On page 4 of the Staff Report it states that the pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. On page 3 of the Staff Report it states that: Staff is recommending this pond be expanded to provide water quality treatments. To what size? To what the developer wants? As pointed out in my memo on pages 4-8, there are several problems with the stormwater pond enlargement proposal and design. First, who would clean and replace the inlet and outlets? The City or the developer? What structures need replacing? How is the applicant going to clean the pond? What method is going be used? The Commission needs to ask itself: Are there any other reasonable alternatives than to expand the pond that would lessen the impact and remove the buffer? Have we looked seriously at the alternatives and are we absolutely sure that there are no alternatives? Is there anything else we can do to reduce impervious surface? Because from my research, there are alternatives that we are not considering. There are issues with this pond's proposed design even after expansion. I would refer you to the Metropolitan Council. This Council is the regional planning agency serving the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area. They have published a Best Management Practices Manual for Urban Small Sites. One of the sections is titled "Wet Ponds." According to the Metropolitan Council, a Wet Pond is also known as a NURP pond. Its primary pollutant removal system is sedimentation. An issue that was raised with this very same pond back in 1984. There are several design characteristics that need to be met for a NURP pond. 1.Pond Shape: To maximize stormwater contact and residue time in the pool, a length to width ratio of 3:1 is recommended. This pond with its expansion would be nearly as long as it is wide. 2. Sediment Forebay. The length to width ratio should be 2:1 to avoid short circuiting. No one seems to be able to address this issue regarding the Forebay. 3. Riser. Is there a Riser associated with this pond? There should be a riser. 4. Avoidance of short circuiting. The ratio of flowpath length to width ratio from the inlet to the outlet should be 3:1. (the flow path length is defined as the distance from the inlet to outlet measured at mid -depth). 5. All inlets should enter though the first cell. If there are multiple inlets, the length to width ratio should be based on average flow path length of all inlets. The problem with # 4 & #5 is that it does not appear that these ratios are maintained. Also, there are multiple inlets. In fact, at least one very close (within 2 feet) of the outlet. This is very bad NURP pond design. 6. The pond should be a tear drop shape as opposed to a rectangular shape. Tear drop shapes minimize dead zones caused by comers. 7. The side slopes of the permanent pool should be no steeper than 3:1. Flatter slopes protect against erosion, they are safer, easier to maintain and mow. 8. There should be emergent wetland vegetation planted. Long natural grasses and shrubs. Plantings such as soft stem bulrushes, arrowhead, various exotic grasses, wild rice. This all should be planted along the side of the pond for full visual enhancement. I would propose that before the Commission approves this plat that a feasibility study going examining all of these issues in depth be done. Given that the SWMP is out of date, it would be prudent for long range planning to do this and do it right at this time. 8. There is a reference in the Preliminary Plat Plans submitted by Otto Engineering that requires the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive to remove their wooden fence along the East of their property line and the wire fence to the North of their property line. I'd like to see a friendly amendment that states: The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not have to remove their wooden fence alone the east of their property, nor do they have to remove the wire fence. The wire fence can be removed by the contractor assuming he takes care in its removal not to damage the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Thank you. Jason Ashline 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Page 1 of 3 Altilaff, Sharmeen From: Jason Dashlinel @hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:15 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: Re: Fox Den Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Sharmeen: I dropped off a document titled "Fox Den Preliminary Plat Issues" on Thursday afternoon at City Hall. There have been some material additions and changes to this document. Although much of the analysis remains the same, there are some changes. I have resubmitted the document and you will receive it on Tuesday in the mail. I do not want the original document I submitted on Thursday to be included with the Staff Report and viewed on line. I would like the document I mailed today and you will receive on Tuesday to be included as an attachment to the Staff Report and viewed on line. The material changes/additions in the second document in comparing it to the first are as follows: 1. Page 2--Insertion in second document Also, it is unclear whether or not the developer can count the trees in their tree inventory on the Outlot A sight because Outlot A is not on 6500 Chanhassen Rd. The Outlot is located in a PUD, it is also subject to different zoning conditions. 2. Page 3--Insertion in second document --The current pond area is 24,900 square feet or .57 acres. This area is just the area where the water currently is. This appears to be an adequate enough area, given the other issues that need to be addressed in this section. There are others things that can be done to limit the increase in impervious surface. There needs to be a critical analysis of the proposed storm water pond design, and also a thorough review of the NRCS TR-55 methodology or other methodology used as the design methodology of the pond and the proposed expansion. We propose an independent engineer be hired. Given the issues below, we maybe rushing to judgment to expand the pond to such a design that clearly conflicts with proper storm water pond design criteria. 3. Page 3-consulting firm SHE should read SEH 4. Page 5--Change under Response to: "All Trees will be eliminated in the current plan." 5. Page 7--Change to under additionally, "In fact, the developer only proposes to three deciduous trees and two conifer trees in this area and these plantings are dozens of feet from 101" 6. Page 8-9 Under Grading & Erosion Control--Addition-- Response: Steeper slopes typically increase the rate of erosion. One impact of land development is soil compaction which decreases soil infiltration and ground water recharge, which contributes to storm water runoff. 3:1 grading is too excessive. That is the maximum. A 3:1 grading slope would make the house and the lot at 10 Fox Hollow Drive appears that it is "higher" off the ground than the other homes in the area. The lot and the home would appear aesthetically out of place with the excessive grading. The lot and the home would appear if it were sitting on a "crown" It is recommended that the natural swales and slopes be maintained as much as practicable to the East and North of the 10 Fox Hollow Drive property. 7. Page 9-10 Under Streets Insertions: According to the Preliminary Plat, a 31 foot wide road will be going in right next to the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The width of the may be consistent with the other street widths, but it is excessive for the area that it is proposed. The closeness of Fox Drive to 10 Fox Hollow Drive and to the pond is of great concern for safety and aesthetic concerns. A 31 foot wide road ending in a cul-de-sac greatly increases the impervious surface and thus increases runoff which is 3/14/2005 Page 2 of 3 unnecessary. The developer and City would save costs by going to a 24 foot wide street, it would also create more lot area, reduce impervious surface, create less runoff, and fit in better with the area. The proposed road would only serve 6 homes. There are other alternatives. Response: Research shows that narrow streets are the safest. For example, a study conducted by Swift Associates and the City of Longmont Colorado looked at 20,000 car accidents over 8 years. The study found: `the most significant casual relationships to injury and accident were found to be street width and street curvature.""...as the street widens, accidents per mile per year increases exponentially, and that the safest residential street width is 24 feet." Furthermore in the same report it is stated, "In neo-traditional design, on -street parking is only provided where densities exceed 4 dwelling units per acre." In fact, the study went on to point out: "Reducing road widths from 32 feet to 20 feet will produce a 6% reduction in impervious area" Typically, street systems account for more than 50% of the total amount of imperviousness on site. Studies have shown that where cul-de-sacs are built, the radii of turnaround should be minimized. Reducing the length and width of a road reduces the impervious surfaces and thus reduces runoff. Additionally, the use of porous pavement reduces impervious surfaces. There is no indication on what is being done to make effective use of porous pavement to reduce storm water runoff and the impervious surface. (see www.nemo.uconn.edu) for a more detailed explanation on the above information. It also addresses the concern over some individuals have about an emergency vehicle having enough room to turn around. 8. There are also two more attachments with the new document, in addition to the alternative plans I submitted with the original document. Again, you will receive this on Tuesday. I would welcome analysis from you and the staff, and commentary. I wish this document to be included as an attachment to the Staff Report and sent to the Commissioners. I do not wish that any of my a -mails to you, or any staff member be included with the staff report. Only the revised document I submitted. Thank you for your attention this matter. Jason Ashline Original Message ----- From: AI--Jaff. Sharmeen To: Jason Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:33 AM Subject: RE: Fox Den Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Good morning Jason I need your comments as soon as possible. This will ensure adequate time to address the issues you have Sincerely, 3/14/2005 Page 3 of 3 Sharmeen Al-Jaff Senior Planner 952.227.1134 From: Jason [mailto:jashlinel@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 5:18 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: Fox Den Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Sharmeen, Could you tell me what day you will need to receive my questions by about the Fox Den Proposal for answer and inclusion as an attachment to the Staff Report? Thank you. Jason Ashline 3/14/2005 Page 1 of 2 AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Jason jjashlinel @hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 7:47 AM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: Staff Report #05-08 Sharmeen: I have read the staff report and I had a few questions/clarifications: 1. Proposal Summary page 2--Since the applicant is already filing for a variance for street width, can the commission consider a 24 foot roadway width (back of curb to back of curb) in lieu of the 31 foot proposal? 2. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control page 3--regarding the proposal for the 1-3 foot retaining wall along the western Right -of -Way (ROW) of Fox drive, would this proposed wall run the entire distance of the ROW of Fox Drive beginning at the corner of Fox Hollow Drive? If I am understanding it correctly --my fence would remain, then my grass area to the East of my property would remain with the current slope, then the retaining wall be built at the same level as my grass, and then there would be a 1-3 foot drop-off to the street curb. Is this correct? Again, we want to emphasize we think that the 3:1 slope is excessive in this area and is not needed. Aesthetically the retaining wall if not designed and configured correctly, it will not make our property look attractive. 3. Drainage page 3--Concerning the expansion of the pond, staff is recommending expansion of the pond but how much larger? To what the developer wants? Who is also going to maintain or replace any inlet or outlet structures? The City or the developer? 4. Page 4 it states --the pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. However, NURP standards mainly pertain to water quality? Are further studies going to be done to see if the area North of the pond can be better preserved as a natural buffer? I posed a series of questions (in my memo) on this pond and the proposed expansion --will these questions be answered? Has any real consideration been given to what the Minnesota Erosion Control Association advocates and other individuals, organizations I cited in my memo as far as the overall design and do other landscaping items to limit impervious surface and street width? There are several ideas that need to be fully considered in my memo. 5. Tree Preservation & Landscaping Page 8--"When the building permit for Lot 1, Block 1 is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation." As stated in my memo, the City Code provides for adjustment of lot lines and revised grading for tree preservation. 6. Page 8--The City Code states that the City has the right to require the planting of evergreens to be used as a buffer where necessary. We would be in favor of that, and we would like to see them be planted 20 feet apart as opposed to 30 feet. Please keep in mind, all of our buffer, if the entire pond is expanded will be wiped out. Plus, we would like fast growing Norway Spruce planted for best impact from noise, light, and wind buffering. There should be 6-7 of these evergreens planted along the Fox Drive boulevard at a minimum. 7. Page 12. Under Environmental Resources Coordinator Concerns: (This question relates to question 6 above). Under H,1: "the applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive re replace trees lost due to pond expansion." How many trees will be planted, we would recommend 6-7 along just Fox Drive. Again, we would request 3/14/2005 Page 2 of 2 that the City mandate evergreen plantings here as there is a provision in the City code for it. As far as the plantings around the pond of Fox Hollow Drive, we do not have a specific type of tree. However, again as pointed out in my memo, natural long grasses and shrubs should be planted around the entire pond site. This would reduce runoff and it is in line with proper pond design standards. I'm looking forward to your response to the questions I posed in my memo and these additional ones. I can be reached today after 9am at work at 952-820-0089. Thank you. 3/ 14/2005 03/14/2005 07:41 FAX 952 820 0429 MUTUAL OF AMERICA r.AM March 13, 2005 Ms. Kate Aanenson/Commumty Development Director Ms. Sharmeen A]-Jaff/Senior Planner City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Fox Den Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Staff Report # 05-08 Dear Ms. Aanenson and Ms. Al -Jaffa In preparation for the Public Hearing on March 15, 2005, regarding the proposal above, I would like you to deliver to the Planning Commission members the following proposals for additional conditions or friendly amendments to the Staff Report prior to the Public Hearing on March 15". Although I remain opposed to the development at this time for reasons stated in my memo of March 40' (see my memo attachment to staff report), in the event the Commission does vote to refer this matter to the City Council, I would like the Commission to consider adding the following changes to conditions or adding friendly amendments to the Staff Report. The changes and amendments are underlined. 1. Condition: Page 12, # 12(h): Trees 142-144 and six green ash not shown on the Tree Inventory shall be preserved b y adherence to Section 18-61(d)(4) of the Chanhassen City code which provides for relief to preserve tree loss by realignment of streets utilities and lot lines, and by instituting modified grading plans Background to Condition: On page 8 of the staff report, it states that when the building permit for Lot 1, Block I is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation. These trees should be preserved by implementing Section 18-61(dx4) of the Code. 2. Condition: Page 12, #12(I): The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. Ape tree shall c�^ne conifer tree shall be planted every 6-14 feet except within the sight triangle along the Eastern Right -of -Way of Fox Drive The species will be Norway Spruce or another fast growing conifer tree similar to the species of tree that is currently located directly North of Outlot A of Fox Hollow, and approved by the City. Adherence to Section 20-1176(fl(8) will be recommended A total of 8 10 trees is recommended to be planted along Fox Drive and 3-4 along Fox Hollow Drive 03/14/2005 07:42 FAX 952 820 0429 MUTUAL OF AMERICA Z 003 Background to Condition: On Page 8 of the staff report, the staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant boulevard trees along Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive to replace the City trees lost. To create a partial buffer for Highway 101, staff recommends that evergreens be considered for the boulevard trees along Fox Drive. The buffer of over a dozen evergreen trees would be eliminated with a proposed expansion of the pond. Plantings of every 30 feet are not adequate and they would not provide as much of a buffer as exists now. 3. Variance Request: Page 10 of Staff Report: The applicant is requesting s street width variance. This variance was recommended by Staff. The ordinance requires a 60 foot Right -of -Way width. The plat reflects a 50 foot Right -of -Way. The Right -of --Way is consistent with the existing Right -of -Way that will provide access to this development. The 50 foot Right -of -Way street width variance will be approved with 24 feet of paved road surface. Background to Variance and Street Issues. As pointed out in pages 9-11 of my memo, there are several issues with the proposed 31 foot street width paved surface. Studies have shown that a 24 foot wide paved surface is safer, slows speeds, can provide ample parking room on one side of the street, provides enough access to emergency vehicles, reduces impervious surfaces, decreases maintenance and construction costs, will increase lot size, and will fit in better where the road is proposed. It is very questionable whether or not a 31 foot wide paved surface could be placed safely being over 9 feet of the property line of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, and between the boulevard to the West of Outlot A. The road would be extremely close to the edge of the pond, and aesthetically it would look out of place for the area it would serve: 6 single family homes with only 60 trips per day. Other communities in Minnesota use various paved street widths very effectively. Examine Afton and Lake Elmo are examples. 4. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Page 3—Staff is recommending that a small retaining wall (1' to Y) be installed along the western Right -of -Way of Fox Drive of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. Background on the above issue: I have met with the developer and his engineer. It is not yet determined if a retaining wall will be put in or if the existing area to the East of my property line will be slightly graded. I would like to fund out first, how exactly high this retaining wail would be? what material it would it would be made out of? How long would it be? How it would look? Basically, I need to see the developer's landscape architects' depiction of what this would look like. The developer and his engineer have given me the option to examine this retaining wall option. I would like to see a friendly amendment that states: The developer, his engineer, and landscace architect will work with the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive to design a retaining wall that will aesthetically complement their existing home or give the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive the option to fordo the retaining wall and work with them on a modified &mding option 5. Condition: Page 10 #1 The pond in Outlot A, Fox Hollow, shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designated. Any inlet and outlet structures requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. 03/14/2005 07:42 FAX 952 820 0429 MUTUAL OF AMERICA U 004 6. Condition: Page 11 #2 An outlet meeting NPDES permanent storm water management system requirements shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 7. Condition: Page 13 # 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. Background to all of the conditions in 4,5,6: On page 4 of the Staff Report it states that the pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. On page 3 of the Staff Report it states that: Staff is recommending this pond be expanded to provide water quality treatments. To what size? To what the developer wants? As pointed out in my memo on pages 4-8, there are several problems with the stormwater pond enlargement proposal and design. First, who would clean and replace the inlet and outlets? The City or the developer? What structures need replacing? How is the applicant going to clean the pond? What method is going be used? The Commission needs to ask itself: Are there any other reasonable alternatives than to expand the pond that would lessen the impact and remove the buffer? Have we looked seriously at the alternatives and are we absolutely sure that there are no alternatives? Is there anything else we can do to reduce impervious surface? Because from my research, there are alternatives that we are not considering. There are issues with this pond's proposed design even after expansion. I would refer you to the Metropolitan Council. This Council is the regional planning agency serving the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area. They have published a Best Management Practices Manual for Urban Small Sites. One of the sections is titled "Wet Ponds." According to the Metropolitan Council, a Wet Pond is also known as a NURP pond. Its primary pollutant removal system is sedimentation. An issue that was raised with this very same pond back in 1984. There are several design characteristics that need to be met for a NURP pond. 1.Pond Shape: To maximize stormwater contact and residue time in the pool, a length to width ratio of 3:1 is recommended. This pond with its expansion would be nearly as long as it is wide. 2. Sediment Forebay. The length to width ratio should be 2:1 to avoid short circuiting. No one seems to be able to address this issue regarding the Forebay. 3. Riser. Is there a Riser associated with this pond? There should be a riser. 4. Avoidance of short circuiting. The ratio of flowpath length to width ratio from the inlet to the outlet should be 3:1. (the flow path length is defined as the distance from the inlet to outlet measured at mid -depth). 5. All inlets should enter though the fast cell. If there are multiple inlets, the length to width ratio should be based on average flow path length of all inlets. The problem with # 4 & #5 is that it does not appear that these ratios are maintained. Also, there are multiple inlets. In fact, at least one very close (within 2 feet) of the outlet. This is very bad NURP pond design. 6. The pond should be a tear drop shape as opposed to a rectangular shape. Tear drop shapes minimize dead zones caused by comers. 7. The side slopes of the permanent pool should be no steeper than 3:1. Flatter slopes protect against erosion, they are safer, easier to maintain and mow. 8. There should be emergent wetland vegetation planted. Long natural grasses and shrubs. Plantings such as soft stem bulrushes, arrowhead, various exotic grasses, wild rice. This all should be planted along the side of the pond for full visual enhancement 03/14/2005 07:43 FAX 952 820 0429 MUTUAL OF AMERICA Q005 I would propose that before the Commission approves this plat that a feasibility study going examining all of these issues in depth be done. Given that the SWMP is out of date, it would be prudent for long range planning to do this and do it right at this time. 8. There is a reference in the Preliminary Plat Plans submitted by Otto Engineering that requires the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive to remove their wooden fence along the East of their property line and the wire fence to the North of their property line. I'd like to see a friendly amendment that states: The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not have to remove their wooded fence along the east of their prosy nor do they have to remove the wire fence The wire fence can be removed by the contractor assuming he takes care in its removal not to dagfte the nwgM of 10 Fox Hollow Drive Thank you. / Jason Ashline 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Response to questions Proposal Summary page 2--Since the applicant is already filing for a variance for street width, can the commission consider a 24 foot roadway width (back of curb to back of curb) in lieu of the 31 foot proposal? Answer Staff would be against a variance to decrease the street width to 24' for the following reasons. a) It would limit the street to parking on only one side or prohibit on - street parking all together. This would conflict with all other public residential streets in town that allow parking on both sides. b) There is no major environmental reason why a street meeting current design requirements (31' wide) cannot be constructed; in other words, staff does not see a hardship why the street width needs to be decreased. 2. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control page 3--regarding the proposal for the 1-3 foot retaining wall along the western Right -of -Way (ROW) of Fox drive, would this proposed wall run the entire distance of the ROW of Fox Drive beginning at the comer of Fox Hollow Drive? If I am understanding it correctly --my fence would remain, then my grass area to the East of my property would remain with the current slope, then the retaining wall be built at the same level as my grass, and then there would be a 1-3 foot drop-off to the street curb. Is this correct? Again, we want to emphasize we think that the 3:1 slope is excessive in this area and is not needed. Aesthetically the retaining wall if not designed and configured correctly, it will not make our property look attractive. Answer Based on the submitted plan, a retaining wall would be needed for approx. 90' along the western right-of-way line of Fox Drive. This length of wall may be able to be lessened by revising the street grades. Staff has mentioned this to the applicant's engineer and they have agreed to look into this further. The description of the proposed retaining wall is correct. 3. Drainage page 3--Concerning the expansion of the pond, staff is recommending expansion of the pond but how much larger? To what the developer wants? Who is also going to maintain or replace any inlet or outlet structures? The City or the developer? Answer Staff has reviewed the developer's proposed pond expansion. Our only comment is to add an additional contour elevation line (912) at the bottom of the pond for additional water quality purposes. This will ensure that the pond is sized to NURP standards for the entire drainage area. The City will take over ownership/maintenance of the pond and storm sewer at the conclusion of the project and after the warranty period. 