The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-09_BOULDER COVE (LENNAR) (FILE 1 OF 2)i4-o9 H. KELSEY PAGE, ESQ. 4. Todd Gerhardt City Manager City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PAGE LAW FIRM 5101 THIMSEN AVENUE SUITE 200 MINNErONKA, MINNESOTA 55345 September 11, 2014 TELEPHONE: (952) 4744406 FACSIMILE:: (952) 474-5270 page-kelsey@gmail.com Re: Notice of Claim Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 466.05; My Client: Mr. Paul A. Seeman; Boulder Cove Development — Lennar Corporation Dear Mr. Gerhardt: I communicate with you as attorney for Mr. Paul A. Seeman, Chanhassen resident at 6330 Church Road The City is hereby advised pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 466.05 that Mr. Seeman makes claim against the City of Chanhassen in an amount over Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). This claim is for misconduct of the City Planning Department, City Council and potentially other City employees and/or departments. The factual basis for this claim as far as can be determined at this juncture involves the following: 1. City staff willfully failed to make a bona fide effort to notify residents within 500' of the Boulder Cove Development of the application tendered to the City by Lennar Corporation for subdivision and variance in violation of Chanhassen City Ordinances Nos. 18-39 and other applicable ordinances and State Statutes. 2. City staff failed to verify the list of residents within 500' of Boulder Cove submitted by Lennar Corporation to the City for compliance with City Code Sections 20-517 and 18-37 regarding public hearing. City staff misrepresented to the Chanhassen Planning Commission that all residents within 500' of Boulder Cove has been mailed notice of Planning Commission Meeting of April 1, 2014. No bona fide attempt was made to notify Mr. Seeman. SCANNED 4. The City staff failed to provide Mr. Seeman with notice of City Council proceedings regarding plat approval/subdivision of Boulder Cove. Mr. Seeman was entitled to notice as within 500' of said development. 5. The City staff failed to verify Lennar Corporation met with residents within 500' of Boulder Cove development. No notice was received of any such meeting by Mr. Seeman. This was a violation of Chanhassen Ordinance, No. 18-39. 6. The City staff willfully failed to assure residents in close proximity to the proposed Boulder Cove development were noticed and met with by the developer Lennar Corporation as required by City Ordinance, No. 18-39. The City staff failed to verify that proposed development signage was conspicuously placed on the Lennar Corporation premises as required by City Ordinance Section 18-39. 8. That the City granted subdivision, including variances which negatively affect Mr. Seeman's property. Due to an enormous increase in traffic on Church Road, substandard for the increased traffic. I have advised my client that actions taken by City staff violate City Ordinances. Please rescind that plat approval and variance approvals and rcquire Lennar Corporation to resubmit plans for development in strict compliance with Chanhassen ordinances. I have advised my client that he has rights and remedies, including but not limited to commence litigation against both the City and Lennar Corporation for damages and injunctive relief. W. Seeman's property has clearly been devalued by the City approvals with traffic, noise, pollution, etc., all allowed beyond the zoning for the area Please advise what actions that City plans to take to rectify the improper grant of subdivision and variance. If I do not hear back from you in short order, I have been authorized to and will exercise available remedies. Very truly yours, PAGE LAW FIRM o" H. Kelsey Page cc: client Lennar Corporation, Attn: Jablowski/Tabone ajk N'l MMMMM CWhvd4 Todd 9-11-14 Spack TRAFFIC STUDY COMPANY Technical Memorandum To: Paul Tabone, Lennar From: Mike Spack, P.E., P.T.O.E. Date: April 23, 2014 Re: Traffic Impact Study for Boulder Cove in Chanhassen, MN Purpose of Report and Study Objectives Lennar is proposing to build 31 single family homes north of Highway 7 and east of Church Road in Chanhassen, MN. The homes will be built along a new cul-de-sac street named Strawberry Court. Construction of Strawberry Court will convert the 62nd Street/Strawberry Lane curve into a tee intersection with the east/west 62"d Street teeing into the north/south Strawberry Court/Strawberry Lane road. The purpose of this study is to determine what stop sign configuration should be placed at this new intersection. Conclusions and Recommendations The proposed 62nd Street/Strawberry Lane/Strawberry Court intersection will have low traffic volumes after Boulder Cove is built. Assuming the tee intersection is built with clear sight lines, no criteria are met for installing stop signs at the intersection. Therefore, it is recommended the proposed tee intersection be operated as an uncontrolled intersection. Existing Traffic Volumes Turning movement count data was extracted from a Tuesday, April 15, 2014 recording of the study intersection. The attached turning movement count data from midnight to midnight is shown in fifteen minute intervals. Site Traffic Forecasting A trip generation analysis was performed for the site based on the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9`" Edition. The resultant trip generation is shown in Table 1. SCANNEL Spack Consulting 2 of 4 Boulder Cove Traffic Study Based on the existing turning movement counts as well as taking into account site access and access to the regional transportation system, the expected distribution pattern for traffic at the site is: • 50% to/from the west on 62nd Street • 50%to/from the north on Strawberry Lane The peak hour traffic generated by the development was assigned to the area roadways per the distribution pattern and then added to the study intersection. Given the built out nature of the land surrounding the study intersection, it is assumed the background traffic will remain constant after the development is built. To develop the post redevelopment traffic volumes at the study intersection, the traffic generated by the redevelopment was added to the existing traffic at the intersection to develop the post redevelopment traffic scenario. The peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersection are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 —A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Table 3 — P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes To develop the hourly approach volumes for the all way stop signal warrant analysis, the daily volumes generated to the site were distributed to 62"0 Street and Strawberry Lane per the distribution pattern combined with the existing hourly traffic usage at the intersection. The resultant approach volumes are shown in Table 4. Spack Consulting 3 of 4 Boulder Cove Traffic Study Table 4—Combined Approach Volumes on 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane/Court Start Time Existing Strawberry Ln from 62nd St North from West Added from Boulder Cove Strawberry Ct/Ln 62nd St Approaches from West Total Volume After Development Strawberry Ct/Ln 62nd St Approaches Approach „ • ®®mom r • mm�©®m , r , : ,r • oo©000 ,. ,r • o©©o©o r r • ©a©oo© r r • o00000 Forecasted Level of Service Capacity Analyses An intersection capacity analysis was conducted for the study intersection per the Highway Capacity Manual. Intersections are assigned a "Level of Service" letter grade for the peak hour of traffic based on the number of lanes at the intersection, traffic volumes, and traffic control. Level of Service A (LOS A) represents light traffic flow (free flow conditions) while Level of Service F (LOS F) represents heavy traffic flow (over capacity conditions). LOS D at intersections is typically considered acceptable in the Twin Cities region. Individual movements are also assigned LOS grades. One or more individual movements typically operate at LOS F when the overall intersection is operating acceptably at LOS D. The forecast turning movement volumes shown in Tables 2 and 3 were used in the LOS calculations. The LOS calculations were done in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual using VISTROTM software. Note, the Highway Capacity Manual does not provide for two out of three approaches being stop sign controlled at a tee intersection nor no stop signs at an intersection. The complete LOS calculations, which include grades for individual movements, are attached. It was assumed each leg of the intersection has a single lane approaching the intersection. Spack Consulting Table 5 — 62nd With 62'0 Street Stop Sign Controlled and Strawberry Lane/Court Free Flov, Control 4 of curt Level of Service Post OR M N MOM A (a) A (a) Boulder Cove Traffic Study A (a) A 'The first letter is the Level of Service for the intersection. The second letter (in parentheses) is the Level of Service for the worst operating movement. The results in Table 5 show the intersection will operate with little delay no matter what stop sign configuration is used. Although the Highway Capacity Manual does not calculate delay at uncontrolled intersections, it is believed the volumes are light enough that the intersection would operate with little delay with no stop signs at the intersection. Forecasted Side Street Stop Sign Warrant Analysis Based on Section 2B.4 of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, side street stop sign control should be considered at the proposed intersection of two local streets when either of the following conditions is anticipated: • The combined vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches is more than 2,000 units per day. • The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary. The forecasts from Table 4 show the intersection will have less than 900 vehicles approaching it per day after Boulder Cove is built. Since the third leg is not built yet and the terrain is relatively flat, it is assumed the intersection can be built with clear sight lines. Therefore, neither criteria is expected to be met for justifying stop sign control at the intersection. Forecasted All Way Stop Sign Warrant Analysis A multi -way stop sign warrant analysis was completed for the 62"d Street/Strawberry Lane intersection per the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices with city supplied crash data and the approach volume forecasts in Table 2. The results of the analyses are: • Criteria A — Interim measure until traffic signal is installed: The forecast traffic volumes will not meet the criteria for installing a traffic signal, therefore this criteria is not met. • Criteria B — Five or more reported crashes in a 12 month period that could be corrected by all way stop sign installation: Crash records are not reviewed because it is not an existing intersection. • Criteria C— 300 vehicles per hour on the major street approaches and 200 vehicles per hour on the minor street approaches for each of at least eight hours per day plus minor street delay of at least 30 seconds per vehicle in the peak hour: Based on the forecasts in Table 4, the criteria is not close to being met. • Criteria D — 80% of Criteria B and C are met: This criteria is not close to being met. Attachments A. Traffic Count Data B. Capacity Analysis Backup i YI rNIINIf GIr11NC. Traffic Data Inc www.TrafficDataInc.com 888.233.1012 File Name : strawberry In & 62nd st - 4-15-14 - 6am-7pm Site Code : 1 62nd St & Strawberry Ln Start Date : 4/17/2014 Chanhassen, MN Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks Strawberry Ln 62nd St Strawberry Ln 62nd St From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Pads App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds I App, Total Right Thru Left Peds 1 App. Total Int. Total 12:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 01:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 01:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 02:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 03:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 04:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 04:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 05:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 1 05:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 05:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Total 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 06:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YI Ti otd INC. Strawberry Ln From North Start Time Right Thru Left Pads App, Total Right 06:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:30 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 06:45 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 Total i 0 5 0 0 5 0 07:00 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 07:15 AM 0 7 0 0 7 0 07:30 AM 0 4 0 0 4 0 07:45 AM 0 5 0 0 5 0 Total 0 19 0 0 19 0 08:00 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 08:15 AM 0 12 0 0 12 0 08:30 AM 0 24 0 0 24 0 08:45 AM 0 6 0 0 6 0 Total 0 45 0 0 45 0 09:00 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 09:15 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 09:30 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 09:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 6 0 0 6 0 10:00 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 10: 15 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 10:30 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 10:45 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 Total 0 10 0 0 10 I 0 11:00 AM 0 4 0 0 4 0 11: 15 AM 0 5 0 0 5 0 11:30AM 0 4 0 0 4 0 11:45 AM 0 4 0 0 4 0 Total 0 17 0 0 17 0 12:00 PM 0 4 0 0 4 0 12:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 12:30 PM 0 6 0 0 6 0 Traffic Data Inc www.TrafficData I nc.com 888.233.1012 File Name : strawberry In & 62nd st - 4-15-14 - 6am-7pm Site Code : 1 Start Date : 4/17/2014 Page No : 2 Groups Printed- Cars +- Trucks 62nd St Strawberry Ln 62nd St From East From South From West Thru Left Peds App, Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Pads App. Total Int. Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 18 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 12 0 12 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 29 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 24 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 54 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2, 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 31 8 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 6 0 0 0 0', 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 5 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 6 an! Traffic Data Inc www.TrafficDataInc.com 888.233.1012 File Name : strawberry In & 62nd st - 4-15-14 - 6am-7pm Site Code : 1 Start Date : 4/17/2014 Page No : 3 Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks Strawberry Ln 62nd St Strawberry Ln 62nd St From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Pads App. Total Right Thru Left Pads App. Total Right Thru Left j Peds App, Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total i 12:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 Oj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 Total 1 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 26 01:00 PM I 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 5 01:15 PM 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 01:30 PM 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 6 01:45 PM 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 6 Total 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 20 02:00 PM 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 6 02:15 PM 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 02:30 PM 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 6 12 02:45 PM 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 10 Total 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 13 35 03:00 PM 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 11 03:15 PM 0 14 0 0 14 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 18 03:30 PM 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 15 03:45 PM 0 5 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5. 10 Total 0 37 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 11 54 04:00 PM 1 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 8 04:15 PM 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 17 04:30 PM 0 7 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 14 04:45 PM 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 16 Total 0 31 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 24 55 05:00 PM 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 14 05:15 PM 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 6 05:30 PM 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 11 05:45 PM 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 10 Total 0 19 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 22 41 06:00 PM 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 7 06:15 PM' 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 9 06:30 PM 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 15 06:45 PM 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 9 Total 0 18 0 0 18 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 0 17 40 YI fAAf I(AAf11M(. Strawberry Ln From North Start Time Right Thru Left Fads npp. Total Right 07:00 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 07:15 PM 0 6 0 0 6 0 07:30 PM 0 4 0 0 4 0 07:45 PM 0 3 0 0 3 0 Total 0 15 0 0 15 0 08:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 08:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1 0 0 1 0 09:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 09:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 09:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1 0 0 1 0 10:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 10:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 10:45 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 Total 0 3 0 0 3 0 11:00 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 11:15 PM 0 0 0 0 01 0 11:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0, 0 Total 0 1 0 0 1 0 Grand Total 0 279 0 0 279 0 Apprch % 0 100 0 0 0 Total % - 0 50 0 0 50 0 Cars + 0 271 0 0 271 0 % Cars + 0 97.1 0 0 97A 0 Trucks 0 8 0 0 8 0 % Trucks 0 2.9 0 0 2.9 0 Traffic Data Inc www.TrafficDataInc.com 888.233.1012 File Name : strawberry In & 62nd st - 4-15-14 - 6am-7pm Site Code : 1 Start Date : 4/17/2014 Page No : 4 Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks 62nd St Strawberry Ln 62nd St From East From South From West Thru Left Peds App. Tots) Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total 'i Int. Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 5 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 3 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0', 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0! 0 0 7 0 7. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1'i 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 271 1 274 558 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 98.9 0.4 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 48.6 0.2 49.1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 263 1 266 539 0 0 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 97 100 97.1 96.6 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8', 19 0 0 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2.91 3.4 YI fllffl( Blfl INC. Traffic Data Inc www.TrafficData I nc.com 888.233.1012 File Name : strawberry In & 62nd st - 4-15-14 - 6am-7pm Site Code : 1 Start Date : 4/17/2014 Page No : 5 Strawberry Ln 62nd St Strawberry Ln 62nd St From North From East From South I From West Start Time Right Thru Left !! Pads App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total 11 Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 5 0 5 8 08:15 AM 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 24 36 08:30 AM 0 24 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 15 0 15 39 08:45 AM 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 10 0 10 16 Total Volume 0 45 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 54 99 %App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .469 .000 .000 .469 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .563 .000 .563. .635 Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 11:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 17 04:30 PM 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 14 04:45 PM 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 16 05:00 PM 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 14 Total Volume 0 33 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 28 61 %App. Total 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .688 .000 .000 .688 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .875 .000 .875 .897 Generated with Vistro File: C:\ ..\Boulder Cove.vistropdb Report File: C:\...\AM - Strawberry Free.pdf Boulder Cove Intersection Analysis Summary spa®ck Scenario 1: AM Strawberry Free 4/21/2014 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 62nd St & Strawberry Ln/Ct Two-way stop HCM2010 EBL 0.092 9.4 A V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Boulder Cove Scenario 1: 1: AM Strawberry Free Generated with S Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: 62nd St & Strawberry Ln/Ct Control Type: Two-way stop Delay (sec / veh): 9.4 Analysis Method: HCM2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.092 Intersection Setup Name Strawberry Ct Strawberry Ln 62nd St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration i 1 T Turning Movement Left Thru Thor Right Left Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] .. Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes volumes Name Strawberry Ct Strawberry Ln 62nd St Base Volume Input [vehrh] 0 0 0 45 54 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [h] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [vehm] 9 9 3 0 0 3 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 9 9 3 45 54 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.6400 0.6400 0.6400 0.6400 0.6400 0.6400 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 4 4 1 16 21 1 Total Analysis Volume Jveh/hJ 14 14 5 70 84 5 Pedestrian Volume ]ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicyclesth] 0 0 0 Boulder Cove Scenario 1: 1: AM Strawberry Free Generated with Intersection Settings Spa®c® Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane no Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results VIC, Movement VIC Ratio 0.01 - 0,09 0.00 d_M, Delay for Movement [siveh] 7.38 9.37 &91 Movement LOS A A A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 1,40 140 0.00 0.00 8,03 8.03 d_A, Approach Delay [srveh] 3.69 0,00 9.34 Approach LOS A A A d_I, Intersection Delay [siveh] 4.87 Intersection LOS A Boulder Cove Scenario 1: 1: AM Strawberry Free Generated vdth =� S nN a c k verslorn 9 nann 1 Lane Configuration and Traffic Control Boulder Cove Scenario 1: 1: AM Strawberry Free Generated wrath MEM S a c k vcrcinn w nn_nn p Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips O ow j �� J 1 Boulder Cove Scenario 1: 1: AM Strawberry Free PTV I VISTRO 5 op*Al1' Generated with mm Vistro File: C:\...\Boulder Cove.vistropdb Report File: C:\...\PM - Strawberry Free.pdf Boulder Cove Intersection Analysis Summary S Scenario 2: PM Strawberry Free 4/21/2014 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 62nd St & Strawberry Ln/Ct Two-way stop HCM2010 EBL 0.032 8.9 A V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Boulder Cove Scenario 2: 2: PM Strawberry Free Generated with Spa®ck Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: 62nd St & Strawberry Lm/Ct Control Type: Two-way stop Delay (sec / veh): 8.9 Analysis Method: HCM2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.032 Intersection Setup Name Strawberry Ct Strawberry Ln 62nd St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration I F 1» Turning Movement Left Thm Thru Right Left Right Lane Wdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 1200. 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] " Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [ % ] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes volumes Name Strawberry Ct Strawberry Ln 62nd St Base Volume Input [veh/h) 0 0 0 33 28 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 6 6 10 0 0 10 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h) 6 6 10 33 28 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 1.0000 1.0000 1,0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 2 2 3 9 8 3 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 7 7 11 37 31 11 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Boulder Cove Scenario 2: 2: PM Strawberry Free Generated with Intersection Settings Priority Scheme Free Free Stop Flared Lane no Storage Area [veh] Two -Stage Gap Acceptance no Number of Storage Spaces in Median Movement. Approach, & Intersection Results V/C, Movement V/C Ratio 0,00 0,03 0,01 CM, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 7,32 8.94 8,61 Movement LOS A A A A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] &03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.68 0,68 0,00 0,00 3.37 3.37 o_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 3.66 0,00 8.85 Approach LOS A A A d_I, Intersection Delay [sveh] 4.07 Intersection LOS A Boulder Cove Scenario 2: 2: PM Strawberry Free Generated with me= S a c k Version 2 nn-m Lane Configuration and Traffic Control r�D Boulder Cove Scenario 2: 2: PM Strawberry Free Generated vAth MM S P a c k Varsinn 9 nn.nR 1 Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips Boulder Cove Scenario 2: 2: PM Strawberry Free Generated with MM S a c k vP,m� 5, mina Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume Boulder Cove Scenario 2: 2: PM Strawberry Free Generated with =� Vistro File: C:\...\Boulder Cove.vistropdb Report File: C:\...VIM - AWSC.pdf Boulder Cove Intersection Analysis Summary Spa®ck Scenario 5: AM AWSC 4/21 /2014 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 62nd St & Strawberry Ln/Ct I All -way stop HCM2010 EBL 7.4 A V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value; for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Boulder Cove Scenario 5: 5: AM AWSC Generated with Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: 62nd St 3 Strawberry Ln/Ct Control Type: All -way stop Delay (sec / veh): 7.4 Analysis Method: HCM2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Intersection Setup Name Strawberry Ct Strawberry Ln 62nd St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration I F T Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane Width ]ft] 12.00 1200. 12.00 1200. 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] - Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade[%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes volumes Name Strawberry Ct Strawberry Ln 62nd St Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 0 0 45 54 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Tnps [veh/h] 9 9 3 0 0 3 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 9 9 3 45 54 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.6400 0.6400 0.6400 0.6400 0.6400 0.6400 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 10000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh#r] 4 4 1 18 21 1 Total Analysis Volume [veh[h] 14 14 5 70 84 5 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/hi 0 0 0 Boulder Cove Scenario 5: 5: AM AWSC Generated with mm S a c k Version 2.00-08 Intersection Settings Movement Approach, B Intersection Results 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.10 0.24 0.35 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 2.60 6.08 8.87 Approach Delay [s/veh] 7.46 6.90 7.80 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Delay [stveh] 7.40 Intersection LOS A Boulder Cove Scenario 5: 5: AM AWSC PTV I VISTRO r _ 1- 1- PTV I VISTRO Generated vAth == S p a c k Verson 9 An-na 1 Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume Boulder Cove Scenario 5: 5: AM AWSC Generated voth Vistro File: C:\...\Boulder Cove.vistropdb Report File: CA ... \PM - AWSC.pdf Boulder Cove Intersection Analysis Summary Spack Scenario 6: PM AWSC 4/21/2014 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 62nd St & Strawberry Ln/Ct I All -way stop HCM2010 EBL 7.0 A V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value, for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Boulder Cove Scenario 6: 6: PM AWSC Generated with Spa®ck Intersection Level Of Service Report #1: 62nd St & Strawberry LNCt Control Type: All -way stop Delay (sec / veh): 7.0 Analysis Method: HCM2010 Level Of Service: A Analysis Period: 15 minutes Intersection Setup Name Strawberry Ct Strawberry Ln 62nd St Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Lane Configuration i F T Turning Movement Left Thru Thru Right Left Right Lane VMdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 1200. 12.00 1200. 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 Gretle [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk yes yes yes volumes Name Strawberry Ct Strawberry Ln 62nd St Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 0 0 33 28 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [vehlhl 6 6 10 0 0 10 Pass -by Trips [vehM] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume (veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume (veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 6 6 10 33 28 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 2 2 3 9 8 3 Total Analysis Volume [veM] 7 7 11 37 31 11 Pedestrian Volume [petllh] 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 Boulder Cove Scenario 6: 6: PM AWSC Generated with == Intersection Settings Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results S p,� k 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.05 0.15 0.15 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ftj 1.23 3.75 3.71 Approach Delay [slveh] 7.24 6.76 7.25 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Delay [slveh] 7.02 Intersection LOS A Boulder Cove Scenario 6: 6: PM AWSC Generated with mm S a c k Version 9 nn-nR p� Lane Configuration and Traffic Control Boulder Cove Scenario 6: 6: PM AWSC Generated with MEM S a c k Version 2.nn-nA Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips Boulder Cove Scenario 6: 6: PM AWSC PTV I VISTRO i 10 W, lit :i 11� 14- 09 April 22, 2014 CITY OF Mr. Joe Jablonski and Mr. Paul Tabone Lennaz Corporation CHANHASSEN 16305 36d' Street, Suite 600 Plymouth, MN 55446 '- 7700Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Boulder Cove Subdivision - Planning Case 2014-09 Gentlemen: Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 This letter is to formally notify you that on April 14, 2014, the Chanhassen City Fax:952.227.1110 Council adopted the following motion: Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 "The City Council approves the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #2014-09 for Fax: 952.227.1190 Boulder Cove for 31 lots and 3 outlots with a Variance to allow a 1,200-foot long cul-de- sac as shown on the plans received March 4, 2014, subject to the following conditions Engineering and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact: Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 1. Park and Recreation Conditions: Pinaaee Phone: 952.227.1140 a. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction Fax: 952.2271110 shall be collected as a condition of approval for Boulder Cove. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and Park &Recreation approval. Based upon the current proposed lot count of 31 homes and the city's Phone: 952.227.1120 2014 single-family park fee of $5,800 per unit, the total park fees for Boulder Fax: 952.227.1110 Cove would be $179,800. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard 2. Environmental Resources Conditions: Phone:952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 a. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the drip line for tree #71. A layer of woodchips shall be installed over the root zone to a depth of Planning & Natural Resources 3-4 inches. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of Phone: 952.227.1130 the grading limits prior to any construction. Fax: 952.227.1110 b. No trees shall be planted within the public right -of --way. Front yard trees shall Public works be located inside the setback area. 7901 Park Place c. Additional tree species shall be added to the plant schedule in order to reduce Phone: 952.227.1300 the percentage attributed to spruce so that no more than one-third of the trees Fax:952.227.1310 are from any one species. Additional trees may not be from the maple family Senior Center and must be overstory species. Minimum total number of trees to be planted Phone:952.227.1125 is 166. Fax: 952.227.1110 d. There are overhead power lines along Highway 7. Only ornamental trees Web site shall be allowed to be planted in the bufferyard between the property line and www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us the proposed fence. e. Evergreens shall average seven feet in height when planted. f. Any tree removal outside the parameters of the subject property shall require approval of the property owner where the tree is located. r� Chanhassen is a Community for Life- Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow S,.AW D 7700 Markel Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone:952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone.952.227.1180 Fax:952.227.1190 Engineering Phone:952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.2271110 Park & Recreation Phone:952.227.1120 Fax: 952.2271110 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 7901 Park Place Phone:952.227.1300 Fax:952.2271310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125, Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us DecemberX,6. 2009 Mr. Joe Jablonski and Mr. Paul Tabone ar Corporation 305 36`b Street, Suite 600 PI outh, MN 55446 Re: Boulder Cove Subdivision — Planning Case This letter t to formally notify you that on A 1 14, 2014, the Chanhassen City Council ado ed the following motion: "The City Coun ' approves the Pre ' ry Plat for Planning Case #2014-09 for Boulder Cove for 1 lots and 3 outlots th a Variance to allow a 1,200-foot long cul-do- sac as shown on th lans received h 4, 2014, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the ched Fin din of Fact: 1. Park and a. Full park fees in 1 shall be collected will be collect at approval. B Upon e 2014 singly park covewoul $179,800. 2. Environmental Resources lditional parkland dedication and/or trail construction dition of approval for Boulder Cove. The park fees the rate in force upon final plat submission and current proposed lot count of 31 homes and the city's F of $5,800 per unit, the total park fees for Boulder a. Tree reservation fence shall b mstalled at the edge of the drip line for tree #7 Y A layer of woodchips shall a installed over the root zone to a depth of 374 inches. All other tree preserva4on fencing shall be installed at the edge of e grading limits prior to any consl b No trees shall be planted within the be located inside the setback area. right-of-way. Front yard trees shall c. Additional tree species shall be added to dl% plant schedule in order to reduce the percentage attributed to spruce so that nd more than one-third of the trees are from any one species. Additional trees may not be from the maple family and must be overstory species. Minimum total number of trees to be planted is 166. d. There are overhead power lines along Highway 7. Only ornamental trees shall be allowed to be planted in the bufferyard between the property line and the proposed fence. e. Evergreens shall average seven feet in height when planted. f. Any tree removal outside the parameters of the subject property shall require approval of the property owner where the tree is located. Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Mr. Joe Jablonski and Mr. Paul Tabone Boulder Cove — Planning Case 2014-09 April 22, 2014 Page 2 of 5 g. Applicant shall correct the tree inventory for the following trees: • Tree #38, sugar maple: shown on the plan as saved, shown in the inventory as removed. The applicant shall resolve the discrepancy. • Tree #72, spruce: shown on plan and inventory as saved. Tree is noted to be in poor condition. Tree shall be noted as REMOVE. • Tree #96, red oak: shown on plan at the very edge of the grading limits. Tree appears to be in a position for a possible save. It is in fair condition. Staff recommends that applicant work with staff to preserve tree if appropriate. • Tree #205, #206, ash: shown on plans as saved. These trees are within the grading limits and have proposed grading shown on top of their locations. Trees shall be noted as REMOVE. 3. Building Department conditions: a. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height. c. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. d. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. e. Proper removal, abandonment or sealing of storage tanks, on -site septic systems, wells, etc. required. Permits required, as applicable. f. If applicable, existing home(s) affected by new street will require address changes. 4. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Three feet of clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. b. Fire hydrants must be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed prior to and during construction. d. Fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. e. No burning permits will be issued for the removal of brush, trees. Mr. Joe Jablonski and Mr. Paul Tabone April 22, 2014 Page 3 of 5 5. Planning Department Conditions: a. Any plans showing or describing "Next Generation" homes should not be included because they are not permitted under current city ordinances. b. A high-tension power line exists along Highway 7. Any work or landscaping must be approved by Xcel Energy. 6. Engineering Department Conditions: a. The developer must work with the City of Chanhassen and the City of Shorewood to revise the plans to incorporate a " T" intersection at 62°d Street, Strawberry Lane, and Strawberry Court. b. The developer shall provide an analysis to determine if the "T" intersection would warrant a stop condition. c. If a stop condition is warranted, the developer shall have a traffic engineer collect and analyze traffic counts on 62nd Street to determine the queuing effects at the intersection. d. Other details such as transitioning from a 31-foot wide street in Chanhassen to a 22-foot wide street in Shorewood shall be addressed with the final plan submittal. e. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and the street must be restored. E The septic tank and mound system that services 3530 Highway 7 is within the project boundaries. These items must be removed and disposed of at an approved facility in conjunction with the site improvements as proposed. g. Based on the proposed preliminary plan the developer must provide a sanitary sewer service to 3530 Highway 7. The developer shall ensure that sewer service to 3530 Highway 7 is maintained throughout construction, which will involve pumping the septic tank after the septic mound is removed and before a sewer service is installed to serve the property. h. Water main for the project will be directionally bored under Highway 7 and will wet tap into the existing 12-inch trunk water main on the south side of Highway 7. A portion of this water main extension lies on 3520 Highway 7; the developer must acquire the necessary easement prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. i. Water main will extend between Lot 5, Block 1 and the tot lot to the existing water main in the southwest comer of 3751 62nd Street. The water main alignment shown on the utility plan is not within the existing easement; therefore, the developer must acquire the easement necessary to install this water main prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. Mr. Joe Jablonski and Mr. Paul Tabone April 22, 2014 Page 4 of 5 j. A water main interconnect will be required to the Shorewood water main at 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. k. The developer proposes to extend 6-inch water main to the east to provide service to 3520 and 3030 Highway 7. The developer must acquire the necessary easements to complete this work. 1. All existing and proposed off -site drainage and utility easements must be referenced accordingly. m. Existing off -site easements must be referenced by document number or the plat in which they were dedicated. n. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. 7. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Show the extent of the shoreland overlay district for Lake Minnewashta on the plan set before final plat approval. b. The applicant must demonstrate the extent of tree preservation for stormwater volume reduction credit by overlaying grading limits on a current aerial photograph before final plat approval. c. The applicant must recalculate the volume reduction credit from new tree plantings without the use of ornamental trees before final plat approval. The current best information is that elevation is at least 969.5 to approximately 972. d. The filtration feature shall be moved so that the bounce within the basin remains entirely within the outlot before final plat approval. e. A homeowners association shall be created and shall be responsible for the maintenance of the filtration feature. The outlet pipe shall be the responsibility of the city. f. An operations and maintenance manual shall be developed for the filtration feature indicating how the HOA will maintain the feature and assure its proper function. g. The landscape plan shall be updated to include the planting schedule for the infiltration basin and the outlots and to provide shrubs or other buffering measures between the rear yard lines and the filtration feature before final plat approval. h. The pond in Outlot A shall be redesigned such that the likely seasonally high water table is at or below the modeled normal water level. i. Additional hydrogeological data provided and attested to by a licensed professional in hydrogeology or similar may be used to show that the above condition is met. Mr. Joe Jablonski and Mr. Paul Tabone April 22, 2014 Page 5 of 5 j. All recommendations relating to subgrade improvements, preparations and drainage as well as dewatering and drainage control from the March 3, 2014 Braun report shall be implemented. k. The swale behind lots 4 through 10 of Block 2 shall have a drain tile installed as part of the site grading and utility installation. This shall be included before final plat approval. 1. Environmental manholes or 4-foot sump manholes with SAFL baffles shall be installed at CBMHI and CBMH3. in. A concerted effort shall be made to combine the outfall into the Pond in Outlot A such that there is only one outfall. If it is not feasible from an engineering standpoint, then documentation supporting this assertion shall be provided to city staff prior to final plat approval. n. A comprehensive, standalone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of the NPDES construction permit shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment before final plat approval. o. Surface Water Management connection charges are estimated to be $84,146.45. This connection charge will be due at the time of final plat. p. In the event that wetland characteristics are observed on the site during field visits during the growing season, steps will need to be taken to assure compliance with the MN Wetland Conservation Act, the Federal Clean Water Act and other applicable federal, state and local regulations." Final plat documents must be submitted to the City four weeks prior to the City Council meeting in which you wish to have your final plat approved. Enclosed is the list of items required for submittal for final plat approval. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 952.227.1134 or e-mail at saliaMci.chanhassen.mn.us. •►�,� AN& Sharmeen Al-Jaff Senior Planner Enclosure ec: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer Cara Otto g:�plan\2014 pla g eases\2014-09 boulder wve\VMval lata prelim plat and var dw ITEMS REQUIRED FOR FINAL PLAT CONSIDERATION The following items are required to be submitted a minimum of 30 days prior to City Council meeting and payment of a $250.00 final plat review fee: Submit three (3) sets of full size, 50 scale construction plans and specifications for staff review and redline. • Utility plans shall show both plan view and profiles of all utilities (sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer lines). The plan view must show all drainage and utility easements. • Grading and drainage plans shall show dwelling type and elevations, wetlands and wetland buffer areas, stormwater pond NWL and HWL, EOF and catch basin and storm manhole numbers. The construction plans and specifications shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications & Detail Plates. The plans shall include traffic signage and street light placement. 2. Drainage calculations for water quantity and quality ponding with maps showing drainage areas for pre -and post -development conditions and contributing areas to catch basins. 3. Hydraulic calculations and drainage map for the storm sewer design. 4. Tree Preservation Easements (if applicable). 5. Trail Easements (if applicable). 6. Engineer's Cost Estimate of Improvements: a. Sanitary sewer system. b. Water system. c. Storm sewer drainage system including cleaning and maintenance. d. Streets, sidewalk and trails. e. Erosion control. f. Site restoration (seeding, sodding, etc.). g. Site grading h. Street lights & signs I. Engineering, surveying & inspection j. Landscaping 7. Five (5) sets (folded) of final plat, one (1) set of reductions (8'/2" x 11"), and a digital copy in .tif format. 8. Digital copy of the legal description of the property in a Aoc format. 9. Lot tabulations. Failure to provide any of the above items by the required deadline will result in delaying consideration of final plat before the City Council. Updated 11-29-06 gAeng\forms\final plat submittal.doc 4-oq Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 7. Resolution #2014-24: TH 101 River Crossing Project, Approval of Extending Work Hours and Night Work Hours. 8. Approval of Lease Renewal Agreement with Sprint for Cellular Equipment on the Downtown Water Tower. 9. Award of Contract for Fourth of July Fireworks Display for 2014-16, Pyrotechnic Display, Inc. 10. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 25, 2014. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Patrick Johnson: Hello. My name is Patrick Johnson. My address is 26350 Alexander Lane and that's Shorewood, Minnesota. I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening. I'm speaking as the representative for the residents of Shorewood Oaks, Strawberry Lane, 62°d Street and Church Road. Earlier today you should have received a letter describing the. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, Mr. Johnson? Patrick Johnson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Is this regarding the item later on our agenda, the Boulder Cove development? Patrick Johnson: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. What I'd ask you to do is, if you could hold your comments til that item, we'll make sure that they're addressed. Patrick Johnson: Okay. Will we be given a chance to respond at that time? Mayor Furlong: Yeah, we'll certainly provide public comment. There was a public hearing. We're not going to repeat the public heating. It was held at the Planning Commission. Patrick Johnson: Yep. Mayor Furlong: But I'd rather take up your comments in the context of that item rather than now in advance of it. Patrick Johnson: Very well. Mayor Furlong: Anyone else under visitor presentations for an item not on our agenda this evening? Okay, why don't we move to our first item on the agenda which is the Boulder Cove request for preliminary plat and variances to subdivide 13.39 acres. BOULDER COVE, 3670 HIGHWAY 7, APPLICANT: LENNAR: REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT WTTH VARIANCES TO SUBDIVIDE 13.39 ACRES INTO 31 LOTS AND 3 O_UTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL LOW & MEDIUM DENSITY tRLMI. SCANNED Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on April V. The Planning Commission did recommend approval 4 to 1 of this project. There was also a neighborhood meeting held on March 12, 2014 for any of the residents on that. I did hand out for you a petition. I'll go through that in more detail as we go through the presentation but I think it would be helpful to go through the presentation first and kind of frame up some of the issues and then we'll circle back to that petition. Then also at the end of the day I did receive an email from Charlie Poi, I hope I'm pronouncing that right so I also gave you that too. Otherwise everything else we received is included in your packet. So with that we'll move forward with the project. The subject site is located north of Highway 7 and Church Road. This is the subject site. The two properties here. And again access then is via Church Road going up West 621 Street and then access to the parcel. The existing conditions, the site was used as a landscaping business over a number of years and there are some tree stands on the property itself. Current access to the property, there is a home here that gets direct access via Highway 7. Another home that has access via Highway 7 and two existing access points that were used as part of the business that was operating there. The 2030 Land Use Plan has designated this area for low density development. The current proposal meets the low density which allows for a maximum of 4 units an acre. The gross density was 2.32 acres and the net density on this site is 3.99 acres so it does meet the zoning and land use consideration. I know there's a question that was brought up at the hearings regarding school district notification. The school district is notified of our Comprehensive Plan. When we go through that process. Any jurisdiction would comment on that. They are sent a copy of that so they know that information. Also we meet regularly doing projections with both school districts and then I just, I also wanted to add to that, both the Mayor and the City Manager are on, meet monthly with District 276 and 112 on issues of mutual consideration so. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, but clarification it's regularly. It's not monthly but. Kate Aanenson: Regularly, sorry. Mayor Furlong: Usually every 2-3 months. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Sorry, every 2-3 months. So the subdivision itself, there was a previous plat on this that was approved in August of 2008. The City Council approved the following, the rezoning of this almost 13 acres of land to Residential Single Family to RLM which is similarly what this is zoned. Although this, the RLM zoning at that point allowed for some singles and some twins so you can see the lots are smaller. At that time there was 39 lots and one outlot so this project is different. So the site plan included 4 three-plex units and some twins. On September 251 the Council approved the final development and development contract and construction plans and yearly extensions of the project so that project had not gone through and the final extension expired in 2012. So now there's a different project looking at this property. We've had similar circumstances on this where projects may, circumstances may have changed to make that market conditions different as the project go forward. So the proposal summary on this, the applicant again is proposing to divide the property into 31 lots and 3 outlots. The outlots then are the stormwater pond Outlot A and Outlot C and then a preservation area in Outlot B. Again I mentioned the density. It is consistent with the, and meets the standards of the Comprehensive Plan, and all lots are to contain single family homes. The applicant has submitted several home designs they intend to build so there's 10 different designs. I think on most of the lots of the 10 designs, 6 of the plans would fit on all of the lots but some of the lots may, again that gives a selection for the property owners. Not all of the 10 lots fit on every lot but a majority of them do. The other issue that was brought to is the request for a second, or next generation homes as the applicant is requesting. This doesn't meet our city ordinance so at this time, while next generation is how they see it, we interpret that as a two family dwelling so at this time we would not permit that. I know that you've seen communication regarding 62 homes. We're looking at this as a 31 subdivision lot. The current ordinances, if someone wanted to do a temporary interim use permit for having a second dwelling unit for an elderly or a child, 3 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 they can go through a process for that. The city ordinance would permit that if someone wanted to proceed with that and they would meet the current city standards but we're not giving carte blanche to the, as they're calling the next generation homes. There is a condition in the staff report and we'll just change the language a little bit on that to make sure it's clear what our, we have next generation homes on there but I think we want to modify that to state that instead of using the word just next generation that we say the plans proposed that show next generation as included with their proposal would be not approved at this time. Just to be clear on what the intent is there. So again it does meet city ordinance except for the issue regarding the length of the cul-de-sac on that. The length of the cul-de-sac variance we've identified in the staff report was to pick up the two additional homes on the property immediately to the east of the site. Both those homes are not included but it's good planning practice. The next slide I'll let the City Engineer talk a little bit more detail of some of the road closures that we've made to accommodate that but we do want to provide that in the future, that those homes can be accommodated through a public street. This is similar to what we did right across the street on the extension of Minnewashta Landings. There was an access that had 4 homes coming off the end of that street. Direct access onto Highway 7 and we eliminated that and those 4 homes now come through the end of the Minnewashta Landings but at this time I'll turn it over to the City Engineer to talk about some of those issues. Paul Oehme: Thank Ms. Aanenson. As Ms. Aanenson had indicated, there has been a lot of work on Highway 7 in terms of roadway closure. Highway 7 is a jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota, MnDOT. It is classified as a principal arterial roadway which means that it is designed to carry long trips. Just not local trips. 