4. Page 4 it states --the pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. However, NURP standards mainly pertain to water quality? Are further studies going to be done to see if the area North of the pond can be better preserved as a natural buffer? I posed a series of questions (in my memo) on this pond and the proposed expansion --will these questions be answered? Has any real consideration been given to what the Minnesota Erosion Control Association advocates and other individuals, organizations I cited in my memo as far as the overall design and do other landscaping items to limit impervious surface and street width? There are several ideas that need to be fully considered in my memo. Answer As previously stated above in #3, staff has reviewed the pond expansion design and is in agreement with the proposed layout of the pond. The pond, as currently exists, is not sized for the entire developed drainage area that will be going to the pond. As such, the pond must be enlarged in order to meet the water quality requirements of NURP. Additionally, the pond will store the storm water during a rain event so that the outlet rate of water leaving the pond is less than what the current runoff rate is. This is how the pond will meet the water quantity requirement of the City. Finally, the developer will be installing a new outlet control structure, per City detail plate #3109, to control the outlet rate. The city code regulates impervious surface and street width. 5. Tree Preservation & Landscaping Page 8—"When the building permit for Lot 1, Block 1 is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation." As stated in my memo, the City Code provides for adjustment of lot lines and revised grading for tree preservation. Answer In this instance, adjustment of lot lines will not lead to additional tree preservation. At the time of building permit, staff will work with the builder to preserve trees were feasible. 6. Page 8--The City Code states that the City has the right to require the planting of evergreens to be used as a buffer where necessary. We would be in favor of that, and we would like to see them be planted 20 feet apart as opposed to 30 feet. Please keep in mind, all of our buffer, if the entire pond is expanded will be wiped out. Plus, we would like fast growing Norway Spruce planted for best impact from noise, light, and wind buffering. There should be 6-7 of these evergreens planted along the Fox Drive boulevard at a minimum. Answer The city code requires boulevard trees be planted 30 feet apart. Page 12. Under Environmental Resources Coordinator Concerns: (This question relates to question 6 above). Under HJ: "the applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive re replace trees lost due to pond expansion." How many trees will be planted, we would recommend 6-7 along just Fox Drive. Again, we would request that the City mandate evergreen plantings here as there is a provision in the City code for it. As far as the plantings around the pond of Fox Hollow Drive, we do not have a specific type of tree. However, again as pointed out in my memo, natural long grasses and shrubs should be planted around the entire pond site. This would reduce runoff and it is in line with proper pond design standards. Answer The City will insure that the development complies with the buffer ordinance requirements. March 13, 2005 Ms. Kate Aanenson/Community Development Director Ms. Sharmeen Al-Jaff/Senior Planner City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Fox Den Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Staff Report # 05-08 Dear Ms. Aanenson and Ms. Al-Jaff: In preparation for the Public Hearing on March 15, 2005, regarding the proposal above, I would like you to deliver to the Planning Commission members the following proposals for additional conditions or friendly amendments to the Staff Report prior to the Public Hearing on March 15`b. Although I remain opposed to the development at this time for reasons stated in my memo of March 0 (see my memo attachment to staff report), in the event the Commission does vote to refer this matter to the City Council, I would like the Commission to consider adding the following changes to conditions or adding friendly amendments to the Staff Report. The changes and amendments are underlined. 1. Condition: Page 12, # 12(h): Trees 142-144 and six green ash not shown on the Tree Inventory shall be preserved by adherence to Section 18-61(d)(4) of the Chanhassen City code which provides for relief to preserve tree loss by realignment of streets, utilities, and lot lines, and by instituting modified grading plans. Background to Condition: On page 8 of the staff report, it states that when the building permit for Lot 1, Block 1 is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation. These trees should be preserved by implementing Section 18-61(d)(4) of the Code. 2. Condition: Page 12, #12(I): The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tfee. -shall be planted eye..,. 30 Feet „ ept within the sight triangle Spee:es shall be ., .ed by the City -One conifer tree shall be planted every 6-14 feet except within the sight triangle along the Eastern Right -of -Way of Fox Drive. The species will be Norway Spruce or another fast growing conifer tree similar to the species of tree that is currently located directly North of Outlot A of Fox Hollow, and approved by the City. Adherence to Section 20-1176(f)(8) will be recommended. A total of 8-10 trees is recommended to be planted along Fox Drive, and 3-4 along Fox Hollow Drive. Background to Condition: On Page 8 of the staff report, the staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant boulevard trees along Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive to replace the City trees lost. To create a partial buffer for Highway 101, staff recommends that evergreens be considered for the boulevard trees along Fox Drive. The buffer of over a dozen evergreen trees would be eliminated with a proposed expansion of the pond. Plantings of every 30 feet are not adequate and they would not provide as much of a buffer as exists now. 3. Variance Request: Page 10 of Staff Report: The applicant is requesting s street width variance. This variance was recommended by Staff. The ordinance requires a 60 foot Right -of -Way width. The plat reflects a 50 foot Right -of -Way. The Right -of -Way is consistent with the existing Right -of -Way that will provide access to this development. The 50 foot Right -of -Way street width variance will be approved with 24 feet of paved road surface. Background to Variance and Street Issues. As pointed out in pages 9-11 of my memo, there are several issues with the proposed 31 foot street width paved surface. Studies have shown that a 24 foot wide paved surface is safer, slows speeds, can provide ample parking room on one side of the street, provides enough access to emergency vehicles, reduces impervious surfaces, decreases maintenance and construction costs, will increase lot size, and will fit in better where the road is proposed. It is very questionable whether or not a 31 foot wide paved surface could be placed safely being over 9 feet of the property line of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, and between the boulevard to the West of Outlot A. The road would be extremely close to the edge of the pond, and aesthetically it would look out of place for the area it would serve: 6 single family homes with only 60 trips per day. Other communities in Minnesota use various paved street widths very effectively. Examine Afton and Lake Elmo are examples. 4. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Page 3—Staff is recommending that a small retaining wall (1' to 3') be installed along the western Right -of -Way of Fox Drive of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. Background on the above issue: I have met with the developer and his engineer. It is not yet determined if a retaining wall will be put in or if the existing area to the East of my property line will be slightly graded. I would like to find out first, how exactly high this retaining wall would be? what material it would it would be made out of? How long would it be? How it would look? Basically, I need to see the developer's landscape architects' depiction of what this would look like. The developer and his engineer have given me the option to examine this retaining wall option. I would like to see a friendly amendment that states: The developer, his engineer, and landscape architect will work with the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive to design a retaining wall that will aesthetically complement their existing home, or give the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive the option to forgo the retaining wall and work with them on a modified grading option. 5. Condition: Page 10 #1 The pond in Outlot A, Fox Hollow, shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designated. Any inlet and outlet structures requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. 6. Condition: Page 11 #2 An outlet meeting NPDES permanent storm water management system requirements shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 7. Condition: Page 13 # 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. Background to all of the conditions in 4,5,6: On page 4 of the Staff Report it states that the pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. On page 3 of the Staff Report it states that: Staff is recommending this pond be expanded to provide water quality treatments. To what size? To what the developer wants? As pointed out in my memo on pages 4-8, there are several problems with the stormwater pond enlargement proposal and design. First, who would clean and replace the inlet and outlets? The City or the developer? What structures need replacing? How is the applicant going to clean the pond? What method is going be used? The Commission needs to ask itself: Are there any other reasonable alternatives than to expand the pond that would lessen the impact and remove the buffer? Have we looked seriously at the alternatives and are we absolutely sure that there are no alternatives? Is there anything else we can do to reduce impervious surface? Because from my research, there are alternatives that we are not considering. There are issues with this pond's proposed design even after expansion. I would refer you to the Metropolitan Council. This Council is the regional planning agency serving the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area. They have published a Best Management Practices Manual for Urban Small Sites. One of the sections is titled "Wet Ponds." According to the Metropolitan Council, a Wet Pond is also known as a NURP pond. Its primary pollutant removal system is sedimentation. An issue that was raised with this very same pond back in 1984. There are several design characteristics that need to be met for a NURP pond. 1.Pond Shape: To maximize stormwater contact and residue time in the pool, a length to width ratio of 3:1 is recommended. This pond with its expansion would be nearly as long as it is wide. 2. Sediment Forebay. The length to width ratio should be 2:1 to avoid short circuiting. No one seems to be able to address this issue regarding the Forebay. 3. Riser. Is there a Riser associated with this pond? There should be a riser. 4. Avoidance of short circuiting. The ratio of flowpath length to width ratio from the inlet to the outlet should be 3:1. (the flow path length is defined as the distance from the inlet to outlet measured at mid -depth). 5. All inlets should enter though the first cell. If there are multiple inlets, the length to width ratio should be based on average flow path length of all inlets. The problem with # 4 & #5 is that it does not appear that these ratios are maintained. Also, there are multiple inlets. In fact, at least one very close (within 2 feet) of the outlet. This is very bad NURP pond design. 6. The pond should be a tear drop shape as opposed to a rectangular shape. Tear drop shapes minimize dead zones caused by comers. 7. The side slopes of the permanent pool should be no steeper than 3:1. Flatter slopes protect against erosion, they are safer, easier to maintain and mow. 8. There should be emergent wetland vegetation planted. Long natural grasses and shrubs. Plantings such as soft stem bulrushes, arrowhead, various exotic grasses, wild rice. This all should be planted along the side of the pond for full visual enhancement. I would propose that before the Comrnission approves this plat that a feasibility study going examining all of these issues in depth be done. Given that the SWW is out of date, it would be prudent for long range planning to do this and do it right at this time. 8. There is a reference in the Preliminary Plat Plans submitted by Otto Engineering that requires the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive to remove their wooden fence along the East of their property line and the wire fence to the North of their property line. I'd like to see a friendly amendment that states: The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not have to remove their wooden fence along the east of their property, nor do they have to remove the wire fence. The wire fence can be removed by the contractor assuming he takes care in its removal not to damage the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Thank you. Jason Ashline 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 • T�Ye4v\l mr Fox Den Preliminary Plat Issues To the Planning Commission, Planning Staff, and City Council Members With any proposed development, there are several real impacts. Although aware that development is always a potential in any area, it must fit in with the area and it must consider the existing conditions currently in that community, and work in cooperation with the affected parties. There are several problems with this development's proposal and there are several inconsistencies with the Chanhassen City code, especially how they relate to Landscape & Tree Preservation. There are also several potential inadequate design or premature practices proposed as it relates to the proposed pond expansion. All of these must be solved before the development should go forward. For these reasons, we can not respectfully support the proposed development at this time. We would suggest that the Preliminary Plat be redesigned and resubmitted for consideration. Five areas will be addressed in this statement (1) Landscape & Tree Preservation (2) Surface Water Management & Proposed Pond Expansion (3) Grading and Erosion Control (4) Streets (5) Proposed Plat Alternatives 1. Landscaping & Tree Preservation Sec. 18-61 (d)(2) of the City of Chanhassen code states: Prior to the submittal ofdevelopment plans, a tree survey of the site shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect, licensed forester, or other professional approved by the city. This survey shall include the species, DBH size (DBH means diameter measured at breast height, four and fve-tenths feet above the ground), condition, location of all trees over six inches in diameter and any damaged or diseased trees on site. All significant special, damaged or diseased trees shall be tagged and identified by number on the survey. A delineation of the existing canopy coverage areas) which outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be included as part of the survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased trees shall be cataloged with the nature and extent of airy damage or disease specified Response: There are several trees that are missing from the Tree Inventory/Survey submitted by the developer. For instance, there is a tree immediately to the East of tree number 144 that is not listed. This tree has two trunks (see picture left): There are also three trees south of the existing shed and between the wooden fence of the property of 20 Fox Hollow Drive (see picture below) that is not listed on the tree inventory. Even if all other trees are accounted for, then these omissions cause incorrect canopy coverage statistics. — 4'te awr" e f erg °`^ C.a.�on c--""It Also, it is unclear whether or not the developer can count the trees in their tree inventory ,i jlml on the Outlot A sight because Outlot A is not on 6500 Chanhassen Rd. The Outlot is Its.fmtA } 4c otro located in a PIJD, it is also subject to different zoning conditions. EcAICScs Sec 18-61 requires the species of each tree. However, only the genus name is listed on the 1 inventory (e.g. pine, maple). Species requires the person conducting the inventory to establish the scientific name such as Norway Pine or Su ag_r Maple.. al NQy„�es Trees #142 &143 could be considered boundary line trees. The tree hunks begin either on the line or slightly North of the property line between 10 Fox Hollow Drive and 6500 Chanhassen Road. The trunks cross the boundary line, and continue to grow into the property owner's yard of 10 Fox Hollow Drive (see picture left): The current and previous owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive have maintained these trees by, but limited to, (1) raking the leaves that fell into the backyard of 10 Fox Hollow Drive (2) Incurring the costs to dispose of the leaves that fell from the trees to the appropriate disposal sites in Carver County. The leaves fell from the limbs and branches that grew out from the trunks that were clearly located on the property owner of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Holmberg v. Bergin, 172 N.W. 20d 739 (Minn 1969) establishes the definition for boundary trees. A tree is a boundary tree if it was planted jointly or treated as common property by agreement, acquiescence, or course of conduct. The course of conduct clearly establishes the fact that the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive co-own the tree with the owner of 6500 Chanhassen Road. Additionally, the tree could not be considered a nuisance since by its nature, it is not patently offensive, causing ill will or health, or damaging to the property of others. Even if the nuisance argument could be remotely posed, <' ,LW vtcmti+ S8w devdlo f� �O ICU N Ik w+ 4¢vai ec VIA Mal � W,,Q,, kL V&"A Is V"i I+-. Section 18-61 (d)(4) provides for relief: Minimizing the tree loss should be achieved by any combination of the following: a Realignment ofstreets, utilities and lot lines. b. Consideration of alternative utility configurations such as the use of ejector pumps, force mains, or revised home elevations to minimize grading. c. Reductions in roadway width and right-of-way and increase in street grade up to ten percent when the applicant can demonstrate that significant tree preservation is directly related to the modification d Use ofprivate streets in lieu ofpublic streets. e. Variation in street radius and design speed f. Modified grading plans. Response: The property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive strongly request that the developer and the City should propose implementing modified grading plans, and realignment of internal lot lines of the proposed development to accommodate the property owners request regarding saving trees 142, 143, & 144. 2. Surface Water Management & Proposed Expansion of the Storm Water Pond/Wetland/Outlot A/Utility and Drainage Easement. Background: The developer is proposing a significant increase to the size of the pond located at the corner of 101 and Fox Hollow Drive. The developer states that the increase in storm water runoff warrants the increase of the size of the pond. Although there will be some increases in storm water runoff, there are other issues that need to be addressed and solved first before automatically increasing the size of the pond. The current pond area is 24,900 square feet or .57 acres. This area is just the area where the water currently is. This appears to be an adequate enough area, given the other issues that need to be addressed in this section. There are others things that can be done to limit the increase in impervious surface. There needs to be a critical analysis of the proposed storm water pond design, and also a thorough review of the NRCS TR-55 methodology or other methodology used as the design methodology of the pond and the proposed expansion. We propose an independent engineer be hired. Given the issues below, we maybe rushing to judgment to expand the pond to such a design that clearly conflicts with proper storm water pond design criteria. There are several problems increasing the size of the pond by a significant size and outmoded design, without addressing other issues first. A strategic expansion of the pond in certain areas is would be the more prudent course of action. Additionally, any further expansion should focus more on expanding the length rather than the width. The Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) has been in place since 1994. In a memo to Todd Gerhardt from Lori Haak dated September 21, 2004, in reference to the SWMP she writes "the 1994 plan is out of date." The City has hired an outside consulting firm SEH to review the SWMP. Among its area of focus are (1) water quantity and quality (2) inspection of every public storm water stricture (3) comprehensive wetland management program (4) revised storm water and wetland management ordinance (5) protocols for inspection and maintenance. 0 Uff OF MEMORANDUM MIUMB TO: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner 7700 Market Boulevard PO Boa 147 FROM: Mak Sweidan, Engineer 2 w - Dx' Chanhassen, MN 55317 C,f(�// DATE: March 7, 2005 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax:952.227.1110 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review of Fox Den Land Use Review File No. 05-01 Building Inspection Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Upon review of the plans submitted by Otto Associates dated January 20, 2005, I Engineering Phone:952.2271tW offer the following comments and recommendations: owg Fax: 952227.1170 GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL Finance Phone:9522271140 Fax:952.227.1110 The existing site has tree cover over approximately 1.5 acre of area. The plans propose to grade about 80% of the site for the new house pads, public street and Part : Recreation Phane:952.227.1120 cul-de-sac. The proposed grading will prepare the site for two look -out and four P P !� g P P Fax:952.227.1110 full basement house pads. The grading plan shows that, on average, the pad areas Recreation center are being filled three to five feet for the new homes. Also, additional grading will 2310 Coulter Boulevard take place south of the parcel to connect the proposed street with Fox Hollow Phone: 952.227,1400 Drive and to expand the existing storm pond. Staff is recommending that a small Fax: 952,227.1404 (1'-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right-of-way of Fox Drive Planning A south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room Natural Resources for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. The applicant must be P2.221100 Fax:952.227.1110 aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary ary easement. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is Public Worries necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul 1Park Road Phone:ne: 952.227.1300 route and traffic control plan. Fax 952.227.1310 The existing site drains from the northwestern corner to the southeastern corner of Senior center Phone:952.227.1125 the parcel. Under developed conditions, all of the drainage from the house roofs, P P g Fax:952,222i110 driveways and the cul-de-sac will be conveyed via storm sewer to the existing stormwater pond off the southeasterly comer of the site for treatment. The Web site wvrw.ci.chanhassen.mn.us applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site and only minor changes remain. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10- year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be The City of Chan has sen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beaulifuI parks. A great place to live. work, and play. Sharmeen AI-Jaff March 7, 2005 Page 2 dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. UTILITIES The plans propose on extending the sanitary sewer from an existing sanitary manhole in Fox Drive. Water will be extended from an existing watermain along the east side of the site and looped with the watermain in Fox Hollow Drive. The sanitary sewer and watermains will be considered public utility lines since they will serve more than one lot. As such, a minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. Installation of the private service utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer hookup and that assessment has been paid. As such, the sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. However, the water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water -main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of Health, MnDOT, and Watershed District. STREETS The plans propose to extend Fox Drive from the south side approximately 370- feet ending with a cul-de-sac. The required right-of-way for a new public street is 60-feet wide with a 60-foot radius for cul-de-sacs. The existing platted right-of- way for Fox Drive south of the site is 50-feet. For continuity with the existing Fox Drive right-of-way, the applicant is proposing a 50-foot wide street right-of- Sharmeen Al-Jaff March 7, 2005 Page 3 way and a 60-foot wide cul-de-sac radius. Staff is in favor of the applicant's proposal for this right-of-way variance. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. On the Utility plan: Show all easements. - Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled." 2. Add the following City detail plates: 1005, 2001, 5300 and 5301. 3. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 4. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water -main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 5. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH. 6. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. 8. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. Sharmeen AI-Jaff March 7, 2005 Page 4 9. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. 10. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 11. Staff is recommending that a small (1'-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right-of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. 12. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. c: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer gAeng\proje ts\fox den\ppr.dm 0 CITY OF CBANHASSEN 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: 952227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web site www.ci.chanhasserinn.us TO: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner �j FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director /1 DATE: February 28, 2005 /' 1 SUBJ: Request for Subdivision with Variances, Fox Den; Applicant: 10 Spring, Inc. I have reviewed the application for Fox Den, a proposed subdivision with variances located north of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101 and south of Pleasant View Road. The following conditions regarding parks and trails apply to the application: COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN This site is wholly within the neighborhood park service area of North Lotus Lake Park. This park offers a wide variety of amenities including tennis courts, ball fields, a children's playground, picnic shelter, lighted hockey and open skating rinks, open space and a walking trail. Residents of Fox Den will access the park via Fox Hollow Drive. It should be noted that sidewalks are not available in Fox Hollow. No additional parkland dedication is required in this area of the City; therefore park dedication dollars will be required in lieu of land dedication (6 lots X $4,000 per lot = $24,000). COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN Three of the six lots (4, 5 and 6) have direct access to a section of the city's comprehensive trail plan. This eight -foot wide city trail is located parallel to State Highway 101 on the eastern edge of the subject property. The other three lots will access the trail via Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this development. ATTACHMENTS 1. North Lotus Lake Park Map 2. Park Service Area Map c: Park and Recreation Commission G:\park\TH\Fox Den Subdivision The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chaffing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Location Map Fox Den 6500 Chanhassen Road Planning Case No. 05-08 Tovm U R c aC m ,pt it GU rappers y �m Cif m em 6 3 o m m z Now n Moumain Wa ear MountaiB/y°, eaeant View Road Pleasant View Raatl Subject Property o ' ayy,F0 ui }Hoaow OMe u rs + tidlow Drive �J ° k o x v° z Q.° m g oz a 3 Foataii CO u 3 ray °+ !CANNED W--'-.1m1Pw-1 North Lotus Lake Park City of Chanhassen, Minnesota T I 3I y I\i i jIla ilil; i �/ 111 1 1 I ,�:�. ♦ j it K IAMB 11.1.ln(lan [ogler Crop Inc. CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: March 15, 2005 CC DATE: April 11, 2005 51 REVIEW DEADLINE: April 12, 2005 CASE #: 05-08 BY: Al-Jaff, MS, TH, LH, JS PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat with variances to Subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 single-family lots, Fox Den. LOCATION: North of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Pleasant View Road. APPLICANT: 10 Spring, Inc. Roger Bongard U� 622 West 82°d Street 18195 County Road #30 Chaska, MN 55318 New Germany, MN 55367- (952)215-8535 (952)353-2150 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 2.77 Acres DENSITY: Gross 2.16 Units/Ac Net 2.8 Units/Ac SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat Approval to Subdivide 3.77 Acres into 6 single-family lots with a street width variance, Fox Den. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Location Map Fox Den 6500 Chanhassen Road Planning Case No. 05-08 Town C n m �O Gtit ,N u e au �avve� x om y� ro Ck y o � 9 m 6 m m Z Abuntain Wa Near Mountain 9j�d n D}b°� -aM View Raad F%awnt View Road Subject Property e o` zt a+ Q LL FoxN' lbw Drive n re Ndlow Drive 0� e °+ Q o b o x ma Q.e i o m ee � + 3 o FoxlailDo° $ ra o+ Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 2 PROPOSAUSUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.L7 acres into 6 single-family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family, and is located of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Pleasant View . _ The site contains a single family home which is proposed to be demolished. Access to the site is currently rLEnsatvr VMWRD gained via a driveway off of _T Highway 101. This driveway will be closed and a street off of Fox Hollow Drive will serve the subject site. On April 16, 1214. the Citv Councr —annmvedlhe plat included a 50 &wt d�hrsf_ �I way to f -access into the subject site As amsult_ the street width of the cul-de-saf. S U b) 2Gt It8 0 that will selY�thi�c;rr ma ntain a� foot width. city code requires 60-foot right- -of-way wt applicant tom f�^�-met width variance. The roadway `0 width (31' cK-LJ"urb to ac o N c wrtl comply with the city code. All lots are proposed to be DRxo u o served via proposed Fox Drive. �T The average lot size is square feet with a resulting gross density of 2.16 um_ts ve�re and a net density of 2.8 units per acre. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Lots 1 and 4 meet the requirements of the ordinance; however, staff expressed concern to the developer about the width of these lots. Specifically, both lots become extremely narrow toward the rear lot line. The developer provided plans for a home that he has built in the past which will fit on these lots without variances. There are no wetlands on the site. The site has some mature trees. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No.05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.77 acre site into 6 single-family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2.16 units per acre (gross) and 2.8 units per acre (net) after removing the road. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 15,452 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff expressed concern about lots 1 and 4, specifically the width of these lots. The applicant provided plans of a residence with a three car garage that will fit on these lots without variances. The applicant also provided hard surface calculations for Lot 4, Block 1 to demonstrate that the impervious coverage will remain under 25%. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS No jurisdictional wetlands exist on this property. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL Grading The existing site has tree cover over approximately 1.5 acre of area. The plans propose to grade about 80% of the site for the new house pads, public street and cul-de-sac. The proposed grading will prepare the site for two look -out and four full basement house pads. The grading plan shows that, on average, the pad areas are being filled three to five feet for the new homes. Also, additional grading will take place south of the parcel to connect the proposed street with Fox Hollow Drive and to expand the existing storm pond. Staff is recommending that a small (1'-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right-of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. Drainage The existing site drains from the northwestern corner to the southeastern comer of the parcel. Under developed conditions, all of the drainage from the house roofs, driveways and the cul-de- sac will be conveyed via storm sewer to the existing stormwater pond. A storm water quality pond exists adjacent to the site on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. Outlot A is owned by the City of Chanhassen. Staff is recommending this pond be expanded to provide water quality treatment for the proposed development. The pond should be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement should be maintained or replaced. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 4 The existing outlet of this pond is a 24" corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with no trash guard or skimmer to control potential floatables and it is not designed to prevent short-circuiting of the system. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C, Subsection 1D, Page 11 or 26) should be installed. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site and only minor changes remain. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The stone sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public stone drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Grading and Erosion Control Note 15 states that dewatering will be done from the top of the water column. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities are needed on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan is needed with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation. Erosion Control Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap are needed for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared -end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. If the right-of-way for Fox Drive is going to be mowed within the first year, the Category 3 blanket should be replaced with staked sod. The netting of the blanket could pose problems for lawn mowing until the netting biodegrades. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 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. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 5 Sediment Control A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control is needed for the CB between Lots 2 and 3. A Wimco-type inlet control is recommended. An alternative could be monofilament silt fence with metal T-posts and IVY' rock berm 2 feet high and 2 feet wide. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $1,093/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.77 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $3,028. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,705 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $7,493 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the expansion an existing NURP pond off -site. Because the pond is off - site, it is not eligible for credit. However, credit will be given for the replacement of one outlet structure ($2,500). At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $8,021. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval. UTILITIES The plans propose on extending the sanitary sewer from an existing sanitary manhole in Fox Drive. Water will be extended from an existing watermain along the east side of the site and looped with the watermain in Fox Hollow Drive. The sanitary sewer and watermains will be considered public utility lines since they will serve more than one lot. As such, a minimum 20- foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. Installation of the private service utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 6 According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer hookup and that assessment has been paid. As such, the sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. However, the water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water - main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of Health, MnDOT, and Watershed District. STREETS The plans propose to extend Fox Drive from the south side approximately 370-feet ending with a cul-de-sac. The required right-of-way for a new public street is 60-feet wide with a 60-foot radius for cul-de-sacs. The existing platted right-of-way for Fox Drive south of the site is 50- feet. For continuity with the existing Fox Drive right-of-way, the applicant is proposing a 50- foot wide street right-of-way and a 60-foot wide cul-de-sac radius. Staff is in favor of the applicant's proposal for this right-of-way variance. PARK DEDICATION COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN This site is wholly within the neighborhood park service area of North Lotus Lake Park. This park offers a wide variety of amenities including tennis courts, ball fields, a children's playground, picnic shelter, lighted hockey and open skating rinks, open space and a walking trail. Residents of Fox Den will access the park via Fox Hollow Drive. It should be noted that sidewalks are not available in Fox Hollow. No additional parkland dedication is required in this area of the City; therefore park dedication dollars will be required in lieu of land dedication for the five new lots (5 lots X $4,000 per lot = $20,000). Park Service Area Map Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 7 North Lotus lake Park Map COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN Three of the six lots (4, 5 and 6) have direct access to a section of the city's comprehensive trail plan. This eight -foot wide city trail is located parallel to State Highway 101 on the eastern edge of the subject property. The other three lots will access the trail via Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this development. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING Canopy coverage and preservation calculations have been submitted for the Fox Den development. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 2.77 ac. or 120,661 SF Baseline canopy coverage 56% or 67,110 SF Minimum canopy coverage allowed 35% or 42,231 SF Proposed tree preservation 19% or 23,185 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 (42,231-23,185) 19,046 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 22,855 SF Total number of trees to be planted 21 (22,855 =1089) Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 8 The total number of trees required for the development is 21. Applicant has proposed a total of 20 trees. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. No more than one-third of the trees may be from any one species. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan will be required prior to final approval. The subdivision is also required to have bufferyard plantings along Highway 101. Requirements are as follows: Location Required Proposed Hwy. 101 — bufferyard B 5 overstory trees 4 existing ash trees — 20' width 7 understory trees 4 overstory trees 240' length 12 shrubs 3 evergreen trees The applicant does not meet the minimum requirements for bufferyard planting along Highway 101. Staff recommends that the minimum quantities be met. In reviewing the tree inventory, staff would like to note that many of the elm and boxelder trees specified on the inventory are actually green ash. This makes a difference since green ash will not succumb to Dutch elm disease as the elm will and it isn't considered an `undesirable' tree as boxelders are. For these reasons, preserving as many of these trees as possible will help to make this development more appealing. Green ash are generally tolerant of construction and should do well through the process. Also of note on the tree inventory is the absence of some existing trees along the south property line. At least 4 green ash, 2 of which are double -stemmed, are not shown on the tree inventory. These trees are located between the existing shed and the south property line. These trees plus trees #142-144 should be protected during construction and remain on site. Staff recommends that the silt fence be installed in front of all of these trees prior to grading in order to preserve them during development. When the building permit for Lot 1, Block I is submitted, these trees will be re-evaluated for preservation. The applicant is expanding the pond on city property and in doing so will be removing a number of evergreen and deciduous trees. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant boulevard trees along Fox Drive and Fox Hollow Drive to replace the city trees lost. To create a partial buffer for Highway 101, staff recommends that evergreens be considered for the boulevard trees along Fox Drive. Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setbacks: front, side, rear Code 15,000 90 125 30,10, 30 L 1, Blk 1 17,567 93 257 30, 10, 30 L 2, Blk 1 15,014 93 @ front setback line 189 30, 10, 30 L 3, Blk 1 15,015 101 @ front setback line 166.5 30, 10, 30 L 4, Blk 1 15,065 90@ front setback line 242.5 30, 10, 30 Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 9 Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setbacks: front, side, rear Code 15,000 90 125 30,10, 30 L 5, Blk 1 15,041 90@ front setback line 191 30, 10, 30 L 6, Blk 1 15,014 90@ front setback line 152 30, 10, 30 ROW 27,945 Total 92,716 Average 15,452 @ Meets 90 foot width at the building setback line. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; 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. Fi- nding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 10 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. See.18-22. Variances. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; 3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The applicant is requesting a street width variance. This variance was recommended by staff. The ordinance requires a 60-foot right-of-way width. The plat reflects a 50-foot right- of-way. This right-of-way is consistent with the existing right-of-way that will provide access to this development. RECOMIIIENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: PRO.11viiNARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #5-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a variance for a 50 foot right-of-way width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto Associates stamped "Received February 11, 2005", subject to the following conditions: I. The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 11 2. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C, Subsection 1D, Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 3. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for dewatering. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation, shall be provided. 4. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared -end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 6. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots 2and 3. 7. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. 8. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. Building Department conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 12 c. Existing wells on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 11. Fire Marshal conditions: a. No bunting permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. b. 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. c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. d. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 12. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be planted. b. A minimum of two 2 r/2" deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. c. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species. d. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. e. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. f. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan will be required prior to final approval. g. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum, 5 overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs. It. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved. i. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except within the sight triangle. Species selected hall be ap oved,by the city. :► _ �PJ %vonc w1siaT to con si` � ' 1"8 V ;d 13.On the Utility plan: a. Show all easements. b. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled. 14. Add the following City detail plates: 1005, 2001, 5300 and 5301. 15. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 13 16. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water -main. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 17. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH. 18. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 19. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately -owned property will require a temporary easement. 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. 21. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. 22. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 23. Staff is recommending that a small (1'-3) retaining wall be installed along the western right- of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. 24. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. 25. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees." 105wt. 6o5W\fgW rs rorrec} . Deve4c?per *(-K 0/* FF t© eKc Ifj rel 1 j a 69j,\ xlc aF udqXRif \(I o n Fox Den Subdivision Planning Case No. 05-08 March 15, 2005 Page 14 ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Application. 2. Affidavit of Mailing and Public Hearing Notice. 3. Memo from Aaron Mlynek, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District, dated February 23, 2005. 4. Memo from Jason Ashline dated March 4, 2005. 5. Impervious Calculation Example for Lot 4, Block 1 and a floor plan. 6. Preliminary plat dated "Received February 11, 2005". gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-08 fox den\smff report pc.doc Acce� s <-��es� P P k <31, c�1 Yl off 31\ g_B CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: (U 5 F 2 l N G', L N G ADDRESS: &�z- co, F3Z r:p S T G L-f A5lLA ["I tA S,5310 TELEPHONE (Day Time) Q S Z —Z l 5" 5 S 3 5 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB 11 2005 CHN"SSEN PLANNING DEPT OWNER: R0CNGiL 13oN6A rZZD ADDRESS: _ 18 1 9 5 Co. R 0 t4 3d NLw aL112,P1ArJy. t`1�E�W TELEPHONE: _ 15 2 —35 3 — " I Sy Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit SOS R.n-c1J. lt-4stc/+z7 o_ Variance _ raci i Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review_ Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost' - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this box Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: GS©O GHAt-ttjASSC!J L20AD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: F1 114 C"(H L !� /¢ v � $r=C-T(0l-1 Sf TO wN 5H r P 11Co 1`to(Q-rd( 2ALtG% Z3 wC-STC-IT l oG c.00(-,7 NtiN TOTALACREAGE: Z,%% WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: YES NO PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: RL51 D,=r i /ft c 5(rc G LG FR /"t t L�—� QUA REASON FOR REQUEST: _CSur L)Iy15IOC 1 I 1"i0 C- LoTS rD YA 2, A ntG L FOR 50 (Z 1 Gt-t ( d F C✓,t x t,t 5 T L /} D C) doe l He EA15T1NG FOO,, 1+0Lj--6L,) 2.o, 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 whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 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. n /C�5Utztt cG ENC, (2-05CtNt-,-jt`"P Date Date Application Received on Z 1 Fee Paid j, 7 0 Receipt No. La J�8 7 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Thursday prior to the meeting. if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. GAplanlo \Development Review Applicatim DOC CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on March 3, 2005, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Fox Den — Planning Case No. 05-08 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. d and sw�oorn to before me day of 1 YV1r-ch , 2005. r Public en J. n elhar eputy Clerk KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota 1N cau e,�res J y:, Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for subdivision with variances — Fox Den Planning File: 05-08 Applicant: 10 Spring, Inc. Property North of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Location: Pleasant View Road (6500 Chanhassen Road) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Questions & or e-mail saliaffOci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department In advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/woblink the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party Is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation, Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclavindustrial. • Minnesota Stale Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal Request for subdivision with variances —.Fox Den Planning File: 05-08 Applicant 10 Spring, Inc. North of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Property Pleasant View Road (6500 Chanhassen Road) Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Questions & or e-mail saliaffGoi.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6tweblink the Thursday rior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation, Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may lake several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. I Subject Property I -his map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as me. his map is a compilation of records, intonation and data located in various city, county, state and social offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference exposes only. The Chy does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used 0 prepare this map are error free, and Me City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used or navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or lirection or precision in the depict. of geographic features. M errors or discrepancies are found noose contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disdaimer is provided Wrsuant to Minnesota Raates §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of ties map ackncwtedges that the City shall not re liable for any damages, and expressly mi%nM all dairts. and agrees to defend, indermity, and rold hamyess the City from any and all dam brought by User, its employees or agents, or Mird n ubse which arise out of the users access or use of data provided. Subject Property I This nap is neither a legally recatlatl rtep nor a survey and is not intended to be used as me. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in vwims city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference bur,oa ss only. The City does not v'drrant Mat the Geographic Mmretim System (GIS) Data used 10 Prepare dus map are error free, and Me City does rout represent Mal the GIS Data can be used for navlgatmal, trading Or any Mer Wrpose requi exacting rreawrertenl of distance on direction or Premium in Me depiction of geographi rearm a errors or dscreparxdes are found please correct 952-227-1107. The preceding disdaintar is provided pursuant to Mnnesaa Stables §4W.03, Subd. 21 (2"), and the user Of this map acknovAedges Mat Me City shall trot be liable for any canneries, and exyres4y waives dig dains, and agrees a defend. indemtify. and hold fgmyess the City from any and air darns brorpht by User, is errployees or agai or third parties %Mich ache but of the users access or oee or data provided Public Hearing Notice Area (500 feet) Fox Den 6500 Chanhassen Road Planning Case No. 05-08 1. 0 m m N m d Road) Subject Property JASON P & TONIA R ASHLINE NATHAN A WASGATT & ROSEMARY A MARQUART 10 FOX HOLLOW DR LORIE L COLE 101 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 100 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ORHAN A & PATRICIA J LINER TRUSTEES OF TRUST 110 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD A & RHONDA G HERR 120 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARGARET A NELSON 135 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYNE A & JULIE K SIEBER 150 GRAY FOX LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY M & DEIDRE L BISHOP 170 BLUFF RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARL F & MARGARET A MCNUTT 185 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JUNELLE J CHRISTY TRUSTEE OF TRUST 2600 CHERRYWOOD RD HOPKINS MN 55305 ROGUE L SWENSON JR & SUSAN C CONNOY 35 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL E O'CONNOR & MARCIA L O'CONNOR 110 GRAY FOX LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRANK & MELODY K KLOIDA 130 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICKI L & MARY B CARLSON 140 BLUFF RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT & EDNA PETERSON 160 BLUFF RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PATRICIA K NICOL 180 BLUFF RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JULIE M FURY 20 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BROOK S BOLESTA & PETER G & CINDY S BOLESTA 30 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CONSTANCE M KEEFE 40 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HERBERT J & ELLA KASK 115 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN G & SUSANNE THEISSEN 130 GRAY FOX LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN & CHERYL PETERSON 150 BLUFF RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL & MARGARET SCHRIEBER 160 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROGER B BONGARD 18195 CO RD 30 NEW GERMANY MN 55367 DAVID B ROBINSON 25 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK A & WAI-MING T HENDERSON 31 FOX HOLLOW DR PO BOX 1147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFERY B & CYNTHIA S HALL 41 FOX HOLLOW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARIA VANDERZANDEN GARY J & VICTORIA G ALEXANDER STEVEN W & KELLY K LEN 50 HUNTERS CT 55 PLEASANT VIEW RD 60 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUSTC/O JAMES M THEIS BRIAN P & SARA B MUENCH 600 CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR 6400 CHANHASSEN RD 6400 NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD CHASKA M N 55318 E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 M ARNOLD E & MARIE C SCHROEDER 6430 PLEASANT VIEW LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES & JOYCE NICHOLLS 6451 PLEASANT VIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JUDY SUNDERLAND 6502 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY MCNEILL 6441 PLEASANT VIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL D & JULIE M DOUGLAS 65 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW C LEITH & KATHERINE MOORE LEITH 6503 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHY ANNE STUDER & STEPHEN J MACHACEK & JAMES DONALD CHARLES STUDER LYN A NOELTING 6505 GRAY FOX CRV 6521 QUAIL XING CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW J & LINDA M HOFMEISTER 70 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY S MULCRONE 85 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATT O EVJEN & JENNIFER ANNE SHAW-EVJEN 89 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC J ZORN 91 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL J BUJOLD 80 HUNTERS CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES E & KAMI M VAN DUSEN 87 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JUANE VANEYLL 90 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS C & HEIDI J NAUMAN 92 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS W & CHRISTINA HANSEN 6450 PLEASANT VIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY J & DIANE L BROWN 6500 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS M & NANCY J ANDERSON 6504 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES R KLINGELHUTZ & MARY JANE KLINGELHUTZ 6570 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD R & BARBARA J VERNES 83 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIK M & JENNIFER A KITT 88 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KENNETH H CARLSON & CATHERINE J CARLSON 90 HUNTERS CRT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LEE & KAREN BORIL 93 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS J & JAYNE M ALLEN MARK L & LAURA L LARSON MICHAEL P & JAMIE L MANNING 95 CASTLE RIDGE CT 97 CASTLE RIDGE CT 99 CASTLE RIDGE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARVER 09 Cev. 219 East Frontage Road 4 1946 Waconia, MN 55387 iN14itrER ro Gm Phone:952-442-5101 °4tv S`° Fax: 952-442-5497 MSERVATION DISTRICT htty://www.co.ca"er.mn.us/SWCD/SWCD mainhtnt Mission Statement. To provide leadership in conservation and teach stewardship of the soil, water, and related resources through a balanced, cooperative program that protects, restores, and improves those resources. February 23, 2005 Shanneen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Fox Den Ms. Al-Jaff: The SWCD has taken the opportunity to review the 6-lot subdivision Fox Den. The plan reviewed is dated 1/20/05. Please review and consider the following comments and suggestions regarding erosion and sediment controls and stormwater / dewatering concerns. Erosion Control --Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap is needed for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared - end inlets to the stormwater pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side of Hwy 101. --If the area of the ROW adjacent to 10 Fox Hollow Drive is going to be mowed within the first year, the Category 3 blanket should be replaced with staked sod. The netting of the blanket could pose problems for lawn mowing until the netting biodegrades. Sediment Control --A detail for the CB sediment control is needed for the CB between Lots 2 and 3. A wimco-type inlet control is recommended. An alternative could be monofilament silt fence with metal t-posts and 11/2" rock berm 2 feet high and 2 feet wide. Stormwater / Dewaterine 1. In Grading and Erosion Control Note 15, it states that dewatering will be done from the top of the water column. It is recommended to use a floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method. 