212 for example and Highway 12 are also classified as a principal arterial. MnDOT's guidance is to remove private driveways, access points and close access points within say about a quarter mile of each of the access points basically to reduce the amount of conflicts on arterial, principal arterial roadway systems and to remove access points that have contributed to maybe accidents in the past or have poor sight distances. Visibility, those type of things so over the years the City has worked with MnDOT on those type of improvements. For example old Pipewood Curve access over on the west side of town. That access was removed with Hidden Creek. Minnewashta Heights, there has been several access points that have been removed over time from that development and then Boyer Lake Minnewashta area too there has been modifications to access points through that process as well. We are looking at obviously modifying access points for Boulder Cove development. When we have more traffic coming onto local streets, collecting into more of a regional access point that does give some benefit to the principal arterial system and it also does allow potentially for a signal to be warranted in the future when trips and warrants are met at that point in time so that's another additional benefit for collecting traffic and directing into one single access point. So just want to briefly talk about traffic a little bit too so the Boulder Cove development is here shown in the red star area. So access to the development would be off of Church Road, which is currently a 31 foot standard residential street which connects into 62od Street which is maintained by the City of Shorewood. Half of the road however is within the city of Chanhassen city limits and then also connects into Strawberry Lane that ends up going north and T'ing into Smithtown Road. This access or this alignment, this connection is utilized by the Minnetonka School District for access to Minnewashta Elementary School and there is some traffic that's generated by those trips as well. Like I had mentioned 62' Street is only 22 feet wide. Strawberry Lane currently is only 22 feet wide as well which does not meet city standard, Shorewood's normal roadway width. Minimum roadway width is 24 feet wide. The City staff of Chanhassen and Shorewood have met just recently to talk about this development in particular and have come up with you know a reasonable plan that is before you tonight I think to make the connection to 621 Street and to Strawberry Lane with a T intersection and we are looking at making a stop condition at all 3 legs of the intersection in conjunction with this project as well. The developer's engineer is planning to take traffic counts for this development. Unfortunately when we met with Shorewood it kind of got late and weather conditions did not really allow for us to trade traffic counts at this time so they are planned in the near future here. And again the traffic study that we're planning on completing would look at the warrants for putting stop signs at this intersection. Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 Making the intersection, the T intersection and then also looking at the queuing or the back-up potential with the traffic that is on 621 Street and Strawberry Lane. Taking background traffic counts as well and this information wit] also help the City of Shorewood in their planning process. In the future the City of Shorewood has indicated that they are looking at making upgrades to 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. Potentially widening the street and maybe making a pedestrian connection along this road as well so that's all kind of part of the plan moving forward. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme, Councilwoman Tjornhom has a question. Paul Oehme: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'm sorry Paul. I don't mean to put you in a spot but all the improvements and all the changes that you're talking about regarding Church Road and Strawberry Lane, do you have a mock up drawing of any of that for tonight to see? Paul Oehme: I don't think, well I could show you the plat but in terms of improvements to 621 Street and the intersection, the intersection currently right now at 62' and Strawberry Lane is a through movement so it'sjust basically a curve with no stop conditions there. We arejust making a T, or planning to make it a T intersection there. It would provide some traffic calming at that intersection as well and we know that there has been some conflicts at that intersection in the past so we think that's definitely a good improvement from it's current conditions. And like I said in the future the City of Shorewood is planning to make improvements to Strawberry Lane and 62' Street. Obviously the City of Chanhassen would be involved with future improvements to 621 Street since it's our jurisdiction on the south side of the center line of 62' Street but we feel that making improvements to 62' and Strawberry Lane really has to be coordinated well with the City of Shorewood. We are, you know we think that making the intersection, the T intersection does definitely help the situation but long term you know that's something that both of the communities still has to study and move forward with. Mayor Furlong: Are there any current plans to improvement either 621 or Strawberry Lane? Paul Oehme: Not at this time. The City of Shorewood has indicated that they're, they're probably about 5 years out. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme? May I Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme, when you describe the T intersection at 62' and Strawberry Lane, what you're talking about is the T is formed with a, the Strawberry Lane would continue south and would become whatever that cul-de-sac is called, am I saying that correctly? Paul Oehme: That's correct. Yeah, so it would be a 180 degree line basically going into 62' Street so Mayor Furlong: As opposed to the curve. Paul Oehme: Yeah so. Councilman Laufenburger. So Strawberry Lane would go straight north from where that intersects? Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 Paul Oehme: Correct, yeah. So this is a little bit skewed right now but it would basically T into Strawberry Lane here. Go straight through but there'd be still a stop condition on southbound Strawberry Lane and then northbound Strawberry Court here. Councilman Laufenburger: How about a stop sign on the eastbound 62' as well? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger. So that will be a 3 way stop there. Paul Oehme: Correct. That would be, that's the plan. Mayor Furlong: And. Councilman Laufenburger: Go ahead. Mayor Furlong: I was just going to say, are those stop signs, you're looking at the traffic counts to determine if that's warranted or not correct? Paul Oehme: Right, yep. Mayor Furlong: So it's going to. It's still, you think it might be, it's still going to be dependent upon the traffic. Paul Oehme: Yep, absolutely. Absolutely. So and that's, I know the City of Shorewood has looked at this at a high level. We have looked at it at a high level. We think it's going to meet it but we don't know that for sure. We just think it quantitatively makes, go through the process and make sure we're documenting it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger. The width of the road in the Boulevard Cove development is 31 feet, is that correct? Paul Oehme: That's correct. Councilman Laufenburger. And the width of 621 Street is currently 22. The width of Strawberry Lane is currently 22 and the code for Shorewood is minimum 24. Paul Oehme: That's my understanding. I think Strawberry is also 22. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Paul Oehme: So is there any other? Mayor Furlong: No. We'll interrupt you again if we have to. Paul Oehme: Perfect. Thank you. Alight, so let me just. Alight. So we talked about the connections and where access points, where the access point would be. You know just talking again about the variance for the cul-de-sac obviously, the spacing requirements from Church Road to where that road would connect in potentially to Highway 7 would not meet spacing requirements set aside by MnDOT in Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 our code so that's why we're not proposing that connection point. Here's just a slide briefly of what the traffic, projected traffic trips would be for the development proposed currently without the next gen units included and then also just comparing it to what the 20 or the 2006 townhome, townhouse development was back in 2006 so using the Institute of Transportation Engineering statistics and tables we are coming up with about 75 more trips per day above and beyond what the 2006 proposal was. And then if we look at the peak periods, the a.m. peak period basically from 7:00 to say 8:00, maybe 9:00, we're looking at about another 7 trips there and then the peak period hours we're looking at about another l l trips per day there above and beyond what the 2006 project had projected out so those are the numbers that we're most concerned with from an engineering perspective. A.m. and p.m. peak hours because that's when we see the most congestion where most problems with the system. Want to move on now to drainage. This slide shows the drainage areas that are currently exist today so basically what this shows is the yellow area here, areas, if you can see it, E5 and E6, the yellow area currently drains to the north to the Shorewood city limits and north of there so there is, that area drains north. The area in green here, which basically currently drains to the west to the single family properties to the west of the proposed development area and the area in pink currently drains to the south to the MnDOT ditch currently that exists there today. So under the proposed conditions the yellow area that drains to the north, there's still a small area that does drain to the north but it's substantially reduced. There's a reduction of about 2.37 acres that drains from, that used to drain to the north that won't drain there anymore. That area more or less will drain into the new filtration area that's shown here in kind of a blue area or the purple area. That area will drain then to the south into the blue area which eventually ends up in the NURP pond or the stormwater pond that's being, would be constructed with this development. The area in pink again, that's the area that is, would be draining to the drainage ditch within the MnDOT right-of-way as well so in terms of water management, you know there is a substantial amount of water that will not be heading north to Shorewood or north and out of the city limits under the proposed development. And again there will be a lot more area that won't drain to the west under this development. It would drain into a stormwater pond and discharge into the drainage ditch that is currently along Highway 7. Drainage has been one of the main, or one of the topics of concern that we've heard from the neighbors in this area and try to address that issue as best as we can under this development. Ground water is also a concern. We have heard from several property owners on the west side of the development that they have sump pumps that run continuously. The developer and the City have worked together to try to address some of those concerns as well. We did take numerous borings out here and piezometers to look at where the water is. Looking at the borings and where the piezometers and the water, the ground water level is today, we feel that there are some areas in here that has perched water. That means that there's a clay, a bottom clay area and there's some sand seam that's inbetween another clay layer on top and that water is just kind of pinched inbetween there so that potentially looks like it's elevating some of the ground water readings that we received so far. In order to address some of those concerns we do have some infiltration basins in Outlot C that's going to be proposed to be constructed. There is a deeper stormwater pond that will potentially capture some of that ground water from this area and direct it into the pond. Strawberry Lane will have drain rile on both sides of the roadway for new residents to utilize and connect their sump pumps into as well. And then also there is a proposed French drain system along the west property line here that is basically a drain tile wrapped in rock and fabric and that would be put into artificially lower the ground water in this area and potentially help the residents on the west side of the proposed development to lower the ground water tables in this area as well. That water would also be discharged into the MnDOT drainage ditch as well so if there's any questions in terms of drainage, I'll give it back to Ms. Aanenson. Councilman Laufenburger: Could you, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Please. 7 Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme the change in drainage, you said something like 2.5 acres or something would be moved. The drainage would move south as opposed to north. To what do you attribute that change in drainage? Paul Oehme: Just the grading. The grading of the area so basically we're installing a filtration basin at this location at drainage point P4 basically so this is a artificially lowered area that's going to be naturally draining to this area as opposed to draining to the north where the grades are currently directing the water. Councilman Laufenburger: So when water drains to P4 it goes into Outlot C, is that correct? Paul Oehme: Correct, Councilman Laufenburger. That storm pond. And the water that collects in that storm pond on Oudot C, will there be an underground culvert that will take it to Outlot A for that storm water? Paul Oehme: Correct. So there's a culvert, a storm water pipe system, conveyance system that would discharge that overflow water into the regional or the local storm water pond that would be constructed in conjunction with this project as well so all, basically all the area in blue and purple. Councilman Laufenburger: Gray. Paul Oehme: Yeah, basically that all would eventually drain into the pond in the southwest comer. Councilman Laufenburger: And water that, where does that pond water then go? Does it just seep down or will it be delivered into that trench? Paul Oehme: Yeah, so we've looked at that, there always has to be a discharge point from these sort of ponds so, and we've worked with MnDOT to facilitate an outlet from this pond into MnDOT's drainage ditch which heads to the west. Councilman Laufenburger: So that goes west towards Pipewood and that direction. Paul Oehme: Correct. Yep, exactly. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Paul Oehme: And then under Church Road and then out to the west. Councilman Laufenburger. Okay. And you're comfortable that you're, I'm just going to call them water engineers, that that system can accommodate heavy rain, etc? Paul Oehme: Yeah. We modeled the system for a 100 year storm events and there's, the pond is designed for emergency overflows as well so any potential plugging of the pipe that outlets the pond at the southwest corner, there'll be emergency overflow where that will, water will get up to a certain level and then discharge over the pond into the drainage ditch before it ends up in somebody's back yard. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Now speak a little bit more about this French drain that you talked about on the western boundary of Boulder Cove that would be on the eastern boundary of those people who have Church Road addresses, right? Paul Oehme: Sure. Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: So how do, I understand from the letter and I received some emails that their sump pumps are running a lot so why would you suggest that a French drain there would actually potentially lower the water table on those properties. Can you just speak to that a little? Paul Oehme: Sure, absolutely. So this area is primarily a clay laden soil area so. Councilman Laufenburger: And just for those uneducated, clay tends to keep water higher up, is that correct? Paul Oehme: It just seems to trap water and water seems to find little seams and hide out there and then it eventually works it's way you know into people's basements and sump pumps and those type of things. So what we're trying to do here is actually artificially put in a seam along the property line of the new development here so that, that water in the ground would have a conveyance, escape route instead of heading basically to the houses or to somebody's back yard, it would potentially have a easier time going into the French drain which is basically a pipe. A perforated pipe with rock around it instead of really dense clay material. Councilman Laufenburger: So you're going to build an underground river bed. Paul Oehme: Yeah, more or less. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And with the idea that that underground river bed will be the escape route for that water that would otherwise just pool up in the back yards of those people that live on Church Road. Paul Oehme: Or pool up or end up in their sump pumps so. So we don't feel it's going to solve 100% their problem. Councilman Laufenburger: But it could help. Paul Oehme: But it could help. Councilman Laufenburger: It won't hurt. Paul Oehme: And there is another opportunity that they could tie in their sump pumps to this French drain as well too to, instead of having the water discharge on their property and potentially just recycle into their basements again, that the water would be easily, easier to be discharged and moved away from their property. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Do you have plans to charge the people on Church Road for building that French drain that hopefully helps them? Paul Oehme: No, that's part of the development contract so. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And how about those people that want to tap their sump pumps directly into that French drain? Are you going to charge them for that? Paul Oehme: No we're not planning to charge. We all just ask that the property owners would come into the City and pull a permit so we know it's out and made the connection. Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: So you know that the presence is, it's there. The connection, okay. And why would they want to attach their sump pump discharge to a French drain as opposed to just put it out on their yard? Paul Oehme: Well potentially depending where their discharge point is, that water could re -circulate again and actually you know infiltrate into the ground and head back into their sump pump. Councilman Laufenburger: That would not be a good re -use of water correct? Paul Oehme: Not in my. Councilman Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Mayor. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Oehme. So what I'd like to do next is maybe just review the conditions. Excuse me, the petition. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Kate Aanenson: And kind of go through those questions and I'll try to answer them and if I need some help from the City Engineer, I'll ask him to fill in so. Again this petition I received this afternoon. I think it went to the City Council and I passed it out so it's in front of all the council so we can go through those points there. So the fast question is all this property is located within the city of Chanhassen. So all the roads, including the main access road to the development are in Shorewood streets. I think we've addressed that tonight talking about what we're trying to improve there including the T intersection at that and the traffic study. I just want to remind the council that between now and when it comes back for preliminary plat it has to come back with the conditions addressed. We have been working with the applicant on that already. They are making modifications to meet all those conditions so you will see this again for final plat so those things are in the works. Number 2, the Planning Commission claims that the proposal meets all zoning requirements. However the lots are predominantly 15,000 square feet and 30 foot setback averaging 10,000 square feet. The surrounding lots, those of Shorewood, again the city ordinance under the RLM zoning district, it does meet those standards. Again this proposal has less lots and they're bigger than the previous proposal which had the twins and three-plexes so this does meet the city zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Furlong: And Ms. Aanenson what is the, for, this is proposed to be a RLM zoning, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So that's low or medium density. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Residential. And what are the requirements for lot sizes? Kate Aanenson: In the staff report we've included the compliance table. Mayor Furlong: Yeah I think I'm looking at it right now. Page 17 of the staff report if I'm not mistaken. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: 17 of 25. 10 Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So the minimum is 9,000. Mayor Furlong: 357 for the electronic. Kate Aanenson: Yeah and these, all these lots, there's one that's, you know the smallest one there is 9,400 but the majority of the lots are well in excess of 10,000 square feet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Again we included all the home plans on there. Again there's 10 different home plans. On all the lots, 6 of those 10 meet, would meet most of those lots so. Mayor Furlong: Okay and the 15,000 square foot, is that a minimum standard for a different zoning? Kate Aanenson: Yes, we do have a 15,000. Within our low density we have, you could do twin in some of the RLM you could do twins as this project had before. A twin or a three-plex. That's also permitted. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So this is consistent with our zoning ordinance. Mayor Furlong: And a low density guiding or use under the comp plan, land use is how many homes per acre? Residential homes per acre. Kate Aanenson: 4. Up to 4. Mayor Furlong: Up to 4, okay. Kate Aanenson: Up to 4, that's correct. So there's, you could do a PUD. There's a different zoning applications that a developer could apply for. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor, Kate? You make reference to the 2008 design and you called that background. What approvals did that receive? Kate Aanenson: That did receive Planning Commission and City Council approval and you also approved the development contract. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So it did have all the entitlements. Councilman Laufenburger: And the only reason it didn't go forward I understand from the staff report, it actually was, I think it was extended or what's the term that you use? It was extended for another period of time. Kate Aanenson: The approval, yes. 11 Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger. And that was really because the housing economic conditions at the time didn't merit the building, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger. So had those situations, had the economic situation not existed the developer, whoever that was at that time. Was it Lennar at that time? Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So the developer could easily have gone forward with the plans as they were shown with 39 lots, some of which would have been twinhomes. Actually the majority of which would have been twinhomes. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Or three-plexes. That's correct Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Okay. Kate Aanenson: And again we face that circumstance on some other projects that came back and had to revisit the market, what the conditions were and you've seen those. Lakeside for example. Councilman Laufenburger: Yep. Kate Aanenson: Where we've changed product. Councilman Laufenburger. Thank you Kate. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Number 3. No traffic study has been completed to date. Did I just answer that one? Questions remain on the increased traffic. How the City can approve development without one. We talked about that. We're working on that and we'll see that with the final plat approval. Mayor Furlong: And I guess just a quick question on that Mr. Oehme. And maybe you have to do the count to get the answer. What does the City of Shorewood estimate in terms of the current traffic counts on Strawberry Lane? Or on 62" d. Do they have those numbers? Are they current? Paul Oehme: It's my understanding they have not taken traffic counts on Strawberry Lane for quite some time so I wouldn't even offer up a guess right now. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Okay. On number 4. Safety. There will be increased traffic on narrow roads with no sidewalks. The present danger to our community especially with students who walk to Minnewashta Elementary. The safety concerns have not been considered by Chanhassen. Again I think we've tried to answer that. We're looking at that traffic study. When we met with Shorewood they talked about the safe routes to school which we've employed in other locations where we've done safety sidewalk improvements. That's an option that they've talked about for their, what they've given for our timeline is 5 years kind of what they're looking at for that. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate just talk about that. Safe Route to Schools. What is Safe Route to Schools? 12 Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 Kate Aanenson: I'll let the City Engineer address that one. Paul Oehme: Sure, thank you Kate, City Council members. It's a, actually it's a federally funded program that's administrated by the State of Minnesota to help improve routes to school. Safety for pedestrians. It can also be used, that money can be used for studies to potentially leverage more funds for better pedestrian movements. It can be utilized for sidewalks or crossings, trails, those type of things. There's a whole list of opportunities for improvements. Councilman Laufenburger: You said it's administered by the State of Minnesota? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Has Chanhassen utilized this Safe Route to Schools program? Paul Oehme: We applied for a grant, was it 4 or 5 years ago for the crossing at Minnewashta Middle School West over on 41. We weren't selected at that time. Councilman Laufenburger: We were not selected. Paul Oehme: We were not. Councilman Laufenburger. But we still went forward with the plan. Paul Oehme: We did. Councilman Laufenburger: Using our own funds? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Without the Safe Route to Schools. Okay. Kate Aanenson: I think you meant Minnetonka Middle School West. Paul Oehme: I'm sorry, Minnetonka. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, 41. Just south, by Chaska Road right. Paul Oehme: 41. Councilman Laufenburger: Are there any other, have we submitted any other requests for any other safe route to schools? Paul Oehme: Not that I'm aware of. You know a lot of the elementary schools and the public schools that we have here in our community, they have sidewalks already around them and they're considered safe as compared to some other communities. Councilman Laufenburger: Would there be any, as far as you know would there be any restriction to Shorewood on why they would, that would impede them from applying for this Safe Route to Schools? Paul Oehme: I can't think of any. 13 Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. There's not like a size of city population or anything like that? Paul Oehme: No, they're a MSA city so they can, they would be in the pool. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, thank you. Thank you Mayor. Kate Aanenson: Abight. We're up to number 5. Access to 621 Street. I stand corrected, so it is the 22 foot wide quite rural. Infrastructure is not there to support. I think we've addressed that one within the narrowness of the road. Number 6. The proposed development is poorly drained, heavy clay soils. Regarding the water table. This petition says the Planning Commission ignored the difference between the two. I think the City Engineer, Mr. Oehme went through what our intention is to resolve that and make the situation actually better through this development. Number 7. Only residents within 500 of the proposed development were notified. Again the State law is 300 feet. The City of Chanhassen has always gone beyond that. We also put up a sign. We had a lot of good information on our website. As soon as we got it from the developer and the application was in, information was out and available because we did receive calls from people as soon as that sign went up so we do our best to notify people and keep them informed and have tried to share all that information with you and the Planning Commission as we've gotten it. Number 8. The Mayor of Shorewood sent a letter that Chanhassen regarding the concerns which were not discussed at the Planning Commission. I can go through those conditions and I apologize if someone things we didn't directly address them specifically but we did address them. It just didn't reference that so I'll just take a minute to go through those. Again this wasa letter from the Mayor addressed to myself, Community Development Director. So the proposed intersection with Strawberry Lane should be a T. We concur on that and that's one of the conditions that we worked through to get that better alignment for sight line. The name Strawberry Court has already been used in the Shorewood street about 2 streets, 2 blocks to the north so the developer is, will change that name. Shorewood would request that the watermains serving the project be interconnected. We agree. We met with the city staff on that issue and it provides better service for both communities for when there's a demand. Mayor Furlong: Is that interconnection going to be active and open or? Paul Oehme: No. Mayor Furlong: Or is it just available for future use? Paul Oehme: It's just emergency purposes. Connection. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. How many other connections do we have with neighboring cities? I know we have, we supply, we supply water to some areas of Shorewood. I know the city of Eden Prairie provides water to areas in Chanhassen. Paul Oehme: Right. We provide water to the city of Victoria. We have emergency connections between Shorewood and Minnetonka and Eden Prairie too. Mayor Furlong: Chaska? Paul Oehme: And Chaska, correct. Yep. Exactly so all our surrounding communities already have emergency connections. This is just another opportunity I think just to isolate this area for potential emergencies down the road. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. 14 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Kate Aanenson: Okay. Again going back to the Mayor's comments. In light of the density question, 31 versus 62 and Shorewood requested a traffic study. Again it's not 62. 1 think I hope everybody's clear on that but we are working on that traffic study. The developer is. That's one of the conditions. Number 6. West 62nd Street should be upgraded to city standards. The street lies within both Shorewood and Chanhassen and I'll let the, I think the City Engineer commented on that, stating that we want to do this project jointly with the, when the time that Strawberry Lane and Shorewood's ready to move forward on their street so I think that's what we conveyed with the Shorewood staff. Mayor Furlong: I think your question, and maybe Mr. Knutson this would be for you. With regard to the number of units, the proposal that's coming forward here is 31 single family homes. I think the issue that you've raised Ms. Aanenson about, which the developer has called next gen are, they're not duplexes correct? How would you describe them? Are they multiple family? A single unit, multi family? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. It doesn't meet our definition of a single family home so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and so a single family home has just that. A single family as opposed to multi - families. But based upon the plans and everything, these are single family homes. Building duplexes wouldn't be allowable if this plan forward, correct? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Not without a rezoning and comp plan change. Mayor Furlong: Okay because that's not part of what's being asked for here. Roger Knutson: Right and you're not approving any housing, building permits tonight. Mayor Furlong: So what's the, what's the opportunity legally for someone to get approval for 31 and then switch it to 62 without coming back through a public process? Is that possible legally? Roger Knutson: There is a process seldom used under State law. Anyone may apply for a variance for the temporary use of a one family dwelling unit as a two family dwelling unit as a variance. Mayor Furlong: But that's a per property. Roger Knutson: Yes, per lot. Mayor Furlong: That would be per lot. Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Not a sweeping. Roger Knutson: No. Mayor Furlong: Development type of request. Roger Knutson: No. Mayor Furlong: And that I think Ms. Aancnson you mentioned is the City of Chanhassen looks at that as an interim use permit? 15 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Kate Aanenson: Right. Right. Mayor Furlong: Which would be for a time specific under certain conditions Kate Aanenson: Right. Now the Planning Commission did discuss this item. You know we put it on their April 1" we always have our annual work session and so we did discuss it and the Planning Commission raised a lot of questions of how they want to handle it going forward. There's no rush to try to accommodate this type of a product. They want to take their time to study it and see what makes sense and so the only other way it could happen is if in 3 years the City or 2 years the City amended that and there was a vacant lot or something that could apply but that would apply any conditions on any other subdivision. I think they just want to be careful of where it would go. How many should be any subdivision. They had a lot of good questions on that so there's no rush to do that. We just wanted them informed of the decision between the two so they were aware of that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: Then I think number 8 again on the mayor's letter, Chanhassen's own LGU for storm water management. We expect the City will require a long term maintenance agreement with proposed drainage facilities. That's a condition and often times the City takes over those and puts them under the jurisdiction of the City so. Mayor Furlong: So that would be the outlots A, B and C? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I think one of them was kind of more tree preservation but yes. Yeah Mayor Furlong: Okay. But A and C I think were the two. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: The ponds. Okay. Kate Aanenson: Alright so that, so that addressed the mayor's letter and then I'll go back. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate? Could just. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: You were precise but I think you overlooked number 4. Can you just speak to number 4. Kate Aanenson: Oh I'm sorry, safety? Councilman Laufenburger: No, number 4 on the mayor's letter. Kate Aanenson: Oh on the mayor's letter, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I can go back to that. Councilman Laufenburger: We addressed it but you did not speak to number 41 don't think as you went through here. Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, thank you. Oh I did. I appears the developer has paid no particular attention to the drainage. Shorewood would ask that there's no increase in runoff. 16 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: It's actually going to be a decrease, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Right. Right. Yep, and then I said that's, the City Engineer went through that in a little bit more detail. The French drain and all that, thank you. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, alright. I was not paying close. Kate Aanenson: Okay now I'm back to the petition. The last point if I didn't miss any. I may have. Number 9. While Chanhassen has said there's no next generation, not currently allowed they are exploring considerations. Yes. The Planning Commission discussed it to understand the difference between how this is being applied and how our current ordinance works. We've had some pressure because our ordinance is punitive in the fact that you have to come up, show economic hardship and that's one of the only ones that we actually kind of look at that so just thinking about it, again there's no rush to do that. Again we talked about we've entitled this now for the 31 units. There'd have to be a substantial ordinance change and again for an ordinance change does require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council to do that so if we were to make a change, that would be noticed and a hearing and have to be approved by the City Council and then you would decide whether or not that makes sense and under what conditions. So with that I believe I've answered all the conditions, or all the questions that were on the petition but again I just want to point out the developer is working to meet all the conditions. He has been meeting with the city engineering staff to go through all those and again just a reminder that this does come back for final plat and we expect a lot of the conditions then to be removed because they have been met. Our typical tracking method is that we'll put all the conditions in there and we'll show you which ones have been met or modified. That they have been met so you can track those. Those are also, will be available online too when they come back so with that the staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the variance in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Aanenson or Mr. Oehme? Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate can you, let's talk about Highway 7 a little bit. I'm not sure if this is you or Mr. Oehme but you showed early on that there are currently 4, I think it must just be gravel road entrances off of Highway 7 and I think there's no question that the two to the west would be closed but there are two. Kate Aanenson: I'm going the wrong way, sorry. Councilman Laufenburger: There. So those two arrows that reflect those houses, my question is who guides or governs how long those two accesses on Highway 7 will be in place or does their presence today essentially mean that they will always be there? Who governs that? Is that MnDOT or, talk a little bit about that. Kate Aanenson: MnDOT governs that and they have a legal right unless there's some other access available. You know as we talked about in the staff report, and the city engineer went through those opportunities that we have seen to eliminate that. We always provide that opportunity over time. It may not be today but it may be down the road. Maybe 5 years. 10 years that the traffic really becomes difficult to get in and out of. We've always tried to provide that opportunity. We believe that's good planning. The one I can think of that we did on 41, there was a home on 41. When we did the Longacres plat we took an outlot and provided access. We said some day in the future when this homeowner decides it's more difficult to get out on 41 with the speeds there and the longer stretch, that's an opportunity that we acquired for them to get access so we're doing the same thing here. 17 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger. So you, so you provide the opportunity for the homeowner when he or she chooses to not exit onto 41 for example, the example that you used. They exit south towards Longacres and then get onto 41 at Longacres, am I saying that correctly? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct, Councilman Laufenburger: So the same thing here is, you're essentially the planning of this development, that cul-de-sac extends from Strawberry, from the T in Strawberry Lane extends south and then to the east and it ends, the cul-de-sac ends with plans so that when these two homes choose to, they can get, they can leave their property without going on Highway 7. Kate Aanenson: That's correct Councilman Laufenburger: Which would potentially be at their peril if they would go on Highway 7 Kate Aanenson: Right. This homeowner right now doesn't want to but you know we always know that properties change over time and some, a future homeowner may want to, or this property homeowner may want to over time, just as we learned on 41. That took probably 5, 6, 7 years before that homeowner said boy, you know I'd really like to change that. We talked about some of the other changes so this was a connection here so these 4 homes here, when this project came in we provided a private drive. Four homes off of a private drive so these homes all now come off of the end of Landings. Same thing there. Instead of providing this access here for a safer route so we always try to look at those opportunities for access. Safer access and I think that's what the city engineer was talking about too to reduce those conflicts. When you have turning movements that are not at a certain space apart, that causes conflict. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Just one more question regarding access. Should this plan go forward 31 homes, grading, this is going to be a big construction site. How are the construction vehicles going to get into this site? Kate Aanenson: I'll let Mr. Oehme speak to that. Councilman Laufenburger: What's the plan? Paul Oehme: So you know the access would be off of 62' and down Church Road. Councilman Laufenburger: Once the development's completed. Paul Oehme: Once the development, yeah that's the logical. The spot. We are going to be talking to MnDOT though about maybe a temporary access off of Highway 7. They, in the past they haven't granted some of those access points for construction purposes but we're going to ask them at least. See if we can work something out. Mayor Furlong: Do you think there is room for safe turning off of 7 of the big trucks directly onto the property? Paul Oehme: Right and that's the thing is maybe there's, especially left turns, I don't think there is. Maybe if it's a right-in/right-out type of situation and if the shoulder's wide enough in that area where they can have an acceleration lane. Maybe there's an opportunity there. We still have to work through those details yet with MnDOT. In Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: We wouldn't be, we want to make sure that it's safe for the construction vehicles. Paul Oehme: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: And vehicles on Highway 7. Paul Oehme: Absolutely. Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: That you don't have a truck stopping or trying to, a big truck try to accelerate at a 55 miles an hour zone. Paul Oehme: Yep. Exactly. So and that's the thing that we need to take a look at is, is one of the current access points onto the site is that, is there enough spacing there? Is there enough acceleration lane for a truck to come in and accelerate up to a certain point to try... Mayor Furlong: So you're going to look at that and if it is then you'll talk to MnDOT... Paul Oehme: Exactly. Exactly. And I think left turns into the site is going to be out of the question but maybe there's an opportunity for right-in/right-out's. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilwoman Ernst Councilwoman Ernst: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Paul, the first question is for you. You mentioned the drainage that the developer's going to be installing. I guess I have a little bit of concern with that because you said that it should take care of most of it. I mean are you pretty confident that with the sump pumps and the drainage that the developer's going to be installing that that's going to take care of drainage? The drainage issue. Paul Oehme: Yeah, so the City has standards that the ground water has to be so many feet as we know of it underneath the finished floor elevation so we're looking at those issues and that we think that there is a lot of perched water out here. There is a lot of tight clay like I indicated but there is a seam of sandy layer out here as well that potentially is holding a lot of water that's giving us some mis-readings in terms of where the ground water is so with the pond that's going in there and all the drain file that we're talking about, not just the French drain but the drain tile in the roadway and then also the infiltration areas that we're talking about too that eventually will drain into our storm water system. You know we're anticipating that the whole ground water level in this area is going to be decreased to acceptable level. So we're not, we don't, we're not surmising that we're going to take care of all the problems. We still anticipate that some of these homes, the homes will have to have sump pumps like 90% of the properties in Chanhassen does but we're anticipating we're going to try and take care of most of the problems. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. And then the second one is in regards, and I know the Mayor mentioned it in his letter too that Kate read but he had mentioned that there needs to be a T intersection at Strawberry Lane and 62nd and it sounds like there's going to be, right? But as I'm looking at the packet it says there's going to be an analysis to determine if a T intersection is required. 19 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Paul Oehme: So I think the T intersection is a given. It's the traffic study that we're performing right now that is going to tell us if we should put stop signs at each of the three legs of the intersection. That's really what we're going to be focused in on. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay so the stop signs are not a given? Kate Aanenson: Yeah Mayor and council if I may. The condition reads, the developer shall do an analysis of the T intersection to determine if warrants a stop condition so. Just as Mr. Oehme said, that's how it reads. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And maybe I'm looking at an earlier version but condition number 6(a), is that what you're looking at? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, or 6(b) too. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. 6(b). Kate Aanenson: Yeah, 6(b) that will determine if the T intersection would warrant a stop sign. Councilwoman Ernst: It is (a) and (b). Kate Aanenson: It's (a) and (b). Mayor Furlong: Okay. I'm reading (a) as if, revise the plans to incorporate a T intersection. Kate Aanenson: Correct and then (b) would be, once the T is there. Mayor Furlong: What are they analyzing? Kate Aanenson: If there's a T intersection. Mayor Furlong: Oh for the stop conditions. Kate Aanenson: Does it warrants stop lights. Stop signs. Mayor Furlong: So that's the second condition. Kate Aanenson: That's the second part of it correct. Mayor Furlong: So is it correct that the fast condition says it will be a T. Second condition says based upon the traffic count is it warranted to be a three way stop. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, and I thought I'd heard you say there was going to be a stop there and that's why I was questioning. Mayor Furlong: Based upon the warrants of the study. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, yep. Thank you. 20 Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: Anything else? Councilwoman Ernst: No. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom, any questions at this time? Councilwoman Tjornhom: No. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Is the applicant here? Joe Jablonski: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Is there anything you'd like to address to the council? Joe Jablonski: Not at this time unless you have questions. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any questions for the applicant from the council at this time? Mr. Laufenburger. Sir, if you don't mind coming forward. And if you could state your name and address for the record. Joe Jablonski: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Joe Jablonski representing Lennar, 16305 361 Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger. Yeah, thank you Mr. Jablonski for coming forward, and I'm not sure if this is a question direct to you or to staff but how was this land used or how has it been used for the last number of years and is there any concern about any foreign substances on the land that have to be removed? Have you done any study of anything like that? Joe Jablonski: We have done rather extensive environmental studies on them both through geotechnical soil boring types, as alluded to by the city engineer and site visits and walks by our environmental folks so there has been a fair amount. It has for the last several years been vacant. It's been used for, there's been some trespassing for sure but it was a landscape company in the past, or parts of it were used for a landscape company and it doesn't appear besides typical debris that there's you know a lot of environmental type issues out there. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And then I would ask Mr. Oehme, is this land in any kind of wetland that we would have to do any kind of environmental impact statement or worksheet? Paul Oehme: I don't believe there's any wetland that has to be mitigated through this project. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Okay. Thank you. That was my only question. Thank you Mr. Jablonski. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Appreciate you being here. Thank you. At this time Mr. Johnson you had requested to provide some public comment. Again we had a public hearing at the Planning Commission and we've, all of us have seen the Minutes of the Planning Commission. Verbatim Minutes so we're familiar with what was discussed there but if you have some new or different information. 21 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Patrick Johnson: Yeah and I'm going to try and kind of adjust on the fly here. I had a prepared statement that the residents had all seen beforehand. Obviously some of those have been addressed so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Patrick Johnson: So please forgive me as I try and wing this so to speak. Having spoken with most of the residents I will say that most, although not all are pleased with the desire to invest in our community and support the idea of developing this parcel. There are significant concerns that exist. One concern was on that public hearing. As you know April 1" was spring break for the Minnetonka School District of which all of us who have kids, or most of us were out of town and unable to attend the hearing. Not being an expert on the Chanhassen process I was not aware that there would be no public hearing otherwise I would have flown back specifically to be there for that April I I hearing. So moving onto and we will try not to replay the Planning Commission hearing and the comments but I did want to highlight some things that we've been hearing about and are thinking about as a community. The first is in regards to zoning. While the zoning is residential light medium, it was in 2006 that it was rezoned and there was a community group that banded together to say that that probably wasn't in concert with the community. We are going to be engaging a consultant to review the change in zoning and will likely be back in contact once we identify the consultant. The next gen housing I think it's been kind of cleared up tonight. The residents are very opposed to the next gen concept. One of the big concerns is that the ordinance could be changed later on down the date, and I know this was addressed but none of us are experts. And then the next gen could then be kind of grandfathered back in after the fact when none of us are looking. The traffic study. It sounds like the traffic study is being done at this time. One of our residents did note that a camera went up this morning. We feel that to make an approval when the cameras went up today, we probably should have further study into the traffic counts and what impact the additional traffic is going to have on the streets before anything should be approved. Safety and roads. You know before any development should be considered I think the safety of the students who travel on Strawberry Lane should be first and foremost. We're talking about a 22 foot wide road with lots of construction traffic going in. If you think about the amount of dirt and stuff that's going to come in, building materials into this site with students walking Strawberry Lane to and from school, that's a very dangerous situation. Already as is. Audience: You should include West 62°s. Patrick Johnson: And West 62nd. I am here to speak for all of the residents per your planning council meeting. We are trying to limit to one representative. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Patrick Johnson: But we do feel that the student's safety should be 100% identified before any approval is made. These roads are very narrow. There has been development that is going on currently and I know a number of the residents have expressed their concerns about student safety. One of the other concerns is on the outreach. I understand that Chanhassen has gone over and above the 300 feet state minimum for the outreach and gone with 500 feet. In this case, while I appreciate the law and what the purpose of it is, the real impact to the neighborhood here is well outside of 500 feet. You're looking at Shorewood Oaks Drive where the majority of traffic will be entering. You're looking at all of Strawberry Lane because all the traffic is going to be traveling along that route to Minnewashta and you have 621 Street as well as Church Road. With the exception of Church Road, all of these streets are considerably narrower than the site and when you talk about having let's say two dump trucks passing each other, there's not much room. I know there have been some discussions very recently with Shorewood in regards to the planning process. As of last Thursday night when I met with the mayor and the planner, it didn't sound like any of those communications had happened so we feel that we probably should hold, we should have more 22 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 communication between Shorewood and Chanhassen before we go ahead and figure out that we've resolved all the different traffic issues and safety issues on those roads. As far as drainage, you know we hear the proposal to do it. It doesn't sound like it's going to fix all problems. Might make for some of the residents on Church Road better but I would suggest that maybe some additional study needs to be done with the Shorewood planners. I can tell you that the development that is under construction right now, under a block away, there is a significant drainage system that was put in and it would be I think a very logical idea to get some people out there to look at that drainage system. How it's performing because it's so close to the site and with the spring runoff, right now the water is at a very high level and probably could be some useful information for the applicant and the City of Chanhassen. You guys did go through our letter from today. Feel free to also ask us any questions. The community has kind of come together and consolidated all of our feedback for you. We also have created a community website so that we can all be on the same page. It's BoulderCove.info and as we go through this process we'll be using that as a community to speak with one voice. And finally, the final point that I wanted to make is, I'm not sure how many of you saw the article in the Star Tribune this past weekend but just last week the Edina Planning Commission was in a similar situation with a project that bordered a neighboring community such as this. Richfield sent a letter to Edina and I quote, we would like Edina to treat Richfield residents as it would it's own residents. Edina agreed and denied the applicant the approval on the project because the impact was just too great on their neighbors. In the Edina case the main concern was sunlight. The concerns on this are far greater and involve students. We ask that the Chanhassen City Council follow Edina's lead as a good neighbor and deny this proposal after which we would like to collaboratively work as residents of one community, Shorewood, Chanhassen and the existing community to make sure that the development of Highway 7 be in concert with the existing neighborhood and safe for the students. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Johnson. Any follow up questions to Mr. Johnson? Councilman Laufenburger. I had one. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Laufenburger. Councihnan Laufenburger: Yeah. I wonder Mr. Johnson. Patrick Johnson: Yep, sorry. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you. What areas of neighborhoods are you, do you feel that you're representing? Or this, that are part of this. Give me kind of a. Patrick Johnson: I would say the neighbors that we have been in communication with and have received feedback from include the development of Shorewood Oaks, the residents of Strawberry Lane from kind of. Councilman Laufenburger: All the way north to the elementary school? Patrick Johnson: We solicited feedback by stuffing mailboxes with information about our website and contained contact information. Without going back and looking through all my emails I can't tell you exactly how far it was before you know somebody was not in communication. Mayor Furlong: Just to clarify though, Shorewood Oaks is the neighborhood to the northeast of this property, is that correct? Patrick Johnson: Yep 23 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: Let me ask it a different way. Are there people that you would say are in your coalition group that are, that heard about this not from Chanhassen but from other people in the neighborhood? Patrick Johnson: Yes. Absolutely. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, that clarifies that. Patrick Johnson: If I may I would like to point out that the sign, which was posted on the site borders Highway 7. The majority of people who live in these neighborhoods work closer into the metropolitan area and enter the neighborhood through Shorewood Oaks Drive and never saw the sign. Councilman Laufenburger. As opposed to Church Road. Patrick Johnson: I think in hindsight it would have been better to put that proposed development sign or maybe two of them right at where the T intersection is going to be. Councilman Laufenburger: But it sounds like what you're describing is the views of people who not only receive a correspondence from Chanhassen who may have seen the sign, but also those who you and other neighbors reached out to and said this is, look at what's planning here so it looks like though we, in using your words we could have been more effective or more efficient in our communication, clearly it got to a lot of people. Is that true? You're hesitant in saying yes. I'm wondering why. Patrick Johnson: Because I am speaking for a group and I don't want to misrepresent the group of people who have enlisted their trust in me to speak tonight. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Well they've enlisted their trust in an articulate man so. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Johnson, do you have anything else? Councilman Laufenburger: I did have one other. Mayor Furlong: Please. Councilman Laufenburger. Yeah. To what development are you referring when you talk about the development one block away? Maybe you can identify where you live. Mayor Furlong: Or where the. Councilman Laufenburger: Or where this development is. Patrick Johnson: Yep. The easiest thing would be to approach a monitor although I don't know if I'm reaching any sort of. Kate Aanenson: Yep, you can just tell me where. So this is the subject site. This is Strawberry Lane. There's the elementary school. Patrick Johnson: If you come back south from the elementary school and go to the gravel bicycle trail. Councilman Laufenburger: Got it. The trail which goes... FM Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Patrick Johnson: Which crosses diagonally across Strawberry Lane. Councilman Laufenburger. Yep. Yes. Patrick Johnson: You see there is a shorter, the shortest cul-de-sac that is directly off of that Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, and that cul-de-sac goes to the east. Patrick Johnson: And that cul-de-sac goes to the east Councilman Laufenburger: Is that the development? Patrick Johnson: That is the development. There are 7 half acre lots of which there is one completed residence and there are 4 residences under construction at this time. The drainage system is all in and currently if you go out and visit the site behind 5 of the 7 lots you will very actively see how the drainage system is working, and I know you mentioned that it is the proposed solution comes to a 100 year flood. I don't think that this year was 100 year flood event by any means but we are right up against the kind of the limits of the drainage system and from all purposes, and I would defer to Shorewood to say, to give their opinion on how that drainage system is working. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. That was my questions. Thank you Mr. Mayor Mayor Furlong: Mr. Johnson, quick question. Since you're more familiar with the area than I am. Along Strawberry Lane, in addition to that development of 6 or 7 homes you just mentioned there's been some recent construction of homes along Strawberry Lane itself. Recent within the last 3 to 5 years, is that a fair statement? Patrick Johnson: Yes. My familiarity with this site is relatively new. I am one of those new residents within the 7 acre development. The 7 residence development. I am a recent, I'll call it a boomerang from Minnesota. I returned back from Minnesota after being on the east coast for 17 years so my knowledge of this particular area is not probably as robust as some of the other residents. Mayor Furlong: So you live in the new development. Patrick Johnson: I live in the new development. Mayor Furlong: East of Strawberry Lane there and I guess maybe some of the other residents by nodding heads or shaking them, there have been some new construction of homes along Strawberry Lane over the last few years. I'm seeing some heads go up and down. So just 2. Audience: Yes Mayor Furlong: It looked like on the west side towards the southern end of the road, just 2? Okay. I thought it appeared more. Audience: Well within the last 3 years. Mayor Furlong: 3 to 5 or so I mean. Audience: Yeah so later there was a few more, yeah. 25 Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: Okay, before that. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Patrick Johnson: Sure. Thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Let's bring it back to council for additional questions of staff, if there are any. Otherwise thoughts or comments on the proposal before us. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I'd like to address the attorney and have him specifically explain to us what we are here to address tonight and what we are really looking at as a council. Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. You have two issues. First is a preliminary plat and the issue in that plat is, do they meet the current requirements of the zoning ordinance and the subdivision ordinance. And if the answer to those questions is yes, then that's your answer. And you also have before you a variance. Does it meet the standards of a variance? Again this is a preliminary plat. The final plat will come back to you. It's typical that you impose conditions on preliminary plat approval as staff is recommending and you look and see whether those conditions are met at the time of final plat approval. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And the variance is regarding the cul-de-sac. The length of the cul-de-sac. Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Yeah the length of the cul-de-sac. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yeah, yeah. Length of the cul-de-sac. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other thoughts or questions? I guess one of the issues Ms. Aanenson that came up, Mr. Johnson was regard to the land use and reviewing the land use. The current guiding, what's the current zoning and is that the same as what's being requested? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: What's the current zoning? Kate Aanenson: It's just a different lot configuration than. Mayor Furlong: So is it currently zoned LRM? Or what is the current zoning? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Laufenburgen RLM. Mayor Furlong: RLM, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Yeah so it's presently zoned Residential Low Medium density so and it's consistent with the guiding which allows up to the 4 units so it's consistent with both those. We're not asking for a rezoning at this time. 26 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: So there is no rezoning. It's already zoned. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: That use. That's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan doesn't show a different type of use. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the question is that allows up to 4 units and they're actually closer to 2. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: With this proposal. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Well actually for gross. For the net would be 3.99, correct. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry. Kate Aanenson: For the net would be 3.99. Mayor Furlong: And does the up to 4 deal with net or gross? Kate Aanenson: The net. Mayor Furlong: The net. So they're within the allowable range. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: I'd just point out some things brought up. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Roger Knutson: When you're talking about changing your Comprehensive Plan or rezoning property, that's legislative rather than quasi judicial. Legislative means you're making policy. Quasi judicial like you're doing here is you're applying the existing law to the facts and see whether the law is met and I'd point out the reference to what happened in Edina. First that was the Planning Commission making a recommendation. Not a decision to the City Council and I'd also point out in the Edina situation they need both a comp plan, Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezoning which are legislative. Mayor Furlong: And the Comprehensive Plan would be change the guiding. Comprehensive Plan amendment would be change the guiding from current zoning or guiding to something else. Roger Knutson: Change the zoning. Mayor Furlong: And change the zoning. Roger Knutson: Yes. 27 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: Here there's no change to zoning or change in Comprehensive Plan. Roger Knutson: That's correct. There it's legislative decisions that must be made. Here it is not. It's quasi judicial. You're applying existing law to the facts. Mayor Furlong: The variance for clarification is more of a legislative policy. Roger Knutson: No. Mayor Furlong: Or that is also. Roger Knutson: That is also quasi judicial because there's standards in the ordinance when you're entitled to that variance. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Roger Knutson: And then you apply the facts. Look at the facts and say do they meet the criteria in the ordinance. You're not legislative. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: One more legal question. We're going to get our money's worth tonight from Roger. Can you review again the new or the existing policy when it comes to variances and the parameters council should use when it comes to that? Roger Knutson: It's a very confusing subject. What we've been talking, what's been very confusing for the last 3 or 4 years when the change of standards from, is a zoning variance. This is a subdivision variance. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Roger Knutson: So the question is, is there justification basically for this? Is there something unique about this property that justifies a longer cul-de-sac? Kate Aanenson: So the standards are. Mayor Furlong: Did you get your legal answer? Kate Aanenson: The standards are somewhat different when you do it with a subdivision as opposed to a straight variance I think is what he's trying to say. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yep, no I followed. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger: So that, excuse me. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions Councilwoman Tjornhom? Mr. Laufenburger. 28 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: So Councilwoman Tjornhom her question begs the question, what's the justification for going from an 800 foot cul-de-sac to a 1,200 foot cul-de-sac. Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: Sure. As stated in our findings the hardship is not just, is not a mere inconvenience. The staff recommended this because we think it's good policy long term not to have two driveways access out onto Highway 7 so the, we believe that the longer culde-sac's going to promote public safety in the future when those driveways have the opportunity to reconnect so they will provide the stub with sewer and water so if those people want to, they're on septic and well, want to connect onto municipal services and have access the other way, that opportunity exists. They may not want to seize that opportunity today but we're providing it in the future to promote safety. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. What does the impact of moving from the okey dokey 800 foot cul- de-sac to a variance required 1,200. What's the impact of that to the developer? Kate Aanenson: The cul-de-sac could be shortened and lots could be put on the end of that. I'd have to let their engineer speak to the lot configuration on that but if it was shortened up additional lots could be put on the end of the cul-de-sac. Right now it just terminates at the property line. Councilman Laufenburger: So this, really the driving factor here is to allow for public safety for those two homes on whatever the address is on Highway 7. To give them the opportunity to safely exit their home, their property via the cul-de-sac versus the Highway 7 which traffic over time will increase. Kate Aanenson: That's correct Commissioner Laufenburger. Actually the same condition applied when we did the previous application. We saw that same opportunity to make the longer cul-de-sac. Councilman Laufenburger: Yep. I had another question. Kate I think this is for you. I look at this, the recommendation and as our attorney has spoken that this is a preliminary plat that has a number of conditions and it's the developer's responsibility to meet these conditions. I count clearly more than, there's probably 50 conditions in various categories. Is it possible that these conditions may become too onerous for the developer or do you already have indication that the developer is prepared to comply with these? Kate Aanenson: They have been meeting with the engineering department and it's our understanding that they can meet those conditions. It's going to take some tweaking on the project so we believe that they can be met. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: If they can't then it would prohibit them from going forward. Councilman Laufenburger. Clearly these conditions, each of them, categories 1 through I think it's 8. No 7, all of those conditions must be met at time of the council approving the final plat. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And they'd be incorporated, some of them may be incorporated into the development contract but yes, they would be required to meet those. Again I just want to be clear on that. When it comes back for final plat we always like to show you all the original conditions and sometimes they get modified. They get changed to something else but they would, so you can track to see how we addressed each one specifically. Councilman Laufenburger. Okay 29 Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: I was just going to say, there are times where there are modifications to some of the conditions. Either it no longer applies or based upon additional information, such as traffic counts, if there's a different condition, or the condition is modified, based upon the additional information that's gathered between the time of the preliminary plat approval and the final application. Councilman Laufenburger: But clearly we're not cutting a ribbon on this development right now. I mean this is a, there's a lot of work that needs to be done before this. We're essentially giving the developer permission to move forward with their current plan subject to meeting the conditions. Kate Aanenson: That's correct Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are those comments or any other comments you'd like to make? And we'll try to keep moving along. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay that's. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger. I would only conclude by saying that, I thought a lot about this related to Shorewood and Chanhassen. We as a body, we really have no jurisdiction over Shorewood. You know our responsibility is this community Chanhassen and yes we want to be good neighbors but that Shorewood hasn't you know widened 22, or widened the 22 foot Strawberry Lane or 62, I'm sorry but that's not my responsibility I don't believe so I would support this project going forward at this time subject to the conditions being met. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts and comments? Councilwoman Tjomhom Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah I'm prepared to support the project too because I am here tonight to vote on whether or not it has met our standards when it comes to development and also if the variance makes sense and I agree that both, I can support both of those issues and while like I said I am, I am sympathetic with Shorewood and their concerns about safety and I'm optimistic that our engineer and our city staff will work with Shorewood city staff to kind of hopefully come up with a solution. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst, comments. Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah I would support this project too. The only thing that I would say is, I'm not totally convinced that the drainage issue is resolved and so whatever we can do to follow up on that and make sure that you know we're not going to have an issue there. But I'll definitely support the project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. One clarification Ms. Aanenson on condition 5(a) I think where it talks about those next generation homes. Do you have some proposed wording on the type of, multi, I don't know what, what does our ordinances prohibit? Kate Aanenson: Yeah I think the correct way to put that is that any plans that describe the next generation homes are not permitted under current city ordinances. Mayor Furlong: But what are the, what's the, what is the next generation in terms of a type of home that doesn't, what does our ordinance prohibit? 30 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 Kate Aanenson: That's why I left it. That's why I left, I did get specific language from the city attorney so I think the way we felt it should be reworded would be any plans describing or showing next generation should not be included because they don't meet the current ordinance so we're saying, so they'd be, those are all attached with the application so we're just referencing what was included in the application. Mayor Furlong: In the application so we're saying that the, that that aspect of the application that's inconsistent with our ordinances is excluded from approval. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And obviously if something prohibits an ordinance it's not allowed anyway. We don't have to make a condition that they have to apply with ordinances because they already do. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: Right. Roger Knutson: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so what this is doing. Kate Aanenson: So that should be modified. If you want to modify that condition. Mayor Furlong: Right, condition 5(a) to read. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and we can have for the Scribner the, taking the Minutes here that that condition be 5(a) be noted that any plans describing and attached as next generation homes are not permitted with this application or current ordinance because they're consistent with the current ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I think when we look at the issues that are before the council as our, and I appreciate Councilwoman Tjornhom's clarifying question of the City Attorney as to what are we being asked to decide here is whether or not the, whether or not the proposal, the development meets the zoning and subdivision ordinances and whether or not the variance application meets the standards for that. I think from things that we've heard tonight they do. It's not a change of zoning. It's the current zoning. From everything I've seen in the staff report and other information is that they do meet the standards of our Comprehensive Plan and our ordinances. With regard to the variance I think extending the cul-de-sac in order to avoid a connection on Highway 7 is of value for public safety. You know knowing the traffic and turning in and out and sometimes exiting from Shorewood Oaks, or anywhere along Highway 7 there, that can be a challenge sometimes with the speed of traffic so the less traffic, less points of access along Highway 7 and concentrating traffic where we can, it's been a long time, and for the benefit of the Shorewood residents, it's a long time objective of the City of Chanhassen to seek a stop light at the intersection of Church and Highway 7, Minnewashta Parkway. One of our challenges there is it doesn't meet warrants for the State of Minnesota, for MnDOT to approve that. We have a similar desire and work that we're doing at the southern end of Minnewashta Parkway at Highway 5 to try to get a stop light there as well. Both of those places need, both of those intersections, a stop light will improve safety and one of the things that we did recently with the Highway 5 improvements along the Arboretum is we eliminated accesses along Highway 5 and directed traffic. We had multiple driveways there and directed traffic, and an access of right-in/right-out access for the neighbors and we directed it all to Minnewashta Parkway. Long term the most traffic you have accessing those major roads at the major intersections, the safer it's going to be for everybody and it will provide the opportunity some day I believe to provide a 31 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 signal, which will obviously be a safer way to come out onto Highway 7 from the north and to go east. I think this development from a safety standpoint, traffic safety at the intersection of Strawberry Lane, 62nd and the new development will be improved with that T intersection and if the traffic counts support the 3 way stop, I noticed in the comments at the Planning Commission that there was concern about people going around that. It's not even a curve. It's a 90 degree turn. It's a corner. Going too fast can be a problem so if this development helps improve the safety at that intersection by adding stop signs, and warranting the stop signs, that will actually be a benefit I think for everybody. Drainage is an issue in this area. I'm familiar in knowing people that live in the area that the water table is very high. It's a wet area so drainage will be an issue. It's not going to go away but I'm pleased at least with the plans that they are directing, they're reducing the amount of drainage, normal natural drainage going north, directing it south and managing that and I think that's again an improvement. Is it perfect? Very few developments are. There will he a change. There certainly will be more traffic but if it can be, if the traffic can be channeled safely and, or improved safely, safety as well as improving the drainage I think there's a benefit here. Again getting back to the issues before us tonight, the property owners have a right to develop their property as long as they do it within the rules and within the ordinances and everything I've seen and heard tonight tells me that this plan does that with the conditions in place to insure that they do it correctly so with that I too will be supporting the proposal this evening but, with regard to Mr. Johnson's comments about our two cities working together. Absolutely. We're certainly happy to do that at any time and we do meet regularly with our neighbors. Our cities and that's certainly something that we can do. I think what we're seeing here, and we saw it earlier. Many residents here tonight probably didn't see it but we just had the flip side of a development in Shorewood that was going to be accessing off a Chanhassen Road. It was Hummingbird Lane in Chanhassen and there we're dealing with a narrower road but I think what we have is a lot of the older neighborhoods along north and south of Highway 7, those roads are not developed to our current standards and what we find, as much as the city engineers want to build new wider roads because they're safer for everybody, sometimes there's resistance to doing that when we go through the reconstruction so I think that's where all of us can look to say when it's time to make some improvements, that we can all look to do, to give a little bit so we can get a safer roads for everybody involved and I think we would all support that so, with that I would certainly, unless there are other comments, entertain a motion. Councilman Laufenburger. Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Laufenburger Councilman Laufenburger. I move that the Chanhassen City Council approves the Boulder Cove Subdivision with a variance subject to the conditions of the staff report with modification to condition 5(a) as noted earlier and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact. Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that? Seeing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #2014-09 for Boulder Cove for 31 lots and 3 outlots with a Variance to allow a 1,200-foot long cul-de-sac as shown on the plans received March 4, 2014 subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact: 32 Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 1. Park and Recreation Conditions: a. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Boulder Cove. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current proposed lot count of 31 homes and the city's 2014 single-family park fee of $5,800 per unit, the total park fees for Boulder Cove would be $179,800. 2. Environmental Resources Conditions: a. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the drip line for tree #71. A layer of woodchips shall be installed over the root zone to a depth of 3-4 inches. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. b. No trees shall be planted within the public right-of-way. Front yard trees shall be located inside the setback area. c. Additional tree species shall be added to the plant schedule in order to reduce the percentage attributed to spruce so that no more than one-third of the trees are from any one species. Additional trees may not be from the maple family and must be overstory species. Minimum total number of trees to be planted is 166. d. There are overhead power lines along Highway 7. Only ornamental trees shall be allowed to be planted in the bufferyard between the property line and the proposed fence. e. Evergreens shall average seven feet in height when planted. f. Any tree removal outside the parameters of the subject property shall require approval of the property owner where the tree is located. g. Applicant shall correct the tree inventory for the following trees: • Tree #38, sugar maple: shown on the plan as saved, shown in the inventory as removed. The applicant shall resolve the discrepancy. • Tree #72, spruce: shown on plan and inventory as saved. Tree is noted to be in poor condition. Tree shall be noted as REMOVE. • Tree #96, red oak: shown on plan at the very edge of the grading limits. Tree appears to be in a position for a possible save. It is in fair condition. Staff recommends that applicant work with staff to preserve tree if appropriate. • Tree #205, #206, ash: shown on plans as saved. These trees are within the grading limits and have proposed grading shown on top of their locations. Trees shall be noted as REMOVE. 3. Building Department conditions: 33 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 a. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height. c. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. d. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. e. Proper removal, abandonment or sealing of storage tanks, on -site septic systems, wells, etc. required. Permits required, as applicable. f. If applicable, existing home(s) affected by new street will require address changes. 4. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Thee feet of clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. b. Fire hydrants must be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed prior to and during construction. d. Fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. e. No burning permits will be issued for the removal of brush, trees. 5. Planning Department Conditions: a. Any plans showing or describing `Next Generation" homes should not be included because they are not permitted under current city ordinances. b. A high-tension power line exists along Highway 7. Any work or landscaping must be approved by Xcel Energy. 6. Engineering Department Conditions: a. The developer must work with the City of Chanhassen and the City of Shorewood to revise the plans to incorporate a "T" intersection at 62°d Street, Strawberry Lane, and Strawberry Court. b. The developer shall provide an analysis to determine if the "T" intersection would warrant a stop condition. c. If a stop condition is warranted, the developer shall have a traffic engineer collect and analyze traffic counts on 62nd Street to determine the queuing effects at the intersection. 34 Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 d. Other details such as transitioning from a 31-foot wide street in Chanhassen to a 22-foot wide street in Shorewood shall be addressed with the final plan submittal. e. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and the street must be restored. f The septic tank and mound system that services 3530 Highway 7 is within the project boundaries. These items must be removed and disposed of at an approved facility in conjunction with the site improvements as proposed. g. Based on the proposed preliminary plan the developer must provide a sanitary sewer service to 3530 Highway 7. The developer shall ensure that sewer service to 3530 Highway 7 is maintained throughout construction, which will involve pumping the septic tank after the septic mound is removed and before a sewer service is installed to serve the property- h. Water main for the project will be directionally bored under Highway 7 and will wet tap into the existing 12-inch trunk water main on the south side of Highway 7. A portion of this water main extension lies on 3520 Highway 7; the developer must acquire the necessary easement prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. i. Water main will extend between Lot 5, Block 1 and the tot lot to the existing water main in the southwest corner of 3751 62nd Street. The water main alignment shown on the utility plan is not within the existing easement; therefore, the developer must acquire the easement necessary to install this water main prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. j. A water main interconnect will be required to the Shorewood water main at 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. k. The developer proposes to extend 6-inch water main to the east to provide service to 3520 and 3030 Highway 7. The developer must acquire the necessary easements to complete this work. 1. All existing and proposed off -site drainage and utility easements must be referenced accordingly. m. Existing off -site easements must be referenced by document number or the plat in which they were dedicated. n. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions: 35 Chanhassen City Council — April 14, 2014 a. Show the extent of the shoreland overlay district for Lake Minnewashta on the plan set before final plat approval. b. The applicant must demonstrate the extent of tree preservation for stormwater volume reduction credit by overlaying grading limits on a current aerial photograph before final plat approval. c. The applicant must recalculate the volume reduction credit from new tree plantings without the use of ornamental trees before final plat approval. The current best information is that elevation is at least 969.5 to approximately 972. d. The filtration feature shall be moved so that the bounce within the basin remains entirely within the outlot before final plat approval. e. A homeowners association shall be created and shall be responsible for the maintenance of the filtration feature. The outlet pipe shall be the responsibility of the city. f. An operations and maintenance manual shall be developed for the filtration feature indicating how the HOA will maintain the feature and assure its proper function. g. The landscape plan shall be updated to include the planting schedule for the infiltration basin and the outlots and to provide shrubs or other buffering measures between the rear yard lines and the filtration feature before final plat approval. h. The pond in Outlot A shall be redesigned such that the likely seasonally high water table is at or below the modeled normal water level. i. Additional hydrogeological data provided and attested to by a licensed professional in hydrogeology or similar may be used to show that the above condition is met. j. All recommendations relating to subgrade improvements, preparations and drainage as well as dewatering and drainage control from the March 3, 2014 Braun report shall be implemented. k. The swale behind lots 4 through 10 of Block 2 shall have a drain tile installed as part of the site grading and utility installation. This shall be included before final plat approval. 1. Environmental manholes or 4-foot sump manholes with SAFL baffles shall be installed at CBMHI and CBMH3. in. A concerted effort shall be made to combine the outfall into the Pond in Outlot A such that there is only one outfall. If it is not feasible from an engineering standpoint, then documentation supporting this assertion shall be provided to city staff prior to final plat approval. n. A comprehensive, standalone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of the NPDES construction permit shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment before final plat approval. W. Chanhassen City Council —April 14, 2014 o. Surface Water Management connection charges are estimated to be $84,146.45. This connection charge will be due at the time of final plat. p. In the event that wetland characteristics are observed on the site during field visits during the growing season, steps will need to be taken to assure compliance with the MN Wetland Conservation Act, the Federal Clean Water Act and other applicable federal, state and local regulations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everybody. COUNCII. PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations this evening? Councilman Laufenburger Councilman Laufenburger: Mayor and council members, I had the honor and privilege of attending on the Mayor's behalf yesterday evening's banquet put on by the Chanhassen District, excuse me the District 112 Foundation. This is a foundation that is primarily responsible, it's an independent organization. Independent of Eastern Carver County School Districts and one of their primary objectives is to recognize excellence in teaching amongst the 800 teachers in Eastern Carver County schools and I was there as a representative of the Mayor's office and I introduced Candice Gallipo. He's the woman on the left holding the plaque. She was awarded the District 112 Teacher of the Year. She's a Chanhassen High School counselor. Remarkable young woman with her roots in South Dakota and came to the Twin Cities, specifically Chaska High School 28 years ago by way of fhe small community of Coleridge, Nebraska so she made a circuitous route but she's been devoted to the kids in District 112 for the last 28 years and she, do you want to go to the next slide please Kate. She along with 5 other members of the District 112 staff were all recognized as finalist and she was by a nose, she edged out the other 5. The other 5 candidates. Anyway it was a pleasure to serve on your behalf Mayor and. Mayor Furlong: Thank you for doing that. Councilman Laufenburger: And Mayor O'Connor or Osterdyk and Windschid were all there asking me what in the world you were doing yesterday. Anyway, so thank you for that opportunity. Mayor Furlong: No, thank you and I know Candice has been active working with the Rotary. With the Strive program. Councilman Laufenburger: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Which you're probably familiar with at Chanhassen High School so congratulations to her. That's wonderful. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah it was, the Tweeter feed from Tim Dorway, the Principal was very active right at the time of the announcing the awards. It was a good event. Well attended. Mayor Furlong: Thank you for being there. Other thoughts and comments. Had a chance to make a presentation to the Buy Chanhassen group subsequent to our last council meeting which was fun. I appreciate Laurie Hokkanen, thank you for your help in helping with the presentation and being there and keeping me on track on things to say but that's a good group and it's always fun to get together with them 37 0 CITY of CHANNASSEN 1700 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 8 Recreation Phone:952.227.1120 Fax 952.227,1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax:952.227.1404 G1 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: April 14, 2014 d`� " SUBJ: Boulder Cove — Preliminary Plat with Variances to Subdivide 13.38 Acres into 31 lots and 3 outlots — Planning Case #2014-09 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #2014-09, Boulder Cove subdivision for 31 lots and 3 outlots with a Variance to allow a 1,200-foot long cul-de-sac on property zoned RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact." City Council approval of the subdivision with the variance requires a majority vote of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The developer is requesting approval of a preliminary plat subdividing 13.38 acres into 31 lots and 3 oudots and a variance to allow a 1,200-foot long cul-de-sac for property located north of Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 62nd Street. Access to the site is gained off of a proposed cul-de-sac south of West 62"d Street. The developer's traffic engineer will be analyzing the proposed street connection and will provide a recommendation for traffic control conditions, if any. This information will be available prior to the final plat submittal. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY Planning & The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 1, 2014. Issue raised during the Natural Resources public hearing included traffic, drainage, and lack of sidewalks in the area. The Planning Phone: 22711Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the project The April 1, 2014 Planning Fax:952.252.2271110 Commission minutes are a part of the consent agenda of the April 14, 2014 City Council packet Public Works 7901 Park Place RECOMMENDATION Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Staff recommends approval of the request. Senior Center ATTACHMENTS Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax:952.227.1110 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 1, 2014. Web site 2• Email from Jolene Scott dated March 31, 2014. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 3. Emails from Ryan Johannsen dated March 31 & April 1, 2014. 4. Email from Leah & Jassen Schneider dated April 1, 2014. 5. Entails from Rachel Dahlen dated April 1 & 2, 2014. gAplan\2014 planning cases12014-09 boulder cove\exmutive summary.doc C ANNM Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow PC DATE: April 1, 2014 CC DATE: April 14, 2014 REVIEW DEADLINE: April 14, 2014 CASE #: 2014-09 BY: Al-Jaff PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Boulder Cove subdivision with a variance subject to the conditions of the staff report." 1� Adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat with Variances to Subdivide 13.38 Acres into 31 lots and 3 outlots, Boulder Cove. LOCATION: North of Highway 7, East of Church Road and South of West 62°d Street. APPLICANT: Lennar Corporation 16305 361b Street Suite 600 Plymouth, MN 55446 Contact: Joe Jablonski or Paul Tabone (952)249-3000 joe.iablonski(a),lennar.com PRESENT ZONING: RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 13.38 Acres DENSITY: Gross 2.32 Units/Ac Net 3.99 Units/Ac SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a subdivision with variances for property located north of Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 62"d Street. Access to the site is gained off of a proposed cul-de-sac south of West 62°d Street. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 2 of 25 PROPOSAU/SUMMARY The subject site is located north of Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 62"d Street. It is zoned RLM-Residential Low and Medium Density District. The applicant is proposing to replat 13.38 acres into 31 lots and 3 outlots. All lots are proposed to contain single family homes. The outlots will contain storm ponds, an open area and a tot lot. There is a variance attached to the application dealing with the length of the cul-de-sac serving this development. Approval of the variance will eliminate access off of Highway 7 and improve safety. The property is zoned RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. The gross density of this subdivision is 2.32 units per acre and the net density is 3.99 units per acre which falls within the low density designation of the comprehensive plan. All lots are proposed to be served via the proposed cul-de-sac. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 3 of 25 The site consists of two parcels being assembled into one tract of land, and then subdivided. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the RLM District. The applicant submitted several home designs they intend to build. One of these designs (Next Generation), is a two -unit home. Staff discussed this matter with the applicant and informed them that city code requires a variance for the temporary use of single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Therefore, this type of dwelling is not permitted at his time. One issue that needs to be pointed out is the fact that there are currently four driveways with access off of Highway 7. Two of them are located on the subject site and will be closed. The remaining two are located east of the subject site and will require a private street variance should the homeowners decide to relocate their access to be served off of the proposed cul-de-sac which will be an improvement from a safety standpoint. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND On August 28, 2006, the City Council approved the following: Rezoning of 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. Preliminary Plat with Variances to Subdivide Cove. 12.99 Acres into 39 lots and 1 oudot, Boulder • Site Plan Approval for the construction of 4 Three-plex Units On September 25, 2006, City Council approved the final plat, development contract and construction plans for the Boulder Cove development. The plat consisted of 39 lots and 1 outlot. Eleven of the lots were proposed to house single-family homes,16 lots to house duplexes, and 12 lots to house three-plexes. The outlot was intended to contain a storm pond and a gazebo. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 4 of 25 BOULDER COVE INSET A 32 15 2 ' � 7 4 5 I OUROTA ff QTTo On November 13, 2006, City Council extended the time to file the final plat to May 1, 2007 due to unresolved issues with the legal description of the parent parcel. On April 3, 2007, the developer sent staff an email stating that these issues remained unresolved and requested that the time to file the final plat be extended to August 1, 2008. The City Council approved the requested extension on August 13, 2007. On July 8, 2008, the developer sent staff a letter requesting that the time to file the final plat be extended to August 1, 2009, to allow him sufficient time to secure financing for the project. The City Council approved the request on July 28, 2008. On June 15, 2009, the developer submitted a letter requesting the time to file the final plat be extended to August 1, 2010 due to the current economic conditions. On July 13, 2009, the City Council approved the request. On June 21, 2010, the developer submitted a letter requesting the time to file the final plat be extended to August 1, 2011 due to current economic conditions. The City Council approved the request on July 12, 2010. On June 21, 2011, the developer submitted a letter requesting the time to file the final plat be extended to August 1, 2012 due to current economic conditions. The City Council approved the request on July 11, 2011. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 5 of 25 Since the plat and associated documents were never recorded, the application became void. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 13.38 acres into 31 lots and 3 outlets. Outlot A contains a drainage easement, a storm pond and a tot lot, Outlot B is an open space and will contain a future development sign and Outlot C contains a drainage easement and a filtration basin. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2.32 units per acre gross and 3.99 units per acre net after removing the wetland, roads, storm ponds and park. All lots are proposed to contain single family homes. The applicant submitted several home designs they intend to build. One of these designs (Next Generation), is a two -unit home. Staff discussed this matter with the applicant and informed them that the city code requires a variance for the temporary use of single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling under the following circumstances: 1. There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship. 2. The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. 3. Separate utility services are not established (e.g., gas, water, sewer, etc.). 4. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Staff is reviewing the two-family dwelling issue and considering a potential code amendment. If a code amendment was approved, the Next Generation homes would have to meet those standards. There is a variance attached to the application that deals with the length of the cul-de-sac serving this development. This variance will be discussed in detail later in the report. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS A review of aerial photography, national wetlands inventory map, DNR Public Waters Inventory map, soil survey data and other available information does not reveal the presence of any wetlands on the site and makes the likelihood that any exist on the property improbable. In the event that wetland characteristics are observed on the site during field visits during the growing season, steps will need to be taken to assure compliance with the MN Wetland Conservation Act, the Federal Clean Water Act and other applicable federal, state and local regulations. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 6 of 25 STREETS The developer proposes to extend a 1,200-foot long public cul-de-sac from the existing intersection of West 621 Street and Strawberry Lane. Staff supports the variance for the cul-de- sac length due to the safety benefits associated with only accessing from West 62°d Street and since the water main for the majority of the project will be in a looped system. Access to Highway 7 is not proposed for the following reasons: 1. MnDOT classifies Highway 7 as a high -priority regional corridor and will not allow access to Highway 7 if there is an alternative access from a local street, 2. MnDOT is minimizing the number and controlling the spacing of accesses along Highway 7, and City Code requires minimum one -quarter mile (1320-foot) access spacing along Highway 7. The distance between Church Road and Shorewood Oaks drive is only approximately 2100 feet; therefore, an access from the Boulder Cove development to Highway 7 would not meet City requirements. Recent developments within the Highway 7 corridor include Hidden Creek, Hidden Creek Meadows and Boyer Lake Minnewashta Addition, as shown below. Access to Hidden Creek extends from Highway 7 at Pipewood Curve. The old access was removed due to poor sight lines. Ws 1001 Boyer Lake minnemshts ,,- \\` •�'�� ii��l�i��' Alli Now Pipewood Curve access Old Pipewood Jam:: ■, � rffaccess rr. barl a�� Accesses to Hidden Creek Meadows and Boyer Lake Minnewashta were extended from existing local streets adjacent to these developments. In December, 2005 MnDOT determined that the Church Road intersection at Highway 7 did not meet warrants for the installation of a traffic control signal. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 7 of 25 The preliminary plans show a new public street extending from the curve that connects 62na Street to Strawberry Lane. As illustrated on the map below Church Road, 62na Street and Strawberry Lane is a route used by buses and parents to drop off and pick up students from Minnewashta Elementary School. Church Road is a 31-foot wide urban street owned and maintained by the City of Chanhassen. 62na Street is a 22-foot wide rural street. The corporate boundary between Chanhassen and Shorewood bisects 62na Street. Shorewood currently maintains 62na Street. Shorewood's standard street section is 24-feet wide; Chanhassen's is 31 feet. Strawberry Lane is a 22-foot wide rural street owned and maintained by the City of Shorewood. '4 Y ,SOO 3 4 s.,a.� a S ABe.eAY '4 P 4 Ngwti to.� Map courtesy of Microsoft Corpom ion 5�tI r >wM 1NnL N OVk La'N irk Staff met with representatives from the City of Shorewood to discuss the proposed connection to 62na Street/Strawberry Lane with the proposed development and any future upgrades to these streets since improvements to 62na Street would generally be part of a project to improve Strawberry Lane. Shorewood currently has no plans to widen Strawberry Lane or 62na Street but anticipates that work within this corridor will be done in the next five to ten years. Staff from both cities recommends that the 62na Street/Strawberry Lane/Strawberry Court intersection alignment be addressed at this time. Staff discussed revising the plans to construct a `17' intersection at this location to improve the functionality. The developer shall provide an analysis to determine if the `T" intersection would warrant a stop condition. If a stop condition is warranted, traffic counts on 62na Street shall be collected and analyzed to determine the queuing effects at the intersection. Other details such as transitioning from a 31-foot wide street in Chanhassen to a 22-foot wide street in Shorewood shall be addressed with the final plan submittal. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 8 of 25 Four driveway accesses to Highway 7 will be removed with this project: two from the proposed plat, and the driveways for 3520 and 3530 Highway 7 (single-family properties immediately east of the development). The developer proposes to construct a 20-foot wide private street from Strawberry Court to provide access to the homes on 3520 and 3530 Highway 7. The private street shall be a 7-ton design and will be within an existing 30-foot wide easement. The 2006 development proposal was for medium density housing which generates slightly less traffic than a single-family development; however, the total traffic and peak traffic based on the current proposal is within the acceptable ranges for a local street. The following traffic comparison is based on the 6 h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual: Current Proposal: 2006 Proposal: 31 new single-family homes 38 twinhome/townhome/detached and Difference 2 existing single-family 2 existing single-family homes Total Daily 9.57 trips/unit x 33units: 5.86 trips/unit x 38 units: 222.68 trips Trips 315.81 trips 9.57 trips/unit x 2 units: 19.14 trips + 73.99 trips Total: 241.82 trips Peak A.M. Trips 0.75 trips/unit x 33 units: 0.44 trips/unit x 38 units: 16.72 trips 0.75 trips/unit x 2 units: 1.50 trips +6.53 trips 7 a.m. — 9 a.m. 24.75 trips Total: 18.22 trips Peak P.M. Trips 1.01 trips/unit x 33 units: 0.54 trips/unit x 38 units: 20.52 trips 1.01 trips/unit x 2 units: 2.02 trips +10.79 trips 4 p.m. — 6 p.m. 33.33 trips Total: 22.54 trips UTILITIES Sanitary sewer service to the proposed development will be extended from the Metropolitan Council trunk sewer at the intersection of West 62' Street and Strawberry Lane. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and the street must be restored. In these situations the Metropolitan Council installs a temporary meter every few years to determine the average flow and bills the City accordingly. The septic tank and mound system that services 3530 Highway 7 is within the project boundaries. These items must be removed and disposed of at an approved facility in conjunction with the site improvements as proposed. The developer must provide a sanitary sewer service to 3530 Highway 7. The developer shall ensure that sewer service to 3530 Highway 7 is maintained throughout construction, which will involve pumping the septic tank after the septic mound is removed and before a sewer service is installed to serve the property. According to the Building Department the home at 3520 Highway 7 is connected to the City of Shorewood sanitary sewer system. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 9 of 25 Rim and invert elevations of all sanitary and storm sewers must be shown on the final utility plan. Water main for the project will be directionally bored under Highway 7 and will wet tap into the existing 12-inch trunk water main on the south side of Highway 7. A portion of this water main extension lies on 3520 Highway 7; the developer must acquire the necessary easement prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. Water main will extend between Lot 5, Block 1 and the tot lot to the existing water main in the southwest comer of 3751 62nd Street. The water main alignment shown on the utility plan is not within the existing easement; therefore, the developer must acquire the easement necessary to install this water main prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. A water main interconnect will be required to the Shorewood water main at 62°d Street and Strawberry Lane. This connection is mutually beneficial to both Chanhassen and Shorewood by maintaining reasonable water pressure during system disruptions. Eight -inch water main will be installed within the proposed street. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 10 of 25 The proposed water main looping is critical since the existing service area north of Highway 7 is currently served by only one water main crossing under Highway 7. Looping the water main will minimize service disruptions should a water main break occur north of Highway 7. The developer proposes to extend 6-inch water main to the east to provide service to 3520 and 3030 Highway 7. The developer must acquire the necessary easements to complete this work. All existing and proposed off -site drainage and utility easements must be referenced accordingly. Existing off -site easements must be referenced by document number or the plat in which they were dedicated. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial.security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. STORMWATER UTILITY The Surface Water Utility Charges are calculated based upon land use type and land area. Credits may be applied based upon stormwater practices being implemented. The following table illustrates the stormwater utility charges associated with the development of this parcel. Area Rate Total Water Quality 12.18 ac $2,830/ac $34,469.40 Water Quantity 12.18 ac $5,590/ac $68,086.20 Treatment BMP Credit 13.01 ac $2,830 0.5 /ac $18,409.15 $84146A5 GRADING, SURFACE DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY PRACTICES The graphics below illustrate the existing and proposed drainage areas within the Boulder Cove property. Yellow indicates the area draining to the north, pink indicates the area draining to the south, green indicates the area draining to the west, and blue indicates the area draining to the pond (proposed condition only). Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 11 of 25 N EXISTING DRAINAGE MAP Residents to the north and west of the proposed development have indicated that there are drainage problems within their neighborhoods. The table below summarizes the existing and proposed surface runoff conditions, which indicate that the area draining off site, the volume of runoff and the peak discharge rate will decrease under the post -development condition. Area draining to the north Existing Condition E5 & E6 Proposed Condition 1 Drainage area 3.91 acres 1.54 acres Drainage volume 100- 1.252 acre-feet 0.539 acre-feet Peak (100- ) discharge 9.81 cfs 8.25 cfs e west Draina a area Existing Con ' 20.970 acres sed Co 7723.20 acres Drainage volume 100- 4.570 acre-feet 6.331 acre-feet Peak 100- discharge 23.65 cfs 21.41 cfs Because this will result in greater than one acre of new impervious, it must meet the requirements set forth in the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Program (NPDES Construction Permit). In addition to erosion prevention and sediment control practices, this includes permanent stormwater management as discussed in Part IILD of the permit. This section of the permit requires that the first inch of runoff from impervious surfaces is retained on site. If infiltration is prohibited (see Part III.D.l.j), other methods of volume reduction should be evaluated. In either case, that water quality volume must be treated. The applicant is proposing a filtration feature and a wet sedimentation pond and is seeking credit for abstraction from the canopies of the newly planted trees. The preservation of existing tree canopy and the establishment of new overstory trees is an,accepted practice under the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District rules and the Minimal Impact Design standards. The applicant has indicated that over one acre of tree canopy will be preserved on the site. Staff is having trouble discerning where this amount of tree preservation is occurring. They must provide an exhibit showing where these protected canopy areas are. This shall be the grading limits overlaid on a current aerial photograph with leaf out conditions or a similar exhibit agreed to by the city. Only the preservation of tree canopy within the boundaries of Boulder Cove shall be counted towards Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 12 of 25 this credit. The hydrology report indicates that 124 trees will be planted. Of these, 31 are ornamental trees which are not considered overstory trees and shall not be counted towards the abstraction volume. The applicant will need to calculate the resulting abstraction due to tree establishment without the ornamental trees. The applicant is providing rate control, volume reduction and water quality improvements through the installation of a filtration basin and a wet detention pond. Infiltration is infeasible due to the poorly drained clay soils and the shallow water table on the site. Minnehaha Creek has established criteria for the use of filtration and tree preservation as a volume reduction practice. The proposed grading and hydraulics of the filtration basin will result in a significant portion of the basin in the backyards of six lots. This will necessitate frequent inundation of the yards. The filtration feature should be moved northerly to the greatest extent practicable to contain the bounce within the outlot. This filtration feature shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. The city will maintain the outlet structure and reinforced concrete pipe between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3, but the filtration feature and the plantings shall be the responsibility of the HOA or the developer. An operations and maintenance manual shall be drafted and provided to the City for review and comment prior to issuing any building permits for Lots 1-10 of Block 3. A detailed planting plan and schedule shall also be developed for this feature and included as part of the landscaping plan. This planting should include shrubs or some other effective screen to assure that yards do not encroach into the filtration feature thereby rendering it ineffective as a water quality BMP. For every outfall into a pond, additional maintenance is required. It has always been the practice of the city to minimize the number of outfalls into a pond to the greatest extent practicable. To this end, the applicant and their engineer shall evaluate moving the water main to the southerly side of the tot lot and bringing the storm sewer along the northern side of the tot lot and connecting to the line running through the backyards of Block 1. If this is not possible, documentation will need to be provided clearly demonstrating why it is not possible. Long -tern pond maintenance is becoming a larger portion of the city's maintenance budget. It is far more cost effective to proactively reduce sediment delivery to the ponds than it is to dredge the ponds out as needed. Given the confined space on the site, an additional forebay is not an option. The design shall include the installation of environmental manholes or 4-foot or deeper sump manholes with a SAFL baffle at CBMH1 and CBMH3. A catch basin must be installed in the rear yard between Lots 7 and 8, Block 2. Staffs experience is that overland drainage in excess of 300 feet produces drainage issues on the downstream properties. The grading plan must be revised as follows: 1. The grading along the north side of Lot 1, Block 3 must be adjusted so that drainage will not flow to the side of the home. 2. The filtration basin shall be shifted to the north so that the high water elevation will lie entirely within Outlot C. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 13 of 25 3. The high water elevation of the pond must be lower than the bottom of the proposed boulder retaining wall. 4. The high water elevation must lie within Outlot A. Currently a portion of the high water is proposed to lie within Lot 4, Block 2. 5. The line types on the current plan are difficult to discern in the back of Lots 12-14, Block 3 and the retaining wall along the north side of the berm within Outlot A. Revise accordingly or provide a larger scale of these areas for review. The developer must obtain a permit from MnDOT for the proposed grading and drainage discharge into the Highway 7 right-of-way. The plans must show the existing drainage and utility easement that will encompass the east -west portion of the proposed six-inch drain tile as it daylights to the Highway 7 ditch. The swale behind lots 4 through 10 of Block 2 shall have a drain tile installed as part of the site grading and utility installation. The plat must be revised to include rear drainage and utility easements that are at least 10 feet wide. EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Because this will result in greater than one acre of new impervious, it must meet the requirements set forth in the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Program (NPDES Construction Permit). As part of the NPDES the applicant must develop or cause to be developed a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with all of the elements required under Part III of the permit. Section 18-40 of Chanhassen city code requires that the SWPPP be provided with the preliminary plat submittal. The applicant must submit an amended SWPPP with the required elements to the city prior to final plat approval. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the deficient SWPPP items. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has available on their website a SWPPP Checklist that the applicant can reference. Items of note missing from the SWPPP include a narrative discussing, among other things, training requirements, chain of responsibility, discussion of Lake Virginia as an impaired water, and long-term operations and maintenance of the stormwater best management practices. Additional discussion of stormwater management practices also need to be included in the SWPPP, particularly as in relates to the use of filtration as a stormwater BMP. Many of the other required elements have been provided but are located throughout the plan set or in other documents entirely. The SWPPP should be a single standalone document that assembles the required information in one document for ease of review, inspection, maintenance and assurance of compliance. GROUNDWATER Soil boring information has been submitted and indicates that groundwater elevations fluctuate from approximately 962' within the tot lot to approximately 973.5' on Lot 11 of Block 2. The lowest floor elevations of the proposed buildings are at least three feet above the groundwater elevation. However, this boring information is from December of 2005 and likely does not Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 14 of 25 reflect the static water level. The soil layers within which the groundwater was encountered range in elevation from 966.7 to 974.4. In some cases, this makes the separation between the highest known groundwater elevation and the low floor elevation as little as two (2) feet as is the casein Block 1. There is a stormwater pond located in the southwest corner of the property. A review of the Geotechnical Report dated January 20, 2006 indicates that the water level in boring #3 on December 27, 2005 was about 969.5 feet or about one foot higher than the normal water level (NWL) of the pond. Since wet detention ponds rely on a continuous dead pool storage volume, groundwater to the NWL is not necessarily a problem. However, if you consider the time of year and the continuity within the soil layer in which the water was encountered, it is quite likely that the groundwater level seasonally bounces to as high as 972.1 feet or a full foot above the 100- year return interval storm event high water level (HWL). The pond will not function under these conditions and the separation between the groundwater and the low floor elevation is only two (2) feet. The pond will need to be redesigned such that the NWL is at a 972. The low floor elevation must be 18 inches over the emergency overflow (EOF). In a conversation with Braun Intertec, they indicated that they had additional peisometer readings and would issue an addendum to their 2006 report. If they are able to provide assurances that the 2005 readings are not indicative of the field conditions and that groundwater intrusion will not occur at an elevation above the NWL of the pond, they will not need to redesign the pond. Because of the shallow water table and the backyard drainage, all recommendations of the March 3, 2014 Braun report shall be incorporated into the site grading and all construction measures for the site. This is of particular importance for the houses in Block 1 and Lots 1-5 of Block 2 to prevent groundwater intrusion into the basements. Further, sump pump discharge shall be directed to drain tiles or directly to the ponding areas. In 2006 Barr Engineering completed an analysis and determined that the proposed high water elevation would not significantly increase the groundwater elevation near the existing homes west of the site. The developer will install a French drain system on the west side of the pond to lower the groundwater elevation to approximately 966', which would provide a three-foot separation between the groundwater elevation and the lowest floor elevations of the adjacent homes. This French drain system will be a significant benefit from the existing condition and will allow for the properties to the west of the project to connect sump pumps to the French drain system. According to a resident a field drain tile was installed on the west side of the development many years ago. If any drain file is encountered during construction the developer's contractor must contact the city to determine if the file is to be removed or connected to the development's infrastructure. RETAINING WALLS The developer proposes to install a 590-foot long boulder wall along the north side of the berm in Outlot A. The maximum height of the wall is three feet. The developer must sign an encroachment agreement to allow for the boulder wall within the drainage and utility easement over Outlot A. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 15 of 25 A 110-foot long retaining wall is also proposed on the east side of Lot 15, Block 3. The plans do not note the maximum height of this wall and the existing grades on the property to the east are not clearly shown on the grading plan. Once the revised grading plan is received staff will work with the developer to see if this retaining wall can be eliminated from the plan, or reduced in length and/or height. MISCELLANEOUS A high-tension power line exists along Highway 7. Any work or landscaping must be approved by Xcel Energy. PARK DEDICATION Parks This property is located within the neighborhood park service area for Cathcart Park. Future residents of Boulder Cove will have convenient access to the park from West 62"1 Street. Cathcart Neighborhood Park is unique in that the park is owned and operated by the City of Shorewood, but is located in the City of Chanhassen. The two cities operate the park with an agreement that Shorewood provides for all capital improvements and daily operations and Chanhassen mows the lawn and trims the trees and bushes. Cathcart Park is 4.75 acres in size and features a playground, basketball court, hockey rink with shelter, tennis court, and a ball field. Ample off-street parking is available at the park. The amenities at the park have been updated within the past 10 years. No additional parkland acquisition is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. Trails The subject site does not have direct access to a trail; however, convenient access to the Southwest LRT Trail is available from West 62nd Street. The Southwest LRT Trail is situated within a corridor owned by the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA). Three Rivers Park District manages the corridor as a multi -use trail through an agreement with HCRRA. This particular section of the trail travels west to the City of Victoria and east to Minneapolis. Access to this trail is a very desirable recreational amenity and will be widely utilized by the future residents of Boulder Cove. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The applicant for the Boulder Cove development has submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. They are as follows: Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 16 of 25 Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 13.38 ac. or 582,832 SF 50% or 293,021 SF 35% or 203,"1 SF 9% or 53,713 SF The applicant does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore, the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage 150,818 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 180,981 SF Total number of trees to be planted 166 trees The total number of trees required for the development is 166. The applicant has proposed a total of 138 trees and does not meet minimum requirements. Staff recommends that the applicant increase the number of trees planted in order to meet the minimum quantity required. Bufferyard requirements are as shown in the table: Landscaping Item Required Proposed Bufferyard B — South property line, Hwy 7 9 overstory trees* 9 overstory trees* 920', 25' width 18 understory trees 54 understory trees *Overhead power lines present — only 36 shrubs 0 shrubs ornamentals allowed within 25' of line Applicant meets total minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings. In regards to the bufferyard plantings, there are overhead power lines along Highway 7. Staff recommends that Xcel Energy planting guidelines be followed and only ornamentals be allowed to be planted in the bufferyard within the utility easement. Planting the appropriate trees will avoid `tree -topping', a labor-intensive, detrimental practice, and assist in creating a safer clear zone around the power lines. The overstory trees that are required in the south bufferyard shall be designated as understory trees and added to the overall total for that item. City ordinance also states that no more than one-third of the trees in the landscape plan may be from any one tree species. In this plan, Black Hills spruce comprise one-third of the total trees planned. Staff recommends that additional species be planted to reduce the overall percentage attributed to this species. The additional species shall not include any species of maple. This genus is also overplanted in this development. Relying too heavily on just one type of tree creates a monoculture situation where pest or disease problems can cause a significant impact. City ordinance states that evergreens must average seven feet when planted. All evergreens specified for planting in this development are called out at a height of six feet. Staff recommends that the minimum average height be met. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 17 of 25 The tree inventory submitted by the applicant was completed in 2005. Now, nine years later, there are additional trees that would meet the criteria to be inventoried. There would also be some trees whose conditions have changed, and possibly some that no longer exist. It is challenging to get a proper perspective of the site with outdated information. Since the applicant is clearing all but 9% of the trees on site, there are few opportunities to preserve trees and therefore the lack of up-to-date data can be compensated for by the fact that few individual trees are able to be preserved. An additional challenge with the tree inventory plan submitted by the applicant are the several discrepancies shown on the plan sheet. First, there are trees shown to be removed by the applicant as part of the subdivision that are not on the applicant's property. Any tree removal outside the parameters of the subject property shall require approval of the property owner. Second, there are a handful of trees whose designation as saved or removed needs to be clarified. • Tree #38, sugar maple: shown on the plan as saved, shown in the inventory as removed. The applicant shall resolve the discrepancy. • Tree #72, spruce: shown on plan and inventory as saved. Tree is noted to be in poor condition. Tree shall be noted as REMOVE. • Tree #96, red oak: shown on plan at the very edge of the grading limits. Tree appears to be in a position for a possible save. It is in fair condition. Staff recommends that applicant work with staff to preserve tree if appropriate. • Tree #205, #206, ash: shown on plans as saved. These trees are within the grading limits and have proposed grading shown on top of their locations. Trees shall be noted as REMOVE. The applicant is proposing to preserve a 50-inch diameter bur oak (tree #71) that is in good condition. This tree is well worth the applicant's effort and will be a signature tree. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to install tree protection fencing at the edge of the drip line of the tree and inside the fencing spread a 3 to 4-inch layer of woodchips to protect the root zone. These protections shall remain in effect until construction is completed. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE — RLM DISTRICT Buildable Lot Width at Home Block Lot Area (SF) Area Front Setback Lot Depth Setback Line Front/Rear/ 9,000 RLM 35% RLM 50' RLM 110' RLM Garage Side/ House Side 1 1 13,835 4,842 86 194 25/25/5/10 1 1 2 12,395 4,338 65 190 25/25/5/10 1 3 1 12,232 4,281 65 188 25/25/5/10 1 4 12,069 4,224 65 185 25/25/5/10 1 5 15,208 5,323 67 184 25/25/5/10 2 1 10,374 3,631 65 135 25/25/5/10 2 2 10,665 3,733 57 130 25/25/5/10 Planning Commission Boulder Cove - Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 18 of 25 Block Lot Area (SF) Buildable Area Lot Width at Front Setback Line Lot Depth Home Setback 9,000 RLM 35% RLM 50' RLM 110' RLM Front(Rear/ Garage Side/ House Side 2 3 10,682 3,739 54 134 25/25/5/10 2 4 9,792 3,427 63 143 25/25/5/10 2 5 10,030 3,511 65 154 25/25/5/10 2 6 10,799 3,780 65 166 25/25/5/10 2 7 11,289 3,951 65 174 25/25/5/10 2 8 11,635 4,072 68 178 25/25/5/10 2 9 12,510 4,378 77 174 25/25/5/10 2 10 10,441 3,654 70 158 25/25/5/10 2 11 11,066 3,873 104 116 25/25/5/10 Corner Lot 3 1 10,707 3,747 91 152 25/25/5/10 3 2 10,286 3,600 65 158 25/25/5/10 3 3 10,401 3,640 65 170 25/25/5/10 3 4 9,553 3,343 76 125 25/25/5/10 3 5 11,168 3,908 102 115 25/25/5/10 Comer lot 3 6 10,238 3,583 66 170 25/25/5/10 3 7 10,303 3,606 65 159 25/25/5/10 3 8 10,120 3,542 65 155 25/25/5/10 3 9 10,096 3,533 63 143 25/25/5/10 3 10 10,262 3,592 60 144 25/25/5/10 3 11 10,240 3,584 65 136 25/25/5/10 3 12 10,105 3,536 61 145 25/25/5/10 3 13 9,801 3,430 61 141 25/25/5/10 3 14 9,653 3,378 64 146 25/25/5/10 3 15 10,225 3,579 66 152 25/25/5/10 Outlot A 86,684 Outlot B 14,723 Outlot C 37,807 ROW 105,415 SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RLM District and the zoning ordinance if the length of cul-de-sac variance is approved. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 19 of 25 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site is guided for a density ranging between 1.2 — 4 units per acre. The subject site is proposed to have a gross density of 2.32 and a net density of 3.99 units per acre. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause excessive environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate stormwatcr drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. VARIANCE The variance deals with the length of the cul-de-sac. Section 18-57 (k) of the City Code requires the length of a street terminating in a cul-de-sac not to exceed 800 feet. The length of the Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 20 of 25 proposed Strawberry Court is approximately 1,200 feet. Staff supports this variance due to the following: 1. MnDOT classifies Highway 7 as a high -priority regional corridor and will not allow access to Highway 7 if there is an alternative access from a local street, 2. MnDOT is minimizing the number and controlling the spacing of accesses along Highway 7, and 3. City Code requires minimum one -quarter mile (1320-foot) access spacing along Highway 7. The distance between Church Road and Shorewood Oaks drive is only approximately 2,100 feet; therefore, an access from the Boulder Cove development to Highway 7 would not meet city requirements. Providing future access to the two existing single-family homes located east of the subject site is adding to the length of the cul-de-sac. In addition, there is no other alternative to provide access to these properties since the surrounding area is developed. VARIANCE FINDINGS Sec.18-22. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: VARIANCE FINDINGS WITHIN SUBDIVISONS The city may grant a variance from the regulations of the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed cul-de-sac length promotes public safety. 2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; Finding: The hardship is due to the removal of access to Highway 7. 3) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique to this site and not generally applicable to other properties due to its location next to Highway 7 and the fact that all properties north of the subject site are developed making a second access unfeasible. 4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 21 of 25 Finding: The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and comprehensive plan. The applicant is providing local access to properties that currently access via Highway 7. The applicant's request is reasonable. Staff is recommending approval of this request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #2014-09 for Boulder Cove for 31 lots and 3 outlots with a Variance to allow a 1,200-foot long cul-de-sac as shown on the plans received March 4, 2014 subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact: 1. Park and Recreation Conditions: a. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Boulder Cove. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current proposed lot count of 31 homes and the city's 2014 single-family park fee of $5,800 per unit, the total park fees for Boulder Cove would be $179,800. 2. Environmental Resources Conditions: a. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the drip line for tree #71. A layer of woodchips shall be installed over the root zone to a depth of 3-4 inches. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. b. No trees shall be planted within the public right-of-way. Front yard trees shall be located inside the setback area. c. Additional tree species shall be added to the plant schedule in order to reduce the percentage attributed to spruce so that no more than one-third of the trees are from any one species. Additional trees may not be from the maple family and must be overstory species. Minimum total number of trees to be planted is 166. d. There are overhead power lines along Highway 7. Only ornamental trees shall be allowed to be planted in the bufferyard between the property line and the proposed fence. e. Evergreens shall average seven feet in height when planted. £ Any tree removal outside the parameters of the subject property shall require approval of the property owner where the tree is located. g. Applicant shall correct the tree inventory for the following trees: Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 22 of 25 • Tree #38, sugar maple: shown on the plan as saved, shown in the inventory as removed. The applicant shall resolve the discrepancy. • Tree #72, spruce: shown on plan and inventory as saved. Tree is noted to be in poor condition. Tree shall be noted as REMOVE. • Tree #96, red oak: shown on plan at the very edge of the grading limits. Tree appears to be in a position for a possible save. It is in fair condition. Staff recommends that applicant work with staff to preserve tree if appropriate. • Tree #205, #206, ash: shown on plans as saved. These trees are within the grading limits and have proposed grading shown on top of their locations. Trees shall be noted as REMOVE. 3. Building Department conditions: a. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height. c. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. d. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. e. Proper removal, abandonment or sealing of storage tanks, on -site septic systems, wells, etc. required. Permits required, as applicable. f. If applicable, existing home(s) affected by new street will require address changes. 4. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Three feet of clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. b. Fire hydrants must be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed prior to and during construction. d. Fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. e. No burning permits will be issued for the removal of brush, trees. 5. Planning Department Conditions: a. The "Next Generation" homes are not permitted under the current city ordinances. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 23 of 25 b. A high-tension power line exists along Highway 7. Any work or landscaping must be approved by Xcel Energy. 6. Engineering Department Conditions: a. The developer must work with the City of Chanhassen and the City of Shorewood to revise the plans to incorporate a "I" intersection at 62"d Street, Strawberry Lane, and Strawberry Court. b. The developer shall provide an analysis to determine if the " T" intersection would warrant a stop condition. c. If a stop condition is warranted, the developer shall have a traffic engineer collect and analyze traffic counts on 62nd Street to determine the queuing effects at the intersection. d. Other details such as transitioning from a 31-foot wide street in Chanhassen to a 22-foot wide street in Shorewood shall be addressed with the final plan submittal. e. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and the street must be restored. f. The septic tank and mound system that services 3530 Highway 7 is within the project boundaries. These items must be removed and disposed of at an approved facility in conjunction with the site improvements as proposed. g. Based on the proposed preliminary plan the developer must provide a sanitary sewer service to 3530 Highway 7. The developer shall ensure that sewer service to 3530 Highway 7 is maintained throughout construction, which will involve pumping the septic tank after the septic mound is removed and before a sewer service is installed to serve the property. h. Water main for the project will be directionally bored under Highway 7 and will wet tap into the existing 12-inch trunk water main on the south side of Highway 7. A portion of this water main extension lies on 3520 Highway 7; the developer must acquire the necessary easement prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. i. Water main will extend between Lot 5, Block 1 and the tot lot to the existing water main in the southwest comer of 3751 62nd Street. The water main alignment shown on the utility plan is not within the existing easement; therefore, the developer must acquire the easement necessary to install this water main prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. j. A water main interconnect will be required to the Shorewood water main at 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 24 of 25 k. The developer proposes to extend 6-inch water main to the east to provide service to 3520 and 3030 Highway 7. The developer must acquire the necessary easements to complete this work. 1. All existing and proposed off -site drainage and utility easements must be referenced accordingly. m. Existing off -site easements must be referenced by document number or the plat in which they were dedicated. n. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. 7. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Show the extent of the shoreland overlay district for Lake Minnewashta on the plan set before final plat approval. b. The applicant must demonstrate the extent of tree preservation for stormwater volume reduction credit by overlaying grading limits on a current aerial photograph before final plat approval. c. The applicant must recalculate the volume reduction credit from new tree plantings without the use of ornamental trees before final plat approval. The current best information is that elevation is at least 969.5 to approximately 972. d. The filtration feature shall be moved so that the bounce within the basin remains entirely within the outlot before final plat approval. e. A homeowners association shall be created and shall be responsible for the maintenance of the filtration feature. The outlet pipe shall be the responsibility of the city. f. An operations and maintenance manual shall be developed for the filtration feature indicating how the HOA will maintain the feature and assure its proper function. g. The landscape plan shall be updated to include the planting schedule for the infiltration basin and the outlots and to provide shrubs or other buffering measures between the rear yard lines and the filtration feature before final plat approval. h. The pond in Outlot A shall be redesigned such that the likely seasonally high water table is at or below the modeled normal water level. i. Additional hydrogeological data provided and attested to by a licensed professional in hydrogeology or similar may be used to show that the above condition is met. Planning Commission Boulder Cove — Planning Case No. 2014-09 April 1, 2014 Page 25 of 25 j. All recommendations relating to subgrade improvements, preparations and drainage as well as dewatering and drainage control from the March 3, 2014 Braun report shall be implemented. k. The swale behind lots 4 through 10 of Block 2 shall have a drain tile installed as part of the site grading and utility installation. This shall be included before final plat approval 1. Environmental manholes or 4-foot sump manholes with SAFL baffles shall be installed at CBMHI and CBMH3. m. A concerted effort shall be made to combine the outfall into the Pond in Outlot A such that there is only one outfall. If it is not feasible from an engineering standpoint, then documentation supporting this assertion shall be provided to city staff prior to final plat approval. n. A comprehensive, standalone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of the NPDES construction permit shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment before final plat approval. o. Surface Water Management connection charges are estimated to be $84,146.45. This connection charge will be due at the time of final plat. p. In the event that wetland characteristics are observed on the site during field visits during the growing season, steps will need to be taken to assure compliance with the MN Wetland Conservation Act, the Federal Clean Water Act and other applicable federal, state and local regulations. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Application. 3. Affidavit of Mailing and Public Hearing Notice. 4. Preliminary plat dated received March 4, 2014. 5. Home footprint designs. 6. Letter from City of Shorewood dated March 11, 2014. 7. Email from Mark Diede dated March 27, 2014. 8. Email from Patrick Johnson dated March 28, 2014. 9. Letter from MnDOT dated March 6, 2014.p g:Nplm\2014 planning cass\2014-09 boulder cove\s[aff report pc.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Lennar Corporation — Planning Case No. 2014-09, Boulder Cove Development Request for Preliminary Plat creating 31 lots, 3 outlots and right-of-way for public street (13.38 acres); and a Variance to allow a 1,200 foot -long cul-de-sac on property zoned to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District located north of Highway 7, East of Church Road and South of West 62°a Street. On April 1, 2014, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Lennar Corporation for a single-family residential development. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density 3. The legal description of the property is described on the attached Exhibit A. 4. Subdivision Findings: SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RLM District and the zoning ordinance if the length of cul-de-sac variance is approved. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site is guided for a density ranging between 1.2 — 4 units per acre. The subject site is proposed to have a gross density of 2.32 and a net density of 3.99 units per acre. 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. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. VARIANCE FINDINGS Sec.18-22. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: VARIANCE FINDINGS WITHIN SUBDIVISONS The city may grant a variance from the regulations of the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed cul-de-sac length promotes public safety. 2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; Finding: The hardship is due to the removal of access to Highway 7. 3) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique to this site and not generally applicable to other properties due to its location next to Highway 7 and the fact that all properties north of the subject site are developed making a second access unfeasible. 4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and comprehensive plan. The applicant is providing local access to properties that currently access via Highway 7. 5. The planning report #2014-09 dated April 1, 2014, prepared by Sharmeen AI-Jaff et.al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed development including a Preliminary Plat creating 31 lots, 3 outlots and right-of-way for public streets (13.38 acres); and Variance to allow a 1,200 foot -long cul-de-sac on property zoned RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1 ' day of April, 2014. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION L" Its Chairman Exhibit A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION That part of the following described parcel lying Easterly of R.L.S. No. 15, according to the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. All that part of Section 5, Township 116 North, Range 23 West described as follows, to wit; Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West; thence Easterly olong the North line of said Section 5, Township 116, Range 23. a distance of 478.50 feet; thence South 585.20 feet; thence South 62 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 687.50 feet; thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West 196.60 feet; thence South 73 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds West 198.50 feet; thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds West 795.80 feet to the North line of said Section 5; thence Easterly along said North line of said Section 5, o distance of 598.20 feet to point of beginning, the East line of said property above described runs in a North and South direction. AND That port of the following described parcel lying Westerly of Line A: All that part of Section 5, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, described as follows: Beginning at a judicial landmark on the North line of said Section 5, a distance of 478.50 feet East of the South Quarter Corner of Section 32, Township 117 North of Range 23 West; thence East along the North line of said Section 5 to the Northwesterly line of the right—of—way of State Trunk Highway No. 7 which right— of—way is set forth and described in Case No. 9902 on file in the office of the Clerk of District Court, Carver County, Minnesota; thence Southwesterly along said right—of—way to its intersection with a line drawn through the point of beginning and forming on interior angle of 90 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds with the North line of said Section 5; thence North to beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Carver County, Minnesota. Line A is described as follows Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32. Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 17 minutes 04 seconds East, along the south line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 885.18 feet to the point of beginning of sold Line A; thence South 05 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 154.44 feet; thence 165.71 feet Southerly on a non —tangential curve, concave Westerly, having a central angle of 158 degrees 14 minutes 39 seconds a radius of 60.00 feet, a chord bearing of South 03 degrees 48 minutes 07 seconds West and a chord distance of 117.84 feet; thence South 30 degrees 22 minutes 28 seconds East to the Northwesterly right—of—way line of State Trunk Highway No. 7 and said Line A there terminating. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CHMNSEN Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Date Filed.,'J-14-1`i- 60-Day Review Deadline: �—I �—I� Planner: Case#,-;t&l4-09 Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ......................... $600 ❑ Subdivision ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on -site sewers ..... $100 ❑ ❑ Create 3 lots or less ....................................... Create over 3 lots ........... $300 io5.$600 + $15 per lot ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Metes & Bounds .........................$300 + $50 per lot ❑ Single -Family Residence ................................ $325 ❑ Consolidate Lots .............................................. $150 ❑ All Others......................................................... $425 ❑ Lot Line Adjustment......................................... $150 ❑ Final Plat* ...................................... .................. $250 El Interim Use Permit 'Requires additional $450 escrow for attorney costs. ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence.. $325 Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. ❑ All Others......................................................... $425 ❑ Grading >: 1,000 cubic yards ........................... UBC ❑ Rezoning ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD)..................$750 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100 ❑ All Others......................................................... $500 ❑ Sign Plan Review ................................................... $150 ❑ Site Plan Review ❑ Administrative..................................................$100 ❑ CommerciaUlndustrial Districts*......................$500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area Include number of existing employees: and number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts ......................................... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit ADDITIONAL REQUIRED FEES: ❑✓ Notification Sign ................................................... $200 (City to install and remove) x-IS = atq ❑� Property Owners' List within 500......... $3 per address (City to generate — fee determined at pre -application meeting) ❑ Escrow for Recording Documents.. $50 per document (CUPISPRNACNARN/AP/Metes & Bounds Subdivision) ❑ Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way................... $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) ❑ Variance............................................................... $200 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Single -Family Residence ............................... $150 ❑ All Others ....................................................... $275 ❑ Zoning Appeal ...................................................... $100 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment ............................ $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) TOTAL FEES: $ 1 Jaa� Received from: Date Received: Check Number: I Section 2: Required Information Project Name: Boulder Cove Property Address or Location: 3670 HWY 7 Parcel #: 250050600 & 250050510 Legal Description: Please see on preliminary plat Total Acreage: 13.38 Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes ® No Present Zoning: RLM- Residential Low & Medium Density Requested Zoning: RLM - Residential Low & Medium Density Present Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Requested Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Existing Use of Property: t;urrentiy vacant land Description of Proposal: Please see Community Narrative 0 Check box if separate narrative is attached Kai 3CANNED PropertySection 3: .. APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Lennar Corporation Contact: Joe Jablonski or Paul Tabone Address: 16305 36th Avenue No. Suite 600 Phone: (952) 249-3000 City/State2ip: Plymouth, MN 55446 Cell: Email: joe.jablonski@lennar.com; paul.labone@lennar.com Fax: Signature: Date: 2/14/14 PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, 1, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Premier Bank Contact Andrew Nath Address: 2866 White Bear Ave N Phone: (651) 855-1114 City/State/Zip: St Paul, MN 55109 Cell: Email: anath@premierbanks.com , Fax: Signature: Date: 2114114 This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Otto Associates Contact: Cara Otto Address: 9 West Division Street Phone: (763) 452-7291 City/State2ip: Buffalo, MN Cell: Email: Cara@ottoassociates.com Fax: (763) 682-3522 Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? 'Other Contact Information: R1 Property Owner Via: Q Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name: ❑� Applicant Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address: ❑ Engineer Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: ❑ Other' Via: 0 Email 0 Mailed Paper Copy Email: CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on March 20, 2014, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Boulder Cove — Planning Case 2014-09 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and swom to before me this6_0µ`day of Muf ch 12014. ' =E, KIM T. MEUWISSEN f Notary Public -Minnesota ..... 1i11' Expkea Jan 31, 2p1b Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: ' Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. BOULDER COVE: Request for preliminary plat review for a 31- Proposal: lot single-family subdivision with variances on 13.39 acres of property zoned Residential Low & Medium Density RLM Applicant/ Lennar Corporation/Premier Bank Owner: Property 3670 Highway 7 Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens W 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-09. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff Questions & by email at saliafftccDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952- Comments: 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions. Msnned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Altemtiorm, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of Me subject site to be notified of the application In writing. My Interested party Is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on Me subject application Mat includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Manning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a pad 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 pertly the Manning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of Me City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercisllndustrlel. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard, Some applicators 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 elm available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Manning Commission holds Me public hearing, g, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding Me application will be induced in the report to the Clty Council. ff you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later In the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. BOULDER COVE: Request for preliminary plat review for a 31- Proposal: lot single-family subdivision with variances on 13.39 acres of property zoned Residential Low & Medium Density RLM Applicant/ Owner: Lerner Corporation/PremierBank Property 3670 Highway 7 Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-09. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff Questions & by email at saliaffCcDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952- 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Ravlaw Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Revews. Conditional and Interim Uses, W etand Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before Me 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 Invted to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on to 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 dose the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, of6en or modify wholly or party 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 residental to commercialAndustrial. • 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 spokespersonhepresentetive is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meal with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any inlerri 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 Gty Council. If you wish to have something to be included In the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. CHRISTOPHER M STEINKRAUS CITY OF SHOREWOOD COTTAGE HOMESTEADS AT 3520 MAPLEWOOD CIR 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD BOULDER EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8886 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8927 5001 AMERICAN BLVD W STE 501 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437-1116 CRAIG ALAN KOUBA DONALD J & WENDIE A SEAMANS DOUBLE JK FARMS LLC 3520 HIGHWAY 7 6301 CHURCH RD 2719 W 43RD ST #A EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8872 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8838 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55410-1665 GERRETT M TVINNEREIM JULIE A HIRSCH KENNETH C DURR 3530 MAPLEWOOD CIR 6321 CHURCH RD 4830 WESTGATE RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8886 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8838 HOPKINS, MN 55345-3931 MARVIN G & PATRICIA S ONKEN MICHAEL L & CARRIE L MILLER MICHAEL W & KEISA M TRUAX 6221 GREENBRIAR AVE 6311 CHURCH RD 3217 LARCHMORE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8861 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8838 WAYZATA, MN 55391-2827 PHILIP B WARTMAN JR PREMIER BANK SCOTT WANZEK 3531 MAPLEWOOD CIR 2866 WHITE BEAR AVE N 3502 MAPLEWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8886 SAINT PAUL, MN 55109-1384 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8886 SEAN G MATCHAN SHAWN D HEITZ STEINKRAUS CHURCH RD 6241 CHURCH RD 3510 MAPLEWOOD CIR STORAGE #10EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8836 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8886 112 5TH STE CHASKA, MN 5531 55318-2277 STEVEN CARROLL THOMAS & ROSE RUHLAND VERLAN J WISSINK 6236 FIR TREE AVE 6211 GREENBRIAR AVE 6401 LANDINGS CT EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8855 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8861 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9713 WADE A NAVRATIL AARON J & KAREN G BURMEISTER AMY K HAAS 3751 62ND ST W 26155 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR 26085 OAK LEAF TR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-6401 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ANDREW T THILL & AMY J THILL BLAKE J THORSON BRIAN & LAUREN THOLEN 6185 CHURCH RD 26205 OAK LEAF TR 26175 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 BRUCE R PALM CHRISTOPHER & JENNIFER GOETZ D SCOTT & L S BECKER 26170 OAK LEAF TR 26215 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR 6165 STRAWBERRY LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL D TORGERSON DAVID L & SHEILA M HALBMAIER DOROTHY & THOMAS CROSKEY 6185 STRAWBERRY LA 26395 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR 26265 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EDWARD J CAMERON 26580 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 HEIDI M SNEDE 26105 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JEFFREY Q & PATRICIA B TUMA 26345 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JOHN & BRENDA HUGO 5509 DUNDEE RD EDINA MN 55436 JUDITH JILL OELHAFEN 26130 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 KEVIN T & KATIE WELSH 26225 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MARCUS & KRISTIN HOFFMANN 6195 STRAWBERRY LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MARTIN HEILAND & RENEE RUBLE 26510 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 GEORGE M & EILEEN W KOEHNEN 26505 MAPLE AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES J & JULIA R GAGNON 26125 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JEFFREY T TUTTLE 26245 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JOHN P KLICK 3703 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 JUSTIN L BLUM/JESSICA M BLUM 6155 CHURCH RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 LAURIE J SACCHET 6175 STRAWBERRY LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MARK H MORFORD 6150 CHURCH RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MICHAEL H & MARY K BARGA 26305 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 GREGORY C & ARINA PAOLI 26325 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JAMES V & VALERIE D SCATENA 26285 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JEREMY NAATAN WOLFSON 6175 CHURCH RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 JORGE E & WENDY L CRESPO 26090 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 KEVIN SYMMS RACHELTURNBULL 26150 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 LEAH M & JASSEN M SCHNEIDER 26420 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MARK PLEWKA 26540 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 NATHAN ELLIS & HEATHER ELLIS 26165 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 NEVIN AJ N NOLDER III BRENDA J P D HELGESEN & P C RAY PATRICIA FASCHING OLDER 6120 STRAWBERRY LA 26450 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHO PATRICK & MARY HODAPP PAUL E STEFFENS RITA A DETRUDE 26195 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR 26250 OAK LEAF TR 26620 62ND ST W SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ROBERT B SCOTT JOLENE K SCOTT 6150 STRAWBERRY LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 RONALD D ZUEHL 6180 CHURCH RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 TIMOTHY J LENZEN 6170 CHURCH RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 W H OELFKE & J H OELFKE 6170 STRAWBERRY LN SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ROBERT J WETHERALL 6135 CHURCH RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHAWN T MACK & SHAWNA M MACK 26065 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 TODD & ERIN MIRON 26300 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ROBERT M WILLOCK 26190 OAK LEAF TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 STEPHEN E/DIANE O KLIMOWICZ 26135 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 TODD & LISA WAGNER 4770 MANITOU RD TONKA BAY MN 55331 J�l *. J , L J V. 10 3id� -Yam•'°-`..gym"'„'- '•' �' / \ �.............�..~......,...,.....,�. I. oram x.awr..e..au .. / — — aeons eww,c snow I r.rswa rwwa � n. .vosru mwa - x� sr,ar .ua._ n ,on owu w.nr..rnvsro . eu wrs Ye Yoosa wnors' Aim arcs .,Hawn - sn wrs Rr .. LENNAR MN PRELIMINARY PLAT 14-0105 lNEXTGEN° THE HOME WITHIN A HOME Independence _�ar.�r; -- y A i a — 8 NEXTGEN' THE HOME WITHIN A HOME' LENNAR' 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 • 952-249-3000 The Independence 5 Bedrooms 5 Baths 2 Stories 3,200 Sq. Ft. • EVERYTHING'S IHICLYDED HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and e;mbens are amst s renderings and may contain options. which are rot standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans. specihraUons, omeri and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home s precise or actual size. My statement, verbal or iimten, regarding ' under or or "Wished area or any ather description or modirrler of the sq WR footage we of any hone is a shorthand cescnietion of the manner in which the square footage was estmated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copynght5 2012 Lamar Corporation. Lenny and the Lennar logo are registered service narks of Leman Corpaaton and/or ft SubWidne5. Q MN Ddr. Lict B0001413 3`12 ,....� Lindbergh A ��7 6 c 5 know- c D iLI LENNAM 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 • 952-249-3000 The Lindbergh 2 Bedrooms 2 Baths 1,902 Sq.Ft.Total • el EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED HOMES LEM WAR.COM Plans antl elevations are artists renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans. specification, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. My statement, verbal or written, regarding `under ar' or "finished area' or any other description or modifier of the square footage we of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should net be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright 5 2012 Lancer Corporation Lernarand the Lennarlogo are registered service marks of Lenrw^ Corporation ardlor as subsidiaries. 