2. The flow route / distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the stormwater basin and dewatering activities are needed on the plan. 3. A detailed dewatering plan is needed with method, rate and erosion / sediment control considerations such as energy dissipation. 4. The existing outlet is a 24"CMP with no trash guard or skimmer to control potential floatables nor is it designed to prevent short-circuiting of the system. An outlet meeting NPDES Permanent Storm Water Management System Requirements is needed for this project. (NPDES Permit No. MN R100001, Section C, Subsection ID, Page 11 or 26). If there are any questions or if I can be of further assistance please contact the SWCD office: Sincerely, Aaron Mlynek Aaron Mlynek, CPESC Urban Conservation Technician c. Lori Haak, City of Chanhassen (email) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER March 4, 2005 Ms. Shanneen Al-Jaff Senior Planner City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Fox Den Preliminary Plat Issues Dear Sharmeen: EECEI ED MAR 0 8 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN I submitted to you, Matt Saam, Jill Sinclair, and Lori Haak, on Thursday, March 3, 2005, a document titled "Fox Den Preliminary Plat Issues." I have made some modifications to this document and I do not wish to include it as an attachment the Staff Report to the Commission. I have enclosed the revised document for your review and comment. This revised document should be included with the Staff Report to the Commission and I ask that it be included as an attachment to that Report. Thank you. Jason Ashline 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Fox Den Preliminary Plat Issues To the Planning Commission, Planning Staff, and City Council Members With any proposed development, there are several real impacts. Although aware that development is always a potential in any area, it must fit in with the area and it must consider the existing conditions currently in that community, and work in cooperation with the affected parties. There are several problems with this development's proposal and there are several inconsistencies with the Chanhassen City code, especially how they relate to Landscape & Tree Preservation. There are also several potential inadequate design or premature practices proposed as it relates to the proposed pond expansion. All of these must be solved before the development should go forward. For these reasons, we can not respectfully support the proposed development at this time. We would suggest that the Preliminary Plat be redesigned and resubmitted for consideration. Five areas will be addressed in this statement (1) Landscape & Tree Preservation (2) Surface Water Management & Proposed Pond Expansion (3) Grading and Erosion Control (4) Streets (5) Proposed Plat Alternatives 1. Landscaping & Tree Preservation Sec. 18-61 (d)(2) of the City of Chanhassen code states: Prior to the submittal ofdevelopment plans, a tree survey of the site shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect, licensed forester, or other professional approved by the city. This survey shall include the species, DBH size (DBH means diameter measured at breast height, four and f ve-tenths feet above the ground), condition, location ojall trees over six inches in diameter and any damaged or diseased trees on site. All significant special, damaged or diseased trees shall be tagged and identified by number on the survey. A delineation of the existing canopy coverage area(s) which outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be included as part ojthe survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased trees shall be cataloged with the nature and extent of any damage or disease specified Response: There are several trees that are missing from the Tree Inventory/Survey submitted by the developer. For instance, there is a tree immediately to the East of tree number 144 that is not listed. This tree has two trunks (see picture left): There are also three trees south of the existing shed and between the wooden fence of the property of 20 Fox Hollow Drive (see picture below) that is not listed on the tree inventory. Even if all other trees are accounted for, then these omissions cause incorrect canopy coverage statistics. Also, it is unclear whether or not the developer can count the trees in their tree inventory on the Outlot A sight because Outlot A is not on 6500 Chanhassen Rd. The Outlot is located in a PUD, it is also subject to different zoning conditions. Sec 18-61 requires the species of each tree. However, only the genus name is listed on the inventory (e.g. pine, maple). Species requires the person conducting the inventory to establish the scientific name such as Norway Pine or Sugar Maple. Trees #142 &143 could be considered boundary line trees. The tree trunks begin either on the line or slightly North of the property line between 10 Fox Hollow Drive and 6500 Chanhassen Road. The trunks cross the boundary line, and continue to grow into the property owner's yard of 10 Fox Hollow Drive (see picture left): The current and previous owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive have maintained these trees by, but limited to, (1) raking the leaves that fell into the backyard of 10 Fox Hollow Drive (2) Incurring the costs to dispose of the leaves that fell from the trees to the appropriate disposal sites in Carver County. The leaves fell from the limbs and branches that grew out from the trunks that were clearly located on the property owner of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Holmberg v. Bergin, 172 N.W. 2' 739 (Minn 1969) establishes the definition for boundary trees. A tree is a boundary tree if it was planted jointly or treated as common property by agreement, acquiescence, or course of conduct. The course of conduct clearly establishes the fact that the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive co-own the tree with the owner of 6500 Chanhassen Road. Additionally, the tree could not be considered a nuisance since by its nature, it is not patently offensive, causing ill will or health, or damaging to the property of others. Even if the nuisance argument could be remotely posed, Oa Section 18-61 (dx4) provides for relief: Minimizing the tree loss should be achieved by any combination of the follawing: a Realignment ofstreets, utilities and lot lines. b. Consideration of alternative utility configurations such as the use of ejector pumps, force mains, or revised home elevations to minimize grading. c. Reductions in roadway width and right-of-way and increase in street grade ap to ten percent when the applicant can demonstrate that significant tree preservation is directly related to the modification. d Use ofprivate streets in lieu ofpublw streets. e. Variation in street radius and design speed f. Modified grading phms. Response: The property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive strongly request that the developer and the City should propose implementing modified grading plans, and realignment of internal lot lines of the proposed development to accommodate the property owners request regarding saving trees 142, 143, & 144. 2. Surface Water Management & Proposed Expansion of the Storm Water Pond/Wetland/Outlot A/Utility and Drainage Easement. Background: The developer is proposing a significant increase to the size of the pond located at the comer of 101 and Fox Hollow Drive. The developer states that the increase in storm water runoff warrants the increase of the size of the pond. Although there will be some increases in storm water runoff, there are other issues that need to be addressed and solved first before automatically increasing the size of the pond. The current pond area is 24,900 square feet or .57 acres. This area is just the area where the water currently is. This appears to be an adequate enough area, given the other issues that need to be addressed in this section. There are others things that can be done to limit the increase in impervious surface. There needs to be a critical analysis of the proposed storm water pond design, and also a thorough review of the NRCS TR-55 methodology or other methodology used as the design methodology of the pond and the proposed expansion. We propose an independent engineer be hired. Given the issues below, we maybe rushing to judgment to expand the pond to such a design that clearly conflicts with proper storm water pond design criteria There are several problems increasing the size of the pond by a significant size and outmoded design, without addressing other issues first. A strategic expansion of the pond in certain areas is would be the more prudent course of action. Additionally, any further expansion should focus more on expanding the length rather than the width. The Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) has been in place since 1994. In a memo to Todd Gerhardt from Lori Haak dated September 21, 2004, in reference to the S WMP she writes "the 1994 plan is out of date" The City has hired an outside consulting firm SEH to review the S WMP. Among its area of focus are (1) water quantity and quality (2) inspection of every public storm water structure (3) comprehensive wetland management program (4) revised storm water and wetland management ordinance (5) protocols for inspection and maintenance. Furthermore, in the memo, it states "the vertical element (z coordinate) will allow the City to employ detailed storm water modeling techniques to anticipate, assess, and resolve surface water issues and problem areas." Based on 1994 standards, this development may or may not be premature as it relates to storm water management. At the very least, consideration must be given to an outdated SWMP and how it relates to the proposed expansion of the pond. Issue 1: Design of the Pond. I would refer the planners and commission members to a couple of websites. www.eigolden-valley.mn.us/environment/ponding.htm (contact AI Lundstrom 763-593-8046) and www.state.ri.us or search for "the State of Rhode Island & Storm Water Manual." I'm sure Minnesota has similar protocols. Generally speaking, there are several things to keep in mind when designing an effective storm water pond. (1) Ponds are generally three times as long as wide (2) There is a 3:1 minimum ratio along the flow path between the inlet and outlet (these requirements allow for polluted sediment more time to settle before the outlet pipe releases the water). (3) The forebay length to width ratio should be a Minimum of 2:1 with a preference for 3 to 1. The condition and design of the forebay (between the pipe inlet and the main pond) is critical. It should be 4-6 feet deep. This is the main area where polluted sediment is filtered out. Response: The proposed pond will be nearly as wide as it is long. According to the resources and experts that I have cited, this design is generally not a very effective design. Although a larger pond may in some cases filter out more pollutants, if it is not designed correctly, it will cause more harm than good. The 3:1 ratio between the outlet and inlet is not maintained. There are questions about the condition of the current forebay and its design. Furthermore, there is not other development along 101 (North of 5) that would have such a large pond next to the road. For safety issues, if a car were to go over the side of the road, or if a pedestrian were to slip down the embankment into the pond, there could be serious liability issues for the City. 101 is a very busy road. Creating such a large body of water next to the road is not a good idea At the very least now, barriers should be installed. Issue 2: According to the experts, natural landscaping should be in place around the pond (see attachment to the paper). This should include bushes, natural grasses, and shrubs because these stabilize the pond by preventing erosion, preserves an environment for microorganisms that remove pollutants, improves pond's appearance by hiding debris, creates an environment for dragonflies which eat mosquitoes, discourage geese from visiting and contributing to pollution through their droppings, making the pond less attractive for wading and swimming. Response: The South and West end of the pond is mowed grass. It does not have natural habitat of bushes, natural grasses, and shmbs. It invites geese (which are a constant nuisance and populate this pond in significant numbers) to further pollute the water. The existing embankment to the North has bushes, natural grass, and shrubs. It provides for a natural buffer. It is in line with how storm water ponds should be designed. An expansion of the pond would remove all of existing area to the North with no planting of natural grasses, bushes, and shrubs (or that is how the landscape plan is submitted). (See pictures above and below): Furthermore, by entirely eliminating the North end of the pond, this removal would be in direct conflict with section 18-61 (d)(1) It is a policy ofthe City of Chanhassen to protect the integrity ofthe natural environment through the Preservation, protection, and planting of trees. The city finds that trees provide many benefits including: stabilization of the soil by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction ofstorm water runoffand the costs associated therewith, improvement ofair quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat island ef%c4 protection and increase ofproperty values, protection ofprivacy, energy conservation through natural insulation, control ofdrainage and restoration of dermded sail subsequent to construction and grading, protection from severe weather, providing habitat for birds and other wildlife, conservation and enhancement of city's physical and aesthetic environment, reforestation ofopen lands, and general protection and enhancement ofthe quality oflife and general welfare ofthe city. It is therefore the purpose of this section to provide regulations related to the cutting, removal, or killing of trees on construction and development sites and to ensure the protection and preservation ofthe natural environment and beauty of the city. Response: All of the trees will be eliminated in the current plan. Some of the most vital ones (conifers) reduce noise pollution and headlight impacts on a year round basis from the traffic on highway 101. These conifers protect the privacy of the first homes along the entry of Fox Hollow Drive. By removing the mature conifer trees, you remove the element of privacy. The proposed replacement planting are mainly deciduous in nature and do not maintain their leaves for 6 months of the year, thus drastically reducing the potential buffering effect. They do not provide good protection from visual impacts, noise, and protect privacy like large conifer trees do. Additionally, these large trees reduce storm water runoff and control drainage --especially right next to a stone water pond. By eliminating the trees around the pond, it exacerbates and creates additional - runoff. The trees are also habitat to birds and other small animals. In eliminating the trees, you not only create additional problems but you also eliminate the aesthetic benefits that they provide, and the potential increase in property values they pass on to members of the Fox Hollow community (see pictures below) Furthermore, the pond outiot is located in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Fox Hollow. There are different codes that apply to developments in a Single Family Residential (RSF) zone compared with a PUD. The pond outlet and the trees and area to the North of the pond provide necessary buffering from the visual impacts from collector highway 101. Section 20-1176. Intent, scope, and compliance address these requirements. f Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and law intensity uses, between a site and major streets and highways, and in areas where buffering is required by the comprehensive plan. Such buffering shall be located within a required buffer yard. The buffer yard is a unit of yard together with the planting required thereon The amount of land and the type and amount of planting specified for each buffer yard required by this subsection are designed to ameliorate rwisances between adjacent land uses or between a land use and a public road The planting units required of buffer yards have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, junction to "buffer. " (1) Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel extending to the lot or parcel boundary line, except where easements, covenants or natural features may require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line. Subject to review and approval by the city engineering department, buffer yards N that are compatible with the typical city boulevard planting requirements maybe located within a portion of an existing municipal public collector or arterial right-of-way. Additionally, 69(8) In instances in which the city deems it necessary, to provide year-round screening, the city may designate that all planting be of conifers. (gl The city shall encourage reforestation through boulevard and streetscape planting. (h) Mature stands of trees shall be preserved. The landscaping and tree replanting plan submitted by the developer does not adequately address the loss of buffering that an expansion to the pond and the loss of the stands of conifer and long line of deciduous trees will cause. In fact, the developer only proposes to three deciduous trees and two conifer trees in this area and these plantings are dozens of feet from 101. The City should insist on the developer complying with Section 20-1176 (f)(8) as it relates to the ponding area The City should also insist that additional reforestation occur through more boulevard and streetscape planting on the South and West side of the pond area Issue 3: Pond Maintenance and Statistics As discussed in issue 1 above, a larger pond is not necessarily a more effective pond. If natural landscaping is not included as part of the design, then the pond effectiveness to filter out pollutants is decreased significantly. An additional area that needs to be fully examined is pond maintenance and the statistics associated with this particular pond regarding its effectiveness. There are several questions that the City and the developer need to answer: (1) Can the City provide documentation as to what the pond water quality is and what it has been in the last 5 years from this pond? (2) Have there been any water test results that indicate that runoff rates do not meet water quality standards? (3) Can the City state what it has done in the the last five years to control sediment in the pond? According to the Fox Hollow file maintained by the City of Chanhassen, in 1984 when Outlot A was being established, one of the main concerns was sediment. In a March 13, 1984 letter from Stanley Wendland from the U.S. Dept of Agriculture to Bob Waibel, it is stated: "... the plans for providing ponding areas should include a provision for removing trapped sediment." (4) When was the last time the outlets, inlets, ditches, and culverts associated with this pond were cleared and cleaned? (5) When where the last time the catch basins were cleaned? (6) What are the water reading depths over the last five years? Is the pond too shallow? Too full? If there is evidence that it is trapped with sediment and too full, can it not be dredged? (7)If the pond is expanded, what happens if the pond becomes too shallow? (8) Is drainage from the pond an issue, and if it is, what is being done to solve it? (9) When was the last time the formula was evaluated for storm water runoff? (10) How many homes does this pond serve? 7 Given the fact that the SWMP is out of date and given the fact that the City may not have effective and up-to-date protocols for evaluating water quality, storm water run-off issues, an outdated storm water ordinance, outmoded protocols for maintenance and inspection, it maybe premature to declare that this pond has to be increased by such a significant size. The recommendation would be to focus intently on Issues 1-3 and as a last result expand the size of the pond by no more than 10% (if even necessary). Proper pond design, natural landscaping, maintenance, inspection, and drainage from the pond, are the best ways in the short to long terms to address the issues associated with this pond. A small expansion of the pond without fully implementing and addressing all of the issues raised in 1-3 fails to address the real issues with storm water pond management and storm water runoff. The inlet pipe from the West of Fox Drive should run at a 45 degree diagonal under Fox Drive and then enter into the existing storm water pond on its West side. Furthermore, the City needs to seriously look to adopting, for future developments, the potential to use the practice of Low Impact Development (LID). The City should provide financial incentives to developers, perhaps initially as a pilot project, to use LID as the way to handle storm water management issues in the future. The SEH consulting firm will probably make this as one of their recommendations. I would refer interested people to www.lowimpactdevelopment.org and www.tahomaaudobon.org for information on this landscape storm water management concept. LID has reduced the size of storm water ponds sizes by 75% while still retaining open spaces and dry basements. Construction costs could be reduced by up to 20%. Retaining vegetation and reducing road width and impervious surfaces is the key. Search the web for a title of a document conducted by CH2MHILL from Bellevue, Washingtion called "Pierce County Low Impact Development Study." See also Wisconsin's Natural Resource Magazine (www.wnrmag.com/supps/2003/febO3/stem.htm). 3. Grading and Erosion Control According to the Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan, the developer is requesting that the existing fence at the North and East ends of the 10 Fox Hollow Drive be removed by the property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The existing grading plans call for extensive grading right up to and potentially on to the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The extensive proposed grading plans for the area around the pond are not necessary for the reasons stated in the previous pages. Response: Steeper slopes typically increase the rate of erosion. One impact of land development is soil compaction which decreases soil infiltration and ground water recharge, which contributes to storm water runoff. 3:1 grading is too excessive. That is the maximum. A 3:1 grading slope would make the house and the lot at 10 Fox Hollow Drive appears that it is "higher" off the ground than the other homes in the area. The lot and the home would appear aesthetically out of place with the excessive grading. The lot and the home would appear if it were sitting on a 8 "crown." It is recommended that the natural swales and slopes be maintained as much as practicable to the East and North of the 10 Fox Hollow Drive property. In a survey commissioned by the property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, the wooden fence located to the East of the existing home is entirely on the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, it does not enter the right of way. The property owners are not going to remove the wooden fence on the East side of their home for any reason nor grant the developer an easement to perform excessive grading. Furthermore, the property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not know and are not aware that the irregular shaped or wire fence is their property or who installed the wire fence The current owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not know where the developer obtained the information or drew the conclusion that the wire fence belonged or was put in place by the owners of 10 Fox Follow Drive. The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not have an objection to the future removal of this fence only if (1) if the developer does not damage the existing wooden fence (2) the developer disposes of the fence (3) the developer does not damage any trees in the removal of the fence. The property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive find the grading plans extensive, intrusive, and unnecessary as it relates to their property line on the East. Potential damage to the property is probable and the grading will not benefit them. Additionally, the owners have serious concerns about the closeness of construction equipment, traffic, insurance and workers compensation issues as they relate to potential earthwork on or near their property. Furthermore, special assessments should not be passed on to the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. They are not going to benefit from the grading but their privacy and property lines are going to be severely disturbed. 