1 = f MN Bldr. Uc# B0001413 W12 =.nrl The Bristol iEU L4 _ Lob ... Mn A = B I1111�1 Li -ICIIA l c D f LENNAR` 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 ° 952-249-3000 The Bristol 4 Bedrooms 4 Baths 3,836 Sq. FtJotal EVE RYT N IN G'S INCLUDED HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elmbti are amst's rendamgs and may coritaei opb n ~are r*t standard on aC rnoJ6& LLYYIir reSel the right to male drmges to these floc, plans. specftabonS Mnenvons and ele vans wrthttit par notice. Sated tl� and aouare Wage we approximate and should n0tpausedasrepr¢5erhaLonolthe Wc, 's lxecise c, actual s e, hey statement, verbal a wdran. regarding •under air or Yutished wee or any nine, desonWian or mourner of uxi scum footage size of any forme is a dnx'dterrd de->odebon of lfe n1VAN.Y in which do iT fnntage v estmtod and d c lJ nct be i=on ed to tidicate oertaimy. Cg7yl C 20— Lemma: u..rn.,ree velW+rreM1.s WLebw /� n aplfarts-.---i=s io56Cd0Id13Sf12 lf�l The Pillsbury y 701 F I LENNAR` 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 • 952-249-3000 The Pillsbury 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,230 Sq. Ft.Total • EVERTTNINO'S INCLUDED' NOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options. xhich are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these fear plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations wrthoul prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are appmximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual som. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding ^under at' or "finished area' or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in rMich the square leafage was est mated! and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright Z 2012 Lennar Corwahon. Leruarandthe Lenn3regoare registered service marks of Lennar ion Corporatand/or its subsidiaries. Q MN Bldr. ❑ck BC001413 3/12 Aiwk The Sinclair LENNAR 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 - 952-249-3000 The Sinclair 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,469 Sq. FtJotal • E V E R Y T N IN G' S INCLUDED' HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's rondenngs and may contain options, which are not standard on all modes. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should mot be used as representation of the home's precise or actual sum. Any statement, verbal or vmtten, regarding `under airor "finished area' or any enter descnpbon or mcclifter of the square footage we of ary home, is a shatlwrl description of the manner s Mich the square footage was estimated and shall not be consbued to i6cadeoalstry. Copyright ® 21112 Letnar Corfnrson Lmwardtltelsrtwbgoare registered service rnwM of Lenw^ Carporabo t andlor is subsidiaes. u MN Bldr. U O BOW14133112 9;6= �I The Sinclair II V L t L C D x�- 1•.: .. 4d"I LENNAM 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 The Sinclair II 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,564 Sq. Ft.Total • EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED' HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are whst's renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding 'under airor "finished area" or arty other description or modifier of the square footage we of any home is a shorthand description of the mariner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be constnred to indicate certainty. Copyright � 2012 Lennar, Corporation. Lena rand the Lennarego are registered serves marks of Lenar^ Corporation and/or its Subsidiaries. 1 = t MN Bdr. Lieff 3=1413 3(12 The St. Croix r,,� .7 j Lj C D Ir G LENNAR 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 The St. Croix 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,719 Sq. Ft. Total EVERYTHING'S �J INCLUDED H O M E S 1110 LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans. Specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Staled dimensions and square footage are approximate and should trot be used as representation of me home's precise or actual size. Any statement, vernal or written, regarding "under an' or "YNshed area" or any other description or modifier of the square footage we of any home is a shorthand description of the mamrer in which the square footage was eshmated and should not be construed to intlkate certami Copyright P 2012 Lennar Corpoahon. Lernarand the Lenrvvl care registered service marks of Len. /\ Corporation and/or its subsitliaries. 1= E is L' The St. Croix II A c Z a R L LENNAR 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 E 952-249-3000 B D The St. Croix II 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,806 Sq. FtJotal ¢2 EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED HOMES LENNAR.COM Warns and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain optics, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and eleehon5 without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are appm,i mate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual sure. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding under airor �fifpshecl area" or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any hone is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate cedainty. Copyright �) 2012 Lennar Corporation, Leinarand the Lennar kago are registered service marks Of Leirriar^ corporator, anNits s�dur ianes. 1 = k MN BkW Lick El=l413 M 2 6 � The Taylor 17 r 'd — 'q - >O !IISi l� 1 r V 1 !LE-LL 1L�1 A r � IILLJ IL `'• �'x Y..Y.l 'ft • ' D R Y _ E F LENNAM 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 The Taylor 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,660 Sq. Ft.Total 0 • QZ E v E RY T N IN G'S INCLUDED NOMES LENNAR.COM Plats and elevations are artist's renderings end may contain options. which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the night to make changes to these flow plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as repnesentabon of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal m written, regarding "under aifor 'finished area" or any other description or modifier of the squat footage we of any home is a shorthand descrphen of the mans in which the square footage was estimated and should not be constmed to indicate certainty. Copyright ;2r 2012 Lennar Corpom ion. Lennarand Me Lenny logoare registened service narks of Lennw^ Corporation and/or itssubsidanes. 1 = t MN f3ldr. Lica BCfoi413 3112 The Kellogg A 1 1 1 ILL LENNAR 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 • 952-249-3000 0 The Kellogg 4 Bedrooms 4 Baths 3,112 Sq. Ft. Total 121 oil; EVERY TH I N G'SINCLUDED HOMESVi LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's rendmirgs and may contain options, which are not standard on all models Lwmar reserves the right to make changes to these Boor plans, specih:all dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual we. Any statement, verbal c, written, regarding "under we or "frtished area" or arty other description or nmtlifie, of the square footage we of any home is a shorthand description of the roamer in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to irl certainty. Coal a 2012 Lormar Corporation. Lennar and file Lennar logo are registered service marks of Lenrsr Corporation and its subsidiaries. Q MN Bldr. Lick BC001413 3112 �� The Washburn �u MW "Llr�E LENNAR 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 - 952-249-3000 The Washburn 4 Bedrooms 4 Baths 3,328 Sq. FtJotal • l EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED' HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans. specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or wntten, regarding "under an' or "fnished area" or any other description or modifier of the square footage we of airy home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated arntl should not be construed to indicate certainly Copyright a 2012 IEnnar Corporation. Lennar and the Lennar logo are registered service marks of Lennar^ Corporation and/or its wbsid,aries. Tax MN Eller. Lc# BCDD1413 3r12 ;A= The Snelling < ❑� L� A v\ s. R 1 L�L�L i_1 AmL_F LENNAM 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 • 952-249-3000 B The Snelling 4 Bedrooms 4 Baths 3,270 Sq. Ft. Total • el EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans. specrilcanons. dimensions and elevations without prior nonce. Staled dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or wyrden, regarding "under air' or "finished area" or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not he construed to indicate certainty. Copyright :s 2012 Lennar Corporation. Landau and the Lennar logo are registered service marks of Lamar Corpordbon ar�er M snbSdWICS. MN Bldr. Lich B0001413 V12 [n i V' CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.d.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII@cLshorewood.mn.us March 11, 2014 Kate Aanenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed Boulder Cove Development Dear Ms. Aanenson: RECEIVED MAR , 7 2014 CITY OF CHANHASSEi Shorewood has received notice regarding a development application for the proposed Boulder Cove. This project is located immediately south of our common city boundary, and roughly centered on the intersection of West 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. This matter was presented at the February 24, 2014 meeting of the Shorewood City Council, and we heard comments from City staff and area residents who addressed the Council. The Council forwards this letter as its comments for Chanhassen's public hearing, now scheduled for April 1, 2014. As with our review of the 2006 proposal for this same property, the two most significant concerns Shorewood has at this time are drainage and traffic/circulation in the area. As we mentioned in 2006, the area in question is poorly drained and characterized by heavy clay soils and a high water table. The Shorewood Oaks development to the north of the subject property has a very sensitive drainage system that will not support additional storm water runoff. While it appears that the developer has recognized this issue and has designed his project to drain to the south, drainage remains a concern. Traffic and circulation are undoubtedly our greatest concerns. Boulder Cove will be served by West 62nd Street, which lies half in Shorewood and half in Chanhassen, and by Strawberry Lane. Both of these are relatively narrow local streets. Strawberry Lane, which leads directly north to the Minnewashta Elementary School, is narrow at 22 feet, with no sidewalk. This route has considerable pedestrian traffic to and from the school. The Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail also crosses Strawberry Lane and area residents walk to Cathcart Park along West 62nd Street. C •PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Re: Boulder Cove Development 11 March 2014 Page two The traffic concern is compounded by the developer's proposal to build its "NextGen" housing product which, on its face appears to simply be two-family residential homes, in which case the potential exists for 62 units, rather than 31. In addition to these significant concerns, our staff has identified several other issues: 1. The proposed intersection with Strawberry Lane and West 62"d Street should be a "T". 2. The name "Strawberry Court" has already been used on a Shorewood street about two blocks to the north. 3. Shorewood should request that the water main serving the project include an interconnection to the Shorewood system on Strawberry Lane. 4. It appears that the developer has paid particular attention to drainage on the site. Shorewood asks that there be no increase in runoff volume to the north. 5. In light of the density question raised above (31 units vs. 62), Shorewood requests that a traffic study be prepared, evaluating the effect of as many as 62 units on the local streets (Strawberry Lane and West 62°d Street). 6. West 62"d Street should be upgraded to City standards. This street lies in both Shorewood and Chanhassen. 7. Thirty one homes (potentially 62 units) are a lot of homes to be served by one very long (1200 feet) cul-de-sac. Staff has examined this, but does not expect that MNDOT would allow an access directly to Highway 7, especially considering the short distance to Church Road. 8. Chanhassen is its own LGU (Local Government Unit) for purposes of storm water management. We expect that the City will require a long-term maintenance agreement for the proposed drainage facilities. We are concerned that the development as proposed will have an undue impact on local streets in the area. Your residents on Church Road may share this concern. We also trust that Chanhassen will work to ensure a project that complements existing development in the immediate area. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Sincerely, CITY OF SHOREWOOD Scott Zerby Mayor On behalf of the Shorewood City Council Richard Woodruff Laura Hotvet Debbie Siaket Kris Sundberg Meuwissen, Kim From: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:17 PM To: Meuwissen, Kim Subject: FW: Boulder Cove thoughts from an outsider From: Mark Diede [mailto:mark_diede@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:09 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Cc: Scott Zerby; Debbie Siakel; Laura Hotvet; Kristine Sundberg; Richard Woodruff; Bill Joynes; Chris Freeman; Dustin Maddy (dustinmaddy@gmail.com); Jennifer Labadie(jenniferlabadieesq@hotmail.com); Larry Muehlberg (muehlberg@hotmail.com); Michael Garelick (mediationmaven@gmail.com); Patti Helgesen; Steve Charbonnet (scharbonnet@gmail.com); Sue Davis (bisquite@earthlink.net); Thomas Geng; Furlong, Tom; Brad Nielsen Subject: RE: Boulder Cove thoughts from an outsider Part deux What I am having trouble grasping is this parcel must have been zoned medium density sometime ago. My guess is the zoners assumed access was to be on highway 7. Now that higway 7 is not accepting any more "connections", it seems like there is a loophole in the zoning law. Loophole meaning diverting access to a cattle path to the north all the while meandering your way through low density homes. It seems like zoning should change since the county is not allowing direct access to highway 7. A medium density development would work fine there if access was off 7 or a frontage road connecting with highway 7. The address and the intended trunk for this development is 3670 HWY 7. The proposed plat should be converted to low density housing. Mark Diede Eden Prairie From: mark diede(a)msn.com To: bnielsenPci.shorewood.mn.us; sallaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us CC: scott(a) amersdieital.com; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; IhotvetPci.shorewood.mn.us: ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us: dwoodruffCo)ci.shorewood.mn.us; bioynesPci.shorewood.mn.us: cfr33man@9mail.com; dustinmaddv(a)Rmail.com; lenniferlabad ieesg(@hotmail.com; muehlberg(@hotmail.com; mediation maven (a)amaiLcom; pheleesen@ci.shorewood.mn.us: scharbonnet(@email.com; bisguiteCa)earthlink. net; tseng(@bremseth.com; tfurlonpPci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Boulder Cove thoughts from an outsider Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:25:09 -0600 To me NextGen Series homes should not be considered for this site and that type of house should be considered medium to high density housing for this area. This project is really pigeonholing 62 homes in this property. If the zoning accommodates 62 homes, then so be it and all the power to the developer. However, you have to think worst case scenario and all those folks could rent or have 2 households in each lot. That property and area cannot handle 62 homes. Two separate entries means a duplex. NextGen seems like a marketing ploy used to bypass zoning laws as buildable land in the Minnetonka school district is non-existent. The amount you benefit from an increased tax base by craming more people in there could come back to haunt you later. Please enforce the rules and keep this area similar to what exists today. The people that live around there are all like minded people and any new development should fit into that mold - big lots and single family homes. Mark Diede Eden Prairie P.S. I had recently written a letter to the city of Shorewood regarding how unsafe Strawberry lane is for kids walking to Minnewashta Elementary. Keep that in mind if 62 homes are added in the Cove. Meuwissen, Kim From: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:17 PM To: Meuwissen, Kim Subject: FW: April 1 - Boulder Cove Planning Commission meeting From: Patrick R. Johnson [mailto:patrickreidjohnson@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 10:13 AM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Cc: Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; Scott Zerby; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: April 1 - Boulder Cove Planning Commission meeting Chanhassen Planning Commission: As a homeowner off of Strawberry Lane, I write to you with concern over the proposed Boulder Cove development Planning Case 2014-09. First and foremost, I request that the planning commission postpone the April 1 hearing to a date that is not during the public school spring break session as the majority of affected residents are in the Minnetonka school district and are currently out of town, including myself. Second, I understand that the developer has provided a notice of the hearing to residents within 500' of the proposed borders. Given that the entrance to the proposed cul de sac will be connecting with Strawberry Lane within the Shorewood borders, significantly more attention needs to be made to residents who connect off of Strawberry Lane. Strawberry Lane is one of two roads that connect with Minnewashta Elementary School and therefore has significant foot traffic and currently has no sidewalk. Any increase in vehicular traffic is of great concern as Strawberry Lane already has major safety concerns. The parents of Minnewashta Elementary, especially those whose children walk along Strawberry Lane should be included in the notifications of public hearings. Again, given the spring break schedule, this hearing should be postponed and suggest that a public hearing be scheduled with the residents of Strawberry Lane and the connecting cul-de-sacs as well as school officials of Minnewashta Elementary prior to any recommendations from the Chanhassen Planning Commission. Regards, Patrick Patrick F 347.728. AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Rachel D. [rachel.c.dahlen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 12:10 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby@ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Re: Boulder Cove Development Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, I would like to add to my original email regarding Case 2014-09. It has come to my attention that MN -Dot is not willing to allow an exit off Highway 7 for the Boulder Cove Development. This changes my position from concerned to vehemently opposed. As aforementioned, I am the homeowner off the first house off Highway 7 on Shorewood Oaks Drive (26000). I already have concerns walking to my mailbox with the amount of traffic that enters the road on which I live at any given time of day. My husband and I are expecting our first child this year. How will we know our front yard will be a safe place to play with the proposed Boulder Cove Development and the major traffic increase that would accompany it? Addtionally, I enjoy exercising along the LRT trail and Strawberry Lane. I have already noticed a significant increase in traffic since the most recent cul-de-sac development broke ground. Strawberry Lane used to be quiet on my runs --I'd be passed by one vehicle, maybe. Now, it is bustling, and I have redirected my route frequently to avoid this road due to the heavy traffic. I implore you, for the safety of residents and families on Shorewood Oaks, Strawberry Lane, and Church Road, to postpone further planning until a traffic study is completed, paid for by the City of Chanhassen. Again, please think of your own home and your own families and how you would feel if you lived on one of these roads. Respectfully, Rachel Dahlen On 4/1/14, Rachel D. <rachel.c.dahlen(demail.com> wrote: > Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, > I am writing to request a postponement of the April 1st planning > commission meeting and public hearing (at least in as far as it > relates to discussions of the proposed Boulder Cove development and > requested variances (Case 2014-09). > I am the home owner of 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive, which is the first > house off Shorewood Oaks Drive from Highway 7, and would have changed > my work schedule to attend the hearing had I known further in advance. > Please consider this email my representation. > We are concerned with the Boulder Cove development for several reasons: > 1) Safety on roads. If there is no main entrance to the Boulder Cove > development from Highway 7, this greatly increases traffic flow from > highway 7 directly in front of our home. I and am worried that those > using Shorewood Oaks as a "drive through" (since they do not live in I > the neighborhood proper), may not be careful, especially with small > children playing. > I already take strong issue with the speed vehicles take the corner > into Shorewood Oaks and am concerned that my husband and I may find > the traffic change significant enough to move. I love our home and our > neighborhood, but believe creating a development without a main Hwy 7 > entrance would be dangerous. If anyone disagrees this point, you are > welcome to sit in my driveway during rush hour and watch how congested > Shorewood Oaks Drive already is as well as how fast vehicles enter > this 30mph neighborhood. > 2) Water/waste/roads. Technically this development is Chanhassen, but > the residents of Shorewood will end up having to pay more for water > and waste as a result of the increased human footprint in the area. I > feel it would be best to have the homes in Boulder Cove as > single-family, like the rest of the surrounding neighborhood. > 3) Quality of the area. Why can't the area be a community open space? > It's unnecessary to develop every inch owned by Chanhassen. I > understand, in the end, it's about income for the city, but it's sad. > I feel like we would be losing our neighborhood to some degree. > 4) Minnewashta Elementary School. Some neighbors in Shorewood Oaks > have chosen to send their children to private schools due to the large > class sizes at Minnewashta Elementary School (which is still > open -enrollment). How would the proposed multi -family developments > impact this elementary school and the quality of education there? Is > the school board involved at this time? Has it been discussed with the > school board that if this development is built, that perhaps zoning > should take place for the elementaries in the area to prevent > exceedingly large class sizes? > Thank you for your time and representation. Please have empathy for > the residents of Shorewood Oaks as you receive these emails. What if > you lived on the corner where I do? How would you feel about Boulder > Cove? > Sincerely, > Rachel Dahlen 2 ��Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 March 6, 2014 Sharmeen Al-Jaff City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Boulder Cove, MnDOT Review #P14-012 North Side of MN 7, East of Church Road Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1004 Dear Ms. Al -Jaffa MnDOT has reviewed the plans for the proposed Boulder Cove development (#P14-012) and has the following comments: Traffic: There is concern about safety and the proposed pond location. While the pond is currently outside the clear zone, MnDOT is re-evaluating practices for protecting deep ponds, and this pond may require protection after construction. Contact Chad Erickson in Metro Traffic, at 651- 234-7806 or chad.erickson@state.mn.us, for further information about MnDOT's work on pond protection. Noxious Weeds: The right-of-way adjacent to the property is infested with leafy spurge. This is a state listed noxious weed and falls under the requirements of MN Statute 18.75-18.91. Any soil removed from weed infested areas must be stockpiled separately from non -infested soils. The infested soil can be replaced on the right-of-way only in areas previously infested. Additional soil must be used and discarded in a manner that conforms to the MN statute. For questions concerning these comments, contact Tina Markeson, MnDOT Environmental Stewardship, at Tina.Markesonna.state.mn.us or 651-366-3619. Noise: MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities having the authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities, listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use would result in immediate violations of established State noise standards. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas. The project proposer is required to assess the existing noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact to the proposed development from any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in Metro District's Noise and Air Quality Unit at 651-234-7681 or Peter. Wasko(i)state.mn.us. Right of Way: Attached to this letter is a copy of the right of way in the area (12-28) which does not show the jog in that is shown in the proposed plans. The property owner may own underlying fee in the area and that should be labeled the right of way on the plansheets. For questions concerning these comments, contact Doug Nelson, Metro Right -of -Way, at Douglas.nelsonPastate.mn.us or 651-234-7583 Water Resources: A MnDOT drainage permit and a wetland delineation may be required. To determine if a drainage permit is needed, please provide a grading plan showing existing and proposed contours. Also provide drainage area maps for the proposed project showing existing and proposed drainage areas with flow directions indicated by arrows. This information should be submitted to: Nicholas Olson Water Resources Engineering 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 If it is determined that the project does drain to MnDOT right-of-way, a drainage permit will be required to ensure that current drainage rates to MnDOT right-of-way will not be increased. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted to: Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District - Permit Office 1500 W. County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1. A grading plan showing existing and proposed contours, 2. Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing existing and proposed drainage areas. Any off -site areas that drain to the project area should also be included in the drainage area maps. The direction of flow for each drainage area must be indicated by arrows, 3. Drainage computations for pre and post construction conditions during the 2, 10, 50 and 100 year rain events, and 4. An electronic copy of any computer modeling used for the drainage computations. Drainage permit application can be found at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/files/pdf/permits/drainage-form-complete.0 For questions concerning these comments, contact Nicholas Olson, Metro Water Resources, at nicholas.olson(d),state.mn.us or 651-234-7542. Permits: In addition to a possible drainage permit, access permits are required for this development. Any use of or work within or affecting MnDOT right of way requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/utility . Please include one I 1 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. A Long Form Permit will be required for the water main crossing of TH7 and a short form permit will be required for the access removals. The private drive and cul-de-sac must be completely on the subject property. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig, Metro Permits, at buck.craig(a)state.mn.us or 651-234-7911. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent electronically can usually be turned around faster. Submit one of the following: 1. One pdf version of the plans. MnDOT accepts plans at metrodevreviews.dotastate.mn.us, provided that each e-mail is less than 20 megabytes. 2. Thee sets of full size plans. Submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Send plans to: MnDOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One compact disk. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's external FTP site. Send files to: ftp:Hftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEdpe/Planning. Internet Explorer may not work using ftp, using an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Send a note to metrodevreviews.dot&state.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review contact me at 651-234-7789. Sincerely, Molly McCartney Senior Transportation Planner Attachment: Borate -wood noise barrier specs.pdf Copy sent via E-Mail: April Crockett, Area Engineer Pete Wasko, Noise Buck Craig, Permits Nancy Jacobson, Design Nicholas Olson, Water Resources Doug Nelson, Right -of -Way Tina Markeson, Environmental Stewardship Tod Sherman, Planning Chad Erickson, Traffic Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council John Freemyer, Carver County Surveyor Pg 1/1II i Pt. NEpSe 5-MOWM4 Sea.116.23 t`ON l N. I Cp 5 Im fs"' t• �e j laj � eaa I I r. • i II 1 Itl terw I�: o :eoi ICI26 III go �e�e� 26 !L xe19, d O i ✓ i. O /i_f � IE✓�{ .;ill 9.4 I00YO11 T=119)aol CyjyjJ ( NEG. 27 y M0rtha Page Marsh etol i r Pt. N.EAN.W.1/4 See.5416-23 je ) 0.04Aa. LO yaw-wlt.nelooi� O.D. 28 _ MO4rnpyyl al d. 18 t Pt NE W NW44 Set566?3 a Wofle Pitoup 6-16-55) G�� j_ DRAINAGE DITCH ORDER NO. 39564 ' AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Jolene Scott Uolene02O5@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:24 PM To: Ryan A.Johannsen Cc: Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby@ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Re: Proposed Boulder Cove development; planning commission meeting of April 1st Ryan, We can't make it tomorrow, as we will be out of town for spring break. Will you be going? Our main concern is traffic on Strawberry and 62nd. Crazy! There shouldn't be that many homes packed into such a small acreage. The outlet should be on 7, on the existing service road. Let us know what happens at the meeting. Jolene Scott Sent from my iPhone On Mar 31, 2014, at 4:02 PM, "Ryan A. Johannsen" <johannsen(ajtapg-law.com> wrote: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Ryan A. Johannsen [rjohannsen@tapg-law.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 10:43 AM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: RE: Proposed Boulder Cove development; planning commission meeting of April 1st Sharmeen, Thank you for your response. I did already have the project documents in my file. The residents of Shorewood Oaks and Strawberry Lane are concerned about proceeding with the meeting tonight as they were not made aware of it, and have not had time to voice their concerns over the technical aspects of the proposed development. Most of the residents live in the Minnetonka school district and are off on spring break vacations this week. They are requesting postponement of the hearing for a week in order to attend. Please let me know if the postponement will be granted. Thank you. Very truly yours, Ryan A.Johannsen I Attorney TERHAAR, ARCHIBALD, PFEFFERLE & GRIEBEL, LLP Main 612 573-3000 1 Direct 612 573-3024 1 Fax 612 573-3030 1 rjohannsen@tapg-law.com From: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen [mailto:SAI-Jaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 10:35 AM To: Ryan A. Johannsen Subject: RE: Proposed Boulder Cove development; planning commission meeting of April 1st Mr. Johannsen, The following is a link to the staff report and other documents that relate to the Boulder Cove Development. http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=963 Sincerely, Sharmeen I-Jqff Senior Planner 952.227.1134 From: Ryan A. Johannsen [mailto:dohannsen(altaoa-law.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:02 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby(alci.shorewood.mn us; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel(ulci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundbera(cici shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff(alci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Proposed Boulder Cove development; planning commission meeting of April 1st Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, I am writing to request a postponement of the April V planning commission meeting and public hearing (at least in as far as it relates to discussions of the proposed Boulder Cove development and requested variances (Case 2014-09). I am the home owner of 6070 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood, and just recently became aware of the proposed Boulder Cove development, and of the April 1" planning commission meeting and public hearing. As a resident on Strawberry Lane, I find it quite upsetting that 1 was not made aware of the planned development and have not been given a chance to speak my concerns relating to the proposed development and the proposed variance for the cul de sac at the intersection of Strawberry Lane and 62ntl I have had a chance to review the developer's proposal for the 31 planned units (some of which are NextGen duplex style homes), as well as their request for the variance for the cul de sac. I am completely against allowing the developer a variance for the cul de sac, and completely against allowing multiunit dwellings to be built as part of the Boulder Cove development. The cul de sac as proposed would greatly impact Church Road, Shorewood Oaks Drive and Strawberry Lane. Strawberry Lane is already in a state of disrepair. Increased traffic from 31-62 more family units would have dire consequences for the roads, not to mention the safety of kids at play along those roads, etc. Currently there are no stop signs on Strawberry Lane from the proposed cul de sac to Minnewashta School. Likewise there are no sidewalks, storm drains or street lights. Allowing more development without addressing road concerns/issues is not a wise decision. Traffic between Boulder Cove and Minnewashta School will no doubt increase substantially once the development is built. The variance should not be granted without requirements for road improvement on Strawberry Lane and 62ntl. Public safety and fairness warrant those improvements should the variance be awarded. As far as the NextGen homes are concerned, they are for all intense and purpose duplexes/multifamily units. Yet the developer proposed the site for single family home use. They should not be allowed to get around zoning laws by simply calling them NextGen homes. Allowing the NextGen homes would increase the development to that of high density housing, something it is not zone for at this time. This should not be allowed. Again, I ask that the April 1' planning commission meeting, as it relates to Boulder Cove, should be postponed so that the numerous residents that will be impacted by the proposed development have a chance to be heard. Very truly yours, Ryan A.Johannsen ) Attorney TERHAAR, ARCHIBALD, PFEFFERLE & GRIEBEL, LLP 600A Butler Square Building 1 100 North Sixth Street I Minneapolis, MN 55403 Main 612 573-3000 1 Direct 612 573-3024 1 Fax 612 573-3030 1 riohannsen taoe-law.com This message contains confidential information intended for use by the named addressee(s) and may contain proprietary and/or legally privileged information, and be subject to federal and/or state privacy laws. If you are not the designated recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or retain this message. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail, and destroy and delete it from your system. Thank you. AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Leah Schneider [Ims8898@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 1:10 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby@ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Cc: Jassen Schneider Subject: Boulder Cove Development Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, I am writing to request a postponement of the April V planning commission meeting and public hearing for the Boulder Cove development and requested variances (Case 2014-09). We are the home owners directly across from the proposed entrance to the Boulder Cove development, at 26420 W 62nd Street, Shorewood, MN 55331. As mentioned 9 years ago, when the proposal to develop this area was first discussed, we continue to have concerns with the entrance located on the corner of W. 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. We have seen the new developers plans and our main concerns have to do with the increased traffic in the area, the state of the roads and the impact this increase in traffic will have on them, safety concerns with the number of children in the neighborhood and proximity to the school, and issues with drainage on the property impacting neighboring homeowners. The development, as proposed, would greatly impact Church Road, W 62nd Street, and Strawberry Lane, which are currently narrow neighborhood roads and require improvements as is. Increased traffic from 31-62 more family units would create some serious issues for the roads, not to mention the safety of kids/families walking or biking (to school, parks or trail). Currently there are no stop signs on Strawberry Lane from the proposed cul de sac to Minnewashta School. Likewise there are no sidewalks, storm drains or street lights on Strawberry Lane and W. 62nd Street. Allowing more development without addressing road concerns and issues is not acceptable. Traffic between W. 62nd Street, Strawberry Lane, and Boulder Cove to Minnewashta School will no doubt increase substantially once the development is built. The variance should not be granted without requirements for road improvement on Strawberry Lane and W 62nd Street public safety and fairness warrant those improvements should the variance be awarded. The cost of these improvements should not be the responsibility of the existing homeowners on these streets as we are not the ones approving the development of a potential of 31- 62 family units. The proposed development will be on land that could be considered marsh land given the nature of the soil. Many of the homeowners in the area deal with water issues on their property due to poor drainage. The increase in this much impermeable surface area this close to our home raises these concerns and the impact it will have on our property. We feel it is necessary to address these concerns before making any final decisions on the development and access into the proposed development. Sincerely, Leah and Jassen Schneider (Chanhassen Firefighter) 26420 W 62nd Street Shorewood, MN 55331 Ims8898Co)msn com AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Rachel D. [rachel.c.dahlen@gmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 12:10 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby@ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Re: Boulder Cove Development Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, I would like to add to my original email regarding Case 2014-09. It has come to my attention that MN -Dot is not willing to allow an exit off Highway 7 for the Boulder Cove Development. This changes my position from concerned to vehemently opposed. As aforementioned, I am the homeowner off the first house off Highway 7 on Shorewood Oaks Drive (26000). I already have concerns walking to my mailbox with the amount of traffic that enters the road on which I live at any given time of day. My husband and I are expecting our first child this year. How will we know our front yard will be a safe place to play with the proposed Boulder Cove Development and the major traffic increase that would accompany it? Addtionally, I enjoy exercising along the LRT trail and Strawberry Lane. I have already noticed a significant increase in traffic since the most recent cul-de-sac development broke ground. Strawberry Lane used to be quiet on my runs --I'd be passed by one vehicle, maybe. Now, it is bustling, and I have redirected my route frequently to avoid this road due to the heavy traffic. I implore you, for the safety of residents and families on Shorewood Oaks, Strawberry Lane, and Church Road, to postpone further planning until a traffic study is completed, paid for by the City of Chanhassen. Again, please think of your own home and your own families and how you would feel if you lived on one of these roads. Respectfully, Rachel Dahlen On 4/1/14, Rachel D. <rachel.c.dahlenpgmail.com> wrote: > Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, > I am writing to request a postponement of the April 1st planning > commission meeting and public hearing (at least in as far as it > relates to discussions of the proposed Boulder Cove development and > requested variances (Case 2014-09). > I am the home owner of 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive, which is the first > house off Shorewood Oaks Drive from Highway 7, and would have changed > my work schedule to attend the hearing had I known further in advance. > Please consider this email my representation. > We are concerned with the Boulder Cove development for several reasons: > 1) Safety on roads. If there is no main entrance to the Boulder Cove > development from Highway 7, this greatly increases traffic flow from > highway 7 directly in front of our home. I and am worried that those > using Shorewood Oaks as a "drive through" (since they do not live in 1 > the neighborhood proper), may not be careful, especially with small > children playing. > I already take strong issue with the speed vehicles take the corner > into Shorewood Oaks and am concerned that my husband and I may find > the traffic change significant enough to move. I love our home and our > neighborhood, but believe creating a development without a main Hwy 7 > entrance would be dangerous. If anyone disagrees this point, you are > welcome to sit in my driveway during rush hour and watch how congested > Shorewood Oaks Drive already is as well as how fast vehicles enter > this 30mph neighborhood. > 2) Water/waste/roads. Technically this development is Chanhassen, but > the residents of Shorewood will end up having to pay more for water > and waste as a result of the increased human footprint in the area. I > feel it would be best to have the homes in Boulder Cove as > single-family, like the rest of the surrounding neighborhood. > 3) Quality of the area. Why can't the area be a community open space? > It's unnecessary to develop every inch owned by Chanhassen. I > understand, in the end, it's about income for the city, but it's sad. > I feel like we would be losing our neighborhood to some degree. > 4) Minnewashta Elementary School. Some neighbors in Shorewood Oaks > have chosen to send their children to private schools due to the large > class sizes at Minnewashta Elementary School (which is still > open -enrollment). How would the proposed multi -family developments > impact this elementary school and the quality of education there? Is > the school board involved at this time? Has it been discussed with the > school board that if this development is built, that perhaps zoning > should take place for the elementaries in the area to prevent > exceedingly large class sizes? > Thank you for your time and representation. Please have empathy for > the residents of Shorewood Oaks as you receive these emails. What if > you lived on the corner where I do? How would you feel about Boulder > Cove? > Sincerely, > Rachel Dahlen 2 Aanenson, Kate From: Charlie Poey <poey1966@me.com> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 4:47 PM To: City Council; Aanenson, Kate Subject: Boulder Cove Hello: I just want to let you know that as a newer resident of Shorewood, I am against the Boulder Cove development moving forward as it stands currently. Until recently, I had no idea that there was any development being considered for this space. Now it appears that Chanhassen is willing to make a fairly narrow-minded decision on what will be done with Boulder Cove. As this development directly affects another city, and another county, I think that all of the concerns being presented by Shorewood and/or Hennepin County should be heard and properly addressed, prior to moving forward. As it stands currently, it seems like the primary motivation is financial. More homes equals more money for Lennar. While more homes equals more money for Chanhassen, through property taxes. Meanwhile, Shorewood is left with increased expenses due to road improvements on W 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. I agree that developing that land makes sense, but this should be done in a way that complements the surrounding area, and is acceptable to all parties who are affected by this new neighborhood. Cramming in 31 homes in that area seems preposterous. That's probably 1.5 times the density of the surrounding neighborhoods. I feel that some of Chanhassen's original zoning parameters should be maintained, which have fewer single-family homes with larger lots. And, the fact that your council is entertaining 'Next Gen' housing is so ridiculous, that it does not even warrant discussion. As residents of other parts of Chanhassen, I would ask that you think about how you would like what is being proposed by Lennar, if it was a few hundred feet from your house. Not to mention 500 yards away from your child's elementary school. Your decision will affect people's lives long after Lennar is done putting the last coat of paint on a house. Sincerely, Charlie Poey Shorewood Resident SCANNED To: Shorewood City Council Chanhassen City Council CC: Lennar Corporation From: Concerned Citizens of Shorewood and Chanhassen Date: April 7, 2014 Shorewood and Chanhassen City Councils: We are writing to you today to express our concerns regarding the proposed Lennar development at 3670 Hwy 7. We want our City Councils to do their due diligence in ensuring 1) the infrastructure can support the development as proposed, 2) the environmental impact is fully understood and 3) the project complements existing development in the immediate area. The following outlines the concerns we would like addressed 1. Although this property is within the city of Chanhassen, all surrounding roads, including the main access road to the new development (62nd Street and Strawberry Lane) are Shorewood - maintained streets. 2. The Chanhassen Planning Commission claims the current proposal meets all zoning requirements however surrounding lots are predominantly 15,000+ square foot with 30 foot setbacks versus the proposed development averaging 10,000 square feet with 25 foot setbacks. 3. No traffic study has been completed to date. Questions remain on the increased traffic. How can the city approve this development without one? Strawberry Lane is already ill-equipped for the current traffic load, 4. Safety — There will be increased traffic on narrow roads with no sidewalk. This presents a danger to our community and especially the students who walk to Minnewashta Elementary. These safety concerns have not been considered by Chanhassen. 5. Access - 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane are 22' wide roads and quite rural. The infrastructure to support the additional traffic is not in place and there is little to no room to expand. 6. The proposed development land is poorly drained and characterized by heavy clay soils and a high water table. Adjacent residents already have sump pumps running 2417/365. Lennar states that the water table was 20' below grade. The Chanhassen Planning Commission noted the discrepancy between residents and Lennar. 7. Only residents within 500' ft of the proposed development were notified, however the impact will be felt on all residents who connect to the access point including Strawberry Lane and cul-de- sacs, Shorewood Oaks streets and cul-de-sacs, 62nd Street, and Church Rd. 8. The Mayor of Shorewood sent a letter to Chanhassen regarding concerns which was not discussed at the Planning Commission hearing. 9. While Chanhassen has said that Next Gen housing is currently not allowed in current zoning, they are exploring for future consideration in the city. How can we be ensured that this will not be appended in a future variance when the public is not watching? This also ties back into the traffic study and safety concerns. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. i� Fal Name Address Phone # Signature ve �� ri r 2 �3ZC Sk `i -2241 &135 Leo( C,rde �(0110-100 GeoFF tEe 6o yj Pay le Le,-F c,rcte y52 e-L L(Aµrtn 7Iw1r.� 2-Lorl5 j7orewood Oa KS 070 -W'wi- U, r 7 95-2-47b -,:9z OtL Ly�T: or,,•a.1 c'.f; �(U /�LIL1n�arL ��, .,? 612,-7-l-i-6k'� *19tlm kOIO:K 2- O Aiew N— � LGrr t 12 tsSD l; L Mark ` J� 2b�3o ifi1� ti 1r `�5�'H�w-ggoi, b /l l " 263 fc,,, q0 (-4, / `l 2- P7 164 (nnr.�A LledfCG aSzii7ce'q ,� f. P4, Z' ti; ° i 1� 5 l 0 r ;ilk:. . � „ �^nw « e3va ��'id cYCJ 4, �• (G J i � � �'%w: G}"S%4...:rl `7S3-�s3')/�` ,y. "�^�_ A V-1101 mil �47ff� d ... • s ,,,... O �,�.d, .z_ §= r. � � �� • � ; : • �1,11%lam • �r. • ♦ 11 • JAI • J_ Mill IM •J Name Addresa Phone # Signature ;i��,1; a aI b �O ak �z�� SsJ y7o-rna,G John/-/v 0 26/l0 p.k te, Z/ 95 - 5 o�i!!� dAiC �t��iP�IL -`f7 -57y i l 1 Z- 7 - K I $o Qc�IC AC 0,' u 1 c>oo-l( k4 Uatl, q5 - 3 �k se4l Name Address Phone # Signature ll ��,iU Ano,[�mnY 2401ti Shu�e'Y �,rl0aly G12--70 �/Onv 10A dt% /2-yn- 12qy J i 110) ,IN ZWiL—) SIkP L IAV-S �Z 263 i33 i ,; . �tr ' � gOrP a's' fir• '5; -� � - 331 it 23 - v - R M PP'^�5+- �1�J ��Se Q� S�erc.-eaL �it— �16 •�i(;6 /v �' CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Lennar Corporation — Planning Case No. 2014-09, Boulder Cove Development Request for Preliminary Plat creating 31 lots, 3 outlots and right-of-way for public street (13.38 acres); and a Variance to allow a 1,200 foot -long cul-de-sac on property zoned to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District located north of Highway 7, East of Church Road and South of West 62nd Street. On April 1, 2014, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Lennar Corporation for a single-family residential development. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density 3. The legal description of the property is described on the attached Exhibit A. 4. Subdivision Findings: SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RLM District and the zoning ordinance if the length of cul-de-sac variance is approved. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site is guided for a density ranging between 1.2 — 4 units per acre. The subject site is proposed to have a gross density of 2.32 and a net density of 3.99 units per acre. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and 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. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. VARIANCE FINDINGS Sec.18-22. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a fording that all of the following conditions exist: VARIANCE FINDINGS WITHIN SUBDWISONS The city may grant a variance from the regulations of the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed cul-de-sac length promotes public safety. 2 2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; Finding: The hardship is due to the removal of access to Highway 7. 3) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique to this site and not generally applicable to other properties due to its location nett to Highway 7 and the fact that all properties north of the subject site are developed making a second access unfeasible. 4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and comprehensive plan. The applicant is providing local access to properties that currently access via Highway 7. 5. The planning report #2014-09 dated April 1, 2014, prepared by Sharmeen Al-Jaffet.al, is incorporated herein. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed development including a Preliminary Plat creating 31 lots, 3 outlots and right-of-way for public streets (13.38 acres); and Variance to allow a 1,200 foot -long cul-de-sac on property zoned RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this I' day of April, 2014. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its^Chairman aGL,I Exhibit A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: That part of the following described parcel lying Easterly of R.L.S. No. 15, according to the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. All that part of Section 5, Township 116 North, Range 23 West described as follows, to wit: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West; thence Easterly along the North line of said Section 5, Township 116. Range 23. a distance of 478.50 feet; thence South 585.20 feet; thence South 62 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 687.50 feet; thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West 196.60 feet; thence South 73 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds West 198.50 feet; thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds West 795.80 feet to the North line of said Section 5; thence Easterly along said North line of said Section 5, a distance of 598.20 feet to paint of beginning, the East line of said property above described runs in a North and South direction. AND That part of the following described parcel lying Westerly of Line A: All that part of Section 5. Township 116 North, Range 23 West, described as follows: Beginning at a judicial landmark on the North line of said Section 5, a distance of 478.50 feet East of the South Quarter Corner of Section 32, Township 117 North of Range 23 West; thence East along the North line of said Section 5 to the Northwesterly line of the right—of—way of State Trunk Highway No. 7 which right— of—way is set forth and described in Case No. 9902 on file in the office of the Clerk of District Court, Carver County, Minnesota; thence Southwesterly along said right—of—way to its intersection with a line drawn through the point of beginning and forming an interior angle of 90 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds with the North line of said Section 5; thence North to beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Carver County, Minnesota. Line A is described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County. Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 17 minutes 04 seconds East, along the south line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 585.18 feet to the point of beginning of said Line A; thence South 05 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 154.44 feet; thence 165.71 feet Southerly on a non —tangential curve, concave Westerly, having a central angle of 158 degrees 14 minutes 39 seconds a radius of 60.00 feet, a chord bearing of South 03 degrees 48 minutes 07 seconds West and a chord distance of 117.84 feet; thence South 30 degrees 22 minutes 28 seconds East to the Northwesterly right—of—way line of State Trunk Highway No. 7 and said Line A there terminating. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING: BOULDER COVE — PLANNING CASE 2014-09: REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCES TO SUBDIVIDE 13.39 ACRES INTO 31 LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL LOW & MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM) AND LOCATED AT 3670 HIGHWAY 7. APPLICANT: LENNAR CORPORATION. PROPERTY OWNER: PREMIER BANK. Al -Jaffa Chairwoman Tennyson, members of the Planning Commission. Just briefly the site is located north of Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 62od Street. Some of the basics of the site that need to be pointed out. There used to be a landscape business on this site for a number of years and you will notice that there are some existing trees, primarily the ones that are located around the perimeter of the site. The intention is to save the majority of those. Also you will notice that there are boulders scattered throughout the site. Those will be utilized as part of the landscaping for this development. Currently there are 4 access points. The, off of Highway 7. The access points that are the most westerly, the two most westerly, those two will be closed off with this proposed development. The access points that are to the east, the two to the east, those are private. Those are private property that the applicant has attempted to contact to see if they would be interested in having a private street and closing off their access off of 7. The property owner to the far east has indicated that at this time they are not interested and the applicant has not been able to connect with the property immediately to the east of the subject site. The intent is at some point in the future is to have this private street available to them and currently there is a cul-de-sac bubble that actually connects to the property that's immediately to the east of the subject site so access is available. The 2030 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as low density residential and the zoning of the site is mixed low and medium density. With that type of zoning and with the land use, one of the applications that had appeared before the City in 2006 and was actually approved was a request to put in single family homes, duplexes as well as three-plexes for a total number of units of 39. The application was approved and up til 2012 they requested extensions and the City granted those extensions until 2012 we said we need to look at other development options. Also there were a few ordinances that had been amended so we wanted to insure that the application complies with current ordinances and that's why it was allowed to lapse. So with that said, now we have an application before us that is looking at 31 single family homes to be placed on these 13.38 acres and 3 outlots. The outlots will contain ponds as well as a totlot and a third outlot will have a sign identifying the development. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2.32 units per acre. The net density is 3.99 units per acre. Under the low density designation you can have up to 4 units per acre so they are within the low density development guidelines. All lots within this development meet the minimum area, depth, width requirements of the zoning ordinance. One of the things that we asked the applicant to provide us with was the type of homes that they intend to build in this development. They gave us a number of samples and one of them was a product that is labeled next generation. It's a home within a home. Under the City ordinances and the definitions within our code, these units would be classified as a two family home. In cases such as these, our city code requires a variance to be granted for such use and it's specific to a certain individual. Typically it's an elderly and it's on a temporary basis. Right now we are evaluating this ordinance and looking at it in more depth. As proposed by the applicant we cannot approve such a unit so at this time they will not be allowed to have these units within this development. And however the city code is amended, if it was amended they would have to meet the guidelines and regulations that are set by the City. Okay? Other than that the, there is a variance attached to this application and that deals with the length of the cul-de-sac. The city code requires a minimum length, a maximum length for a cul-de-sac of 800 feet. This cul-de-sac has total length of 1,200 feet. Staff is recommending approval of this cul-de-sac for safety reasons because it will eliminate access points off of Highway 7. At this point I would like to turn it over to Alyson, Assistant City Engineer to address. Fauske: Thank you Sharmeen. Planning Commissioners, it's my pleasure this evening to talk to you a little bit about some of the background work that's gone into this development proposal. One thing that SCpWMED Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 we wanted to discuss and give the commission some background is on the Highway 7 corridor as it exists today. This exhibit which is also included on page 6 of the report, of the staff report shows some of the development work that's occurred within this corridor within the last 10 years. It also indicates where access points exist within the corridor so moving west to east there is, there used to be an access point here on Pipewood Curve. Due to sight distances, when the Hidden Creek development was developed over to the east, that access, the old Pipewood Curve access was, the old Pipewood Curve access was closed and a new one was constructed on Highway 7 so that was, that was MnDOT's way of improving the corridor by providing a better intersection with better sight distances. As we move further along to the east there's Hidden Creek Meadows which did not have a new access to Highway 7. The Boulder Cove development, which is before you this evening, and then on the very eastern part of the exhibit shown here is Boyer Lake Minnewashta which constructed, extended streets through the existing local system. So the Highway 7 corridor, it is govern by MnDOT and MnDOT when they look at providing an access for development if there's, they look at the corridor. The sight distances and if there's a viable access from a street system other than the state highway they say you need to get your access from the local street system and not from the state highway. That being said we wanted to discuss some of the concerns that have come up with some of the traffic in the area. This is also in the staff report on page 7 and the Boulder Cove site is indicated for the area shown with the red star there and the path outlined in purple indicates a route that is taken by some to drop the children off, either passenger vehicles or buses to Minnewashta Elementary school on the north side of Smithtown Road. Church Road is a Chanhassen city street. It is 31 feet wide. That is the city standard for a local street. West 62°d Street, the south half lies within the city of Chanhassen. The north half is within the city of Shorewood. That street is 22 feet wide as is Strawberry Lane which is a city of Shorewood street. Staff did meet with the City of Shorewood to discuss this development proposal. They are aware of resident concerns with the traffic in the area as well as pedestrian traffic and they're starting to look at the corridor, ultimately what would happen with the street widths. Their standard they indicated to us was 24 feet so 2 foot widening. Narrower than the Chanhassen standard. They were also going to take a look at the trail system requirements within this area but they don't have it identified currently in their capital improvement plan. They anticipate it might be 5 to 10 years out. So any improvements within the corridor, particularly as the City of Chanhassen is concerned with West 62' Street, we would do a joint venture with the City of Shorewood because for Chanhassen to go ahead and look at improving half of one street, it doesn't make sense. We need to be working with Shorewood to do that and they're starting their process internally and then they'll come back to Chanhassen and say this is what we anticipate seeing within the corridor and then Chanhassen will start looking at our street system and how that affects us. One of the things that we also talked about with the City of Shorewood is the existing intersection between Strawberry Lane and West 62' Street is a curve. As indicated in this exhibit there's a curve here so there's no stop condition for those that are traveling on West 62' Street up to Strawberry Lane and Shorewood, when we had our discussion with them there was a discussion about making that a T intersection so that the proposed street within the Lennar development would T up with 62" Street. Since it came up so late in the review process and since we're also waiting for Shorewood to give us some direction as far as where they ultimately anticipate Strawberry Lane lying within the right-of-way, where ultimately they anticipate having a sidewalk. Whether it be on the west side or the east side. Those are things that we need to have clear direction on before we give the developer's engineer the go ahead to start taking a look at how that intersection could be reconstructed to a T intersection and that's why we don't have that shown for you this evening. As part of that analysis we've directed the developer to get a traffic engineer to take a look at whether a T intersection at that location would warrant a stop condition. There are recommendations and guidelines when to use a stop condition and so we rely on a traffic engineer to provide us with that information and that recommendation and part of that process would get, would be to get traffic counts in the area. Traffic counts, Chanhassen, neither Chanhassen nor Shorewood have any traffic data in this area. The reason being is that traffic count data is taken on a state aid route and neither of these streets are a state aid route in the Chanhassen or the Shorewood system so we want to get an indication of what the vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic is in the area and then the traffic engineer can use that in his or Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 her analysis of the intersection to see if a stop sign is warranted. The other thing that we wanted to talk to you a little bit about this evening is the traffic generation. I wanted to provide an analysis of what was proposed back in the 2006 development. This is also shown on page 8 of your staff report. The current proposal is the Lennar 31 single family homes. In my analysis I just included the two single family homes just to show an ultimate development pattern should those two homes connect to the cul-de-sac and then I compared that to the 2006 development proposal which also included those 2 single family. The difference in the total daily trips, because single family homes generate higher traffic per unit than a twinhome or townhome so we did see an increase in the total daily trips as well as the a.m. and p.m. peak trips and the a.m. and p.m. peak trips are what traffic engineers will look at when looking at like for example here where it's a school corridor where there's buses so they look at the peak a.m. and p.m. trips in their analysis. So an increase of 6 1/2 trips in the morning and 10.8 trips in the evening. Statistically it's, we don't have a number of the existing counts through the street system there but it's, we'll have a better idea of what that number is when we get the traffic counts through the area. It's to provide more guidance. One of the other items that we wanted to bring to the Planning Commission and to the public's, to educate the Planning Commission and the public about some of the surface drainage because there are some surface and ground water drainage concerns that have been brought to our attention. The map shown on the west side, on the left side of the screen here is the existing drainage area map and it's color coded to give you an indication of where the site drains to. The area in yellow goes to the north. The area in the green goes to the west and the area in pink goes to the south to the MnDOT right-of-way. So the proposed drainage system is shown on the right hand side of the screen with the yellow area going to the north so they've decreased the area that's directly discharging to the north. The area in purple goes to a filtration system that they're proposing to build on site that ultimately would drain to their stormwater pond which is located in the area shown in blue. And then ultimately discharging to the right-of-way. They would have to work, the applicant would be required to work with MnDOT for a drainage permit because they would be draining to the Highway 7 right-of-way. And one of the other things that was examined quite extensively several years ago when the first development proposal came in and we've been talking about it again this time around is ground water. The City is aware of a few residents to the west of this site that have sump pumps quite a bit and water intrusion so we wanted to identify that with the 2006 proposal which after an analysis done both by the applicant and by Barr Engineering, the final recommendation was to include a draintile system just to, just to the west side of the proposed pond here in Outlot A in the south comer of the site. And the intent there is to provide some mechanism to attempt to drain some of that ground water out of saturated soils and get it into the MnDOT right-of-way to help alleviate some of the drainage issues with some of the folks to the west. One of the other things that staff has been working with the applicant on is the ground water elevation that was encountered in one of the soil borings. The area, the dots shown in green indicates some of the soil borings that were taken on the site back in 2005, which was a wet year. And then the two locations shown in orange are some piezometers that Lennar's soil engineer has installed to monitor some ground water elevations. The area that we've been talking to the developer about is right here in this area of Outlot A. The soil boring did show a higher ground water elevation than what the anticipated normal water level is in the, the designed normal water level is in the pond at this location so we're working with them to get some more data to see if, if the ground water elevation observed in 2005 was simply because you've dug a hole in the ground and the saturated soils just drained into that hole. 2005 was a wet year. Or if there is a sand lens in there that is carrying some water and so we want to try to get an idea of what's happening there. What's, from an engineering standpoint what's the best solution to this? And in this case it affects the design of the stormwater pond. It's not an indication of putting more ground water, you know re -saturating the ground water. It's a question about the design of the storm pond so we're going to continue working with the applicant on that to get that issue resolved. Al-Jaff. Just wanted to add that the applicant has held a neighborhood meeting. That meeting notice was posted on the City's website. Also there has been a sign on the site for almost a month indicating that there is proposed development on this site, as well as public hearing notices that went to people within Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 500 feet as required by city code. With that said we are recommending approval of the Boulder Cove subdivision with a variance for the length of the cul-de-sac and we are recommending the Planning Commission adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation that are attached to your staff report and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Tennyson: Do you have any questions? Undestad: Yeah, a couple here. I guess, I'll go over to Alyson first. So the soil borings they have are from 2005? Fauske: Yes that's correct and then they did some additional soils investigation with the Lennar proposal. Undestad: Okay, so more current borings that they've done out there? Fauske: More current borings but when we looked at the ground water elevations, when we have a soil boring taken at some point in time that showed an elevated ground water condition, we want to do our due diligence to make sure that, was it an anomaly because of the wet season that preceded that or is that really where this ground water is sitting at, at that location. Undestad: So and their new soil borings? Fauske: They had a new one, they did a new piezometer installation just to the north of that but when we start graphing where, there's like a sandy, silty sand layer that's between two clay layers which tends to move the water through so we want to get an idea within that dutlot A where that pond is, where is the ground water normally at at that location? Is it, is it below the normal water level? We're okay or is it above that normal water level where it's actually now feeding into the stoimwater pond and affecting the removal efficiencies of that pond. Undestad: Okay. Then you mentioned about the drain tiles too that I read somewhere there might be some existing drain tiles in the area? Fauske: Correct. Undestad: Do we know about any of those or? Fauske: We did get some back in 2006 one of the residents did give us some information with some of the existing drain file that he knew of in the location and they, the developer is proposing quite a bit of storm sewer in the rear yards throughout this development so any drain tile encountered would be connected. Investigated and connected where possible. Undestad: Okay. And then the last one, the traffic study that is going to happen or? Fauske: An analysis. Undestad: I mean it's giving you more information. Fauske: Correct. More information will be coming forward. Undestad: So would that, the potential of that traffic study, when that is done, would that potentially have an impact as to the number of trips versus the number of lots and homes and whether or not it's a stop situation at that intersection? Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 Fauske: To answer your question about the trip generation. The trip generation that's included in the staff report is, it's based on empirical data that's been monitored so as far as the estimated trips, we don't anticipate that that would change. What we're looking at from a traffic engineer is to go ahead and get vehicular traffic counts as well as pedestrian traffic counts. Take a look at what the ultimate design of that intersection will be by T'ing it up. Is a stop condition warranted? And if so, what are the impacts that would happen? Any delays on West 62' Street. That cast/west street as a result of that traffic, of a stop condition. Undestad: So that traffic study wouldn't necessarily go right back to say okay, 25 lots are you know, for traffic control. Fauske: It's an existing condition where you have a lot of vehicles traveling to the school in the morning and in the afternoon so it's, taking a look at what's existing right there and what can be done now to help alleviate that and to make it, where the proposed street connection is a safe connection. Undestad: Okay. Tennyson: And there area number of conditions already in the report. Are these, it sounds like these new investigations related to the stop sign and the possible change in the curve, all of that, those are additional conditions? Fauske: Correct. Tennyson: And they're included? Fauske: Correct. Tennyson: Okay. And just so, for purposes of review, the 2006 proposal was very similar. It was more, it was a higher number of units with one outlot and maybe this is more for Sharmeen. And now it is fewer housing units with 3 outlots. Al-Jaff: Correct. Tennyson: And a variance. There's one variance. It's not related to this proposed dual housing kind of situation. It's just about the cul-de-sac. AI-Jaff: Correct. Tennyson: Okay. Thank you. Al-Jaff: Which was also a variance with the original proposal. Tennyson: Okay. At-Jaff: Same length cul-de-sac. Tennyson: Anybody else? Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 Hokkanen: I have the same question. Maybe the applicant can address whether they can meet all these conditions because I have questions about, similar questions with the drainage and the traffic. I mean should we have had the traffic study first? Fauske: Ultimately that's what we would have desired and the applicant I think would echo that. That sentiment. Unfortunately the discussions and trying to get into the same room with the City of Shorewood didn't happen until the applicant had made their application and given the fact that Shorewood is now taking a step back so to speak and taking a look at the Strawberry Lane/West 62°" corridor in it's entirety and ultimately what they want to do with that, we felt that the details of that T intersection and the stop condition, it's not generated by the addition of these 32 single family homes. It's, there's an existing traffic, the existing traffic out there is already, it's already there. Hokkanen: It's already in now. Fauske: So with the new street connection there, what's the best way to approach this? What's the best geometric intersection? Geometry of the intersection and what are the impacts of that? Hokkanen: Okay. Weick: Would the, the two existing properties to the east, it looked like in one of the pictures that if the homeowner to the far east chooses to be connected to the cul-de-sac, which it sounds like that's a choice. There would be, it looks like a new driveway that would cut across the neighbor's property? Is that how that works? Fauske: There's currently in place. Thank you Sharmeen Weick: Down here. Well this is a home though right? Fauske: Correct. Hokkanen: So with the far east one Weick: How would the far east connect to the cul-de-sac? Fauske: This area dashed out right here, there's currently an easement for a private street. Weick: There is? Okay. Fauske: Yes. So that was put in place, it actually preceded the 2006 application is when that easement was put in place is my understanding. That would provide the eastern most single family home access to the local street. Weick: And that would not extend the length of the cul-de-sac correct? That'd be considered? Fauske: That would be considered a private street and would have to go through an approval process at that time. If the western, if this property that's currently adjacent to the cul-de-sac right-of-way wanted to make the connection to the cul-de-sac, it would be considered at that point a driveway. Weick: Okay. Fauske: It's when you have two homes where it's a private street. Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 Weick: Yep. Okay. Okay Hokkanen: I have one more question. The length of the street for the variance for the cul-de-sac. How long? I can't remember what it was. Fauske: They're proposing 1,200 feet and the city code limits it to 800. The reason staff is supporting that, and thank you for bringing that up. I should have mentioned that in the review, is the geometrics of the site, as it goes, and it's only frontage to public street is on the very northwestern comer. It extends you know further to the east here. A connection to Highway 7 is not possible. Looking to the west here, a street connection through here, ultimately redevelopment of this area it's, would a street connection through here really serve a great purpose? That's questionable so as staff we supported the street, the cul- de-sac length variance because of the geometrics of the site and the fact that we're removing some access points off of Highway 7. Hokkanen: And not to put you on the spot but Highcrest Meadows. We did longer cul-de-sac in there. Do we know how long? Do you remember? Fauske: Highcrest Meadows, if I'm correct preceded the cul-de-sac, maximum cul-de-sac length did it not? Aanenson: Correct. I think some of those might have been closer to 1,200, 1,100. But I think there's some places where based on topography like Settlers West where it's only possible servicing. And we did look at, or at least engineering looked at every possible alternative including connecting to Church Street and what that would do to traffic as Alyson had already stated coming up off of Highway 7 and potential back-up's that way too. Hokkanen: Thank you. Weick: And as a point of clarification, there are no variances for lot sizes correct? They fall within the. Al-Jaff: That's correct. Weick: The guidelines. Al-Jaff: Yes they do. Weick: Acreage per lot. Okay. Tennyson: Okay. With that we'll close this portion of the meeting and open the public hearing. Aanenson: We may, you might want to ask the applicant first and then maybe we could. Tennyson: Certainly. Would the developer like to come forward and state your name and address for the record please. Joe Jablonski: Good evening Madam Chair. Members of the commission. My name is Joe Jablonski. I'm representing Lennar US Home Corporation at 16305 36' Avenue North, Suite 600 in Plymouth, Minnesota. I appreciate staffs presentation. They did a good job kind of laying out the background of the site. Obviously our general site planning hasn't changed a great deal from what was approved before. The big reason behind that really is constraints of what you can do with it. It's fairly oddly shaped. Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 You're locked in by Highway 7 and existing neighborhoods. One of the considerations on the length of the cul-de-sac too to take into account is, you know we could have potentially shorten it and wrapped homes around the back of it but that would have also severed the opportunity for the two eastern parcels to at some point connect because part of this, as I understand is that MnDOT is really eager to get the access points eliminated along that corridor and by not having the length of the cul-de-sac it would make it that much more difficult to do that, which is why we had followed the previous precedent set there. There are a few of the other things that I wanted to kind of elaborate on a little bit. There's a number of conditions in here that as staff had gone through their presentation kind of noted that have potentially changed and they were related to the elimination of the access points on, it would be condition number f, g, h and i. Maybe not g but f, h, i and k actually is the other one and those were all related to the two eastern parcels and how connections were made to those under the previous proposal. They were kind of part of the plat. Under our proposal they are not so we're not asking them to provide easements. The easement that Alyson mentioned actually was not ever recorded so there's not a driveway easement across the western property to the eastern property. It was prepared but it was never recorded so we would prefer to keep all that kind of out of here so, and I think staff acknowledged that in conversations earlier that those items could be removed or. To get into a little bit more of the geotechnical things and some of the ground water that the Assistant City Engineer mentioned. We have gone out and done additional testing and data collection knowing that it's something that we wanted to understand as well. Just to maybe give a little bit more background. Our analysis has shown that typical ground water in the area would be Lake Minnewashta which is approximately 20 feet below this site. There are potential for veins of other ground water but the actual water table based on our geotechnical recommendation is that Lake Minnewashta area. We have had additional conversations and we will continue to work with staff on that item. I think that we can get that addressed in a way that we're comfortable with and staff will be comfortable with as well. Traffic. You know I think that Alyson was correct in saying that if the item had been presented to us early that we could have addressed the traffic concern. The concern isn't that the amount of trips that the new project is going to generate as much as what's there already and how you can maybe take a not very good situation and make it better. We're willing to do that and help in that process knowing that if we weren't doing anything in this area that that probably wouldn't happen so it is an opportunity for you know some more data collection and we can support that and assist with that and I think that we can get that done fairly quickly. I don't know how much data you want to collect or how long you want the data collection to occur but we can, we should be able to get that lined up and done pretty quick I think. Other than that I'd be more than happy to answer any questions if you have anything else that you would like to discuss with me or anyone from back? Tennyson: Does anyone have any questions for the developer? Weick: Assuming that, and we touched on it briefly before but the entrance to the subdivision. I'm assuming because of what's around this property that that's really it, right? As far as street access and all that kind of stuff. Joe Jablonski: It is and I think the Assistant City Engineer will also attest to the fact that you try to line roads up as much as you can. Putting an extra access point somewhere else really doesn't work. The only other place would be through onto Church Street through a small connection point but there again then you have to potentially deal with back up's on Church. And there's just not, because of the existing houses there it's just very difficult to get through there and MnDOT obviously wants elimination of points on Highway 7 so the whole north boundary, everything east of where Strawberry Court and 62od, the entrance to the neighborhood is already developed and has homes on it so there's no opportunity there. So it is pretty close to locked in. We can work with more of a T arrangement or rearrange it but the general area there is kind of where it's got to be. Tennyson: Anyone else? With that we'll open the public hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 Laurie Sacchet: Well thank you very much Planning Commission. My name's Laurie Sacchet. I'm at 6175 Strawberry Lane. Approximately 3 homes away from the entrance. Just like to invite any of you to be at my house at between 7:00 and 8:00 in the morning and see 3 large buses sitting there with you know 10 cars waiting to get through and the reality of living in a 22 foot Strawberry Lane. You know it's a country area back there and I think speaking on behalf of my neighbors, having 60 plus vehicles you know coming through there, considering everybody might have 1 or 2 cars is a really serious concern. The street isn't designed for that at all. Or 62°d Street. Right now cars kind of whip around there as it is and there's really not room for 2 so you know it's amazing there haven't been more collisions there but you know people slow down so just the reality is that that access point is, in reality a very, very poor choice. The angle of it and everything about it so maybe a miracle can change that but the other option of adding one on Church Street would alleviate a tremendous situation and share some of the load and if that possibility exists I would strongly encourage that that be looked at because right now it's inviting a mess in that area with the number of children living there. I don't have any. All of my neighbors do. There are no sidewalks. There are no stop signs. It's rural. So anyway 10 years is an awful long time to wait on something like that so thank you for considering all that. Tennyson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Leah Schneider: My name is Leah Schneider. I live on 26420 West 62' Street. I'm directly across the street from the proposed entrance. My husband's a Chanhassen fire fighter. He's here as well so he frequents Strawberry and West 62nd and understands the safety concerns that we have. My kids who are also here, since it's spring break and we don't have a sitter, ride the bus every morning and I stand in the driveway and watch them go to the bus stop because it is extremely traffic laden in the morning and I think that was noted in some of the, well I guess the empirical data but not, not like no traffic study has been done I guess to this point. And this isn't new information. This is something that we brought up in 2006 and we are the same owners so I still have this concern. I can speak, people whip around that comer pretty fast. This winter it's been a bad winter, I'll give you that but our neighbors have actually had about I think 4 or 5 cars run into their property on that turn so it's very dangerous as is. I'm not confident a stop sign would help. It depends on where you put the stop sign but I do think that adding 31 or 62 new drivers, you know cars will impact it regardless of how you look at that and I do think it's important to do a traffic study ahead of time before you start working on this because there is not, I walk on that road to go to the parks, the trail system, because all of those exits have been taken off of Highway 7, people use that as a through road to get back into Lake Minnetonka neighborhoods. Any road along Smithtown so it's already pretty, there's a lot of traffic going back there so I do think that would impact that, the traffic on that road. I also have concerns about drainage. I did see the proposal. I saw the ponds but my sump pump runs all year long and we have standing water if it rains and it's, so I'm concerned. We're actually on the north so it sounds like something's going to be done to the west but I haven't heard anything about the north side so that's another concern of mine. And so I mean mainly for me it's the traffic and the safety. Providing sidewalks or something. Improving the roads somehow. They're just too narrow and school buses actually don't take those corners. They have to stop if another car is coming around the comer. They have to completely stop and that happens pretty much every morning. So that's pretty much it. Thanks. Tennyson: Thank you. Anyone else? Jason Schneider: I'm Jason. I'm Leah's husband. I've been a Chanhassen fireman for 22 years. I have seen the redevelopment of Highway 7. All the closures of all our exits and entrances onto 7. Most calls I go to are not from those entrances or exits. They're from people going too fast on Highway 7. Stuff like that so I guess what I'm proposing is a MnDOT access to this during construction. Alter that they can come onto our street. Our street is not prepared for this traffic. There is a lot of safety concerns. I've had 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 4 cars in my yard in the last month. We had development by the railroad and the dump trucks that go through there a day, I mean they're done now but they were horrible and I even chased one of them down one day to slow him down. And I know Laurie's significant other was with me. He was there and these two roads are not able to handle this so as public safety I just, I know it's going to happen. You know the development can go through but we can't have that traffic on these two roads. It can't be done. If my kid gets hit, I've seen a lot, I'm not going to, I can't do this so. Yes, it is emotional because I do see a lot and this road is not prepared for this. I do want them to develop. I know it's going to develop but we just need a different access to this development and that's all I have. Tennyson: Thank you. Ryan Johanson: Madam Chair, commission, Lennar, thank you for letting us come here today to speak. Tennyson: Could you start with your name and address. Ryan Johanson: Yes. Ryan Johanson, 6070 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota. Tennyson: Thank you. Ryan Johanson: I understand this is a unique situation because you have a development kind of going in at the intersection of two communities. Shorewood and Chanhassen so we're here tonight obviously to talk to Chanhassen about what's going on and speak our minds a little bit. We're also doing that with Shorewood. We've talked to Shorewood. We've talked to Lary Brown. Brad Nielson. They know our concerns. We just kind of found out about this. I know it's kind of hard to believe that members of Shorewood Oaks and Strawberry Lane are kind of just finding out about this. There was rumors and rumblings in 2006. I built in 2003 and 1 don't know if you can see. I'm just a few houses to the north of Leah and Jason on Strawberry Lane. There's been a lot of development. Yeah you can kind of see. Where 62 and Strawberry yep, I'm just up there just a little bit on the left hand side up there so. There's been a lot of development since I built in 2002. Around me within 500 feet of me there's been 13 new homes in the last 10 years and that's great. Development's good. I had the privilege of sitting in the work session with you guys earlier and there was talk about preservation. Watershed. The balance between development and sustainability and I appreciate that you are looking at your community from that viewpoint and that's necessary so we're not as members of Shorewood Oaks and Strawberry Lane opposed to development. We all built our homes. We needed homes to live in so development is a good thing. It just has to be done the right way and everybody has a chance to communicate and speak on this. The biggest issues we had and have, one was the next gen homes and my understanding is that's off the table now. Those next gen homes are not going to be built or are you going to go forward with a potential code amendment and discuss that issue? Aanenson: The current ordinance doesn't allow them. We are going to talk about potentially some code amendments. That doesn't mean that every house in here could be next generation. We're just talking about in general how we approach the variance allows for 2 homes in one dwelling so it's not our intention to have every house in there go to next gen. We understand the traffic implications. That's some of the things we'll be talking about so. Ryan Johanson: Okay. Aanenson: And even if we did process something it would take a while to get through, to draft an ordinance. Go through the public hearing. There's always a public hearing also on all code amendments and then the City Council would also have to approve that so it's a little bit of a process. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 Ryan Johanson: Okay. And I understand that and that's clear to me and that's why I think this is premature. Approval of this plat without the traffic studies. Without the soil samples that we've been talking about. Without knowing if there are going to be next generation homes in this development, how can we make an educated decision to pass approval onto the City Council? There's no way you can do that because next gen homes do affect the traffic study. Tbey do affect watershed. They do affect everything so not having those studies and that data in front of us, we can't make informed decisions. This has been a proposed development since 2006. The original development, Roger Derek Cottage Homes that had an extension for like 6 years. He kept asking for extension, extension, extension. I understand the need for Lennar to, and Premier Bank to get this development conducted and to do it fast. But again like what I heard in the work session, let's do it the right way. Let's do it after we've had a chance to look at sustainability. To look at preservation. To look at all the data that we need and we really do need to know if there's going to be code amendments that allow these types of homes because that's going to increase a single unit from let's say 2 parents and 2 kids. Potentially 2 parents, 2 kids. A renter. Maybe 2 renters. Maybe 2 college kids that are going to use this one bedroom, part of these next gen homes. That's 2 cars for the 2 parents that own the home. Maybe a 16 year old lives in the house. 3 cars. 1 or 2 rents in that unit. 4 or 5 cars in that development. That is going to affect the traffic study that hasn't been done yet. All these things are kind of built upon one another. We need to know if those codes are going, amendment's going to go through. If next gen houses are going to be allowed and then the traffic study needs to be done because the way it is right now with access on 62' and Strawberry Lane, like Leah and Jason said, like you said, it's impossible. You guys talked about going out to sites in the work session program and how valuable that was. I know you're busy. I know you have lives. I would ask that you go out before you make any decisions and look at that area. I just stopped over at Jason and Leah's house on the way home from work to come here and I had to make a 10 point turn in my truck in that roadway just to go back to my house. It is narrow. It is rural. Does part of that lei with Shorewood? Definitely and that's, we're addressing that with Shorewood for road improvements to that road. I would suggest that if this development goes through, and if there is a T section there, that it is stopped and then with Shorewood we're also asking that at the intersection of Shorewood and Strawberry Lane, there's a stop sign. And then at the crossing where the trail goes through, that there is one. Currently where Church Road goes up to 62vd, there's a stop sign there at Cathcart Parkway. There's no stop signs until you get to Minnewashta school. None. So people go 45-50 miles an hour cruising down that road. There's more development. Shorewood did development right by there, like I said 13 new homes including mine in the last 10 years so we can't say one community can develop and one can't but at an intersection like we're talking about, we have to do it the right way. You have to make an informed decision so I think it's premature to grant this. To approve this. To pass it onto City Council when there are so many questions. That's with the next gen houses. I know I'm being long winded here but with the variance also requested for the cul-de-sac, it was 800 feet in 2006 when it got approved. Now it's 1,200. 60% increase. Aanenson: ...it was 1,200. Well the reason again it was extended out there is to accommodate, through no fault of the developer, which is why the staff supported it, is to accommodate those 2 extra driveways if in time in the future wanted to be. The developer could have shorten that up and got some different lot configurations in there. Ryan Johanson: That's perfect and that's again is if those 2 homes want to be part of it and that's another question that we don't know yet. Aanenson: But again yeah, well that's good planning though to provide that opportunity. That would be short sighted not to provide that opportunity in the future. There have been deaths with people turning onto, making those turns on Highway 7. Alyson didn't show on the south side but we also accommodated some removals on the south side. Pipewood, just on the other side of Landings. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 Minnewashta Landings, we took out streets on that side too there, so the staff is the one that requested the additional length on that one to make the cul-de-sac longer. I also just want to speak again about next generation. We're just starting that discussion. That may, this development may be built out by the time we move forward with that so the development as it comes in today, meeting city ordinance so it does meet and it cannot go forward with next generation as it is today. We don't know what the timeline is for studying that. It came to us now. We just want to make sure that the council understands how we interpret it today. That's why we're having it in a work session. A discussion whether or not a cul-de-sac is even an appropriate place to put some of those so there's a lot of discussion that goes on before we would say it's not a rush to try to get something approved so they can accommodate them. That's not our goal so. Ryan Johanson: Okay Aanenson: I just want to separate those two. It came forward with this and we want to make sure the commission understands it and we're more deliberate in how that would be applied and where it would be used in the city. Ryan Johanson: Okay, wonderful. And I just want to point out, if by chance you drive over there and you take a look at it, drive down 7 going west. Go up Church Road. Go down 62nd. Go on Strawberry Lane. That's going to be access for these homes. Or before the two lots, before the two arrows, you can barely see it in the upper comer there. That's Shorewood Oaks. The entrance to the Shorewood Oaks subdivision. It kind of wraps around like this and intersects with Strawberry. That's going to be the other entrance for this development. They're going to go up Shorewood Oaks. Go down Strawberry Lane and go right to the top of the development. These are residential, single family residential homes on mainly acre lots. Tree preservation policy in Shorewood mirrors and mimics the one in Chanhassen. They love big trees. The Comprehensive Plan for Shorewood is large lots, single family homes, lots of tree coverage. Almost every single family in Shorewood Oaks and on Strawberry Lane have multiple children. 2-3 children. You drive your car through there, there's kids playing in the street. In their, not in the street I hope. In their front yards, all that kind of stuff. Diverting now 62 to 120 new vehicles through those side, small streets is going to be a huge impact and we talked about safety several times. A huge safety implication. I just think when you took at every single possible scenario, and like you said we're not trying to push this through fast but look at everything before we make any judgments. Any decisions. If there is a way to have an access on Church Road, that cuts that variance for that cul-de-sac down and it cuts a lot of traffic from being diverted through all these subdivisions. Shorewood Oaks and Strawberry Lane. Go down 7. Go up Church Road right into here. I haven't heard any good argument yet on why that's not feasible. Why that's not possible so I would just say thank you for letting me speak and just really make sure we have all of the information we need before we make any decisions. Tennyson: Thank you. Aanenson: I'd just like to address the Church Road issue, and maybe Alyson wants to comment on it too. The developer themselves looked at that as an opportunity as did the City and there was no property willing to, that could be acquired or accommodated for this development. We did try to take that approach and it was explored at a considerable length of time and that was eliminated as a possibility so that was explored. Tennyson: Thanks for the explanation. That does help. Anybody else? Mark Diode: My name is Mark Diode, 16996 Hanover Lane in Eden Prairie. You might wonder why Eden Prairie. Well like they said. A lot's changed since 2006 with open enrollment in the schools and we're one of the people that drive by their houses each day. We open enrolled at Minnetonka schools 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 because you know what, you know they've just, it's been tremendous so the issue there is it's, I've said my concerns to the principal and the Shorewood City Council saying 62nd and Strawberry Lane, there's kids walking on snow banks trying to get to school every day. It's horrible with you know, you're driving on that and like I said, people are going 45 down, it's very dangerous. And ironically we, the State requires that if you live within a half mile you have to pay money to take the bus so you'd think that they would provide safety on very busy roads through, with sidewalks and whatever that are around schools so that's, this is a touchy subject because it's kind of Shorewood and it's Chanhassen and it's, so that's one aspect of it. So what I'd like to see before, you know obviously the traffic patterns now, today during school sessions of course. Not during spring breaks, etc, to see what's the proposed streets for 62°d and Strawberry Lane. What are they going to do? They're going to make it, instead of a rural, those two are rural roads. Are they going to make it bigger with sidewalks, street lights, stop signs, whatever. I think that has to be done before you put, it's truly a medium density housing when you figure in all the houses going in there so I think those two plans have to be decided between Chanhassen and Shorewood to say what's the future, but can't wait 5 to 10 years. That has to be done before any more homes are done in there. The second thing, beyond those two. Beyond that plat is to show a plat of what it looks like for the City Council to see an 800 foot cul-de-sac. There's no reason why it can't be done. You can just extend that private drive out more to those houses. You know they might have a 200-300 foot driveway but so be it. Everything's still fine and I just think that they should see the options. That's the legal option. What the builder can do so why not give them that option. I know you guys probably want to force, you know give them your best choice but I would think that they should see some other configurations of that. That plat. Beyond those two things, I mean obviously you know half acre lots would be ideal you know for the density around the area so, anyway thanks. Tennyson: Thank you. I see someone else. Wade Navratil: Hello. I'm Wade Navratil. I live at 3751 West 62' Street. I'm in the property just west of the proposed development right there. The house. I echo everything that my neighbors say to the north. Absolutely. I think it would be premature to do this without a traffic study. I think it'd be, you really need to look at that entrance into Strawberry Lane because there is a row of cedars there that if you don't put a stop sign there, you are really asking for a lot of trouble because it is very hard to get onto West 62°d Street right now. I should know, I'm the only driveway on the south side so you know I've got to come out of cedars every day to look out there. And then you know my other concern is drainage. If they're going to raise it up and put 6 to 8 lots along that western border, you know how high are they going to raise it up and then it's going to end up in my lot. And I know there's talk about doing you know French tiles there. French drains and stuff but you know I echo my neighbors to the north. My pumps run 24n, 365. Trouble with them freezing up you know at this time of the year. So there is a lot of ground water out there that needs to be accounted for and it's very flat so, you know can say it kind of drains this way but it's very flat and it sits out there. But those are you know the big concerns. I think there does need to be a traffic study handled for that. School buses can't go down there. We all agree to that. There's no place for the kids to walk. And actually has anybody talked to the school and are they going to change the school bus stops because right now the only stops are on Church. On Church and the comer of 62"d at Cathcart there. And at Church and I forget the road off to the west. I actually got a variance so my kids could walk across my neighbors yard so they wouldn't have to walk down 62°d. So I had my kids being picked up off Church Road. I figured that road was a lot safer to cross. You know a lot clearer sight lines. A lot more open for them to cross to get picked up by the bus so has anybody even talked to the school district about bus pick-up if we're going to put in 31 single family homes there for the safety of the children. Those would be my concerns. Thank you. Tennyson: Thank you 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 Dan Peso: Hi. My name's Dan Peso. I live at 6125 Church Road and I just wanted to piggyback up what my neighbors had said. Concern for kids. I have a first grader and I have a daughter that will be entering in kindergarten in 2 years so just the traffic that will be coming down and just like no sidewalks and that 2 buses, they can't fit on that road. And then the other thing I was kind of curious about was with the addition of 31 new houses was that entrance from Church Road, taking a left onto Highway 7. That's very difficult at all hours, especially in the afternoon but especially in the morning and I was just wondering if there's any talk about stop light. Just something to try to help that out. I know further west on Highway 7 way out they're putting roundabouts in but I don't know if there's anything to address that issue so thank you very much for your time. Tennyson: Thank you. I see someone standing Fauske: Chair Tennyson? Tennyson: Yes Fauske: If I may just to Mr. Peso's question about the intersection of Church Road and Highway 7. We do communicate with MnDOT on probably an annual basis as far as taking a look at the Minnewashta Parkway intersection at both Highway 7 and Highway 5 every, it was every year and I think it still is every year and they keep coming back and saying that the counts, the traffic counts just aren't high enough to do a signal at that location but we do communicate with them constantly about analyzing those intersections so I appreciate the question. Tennyson: Thank you. I see he's coming back. I don't think I've ever seen that happen. Jason Schneider: Say just to piggyback. Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway/Church Road is a problem. I get called a lot. I try to cross the highway to get to that station. Sometimes I sit there for over 5 minutes trying to get across Highway 7. That's where a majority of our accidents are is Highway 7 and Church Road right now. You guys can probably have access to our sheets. That's where we do get most of them. Also I walked across the road today to the proposed development area and there is standing water at ground level throughout the property. I live on the lowest lot area so I get the water and I just, I can't get any more water. Some of our drain tile takes it. 10 years ago when you could do stuff I've actually taken little float pumps and pumped it across the road because I had a foot of water in my garage so water, the water issue for me is real. I have water problems. And I just wanted you guys, safety is number one. Our road isn't for this. I know MnDOT probably could do something. You know even if you just take a right hand turn. All the time trucks pull in. They take a right hand. They've got to take a right hand to get out. I know it can be done. Our road is not made for the traffic that is proposed so that's all I got. Thank you. Tennyson: Okay. Anyone else? Seeing no one come forward we'll close the public hearing portion of the meeting and open this for discussion among the commissioners. Questions for staff. Undestad: I have a question for Alyson first. The construction entrance option, I mean dealing with MnDOT, is that something that's possible to get the right-inlright-out just during construction? Fauske: That would be a MnDOT call and I think that that was something that the applicant has maybe perhaps had a discussion and can maybe answer that question. Tennyson: Can you answer that question? 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 Joe Jablonski: Madam Chair, members of the commission. To address that specific question, we have applied for a construction permit off of MuDOT right-of-way. They've already told us and have told the City before that there's not going to be a permanent access and we did this fairly recently and it will take them some time to review but we recognize that that's probably a good idea for us as well. Whether or not they're going to grant it, you know that's not, it's a little difficult to do and they don't, from my experience they don't do it a lot but they may. But we have taken that step to at least apply for it. Undestad: Thank you. Well I have a few comments. Tennyson: Do you? Undestad: Yeah, you know there is a lot going on here but I think what I'd like to just clarify is you know what we're bringing up here is the, you know the plat. The preliminary plat, they're bringing the project through. We're not approving the traffic, the roads. We're not, you know this stuff, there's a number of conditions that the applicant has to deal with on here and a lot of the concerns I heard, you know that the traffic problem. Currently there is a traffic problem there so potentially this could be solving a traffic problem by bringing in. There is a condition in the report that makes the applicant come up with his you know analysis on the traffic and whether or not we need T. Where or not that would be a stop conditions you know so that needs to be done before this project can go anywhere. There was comments about the water issues out there. There's a condition in here that requires the applicant that all the recommendations related to subgrade improvements and drainage and that kind of stuff, from a Braun report that that be adhered to so you know there are steps in there that are taking care of that. Staff has made the comment, there are no next gen homes. That's again in the condition of approval down here so the cul-de-sac is really a function of MnDOT trying to get rid of all accesses off of Highway 7 and we've seen that a number of times. The applicant could easily shorten that up a littie bit, maybe get 34 more lots in there if we ignore the 2 houses to the east out there but you know again I think at the end of the day it's still a MnDOT call saying we want to eliminate as much as we can out of there and the cul-de-sac does that so. So I think again I hear the concerns out there and there are a number of them and I understand that we want to know what kind of traffic this is going to do and what it's going to resolve but all the conditions in here are going to require the developer to get these answers before they go put a shovel in the ground out there so. Tennyson: I completely agree and as far as the variance and the length of the cul-de-sac, it's exactly what a variance is for when there are no other options and those options have been explored so I, I would support this. Hokkanen: Well I agree with everything that both commissioners said and thank the public for their comments and concerns and they are addressed in these conditions that the developer will have to address to move forward. And the next gen homes, it's a condition in here and we haven't even addressed that with the City yet so I'd like some clarification on that at some point but otherwise I think that all these conditions once met will probably improve that street and that intersection with the city of Shorewood. Weick: Just a couple comments. As far as the variance. Actually I appreciate the work that the applicant's done to include those 2 homes either now or into the future. I think that's necessary so I am in support of that. I also believe in looking at the homes, and thank you for sharing some of the homes in here as well. I do think this is a beautiful addition to the area from a neighborhood standpoint and so I think that's a good thing. I have similar concerns over the next gen and I'm glad that that's not going to be part of this, at least out of the gate and the, I personally can't get over the traffic issue and I know there's verbiage in here to address it. I'm just not sure exactly what that means and I would be concerned that you know we do a traffic study that says that you know maybe we're not, there's not going to be a significant impact and they make a T and then you know everything goes through as planned. I share 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 those concerns and would like to see all of that information. That's just the biggest, you know I just think the road is an issue today whether you build one more house there or not and it just feels like the responsible thing is to fix that before we add to the issue because I think it is an issue today so those, I have difficulty getting over that in my mind. Even though I mean it fits the code and it fits the acreage. It fits everything and it is beautiful. I mean it really is. I think it's a great, it's great value to the neighborhood. I've never been so concerned over a road before but this one just really doesn't feel right to me. Tennyson: Anyone want to entertain a motion for approval or denial? Undestad: I'll make a motion. Tennyson: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Yusuf: Has he made it? Undestad: I'll make the motion. Tennyson: Oh, he hasn't made it yet. Undestad: I'll make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Boulder Cove Subdivision with a variance subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Tennyson: Thank you. Do we have a second? Yusuf: Second. Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #2014-09 for Boulder Cove for 31 lots and 3 outlots with a Variance to allow a 1,200-foot long cul-de-sac as shown on the plans received March 4, 2014 subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. Park and Recreation Conditions: a. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Boulder Cove. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current proposed lot count of 31 homes and the city's 2014 single-family park fee of $5,800 per unit, the total park fees for Boulder Cove would be $179,800. 2. Environmental Resources Conditions: a. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the drip line for tree 471. A layer of woodchips shall be installed over the root zone to a depth of 3-4 inches. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 b. No trees shall be planted within the public right-of-way. Front yard trees shall be located inside the setback area. c. Additional tree species shall be added to the plant schedule in order to reduce the percentage attributed to spruce so that no more than one-third of the trees are from any one species. Additional trees may not be from the maple family and must be overstory species. Minimum total number of trees to be planted is 166. d. There are overhead power lines along Highway 7. Only ornamental trees shall be allowed to be planted in the bufferyard between the property line and the proposed fence. e. Evergreens shall average seven feet in height when planted. f. Any tree removal outside the parameters of the subject property shall require approval of the property owner where the tree is located. g. Applicant shall correct the tree inventory for the following trees: • Tree #38, sugar maple: shown on the plan as saved, shown in the inventory as removed. The applicant shall resolve the discrepancy. • Tree #72, spruce: shown on plan and inventory as saved. Tree is noted to be in poor condition. Tree shall be noted as REMOVE. • Tree #96, red oak: shown on plan at the very edge of the grading limits. Tree appears to be in a position for a possible save. It is in fair condition. Staff recommends that applicant work with staff to preserve tree if appropriate. • Tree #205, 9206, ash: shown on plans as saved. These trees are within the grading limits and have proposed grading shown on top of their locations. Trees shall be noted as REMOVE. 3. Building Department conditions: a. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height. c. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. d. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. e. Proper removal, abandonment or sealing of storage tanks, on -site septic systems, wells, etc. required. Permits required, as applicable. f. If applicable, existing home(s) affected by new street will require address changes. 4. Fire Marshal conditions: 18 Cbanbassen Planning Commission —April 1, 2014 a. Three feet of clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. b. Fire hydrants must be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed prior to and during construction. d. Fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. e. No burning permits will be issued for the removal of brush, trees. 5. Planning Department Conditions: a. The "Next Generation" homes are not permitted under the current city ordinances. b. A high-tension power line exists along Highway 7. Any work or landscaping must be approved by Xcel Energy. 6. Engineering Department Conditions: a. The developer must work with the City of Chanhassen and the City of Shorewood to revise the plans to incorporate a "T intersection at 62nd Street, Strawberry Lane, and Strawberry Court. b. The developer shall provide an analysis to determine if the "TT' intersection would warrant a stop condition. c. If a stop condition is warranted, the developer shall have a traffic engineer collect and analyze traffic counts on 62nd Street to determine the queuing effects at the intersection. d. Other details such as transitioning from a 31-foot wide street in Chanhassen to a 22-foot wide street in Shorewood shall be addressed with the final plan submittal. e. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and the street must be restored. f. The septic tank and mound system that services 3530 Highway 7 is within the project boundaries. These items must be removed and disposed of at an approved facility in conjunction with the site improvements as proposed. g. Based on the proposed preliminary plan the developer must provide a sanitary sewer service to 3530 Highway 7. The developer shall ensure that sewer service to 3530 Highway 7 is maintained throughout construction, which will involve pumping the septic tank after the septic mound is removed and before a sewer service is installed to serve the property. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 h. Water main for the project will be directionally bored under Highway 7 and will wet tap into the existing 12-inch trunk water main on the south side of Highway 7. A portion of this water main extension lies on 3520 Highway 7; the developer must acquire the necessary easement prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. i. Water main will extend between Lot 5, Block 1 and the tot lot to the existing water main in the southwest corner of 3751 62nd Street. The water main alignment shown on the utility plan is not within the existing easement; therefore, the developer must acquire the easement necessary to install this water main prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. j. A water main interconnect will be required to the Shorewood water main at 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. k. The developer proposes to extend 6-inch water main to the east to provide service to 3520 and 3030 Highway 7. The developer must acquire the necessary easements to complete this work. 1. All existing and proposed off -site drainage and utility easements must be referenced accordingly. m. Existing off -site easements must be referenced by document number or the plat in which they were dedicated. n. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. 7. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Show the extent of the shoreland overlay district for Lake Minnewashta on the plan set before final plat approval. b. The applicant must demonstrate the extent of tree preservation for stormwater volume reduction credit by overlaying grading limits on a current aerial photograph before final plat approval. c. The applicant must recalculate the volume reduction credit from new tree plantings without the use of ornamental trees before final plat approval. The current best information is that elevation is at least 969.5 to approximately 972. d. The filtration feature shall be moved so that the bounce within the basin remains entirely within the outlot before final plat approval. e. A homeowners association shall be created and shall be responsible for the maintenance of the filtration feature. The outlet pipe shall be the responsibility of the city. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission — April 1, 2014 f. An operations and maintenance manual shall be developed for the filtration feature indicating how the HOA will maintain the feature and assure its proper function. g. The landscape plan shall be updated to include the planting schedule for the infiltration basin and the outlots and to provide shrubs or other buffering measures between the rear yard lines and the filtration feature before final plat approval. h. The pond in Outlot A shall be redesigned such that the likely seasonally high water table is at or below the modeled normal water level. i. Additional hydrogeological data provided and attested to by a licensed professional in hydrogeology or similar may be used to show that the above condition is met. j. All recommendations relating to subgrade improvements, preparations and drainage as well as dewatering and drainage control from the March 3, 2014 Braun report shall be implemented. k. The swale behind lots 4 through 10 of Block 2 shall have a drain tile installed as part of the site grading and utility installation. This shall be included before final plat approval. 1. Environmental manholes or 4-foot sump manholes with SAFL baffles shall be installed at CBMHI and CBMH3. m. A concerted effort shall be made to combine the outfall into the Pond in Outlot A such that there is only one outfall. If it is not feasible from an engineering standpoint, then documentation supporting this assertion shall be provided to city staff prior to final plat approval. n. A comprehensive, standalone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of the NPDES construction permit shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment before final plat approval. o. Surface Water Management connection charges are estimated to be $84,146.45. This connection charge will be due at the time of final plat. p. In the event that wetland characteristics are observed on the site during field visits during the growing season, steps will need to be taken to assure compliance with the MN Wetland Conservation Act, the Federal Clean Water Act and other applicable federal, state and local regulations. All voted in favor except for Weick and the motion carried 4 to 1. Aanenson: This item then will appear at the City Council meeting on April 10. Tennyson: Yes, if you're following this agenda item it will be with the City Council on April 14' and all of the materials in our packet are available on the City website. 21 AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Leah Schneider [Ims8898@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 1:10 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby@ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Cc: Jassen Schneider Subject: Boulder Cove Development Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, I am writing to request a postponement of the April 1' planning commission meeting and public hearing for the Boulder Cove development and requested variances (Case 2014-09). We are the home owners directly across from the proposed entrance to the Boulder Cove development, at 26420 W 62"d Street, Shorewood, MN 55331. As mentioned 9 years ago, when the proposal to develop this area was first discussed, we continue to have concerns with the entrance located on the corner of W. 62"d Street and Strawberry Lane. We have seen the new developers plans and our main concerns have to do with the increased traffic in the area, the state of the roads and the impact this increase in traffic will have on them, safety concerns with the number of children in the neighborhood and proximity to the school, and issues with drainage on the property impacting neighboring homeowners. The development, as proposed, would greatly impact Church Road, W 62"d Street, and Strawberry Lane, which are currently narrow neighborhood roads and require improvements as is. Increased traffic from 31-62 more family units would create some serious issues for the roads, not to mention the safety of kids/families walking or biking (to school, parks or trail). Currently there are no stop signs on Strawberry Lane from the proposed cul de sac to Minnewashta School. Likewise there are no sidewalks, storm drains or street lights on Strawberry Lane and W. 62"d Street. Allowing more development without addressing road concerns and issues is not acceptable. Traffic between W. 62"d Street, Strawberry Lane, and Boulder Cove to Minnewashta School will no doubt increase substantially once the development is built. The variance should not be granted without requirements for road improvement on Strawberry Lane and W 62"d Street public safety and fairness warrant those improvements should the variance be awarded. The cost of these improvements should not be the responsibility of the existing homeowners on these streets as we are not the ones approving the development of a potential of 31- 62 family units. The proposed development will be on land that could be considered marsh land given the nature of the soil. Many of the homeowners in the area deal with water issues on their property due to poor drainage. The increase in this much impermeable surface area this close to our home raises these concerns and the impact it will have on our property. SCANNEC We feel it is necessary to address these concerns before making any final decisions on the development and access into the proposed development. Sincerely, Leah and Jassen Schneider (Chanhassen Firefighter) 26420 W 62nd Street Shorewood, MN 55331 Ims88980msn.com Meuwissen, Kim From: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:17 PM To: Meuwissen, Kim Subject: FW: April 1 - Boulder Cove Planning Commission meeting From: Patrick R. Johnson [mailto:patrickreidjohnson@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 10:13 AM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Cc: Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; Scott Zerby; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: April 1 - Boulder Cove Planning Commission meeting Chanhassen Planning Commission: As a homeowner off of Strawberry Lane, I write to you with concern over the proposed Boulder Cove development Planning Case 2014-09. First and foremost, I request that the planning commission postpone the April 1 hearing to a date that is not during the public school spring break session as the majority of affected residents are in the Minnetonka school district and are currently out of town, including myself. Second, I understand that the developer has provided a notice of the hearing to residents within 500' of the proposed borders. Given that the entrance to the proposed cul de sac will be connecting with Strawberry Lane within the Shorewood borders, significantly more attention needs to be made to residents who connect off of Strawberry Lane. Strawberry Lane is one of two roads that connect with Minnewashta Elementary School and therefore has significant foot traffic and currently has no sidewalk. Any increase in vehicular traffic is of great concern as Strawberry Lane already has major safety concerns. The parents of Minnewashta Elementary, especially those whose children walk along Strawberry Lane should be included in the notifications of public hearings. Again, given the spring break schedule, this hearing should be postponed and suggest that a public hearing be scheduled with the residents of Strawberry Lane and the connecting cul-de-sacs as well as school officials of Minnewashta Elementary prior to any recommendations from the Chanhassen Planning Commission. Regards, Patrick :3CANNFC Patrick R. Johnson 347.728.9452 AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Jolene Scott Dolene0205@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 20144:24 PM To: Ryan A.Johannsen Cc: Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby@ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Re: Proposed Boulder Cove development; planning commission meeting of April 1st Ryan, We can't make it tomorrow, as we will be out of town for spring break. Will you be going? Our main concern is traffic on Strawberry and 62nd. Crazy! There shouldn't be that many homes packed into such a small acreage. The outlet should be on 7, on the existing service road. Let us know what happens at the meeting. Jolene Scott Sent from my iPhone On Mar 31, 2014, at 4:02 PM, "Ryan A. Johannsen" <johannsen(a tang-law.com> wrote: This message has no content. SCANNED AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Ryan A. Johannsen [rjohannsen@tapg-law.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:02 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby@ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Proposed Boulder Cove development; planning commission meeting of April 1st Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, I am writing to request a postponement of the April In planning commission meeting and public hearing (at least in as far as it relates to discussions of the proposed Boulder Cove development and requested variances (Case 2014-09). I am the home owner of 6070 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood, and just recently became aware of the proposed Boulder Cove development, and of the April 1n planning commission meeting and public hearing. As a resident on Strawberry Lane, I find it quite upsetting that I was not made aware of the planned development and have not been given a chance to speak my concerns relating to the proposed development and the proposed variance for the cul de sac at the intersection of Strawberry Lane and 62nd. I have had a chance to review the developer's proposal for the 31 planned units (some of which are NextGen duplex style homes), as well as their request for the variance for the cul de sac. I am completely against allowing the developer a variance for the cul de sac, and completely against allowing multiunit dwellings to be built as part of the Boulder Cove development. The cul de sac as proposed would greatly impact Church Road, Shorewood Oaks Drive and Strawberry Lane. Strawberry Lane is already in a state of disrepair. Increased traffic from 31-62 more family units would have dire consequences for the roads, not to mention the safety of kids at play along those roads, etc. Currently there are no stop signs on Strawberry Lane from the proposed cul de sac to Minnewashta School. Likewise there are no sidewalks, storm drains or street lights. Allowing more development without addressing road concerns/issues is not a wise decision. Traffic between Boulder Cove and Minnewashta School will no doubt increase substantially once the development is built. The variance should not be granted without requirements for road improvement on Strawberry Lane and 62nd. Public safety and fairness warrant those improvements should the variance be awarded. As far as the NextGen homes are concerned, they are for all intense and purpose duplexes/multifamily units. Yet the developer proposed the site for single family home use. They should not be allowed to get around zoning laws by simply calling them NextGen homes. Allowing the NextGen homes would increase the development to that of high density housing, something it is not zone for at this time. This should not be allowed. Again, I ask that the April V planning commission meeting, as it relates to Boulder Cove, should be postponed so that the numerous residents that will be impacted by the proposed development have a chance to be heard. Very truly yours, Ryan A. Johannsen I Attorney TERHAAR, ARCHIBALD, PFEFFERLE & GRIEBEL, LLP 600A Butler Square Building 1 100 North Sixth Street I Minneapolis, MN 55403 Main 612 573-3000 1 Direct 612 573-3024 1 Fax 612 573-3030 1 dohannsen0tao¢-law.com This message contains confidential information intended for use by the named addressee(s) and may contain proprietary and/or legally privileged information, and be subject to federal and/or state privacy laws. If you are not the SCANNED designated recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or retain this message. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail, and destroy and delete it from your system. Thank you. AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Jolene Scott Dolene0205@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:24 PM To: Ryan A.Johannsen Cc: Aanenson, Kate; Al-laff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby@ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Re: Proposed Boulder Cove development; planning commission meeting of April 1st Ryan, We can't make it tomorrow, as we will be out of town for spring break. Will you be going? Our main concern is traffic on Strawberry and 62nd. Crazy! There shouldn't be that many homes packed into such a small acreage. The outlet should be on 7, on the existing service road. Let us know what happens at the meeting. Jolene Scott Sent from my iPhone On Mar 31, 2014, at 4:02 PM, "Ryan A. Johansen" <riohannsen@,Igpg-law.com> wrote: This message has no content. SCANNED AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Leah Schneider [Ims8898@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 1:10 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby@ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Cc: Jassen Schneider Subject: Boulder Cove Development Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, I am writing to request a postponement of the April la planning commission meeting and public hearing for the Boulder Cove development and requested variances (Case 2014-09). We are the home owners directly across from the proposed entrance to the Boulder Cove development, at 26420 W 62"d Street, Shorewood, MN 55331. As mentioned 9 years ago, when the proposal to develop this area was first discussed, we continue to have concerns with the entrance located on the corner of W. 62"d Street and Strawberry Lane. We have seen the new developers plans and our main concerns have to do with the increased traffic in the area, the state of the roads and the impact this increase in traffic will have on them, safety concerns with the number of children in the neighborhood and proximity to the school, and issues with drainage on the property impacting neighboring homeowners. The development, as proposed, would greatly impact Church Road, W 62"d Street, and Strawberry Lane, which are currently narrow neighborhood roads and require improvements as is. Increased traffic from 31-62 more family units would create some serious issues for the roads, not to mention the safety of kids/families walking or biking (to school, parks or trail). Currently there are no stop signs on Strawberry Lane from the proposed cul de sac to Minnewashta School. Likewise there are no sidewalks, storm drains or street lights on Strawberry Lane and W. 62"d Street. Allowing more development without addressing road concerns and issues is not acceptable. Traffic between W. 62"d Street, Strawberry Lane, and Boulder Cove to Minnewashta School will no doubt increase substantially once the development is built. The variance should not be granted without requirements for road improvement on Strawberry Lane and W 62"d Street public safety and fairness warrant those improvements should the variance be awarded. The cost of these improvements should not be the responsibility of the existing homeowners on these streets as we are not the ones approving the development of a potential of 31- 62 family units. The proposed development will be on land that could be considered marsh land given the nature of the soil. Many of the homeowners in the area deal with water issues on their property due to poor drainage. The increase in this much impermeable surface area this close to our home raises these concerns and the impact it will have on our property. t SCANNED We feel it is necessary to address these concerns before making any final decisions on the development and access into the proposed development. Sincerely, Leah and Jassen Schneider (Chanhassen firefighter) 26420 W 62"d Street Shorewood, MN 55331 Ims8898@msn.com r AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Ryan A. Johannsen [rjohannsen@tapg-law.com] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:02 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Furlong, Tom; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ernst, Vicki; McDonald, Jerry; Laufenburger, Denny; szerby@ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; ksundberg@ci.shorewood.mn.us; dwoodruff@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Proposed Boulder Cove development; planning commission meeting of April 1 st Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission, I am writing to request a postponement of the April 1 t planning commission meeting and public hearing (at least in as far as it relates to discussions of the proposed Boulder Cove development and requested variances (Case 2014-09). I am the home owner of 6070 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood, and just recently became aware of the proposed Boulder Cove development, and of the April V planning commission meeting and public hearing. As a resident on Strawberry Lane, I find it quite upsetting that I was not made aware of the planned development and have not been given a chance to speak my concerns relating to the proposed development and the proposed variance for the cut de sac at the intersection of Strawberry Lane and 62nd. I have had a chance to review the developer's proposal for the 31 planned units (some of which are NextGen duplex style homes), as well as their request for the variance for the cut de sac. I am completely against allowing the developer a variance for the cut de sac, and completely against allowing multiunit dwellings to be built as part of the Boulder Cove development. The cut de sac as proposed would greatly impact Church Road, Shorewood Oaks Drive and Strawberry Lane. Strawberry Lane is already in a state of disrepair. Increased traffic from 31-62 more family units would have dire consequences for the roads, not to mention the safety of kids at play along those roads, etc. Currently there are no stop signs on Strawberry Lane from the proposed cul de sac to Minnewashta School. Likewise there are no sidewalks, storm drains or street lights. Allowing more development without addressing road concerns/issues is not a wise decision. Traffic between Boulder Cove and Minnewashta School will no doubt increase substantially once the development is built. The variance should not be granted without requirements for road improvement on Strawberry Lane and 62Id. Public safety and fairness warrant those improvements should the variance be awarded. As far as the NextGen homes are concerned, they are for all intense and purpose duplexes/multifamily units. Yet the developer proposed the site for single family home use. They should not be allowed to get around zoning laws by simply calling them NextGen homes. Allowing the NextGen homes would increase the development to that of high density housing, something it is not zone for at this time. This should not be allowed. Again, I ask that the April 1n planning commission meeting, as it relates to Boulder Cove, should be postponed so that the numerous residents that will be impacted by the proposed development have a chance to be heard. Very truly yours, Ryan A.Johannsen ) Attorney TERHAAR, ARCHIBALD, PFEFFERLE & GRIEBEL, LLP 600A Butler Square Building 1 100 North Sixth Street I Minneapolis, MN 55403 Main 612 573-3000 1 Direct 612 573-3024 1 Fax 612 573-3030 1 riohannsenCdtapg-law.com This message contains confidential information intended for use by the named addressee(s) and may contain proprietary and/or legally privileged information, and be subject to federal and/or state privacy laws. If you are not the SCANNED dSsignated recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or retain this message. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail, and destroy and delete it from your system. Thank you. Meuwissen, Kim From: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:17 PM To: Meuwissen, Kim Subject: FW: Boulder Cove thoughts from an outsider From: Mark Diede [mailto:mark_diede@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:09 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen CC: Scott Zerby; Debbie Siakel; Laura Hotvet; Kristine Sundberg; Richard Woodruff; Bill Joynes; Chris Freeman; Dustin Maddy (dustinmaddy@gmail.com); Jennifer Labadie (jenniferlabadieesq@hotmail.com); Larry Muehlberg (muehlberg@hotmail.com); Michael Garelick (mediationmaven@gmail.com); Patti Helgesen; Steve Charbonnet (scharbonnet@gmail.com); Sue Davis (bisquite@earthlink.net); Thomas Geng; Furlong, Tom; Brad Nielsen Subject: RE: Boulder Cove thoughts from an outsider Part deux What I am having trouble grasping is this parcel must have been zoned medium density sometime ago. My guess is the zoners assumed access was to be on highway 7. Now that higway 7 is not accepting any more "connections", it seems like there is a loophole in the zoning law. Loophole meaning diverting access to a cattle path to the north all the while meandering your way through low density homes. It seems like zoning should change since the county is not allowing direct access to highway 7. A medium density development would work fine there if access was off 7 or a frontage road connecting with highway 7. The address and the intended trunk for this development is 3670 HWY 7. The proposed plat should be converted to low density housing. Mark Diede Eden Prairie From: mark diede@msn.com To: bnielsen@cLshorewood mn us• saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us CC: scott@gamersdigital.com• dsiakel@ci.shorewood.mn.us; Ihotvet@ci.shorewood.mn.us: ksundberg(@ci.shorewood mn us• dwoodruff @ci.shorewood.mn.us; biovnes@ci.shorewood.mn.us: cfr33man@gmail.com; dustinmaddy@gmail.com; lenniferlabadieeso@hotmail.com; muehlberg@hotmail com; mediation maven@gmail.com; phelpesen@ci.shorewood.mn.us: scharbonnet@gmail.com; bisquite@earth link. net; tgeng@bremseth.com: tfurlong@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Boulder Cove thoughts from an outsider Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:25:09 -0600 To me NextGen Series homes should not be considered for this site and that type of house should be considered medium to high density housing for this area. This project is really pigeonholing 62 homes in this property. If the zoning accommodates 62 homes, then so be it and all the power to the developer. However, you have to think worst case scenario and all those folks could rent or have 2 households in each lot. That SCANNED property and area cannot handle 62 homes. Two separate entries means a duplex. NextGen seems like a marketing ploy used to bypass zoning laws as buildable land in the Minnetonka school district is non-existent. The amount you benefit from an increased tax base by craming more people in there could come back to haunt you later. Please enforce the rules and keep this area similar to what exists today. The people that live around there are all like minded people and any new development should fit into that mold - big lots and single family homes. Mark Diede Eden Prairie P.S. I had recently written a letter to the city of Shorewood regarding how unsafe Strawberry lane is for kids walking to Minnewashta Elementary. Keep that in mind if 62 homes are added in the Cove. This map is neither aA gaily recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as une. This map is a compilation of records. intormation and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If _errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Sued. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for anv damages, antl expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend. indemnify. and hold harmless �cthe CiiittCy, frto¢mpjanv and all claims brought by User, Its employees or agents, or third parties'S 33hP Bg22� a as r2access or use of data provided. C CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.ci.chanhassen.nnn.us led 3 -a4 -t �,�PSFs Parr-anK, l �i -U�1 � PITNEV fOWEf 02 1 P $ 000.480 0003195036 MAR 20 2014 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 5531 7 NIXIE 553 FE 1009 0003,/21f14 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNASI—E TO FORWARD BC: 55317014747 '0278-03028-20-42 114tluli'I14111n4114t1411'11411Ii1111111-11111-1111111,4Ill- 14Lm Wocrlr ," Q4 JEREMY NAATAN WOLFSON a TP SHIOREWVQOD MN 55311gq1 W&Y204a 1" 11 111.1111111Ill, 1, 11.1 Illh 111611111111111111 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. BOULDER COVE: Request for preliminary plat review for a 31- Proposal: lot single-family subdivision with variances on 13.39 acres of property zoned Residential Low & Medium Dens' RLM ApplOwner: Own Owner: Lennar Corporation/Premier Bank Property 3670 Highway 7 Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the nrniect. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the Citys projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-09. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff Questions & by email at saliaff(oci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952- Comments: 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • subdivisions, Fanned Unit Developments, Site Ran Revtewa, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Razonings, Comprehensive Ran Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before Me Fanning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 5 feat of the subject site to W notified of Me application in venting. Any interested party Is invited to attend Me meeting. • SIaffprepares a report on the subjectapplication Mal ird Wes all pertinent informatlan and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At Me Ranting Commission meeting. shaft will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item Will be opened for Me pudic to speak abed the proposal as a pan of Me hearing process. The Commission will dose the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to Me City Council. The City Ccundl may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Fanning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vale at the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallindustdal. • Minnesota State Stable 519.99 requires all applications to he processed within W days unless Me applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. My person wishing to follow an item through Me process should check win Me Manning Depanment regarding its status add sdreduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighWdwod spokespersonlrepresentative is encouragetl to provide a contact for Me city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with Me neighborhood regarding Mar proposal. Staff is also available to review the project WM any interested person(.). • Because Me Fanning Commission holds the public hearing, M , City Council does no. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding Me application will be Induced in the report to the City Council. ti you wish M have something to be included in the report lease contact Me Manning Stag portion named on the notification. Thi, map is neither a legally recorded map nor n sn^ey and is not intended to be used as one This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466,03, Soled. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages. and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold harmless the Chv from any and all claims brought by User, Its employees or agents, or thirdmes whiehhh6*yyuyyaa��Ys$ry access or we of data provided. 9533 f 1r. 3' CITY OF CAANHASSEN �,�pt6S PQSl'M ��r vrrwev Bowes 02 1 P $ 000.480 0003195036 MAR 202014 i MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 55317 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us NIXIE SS3 DE 1009 0003/Z1/14 RETURN TO SENDER INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD SC: 55317014747 *0278-03036-20-4Z I"Itli"'iliinlin'ill"IIIilliliiiilllllllllll'Iiltl'Illlll"' NEVIN DAVID NOLDER III BRENDA J NOLDER SHOREWOOD MN 55331 rIIlrlrrlrrlllllrlrlllullrrlrlrrIIIII IIP,-1"IIIIII1.IIIH]-III IA Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. BOULDER COVE: Request for preliminary plat review for a 31- Proposal: lot single-family subdivision with variances on 13.39 acres of property zoned Residential Low & Medium Density RLM Applicant) Owner. Lennar Corporation/Premier Bank Property 3670 Highway 7 Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the Citys projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-09. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff Questions & by email at saliaff()ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952- Comments: 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. CRY Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit DevelOpmenls, site Ran Reviews. Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings. Comprehensive Ran Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Manning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feel of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. My interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application Mat includes all Pertinent mfornamoi and a recommendation. These reports are available by inquest. At Me Manning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal ovennew of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for Me pudic to speek about Me proposal as a part of Me hearing process. The Commission will close Me public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to Me City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm o modify wholly or partly the Manning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vole of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to conmemialfndustdal. • Mimesola Stale Statute 519,99 requires all applications to be processed Whin 60 days unless Me 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 s ha dulirg for Me City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersan/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for Me city. Often deselopers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding Meir proposal. Staff is also availade to review the project with any interested persontsi. • Because Me Planning Commission holds the public heading, Me City Council does not. Mnutes are taken and any mrespondence regarding the application will be included in he report to the City Council. a you wish to have sonahing to be induced in be report, lease contact Me Plannmg Staff Pension named or Me nor licsdm. This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to he used as one. This map is a compilation of recordsinformation and data located in various city. county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and Is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Sabel. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable tor ew namages, and expressly waives all claimsand agrees to defend, indemnify. and told nanmess the City from any and all claims brought by User, Its employees or agents, of third parties whie!19ri3e1!1o@lI?yw?'acce- or use of data provided. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 4PjFS Pi M � PITNEY Now[3 021 P $ 000.480 0003195036 MAR 20 2014 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 55317 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 wivaci.chanhassen.mn.us GIin of CHANHASSF-tN 9ECSWED NIXIE S53 DE 1009 0003/21,/1.4 RETURN TO SENDER INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD BC SS317014747 *0278-03033-20-42 I'I��'i�ilii'I1II11'ii'II'Ili�llllitillllll'il'I�'Illillll'Illlir ROBERT B SCOTT JOLENE K SCOTT SHOREWOOD MN 55331 Illlllllrlllrilrrrllll"III'IIII'IIIIrIIlrrllilll'll"IIIIIIIIII' IA Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, dwending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. BOULDER COVE: Request for preliminary plat review for a 31- Proposal: lot single-family subdivision with variances on 13.39 acres of propertyzonedResidential Low & Medium Density RLM er. Applicant/ Owner. Owner. wn Lennar CorporationtPremier Bank Property 3670 Highway 7 Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is dosed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-09. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff Questions & by email at saliaff Mci.chanhassen.mmus or by phone at 952- Comments: 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Panned Unit Developments, Site Ran Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Nimmons. Reza ings, Comprehensive Ran Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Manning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be nobfied of the application in writing. My interested! partyis invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on Me subject application Mat includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request At the Manning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of Me report and a recommendation. The item Will be opened for the public to speak about Me proposal as a part of the heading process. The Commission wit dose the public hearing and discuss the Rem and make a recommendation to Me City Council. The City Counal may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Manning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of Me City Council except rezolings and land use amendments from residential to commemiallndusbial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed wiMin 00 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follox an item through the process should check with Me Panning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersoJrepreseMative is encouaged to provide a contact for the city. Often dew opens are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available b review the project with any interested persons). • Because the Panning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does riot. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be induced in the report to the City Council. ff you wish to have something to be included in the report. lease contact the Panning Stag person named on Me notification. This map is neither a legally mcordeo map nor a surrey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision In the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466 03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damagesan= expressly waives all claims and agrees to defend. indemnify, and hold harmless the City hnm any and all claims brought by User, Its employees or agents, or third parties whri.R py 141 access or use of data provided. 5533 :f44SS�s33 41 CITY OF CHANHASSEN �PtEs Posty� vrtxer Bowes 02 1 P $ 000.480 0003195036 MAR 20 2014 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 55317 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 wwwCiChanhassen.w.us 3i"4OFCHANHA&%(< RECEIVED MAR 2 4 2014 NIXIE 553 DE 1009 0003/21/14 RETURN TO SENDER INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD SC: SSB17014747 *0278-0302S—ZO-42 Iiilli'lilt+lli1lilil'IlitllilllillIiilliillllililIIiIIIIIiIIIIII KEVIN SYMMS RACHELTURNBULL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 �illir�I�i�III1��rlilrl�iillrlr�IlLri In 111 r11 I'll I lllirlrll'Ir1 1 A Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start unfit later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. BOULDER COVE: Request for preliminary plat review for a 31- Proposal: lot single-family subdivision with variances on 13.39 acres of property zoned Residential Low & Medium Density RLM Owner: : O Owne Lennar Corporation/Premier Bank Property 3670 Highway 7 Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the Citys projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-09. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AIJaff Questions & by email at salialfanci.chanhassen.mmus or by phone at 952- Comments: 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Preeedurs: • Subdivisions, Manned Uoll Developments, Site Nan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezorirgs Comprehensive Nan AmwMnenLs and Code Amendments muse a public hearing before Me Moaning Commission. C5ry ordinances require all property within SW feet of the subject site to be notified of Me application in wrong. My interested party is invited to allend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on Me subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At Me Nanning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overflew, of Me report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for Me pudic to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing propose. The Commission will close the public hearrg and discuss Me item and make a recommendation to Me City Counal. The City Council may reverse. affirm or modify wholly or partly the Nanning Commission's recommendation- Rezprdngs, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of Me City Council except rezomngs and land use amendments from residential to canmerdallndusbial. • kennesola State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within SB clays undoes Me applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the Process should check with the Manning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Coundl meeting. • A neighbortrootl spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the dry. Often developers are encouraged to meet with Me neighborhoW regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review, the projecl with any interested person(s). • Because Me Nanning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does W. Nodes are taken and any correspondence regarding Me application will be included in the report to the City Council. 9 you wish to hove something to be included in the report. lease contact the Manning Staff person named on the notification. Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) CITY OF CHANHASSEN )SS. CARVER & HENNEPIN County of Carver ) NOTICE OF I PLANNING i NOTICE I .hat the Cha: on Tuesday, April 1, 2014, in. in the Council Chambers nhassen City Hall, 7700 Blvd. The purpose of this is to consider a request for nary plat review for a 31. le -family subdivision with zuum rtesrdenttal Low & Medium Density MA) and located at 3670 Highway 7. Applicant: Lennar Corporation. Property Owner: Premier Bank. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2014-09 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmeen AlJaff, Senior Planner Email: sa(jaff@ci.chanhassen. mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Published in the Chanhassen Pillager on Thursday, March 20, 2014: No 4922) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duty 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- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.'LjLt U— was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghijklmnopqrs vwxyz Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on this�f1 day of 2014 JYNTAJEANNETTE BARK NO'ARY PI:BJG • M:N4ESOTA )Nrlic W (AhIMSSION ORRES 01I31P. e RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for compamblc space.... S31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ S31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $12.59 per column inch CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.d.shorewood.mn.us • cityha1I@ci.shorewood.mrLus March 11,2014 Kate Aanenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed Boulder Cove Development Dear Ms. Aanenson: RECEIVED MAR 17 20k CITY OF CHANHASSEf Shorewood has received notice regarding a development application for the proposed Boulder Cove. This project is located immediately south of our common city boundary, and roughly centered on the intersection of West 62Dd Street and Strawberry Lane. This matter was presented at the February 24,2014 meeting of the Shorewood City Council, and we heard comments from City staff and area residents who addressed the Council. The Council forwards this letter as its comments for Chanhassen's public hearing, now scheduled for April 1, 2014. As with our review of the 2066 proposal for this same property, the two most significant concerns Shorewood has at this time are drainage and traffic/circulation in the area. As we mentioned in 2006, the area in question is poorly drained and characterized by heavy clay soils and a high water table. The Shorewood Oaks development to the north of the subject property_ has a very sensitive drainage system that will not support additional storm water runoff. While it appears that the developer has recognized this issue and:has designed his project to drain to the - south, drainage remains a concern. Traffic and circulation are undoubtedly our greatest concerns. Boulder Cove will be served by West 62Dd Street, which lies half in Shorewood and half in Chanhassen, and by Strawberry Lane. Both of these are relatively narrow local streets. Strawberry Lane, which leads directly north to the Minnewashta Elementary School, is narrow at 22 feet, with no sidewalk. This route has considerable pedestrian traffic to and from the school. The Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional . Trail also crosses Strawberry Lane and area residents walk to Cathcart Park along West 62Dd Street. SCANNED C• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Re: Boulder Cove Development 11 March 2014 Page two The traffic concern is compounded by the developer's proposal to build its "NextGen" housing product which, on its face appears to simply be two-family residential homes, in which case the potential exists for 62 units, rather than 31. In addition to these significant concerns, our staff has identified several other issues: 1. The proposed intersection with Strawberry Lane and West 62°d Street should be a "T". 2. The name "Strawberry Court" has already been used on a Shorewood street about two blocks to the north. 3. Shorewood should request that the water main serving the project include an interconnection to the Shorewood system on Strawberry Lane. 4. It appears that the developer has paid particular attention to drainage on the site. Shorewood asks that there be no increase in runoff volume to the north. 5. In light of the density question raised above (31 units vs. 62), Shorewood requests that a traffic study be prepared, evaluating the effect of as many as 62 units on the local streets (Strawberry Lane and West 62°d Street). 6. West 62°a Street should be upgraded to City standards. This street lies in both Shorewood and Chanhassen. 7. Thirty one homes (potentially 62 units) are a lot of homes to be served by one very long (1200 feet) cul-de-sac. Staffhas examined this, but does not expect that MNDOT would allow an access directly to Highway 7, especially considering the short distance to Church Road. 8. Chanhassen is its own LGU (Local Government Unit) for purposes of storm water management. We expect that the City will require a long-term maintenance agreement for the proposed drainage facilities. We are concerned that the development as proposed will have an undue impact on local streets in the area. Your residents on Church Road may share this concern. We also trust that Chanhassen will work to ensure a project that complements existing development in the immediate area. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Sincerely, CITY OF SHOREWOOD Scott Zerby Mayor On behalf of the Shorewood City Council _ Richard Woodruff Laura Hotvet _ Debbie Siakel Kris Sundberg TTO SSOCIATES Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. To: City of Chanhassen Attn: Sharmeen AI-Jaff 7700 Market Blvd. - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Transmittal Date: 2/28/2014 Project: BOULDER COVE Location: Chanhassen, MN Project No: 14-0105 We are sending to you: ® By Mail ❑ By Messenger ❑ Picked up by Client No. of Copies. Sheet No.(s): Dated: Description: 7 Sets 1 - 6 Revised Preliminary Plans 7 Copies Revised Landscape Plan ❑ For your use ❑ For your information ❑ For your approval ❑ For your review ® Revised and resubmitted ❑ For your distribution ❑ As you requested ❑ For your processing ❑ Remarks: CC: Paul Tabone — Lennar Corporation (1 copy each) From: Cara Schwahn Otto, P.E. cara(cDottoassociates. com 9 West Division Street, Buffalo, MN 55313 • 763-682-4727 • Fax 763-682-3522 • www.ottoassociates.com SCANNED I, I I -1 I bit road \ ! 