4. Streets According to the Preliminary Plat, a 31 foot wide road will be going in right next to the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The width of the may be consistent with the other street widths, but it is excessive for the area that it is proposed. The closeness of Fox Drive to 10 Fox Hollow Drive and to the pond is of great concern for safety and aesthetic concerns. A 31 foot wide road ending in a cul-de-sac greatly increases the impervious surface and thus increases runoff which is unnecessary. The developer and City would save costs by going to a 24 foot wide street, it would also create more lot area, reduce impervious surface, create less runoff, and fit in better with the area The proposed road would only serve 6 homes. There are other alternatives. Response: Research shows that narrow streets are the safest. For example, a study conducted by Swift Associates and the City of Longmont Colorado looked at 20,000 car accidents over 8 years. The study found: "the most signifIcant casual relationships to injury and accident were found to he street width and street curvature." "...as the street widens, accidents per mile per year increases exponentlaDy, and that the safest residential street width is 24 feet.^ 0 Furthermore in the same report it is stated, "In neo-traditional design, on -street parking is only provided where densities exceed ♦ dwelling units per acre." In fact, the study went on to point out: "Reducing road widths from 32 feet to 10 feet will produce a 6% redaction in impervious area" Typically, street systems account for more than 50% of the total amount of imperviousness on site. Studies have shown that where cul-de-sacs are built, the radii of turnaround should be minimized. Reducing the length and width of a road reduces the impervious surfaces and thus reduces runoff. Additionally, the use of porous pavement reduces impervious surfaces. There is no indication on what is being done to make effective use of porous pavement to reduce storm water runoff and the impervious surface. (see www.nemo.uconn.edu) for a more detailed explanation on the above information. It also addresses the concern over some individuals have about an emergency vehicle having enough room to turn around. The area for the proposed Fox Drive has been a grassy area maintained by the residents of the Fox Hollow Development for over 20 years. The property owners pay $12-15 a year to maintain this area. It is well maintained. Who would maintain these areas once a development is put in? The City? A private maintenance company? Who would pay? The name of the proposed development is Fox Den. Fox Den would be located in a totally different zoning district than the original Fox Hollow. A 31 foot wide between 10 Fox Hollow Drive the Outlot A would look out -of -character for the community. A 24 foot wide road through a variance request would serve better purposes. It would not be so close to the property line (a proposed 9 feet) to the 10 Fox Hollow Drive residence, and it would not be so close to the West end of Oudot A. Furthermore, the road will be very close to 101. If MN Dot decides to expand 101 to 4 lanes in the future, then the pond at the comer of 101 and Fox Hollow Drive may have to be relocated. The entry to Fox Hollow, without any buffers, will not look like an entry to a well established and sought after residential PUD, but it will look like one solid slab of pavement and concrete. The property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive request that the road, if installed, be located at least 12 feet off of their property line to the East. This distance is a safe distance because in the event of snow plowing in the winter, the snow will not be plowed directly into the fence that will be maintained by the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Additionally, the turning area for Fox Drive, as currently proposed on the Preliminary Plat is literally 2-3 feet off of the property line. Again, this turning radius begins too close to the property line. The owners strongly request that the entire road be moved further to the East. For safety reasons, there are serious concerns. Without proper natural buffering and protection, a car may roll down the embankment or drive off of Fox Drive and into the pond —whether intentionally or unintentionally. The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive request that buffering and boulevard plantings occur, in addition to the natural buffering and landscaping proposed above because 10 Fox Hollow Drive will now be located on a street corner; the owners would request serious consideration of these issues. The owners would like a Norway spruce planted on the comer of Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive, on the comer of their property. MN Dot needs to establish a wider and longer turn lane j[f, off of 101 into the Fox Hollow Development. The turn lane is too narrow its current length does not provide enough time to slow down from 45 mph to near 0 mph safely. Lastly, 101 is a very busy road. The addition of any more traffic to this road will cause more harm than good. 5. Proposed Plat Alternatives (See Pages Attached) Besides the alternatives proposed above, the attached mark-ups of the Preliminary Plat provide further guidance in how to modify the existing proposal while still providing a win -win solution for the developer, the neighborhood, and the property owners most affected by these changes. There are several inconsistencies in the Fox Den proposal as they relate to the Chanhassen City Code, and there are several design flaws and inadequacies proposed that would prevent effective storm water management practices. There are several alternatives that should be considered and implemented before this Plan is approved. Respectfully Submitted, Jason Ashline 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 March 2, 2005 11 i lIS p a aOr Wzm �A ' ,.o,� INN • sFPHA Tb�'r�a..a L, G 4 ,war mrrr nos ��pp j1 o j I Lot 1116 OF y U� �9Yp OIA bt/rM S�onl A"A n a w > e m tar- - I r �rmrs ruisas�r+s wwesw FOX DEN. Ppg 'SfRffFa CN+Aa�WfsAaS,SwOcJ, - d.PLA9NtFIO1EEI5 AN F ADM_ rGArr- IL all A3 r sFPb54' Do I -Pplo -- -7— EuE7 -rotee, 5 FQ-TTaTw (sl vieftwAswWY Fit � M r AL�Jwt�ljve PLANS / \ I I � � _I a a_ I aarw7• \e. IGO- \" Q� / / 2 - 9LT FENCE-5.700 a. I Mll.pb 2. wmw /� .%-^ µs•- 1 I �. Ii: � mrrrawur®arwi ..sue i \ O I . IfAG A. I,flW U_ F� I �naiourreo..w .J1 ��.e �_ FOX DEN - - rr�ursrceno+mc ' + K .91O@ ION/NOI N.\N NFL G=W�3B{A41 SHEET NO. 4 OF -- SN " — LVJI�l a+ncuuYl4. 1\VJI4GLLLal ragc L VL v Design Example 1: Residential Development - Swann Center This section presents a sizing example for a medium residential subdivision, Swann Center. The layout of the Swann Center subdivision is shown in Figure 1. 14 In this design example, the NRCS TR-55 method is used as the design methodology. 1. Swann Crater Bare Dula HFQYiC Daly Location: Anywhere, USA Site Area = Total Drainage Area (A) = 38.0 ac $q Poe Mtz%ured Impervious Area a 13.9 at; I=13.8138 = CN 63 78 36.3% t, .35 hr .19 hr Soils 7)-pes: 60% •R•, 40% "C" Stream Use Designation - i Zoning: Reskkntiai (5% acre lab) Stec 1. Compute WDv Volume Criteria: • Size for the 90% rainfall event. • Use a minimum runoff coefficient of 0.2. Step Ia. Compute Runoff Coefficient 1 4 This runoff coefficient is derived from Schuelers Simple Method. http://www.stormwatercenter.netIManual_BuilderlSizing_Criteria/Design%2OExample%201 /example... 3/5/2005 Lcar r i Aaruprc. Mcarucuuw i a6c c viv Rv = 0.05 + (1) (0.009) Where: I = Impervious Cover (%) Rv = 0.05 + (36.3) (0.009) = Ull Step I . Compute WO, WOv = (Pt) (Rv) (A) Where: P, = 90% Rainfall Event (Indies). Assume 0.9' in this example A = 38.0 acres WQv = (0.9 ) (0.38) (38.0 ac) (tft/12in) =1.08 ac4t Check Minimum: (0.2 ) (38.0 ac) (1fl/12 ) = 0.63 ac-ft [okay] Step 2 Compute Recharge Volume (Rev) Step 2a. Determine Recharge Equation Based on Hydrologic Soil Group (Table 1). Table 1. Recharge Based on Sal Group HSG Recharge Requirement (0.38) (Rv) (A) 112 (0.25) (Rv) (A) 112 0 (0.13) (R„) (A) / 12 (0.06) (Rv) (A) / 12 Assume imperviousness is located proportionally in B and C soils. Step 21b. Compute Recharge Volume For "B" soils=[(0.25 inches) (.38) (.38 ac)/12"/ft] (0,60) = 0.18 ac-ft For "C" soils=[(0.13 inches) (.38) (.38 ac)/12"/ft] (0.40) = .06 ac-ft Add recharge requirement for both soils Rev = (0.18 ac-ft) + (0.06 ac-ft) = 0.24 ac-ft A This requirement can be met either with a structural practice, or with S!ormwater Credos. 04 Step 3 Compute Stream Channel Protection Volume (CC )-., Requirement: Provide 24 hours of extended detention for the 1-year event. Please note that the length of detention may be smaller based on the stream resource. In cold water trout streams, for example, the detention • time may be as small as 6 to 12 hours. Step 3a. Develop site hydrologic and TR-55 Input Parameters Table 2 presents Input Parameters Per attached TR-55 calculations (see Figures 2 and 3). http://www.storrnwatercenter.net/Manual_ Builder/Sizing_Criteria/Design%20Exampleo/u201 /example... 3/5/2005 owtruwaici Lcargu naaurprc. rvuu rags t 01 11 Stormwater Design Example: Pond wnr •y u+Rrs.�oaRur+.Rc� rx>. ' v wrr Roar _ � A 14AFFPf1 i1R, cµ,MR 6NpW VKGY PLAN VIEW PROFILE POND DESIGN EXAMPLE The following design example is for the "wet extended detention (ED) pond," from STP Group 1 (stormwater ponds). On this site the developer is required to provide control for the following: 1. Recharge (Based on soil type) 2. Water Quality (90% event) 3. Channel Protection 4. 10-year Flood Control 5. Safe Passage of the 100-year flood with 1' of freeboard. 14 Based on the specific criteria in a region. These criteria may vary. See Sizing Options. http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Manual_Builder/pond_design_example.htm 3/4/2005 atururwlucr rA;biyu nnru 1plr. rvuu Figure 1. Swan Center Sim Plan Base Data Location: Anywhere, USA Site Area = Total Drainage Area (a) — 38.0 ac Measured Impervious Area =13.8 ac; or I= 13.8138 -36.3% Soils Types: 60 a 'B", 40% 'C" Site Data: The site area and drainage area to the pond is 38.0 acres. Existing ground at the pond outlet is 320'. Soil boring observations reveal that the seasonally high water table is at elevation 318'. The underlying soils are SC (sandy Gay) and are suitable for earthen embankments and to support a wet pond without a liner. The stream invert at the adjacent stream is at elevation 316'. TR-55 analyses results are in Table 1. Table 1. Hydrology Summary Condition CN 4 Q " Q r'- Q ,ay o< Q ra>d horvs cts Ch c1s Gs Pmdeve" 63 0.35 4.62 13.59 50.39 102.6 P"'lCvChTnl 78 0.19 35-0 550 131.0 216.3 Step 1. Compute Design Volumes Required volumes for 1-4 were computed under Example 1 of the s¢1w options section and are presented in Table 2. http://www.stormwatereenter.net/Man11al_Builder/pond_ design_example.htm 3/4/2005 Impervious Calculation Example Lot 4, Block 1, FOX DEN. 15,065 SF x 25% = 3766 SF allowable impervious area Home Foundation provided by Builder = 2281 SF Driveway (24' wide at street, 33.5' wide at garage) = 1040 SF If deck is impervious, (22.5'x10' deck) = 225 SF Total Impervious = 3546 SF 220 SF left for sidewalk, shed, etc. CITY OF CHgNHgSSEN RECEIVED FEB 11 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT !CANNED 37 72 1 110 10( \ N desk � 1 oI � d. co N Q) Lri 91 NVId IIA31 WN loll punoW 'peon poon�aIpl 9L6S o a '1411 : Sul IguildS Ol Aq awOH wojsnD a s a J W u J u Zm Q a 11 1 Z it , Y < 9fl{{ff �fj){�pCpppy^RatjR! Y 0 2 w .r �Nc all id�a'#lF pp#1 Z1PE� WO ¢25� < 1 _ •. I•n#ICI j ik _� _1_—__ I N I ` O U --------- ---- _— V— ----- -- ----- R R rnr ner 1 utl -Irvl^ g t All i L✓Y VIV /VII/ 11 Y1 � 1 /� r*�- LT%�; n�•r--v 11 T DUI I \\\ •/i^ °s 1, I C. , € CS z Z' W JJJj / r_HAN --/a-: � 11 it s�-f Iwn� J `7 - I 1 �Yv:: ✓it°irr= �A, I � � �j N- I i Al .0- 01 \I o, 9011 I. I •Ic t a> (0 IY o } � 1 I: e 0 A I ly0 m/ a !� 0 ,ct/ I 1 d 0 0 0 I tero 7 n�b OA 0 SO O ------_— I .0 I 1---e—j0 �--2 �_b_ I I , I , I I 1 rL W o n m N ul Z 2W UU n w LL¢ m w � w � z U 2 U i N y ffill # 1 s f g@ lg9i@p a ��5 3t N I -AA @ ¢� $ 15B 1 A�yaa e 3 A` g! a3gs3j ° �A9.AtX c7.g i Na 11-11fill allb ° 3 yy a A,A �S i qtl gg a . d * of 1 & iAt9� @#14 111lXeM I � as *t *'� � � 4�# ti qj p @ Xg SsS9 g is, •�. !i#yy gpi leP igg4iy§i5 °#* 'go �m 8a 111 1*t! g g l $ *2� qg y3 ° Ba#g �* 3Xyyl�! �1'� a 1� (!II� i�i?XQQt3i9i4II €e !!#Ap�XS5'gg 8ggl-Up Xt p � a4ei ,�t'lte, t ,E X,e.E .Ae*• .1 .X!'f a9 i3 a7a eei :e se aw W fit it ,nl nel �llU' %��_ LVY V/V "I'll 'II J1 8 fit LL q -- / I � ��}�I _ .a_ �,y,,.,�s=._ � •��;,/ / { 1, I LW .w Ph BR r 90 1 �I I Aa g� 0 , O 8 �0x I .L Otd O w w x] p 1' po —� -b-- 1 01— � 0 SSOCIATES Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. To: City of Chanhassen Attn: Sharmeen Al-Jaff 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 0 Transmittal Date: 1/27/2005 Project: Fox Den Location: Chan Project No: 2-04-0702 RECEIVED JAN 2 8 2005 CITY OF CHANH488EN We are sending to you: x Attached _ Separately _ By Messenger _ By Fax _ By Mail Shop Drawings _ Specifications _ Contracts _ Reports Prints ® Correspondence Number Documents Copies Number Date Description: I set Preliminary plat submittal Preliminary stormwater management plan —No exceptions taken For your use _ For your information _ Rejected _ For your approval x For your review Revised and resubmitted For your distribution _ _ As you requested _ Note Markings _ _ For your processing Remarks: Sharmeen, As requested, here is one copy for preliminary comments prior to the full submittal on February I l ". Thank you for your assistance! CC: Inc.tt BY: Cara Schwahn Otto Attn: tn: Scotting, Rosenlund cara@ottoassociates.com weo Ire: www.ottoassociates.com 9 wLSI DIVISION SIKEEI - BUFFALO, MINN 55313 - (763) 6824727 - FAX (763) 682-3522 JAN 12 2005 KT u T Tyr BY: -------------------- IOLHA G ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY ProuduigSound, Uan.4 Compnhnuiw Natural Rmu. Sduhom Memorandum Date: January 11, 2005 To: Scott Rosenlund, IOSpring, Inc. Cc: Cara Otto, Otto Associates From: Melissa Barrett, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company Re: Bongard Site — Chanhassen, MN On January 11, 2005 the Bongard property in Chanhassen, MN was examined for the presence and extent of wetland. The site was located in the N '/. of the N '/4 of Section 1, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, City of Chanhassen, Carver County, MN. Generally, the site was located west of State Highway 101, south of Pleasant View Drive and north of Fox Hollow Drive (Attachment A). Adjacent land use consisted of single-family homes along the north, west and southwest property borders. A storm water pond was located off -site along the southeastern property border. At the time of the investigation, the site consisted of a vacant single-family home in the center of the property and a large shed located along the southern property border. A bike path was located along the eastern property edge (Attachment B). No NWI-mapped wetlands were indicated within the site. No DNR Protected Waterways, Waters, or Wetlands were indicated on -site or near property boundaries. Hamel loam, a hydric soil, was indicated by the soil survey along the southern property borde. Non-hydric soils made up the remainder of the site. No DNR Protected Waterways, Waters, or Wetlands were indicated on -site or near property boundaries. In the field, the majority of the site was dominated by Kentucky bluegrass with lesser amounts of sugar maple, red oak and buckthorn. An abandoned drainageway with banks dominated by pine, elm and dogwood and an understory dominated by Kentucky bluegrass and annual ragweed was located along the southeastern property border, only partially within site boundaries. This dramageway corresponded to that area mapped as hydric (Hamel) by the soil survey. Hydrology to this channel appeared to have been re -directed to the stormwater pond located off -site to the south. Based on field observations, no wetlands (0) wetlands were delineated on the Bongard property. 26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 952401-8757, Fax: 952-401-8798 J Note: Site boundaries on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Shorewood ........................ .................. W 62nd St 101 Site gn Dr Location m O Rio. 4ge� Chanhassen Pea Vievw Rd North Lotus Lake Park Carver Beach Park Lotus Lake 101 m 4 %y Ho°K id rn Minnetonka W 62nd St 62 Wyndham Knoll Park Eden Prairie tJiWPle Leaf Dr Attachment A — Site Location i T u�HATT KiO1.G ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY Bongard Site (KES No. 2005-001) Chanhassen, Minnesota TN No Scale Note: Site boundaries on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Attachment B — 2003 Aerial Photograph 1 jOLHAVV ENVIRONMENr'AL SERVICES COMPANY Bongard Site (KES No. 2005-001) Chanhassen, Minnesota TN 1 inch — 600 feet Location Map Fox Den 6500 Chanhassen Road Planning Case No. 05-08 — Town U R I � a if 0� �e �O �o e as it Get � asss ste mappers x Cir e� 1ig�� Ge�eP a m O DI 2 Mountain Wa Near Mounta/ ^ 8/�0 n D.Fpo� easant View Road Pleasant View Road Subject Property ° o` ME>f Q� Fo DrWe n rs r olbw Drive a °+ a e m °X 0 m 3 o Fo><tail CoJ m 3 o giw a ray °+ u iGNNO March 2, 2005 Ms. Sharmeen A]-Jaff Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Al-Jaff: Please find an analysis in regard to the proposed Fox Den Preliminary Plat. Please feel to read this report and call me with any questions before the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for March 15, 2005. Many of these issues will be addressed in the staff report, but there are some real concerns and inconsistencies between the Code and the Preliminary Plat. I also think there are some very workable alternatives that the planners, engineers, developers, and commission should seriously consider, and there are many questions that need to be answered before this Plat is approved. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, aso 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone (Work) 952-820-0089 Phone (Home) 952-938-1994 Fox Den Preliminary Plat Issues To the Planning Commission, Planning Staff, and City Council Members With any proposed development, there are several real impacts. Although aware that development is always a potential in any area, it must fit in with the area and it must consider the existing conditions currently in that community, and work in cooperation with the affected parties. There are several problems with this development's proposal and there are several inconsistencies with the Chanhassen City code, especially how they relate to Landscape & Tree Preservation. There are also several potential inadequate design or premature practices proposed as it relates to the proposed pond expansion. All of these must be solved before the development should go forward. For these reasons, we can not respectfully support the proposed development at this time. We would suggest that the Preliminary Plat be redesigned and resubmitted for consideration. Five areas will be addressed in this statement (1) Landscape & Tree Preservation (2) Surface Water Management & Proposed Pond Expansion (3) Grading and Erosion Control (4) Streets (5) Proposed Plat Alternatives 1. Landscaping & Tree Preservation See. 18-61 (d)(2) of the City of Chanhassen code states: Prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect, licensedforester, or other professional approved by the city. This survey shall include the species, DBH size (DBH means diameter measured at breast height, four andfrve-tenths feet above the ground), condition, location ofall trees over six inches in diameter and any damaged or diseased trees on site. All significant special, damaged or diseased trees shall be tagged and identified by number on the survey. A delineation of the existing canopy coverage area(s) which outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be included as part of the survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased trees shall be cataloged with the nature and extent of any damage or disease specified Response: There are several trees that are missing from the Tree Inventory/Survey submitted by the developer. For instance, there is a tree immediately to the Fast of tree number 144 that is not listed. This tree has two trunks (see picture left): There are also three trees south of the existing shed and between the wooden fence of the property of 20 Fox Hollow Drive (see picture below) that are not listed on the tree inventory. Even if all other trees are accounted for, then these omissions cause incorrect canopy coverage statistics. Sec 18-61 requires the species of each tree. However, only the genus name is listed on the inventory (e.g. pine, maple). Species requires the person conducting the inventory to establish the scientific name such as Norway Pine or Sugar Maple. Trees #142 &143 could be considered boundary line trees. The tree trunks begin either on the line or slightly North of the property line between 10 Fox Hollow Drive and 6500 Chanhassen Road. The trunks cross the boundary line, and continue to grow into the property owner's yard of 10 Fox Hollow Drive (see picture): The current and previous owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive have maintained these trees by, but limited to, (1) raking the leaves that fell into the backyard of 10 Fox Hollow Drive (2) Incurring the costs to dispose of the leaves that fell from the trees to the appropriate disposal sites in Carver County. The leaves fell from the limbs and branches that grew out from the trunks that were clearly located on the property owner of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Holmberg v. Bergin, 172 N.W. 2nd 739 (Minn 1969) establishes the definition for boundary trees. A tree is a boundary tree if it was planted jointly or treated as common property by agreement, acquiescence, or course of conduct. The course of conduct clearly establishes the fact that the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive co-own the tree with the owner of 6500 Road. Additionally, the tree could not be considered a nuisance since by its nature, it is not patently offensive, causing ill will or health, or damaging to the property of others. Even if the nuisance argument could be remotely posed, Section 18-61 (dx4) provides for relief: Minimizing the tree loss should be achieved by any combination of the following: a. Realignment ofstreets, utilities and lot lines- b. Consideration of alternative utility configurations such as the use ofejector pumps, force mains, or revised home elevations to minimize grading. c. Reductions in roadway width and right-of-way and increase in street grade up to ten percent when the applicant can demonstrate that significant tree preservation is directly related to the modification. d. Use ofprivate streets in lieu ofpublic streets. e. Variation in street radius and design speed f. Modified grading plans. Response: The property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive strongly request that the developer and the City should propose implementing modified grading plans, and realignment of internal lot lines of the proposed development to accommodate the property owners request regarding saving trees 142, 143, & 144. 2. Surface Water Management & Proposed Expansion of the Storm Water Pond/Wetland/Outlot A/Utility and Drainage Easement. Background: The developer is proposing a significant increase to the size of the pond located at the comer of 101 and Fox Hollow Drive. The developer feels that the increase in stormwater runoff warrants the increase of the size of the pond. There are several problems increasing the size of the pond by a significant size. The Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) has been in place since 1994. In a memo to Todd Gerhardt from Lori Haak dated September 21, 2004, in reference to the SWMP she writes "the 1994 plan is out of date." The City has hired an outside consulting firm SHE to review the SWMP. Among its area of focus are (1) water quantity and quality (2) inspection of every public storm water structure (3) comprehensive wetland management program (4) revised stormwater and wetland management ordinance (5) protocols for inspection and maintenance. Furthermore, in the memo, it states "the vertical element (z coordinate) will allow the City to employ detailed storm water modeling techniques to anticipate, assess, and resolve surface water issues and problem areas." Based on 1994 standards, this development may or may not be premature as it relates to stormwater management. At the very least, consideration must be given to an outdated SWMP and how it relates to the proposed expansion of the pond. Issue 1: Design of the Pond. I would refer the planners and commission members to a couple of websites. www.cip-olden-valley.nm.us/envirownent/ponding.htm (contact AI Lundstrom 763-593-8046) and www.state.ri.us or search for "the State of Rhode Island & Storm Water Manual." I'm sure Minnesota has similar protocols. Generally speaking, there are several things to keep in mind when designing an effective storm water pond. (1) Ponds are generally three times as long as wide (2) There is a 3:1 minimum ratio along the flow path between the inlet and outlet (these requirements allow for polluted sediment more time to settle before the outlet pipe releases the water). (3) The forebay length to width ratio should be a Minimum of 2:1 with a preference for 3 to 1. The condition and design of the forebay (between the pipe inlet and the main pond) is critical. It should be 4-6 feet deep. This is the main area where polluted sediment is filtered out. Response: The proposed pond will be nearly as wide as it is long. According to the resources and experts that I have cited, this design is generally not a very effective design. Although a larger pond may in some cases filter out more pollutants, if it is not designed correctly, it will cause more harm than good. The 3:1 ratio between the outlet and inlet is not maintained. There are questions about the condition of the current forebay and its design. Furthermore, there is not other development along 101 (North of 5) that would have such a large pond next to the road. For safety issues, if a car were to go over the side of the road, or if a pedestrian were to slip down the embankment into the pond, there could be serious liability issues for the City. 101 is a very busy road. Creating such a large body of water next to the road is not a good idea At the very least now, barriers should be installed. Issue 2: According to the experts, natural landscaping should be in place around the pond. This should include bushes, natural grasses, and shrubs because these stabilize the pond by preventing erosion, preserves an environment for microorganisms that remove pollutants, improves pond's appearance by hiding debris, creates an environment for dragonflies which eat mosquitos, discourage geese from visiting and contributing to pollution through their droppings, making the pond less attractive for wading and swimming. Response: The South and West end of the pond is mowed grass. It does not have natural habitat of bushes, natural grasses, and shrubs. It invites geese (which are a constant nuisance and populate this pond in significant numbers) to further pollute the water. The existing embankment to the North has bushes, natural grass, and shrubs. It provides for a natural buffer. It is in line with how storm water ponds should be designed. An expansion of the pond would remove all of existing area to the North with no planting of natural grasses, bushes, and shrubs (or that is how the landscape plan is submitted). (See pictures below): Furthermore, by entirely eliminating the North end of the pond, this removal would be in direct conflict with section 18-61 (d)(1) It is a policy of the City of Chanhassen to protect the integrity of the natural environment through the preservation, protection, andplanting oftrees. The cityfinds that trees provide many benefits including. stabilization of the soil by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of stormwater runoff and the costs associated therewith, improvement of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat island effect, protection and increase ofproperty values, protection ofprivacy, energy conservation through natural insulation, control ofdrainage and restoration ofdenuded soil subsequent to construction and grading, protection from severe weather, providing habitat for birds and other wildlife, conservation and enhancement of city's physical and aesthetic environment, reforestation of open lands, and general protection and enhancement of the quality of life and general welfare of the city. It is therefore the purpose of this section to provide regulations related to the cutting, removal, or killing of trees on construction and development sites and to ensure the protection and preservation of the natural emironment and beauty of the city. Response: Nearly''/2 of the trees will be eliminated in the current plan Some of the most vital ones (conifers) reduce noise pollution and headlight impacts on a year round basis from the traffic on highway 101. These conifers protect the privacy of the first homes along the entry of Fox Hollow Drive. By removing the mature conifer trees, you remove the element of privacy. The proposed replacement planting are mainly deciduous in nature and do not maintain their leaves for 6 months of the year, thus drastically reducing the potential buffering effect. They do not provide good protection from visual impacts, noise, and protect privacy like large conifer trees do. Additionally, these large trees _ reduce stormwater runoff and control drainage specially right next to a storm water pond. By eliminating the trees around the pond, it exacerbates and creates additional runoff. The trees are also habitat to birds and other small animals. In eliminating the trees, you not only create additional problems but you also eliminate the aesthetic benefits that they provide, and the potential increase in property values they pass on to members of the Fox Hollow community (see pictures below) Furthermore, the pond outlot is located in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Fox Hollow. There are different codes that apply to developments in a Single Family Residential (RSF) zone compared with a PUD. The pond outlet and the trees and area to the North of the pond provide necessary buffering from the visual impacts from collector highway 101. Section 20-1176. Intent, scope, and compliance address these requirements. (n Buffering shall be provided between high intensity and low intensity uses, between a site and major streets and highways, and in areas where buffering is required by the comprehensive plan. Such bafirering shall be located within a required buffer yard The buffer yard is a unit ofyard together with the planting required thereon. The amount of land and the type and amount ofplanting specified for each buffer yard required by this subsection are designed to ameliorate nuisances between adjacent land uses or between a land use and a public road The planting units required ojbuffer yards have been calculated to ensure that they do, in fact, junction to "buffer. " (I) Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter ofa lot or parcel extending to the lot or parcel boundary line, except where easements, covenants or naturalfeatures may require the buffer yard to be set back from the property line. Subject to review and approval by the city engineering department, buffer yards that are compatible with the typical city boulevard planting requirements may be located within a portion of an existing municipal public collector or arterial right -of --way. Additionally, 69(8) /n instances in which the city deems it necessary to provide year-round screening, the city may designate that all planting be of conifers. (g) The city shall encourage reforestation through boulevard and streetscape planting. (h) Mature stands oftrees shall be preserved The landscaping and tree replanting plan submitted by the developer does not adequately address the loss of buffering that an expansion to the pond and the loss of the stands of conifer and long line of deciduous trees will cause. In fact, the developer only proposes to plant two deciduous and one conifer tree in this area and these plantings are dozens of feet from 101. The City should insist on the developer complying with Section 20-1176 (f)(8) as it relates to the ponding area. The City should also insist that additional reforestation occur through more boulevard and streetscape planting on the South and West side of the pond area Issue 3: Pond Maintenance and Statistics As discussed in issue 1 above, a larger pond is not necessarily a more effective pond. If natural landscaping is not included as part of the design, then the pond effectiveness to filter out pollutants is decreased significantly. An additional area that needs to be fully examined is pond maintenance and the statistics associated with this particular pond regarding its effectiveness. There are several questions that the City and the developer need to answer: (1) Can the City provide documentation as to what the pond water quality is and what it has been in the last 5 years from this pond? (2) Have there been any water test results that indicate that runoff rates do not meet water quality standards? (3) Can the City state what it has done in the the last five years to control sediment in the pond? According to the Fox Hollow file maintained by the City of Chanhassen, in 1984 when Outlot A was being established, one of the main concerns was sediment. In a March 13, 1984 letter from Stanley Wendland from the U.S. Dept of Agriculture to Bob Waibel, it is stated: .... the plans for providing ponding areas should include a provision for removing trapped sediment." (4) When was the last time the outlets, inlets, ditches, and culverts associated with this pond were cleared and cleaned? (5) When where the last time the catch basins were cleaned? (6) What are the water reading depths over the last five years? Is the pond too shallow? Too fiill? If there is evidence that it is trapped with sediment and too fiill, can it not be dredged? (7)If the pond is expanded, what happens if the pond becomes too shallow? (8) Is drainage from the pond an issue, and if it is, what is being done to solve it? (9) When was the last time the formula was evaluated for stormwater runoff? (10) How many homes does this pond serve? Given the fact that the SWMP is out of date and given the fact that the City may not have effective and up-to-date protocols for evaluating water quality, stormwater run-off issues, an outdated stormwater ordinance, outmoded protocols for maintenance and inspection, it maybe premature to declare that this pond has to be increased by such a significant size. The recommendation would be to focus intently on Issues 1-3. and as a last result expand the size of the pond by no more than 101/6 (if even necessary). Proper pond design, W natural landscaping, maintenance, inspection, and drainage from the pond, are the best ways in the short to long terms to address the issues associated with this pond. A small expansion of the pond without fully implementing and addressing all of the issues raised in 1-3 fails to address the real issues with stormwater pond management and storm water runoff. Furthermore, the City needs to seriously look to adopting, for future developments, the potential to use the practice of Low Impact Development (LID). The City should provide financial incentives to developers, perhaps initially as a pilot project, to use LID as the way to handle stormwater management issues in the future. The SHE consulting firm will probably make this as one of their recommendations. I would refer interested people to www.lowimpactdevelopment.ora and www.tahomaaudobon.ora for information on this landscape stormwater management concept. LID has reduced the size of stormwater ponds sizes by 75% while still retaining open spaces and dry basements. Construction costs could be reduced by up to 20%. Retaining vegetation and reducing road width and impervious surfaces are the key. Search the web for a title of a document conducted by CH2MHILL from Bellevue, Washingtion called "Pierce County Low Impact Development Study." See also Wisconsin's Natural Resource Magazine (www.wnrmap.com/supps/2003/febO3/stem.htm). 3. Grading and Erosion Control According to the Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan, the developer is requesting that the existing fence at the North and East ends of the 10 Fox Hollow Drive be removed by the property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The existing grading plans call for extensive grading right up to and potentially on to the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The extensive proposed grading plans for the area around the pond are not necessary for the reasons stated in the previous pages. Response: In a survey commissioned by the property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, the wooden fence located to the East of the existing home is entirely on the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive, it does not enter the right of way. The property owners are not going to remove the wooden fence on the East side of their home for any reason. Furthermore, the property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not know and are not aware that the irregular shaped or wire fence is their property or who installed the wire fence The current owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not know where the developer obtained the information or drew the conclusion that the wire fence belonged or was put in place by the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive do not have an objection to the future removal of this fence only if (1) if the developer does not damage the existing wooden fence (2) the developer disposes of the fence (3) the developer does not damage any trees in the removal of the fence. The property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive find the grading plans extensive, intrusive, and unnecessary as it relates to their property line on the East. Potential damage to the property is probable and the grading will not benefit them. Additionally, the owners have serious concerns about the closeness of construction equipment, traffic, insurance issues as they relate to potential earthwork on or near their property. Furthermore, special assessments should not be passed on to the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. They are not going to benefit from the grading but their privacy and property lines are going to be severely disturbed. 4. Streets According to the Preliminary Plat, a 31 foot wide road will be going in right next to the property of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. The width of the may be consistent with the other street widths, but it is excessive for the area that it is proposed. The closeness of Fox Drive to 10 Fox Hollow Drive and to the pond is of great concern for safety and aesthetic concerns. Response: The area for the proposed Fox Drive has been a grassy area maintained by the residents of the Fox Hollow Development for over 20 years. The property owners pay $12-15 a year to maintain this area. It is well maintained. Who would maintain these areas once a development is put in? The City? A private maintenance company? Who would pay? A 31 foot wide between 10 Fox Hollow Drive the Outlot A would look out - of -character for the community. A 24 foot wide road through a variance request would serve better purposes. It would not be so close to the property line (a proposed 9 feet) to the 10 Fox Hollow Drive residence, and it would not be so close to the West end of Outlot A. Furthermore, the road will be very close to 101. If MN Dot decides to expand 101 to 4 lanes in the future, then the pond at the comer of 101 and Fox Hollow Drive may have to be relocated. The entry to Fox Hollow, without any buffers, will not look like an entry to a well established and sought after residential PUD, but it will look like one solid slab of pavement and concrete. The property owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive request that the road, if installed, be located at least 12 feet off of their property line to the East. This distance is a safe distance because in the event of snow plowing in the winter, the snow will not be plowed directly into the fence that will be maintained by the owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive. Additionally, the turning area for Fox Drive, as currently proposed on the Preliminary Plat is literally 2-3 feet off of the property line. Again, this turning radius begins too close to the property line. The owners strongly request that the entire road be moved further to the East. For safety reasons, there are serious concerns. Without proper natural buffering and protection, a car may roll down the embankment or drive off of Fox Drive and into the pond —whether intentionally or unintentionally. The owners of 10 Fox Hollow Drive request that buffering and boulevard plantings occur, in addition to the natural buffering and landscaping proposed above because 10 Fox Hollow Drive will now be located on a street comer, the owners would request serious consideration of these issues. The owners would like a Norway Spruce planted on the comer of Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive, on the comer of their property. Lastly, MN Dot needs to establish a wider and longer turn lane off of 101 into the Fox Hollow Development. The turn lane is too narrow its current length does not provide enough time to slow down from 45 to near 0 mph safely. 5. Proposed Plat Alternatives (See Pages Attached) Besides the alternatives proposed above, the attached mark-ups of the Preliminary Plat provide further guidance in how to modify the existing proposal while still providing a win -win solution for both the developer, the neighborhood, and the property owners most affected by these changes. There are several inconsistencies in the Fox Den proposal as they relate to the Chanhassen City Code, and there are several design flaws and inadequacies proposed that would prevent effective storm water management practices. There are several alternatives that should be considered and implemented before this Plan is approved. I would request that this information receive full consideration and be contained as an attachment to any staff report to the Planning Commission or City Council. I would also like the Planning Commission members presented with this information. Respectfully Submitted, +� n Ashline 10 Fox Hollow Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 March 2, 2005 10 /v-� �L j�pvA - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I nr fill V — I i po 1\ ' O I IiIS I p�� N� I MGM, I""L.aa�R zn nwcs Ef N zaac- nsr Ig u ., %AS �/jMlrttnlo NDDGP ci I.pvp 3.mooL7J ,a / eML IIF-10 r(�� All,navca.rrrcnwow- _I. I G � ID iS Vw� yM1�d£ � BA p1 �'4 LLe OFFAR&A YReSIo'� Ef r N M k' Np� �ape� st, I Q1 I � i.0 sw av amia us um�wm omn�xc FOX DEN PRELMINARY STREET& ,osaawc, wc. STORMSEWERPLAN z-0s 1 .1 I 41 •" Y.IIaOCii= L100�fri - .J - - --- --__. • DEN . . CKANHASS El 0 r T of . lop W.C.° .• PLANS A.9EA 1. ]l AtllFS ar r•4.wr` R.IIO4Cp�p9AM' I.0 I ice. r--r rr a�iax'�im SSIS� G YYF Ylucr (� ^ may /i �� iMY tvxM1 AWO SO-# � i I GII T FENCE-5300 Z - ME— \� mauremrvsR r � — �� FOX DEN °RE""""uer cRAaNc ,�„ _,,. 8 ER0.SION CONiRq. PLAN ]-ON ■ CITY OF CIIANIIASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard MEMORANDUM PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Administration Phone:952.227.1100 FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal Fax 952.227.1110 Building Inspections DATE: February 22, 2005 Phone. 952.227.1180 Fax: 962.227.1190 SUBJ: Fox Den -Subdivision with variances on property located north of Engineering Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Pleasant Phone:952.227.1160 View Road. Applicant: IOSpring Inc. Fax 952,227.1170 Finance Planning Case: 05-08 Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax:952.227.1110 I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or Park & Recreation Phone:952.227.1120 city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on available information Fax:952,227.1110 submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted the appropriate code Recreation Center or policy items will be addressed. 2310 Coulter Boulevard 400 Phone:952.27.1404 Fa Fax::952.227.1 1. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs g must either be removed from site or chipped. Planning 8 Natural Resources 2. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, . Phone952.227.1130 Fax:952.227.1110 trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by PubThis works firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 591 P 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:952,227,1310 3. 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 Senior center Phone:952227.1125 during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of Fax: 952.227.1110 protection are provided. Web She www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us4. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. g:\safetyVW)plrWbxdm The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A peat place to live, work, and play. 0 MEMORANDUM ClllOF CgANgASSEN To: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner 7700 Market Boulevard FROM: Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MIN55317 DATE: April 4, 2005 Administration Phone:952.227.1100 SUBJ: City Council Update for Fox Den Fax: 952.227.1110 Land Use Review File No. 05-01 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 At the March 15, 2005 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, the PC requested Engineering staff to explore possibilities of an alternate pond design using available space Phone:952.227.1160 within the existing pond outlot property. Specifically, staff was asked to look at Fax.952.227.1170 utilizing the available upland area in the southeast corner of the pond outlot. This Finance corner of the outlot property contains the existing neighborhood development Phone:952.227.1140 sign. Staff has explored this option with the developer's engineer. If this area Fax:952.227.1110 were excavated for the pond construction, the existing development sign would Park a Recreation have to be moved to another lot within the development. Staff does not believe Phone:952.227.1120 that any lot owner would want the development sign on their property. Also, the Fax:952.227.1110 area in the southeast corner of the outlot is not large enough to contain the entire Recreation center pond storage volume that is required. For these reasons, staff is not in favor of 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227 1400 revising the pond design from what is proposed on the current plans. Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning a Natural Resources c: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works Phone: 952.227.1130 gAeug\projects\foz deu\cc update.dac Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.2271125 Fax: 952 227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gnat place to live, work, and play. City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 Date: February 14, 2005 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department Please return plans to Planning Secretary when finished. Thank you! By: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Subject: Fox Den — Subdivision with variances on property located north of Fox Hollow Drive, west of Highway 101, and south of Pleasant View Road. Applicant: 10 SPRING, INC. Planning Case: 05-08 The above -described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on February 11, 2005. The 60day review period ends April 12, 2005. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than March 4, 2005. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or SprinVMted) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 13. Other - 14. Other - Location Map Fox Den 6500 Chanhassen Road Planning Case No. 05-08 Town L'ne �e e a a pm .N as Ir �t asea�a rappers x c ce o stleP n d 0 s m z Near Mountain n Mountain We 0 aeant View Road Pleasant Yrew Road ° Subject Property a o` zt �W a+ Q FOXH0/bw Drive u rs + Hdbw Ddve � o Pa °+ 4 P° 2 � O m c a m ox A o 3 FoxtailCo u >Y o. ra o+ City Council Meeting — May 23, 2005 Scott Rosenlund: Yes, my name is Scott Rosenlund. I live at 622 West 82°d Street in Chaska and I'm not sure if there was a misunderstanding. I had been working with the city with Sharmeen and Bill Bement about being on the consent agenda for a name change on Fox Den development that we had done, and we actually, it's the same participants or the same ownership but we opened up a new LLC to own that property and I thought we were going to be on the consent agenda for tonight. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt, I think that came in after this was actually distributed but I know it came out electronically. Is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, that came out Friday afternoon. Should have been included on the consent agenda. I don't know. Mayor Furlong: Was it on there electronic? Todd Gerhardt: It was an e-mail that was sent out. Basically what we're doing is naming, re- naming Fox Den to, I forget the name. Scott Rosenlund: Well the name of the development doesn't change but the ownership, we had, it was a S&J Land Company and now it will be Fox Den Development, LLC. It's the same ownership. Same everything. It's just we have a new LLC. It's a tax and liability reason. Mayor Furlong: I guess my question, I'll ask our city attorney. First of all did everybody on the council receive that e-mail? Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Is there any reason we cannot bring that up under new business this evening? Roger Knutson: There's no problem bringing it up, and I am familiar with the issue. I discussed it with the planning staff last week. You can bring it up. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: We'll take it up under new business? Mayor Furlong: Take it under new business if that's okay. That will give us time to get copies distributed here. Down here as well for any interested party. Thank you sir. Anybody else who would like to present any issues to the council this evening under visitor presentations. If not, we welcome people to come forward every meeting. This is a standard part of our agenda so people are welcome to come forward each meeting to address issues to the council. Tonight we receive our monthly update from our Carver County Sheriff's Department and our Fire Department. For Public Safety. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. 0 ~ City Council Meeting — May 3, 2005 issues with several property owners. Landscaping, driveways, lighting, you name it and has done just a great job, him and his staff so I compliment them on their efforts. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion? On this. If not, is there a motion regarding item 4(a) and (b)? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd move that the council approve the assessment roll for 2005 street improvement and adoption of the resolution for assessments along with awarding of the construction contract for the same to GMH Asphalt in the amount of $1.4 million and some change. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Resolution#2005-51: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the assessment roll for the 2005 street improvement project and adopt the resolution for assessments. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Resolution#2005-52: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council award the construction contract for the 2005 street improvement project to GMH Asphalt Corp. in the amount of $1,436,894.90. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR FOX DEN PROJECT NO.05-10. Mayor Furlong: As I understand it Mr. Gerhardt, this is strictly a name change on the development contract that's being requested? Todd Gerhardt: Correct. It's an amendment to the development contract. A name change from S & J Land Company, LLC to Fox Den Dev LLC. That's all we're doing is a name change. Staff is recommending approval of that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that? IF] City Council Meeting — May 23, 2005 Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the revised development contract dated May 23, 2005 changing the name of the developer from S & J Land Co., LLC to Fox Den Dev, LLC.. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Lundquist: Tomorrow night is our, to remind everyone that tomorrow night is our Park and Rec Commission meeting. It will be taking up the skate park issue. So for those residents who have comments and concerns or proposed solutions on either side of that, I've got a couple messages in support of action to date. I know that the staff has received at least one in non-support of the action so encourage everyone to get out tomorrow night in this room at 7:00 to participate in that discussion and anxious to hear everyone's solutions as well. And as we've seen through some of our background in the staff report, that back in November of 2001 when we had a similar issue that required neighborhood meetings and stuff too, so hopefully we can make this one the lasting impact and not have to come back here every few years and continue to address this problem so hopefully we'll have a good turn out and get a good generation of ideas tomorrow night. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other items? Just to share, I had an enjoyable morning this morning meeting in our senior center for the annual opportunity to talk to them about items going on in the city. Breakfast with the Mayor, and it was a lot of fun. There was a good turn out. Some good discussions and I think everybody had a good time and learned something new about all the things that we're doing so it was a lot of fun. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Just to add to that, we had Attorney General Mike Hatch out here who followed the Mayor. Mayor Furlong: It went downhill. Todd Gerhardt: We know how to prioritize things here. Mayor Furlong: I got breakfast. Todd Gerhardt: And he gave a speech on identity theft and also talked about health care concerns for seniors and all ages to be specific, and did hand out a booklet on his study on that and I'll try to get a copy of that to the City Council. But that's all I have this evening. Any questions for me? Mayor Furlong: Questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff? Councilman Peterson: Just in the correspondence package, if you're going to transition to that, now that I've got his attention. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. 19 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952227.11B0 Fax: 952.2271190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952227.1120 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.chanhassenrinn.us VIA FASCIIAILE June 15, 2006 Bob Hiivala Ten Spring Development 622 W. Vid St. Chaska, MN 55318 Re: Tree Removal at 6460 Fox Drive Dear Bob, To recap our meeting at 6460 Fox Drive, you will be removing two ash trees along the south side of the house. One of the trees is considered a hazard tree due to the defect on the main stem. The other tree is a healthy ash and replacement plantings will be required for the lot. Five additional 2 ah" diameter trees will be required to be planted on the lot. In addition to those trees, lower branches near the home will also be pruned and all diseased elms within the development will be removed. Any additional removals will need to be verified by me before the work can be performed. Please contact me if you have any further questions. yi nclair Environmental Resources Specialist CUSTOM HOME BUILDERS Phone #: 952-446-9377 Cell #:� Fax #: 520384637 Lic#: BC 20384633 b H_uvv l Brad Hiivala Joel Hiivala 3700 Panty Farm Circle St. Boni, MN Hiivala 8, Inc. Welldone 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. Il, / i 'man an, a, A 4r-T-71/� r A F) FI ITI/) A I IVIL_ I Z_1\7 I ICI L/L/! l lVI v I I I i m 0 Is emsesse— II ' I rwaesTM a�nrd.i \ \ �r 4 i 1 I `� Q832 14065sFl b 3 14015 W ! , / i Sao =" � � ' \"I � ' J 15,041 SF aft I cl c o \oo \ I _ _ — 10 It 235 _ \ I t�i g 1404\2 SF- �I CG qr aeon'_..�.9n++ •�ttSgy -�—�. \ _�_._.—.f/� \4GU — -�� _- I I ."L262— INws'Snr aeon xa "- ♦ I .:: .--Eon w ' 922� i 924' Eat ee/ ;/ I _ \' Is, T Il 4/W9 '1 t; `— of ' '7 / \ � S Y d M / oaf �\ r Vi r rr r I \ \ '� I Y / : 'I � Ll L - ii�-neai{ V ilI I !f NY. r199 N=� Legal Description: HP HP r { I i �Evt fM ssre e1n�98].Y.r O A treat of land situate in the Nat, 451.00 feet of the S Alhgasl Worten of she Nortteoat h takf. aSon Sew / m'�B19O5 � I Ouaas of Section 1. TaenWlip 116. Range 23. as fance n / I /l / I n 1 A/r- _ _ -Go, rG?M wr CaanenUnq at the Northeast caner of said Southecst Warts of Northeast 0uartr, Nonce SeNh 451.00 feet to the punt of b,hnm, of the land to 5a 0 cftW; thence WeSouth li West along the ne of mW 451.00 feet Tract, W3.00 Mt Hv.�g2g.as 33 33 tom km monument; Nance North at not angles a dislmce of 240.00 feet; I I thence East at right mglb a dktance of 503.00 feet, mms or less, to a point m the E. The of sold Owens -Waiter dislmt 240.00 feet North of the polat of hegbning; thence South 240.00 feel to the point of neginnng CEO. ILLH. txa® C.S.O. ITTO,itlp1.M.,8 I fowr,rxna eoeuln Ih(10NNIrET tr a.assse rc ti` frssl„5�s I OSPRING, INC. CHANHASSEN,MN ASEMshe I/4 or Sec 1 Ccant" R eh jechI I I 33 I 33 I I I 0 Y f0 W Sst I � 3p AREA= 2.77 ACRES ZONING= li N DEVELOPER.• 10 SPRING INC, A77N: SCOTT ROSENLUND 622 HEST 82ND STREET CHASKA, MN 55378 PH— 952 215—B535 =mark. Top Nut FITd. Dev.-93 W 2Y NBet of Ceetrline of State Hry. No. 101 along South CITY OF CHANHASSEN property Ike RECEIVED o pester Upnt Poe • Donau Rioting films FEB 1 1 2005 o Den.. Poeret E— almst. SO, wh 6 a//atp $/pn Denotes Ties Osrotr Edge or MOads CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT —me— Dnotee Owhead L/ectrk —a—®- D.I. Son/tary Sees, fire ---- BUILDING SETBACK FRONT-30' SIDE-10' REAR-30' FROM COUNTY ROAD 50 — 50' ORAMAIGE AND UIIUTV EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: 1 I I L-3 I I I I 1 I I BEING 10 FEETW MOM, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADIO/NING BLOCKL/NES, AND BEING 5FEET IN MOM. UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ANDADJO/N/NG LOT LINES, ASSHOWNONTHEPLAT. VICINITY MAP SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY I � I � N !N I � lolfl � N. 114 114 I 4qn� I I I : 1/4 I i 5� I �/A torus LAKE I 5E PRELIMINARY PLAT I 2-04-0702 EET Nu. 1 OF 5 SHEETS 1 OF 5 SHEETS 1� 120105 I I I I 33 33 I Nm W/ N 3 ra YYY Al •�N-elaa - \ - NY.�eIA(a it 2 � � G led _r cmr S. w Jae wt Mn 9IM CNv. y (v nlH9 -�rmIl11pM� NY. �9%a.;! 1 r --GNP yIfiN w t I Il I 1 33 I y�� / I Beu I __oar. �r•nn NK�A9YOOe \ 9011EYM1010 o I n ISW � I 0 O 9ll 9p ' Edrt Q i xf rpT cne e• sm Aw ! 9�� Mv�9140.5 N�j� /rRVEn�9 362 33 33 ]O 0 JO EO ➢O AREA= 2.77 ACRES ZONING= RSF DEVELOPER: 105PRINC, INC. AT7N: SCOTT ROSENLU, 622 BEST 82ND STREET CHASKA, MN 55318 PH-(952)215-8535 Benchmark Top Nut Hyd dev.-930.82 27' West of Centerline of State Hwy. Na 101 along South property line D Onotee lylrt pd. • Onotee E9 tmo RV/ o Dnotw Pow- pd. (-- De',of" ay Nee c 0°eotee SI9n •.': a'IOtp -- -- Onotee Edge o/ El. —arE Dnotee O,erwsoa Be I —.:—..- De+otea Sm/toy Sewer he — BUILDING SETBACK FRONT-30' SIDE-10' REAR-JO' FROM COUNTY ROAD 50 - 50' NOTES: 1. ALL 8' WATERMAIN SHALL BE C-900 DR18 WITH DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS. FITTINGS SHALL BE POLYWRAPPED. MEGALUGS SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH PVC PIPE. 12 GAUGE TRACER WIRE SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH ALL PLASTIC WM. TRACER VWRE SHALL BE TERMINATED AT ALL HYDRANT BREAK OFF FLANGES 2. ALL 8' PVC SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE SDR 35 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. SANITARY SERVICES SHALL BE 6' PVC SDR 26. 4. WATER SERVICES SHALL BE 1' COPPER WITH 1' CORP. 5. ALL HYDRANT LEADS SHALL BE 6' DIP CLASS 52. S. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL HYDRANT EXTENSIONS AS NECESSARY WHERE WM HAS BEEN LOWERED TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH OTHER UTILITIES. EXTENSIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO HYDRANT COST. 7. EXISTING WELL AND SEPTIC SHALL BE REMOVED AND / OR ABANDONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE @ LOCAL REGULATIONS. L.SO. M.L.H, wAS ��'�� w'' NE OR UNDER NY DiRECi SURERNSION MID TUT AN A DULY LICENSED ENGINEER FOX DEN �OaD F MINNSIONM UNDER THE LAYS OF THE SPATE IK NINNESOiA T�Owxw,onw,ucNMsom Owur OanM tr. r�^+�NV evIJ 10SPkiNG, INC. Ds°. lug (MJMJ3!}] CHANHASSEN, MN CJCE N. $cAw1n Otto LICENSE 4 Wp]S MTE: Enpliven.M YN Wmp�f.lx. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN I 2-04-0702 SHEET NO. Z OF 5 SHEETS I A 1120105 iT- ,t g t'i a L ` i Z t hr o Irl _!nJs :'_: I per�AlQ e1 PROP -- s,z MN POND 1 :9 �.29 • jt{ E 11 EXPANSIGW 33 I J sorrov ii I , cas,wc nrro BIi, EGt Iev — _ 1 llw. Wif01 CLAN LAN n J e wv n.9s x. �/ e>r e''r s->•Ewa. ,._E.ae. ro I j l Smm Tin�9YL.M M e �I,s /Nys91Aa3 o 1� h 46G e. I I /11A 1/-NII rl L)f! /r- r I f 0$T CIAO ! wv�9re.F 33 33 I g1IT t INSTAu CawG I VALLEY 011 1 FTTO w� wocum �vuAn4a3 10SPRING, INC. ANHASSEN, MN N Sa a n eo w sex r - sa AREA-- 2.77 ACRES ZONING= RSF DEVELOPER.' IOSPR/NG, ING AT7N: SCOTT ROSENLUND 622 NEST 82ND STREET CHASKA, MN 55318 PH-(952)215-8535 Benchmark: Top Nut Hyd. E/ev=930.82 2T N6st o/ Centerline o/ State Hwy. No. 101 along South property line o Dwotr LWt Pde o Draw Eaiethg W / Cwoty Power Pal - (a, mie a Drofv Star! Denofv T. — Oratr Edge of Mbode —a¢ D•wtee D,Ntevehk Orotw Smftivy ory Seer tins — - — BUILDING SE78ACK FRONT-30' SIDE-f0' REAR-30' FROM COUNTY ROAD 50 - 50' PL CL PL 1 25' 1 25' 1 Wear Course to be 1/2e Above Edge of Gutter I 1 1 3.0% 2.0% 1s : 1 4' Topsol, Seed 1 1/2'-Plant Mixed Bituminous Wearing Course At Mulch or Sod. Type 041WEAS0055Y Surmountable Concrete Curb Tack Coat - 2357 2 -Plant Mixed Bituminous Base Course Type /31BB950000Y 12e-Class 5 Aggregate Base, 100% Crushed 24' MN00T 3149.28 Select Granular Borrow NOTES: 1. ALL STORM SEWER SHALL BE RCP CLASS III UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PRELIMINARY STREET & P"°'E`T "° STORM SEWER PLAN 1 2-04-0702 FA G , I G \\ rT I _? 0 o ON i h u II 0 \ S\ /lit' � _-`♦\��Iaao� IMm Arse=B� O Mho \ '\I N o- 92&&2 } 11m920.`� - �-�� / n aF�Nz� N 1 \ 10 1�r 1 1 1 1 I I 33 33 \I I /1a� 33 I I -- I - F N4 DYLH /I - BJFNOM.DAO / NwwA IIT f#SIM'• N' O / / \ \ I •.GNP , D DNN.. �.Drzas A p A 60 D D DwatN Llof Pae • D..f.a EnDfhO wdl sTEr r A u D..f.D Pow Pd. AREA= 2.77 ACRES E Lknotw Ouy MY, IS PN-I.tN s/gIT ZONING= RSF n Pllotn Tn DEVELOPER: 1OSPRING, INC. AN pert.➢ Ed, ST Mbob ATM.• SCOTT ROSENLUND Oanot.a I ,&StT !Ex ® DNlpt.. S Iftiy SorE lb. 622 KEST BOW STREET - - - BUILDING SETBACK CHASKA, MN 55318 FRONT-30' lPH-(952)2I-'s-Rss5 SIDE-10' B*Mmp(0 REAR-JO' Top Nut Hyi Oev.-9J0.82 FROM COUNTY ROAD 50 - 50' 27' KBet o/ CaohNhs o/ Stole Hwy Na 101 a1mg Seuth Propwfy lice w T vMN. 2r M 9.aAa TNLI w"1 Stt FIw Ow � EIP TIw : 1, 'd taw .Ir i-v_;: I:I. i(so¢'}l ,_MH QOUER(F FOR CONSMI'!MYL 'iY-FwL (Mecniw u )°_ 5- IRn. 0ytn of Ot NST. Nl 1430 ER 4pONT Cw1Ra DEMCFS A,B CwSTRUCTNN wM`Mo EX1R6N2S FRpS ON C/tYICOL C06NIGT SltlNxl.ld P¢p n . N. eFA. W KE FENCE TYPE 1 SEEBEBRAM-N eA9N WNNC NSIRII — wxTACT 0TY Fw MPRwAI a ffLVYExT wI47INX Ofl1LE N°tw 0.ww q,DE SW µ0 INSTNL URITIES T,,s 2 .AI Mu % H. — asI VM I., xYd ..I.c. vs aNae T" 2 to N uN0 to Pry N t all IIHH a MST,Il &TUYIM W S AIRFACE R6IOpE NL DXSTU &D ARE SINCE NL IMS11WBm AREAS IUME m ♦EaTAYw IYD®IY. WTN1 N'PNOYAL FRaN ME CITY EIMME lff O 4LYENT CwTRa FENZS NINM TYO M0EKS m OTY ➢PPRavN. _ NN. IY.NMI ..MIN LP nm . -: .� . •:: M. vx M w N, Yx WMHN DMANN.rNMNNt EROSION C4 01- FENCE - TYPE 2OWM NIs1Y SILT FENCE-5300 TY-TW FNMC� r MINIMUM DEPTH I'-Yw9ED xm[ rorosT�GP wl.�ilw°Eilw°�w° no°ac NON ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DETAIL TYPICAL RAMBLER/FULL BASEMENT (FB) OR SPLIT ENTRY (SE) ' ay " I. CP Hy�.91z.A p • n I wTNT - ih RNm.9,JIH1 JT:¢62,NW _ _ _ 1-6BG w O I ➢ 5 Nea.R.91rssa" HI ¢D BRAJ I IW IN, A S EUNIGISU DH HEI,IHI By FOX DEN 0. M.LN ANO TSAT� A W Y I1f8�6fD PRJFESSIONUL EN�pxEER wral+m,xYNamm al.EalTn UNDER TE LAMS W THE RATE CF MINNEWTA QVINK WpINMn 10SPRING. INC.TT M.N01No TF MNcso. CHANHASSEN tILULYW33 OATL Ac , TYPICAL FULL BASEMENT W/LOOKOUT WINDOWS (LO) GR DN- u0 mmm Cl mm NOTES 1. ME -w YC IS M ELsnNG p$E OUMD UnUTES ARE SHCHNN IN M APNAONNATE wAr Ulr. ME IXNTMCTSN SNui pE1EIWNF THE EYAGT IACAIIw fi NL WSTING UIRITES BESpiE CWYEVCiNG YOp( HEAGREES W BE FULLY RE4w%M FM NY MD ALL OAYAQ$ NHICH YAT DGNR plE W HIS FARURE N E%ACRY \➢GATE µD PR A MY µ0 F11 wOEAawxO UTIUi2s 1 CwTRACTdt 91N1 BE FAYl1N NM µ0 FOLLON w REg ENTS w THE YPCA xFM3 R E PFIWT RF G STNUI W ACnwnES lxaWNG BUT N]T UNITBI T¢ NSBI pN09d CdTRa INSPECndS, INYEn"" MFIt ¢S RN FA w MUE AM M¢NFNTAPM fi Ill CpUSCIM1f YFA911x5. BY aOFIF WNSIRUCII¢I. THE CdTPAGTpt AppaMIDCtS ra TENTS aF TIYS PEAYT µ¢ NOBS W A BY TIEY. ] N, WON 9 C y wTN ITC gFBUNSB ST FWM N nE YPCA'S PROIFCING WAIFR gIAUtt N UB.W MEA4 BEST MNAfZNpi PRELIIf6 FQ Y Ma IIE US-0AT SWb M.IFe YNNOYENi FOt NISIBIIC,IOTVW I NL11NRO a ML saEHT caxTea YFA.vEs slAu BE NSTwlm mw ro Nr aYDDNc ACRMTY ¢N-a1E- (tw u13t S Mo W/WTp./Im rEa Ill£ 1 TINS Iw ME a I' NCNwmI. TH,, ,A sxN T BE Io y BIO THE YMUBNUNtBED . I N NA UII NMNx RLY MNw TIE AIEA 6 NOT NC1RiLr BENC WO¢3D D ) *YS TM S(MEB sIEENER THUM H. 31. a pNn TOt SpPf3 1¢I ro YI, ANIO YI 0/.n FCR 9L{LS TUTIFA MN 1(kt. A 11E HEMS 1O1 9ML INURE NN) E AI 1FWOURY OIOIf2 RMf CM Allen (EARS REaIWEe W Wasi mam wANAa DIIOtD cpalRtlGlloE T. TIE CbN1PKIFR 91ML a REYMSet[ Fq YN.RpI.Y� 6 NL FBTBOI O}IM'L FEMOS UOl SIZE XN A IBiCMI YFO.TNTK w`AA 'IM A OFlett m TOBcD 1NE FMTFE HRNOS NEA WNidNMCE SMML N]IIOE BUT IpT a WIFD W 11E TWOWII¢ RIO.E SEOWMI fBW PODS NFEM xNF RAL MID uPM HIO OTgEIMM 6 M61DlCOW. G NffIME aT WIOI AaVMA1BN iSAb6 OIE-nND M pTT Ci ,IE aT RIIQ. c T RW( IXNSIM'14 ENTWAMI IRPIALFYpi plllf' CONSTVCRW YAY E NESESSMY. O U. µY pHas NC. U- aT W OD w MFx ON WBRNC SIO¢I YYEAS w SMANII 91NL Bf BDIO4D MIFA GOI RAN ANp MTECIFD MGS nEAxm. e MAKER S(AN HG . IRAOOp N EI M NS BIRF£IS sNWl MOIEE DwNY STI¢i! SCAAPNG NIO SIMET 5'AEIDMG AS NEQfO. D. THE COAT ... 1 PEKdw M'-- - IEIISU ES ORAED BY THE pm . 1HS MPCA .MN 2. NWFS Cf NOnFIGIYBL M AOOIIpN FA33W SoHI .E .NEB .0 xE.1 BY ➢TER THE CITY ON THE MPG StA BE o,ST. NTw 2. NwxS K WIi1LAIXi1. 10. TTE W\mcT,* SHALL wIN£Blr RE)IDK wL 1100PIXNY ERI MD SEDwpT (Xtk t YEA4NE5 WIOI 11E ST NAS ]N6 N:SETATIE GfR - II. IT IS ME R .-Iltt fF THE UT UTY CONRACTw TO NSEML NET IAOTECTM M1 .0 MUSTS M THEY ME NSTA (RETFR TO CCNST TNW PIMIB TOt OETALS) IL CIYNECIFD $ T, A9'NNT MY CYN A= MWN4 RDAYMG OEIBBS. PN PNASTS FMPRIC. C NSIRUCTWI ND ..lUN DEPPoS ND OMER MAS16 MUST BE dSPCRO 6 I tN ' AND M5N C FLY .1 MPCA tI 0 REOMDIDIIS IS $ ItM µ0 pSP05AL ST OL GXUNE PLANT ND µY NAUIDWS SUASTMMES MUST BE IN NI MM NMMIMRY.11T S. I.. E%TERMN .IN6 6 THU.. µo UMER Lw SIT UCnw Yf11I.S MUST RE .1. iO A WPNED ME (Y ME BTE MUNOE 'NUS' IS CwT... ND WASIE PROPERLY py05E0 W NO ENONE [EOEASING IS M - D w 9TE. 11 ME POI➢ SN ll BE DEwAlgm FMAI ME TW Cf THE MAZER COLYN ON BY AN NTEMAITA METHW APMDYFO BY ME ENSINEER, PRELIMINARY GRADING R EROSION CONTROL PLAN 2-04-0702 IEET NO. 4 OF 5 SHEEFS J.AM 1120105 A' m w w Benchm DEVELOPER. IOSPRYNQ, INC Top Nut Hyd. Gev.-=82 ATTN. SCOTT ROSENLUND 27' Wmt of renterfbw of State 622 NEST 82NQ STREET Hwy. No. 101 along South CHASKA, UN 55318 property line PH— (952)215-8535 EXISTING TREE INVENTOR W I x I x 11 x ljII x x Ac XX 12 Et I jr L a qW7" L: PM DENOTES TREE TO BE REMOVED -207- DENOTES PROPOSED - H)CO3I SPRUCE TREE w I CA I 1/�,! I A /r- 10 DENOTES PROPOSED 2 1/2- MT (SPECIES TO BE CHOSEN By RUILDERIIANDOWER FROMME �OVEO i-TT OF DESIR�LE SPECIES) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — '-&W — — — �l WWRAa 67,110 DENOTES PROPOSED 2 V�?' SuGoU? MAPLE � �PNP�IPO �Y Co�� WW� "M7 V (JW lll� C�l M"Aa PMEPWD - 2AIN V 0 DENOTES PROPOSED 2 1/2' MOUNTAIN ASH ��yl 20 I ID]] V 2V1,= V NWTM-F r- XW�II�AJMD=. G�� M�RF�MS F M OE""NEO �4" HEREBY CEFM� TH �s SPEC' REPORT WAG W WEATORUER "C"1040104NP W O.ECT SLJ DEN PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PROJECT NO: TUTPROFESSroNAL 5NGINEER MD �T M A DU LENSED 11 FOX 2-04-0702 OCCXID UWOEP �E U" �%E STATE C WTTO 91 I 10SPRING, INC. & REPLACE MENT PLAN CSO. :';mom]';XU CHANHASSERMN SHEET NO. 5 07 5 SHEETS 1120105 P..l L Oft "SONS I I A' r_�-7 I �, � I I A n n I _I I n n/ I I/-I lVIL_ l L_ l �7 V � I ` I •�w I � �, � j tin- ... N895833'w 50271 msos I \ 50300 deed :tie- 4 CV E 4 \yam' 33 W_'s �33 15,065 SF ~`` i:. r•. may..} i -jr '' J --'.d�i; i ' _ 15,015 SF _J 66 L R^ A k iv i t ' r ^3 b 75,041 SF140 --�•� ` n,�'- , t�` Riser `� o Ir 31 / I H 15, 014 IC1 AppLax. 4eCt]t on s yj/ C4 - CNiw Son. Service Exi ^� O 15,04.2 SF o ,i'/ .�••=�j- - � 17I567 iSF� r'u �' Drvewo _ .\. - NB95li'33'W 50.I00Ex7s�. SAN. k°r' —922 -_— life �1- ,"'_ .—'" � 4 a-.� _� . NdT�=919.c"3 1 �92,1 / . • ' y Y. \a2 O / S. line of the North 451.00 — �• I'. \ ` I % �'vI Top Nut Dev.=9- --- N.E. Comer of the S.E. 1/4 of the N.E. 1/4 of Sec. 1 T. 17 R. 23. Carver County, Minnesota I 33 33 -Exist. ,ORM. nrw Rim 229 =9 !NV.=9: 9.42 33 feet of the SE 114 of the % NE 114 of Sec 1 I I , �j`` �. / I % / L _ L V VMP NNL=9tag / m. C a .V. W 318.90 HNL=922.24 �� ` I ! x a E. 1fdY 18 24 BOTTIW=814.0 iXS77N0 POND Legal Description: / A tract of land situate in the North 451.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast / Quarter of Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Southeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter, thence South 451.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence West along the South line of said 451.00 feet Tract, 503.00 feet to an iron monument; thence North at right angles a distance of 240.00 feet; thence East at right angles a distance of 503.00 feet, more or less, to a point on the East line of said Quarter —Quarter distant 240.00 feet North of the point of beginning; thence South 240.00 feet to the point of beginning O I — s to Exist. 8" San Sewer I A /�1 / i t � � L 1p�1Vxist 12 PCP_ ai8.4c� Exist. 8" WM l� I INV. 917.99 -, —Exist. GE - Rini=92? 30 C%4 11VV.=919.45 Exist. TORir?. MH — l Rim=3 3.62 INV.=9 0.59 —Exist. 11-3 Cj Rim= 922.43 33 iNY.=919.66 I - 33 I AREA= 2.77 ACRES ZONING= RSF DEVELOPER. 10 SPRING, INC. ATTN: SCOTT ROSENLUND 622 WEST 82ND STREET CHASKA, MN 55318 PH-(952)215-8535 Benchmark. Top Nut Hyd. Elev.=930.82 27' West of Centerline of State Hwy. No. 101 along South property line CITY RECELVEDSSFn1 0 Denotes Light Pole ® Denotes Existing Well FEB 1 1 20D5 o Denotes Power Pole E Denotes Guy Wire 0HANHASSEN PLANNING DEP' n Denotes Sign Denotes Tree Denotes Edge of Woods —oHE Denotes Overhead Electric —ssss— Denotes Sanitary Sewer line — - — BUILDING SETBACK FRONT-30' SIDE- 10' REAR-30' FROM COUNTY ROAD 50 - 50' DRAINAGEAND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: I I I �►--5 I I I I I I -----------J L------------ BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING BLOCK LINES, AND BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. VICINITY MAP SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 716, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY N W. I k' S Q A/A LOTUS LAKE 0 N. 00 /4 A/4 DESIGNED DRAWN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT web Site: PROJECT N0 C.S.O. M.L.H. WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION www.oftoassociates.com FOX DEN AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER PRELIMINARY PLAT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 9 West Division St 2-04-0702 CHECKED TTo Buffalo, MN55313 10SPRING, INC. N0. DATE BY DESCRIPTION C.S 0. Paul E. Otto ssoclATES =(63)22.�22 CHANHASSEN, MN 1 5 1120105 1! Annen nATC. EOOIaP2iS end Le!Id $iIIYBVO/5. Inc. _ SHEET N0. OF SHE DATE 3 2 qc o' edge Of w0041= Is. I I � I `- ;' choh, fink AMC.,— - I � s roc o Approx. LXofExist.San. Sew -p SURMO!iN7ABLE- o CURB do GUTTER O Riser U � 4 Fvc- 5 T,ie { 11 If- I -1 I II \ I MATCH EXIST. BIT, CURB do GUTTER i i -1 Exist. 8' San Sewer i SAN. VH PROPOSED POND EXPANSION I y% NML=918.9 HOL-92224 BOTMM=914.0 EVSnNG POND Exist 1=' RCP xi_,. /IVV=91918. 46 Exist. 8"�WM-� t Exist- & gutter t1 Rim =S25. y%. REMOVE EAIS77NG CURB & GUTTER dr INSTALL CONC. VALLEY GUTTER Exist. 15 I I I I 33 I I I I I I I 33 I a WTI I U � O N hN 33 I I m II x� w? I i 33 � , �J � � I 13� N W 0 t \\ m a T o i I �5-+ I v C; i cc� I - k o I ho rn 33 I y, Benchma I Top Nut yd. E1ev.=93 82 9 2.29 - fNV.=91 -42 33 Cc -Exist. F m I 1a W. iNV 918.90 w E. lNY =� 18.44 a 1NV. 917.99 t —Exist. C3 a Rim=922.3C Q 42 �..-Exist. 'TORAe. At:i ip V =9' 0.59 '—Ex1s' CB AID R;m=922.43 nvv.=979.88 I 3J I 33 I � I PL y N 4" Topsoil, Seed & Mulch or Sod. Surmountable Concrete Curb 7 AREA= 2.77 ACRES ZONING= RSF DEVELOPER. 10SPRING, INC. ATTN. SCOTT ROSENLUND 622 WEST 82ND STREET CHASKA, MN 55318 PH—(952)215-8535 Benchmark. - Top Nut Hyd Dev.=930.82 27' West of Centerline of State Hwy. No. 101 along South property line a Denotes Light Pole 0 Denotes Existing Well o Denotes Power Pole E— Denotes Guy Wire n Denotes Sign Denotes Tree Denotes Edge of Woods —OH£ Denotes Overhead Electric —ss—ss— Denotes Sanitary Sewer line — — — BUILDING SETBACK FRONT-30' SIDE— 10' REAR-30' FROM COUNTY ROAD 50 — 50' CL PL 25' 25' 15.5' to Back 15.5' to Back — Wear Course to be 1/2" e Above Edge of Gutter I l i 3.0% 2.0% 1 o� 1' �\- 1.5 : 1 1 1/2"—Plant Mixed Bituminous Wearing Course Type #41WEA50055Y Tack Coat — 2357 2"—Plant Mixed Bituminous Base Course Type #31BBB50000Y 12"—Class 5 Aggregate Base, 100% Crushed 24" MNDOT 3149.2E Select Granular Borrow I NOTES: 1. ALL STORM SEWER SHALL BE RCP CLASS III UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. DESIGNED DRAWN S C.0. M.L.H. CHECKED C.S.O. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I LA A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Web soci www.ottoassoeiates.com 9 West Division St Buftlo,NN55313 QTT? F 63)M� Engineers and Lad Surveyors, Ina FOX DEN 10SPRING, INC.NO. CHANHASSEN MN PRELIMINARY STREET & STORM SEWER PLAN PROJECT No- 2-04-0702 DATE BY DESOP110N Cara M. Schwohn Otto LICENSE # 40433 DATE: SHEET N 0. 3 0 F J` SHE °A�` 1120 /05 REVISION$ a Denotes Light Pole 71 ® Denotes Existing Well Denotes Power Pole �� f - _ �- Denotes Guy NSre AREA= 2.77 ACRES Is Denotes Sign ZONING= RSF Denotes Tree DEVELOPER. 10SPRING, INC. Denotes Edge of Woods -oHE Denotes Overhead Electric A77N: SCOTT ROSENLUND _ I = ss = ss - Denotes Sanitary Sewer line 622 WEST 82ND STREET CHASKA, MN 55318 I - BUILDING SETBACK PH-(952)215-8535 FRONT-30' = SIDE-10 33 33 REAR-30' FROM COUNTY ROAD 50 - 50' ! p�-,, r x rr m r'� �l •` k°'I teel T Posts 24* in ground INSTALL 7R£E PRESERVATON;i3WE I ` f y, \ i• Note: P Zi Ties Silt Fence per MNDOT VIF specifications, source 2000 c: monfilament 36' widg fastened to - 40: steel T-Posts with 501b tensile CONSTRUCTION - 33 N strength p chi zip per . Depth t PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL ECONSTRUCTION I l SEQUENCE FOR 4 m I t Machine sliced) 6' Min of silt INSTALL ALL PERIM I DEVICES AND � N� v x j I fence embedment ENTRANCES. ^. C, lu 2 LON J i I �' ! EROSION CONTROL co - \ I.J ^; i " SEDIMENTATION BASIN CONSTRUCT DUR NOG CONSTRUCTION. INSTALL TO ACT AS TF_93 SINLTTfETICE E f }� % -33 G 9g33 gg _ FENCE - TYPE 1 CONTACT CITY FOR APPROVAL OF SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES. T-31 .8 x '-.�' i...% / _:.f Y 2 \ i O ! Note: r' , / i i ROUGH GRADE SITE AND INSTALL UTILITIES. / E• \ p I Type 2 silt fence is the some as 1 with hay bales installed as per detail .i. wn�l `-�` \- \ o / ; - INSTALL BITUMINOUS SURFACE it=933.0 ;-.•� r _ �- - i Type 2 to be used to protect all wetlands. 9 / i I RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS 879 i s 3 1 p '�'� �9�, ONCE ALL DISTURBED AREAS HAVE 70% VEGETATIVE DENSITY, OBTAIN APPROVAL 930 / `N �9_c�-- •__- ? k:i - 3 FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. INSTALL RPRESERVA ON' I r } N = . : ". Hnv or straw Balm REMOVE SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF CITY APPROVAL i'� cRs,i �� -r'L NI h i •' ; j,•• • •' _ Tw wood "in driven Uraugh J\ , bde 1 5 to 20 into the t�� d o7i to p Ties __ _-� '.1` ,I n► i TO BE (r(Jt j .. �; Bdes to be recessed 8 below grade. _ O ' O ObED I I <> I 5 m EROSION CONTROL Bdare to be ate with a Riser L0_ 30;Q ��t fix. - J \ o FENCE TYPE 2 "°" O'°eoae Mata+d SILT FENCE-5300 off: GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES ri cm 011 N t0 F� •`- a 4 - --- / j / I i / o I r U j X �_� Z Q E - o- I �, ( 1. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT 9g , .J/ LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MAY OCCUR w F8 lA DUE TO HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL ''TL �n°f� I I UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. ever Se a ,''"'� �� N A� cP R ,ry I ) z S• 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FAMILIAR NTH AND FOLLOW ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE FILTER FABRIC ` •' y� 1 �� _ ye G�g21 N I 'k1? 6' MINIMUM DEPTH •t/j MPCA NPDES PHASE II PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING BUT �928 / N \ I _ I �g�9 I W;W �yGy NOT LIMITED TO; WEEKLY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTIONS, INSPECTION AFTER L- \ a 1" - 2" WASHED R r• �• '( ,a^+ ' ' �; Of \ �\' 0.5' RAINFALL OR MORE AND DOCUMENTATION OF ALL CORRECTIVE MEASURES. ..j N I I ' C � i r _ r r s \ ) DOST DMWWAY 7U �� Wpm BY BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGES THE TERMS l� ,. "",t z'� �' BE RE1r012•D o f� OF THIS PERMIT AND AGREES TO ABIDE BY THEM. I` 'wI �%� = -, . TF= 28.2 \ -- 1" RESR PER N07E 16' MINIMUM CUT OFF BERM {' - r - _ - - I TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM SITE 3. ALL WORKSHALL COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN THE MPCA'S s I g28.5 �M. ---- I Gist. Or ve/ Drivewo �. PROTECTINGWATERQUALITY IN URBAN AREAS: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 92t?+5 \ - `-_ I ti[y NOTE: FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCKI FOR MINNESOTA, AND THE US -SPA'S STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FOR t� TO STOP MUD MIGRATION THROUGH ROCK. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. - -lIYST VA fF7YCE �' l 40 ` :� 33 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DETAILI 4. ALL SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY W 5r _ i_,__,.,_, , .�-___ 2 GRADING ACTIVITY ON -SITE r .� 5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED NTH MN/DOT SEED MIXTURE 250 -(100 LBS/ACRE) AND MN/DOT MULCH TYPE 1 2 TON/ACRE & DISC ANCHORED). E , ... r :::...:::....... Benchma k: I R FERTUZER SHALL BE 10/10/10. THE MAXIMUM TIME AN AREA CAN REMAIN OPEN WHEN \ \ K xis . :::::':::::-.:: I THE AREA 70 Be_jm oiim i Top Nut I EA IS NOT ACTIVELY BEING WORKED IS: 7 DAYS FOR SLOPES STEEPER THAN ---.. Elev.=93 8 INSTALL TYPE f R'V A Li-� VARIES VARI 20' 3:1, 14 DAYS FOR SLOPES 10:1 TO 3.1, AND 21 DAYS FOR SLOPES FLATTER THAN fe±%re� c�s 9LT FENCE �NC'-- ... �- _ , ft _ �Y 10:1. I Lr +Tile Exist.TG?,Ai. .'dr' �jP 'l /f. -' Rim=9 2.29 I 31 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPORARY TCHES, PIPING. OR n.,� - - (ELFIENCE WALL BE '�.. .{ -� {p-- N,Yv.=91o. 41' OTHER MEANS REQUIRED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE DURINGa 0' J �\ RElrD1£D OR RELOCATED I1 % =) CONSTRUCTION. P N / �`�` �, o caws m naw o''aoN°r+_ o v 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF ALL EROSION g 428.` �r - J �--,.--`� 2� ' I CONTROL DEVICES UNTIL SITE HAS A UNIFORM VEGETATIVE COVER WITH A DENSITY .ti---- OF 70% OVER THE ENTIRE PERVIOUS AREA. MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: ly t oa \ a. REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM PONDS WHEN HALF FULL AND UPON t I /.-- m I FINISHED SURFACE ELEV. AT HOUSE 1' HOLD DOWN FROM GARAGE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. �;' / NIK=91B9 i / `{ iY fP1J 9f8.9D GRADING GRADE b. REMOVE SILT WHHEN ACCUMULATION REACHES ONE-THIRD THE HIK-92224 E. IA:J- 7B.4t 0.5' TOPSOIL HEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE _ 0 r W - _ 770AI=914. i _I ; Cl I FILL (PER FHA/HUD 79G) MAINTAIN ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. REPLACEMENT DURING \ F ERiJt• - _:..-. _ - , "-(. I : .:�,: I / j, / -1 �' I TOP OF STABLE SUBSOIL (PER SOIL ENGR.) CONSTRUCTION MAY BE NECESSARY. IXSnNG POND I d. ANY DEPOSITING OF SILT OR MUD ON NEW OR EXISTING STORM SEWERS INSTALL SILT FENCE AFTER OR SWALES SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAIN AND AFFECTED AREAS TYPICAL RAMBLER/FULL BASEMENT (FB) / \ r I� Para crrAaNc I n I s ,, OR SPLIT ENTRY (SE) CLEANED. STREET CLEANING OF SOIL TRACKED INTO PUBLIC STREETS SHALL INCLUDE DAILY STREET SCRAPING AND STREET SWEEPING AS NEEDED. / RESTORE a f SLOPES WTY �\ S�� r \ \ I 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ANY CORRECTIVE MEASURES ORDERED BY \ MN/WT M5 CAT. 3 �INKET y ?� I -- --- I THE CITY OR THE MPCA WITHIN 24 HOURS OF NOTIFICATION. ALSO, ADDITIONAL (SHADED AREA) , « _ --_� xist. f2;PCP_? __ R/y' EROSION CONTROL MEASURES DEEMED NECESSARY BY EITHER THE CITY OR THE L -=`NV=91&48 - - ~�� i� __� . I I MPCA SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF NOTIFICATION. 1 cws . 5"Cdf' VARIES IES 20' IARK 917.99 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETELY REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND i SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES WHEN THE SITE HAS 70% VEGETATIVE DENSITY. I I I I I I I I I I 11. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UTILITY CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL INLET PROTECTION Exist. B" WM'- \_- Exi.,t. CP � I � 5 AROUND INLETS AFTER THEY ARE INSTALLED (REFER TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR DETAILS) i Exist. Surmountobit� aim=92230 curb & gutter r. to 12. COLLECTED SEDIMENT, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE MILLINGS, FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, ih Y.=9'9.C5 I 1. �/ h Exist. 8" Son Sewer ROCK GONST. J �% *\ � •� qk PLASTIC, FABRIC, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND OTHER WASTES MUST / / /) / / /-i I A / 'N RANEE /� /_) / 1 / W I BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. -Exist. SAN. MN \ "Exlsi. TERM. My- 13. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF OIL, GASOLINE, PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES �1 $ 9 FINISHED SERFAGE ELEV. AT HOUSE r' Rim=9Z5.43 r Rim=162 MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS.;NV.=9' C? 59 1' HOLD DOWN FROM GARAGE ( GRADING GRADE 14. EXTERNAL WASHING OF TRUCKS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED •Exist. CB I 0.5' TOPSOIL TO A DEFINED ARE OF THE SITE RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED AND WASTE PROPERLY Rim=92243 I - 33 33 CONTROUID FILL (PER FHA/HUD 79G) DISPOSED OF. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE ;Nu=919.66 TOP OF STABLE SUBSOIL (PER SOIL ENGR.) � I I 15. THE POND SHALL BE DEWAIERED FROM THE TOP OF THE WATER COLUMN TYPICAL FULL BASEMENT OR BY AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. W/LOOKOUT WINDOWS (LO) DESIGNED DRAWN GSO. M.L.H. CHECKED S. o' I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYR UNDER THE LAWS OFTHE STATE OFMNNESOTAL ENGINEER Web Site: www.ottoassoelates.eom 9WestDivisionSt. TTo BBuufanoUUNN2553133 ssocTATfs Far �)� Engineers and Land Surveyors, Iw SOX DEN 10SPRING, INC. CHANHASSEN MN , PRELIMINARY GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN PROJECT N0 2-04-0702 N0. DATE BY DESgaPnoN Cara M. Schwahn Otto LICENSE ¥ 40433 DATE: 4 5 SHEET N 0 . 0 F SHEETS DAM 1/20/05 RF111SIONS ---- N.E. Comer of the I S.E. 1/4 of the N.E. V4 of Sec. 1 I I T. 11 . R. 23, Carver Counfy, Minnesota I AIf �- 7 I I A 1-� r� I �n I /1 / lVI L_ l L_ l �7 / I L11L11 l l UI V � I r I ( 33 33 N. In fendrn I fir., fen,4&— _ N89 se 33'w 502 71 mcos7- -77,77777- — — JJ o 4 A J t 1 W2 i I of :3.3 — s �� \ 0 15,065 SF g 1 cl _193015, 015 SF 215 o — _3 j \15, 041 SF 4 I o o140 \ t� \ Riser \ \ 4o \ \ ; 1 \ , s 15, 01�4 SF,c 5 167 I 7 Z \ �-_•} 1 �. ,APPrar.':feeot on is Son. Sewer ServiceLd 238 1 ��'_ 42 S � l r77�,- r a:�r -17,567Fi;{; st r _ ___ -1'wst Groff Driveway I c�iq SiX -I Ls\ 70 z 276 N89`5B'33'W5041W `�,. -I - "� A-Benchma 1 ..-- -.z Ex,•s SAN M.N Z � � Top Nut y� Rra 92190 — ,_fNV 913.40 _.`32�- tt } ` Erist�FSR,, Elev.=93 82 r''e 9 3 t Exist. TORtA.. h!H I 4 — 9t .2 $ -- \ �g ! ;'r Rim=9Y2.29 924Ar- -ji `� ! = :: a __ _ _• - --` (\ � f= r' r -. 2? , t•`` - � � — � .( I / \ S. line of the North 451.00 A / feet of the SE 1/4 of the € NE 114 of Sec 1 / I` 9-._ErTsi. _ `CMp NML-9189tNV. 9t8.90 HNL=922.24 BOTTQV=914.0 i _I DUSTING PWD 30 0 30 60 AREA= 2.77 ACRES ZONING= RSF DEVELOPER: 10 SPRING, INC. ATTN: SCOTT ROSENLUND 622 WEST 82ND STREET CHASKA, MN 55318 PH—(952)215-8535 Benchmark: Top Nut Hyd. Elev.=930.82 27' West of Centerline of State Hwy. No. 101 along South property line PTO] 0 Denotes Light Pole SSEN CITY RECEIVED 0 Denotes Existing Well o Denotes Power Pole FEB 11 2005 - Denotes Guy Wire n Denotes Sign CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP Denotes Tree Denotes Edge of Woods —OHE Denotes Overhead Electric —ss— ss- Denotes Sanitary Sewer line — — — BUILDING SE7BACK FRONT-30' SIDE- 10' REAR-30' FROM COUNTY ROAD 50 — 50' DRA/NAGEAND UT/L/TYEASEMENTSARE SHOWN THUS.• II I �_--5 I 0 5 —�I I I o I l I ----- 1------J I L - - - - - - - - - - - - BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING BLOCK LINES, AND BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. VICINITY MAP ECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY I C .o�O N. 1/4 N. IN 7114 I OC,� vF^C,'T O' Y CV �F / .1b 4,0 I.� ,-- L — tNY=1e.4a �, �15 -cup INV.. 917.9.9 I I I K \ �1 Legal Description: / �- Exist. CB Exist VIM, 1\ / •� I / i i Eurb S gutter tabl R,rn=922 30 curb & utter ! � � 7 A tract of land situate in the North 451.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast tt�j Exist. 8" son Sewer a / 9 INv.=9MO5 to I �1 Quarter of Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, as follows: / i /i ( / /1 I A / t. n �`)'/ % % , , , i I �r'ii \ ' mil•--\--�--4��- - Exist. 7GRV. tfH ``�� L �TUS / C C• \\� \ --Exist. SAJ. MH / z L j ° $ Rim=9 .,.62 Commencingat the Northeast comer of said Southeast Quarter of Northeast r� / — — Rim-925.43 _ — — — — } Rim Quarter, thence South 451.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be I s i — o described; thence West along the South line of said 451.00 feet Tract, 503.00 feet Ex1st. . Rim=9M266 ,NY.=919.56 I - ,33 I 33 to an iron monument; thence North at right angles a distance of 240.00 feet; thence East at right angles a distance of 503.00 feet, more or less, to a point on the East line of said Quarter -Quarter distant 24-0.00 feet North of the point of beginning; thence South 240.00 feet to the point of beginning \ DESIGNED DRAWN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT Web Site: PROJECT NO C.S.O. M.L.H. WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION www.offoassociates.com FOX DEN AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER PRELIMINARY PLAT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 9 West Division St. 2-04-0702 CHECKED TTo Bulfalo,UN55313 10SPRING, INC. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION c.s.a SSOCIAres ar )Uz.TM222 CHANHASSEN, MN 1 5 1/20/05 Paul E Otto SHEET N0. OF SHE DAIS: K,.c,wc , ,rrw,cr ❑ enna) neTr• Engineers and Land S+uveYors. Inc. I I I I I I I I i I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I Y i � 33 33 Li ; I a I J I I y (1 t t viar."e ffii'YriFi;e ..a � �I I HYu. W/ 6' G V MH2 = R/M-930.42 INV.-919 00 a'TE7H0 r . g l Exist. Well \$ G O - Approx. Location of Exist. - ' Son. Sewer Service (REMOVE) Tit vood5x—' AGE MH1 —A RIM-924.49 /NI!-913.65 CONNECT 7D INYMH Z913.65 Riisser E 59 Tile _ �11 I I \ I I 0 \ Lr) Exist. 8" Son Sewer I In l i /l I A� i i RESTORE BIT. TRAIL — To EQUAL OR BETTER COND177ON 40 ") 33 I �1 k'� 2 l0 33� , � _ I CONNECT 7D Exli 1 I O 86• APwdl20 N C� I W O I o o, b m � t � SAY+. A4i 2j90 l to ST RIM TD Exist 15''C P I PAVEMEN77 lMV.=9t9.<3 HK-922224 �� 60TTOM-914.0 I� EXISTING POND L —r Exist. 8" CONNECT TO EwsT. e• IIM Exist. SAn! 'Q,' Rim,=925.43 1717. ?Tr2o— I c� w s i,; r C � .n p FON 33 I k:dTopnNc I 9,3 --Exist '-OT AW Rim —9f<''.2S ;NV. =9?9. 42 33 I CO m�Exist. S"CIdR ya 'r$: tNY. a78.90 i I INN 7,91799 I '^ Exist. CBountable Exist. Surm curb &gutter 05 t c ;nR:c ,,,u i62 Rim=922, 4i ff&=919.66 33 I 33 AREA= 2.77 ACRES ZONING= RSF DE DEL OPER. IOSPRING, INC. ATTN: SCOTT ROSENLUND 622 WEST 82ND STREET CHASKA, MN 55318 PH—(952)215-8535 Benchmark: Top Nut Hyd. Elev,=930.82 27' West of Centerline of State Hwy. No. 101 along South property line ❑ Denotes Light Pole 0 Denotes Existing Well o Denotes Power Pole E Denotes Guy Wire n Denotes Sign Denotes Tree Denotes Edge of Woods —oHE Denotes Overhead Electric —ss— ss— Denotes Sanitary Sewer line — — — BUILDING SETBACK FRONT-30' SIDE-10' REAR-30' FROM COUNTY ROAD 50 — 50' NOTES: 1. ALL 8" WATERMAIN SHALL BE C-900 DR18 WITH DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS. FITTINGS SHALL BE POLYWRAPPED. MEGALUGS SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH PVC PIPE. 12 GAUGE TRACER WIRE SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH ALL PLASTIC WM. TRACER WIRE SHALL BE TERMINATED AT ALL HYDRANT BREAK OFF FLANGES. 2. ALL 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE SDR 35 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. SANITARY SERVICES SHALL BE 6" PVC SDR 26. 4. WATER SERVICES SHALL BE 1" COPPER WITH 1" CORP. 5. ALL HYDRANT LEADS SHALL BE 6" DIP CLASS 52. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL HYDRANT EXTENSIONS AS NECESSARY WHERE WM HAS BEEN LOWERED TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH OTHER UTILITIES. EXTENSIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO HYDRANT COST. 7. EXISTING WELL AND SEPTIC SHALL BE REMOVED AND / OR ABANDONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE & LOCAL REGULATIONS. DESIGNED DRAWN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT Web Site: FOX DEN PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN PROJECT NO: C.S.O. M.L.H, WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER DIRECT SUPERVISION www.ottoassoelates.eom AND THAT I AMA DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER 2-04-0702 UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 9 West Division St. CHECKED Buffalo, MN55313 10SPRING, INC.N0. DATE BY DESCRIPTION C.S.O. Cara M. Schwahn Otto P79 Fax,(763)T82.3522 DATE: TENSIONS LICENSE 40433 DATE: Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. CHA NHASS EN, MN SHEET N 0 . 2 OF 5 SHEETS 1120105 I I I x :Rtjj} I I i 7" �•` _ 3319 33 s ,y I Y ! MTALI 7REE I - o .a-eta'n fi±7K tert.:e _....• . W@3 PRF.SEIPVATM FETVOE . 3 _ _ �40 i_ xV _ _= < t ' TGF_=gg93331 a ALL TYPE fSET l to 3333FB / / INSTALL TREE f � � ;•� I �3 PREM?VANOV FEArt l� I '`� i J ? 93p • kn ! o J -r1 CIA j`� r _ i Lj _`-'t� ~ 1. C E� 4 ,} J �'^ •' r r+, TO BE tr ... _, -• �• - � ;^r-.' •� rY"rr ^. �,,,�,.- r � \ :� VV% ��v9� � Riser Vv . o • Q WJ 'f 7 - X 04 tGo o o �B ,� ' \' ..} \ ^� '• t j - °' NEW' _ I -� ' N r f •` / I .fit 2.30 10 \ f I�9 '"• , APplo:-=Eecatro Fe tP _n i '�mcNi I F-San. Sewer Ser e i I �!` Nt13 tP.21 t= -' - -926 L� r ray ty r' 1 .,w. Ti \ / l7flST. LNL1£WAY 70In "I \ \o- Ir 928.2 _ \ - RES7DLLED PfR N07E --- Jl.9LCir�� . l Y \ LL 92.�i"�J _ -.Exist Gr vel Drivewoy... {'A 'T 40 k12 > 33 SIF r 7D y Exmrs - Top Nut yd. 4 j-RE]/04ED _ 16 = - Elev.=9 2 t t� INSTALL TYPE 1 U -,z ^ A'�--"`.... tc% 3 8 wood fence__- 9� SILT FENCE +�VL - �r R / it Y s� "S✓- \ re r SITS -~ ,- 9 i _'_Exist. T�PAt. twp 3/ 1 / - ,At 17057HJG fFNCE SMALL T Rim=9 �.29 a / y\ REA10►fD OR IOELOCATm I1 �4 ` < j 'l. lNv.=91:.42 - \ 33 BY FOX HOLLOW PRQ'ERTY LLj 011i PRIOR W COWSTRUCnavco _Exist. Nlfi=911%9IPtV 918.9E BOTTOM-914.0 E. IP:Y.=978. 44 \ twee 7IINSTALLFENCE A� IXi571NG POND F x . POWD GRADING \ II \ 11 \ RESTORE &I SLOPES WTH � �0 \ 1 AmlooT38B6 CAT. 3 BLANKET } (SHADED AREA) t, 'I \�` Jfxist. 12 RCP_" T- -cxis. 15"CNP 0 INJ Z91Z99 Q E;. � Exist. Exist. 8" WM `�� griyst CB -• I i • :Exist. Surmountabl A( Rim=922.3E Q curb &gutter lNy=3;9.G5 lt) Exist. 8' Sonon Sewer � ROCK CONST. /M% ..: I A/ 1 ENTRANCE r �T-1 �t ! •-��} ��-j-�-},---� Exist. TERM. M1,. ` - xis . SAN. A4H Rim=9 7.62 r\ Rim=92a43 i INV.=9 0.59 -Exist. C8 Rirn=922.43 GVV=919.66 g Denotes Light Pole ® Denotes Existing Well State: I' = 30' mmi o Denotes Power Pole AREA= 2.77 ACRES E Denotes Guy Wire Q Denotes Sign ZONING= RSF Denotes Tree Denotes Edge of Woods DEVELOPER: IOSPRING, INC. -DHE Denotes Overhead Electric A TEN: SCOTT ROSENLUND -ss-ss- Denotes Sanitary Sewer line 622 WEST 82ND STREET - - - BUILDING SETBACK CHASKA, MN 55318 FRONT-30' PH-(952)215-8535 SIDE-10' REAR-30' FROM COUNTY ROAD 50 - 50' teel T Posts 2e in ground Note: aOx .�aoahg Silt Fence per MNDOT Zip Ties specifications, source 2000 machine sliced woven monfilament 36' wid fastened to steel T-Posts with 3 501b) tensile strength lastic zip ties per T-Post. Machine sliced) 6' Min. Depth of silt fence embedment. EROSION CONTROL FENCE - TYPE 1 Note: Type 2 silt fence is the some as 1 with hay bales installed as per detail Type 2 to be used to protect all wetlands. •r -' SLY or Straw Bales Two wood stakes divan tfrough Zip Ties _ i• bale 1.5' to 20' Into the grand, • = . l Bales to be receeaed 6' below grode. EROSION CONTROL Bales ore to be Use with a FENCE - TYPE 2 non-Oeiv&We Material' SILT FENCE-5300 FILTER FABRIC 6' MINIMUM DEPTH ,Ipr yGb 1' - 2' WASHED R 18' MINIMUM CUT OFF BERM 2p TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM SITE NOTE: FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCK TO STOP MUD MIGRATION THROUGH ROCK. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DETAIL R/W I VARIES VAR( S 20' SEQUENCE FOR CONSTRUCTION INSTALL ALL PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. CONSTRUCT STORMWAT-ER POND AND ROCK BERM TO ACT AS SEDIMENTATION BASIN DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT CITY FOR APPROVAL OF SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES. ROUGH GRADE SITE AND INSTALL UTILITIES. INSTALL BITUMINOUS SURFACE. RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS. ONCE ALL DISTURBED AREAS HAVE 70% VEGETATIVE DENSITY, OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. REMOVE SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF CITY APPROVAL GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MAY OCCUR DUE TO HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FAMILIAR WITH AND FOLLOW ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE MPCA NPDES PHASE II PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO; WEEKLY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTIONS, INSPECTION AFTER 0.5' RAINFALL OR MORE AND DOCUMENTATION OF ALL CORRECTIVE MEASURES. BY BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGES THE TERMS OF THIS PERMIT AND AGREES TO ABIDE BY THEM. 3. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN THE MPCA'S PROTECTING WATER QUALITY IN URBAN AREAS: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR MINNESOTA, AND THE US-EPA'S STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 4. ALL SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ACTIVITY ON -SITE. 5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH MN/DOT SEED MIXTURE 250 (100 LBS/ACRE) AND MN/DOT MULCH TYPE 1 (2 TON/ACRE do DISC ANCHORED). FERTILIZER SHALL BE 10/10/10. THE MAXIMUM TIME AN AREA CAN REMAIN OPEN WHEN THE AREA IS NOT ACTIVELY BEING WORKED IS: 7 DAYS FOR SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1, 14 DAYS FOR SLOPES 10-1 TO 3:1, AND 21 DAYS FOR SLOPES FLATTER THAN y 10-1. 30 MP 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPORARY DITCHES, PIPING, OR OTHER MEANS REQUIRED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF ALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES UNTIL SITE HAS A UNIFORM VEGETATIVE COVER WITH A DENSITY OF 70% OVER THE ENTIRE PERVIOUS AREA. MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: FINISHED SURFACE ELEV. AT HOUSE a. REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM PONDS WHEN HALF FULL AND UPON 1' HOLD DOWN FROM GARAGE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. GRADING GRADE b. REMOVE SILT WHEN ACCUMULATION REACHES ONE-THIRD THE 0.5' TOPSOIL HEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE CONTROLLED FILL (PER FHA/HUD 79G) c. MAINTAIN ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE REPLACEMENT DURING TOP OF STABLE SUBSOIL (PER SOIL ENGR.) CONSTRUCTION MAY BE NECESSARY. d. ANY DEPOSITING OF SILT OR MUD ON NEW OR EXISTING STORM SEWERS TYPICAL RAMBLER/FULL BASEMENT (FB) OR SWALES SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAIN AND AFFECTED AREAS OR SPLIT ENTRY (SE) CLEANED- 8. STREET CLEANING OF SOIL TRACKED INTO PUBLIC STREETS SHALL INCLUDE DAILY STREET SCRAPING AND STREET SWEEPING AS NEEDED. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ANY CORRECTIVE MEASURES ORDERED BY THE CITY OR THE MPCA WITHIN 24 HOURS OF NOTIFICATION. ALSO, ADDITIONAL R/W EROSION CONTROL MEASURES DEEMED NECESSARY BY EITHER THE CITY OR THE I MPCA SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF NOTIFICATION. VARIES \ RIES 20' Ir 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETELY REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND i SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES WHEN THE SITE HAS 70% VEGETATIVE DENSITY. 11. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UTILITY CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL INLET PROTECTION 5 AROUND INLETS AFTER THEY ARE INSTALLED (REFER TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR DETAILS) I �1 3rM/ 12. COLLECTED SEDIMENT, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE MILLINGS, FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, qI PLASTIC, FABRIC, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND OTHER WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. 13. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF OIL, GASOLINE, PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES FINISHED SURFACE ELEV. AT HOUSE MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. V HOLD DOWN FROM GARAGE GRADING GRADE 14. EXTERNAL WASHING OF TRUCKS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED 0.5' TOPSOIL TO A DEFINED ARE OF THE SITE. RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED AND WASTE PROPERLY CONMOULED FILL (PER FHA/HUD 79G) DISPOSED OF. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITETOP OF STABLE SUBSOIL (PER SOIL ENgR.) 15. THE POND SHALL BE DEWATERED FROM THE TOP OF THE WATER COLUMN OR BY AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. TYPICAL FULL BASEMENT W/LOOKOUT WINDOWS (LO) DESIGNED DRAWN C.SO. M.L.M.AND CHECKED C.S.O. WHEREBY AREDIFY BYTMETOR THIS R 'MYPDIRECT (SUPERVISION UK ORT UNDER THE LAWS OFTHESTATE OFRMNN SOTA. ENGINEER www Web She: aftoaasWc1ates.eom 9 West Division St TTo Buffalo, MN 55313 SSOCIATES -!'� ' Engineers and Land Surveyors, inc. FOX DEN 10SPRING, INC. CHA NHASSEN, MN PRELIMINARY GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN PROJECT No 2-04-0702 NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION Caro M. Schwahn Otto LICENSE 0 40433 DATE: SHEET N 0. 4 0 F 5 SHE DATE: 1120105 RF,MMS ft 0 S -off CITY OF CHOHMSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax:952227,1110 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: 952221.1125 Fax: 952,227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us December 22, 2005 Mr. Scott Rosenstein 10 Spring, Inc. 622 West 82nd Street Chaska, MN 55318 Re: Development Notification Sign Escrow Refund Fox Den - Planning Case #05-08 Dear Mr. Rosenstein, Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $100 which represents a refund of the development notification sign escrow for the above -referenced project. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 952-227-1107 or by email at kmeuwissen@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, Kim T. Meuwissen Planning Secretary KTM:ms Enclosure SCANNED 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. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ft Payee: 10SPRING INC Date: 02/11/2005 Receipt Number: EE / Clerk: BETTY DEV APP FOX DEN ITEM REFERENCE ------------------------ DEVAP DEV APP FOX DEN USE & VARIANCE SIGN RENT RECORDING FEES SIGN ESCROW Total: Time: 9:45am 5847 AMOUNT -------------- 1,140.00 75.00 450.00 -----100_00-_- 1,765.00 Check 9518-------1,765_00 Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! OK to return sign escrow. Plann A(A Q J LA 0 Date SCANNED of ft r Vendor: 10 Spring Inc Vendor No: 10Spr Invoice Number Date EE5847 12/19/2005 Vendor Acct No: Description Sign escrow -Fox Den Check Date: 12/22/2005 Check Amount: $100.00 Invoice Amount 100.00 CITY OF CHANHASSEN M&I MARSHALL & ILSLEY BANK 127751 7700 MARKET BLVD.. P.O. BOX 147 59 a CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 17-1 (952) 227-1140 Pay: ***One hundred dollars and Zero cents To the order of: 10 Spring Inc Date Amount 12/22/2005 $100.00 THE REVERSE SIOE OF TNIS DOCUMENT INCLUDES AN ARTIRCU WATERY K- HOIO AT AN ANGLE TO VIEW 7 FOX DEN — N. line of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 1 I I I I A 4F_-7--7A r-Nr'AITI A l I j I lVlL_ I L-112 /-ILJLJl I I I —N. line of the South 240.00 33 I 50 l feet of the SE 1/4 of the Ir I NE 1/4 of Sec. 1 S89S8'33 E 50100 r 463.00 33.00 ! l I 193.81 '-•)S00VO'O0'W 269.19 —40.00 r f' r---+---�---------- h --- 1s.os----------------------------- 40 1 �w ! i � •yea � � � \ d�10 ' I 0h�� 330 0' J I 086 1 214.69" I 1 ^ $I ^ I T57g34W Io v gm > w h c $ 0 139.80 _ c . _ 584'16'30'W Z�12 _ _ — —\ o$:. \ 99 I o cgt o 2 I g N m m i :: v > i iLj 1 I p0 A �opA�... �rnac�• /�i /� W 166.3 I OCK `J V f I d=0611'5T N8245'48'E 23851, .14— 644 G \ ��A�o\� I � \ '08 CS40 1 (_----I------------- — 25: 25 L— J 276.10 25.1 25.00 136.90 40.00 463.00-7 N8936'J3'W 503.00 --� •—S. line of the North 451.00 feet of the SE 1/4 of the 50 40 50 NE 1/4 of Sec. 1 I /1IA/ I LIJ I—vy� L,J I r7L/L-L-vVV i r BEARING NOTE.* The East line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, is assumed to bear S0002'43'£. denotes Iron monument found Q denotes 1/2 Inch x 14 Inch iron pipe marked thus: q34 ono 006 that will be set within one year after recording this plat or sooner, as specified by the approving local goveming unit. DRAINAGEAND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: I �-5 I I T— ' L — — — — BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING BLOCK LINES, AND BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. COUNTY AUDITOR, Carver County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable /n described on this plat. Dated this and prior years have been paid for land day of 20 Mark Lundgren, Carver County Auditor By. COUNTY RECORDER, Carver County, Minnesota I hereby certify that this plat of FOX DEN was flied this day of _ at o'clock M. as Document No. Carl W. Hanson Jr., County Recorder By. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That S&J Land Co., LLC, a limited liability company, fee owner, and First National Bank of Waconia, a US Bank, mortgagee, of the following described property situated In County of Carver, State of Minnesota, to wit: The South 240.00 feet of the North 451.00 feet of the East 503.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. Haw caused the some to be surveyed and platted as FOX DEN and do hereby donate and dedicate to the public for public use forever the drive and also dedicating the easements as shown on this plot for drainage and utility purposes only. In witness whereof sold S&J Land Co., LLC, has caused these presents to be signed by Its proper officer this day of 20 _ S&J LAND CO., LLC STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 by Land Co., LLC, a limited liability company, on behalf of the company. of S&J Notary Public, County, Minnesota 1 My Commission Expires C J Also In witness whereof sold First National Bank of Waconla, has caused these presents to be < ` signed by Its proper officer this day of 20 C FIRST NA77ONAL BANK OF WACON/A J LIB C) C� ^` 200— Alan Henninger, Vice President STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 20 by Alan Henninger, Vice President of First National Bank of Woconia, on behalf of the bank. Notary Public, . My Commission Minnesota l hereby certify that / how surveyed and platted the property described on this plot as FOX DEN, that the plat is a correct representation of the survey, that all distances are correctly shown on the plot in feet and hundredths of a foot, that all monuments have been correctly placed In or will be placed in the ground as shown, in accordance to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.02, Subd. i, that the outside boundary lines are correctly designated on the plat and that there are no wet lands as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 505.02, Subd. 1 or public highways to be designated other than as shown. Paul E. Otto, Land Surveyor Minnesota License Number 40062 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF BRIGHT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20_, by Paul E. Otto, Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 40062. Notary Public, Wright County, Minnesota My Commission Expires: CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA This plot of FOX DEN was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held this day of 10, and Is In compliance with the provislons of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd, 2. All monuments will be set as specified by the City Council and as stated on this plat, according to Minnesota Statute, 505.02, Subd. 1. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Mayor Clerk COUNTY SURVEYOR, Carver County, Minnesota Pursuant to Chapter 395, Minnesota Laws of 1971, this plot has been approved this of 20_ John E. Freemler, Carver County Surveyor day 7] SSOCIATES Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. , (311z LILT-1 1 = � !3)lzlO/alO FLIL+M (3) 6x6 TREATED F'03T � I I w o oN n^a . 4B•' DEEP ccNc. I I Q =- PIER W 24" BlSE I N-9' R'•6' IC4-2 3-2W — —ICA- 3-2W 1 — — �yB — — — — ICA 3_2W —4. 2.6 STIIDS AT 16" OL. 2xb STIIDS Al Ya" OL. I G ON 0" COIC BLK IOEEWAI I I ON 8" CONC. FR09T WALL ON p - ON 20 WO" COW. MG 2040" COIC. FTG. I LL 3 2z6 STIIDS AT I6'1 OIC. m 7c 3 1/2" COW- SLAB IW WIF F. ON 10' CONC. BIK IPEEWALL 9 OVER 6 MIL VAPOR, m m jy ON 20'YIO" CCNG FTC. Q A AND C421FACTED RASE 9 I 2z4 STUD B(b'i. W4LLS 256 \ \ rrni C - - - - - —I ON 4" wu LONG. CNRB PCS.�� -I lu n AND 16"A " CONC. FIGS. \ -2 (3) II'_LVL en OPO4 !3) 2. LVL BrL \ bz6 JT ie \ 3 (3) II" LYL Btt \ z 3b.-x34,..z10'J 4not Aa�.2 CONC. FTG. Oro. I I ILJ tlO �= a l I 10" CONC. BILK MILL I YECH ON 20'Y10" CONC. Fill / c 10" CONC. BLK uWLL J TH - naH fi ON 20"xl0" CONIC. FTG 12" cONC. BLK I I l'- ON 22NIO" CONC. FTC. D reev -J --——- ————- — —- -- — — -—� -��BM a L__ 16"AW Fr ,N A9,Ov� 4AR. AYATED 0 21'•4' 1br!w! I� L----------------JI - — — — — — ----------- '' �— B" CONIC. BLK IfEXLAVATED FROST WALL ON 16 a" FTG. a I I I i I I �- 12" =WC- BLK / ON 22'k10" FTC, I L - - - - - - - -_ STCNEEDGE FOR .17 RT I IT4 V.3• '•41(1 16'-3• •-417 21•-8" Viesigned ving t ro� , addtiom Seven R Vespested DES CTFR M"2 Omdak Avarua SE Prior take. A/Fnesota 55372 952-410-7552 fax 952-44o-7558 ssvess6'r wac, ne.com V �73 to � C: C) 0-:F (/) O Q J LU w w EJ O w Ln :3 o rawEcra C3-52 me N.xIE 03-52-base DATE 10-28-03 DESK EDGY SRV GECMDar SRV REV MS LOWER LEVEL PLAN I"EF""a` ^ G2 SGSr /� .�LE: 116" - 1' O" 12-& LEDGESTOxE —� FACE W/ LrEST(>E HEARTH '? FAMILY ROOT p B'-0x15'-0 OPEN TO ABOVE • / BRG. WALL W/\ (17 2668 V EDGE 3.-3 1/2. I'- - U OFFICE / DEN p LL U m r. Y1 e m 3/4 BATH U LARSB" FITaE LINE OF �I RAi GWB TO BOOR O COFlpNLCSEILRG ABOVE o I xAI�SJI11I�'WWLL II _ II 4" CONC. BLAB iS' I BEDROOM WALLS ABOVE — W" FLOOR TRPSES • FL2" Of - IT 71� (1) N" LVL FDR wl; (3)14" H" LVL 1OR n'-6' ro a 2' CAM. ABOVE 6068 ATIO OR ICI L 3- ¢ DWI. DNW. o0 �. I - N KITCrETJ 2668 ARCH 5 2x6 WALL m a FORMAL DMNG 3 IBFiLT� OR LIVMG RM p Q'-0x0'•0 LLU T m S FOYER m ?' OPEN TO O Ila ml ABOVE _ ll If\ 11-4 4'-3• 4'-3' 11 6'-0" 1 6'-b- COVERED PORCH (3)1xB l'•2" I'-8" S-IS" 6x6 TREATED — POSTS WRAPPED Wl bK CEDAR SLEDGE STONE VENEER SEE ELEV. FOR HEIGHT m F Viesigned ving Custom rertadelshomes, ad`I66 s and Steven R Vespested DERCNIR 74662 Qtrxa Avmve SE Pnv Lake, Alhx to 55372 952-440-7552 fax 952-440-75M ssveu*ntepaos**. U VJa.! O tJ') O r� O W 20 2� 04-0 �A � 1 ULn PX ECTa FILE WM1e 03 a� o¢siwm" .ECxma/ REV KM MAIN LEVEL PLAN SGdLE: 1/5" x I' C" 1288 x SHEEP N1.R0ER A 3 ieSpiing WINDOW SCHEDULE NIEGR TI BY HARVN WINDOW DE5IGNATION - SEE PLAN LAUANTITY RDVCid OPENM ILA-2959 1 2'-5'x4'•11 5/8' IG -1359 I &'-Px4'-il 5/8• ILAP-5Ffl 2 4'-9'x4'-9 5/8" IG4.2943-2W 5 4'-9'x3'-1 3/4" ILA-i9r{,x-2W 2 4'-9'x4'-1 50' ILA-3141 2 3'-I"x3'-0 5a, ILA-2555 I 2'-I"x4'-1 5B" IGA-3159-2W I 6'-Yk4'-9 5B" ILAP-5141 I 4'-9'x3'-1 5/9" ILA-1959-2W / IG47R-i9Va-1W 2 4'-9Stb'-4 V4" ILA-2959.3W / ILATR-1918.3W I l'-1"x6'-4 V4" ILATR29W / IL.42955 2 29" x 115/8" IPD-6068-x0 2 W-®• x W-8' WIN-3113-3W I 6'-15t1'-115/8' IAWN-9311 2 2'-9'k2'-3 5/8" WW-1911 2 2'-5"x2'-35/8" '—�nr iicw..iuK �ALL Yt: FT ALL Rur'H OPENING5IW SUPPLIER Viesigned ving Cw m ha , addd and Fenxdek Stevm R. Vespested DESRTFR 14662 CkAdak Avmve SE Pear lake, hik aom 55372 952-440-7552 lxx 952-440-7558 w&$w tv F2cr**.com O � O � N w � w J O w Uv) :D RRoaecn 03-52 FRF MYIE 03-524b wRE 10-25-03 oEmoxEoen SRV cM�®n SRV REVLffib SHEEC NUMBER • 4 - I I I I � FLOOR �M — — —--------------------- ------------------------- FLOOR LINE RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ----------------- SCdLE: lib" I'-m" -e'•o• - I L — — — — — Viesigned ving Galan harks, additioFrs oral renradeh Steven R. Vespested 1 GB 14662 G;mdak Avenue SE PrW lake, Mkm!' a 55371 951440- 552 lax 9-%-440-7558 te8aonlm m cu E �1O CIN Ln Z O L1J J LW ce O Me LU X w GROJEC 1 03-52 FILE I 0352-base wn 10-28-M nESIa Eoet SRV WEcu:oW SRV REMSMS SREEr RIMaE A5 VMYL BIDM --------------t ILlGL- ------------ FLOOR It VINYL 9IDf'G VINYL SIDIM S 0D �00 FLOOR LW VwL AIDm 1 I I LJ<—II III / FLooR L� I II t-----------------------JJ �1 REAR ELEVATION G6 SCALE: 1/8" = I'-O" V9fY1 SIDING 12 ROOF/CEILING CONST.Z4' ASPHALT SHINGLES (ARGHI(2) LAYERS 15a FELT (IGE 4 SHIELD AT HIPS, VALLEYS UP FROM FACIA) ROOF TRUSSES AT 24" O.G. R-40 ROOF INSUL. VAPOR BARRIER 5/8" GYP. BD. AIR SHUTES PROVIDE ROOF VENTS PER CODE ALUM. FACIA AND SOFFITS FLOOR CONST. 3/4" T4G PLY. SHEATH'G. 12'' 1 JOIST o 16" O.G. OR 12'' FLR TRUSSES m 192" O.G. 5/8" GYP. BD. AT FINISHED AREAS INSUL. FLOOR SPACE AT PERIMETER, TYP. WALL CONST. SIDING 1/2" EXT. 5HEATH'G. 2x6 STUDS ® I6" O.G. — R-15 WALL INSUL. 6' 4 MIL VAPOR BARRIER 1/2" GYP. BD. FLOOR CONST. 3/4" 74G PLY. SHEATH'G. I2" I J0157 O 16" O.G. OR 12" FLR TRUSSES e 192" c 5/6" GYP. BD. AT FINISHED AREAS CONC. BLK. FDN. WALL - SEE FDN. PLAN FOR SIZI REINF. W/ 05 AT 48" O.G. C 2x4 STUD FURRING — AT 24" O.G. W/ R-13 IN5UL. 4 VAPOR BAR. 20"AC" CONC. FTG. W/ (2) 5 CONT. BARS 4" CONC. SLAB ON E VAPOR BARRIER 4 4" COMPACTED BASE v M W/ SEALER 4 ANCHOR BOLTS PER CODE DRAIN TILE AT PERIMETER OF FOUNDATION WALL WALL SECTION A` SCALE:/� = 1'-©" tingeigned , a"a" Steven K Vespested DESIo�x M"2 Gknd.* n as a sF Prior Lake, Mkm to 55372 952-440-7552 fax 952-440-7558 as m%gegmonkw.r•om Q� —0 E 6 2� E :2 U Ln Z O U w N J J Q 0 O w J Lu ce Q W ce RRDJECra 03-52 FILE W E 03-52-base Dare 10-28-03 DESIMEnar SRV d ELRE➢W SRV REVIS a"EEr"w�R A 6 a FLOOR BEYOND ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 5/4" TREADS 3/4'' RISERS (3) 12" TIMBERSTRAND STRINGERS 5/5" GYP. BD. RAILING TO BE 36" HIGH W/ OPEN SPACES NOT TO EXCEED 4" FLOOR BEYOND ----------------------------- !n = I r�I_611 lm" HANDRAILS TO BE 34'' TO 38" 1011ABOVE TREAD NOSING, TYP. SEE PLANS FOR r 5/4" TREADS ADDITIONAL T 3/4'' RISERS INFORMATION �(3) 12" TIMBERSTRAND STRINGERS �{I_Q11 N m at a•I r lI_1�11 STAIR SECTION SCALE: 3/8" = I'-O" tivesignedg , ,dance Steven R. Vespested DEAO@E 9"2 Glendale Avenue SE Prior lake, MkrlrSota 55371 952!' 7S522 far 952-440-7558 as mfttegraa lrw- n O —0 E O O Lin U0� O w in un MOIECie 03-52 F.E N 03.52-base ow+E 10-28-03 OESICNED" SRV CHECMDV SRV RE SK 4EU N' ♦ 7 u mi. nor r r J ri