976 978 -- ____------ �\ OUTLOT 'C..._._��& 960 95-- / \ B F. NEIGHBORHOOD ID� ` \ 8-RTD C, I:I MONUMENT 9.Dx // \ 12- \ �� ` T 9�� > A-/ 15.4 OUTLOT B \ 11 P"' 1 D 980 - 1.0 - -9g0 4 �I 83.5 I - - 12 I I� 13 1 I 14 LO T g85 I 4 FB G=983.7 I I=9B4.0 , FB G=982.8 TF=983.1 LL=977.4 LL=976.0 I LL=9751 - J L- j 0 0 RE3 (' ONE PLL Tp INS pROP�R ON O_ 15 FB G=982.0 TF=982.3 LL=974.3 I J .f .:,AAA J • �� " �® /� �y ° •�71NG 50" BU MAN �A •4 , RETAINING WALL Pp�E�S & EXI gEG RON SSlSNE�RU-RPR(EOpPER .Ip PO Epp TVJ POE kGo c N gE M VJNERCP / 0 PEE 4 � EMJ Ro \�91me�` g9 A 000 1V950 SS & GSA 0 E E�\ QI �Ik SRRpJ / ed98 ' R pprove tree wrap to a applied prior to winter \ \ ` / 9P B17102 \ �..._ DRAINAGE-..._... / t0 lbi a UTILITY / 4- BS �\ \ HWL=971.1 EASEMENT \ \ 3-ABM \ \ OULDER W / 3-ABS c SHADE �pF 9-BHS2 PE 9-BHS2 / PERF H 340 LF 6° H� SO 0OpTA / IGNT g !, G01"J�R op, rl- OF CHANHASSEI'1 ELE EIS/ P,ECEII / I4iAtt U 4 2013 �H / CHANHASW410MOWT OH / N LA N D S CA P E P LA Commercial grade black poly edger. Wood mulch or other specified NORTH 0 25 50 /1 00 200 [FT] �4y material to be placed at 3" depth. Backfll with loosened soil indigenous to site. SCALE: FEET N lrl-^ SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE PRELIMINARY DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CRITICAL ROOT RADIUS CRTCAL ROOT ZONE WITHIN DRIPLINE ACTUAL FEEDER ROOT SYSTEM EXTENDS WELL BEYOND THE DRIPLINE TREE PROTECTION DETAIL NOT TO SCALE IF - - NOT TO SCALE Approved tree wrap to be applied prior to season. Do not allow backfill or mulch material to come into contact with root collar. Wood mulch or other specified material. I Backfll with loosened soil indigenous to s `NOTE: Tree to be staked & guyed an as needed basis. SHADE TREE PLANTING DETAIL LOCATION- NOTTO SCALE aw backfill or mulch material to come into th root collar. Ich or other specified material. (3" Depth) th loosened soil indigenous to site. _: Tree to be staked & guyed only on needed basis. OVERSTORY CONIFEROUS AML 07 AMERICAN LARCH / Lanx laricina #10 CONT 4-S height DECIDUOUS SHRUBS (plant in groupings) BYD 10 BUDS YELLOW DOGWOOD/ Corpus sericea'Bud's Yellow' #5 CONT RTD 08 RED TWIG DOGWOOD / Corpus sericea'Baileyi #5 CONT AMH 08 AMERICAN HAZELNUT Corylus americana #5 CONT NATIVE PERENNIALS - UNDER PLANTED (12123 SF- 1950 SF Shrubs = 10173 SF area planting of native perennials -1655 plants (plant in groupings) - 170 SWEET FLAG / Acorus calamus 4" CONT 2.5' on center 130 SWAMP MILKWEED / Asclepias incarnala 4" CONT 2.5' on center 245 PURPLE CONEFLOWER / Echinacea purpurea 4" CONT 2.5 on center Too JOE PYE WEED /-upatorium macul . 4" CONT - on center too SWITCH GRASS / Panicum virgatum 4" CONT 2.5' on center 195 NORTHERN BLUE FLAG / Iris vesicolor 4" CONT 2.5' on center 130 WILD BERGAMOT / Monarda fistulosa 4" CONT 2.5' on center 245 BLACK-EYED SUSAN / Rudbeckia hirta 4" CONT 2.5' on center 170 BLUE VERVAIN / Verbena haslata 4" CONT 2.5 on center 170 IRONWEED / Veronia fasciculata 4" CONT 2.5' on center A. THE SOILS IN THE FILTRATION AREAS AS DESIGNATED ON THE PLANS ARE 75% COARSE WASHED SAND MNDOT3149.2J (ASTM C-33) AND 25 % ORGANIC LEAF COMPOST MNDOT 3890.2B. INSTALLATION OF SOIL DONE BY OTHERS PRIOR TO PLANTING OPERATION. B. PRIOR TO COMMENCING PLANTING, INSTALL THE C-125 COCONUT BLANKET AND PIN DOWN 'NTH STAPLES. C. PLANT PLANT MATERIAL IN THE INFILTRATION AREAS AS DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AND PLANT SCHEDULE. D. DO NOT INSTALL ANY SHREDDED BARK MULCH OVER THE FILTRATION BASINS. PLANT SCHEDULE KEY I CITY I COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME I SIZE IROOT I REMARKS FRONT YARD OVERSTORY TREES ABM 08 AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE Acer freemanii'Jeffersred' 2.5" BB NRM 12 NORTHWOODS MAPLE/ Acer rubrum'Nodhwoods' 2.5" BB RDL 07 REDMOND LINDEN / Tilia americana'Redmond' 2.5' BB SGM 08 SIENNA GLEN MAPLE / Acer fremanni'Sienna Glen' 2.5" BB BUFFER OVERSTORY TREES ABM 08 AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE / Acer freemanii'Jeffersred' 2.5' BE NPO 07 NORTHERN PIN OAK Quercus ellipsoidalis 2.5" BB SWO 06 SWAMP WHITE OAK/ Quercus bicolor 2.5" BB BUFFER ORNAMENTAL TREES ABS 09 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY / Amelanchierx grandiflora'Autumn Brilliance' 6' BB Clump Form ARM 09 AMUR MAPLE / Acer Ginnila 6' BB Clump Form SSC 13 SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE / Malus'Spring snow' 2" BB BUFFER EVERGREEN TREES BHS1 18 1 BLACKHILL SPRUCE / Picea glauca Cantata 6' BB BHS2 26 BLACKHILL SPRUCE / Picea glauca densala 6' BB LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE EDGED WITH BLACK DIAMOND OR EQUAL BLACK VINYL EDGING AND MULCHED WITH WOOD MULCH AT 3' DEPTH OVER TYPAR WEED BARRIER FABRIC OR EQUAL. 2. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING GOPHER STATE ONE. CALL FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO DIGGING. 3. PLANT TREES & SHRUBS AFTER FINAL GRADES ARE ESTABLISHED AND PRIOR TO PLANTING OF LAWNS, UNLESS OTHERWISE ACCEPTABLE TO GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR OWNER. IF PLANTING OF TREES & SHRUBS OCCURS AFTER LAWN WORK, PROTECT LAWN AREAS AND PROMPTLY REPAIR AT NO COST TO THE OWNER, DAMAGE TO LAWNS RESULTING FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS. 4. IF SPECIFIED MATERIAL IS NOT OBTAINABLE, NOTIFY GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR OWNER, ALONG W/ A DESCRIPTION OF EQUIVALENT MATERIAL. 5. IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND THE NUMBER SHOWN ON THE PLANT LIST, THE NUMBER SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN. 6. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL WARRANTY TREES & SHRUBS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE AGAINST DEFECTS INCLUDING DEATH, POOR GROWTH, AND PLUMB ORIENTATION. 7. ALL MATERIAL SHALL BE RATED FOR APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURE ZONE AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMAN. 8. ALL LAWN AREAS TO HAVE IRRIGATION AND SOD TO PROPERTY LINES AND/OR TO BACK OF CURBS ALONG RIGHT OF WAYS. 9. SOD SHALL BE CULTURED KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS, FREE OF WEEDS & CLUMPS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR WILL WATER AT TIME OF INSTALLATION AND ROLL ALL SOD AS NEEDED TO ASSURE A SMOOTH TURF SURFACE. ALL SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STAKED. ANY SLIDING OF SOD SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 10. ALL SOD IS TO BE IRRIGATED. 11. ALL TREES PLANTED SHALL RECEIVE 3' SHREDDED WOOD MULCH SAUCERS WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4• AS SHOWN IN DETAILS. 12. ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED IF DEEMED NECESSARY AND WRAPPED AT THE END OF THE GROWING SEASON. 13. LANDSCAPE BID TO INCLUDE A COMPLETE LAWN IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS SPECIFIED. z (D 2 V5 w _j Lli � N O 00 2 n W N Li O Y 0 rWnv� (Dw v Q , d C0 X LL W M w Q voS� oygo zES�� 8 `br N Y u a E ez _ =a ❑ .� W J W Uj r V W Cf) Q � O vi = Q Z Co V J O ti U 0 f 2 F- W C a UJI Q W V � yM y ohs p O u 0 WLL� 3M= � ama O o a w z a w a W N N - o � a g K z W J m U Y ro � c iv N N 3 Q W U O O Lu U riI O `IJ Exist. house Exist. xis <' I house FF Elev. house house Exist. 33 17 I t FF Elev. = 979.14 FF Elev. FF Elev. house Erse = 979.711979.29 979.54 FF981.97 r t \ I SW corner of the SE 1/4 of 6��se Sec. 32. T, 117, R. 23 r I� �� Hennepin County, Mn, t I u -{ E+�5e I, r fy fl j I Exist. �. - S. line of the SE 1/4 0l - Carver Count Cost trap Monument house j of the N. 114 corner of I F Elev. i Sea 32, T. 117, R. ?3 N, line of Sec. 5,-- �t Hennepin County, Mn. Audicio/ Landmark Sec 5 T. 116, R. 23, 979. j \ T. 116, R. 23, 1 / Carver County, Mn. Carver County, Mn. / N89771041E 885.18 406.68 - - �n / brt. rood. _ _in / 47850 t 598.20 d �\ eos u I�.. 80 68 B 6573 *%5 do 75 Set PK Noi-...�...� I�:\ 75 - - - - - - -"\ \ RPItJ,t�tSN'(�.\ 1 I / g7 - - - - -I-1 r - - - - P r - - - r.,._LINE A \ j 216 a �__� \ �._ �O W a I 03 00•�� 1 I I I I F 3 \ RL S8*0 meos \ p�1 6p 8 I 1 1 V I I I I 10 10� I e \ -- y- �� IN12 I- IA141� \ \ OUTLOT B 1 ,-\ 7D 11 I, �z 13 I, JN 9�653 SF -I 15 Hennepin County Cost Iron - - Monument of the S, 1/4 corner of Sec. 32. T. 117, R. 23 _ Hennep/n County, Mn. \ t Exist. \ Exist. house house FF Elev. \ FF Elev. I i+55'e I = 978.41 979.16 Exist. Garage fir. house = 981.21 FF Elev. 982.75 / \ \ la286 SF /, 6 / : � 65 /�\ \ \\ •3533 SF \ � � / /33 60 12,39 Sr\\ \\ / / h� i\ \ \< \ \ \ \�& •3 5 542 SF ` `\ \ •4.3385F/il 3 \ \\ \. \ X63 _ __I1 •3640.SF 0 h00bbw / w / 60 \LO cC;c 5 EiSE/� \ `\. \ \ . 10.303 SF�`\�// \ \ / P� sW h h /\ \ \ 10 G / tn9r ens `v / m N 12,232 SF o \ � / ern / / - cam / •4.281 SF / i 4 \ V \ ` \ / / ` $ I 6� / \ \ \ ` \ \ 11 \off ..evn e�°5 � 9 553 SF / \ f0.23B SF /6h / \ \ 654 SF \ 1 066 5F ko 543 SF \ \ / g \ I2,510 SF \ \ ' \ \ 873 SF � o ,� _._... �\ / / /� \tn rn\ \ .� /i ��\ \� •3583 SF \, /"_ /\ \ \\4.378 SF \ \ j �,� \ ✓ \ �,J 6y p� 8 \ \ _ \ 1 'j 28138�...i' Dot / 12,069 SF •11655 �A of •4,124 SFQ��l ^ \ (/ I % N lV N \ \ \ 1 /� / \ 11,168 SF \ GQ-` 69/ / \\ / \ \ \ / 6 V / / . ) V 1,289 SF 6i / C\ N \ / i \° , \ 3 908 SF / / (/ / \ \ 13.951 SF laz08 SF \ \ \ . ae •5 3Ile SF ?OS - �( ` 65/ / �\ \ 0.799 SF \ \ \ / / 66 1 etl� RrI;tr (i t`0%/ / \ 3 780 CD CD O \ / / \ Exist. `4%p .� \ �Ldt / \ . \ \\ / 2 A69 :_.� Pat �N•�� Cl- to 1Z FF Elev. $ 3 \ ^ ` v \ \ COco \ / / \ 5 5 979.1 \\ OP19A \\ 3,'5111SF \ a �L ass \ 5/ / \ C \ \ \ o \ \ / NS' / 60 0 60 120 180 9,792 SF > L 65 r Ep \ / / Cost line of CHURCH- I \ . ••%427 SF p\ / \Ll\ / \ Scale. 1' = 60' \ ROAD SECOND ADD/A0N _ �\ R.L. S NO. 15 / 03.631ta574 SF SF / ! 11 . 3 \\ `\ �\ \/ 65 1. \ ap66 8 / / / \ DEVEL OPER: 2 I ;0,68? SF °'\ \ I \ i.,�ORp / LENNAR \ l 3739 SF \ / : _ /0,665 SF wl I I ATTN: JOE ✓ABLONSKI \ \ ro ! 1 •3733 SF ` \� / jj < / / 16305 36 TH A VENUE N., SUI TE 600 /16 " •E / PLYMOUTH, MN 55446-4270 PH- 952-249-3014 52 \/ 57 53 Sol, _ \ / / \ PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: \ \ \ TL . 42 �;+$ °° \ kay ro+snm d j / That part of the following described parcel lying Easterly of R.L.S. No. 15, according to 1.99 q \ \ \ Exist. C. / \\ the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. \ \ \ P-..:-DRAINAGE- bld9. FF Elev. E UTILITY -� / / All that port of Section 5, Township 116 North, Range 23 West described as follows, to 978.04 EASEMENT / / / / wit: \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West; thence Easterly along the North line of said Section 5, Township 116. Range 23, a distance of 478.50 feel; thence South 585.20 feel; thence South 62 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 687.50 feet; 3AZ thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West 196.60 feet; thence South / 73 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds West 198.50 feet; thence North 16 degrees 20 deed dt moos / eas minutes 00 seconds West 795.80 feel to the North line of said Section 5; thence ' \ / / deed moos / re �5• / ' Easterly along said North line of said Section 5, a distance of 598.20 feel to point 89'38'0- / 89'4B�/ 6A It / A43i1550 of beginning dire LionEast line of said property above described runs in o North and South . AND Exist. �- \ dg. /►�%V1_ / / LOCATION MAP That port of the following described parcel lying Westerly of Line A: rheas I \ Basement fir. elev. \ �" 665. 6 / I I (NOT TO SCALE) � / eas I \ \ = 970.87 �•-,` .36 •N All that t f S f S T h' 116 N th R 23 W i \ \. X t g85 0 o 0 deed \ 5 318�OD \ 57 / 14,229 SF DENOTES LOT AREA deed d` moos / 78'30'0• / pleas /� / / / / •4,980 SF DENOTES ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS AREA \ 16-5 a g q \ \ ` deed 8 / / I DENOTES BUILDING SETBACK DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS' \ 33 5 \ a �_ AZ / / FRONT - 25' I I \ / REAR - 25' G�5 \ 0 \ / SIDE - 10' BUILDING/5' GARAGE 5 �a I \ Q \ / / \ / / / / / FROM HWY 7 = 50' aEXISTING ZONING - RLM PROPOSED ZONING - RLM / TOTAL PROJECT AREA= 13.38 ACRES SINGLEGROSS FAMILY= R LOTS BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND \ ` GROSS DENSITY PROPOSED = 2.32 UNITS PER ACRE PROPOSED ROW = 2.42 ACRES ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES, AND BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, PROPOSED OUTLOTS = 3.20 ACRES UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AS \ / TOTAL NET AREA= 7.76 ACRES SHOWN ON THE PLAT. / � NET DENSITY PROPOSED = 3.99 UNITS PER ACRE 10707 SF UTLOT C ,\ \ 10140 SF *J.5m SF 9Bo1 SF • .378 SF o / \ 14,725 SF / \ a •3 747 SF - / \ i \ a •3 584 SF 3 536 SF . 10.225 SF ! N \a ay\ ' 37,807 SF \ / i. \ I 1 O o\ \\ \ \� I430 SF. I I I •3,579 SF c \p9 FILTRATION y �(\/ \ \ \I \ J I -j I II��III to°µds °Q BASIN 6 ///��\ ` \ 3 > ` t •3592 \ \ \ _ J L - - JI 1 ton+`st. .j 841 SF/ i� < 2 �i �\ / \ \ 9 \ \ \\ V J 6/ 61 L 64 - J 1010 \ / �/ 10096SF�66 o par o ec ion , owns �p or , ange est, described as allows. Beginning at a judicial londmork on the North line of said Section 5, a distance of 478.50 feet East of the South Quarter Corner of Section 32. Township 117 North of Range 23 West; thence East along the North line of said Section 5 to the Northwesterly line of the right-of-way of Slate Trunk Highway No. 7 which right- of-woy is set forth and described in Case No. 9902 on file in the office of the Clerk of District Court, Carver County, Minnesota; thence Southwesterly along said right-of-woy to its intersection with a line drown through the point of beginning and forming an interior angle of 90 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds with the North line of said Section 5; thence North to beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Carver County. Minnesota. Line A is described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32. Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on on assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 17 minutes 04 seconds East. along the south line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 885.18 feel to the point of beginning of said Line A; thence South 05 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 154.44 feet; thence 165.71 feel Southerly on a non-longentiol curve, concave Westerly, having a central ongle of 150 degrees 14 minutes 39 seconds a radius of 60.00 feel, a chord bearing of South 03 degrees 48 minutes 07 seconds West and a chord distance of 117.84 feet; thence South 30 degrees 22 minutes 28 seconds East to the Northwesterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 7 and said Line A there terminating. MAX DENS/ TY PERM/TT£D = 8.0 UNITS PER ACRE 1 2127114 CSo LAYOUT REVISIONS DESIGNED DRAWN / hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by Web Site: PROJECT NO: me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duty ww Licensed w•ottoassoetstes can BOULDER COVE PRELIMINARY IM I NA R Y PLAT C. S, O. M.L.H. Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 14-01 05 CHECKED TTo �► Division NS 313 LENNAR NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION C. S.O. Cara M Schwahn Otto 880CIATES F� (7 6U-N� DATE REVISIONS License ff40433 Date: 2-27-14 E"I„„mand Land Surveyors,Inc. CHANHASSEN, MN SHEET N0. 1 OF 6 SHEETS 2/12/14 Exist. house �'f;' Etev. _ 979.16 5onit y M Whore-_. Rim 97.04 ? inv. 959, 3 ( Set PK Nod house tmst I µhOtlSe <' crease TT Eter house 33 17 I ; .AFT Efev: 9i9, t # [ FE Eter. '- TT 79 54 hous `' I \0", 9i9, 7F µ 97 29 �u:.........,—e �-F 3B1,97 IJ sanitary manhole d„.^^yy ^� I In I_l r-iA//\L/ / V/y! .i A/AIAIr-IA/A ^, ITA I IJ` I ' IMn 7 1gg s !� ..: r7Vl\L_YYVVL/ IVIII vI vL_ rr/-f"r71n Exist. ?ry = 659 ,..._._...,.. house l� 3 Rim NE & SAY wx=95683 (.) -1 S SE In v. =963 45 r . N exss _— —> P t rF; ue ...... ._........,_ _,,, ... m.m.i,,. - ELEV..964.1 (VERIFY) N CONNECTION SMALL 6 PGEI ` I \ Exist. Gor°ge itr. AccoRo — — \ t)RPJr (a� ` .\ , , r — — — — r — — — — --1 F_ — — — —� I of fence south �\ Fir Efe\e 981.21 \ ' s" risen � \ 982.76 14Ir0 lol &ate%712 1 1 13 1 1 1OUTLOT B 15UTLOT C ' \ 10\ FILTRATION BASI IV \ L _ l0 10 td9� i' if 39 11 e P Y yMa steps \ Z 3 \ / � i � � 2 \ L \� � � � / f' \ � \ \ \ \ � 1 �/ � /:• a � � 4H �d•a.yg?/ 3 01 u / / N / 3 \ P o A CES� / \\ \ \\ \ \\ \v /' �' \\ \ \ \ \ , faffffff`n9tet f \,� 7t / G .,�•G�,,�w i / i \ \ \ \ 6 \ \ ' / �\ \ \ \ 10 \\ \ 11 N~o v1l p t 9 •yoto5c^ \ I" \ / / i , / A R ( 9 L 41 / \ • Exist.bidg, \ / P'tAENS FF Etev. 35 \ / cCE55 k J\\A \ \ \ ✓ /' 4 f 979, _ N C. c��NSi►Q e�� k IV Im T C1 101N T1M.I \ / 1 / / I 1 \ \ \ \ / y;J' \ UP 4N, a, / / I 1 3 \\ \ \ \ v ' �� 4 / 44 / / so o so 120 1ao \ s 9 O� / / / 2 1 I \ \_.:.,.ORP P 'y.% j' r fc / `'�• i � / \ \ Rim = 97,3 92 r°/ / I 1 \ \ /' /,r' -..� / 4'�` u / Scole: 1' = 60' µ d tN OO- — — -- — — — J L — — - i ti 4 r4 , I J DEVEL OPER/OWNER: CA ss M �o ate+ SIM �r I / r+ LENNAR \ \, C) IN^`Fa�µ¢5r` vnM O 7 ATTN.JOE JABLONSKI SN%,O LN \ UT� �� po4ef 16305 36TH AVE. NORTH, SUITE 600 \ �' ExiS'a \ T ~ G�� em n �r �� r - - - Q. / a �Y Pt MOUTH, MN 55446 BOND -_DRAINAGE-..._... r' BEN sP �A2 °0• G / 1 PH 952 249 3014 & untiry 1 \ \ 978.£?4� EASEMENT = E\ \ scrnitzary rrs,xnfr,a+s ;, f/X " / \ Rrm 971.96 C, ' S \ i• 1 BENCHMARK: RAILROAD SPIKE IN POWER POLE LOCATED 420 FEET NORTHEAST FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MN STATE HWY 7. ELEVATION = 974.24 \ meet r etev. ✓ / NOTES: -� \ _ ✓ / 1. WATERMAIN SHALL BE HDPE SDR11 & C-900 DR18 WITH DUCTILE ,'A�oq - / / '� �" / IRON FITTINGS. FITTINGS SHALL BE POLYWRAPPED. MEGALUGS \ \ \ /' /• s / �,�� SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH PVC PIPE. 12 GAUGE TRACER SHALL BE TERMINATED A' ALL HYDRANT BREAK OFF FLANGES. 2. ALL 8" SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE SDR 35. 0.5 5\ 3. SANITARY SERVICES SHALL BE 6" PVC SDR 26 & SHALL BE \ 33' LOCATED 3 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF WATER SERVICES. r+f 4. WATER SERVICES SHALL BE 1 COPPER WITH 1" CORP. J 5. ALL HYDRANT LEADS SHALL BE 6" DIP CLASS 52. \ Q_\ 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. ate' / 7. WORK WITHIN MNDOT R.O.W. SHALL BE ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT UTILITY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 8. ALL UTILITIES CROSSING WATERMAIN SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN PIPES. 1 2127114 C.S.O. LAYOUT REVISIONS DESIGNED DRAWN C. S. 0. M.L. H. CHECKED C. S.O. / hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me of under my direct supervision and that I am a duty Licensed professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. www.od°as vwon s.aet N 55 13 s WestBuffalo, BuAalo, MN 55313 TT� (763)6a2-0>z7 SSOCIATES Fax. (763J6623522 Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. BOULDER COVE LENNAR CHANHASSEN, MN PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN PROJECT NO: 14-0105 NO. DATE eY DESCRIPTION CaraMSchwahnOtto License # 40433 Date: 2-27-14 SHEET N 0 . 2 0 F 6 SHEETS DATE: 2/ 12/ 14 REVISIONS 33�1 171 = I I I j I ._ sanitary manhole A itn 7n rC-'A/n .^' ern / Rim a 976.19 cxis#. :�`�T`-"' Ivllt vt v�_rrn.: Et, se a Inv. 965-5,9 house � �¢� Ff Etev. (Y � � F Elev. f = 978,4P p II txrst , rouse j a sonitory manhole- I I7 f 1 _ Rim = 976.03 X 97 i,2 I - 8 '18 E NE & SW Inv.=958.83 �y m nhole_... `"^ ..,� X9Ta°`�6 - `� 265,71 SE Inv.=963.45 ' Rim 977. 4 `"`---+• = - F St.-2TwC`P son. se i6ot r,976� Inv. 959, 3 N bit. food sue_ r - Sef PK No -..s t _ 1;f3za0 FFJi- i FF Fiev, +'s 79.14 FT* Etev, 79-u� I t f�9.71 +.." �r...,,....._....._.....� �7� .m..,,,..� � � ;'6p� 60 0 60 120 180 i _ �x�. _.�.. .._.x �) f- I A //'1 Scale: 1 " 60' X 97,a; 7 �t i E_ v v V L/ lY,, �P j ' ) ,•s �4 -Y'Z - } p y r/ i DEVELOPER/OWNER: LENN._ X977.86 eye l ~ .� i I I £ E00 0 ��L , \ ATTN:4ROE JABLONSKI 97a ' m 1 ✓' Si. µEM �t 1NG 16305 367H AVE NORTH, SUITE 600 7� x ,7 # /f �� E�18E "i+; E yd PL YMOUTH, MN 55446 x974-S7 ` SO X s;,�Y P � PH- 952-249-3014 g 9�s x 97 .19 } .976, 3# X 976, 41 1 ' PK0 339 X 979. 45 7e1 fsr 2 t fe e,„tom, south 2 1 X87B$2 E r^. X 97r� .w t&.,., s� line •-" z z a 7' � � ` .t �.,.,. ,�>A: 900 -€% - ;v • ... ,11 97 �� _. _„_,_- �.,�� ,e... ., �tsro e fir. 1 •, _____. ST-7 •.. < 980 7ence 2t'south Extst. n s2 ni i ► �T..:... �Ps��a _a F a� ., 7 _ .-ati., � a o� �� . f� P : �f , � 98 %I -;.,, 0 45.a rF_9B4C1 )- TF �- 9 no 55 t Y C 9 ta� 7 5 GGE 0- g a? R1 .9 8 ,t Fr E I...L� ` G OS 0� t 09E p \erg �1 7n d ` T1N pM t)CP�` q5 j' L.9 rn 1 Kss' E705 �5 0115�Sr1 i'7,,, w `Y 48 o Ow C ��♦ m / ? , \ \\ \ . / 9 95g815 jk E x9I5.7 XWt�' \ ,I o / \ \ .emu•` f. � y � \ g R1A t• -✓" d� � ''--, .s' ,, �„ j 1'� �� teps to, v6 W/ 5. 9 I.� <E' / fl� 9158 \ is"a.. ,' 4 }1<' 0 �t Slp tiC\ Z j fn1 r y W7.�+- �. '► iO o o ♦ a6 �Sretoinin V/ 9 3 '_. l e- ',983,22 dd \ X 978. 4 \ 4r�t / to\ 13 -+ / rc+ \ 9 71 \ 0 �gg94' 0 i \ _ \S._, a N ✓P\ ,off, 4 ,_\ 1 \ G 6 v 9 1 s , o e r Gam` ns._ s \ o' ...... \ � < \ ��t 5• \ G �9 1 1 G��te 5 \� sf � 1 �- ` .. s9 5 V 9 \ f ` (t ✓ -• A wu �✓ t G 9 \ / �..,,� ,:FtiV 9�-�- rff pGrp £• / Sao. i 1 975.; V 9�',2 o g f�,• ,. . / / �� r 4 �_, - \ i A ,,'" / b A $ L '� 9P.0.56 �. �♦o;,> E�/ G�; � 9 \V A f SO o s g11. \, / ""/42 e096�- 1€•� r s 975.7 Nq'"' r1 e 6 0�5 v�� d C . � � � , I / � � ��,,\ � � •vim, i /� `.� ,O/ ��16. -V 9 i / ✓'' g�,�Q7 m9.I. Si') ��°`- cl r�Xve s „ 3 ✓ . / aea 7r, r NN ` tA2� a i 9 53 �A 0 ✓ ,. / r 9�a / \ - 1 N 7 9 Exist. A iaNt O.f 6� „ / fF Etev. X('�1 GJ< C\". ,.. 0.3 / 0 9 is9 R/W -.�7 / VARIES 1 25' 60' MIN ( NZ)' L. �, o sty � �' i/ � �:, (� A �{0 Y '986 � / � t� / � ..: i �10 10' f \ x 974,93 gE � , \ 4� r t / / .. i I \ / � "`�, Q \ / / ,,,--974 / 1 _ L7LL19974.� �L V �e R pP ✓� 9iS 3s7. A v 738 sanitary m4h\Ie X 973.�, "y, o .- i \ \� VQ� '' � �1a } / �/ BASEMENT FLOOR _ I t # f Rim = 973.92 \ ♦ "i 973 r C:1 / �� \ ♦ e ..� .. 1 1 I 6 s� 912 FRS �n/ \� \ \ FINISHED GRADE \ \ �r / 3� V ♦ 6/\\\� a / E r p �� // ✓ 3' HOLD DOWN (FROM GARAGE ELEV) X 1 6 d R �� X�/ ♦� 9) �. 4 (�/ /"Mp ,SS- �/ t^ GRADING GRADE s N ..� ono \ \\ �.�,, 976,% 0.5' TOPSOIL .p `- a^,x ""1 A ,� 966♦96 ' - - J L , g1g 0/ 976.,,_,,,_ �� G/ + J TYPICAL RAMBLER/FULL BASEMENT (FB) �� NOT TO SCALE \ \ \ o Exist. \ o b#dq. i _, DRAINAGE 9 1 i 978.04 \ f zi �ML�96$5 VARIES g B' G pC 25' MIN 60' ! r 22 38 \ \ sanitary monk e { / ✓ �..-...., \ / / -g15.0 97 ,59 \ Rim / �jj�x ^ '� / ....�-� � pl �� / \ \ gg.5 / Ci ♦ 0 Tar. / 1 x � 9. 1 3) i OD0. X971. C) BASEMENT FLOOR V ° `. A+ 6SO 0pJE1 erE,xssQf7L.87 SURFACE / ✓/ ti FINISHED SURFACE ELEV AT HOUSE � 'J' 2' HOLD DOWN (FROM GARAGE ELEV) ) '4 GRADING GRADEf #rr, 985-� c9 '02 0 oC m 0.5 TOPSOIL ev, \ \�a K' 6" p��•• s/. t� s g� g ' / a°°, rn (7)a,rn rn rn o 1 I Eck / u II n II III n n n � �'/ � .-•' / ,� ,��,a� ��' ,\. �� m ~ °° 1 ~ °° -~ °° I I TYPICAL FULL WALKOUT (WO) / I - - I NOT To SCALE t jG0r s �� ! I 980 -I - 16.5 E6� ✓ 90 / Et/ / 12' 19' 2 30 i R W X / / n (1`� 1 1 1 VARIES \ 966 r-y12 .j / ��+(` I GROUND ELEV. I � 25' \ 0 \ / /zkm ✓ J / `J;1`� I 975------L---- b-----i i MIN i ,,.✓,,.96a� ;i `� / RETAINING WALL PROFILE I 00 6 10' \ '` / / / \ I GRADING NOTES NOTES: 1, MODULAR BLOCK WALL TO BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER / / \ AFTER HOME CONSTRUCTION. GRADING CONTRACTOR BASEMENT FLOOR / SHALL LEAVE 2:1 SLOPE ALONG LOT LINE 1. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN . �•• / FINISHED SURFACE ELEV. AT HOUSE APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT 2. BOTTOM ELEVATIONS ARE GROUND ELEVATIONS & DO 2,5' HOLD DOWN (FROM GARAGE ELEV) LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES NOT ACCOUNT FOR BURIED BLOCK. GRADING GRADE 99 `'�'y `` r tt9• ` TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMANGES WHICH MIGHT BE 0.5' TOPSOIL t� /OCCASIONED BY HIS LURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIESTYPICAL LOOKOUT (LO) �a NOT TO SCALE 1 2127114 C.S.O. LAYour REVISIONS DESIGNED DRAWN I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by PROJECT NO: me or under my direct supervision and that i am a duly Licensed www.ottoassodates.com BOULDER COVE C. S. O. M. L. H. professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 9 West Division street PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN Buffalo, MN5531314-0105 CHECKED (763)662-4727 LENNAR N0. DATE BY DESCRIPTION C.S.O. CaraM.SchwahnCare OttoQS7? Fax:(763ki823522 CHANHASSEN, MN DATE: REVISIONS License # 40433 Date: 2-27-14 Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. SHEET N O . O F 6 SHEETS 2/ 12/ 14 ExisL house r 979.t6 , y 5mnhote scnit i9!7 :m --... Set PK No#- \ ■ 1 12 llv 3 - 33 17 Ihouse FF Etev. rouse reuse >2. FF Etev 979,/4 dFgE792si FF 79, II house 93Y.97 ( a sonitery manhole �IJ / EYri Rim gg7VnLrJ ,j,AjAir"IAIA,.ern Exist, Inv. = 6gg59 tyttivrv%rrn.fIrnxse / s ---'�- lp it � � =9�,"99V41] 'L'xisst- r 1 1 house t Etev sanitary man a e 979. �l Rim NE & S68' Ynu W 958 8,3�- 5E Inv.=96 ........ 4 ....�. Ile NSTALL _. -- .... - ' A •-----•-.e STOP 9d/ INSTALL DRUNTLE N. Or .� GE ` �...\ CBMH5 r H4 CB•S To DRUM — — — — — V OR �iP�EN V I M I - �et,ce 7.t south, V house Car ae .r. �a i A ♦W?• ♦ h CURB VATH TAPER '..._.. \ '1 ,- - - - - 1 r- - - - - r - - - I I f tine ` FF Eiev. m £.21 = \ AT STA 0+15 ; �.:.� EPSE \ ` 1 / / / 1 11 I II I I 1 A 1101 ai (,� hrickw0jks8 1 ,, 11 12 I I I I �f I t OUTLOT 8 ,z. \ ' -\ - OUTLOT C f, \ �� ,�. E \ \ 1113 I 115 ' / V4 \ / FILTRATION ^ \ \ 10 V A / \ V3 ko / BASIN/ \ \ 1 L — — -_1 L _ o ,ol re a.7 I � A refCtxYtin ifl � \ � —o / \ \ \ \ \ \ / � R try' ,�- ✓F i / €�. EiSE�Eit,5�►E �/��.',5 •� SPR�i�J�N� \\ \ \\ � �1,� m; 4 E \ 6 \ \ \ \ C \ \ 10 \ \ 11 g 3O6o5° Yr`° r geA'r%'F ORp1Nnt \\ \\ \ �` / / / / \ \\ `s \\ \ \\ \ \ ig5E9�5.- 1. t/ c � ✓ X��r \ \ 1NSip pEiaL) i � i' \ \ a1P 1 � / \ \ 8 \ \ \ \ \ \ , / � 0`h•( 41 t ,J PED. RAMP c,< 41 \ \ m / 0 / \ \ \ \ \ \/ 4F Exist. \ / �S \ \ \ 5 ID rF 79.1 3 s l 2 \ _ ✓d✓ san,ter manhate ; � � 'O/ Rim - 973..92 , o f / J 1 ♦ OJ�� ---� L css z ••` OU • "PT /� R��P 4� __ ai .✓' /„r' \ /q R�pe,o o I t� f4� �. z& I;'xisi. P ..FORA/NAGS- ' ENG SP�K A 2A ( $ 3�{+, .r" ,% / ' t' = bidg OND BRIR ;1I r Ff E#eY &UTILITY �. PL CL PL 9 � 30' 30• 7�.�4 EASEMENT P��ev. / \ \ 15.5' to Bock 15.5• to Bock eanifary manhabe � � •� `� � / ,N`� ` /Weor Course R'im = 971,96 �' �> :.x-'"� •� 11.Ei06 E �� "�-g' ' Above Edge of utter , c3o3\ e 3.0% 2.0% 1.5 1 47 \,'\ ••� 1Drointile Y' 4" Topsoil, Seed 1 1 » East. ' Ij� & Mulch or Sod. /2 -MNDOT 2350 LVWE35030B b/d4 r� "Y � �. � ' ' osemenl t£r'. e#ev' ' J i Tack Coot - 2357 Drointile per. / 2"-MNDOT 2350 LVNW350308 » PERT't i Surmountable / / Concrete Curb `F 000 12"_Class 5 Aggregate Base, 100% Crushed Match Existing Grade 24" MNDOT 3149.2E Select OP v14GtAl 965/� Granular Borrow 'See Note 7 EL // /'r p 4" Topsoil 1. Minimum Right -of -Way Required - 60'. 28"R 00000000000 Wrap Trench with 2. Maximum street rode 7.0%. / o 0 0 0 0 0 9 12"R 16" Top Bituminous Moteriol 0000000000000®0 Ceofextile Fabric 3. Minimum street grade 0.75%. 68"R Varies 0 000-0-0— 0 4, 4,0•• Topsoil placed in disturbed areas. / \ c o 0 MnDOT 3149.2H Coarse 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. 2 Rolls sod behind curb. SURMOUNTABLE I.f d oo�o Filter Aggregate 6, The bituminous wearing surface shall be placed the next construction ,A i o 1/2"'•':•,.,� ^ Concrete Curb and Gutter �a�p 0 0 6" Perforated Drointile season following placement of the bituminous base. Inv=966.0 7. A test roll of the prepared subgrode shall be performed by the owner sky / 17 1/2" 1 10 1/2" 3, in the presence of a city inspector. The city has the authority to require / 28" additional subgrode correction based on the test roll. / & Drointile shall be placed along both sides of roadway. See plate 5232 for details. TYPICAL CURB & GUTTER-5203 FRENCH DRAIN DETAIL l he b cert fy that this /an s eciflcation or re rt was --red b VS re DESIGNED DRAWN C. S.O. M.L.H. CHECKED C. S.O. Y l l P. P Po P Pe Y me or under my direct supervision and that l am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. / ..� ALLl�\ L.(AA fXC 11 l%MIO�' w ..ottosssoaates.com g west Division Street T�O (763)6Buffalo, -4727MN 3 r (763�82-4717 WSSOCIATES Fax.' (763)6e2-3522 Engineers 8 Land Surveyors, Inc. BOULDER COVE LENNAR C H A N HAS S E N, M N PRELIMINARY STREET &STORM SEWER PLAN TION Cara M Schwahn Otto License # 40433 Date: 2- 27-14 SHEET NO. 4 OF 6 SHEETS 14-0105 2/12/14 1J� 33B bit. rood--. a� 2.55 247 27t�}' iR2r �t 2°a i79 P� i e } t " ✓.vex s �4 �$ i r� f' a7 7$21= 2�3 P9 27P 298 F64 2S i srr W 3A3 "0 9 8 2 '5 i Sf 01 1019 7� / 0t D`t kJttl It S: \ 4y All2-0 / \ yz�[[b f ' / ✓ i' / \ t`YC7.�J`; 35 ra3 it 7T78 �o / `� �G \ EXISTING TREE INVENTORY ,r �'}� b..._®_Fo,,`4 � 7s star _ �/ r,✓' / `'+ J f 95 ` mad24 e trs tas� / "T \ 2 gT✓eP 32 dd5 d ? \/ 4 r 1. , ,Y3 #CIT #is 06 \• G \ ggt�f /� \ IJ- 114 / h J 60 0 60 120 180 1 // / Scole: 1" = 60' 0a,a i i it \ 342 313 3 TREE zss PROTECTION FENCE \ \ Y 291 0 263 \ �c� 2M J _ 2# zza C I t95 q 4r# r9T r W 2ri 204 `p 67 Y 67 Lyyy I P.3 >.H9 ge ; r 45 I gP 2 .22 %?i 41'�7/l71`I / a'k5»S 2 1 2P , 7....�' �3£! k•-{ '_R9 1„,� / / I / DEVELOPER/OWNER. / SF SF DENOTES SILT FENCE LENNAR ATTNKI X_ x DENOTES TREE PROTECTION FENCE 1630 36 JA AVE.N O / 16305 36TH VE. NORTH, SUITE 600 � PL YMOU TH, MN 55446 / PH- 952-249-3014 / \ TREE SPECIES AND CONDITION PROWDED BY PLANT HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC. (KATHY INDIN). (651)436-8811 / EXISTING BASE LINE CANOPY COVERAGE = 293,021 SF (52%) MINIMUM CANOPY COVERAGE REQUIRED = 170,299 Sr (30%) EXISTING CANOPY COVERAGE PRESERVED = 53,713 (1&3%) SPECIES SIZE COND177ON SAVE REMOVE 1 hone ocust 12 good x 2 birch 14m14 good x 3 crobo le 14 fair -poor X 4 crobo le 10 fair X 5 silver moot 38 fair % 6 silver m0 1 30 fair x 7 silver mop! 28 fair X 8 ash 28 poor X 9 1 craboDDle 1 15 poorAx! X 10 bolsom 6r 19 fair 11 arborvitae 10 ootl 12 arborvitae 12 ood 13 silver mo le 14 ood 14 sugar mo I fir- ootl 15 crobo le 20 fair 16 birch 8;9;10 good 17 birch 8.9• 10 fair 18 elm 16 good X 19 arborvitae 8.800 good x 20 crob000le 18 1 000r x 21 cottonwood 18 fair X 22 sugar moot 20 fair X 23 5uq2r ma I 20 fair- oor % a os oir 27 sugar mople 18 oir X 28 osh ar x 29 boxelder 16 fair X 30 cottonwood 10 fair x 31 osh 9 fair X 32 cottonwood 15:15 ov x sugar mapi 1 fair x 34 elm 12;8 fair X 35 boxelder 9 uod x cottonwood 1 •1 r 37 osh 9 fair X 38 sugar mo le 24 foir- oor 40 sugar maple 30 fair 41 cottonwood 12 fair x 42 elm 10 fair 43 cottonwood 2.10-12.22 fair x as ottonwood 12.12.16 actod x 45 cottonwood 14 fair x 46 cottonwood 10 fair X 47 cottonwood 14. 14 fair x 48 cottonwood 14; 16 air X 49 cottonwood 15 fair x cottonwood air x 1 cottonwood 1 10. 15 air x 52 cottonwood 2.14jo-10 fair x 54 cottonwood 10 fair X 55 cottonwood 14 fair I X locust 14 fair 57 co onwo ; air 58 cottonwood 9 fair X 59 cottonwood 9 fair x 60 co onwoo foir X 61 cottonwood 13 fair X 62 cottonwood 1 11 fair x 63 locust 14 fair x 64 cottonwood 9 fair x 65 elm 12 fair x 66 cottonwood 8 fair x 67 cottonwood 10 fair % 68 cottonwood 11 air x 69 cottonwood ax x 70 cottonwood 1 air x EXISTING TREEINVENTORY if SPECIES IZE COND177ON SAVE REMOVE 71 bur 50 good X 72 spruce 8 poor X r 20 fair 47 5 silver mo le 10;8 fair X 76 silver ma le 10, 10; 12 fair x 77 ash g "fair 78 spr 9 Poor % 79 ash 10 r x ce or fr, 10., 20,. IR Poor X 81 ash fair x 82 ash f 12 fair x 84 Scots a 28 air -poor X 85 Fedor foir- r X elm 16 air X 7 c 1 G I i- X 88 or g or X ag,lf,lver mooe t1 far x 0 sit 8 fair X 91 a r 36 fair x sifler mople 12 airX redo 12.12 1 f if ./ x 97 bu ok 48 10 r X 99 fiver ma le 1 o,r fair 102 ash.fair 113 s 10 oart,r 1 a a fair x 1 •i ash 10 fair x osh 15 fair -pow x 107 ash 14 fair 108 Over maple 12 fir x 109 ash 12 toir X 110 ash 14 foir- oar X ill ash 14 al If x 112 ash 16 fair x 113 boxelder 12 foir-poor x 114 spruce 14 oir-poor x 115 hockberr 22 Oir X 116 ash 22 poor X 117 osh fair X 119 ash 10 fair X 120 ash or x spruce 14 fair x 122 ash 18 fair x spruce poor x 126 cedar 10.15 air -poor x 127 cedor poor x 128 iorwoy ma I 16 fair X 1 9 sugar mot 48 fair x 131 hockerr 16 goo X 132 osh 14 oir 133 ash 18 foir- oor 134 osh 8:10 fair- oor X 135 spruce 9 poor X 136 osh 18 fair x 140 cottonwood 8 (air X 141 cottonwood 12:10:8 fair x 142 cottonwood9 fair x 143 cottonwood10 fair x 144 cottonwood10 fair x 145 cottonwoo 9 (air X 147 osh 9 fair 148 cottonwood air x cottonw oe X 150 ash 9 fair x 151 elm 9 fair % 152 elm 10 fair 1 u or mot 802.18 foir 154 elm 12 poor X cottonwood155 fir 156 cottonwood 9 fair 157 cottonwood 12 fair 1 fir 1 cottonwood 9 fair X 1 cottonwood 9 fair 161 cottonwood 10 fair 162 cottonwood 10 fair X co onw air cottonwood oir as ox 166 -s ver map a a�f co onwoo--To- rt 7157 e m oir-poor x axe er oir silver mopie ov X 171 osh 8 (air X 172 osh 10 fair x 173 cottonwood 12 far 174 cottonwood 10 fair x 17 cottonwooc 15,12 fair x 176 spruce 8 poor 1 ash 15 1 fair 178 silver ma le 10. 14. 22 fair X cottonwoodfair 180 boxelder 9 foir x 1 1 ash 9 fair x 19 fnir 1111 collonwoo I S fir 185 elm 10 fair x j_K osh 6 fair 187 osh a I fair 1 cottonwood 10 fair JES cottonwood 12 fair x 190 cottonwood 1 fair lgl cottonwood oir 192 ash 10 fair x S&Itonwood 17 fir I" cottonwood a Mir y 196 cottonwood 8:12 fair x 197 elm 8 fair x 199 cottonwood 10;10 fair x 200 cottonwood 10 air X 201 cottonwood IO;10 fair x 202 cottonwood 10 fair X 203 osh 12 air X 204 cottonwood 1 fair x 205 osh oir 206 ash 9 fair x 207 cottonwood 9 fair X ash to fair cottonwood a fair 210 cottonwood 12.14.15 foir X 211 cottonwood 12 fair X SPECIES SIZE COND177ON SAVE REMOVE 1 cedor 10;10 fair X 213 willow 5,24;12;10 veryOOr x 214 OSh 10.12 fair x 2J-5- silver mnpi 12 fair 216 silver moot 10 fair x 217 apple 1 poor x 218 red pine 14 verypoor x 219 spruce 18 poor x 2201 cedor 1 12 ov X 221 so ruce 18 poor x 222 apple 15.9 far x 223 apple 8;8;10 fair x 224 apple 8; 12 fair x 225 red cedor 12 foir x 227 ash lair x spruce 14 ea x 229 bur oak 22 fair x 230 cottonwood 10:8kfair-0.0or X 231 ash 12fair x boxelder 10 x ur oo 234 ash 24X osh X 236 silver maple10 x silver moat f0. 12. 9•fair x 38 silver maple 10; 12. 15 x 239 osh x 41 242 cottonwood 10 fair x 243 cottonwood 12 fair x 4 co on Wood oir 4 ur oak oir 246 silver mo I '10'14'1 fair x 47 ash 18 fir X 248 cottonwood 10 fair x 2491 osh 1 16 fair X cedar 14 fait 251 boxelder 8 fair X 2.52 osh 9 fair 253 ? It dead x 254 boxelder 9 fair x 255 ash 24 av X 256 osh 18. 22 oir X 257 ash 10 1 fair x 258 osh 20 fir X 259 ash 8 oir x c —ot I —on-w-o o-d a fair x 261 cottonwood 10 fair X 262 ash 20 fair x 263 boxelder 1 air 264 m air X 265 elm 15 Poor NIF axe _e air 'co -ton -wood -a- x 268 cottonwood oir co onwo T- -12 fair X cottonwoo oe x 271 cottonwood 10 fair % s ver map oir x Tirvyr-Amm to [air x co onwood 10 fair X osh ov os av --T- 2771 osh 9 fair X 276 apple •1 •1 poor 279 osh air X osh a fir x 1 boxelder 16 fair I x boxelder 10 poor I X 283 ash 12 fair x 284 silver mople 10 fair fir 287 it f m I 1002 fair ash x 89 osh 16 (oir- oor x 90 apple 15 ood X 291 osh 15 air X h 9 1 fair X ash 12 fir X hockberry 12 fair X 2971 ash 10 fair X 2911 cottonwood fair 299 boxelder 1 fair X 300 osh oil x Silver ww oe silver mapl oir em o 305 silver maple 9:12:l2;9:fair elm 14 fair 308 osh 12 fair 309 cedor 10 poor X 310 ash 14 fair X 311 ash 15 ax la ash 9 fair X boxelder 9 fair x -3j,j boxelder 19:17 fair X 12 oor 10 f itut 2 fair x der 9 Poor X V 14.12.10 air x 9 air xder air 10 oh 9 air -poor X 327 cedor 9 fair x boxEltlef 12 fair X 329 osh 10 foir- oor x 330 elm 12 fair % 331 ash 10 fair x ash 14 poor % elm 12 oir 334 ash 14 oir x 335 elm 10 fair co onwoo air x 337 silver mope 15 arc X 338 ash 10 fair X 339 cottonwood 16 fair X silver ma I 10 fair X 342 boxelder art -poor x 343 cottonwood 16 fair x 346 cottonwood 10 fair X 347 osh 10 fair x 349 ash 10.10 fair % 350 ash 10 fair X 351 osh 12 fair X 352 silver maple 12 foir- ood x 4 elm 9 fir x 355 silver mop] 10 fair 362 ash 10 fair X 400 saver maple 8; 9;1p av x 401 boxelder 12 oir x 402 cottonwood 0:100 12 fair x 403 cottonwood •1 •1 au X 405 cedor 12 poor x 406 osh 10 poor 20 silver moplel 10 fair x DESIGNED DRAWN I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that IF am a duly Licensed C.ww.orroassocares.com BOULDER COVE TREE PROJECT N 0: S. O. M.L.H.M. L. H T-rp Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 9 west Division Street (7�i�N55313 2-4727 LENNAR PRESERVATION PLAN 14-0105 CHECKED CAAa_ _A Fax: (763)82-3522 NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION C.S.O. Cara M.SchwahnOtto QSSOCIATES CHANHASSEN, MN (� REVISIONS License # 40433 Date: 2-12-14 EngirresrsBLandSurveyors,Inc. SHEET N0. 5 OF SHEETS DATE. 2/12/14 v - c-c 976! r o bit rood ROCK CON! 976 " T 980 97 _,.,,._ ....._. / -0LjTLC T s ® + ti 0 Q 0 9 ! ti. r tS3 c � 1 X n �6%D g1 o -' 8 3 O.F. o 74.8� \ X 3_ / D 7 I . 7 -- -� 978 980 9 978,2 NIL 979.2 y 1 \ N { 1213 14 , rc y;� s a g1 � y E nt5 , V �%3 9 t� S is y \. - xx 982 X. TIC xX-+ Rti� R r 5 f / 460 �� t 05A 4IV 01 o 1 ��- � . • \ ."" ,,,,, � $R. / mil,! edge ! \ M ! E- _ a Exist� i XX ✓"" / / ,ram GJf ,ice' � •� ram- � � �o g1& � 8 x�� .�� ` si . . g1� � '��fl r ``P � .✓� '` 15� F�/=�r"' � `� •; '� eT''� g�� 1 > � � J f � 1 �' �� l��jj ,tee' / /9 16 _� f e\ i / if /� / SO 014�- '� X 976, /A p / F ' REM j` IQ 50 0 50 100 150 I Scale: 1" = 50' CON TRAC TOR: NAME: PROJECT MANAGER: ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: DEVELOPER/OWNER: LENNAR ATTN. JOE JABLONSKI 16305 36TH AVE. NORTH, SUITE 600 PLYMOUTH, MN 55446 PH- 952-249-JO14 SEQUENCE FOR CONSTRUCTION 1. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. 2. INSTALL ALL PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. 3. SITE CLEARING & GRUBBING. 4. CONSTRUCT STORMWATER POND AND INSTALL OUTLET CONTROL WITH TEMPORARY RISER TO UTILIZE AS A SEDIMENTATION BASIN. 5. MASS GRADE SITE (INCLUDES ON/OFF SITE HAULING). 6. INSTALL UTILITIES. 7, COMPLETE STREET CONSTRUCTION. 8. STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS THAT ARE TO FINAL GRADE. 9. SMALL UTILITY INSTALLATION. 10. INSTALL SECONDARY SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES. 11. CONVERT POND TO PERMANENT STORMWATER POND (CLEAN OUT SEDIMENT, REMOVE TEMPORARY OUTLET CONTROL) 12. FINAL LANDSCAPING (REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN) 13. HOME CONSTRUCTION. 14. RESTORE SITE WITH PERMANENT RESTORATION AS HOMES ARE BUILT. 15. ONCE ALL DISTURBED AREAS HAVE 70% VEGETATIVE DENSITY, REMOVE SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES. / o , 9 g1ti R� !� EROSION PREVENTION `� red / x•,� ,( `>2 `•,j� 1. THE NORMAL WETTED PERIMETER OF ANY DRAINAGE DITCH MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 200 ' (,-C.�;J "" ,yC N �` ,y� e" Ifj�• �, r, (^ LINEAL FEET FROM THE PROPERTY EDGE OR POINT OF DISCHARGE TO ANY SURFACE WATER '� .,,_../""•- .,...,,,, A �. �1 �J,1,• ate" �' �F ,,r'�� r, `% (WITHIN 24 HOURS OF CONNECTING TO A SURFACE WATER). ' -• ""F•",ti_`-- "`"Y "r �1�-,-„y76.---' F% z✓ l �1,1� J 2. ENERGY DISSIPATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AT PIPE OUTLETS WITHIN 24 HOURS OF CONNECTION rT y TO A SURFACE WATER. 1.� ✓ to \ ��•. � `' "`- € � f ` C+ { \ 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION PHASING WHEN POSSIBLE. OU71 T E v? , p ogT v ~ �pw �gb�% � ! E s SEDIMENT CONTROL PRE 'fir \ 1A erg. , p1�fp I ='flV' ra`^,f/"'tY;.`•' Y6'$5 .� E 1 1 STORM WATER CONVEYANCES SUCH o V \ nz =371. F -� 1 POR �M' ! SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND THE BOTTOM WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE LAST 97�i.04 __- ..__, - TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES SHALL HAVE SILT FENCE INSTALLED AROUND THE PERIMETER ! AND CANNOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING 'r----" ! ' � ! AS CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS, CONDUITS OR DITCHES IN g1 G pGEq 'r pN5 S� F ��R�10`'ti'` CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES THAT FORMED THE STOCKPILE. G�( �(rF. 2. THE TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASIN SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE BEGINNING OF 1 ¢k ?, 00 NS � CONSTRUCTION. I r' �a "/ '� "'r `i' ,/ /r 1G / F„ �N A 3. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION IS '�`-.j'``" �- , '/& ;�.1., - �(p�R�t COMPLETED. gillr, a, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING EXISTING PAVED cV SURFACES CLEAN OF SEDIMENT AND MUD. THIS SHALL INCLUDE DAILY STREET 9j? /S{/ �cj5 r / GENERAL NOTES SCRAPING & STREET SWEEPING AS NEEDED. A PICKUP BROOM SHALL GG ,✓ BE USED A MINIMUM OF ONCE A WEEK. 1, CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FAMILIAR WITH AND FOLLOW ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE `7 ^ � �1$/f "' .,/ / 1�..41N � hAa f ! (,') MPCA NPDES PHASE II PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ✓t 0, 1 3 , _,�Q,. 2. A COPY OF THE SWPPP SHALL BE ON THE JOB SITE DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION. J•,,. "`�� I ,$,e,/✓.,4C`' / •(Q �p, `' a 3. ALL SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ACTIVITY DE WATERING AND SURFACE DRAINAGE t ridq 'f'~ E O; . ,,�' ,(H1 (I � UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED DE WATERING IS ANTICIPATED ON THIS SITE DE WATERING SHALL BE DISCHARGED BE THE /JG ,,.r" j 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPORARY DITCHES, PIPING, OR TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASIN WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF THE WATER CANNOT BE ¥�%. #}'�` 1 _,,.,�.• g12��,R'P g1�' „f ✓ J M OTHER MEANS REQUIRED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. DISCHARGED TO A BASIN PRIOR TO ENTERING THE SURFACE WATER, THE CONTRACTOR 1 G5 (flL r( i ✓ f 2 P� r i r�;'t%.�� r -"'r' !t� lr� ✓ % �,91 R(Q� .✓ '' � 5. TEMPORARY TURF RESTORATION SHALL BE COMPLETED PER MNDOT 2575 USING MNDOT MUST PROVIDE OTHER BMP'S USCH THAT THE DISCHARGE DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT p�L cj ! MIX 150 0 40 LBS/ACRE & MNDOT TYPE 1 MULCH 0 2 TONS/ACRE (DISC ANCHORED). THE RECEIVING WATER. ,°` yyr, INst PTo� y, , / L E G E N D / %' 6. PERMANENT TURF RESTORATION SHALL BE COMPLETED PER MNDOT 2575 & 3878. SEEDING 2. DISCHARGE POINTS SHALL BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM EROSION AND MONITORED T`�'' SF SF- PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL FENCE SHALL CONSIST OF MNDOT MIX 250 0 75 LBS/ACRE WITH MNDOT TYPE 1 MULCH 0 FREQUENTLY, ENERGY DISSIPATION MEASURES SUCH AS RIP RAP, PLASTIC SHEETING, ,rn „�,`,r/// ✓ ,,,,� / , 1'T 1N ,"" _' 'f� yrt �9 (INSTALL PRIOR TO START OF GRADING) 2 TONS/ACRE (DISC ANCHORED) & FERTILIZED WITH 22-5-10, 80%W.I,N, 0 350 LBS/ACRE. SAND BAGS OR OTHER ACCEPTED MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED. 7. STABILIZED WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER CONSTRUCTION EXPOSED AREAS SHALL BE /r �_ EF� /�► ' ^� y1 0 0 SECONDARY EROSION CONTROL FENCE HAS CEASED IN THE AREA. INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ,,,. �• G--- r, f{`y/� s r i (INSTALL WITHIN 48 HOURS OF COMPLETION 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF ALL EROSION ITY 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT SITE INSPECTIONS AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 7 DAYS DURING gg�/ / E�Ir�� . N OF GRADING) OF 70%LOVVERICTHE ENTIREES UNTIL PERVIOUSAREA..TE HAS A RMAIN ENANCEESHOALLRI INCLUDE BUTWITH A NOTy DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER •� a 'r ,,/ y r. XX XX SECONDARY EROSION CONTROL FENCE BE LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: THAN 0.5" IN 24 HOURS. INSPECTION LOGS SHALL INCLUDE ANY CORRECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN. (INSTALL AFTER COMPLETION OF CURB) 0. REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM PONDS AND DITCHES WHEN HALF FULL AND UPON 1 "�,.✓` 6-'� COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. (WITHIN 72 HOURS) fie / p; / h1{ tyAl [[ i(--�E TREE PROTECTION FENCE 6. REMOVE SILT WHEN ACCUMULATION REACHES ONE-THIRD THE POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT ✓�" / i �-"'" Aj j r� CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION INSTALLED HEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE. (WITHIN 72 HOURS) 1. COLLECTED SEDIMENT, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE MILLINGS, FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, ! l �G� / ✓ / ✓ yJ 11 yt L..J WITH CATCH BASIN GRATE a MAINTAIN ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. REPLACEMENT DURING PLASTIC, FABRIC, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND OTHER WASTES MUST s^` y '•''~ ",,," `ems" y,,."1� /, �lL� SRPp / t CONSTRUCTION MAY 8E NECESSARY. BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. // r 1 CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION INSTALLED ...�, o"" ✓"� �, / STP RIP / 1 d. ANY DEPOSITING OF SILT OR MUD ON NEW OR EXISTING STORM SEWERS / AFTER FIRST LIFT OF BITUMINOUS 2. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF OIL, GASOLINE, PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 66 �,,. ICE pl / ! OR SWALES SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAIN AND AFFECTED AREAS g MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. ✓ MNDOT CAT. 3 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CLEANED. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPY WATER TO ANY CONSTRUCTION AREAS THAT CAUSE 3. EXTERNAL WASHING OF TRUCKS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED , �x rr f,-" „ ,,, ', •.•, (INSTALL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF GRADING COMPLETION) TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE & CLEARLY LABELED AS SUCH. RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED AND A NUISANCE FROM BLOWING DUST, WASTE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE. I1 STRAW BID ROLL (INSTALL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF GRADING COMPLETION) 1 2127114 CSO LA POUT REVISIONS DESIGNED DRAWN I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by BOULDER COVE PROJECT NO: me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed www.ottoassociates.com D vision Sire m STORM WATER POLLUTION C. S. 0. M.L.H. Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. WSTP 8 west Division Street Buffs/o, MN 553>3PREVENTION PLAN 14-0105 CHECKED- (ax:(76-4,27 LENNAR C.S.O. 2-27-14 Fax:(763J682-3522CHANHASSEN, MN DATE:N0. DATE BY DESCRIPTION Carrie Schwahn OttoSHEET N 0. 6 O F 6 SHEETS 2/12/14 REVISIONS License # 4t}433 Date: En ineers &Land Surve ors Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner CITYOF FROM: Todd Hoflinan, Park & Recreation Director A CHMMSSEN DATE: February 21, 2014 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 SUBJ: Boulder Cove: Recommendation Concerning Park & Trail Conditions Chanhassen, MN 55317 of Approval; Located North of Highway 7, East of Church Road, and South of West 62nd Street Administration Phone:952.227.1100 PARKS Fax: 952,227.1110 This property is located within the neighborhood park service area for Cathcart Park. Future residents of Boulder Cove will have convenient access to the park Building Inspections Phone: 952.2271180 from West 62nd Street. Cathcart Neighborhood Park is unique in that the park is Fax: 952.227.1190 owned and operated by the City of Shorewood, but is located in the City of Chanhassen. The two cities operate the park with an agreement that Shorewood Engineering provides for all capital improvements and daily operations and Chanhassen mows Phone: 952.227.1160 the lawn and trims the trees and bushes. Fax:952,227.1170 Finance Cathcart Park is 4.75 acres in size and features a playground, basketball court, Phone:952.227.1140 hockey rink with shelter, tennis court, and a ballfield. Ample off-street parking is Fax: 952.227.1110 available at the park. The amenities at the park have been updated within the past 10 years. No additional parkland acquisition is being recommended as a condition Park & Recreation of this subdivision. Phone:952.227,1120 Fax:952,227.1110 TRAILS Recreation Center The subject site does not have direct access to a trail; however, convenient access 2310 Coulter Boulevard to the Southwest LRT Trail is available from West 62"d Street. The Southwest Phone: 952.227.1400 LRT Trail is situated within a corridor owned by the Hennepin County Regional Fax: 952.227.1404 Rail Authority (HCRRA). Three Rivers Park District manages the corridor as a multi -use trail through an agreement with HCRRA. This particular section of the Planning 8 Natural Resources trail travels west to the City of Victoria and east to Minneapolis. Access to this Phone: 952.227.1130 trail is a very desirable recreational amenity and will be widely utilized by the Fax: 952.227.1110 future residents of Boulder Cove. No additional trail construction is being recommended as a condition of this subdivision. Public Works 7901 Park Place PARK AND TRAIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Phone:952.2271300 Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction Fax: 952.227.1310 shall be collected as a condition of approval for Boulder Cove. The park fees will Senior Center be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Phone: 952.227.1125 Based upon the current proposed lot count of 31 homes and the city's 2014 single - Fax: 952.227.1110 family park fee of $5,800 per unit, the total park fees for Boulder Cove would be $179,800. Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us gAplan\2014 planning cases\boulder cove\park report 2-21-14.doc SCANNEQ Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 Date: February 14, 2014 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department Review Response Deadline: March 6, 2014 By: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner (952) 227-1134 Subject: BOULDER COVE: Request for preliminary plat review for a 31-lot single-family subdivision with variances on approximately 13 acres of property zoned Residential Low & Medium Density (RLM) and located at 3670 Highway 7. Applicant: Lennar Corporation. Property Owner: Premier Bank Planning Case: 2014-09 PID: 25-0050600 & 25-0050510 The above -described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on February 14, 2014. The 60day review period ends April 14, 2014. 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 18, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than March 6, 2014. 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 (CenturyLink) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 13. City of Shorewood SCANNEC Property Card Taxpayer Information Taxpayer Name COTTAGE HOMESTEADS AT BOULDER Mailing Address 5001 AMERICAN BLVD W STE 501 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437-1116 Property Address Address City Parcel ID Number 250050510 Parcel Information Uses Res 1 unit GIS Acres 3.85 Tax Acres 3.54 Plat Lot Block THAT P/O THE FOLLOWING DESC PROPERTY: BEG AT JUDICIAL LAND MARK ON N Tax Description LINE SECT 5 DISTANT 478.5' E OF S QTR CORN 32/117/23 TH E ON N LINE TO NWLY R-O-W OF HWY 7 TH SWLY ON SAID R-O-W TO ITS INTERSECT WITH LINE DRAWN THROUGH PT OF BEG 8 FORMING INTERIOR ANG Building Style Year Built Building Information Finished Sq Ft Other Garage N Miscellaneous Information School District Watershed District Homestead 0276 WS 062 MINNEHAHA CREEK N Assessor Information Bedrooms Bathrooms Green Acres Ag Preserve N N Estimated Market Value 2012 Values 2013 Values Last Sale (Payable 2013) (Payable 2014) Land $122,300.00 $122,300.00 Date of Sale Building $500.00 $500,00 Sale Value Total $122,800.00 $122,800.00 Qualified/ Unqualified niscaimer. This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Carver County does not gwrant :.:...:.:, of the material intaned herein and m not responsible for misuse or misinterpretation The preceding disclaimer 5 provided pursuant to Minnesota +'utes 466 03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this service acknowledges that the Canty shag not be liable for any damages, and wessly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County from any and all clams brought by User. CARVER employees or agents. or third parties which arise out of the users access or use of data prowled COUNTY Friday, February 14, 2014 Carver County, MN Page 1 of 1 SCANNED Property Card Taxpayer Information Taxpayer Name PREMIER BANK Mailing Address 2866 WHITE BEAR AVE N SAINT PAUL, MN 55109-1384 Property Address Address 3670 HWY 7 City EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Parcel ID Number 250050600 Parcel Information Uses Res V Land GIS Acres 9.17 Tax Acres 10.37 Plat Lot Block ALL THAT P/O SECT 5 DESC AS: COMM AT SW CORN SE1/4 32-117-23 (HENNEPIN Tax Descnption CO); TH ELY ON N LINE SECT 5 478.5'; TH S 585.2': TH S62'W 687.5'; TH N16'W 196.6'; TH S73`W 198.5'; TH N16-W 795.8' TO N LINE SECT 5, TH ELY ALONG N LINE SECT 598.2' TO PT OF BEG. E L Building Style Year Built Building Information Finished Sol Ft Other Garage N Miscellaneous Information School District Watershed District Homestead 0276 WS 062 MINNEHAHA CREEK N Assessor Information Bedrooms Bathrooms Green Acres Ag Preserve N N Estimated Market Value 2012 Values 2013 Values Last Sale (Payable 2013) (Payable 2014) Land $291,400.00 $291,400.00 Date of Sale 05/05/2005 Building $0.00 $0.00 Sale Value $560,000.00 Total $291,400-00 $291,400-00 Qualified/ Q Unqualified Disclaimer This mformalion is to be used for reference purposes only Carver County does not guarantee accuracy of the material contained herein and is not responsible for misuse or misinterpretation The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota dtabiles 466 03, Subd 21 (2000) and the user of this service acknowledges that the County shall not be liable for any damages, and �. -.pn ssly waives all claims. and agrees to defend mdemnhy, and hold harmless the County from any and all claims brought by User. CAR% ER -rro'r . es or agents, or third parties which ara o,i �. r � nr __ „e rromded. COCNTS Friday, February 14, 2014 Carver County, MN Page 1 of 1 S'ANNEQ AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Paul Tabone [Paul.Tabone@lennar.com) Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 2:49 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Fauske, Alyson Cc: Joe Jablonski Subject: Boulder Cove: Follow - Up Items Hello Sharmeen and Alyson, Great sitting and meeting with you both this morning. Based on our discussion and my iphone notes, here are the items that you requested some follow-up on. I have put in answers for the information that I was able to get quickly. 1. Need to have a conversation with the property owners to the east and to the north - work on setting up a workshop for the week of March 10th, well before the PC meeting the following week. Should have a heads up in addressing the following issues, as these are what were raised in the past: - Outlot C does not drain - Street connection on to Strawberry lane north - Resident at the corner raised issues (Does the name Marcus & Kristen Hoffman ring a bell?) Question: Does the City have a facility that could be used? A hall or multi purpose space? Also, would it be possible to get the list of addresses so we can send a letter out for a community meeting? (I am assuming the City will be generating a mailing list for noticing - the letter will come from us, but wondering if we can get the addresses for mailing) 2. The community will be constructed in one phase - Lennar will be opening all lots for sale at the same time. Beyond that, we are not able to know which lots would go first. It is anticipated the ones along the northern edge would be preferred, but if somebody wants to come in on the south side, we will work with that customer as well. 3. An impervious coverage analysis in table format needs to be submitted to the City by 12 noon on Tuesday. I will get this to you by or before then. 4. The City asked about a potential catch basin on the south side along HWY 7. 1 spoke with Otto; the back of the lots are designed with a 3% grade that slopes down towards HWY 7; it is our understanding that this exceeds the City's requirement. From what I can see on the grading plan, there is a difference in elevation ranging from about 3 to 9 feet down towards HWY 7 within that swale. Please let me know your thoughts on this. 5. The City asked about the high water elevations for the basin located in Outlot C. I confirmed with Otto that the location of this basin was intended to preserve trees and locate the basin as far back from 62nd as possible, knowing there were water drainage/ponding issues in the previous plan. Alyson, you were right; the balance in this location of the site will become an exercise in balancing tree preservation and elevation. It is also our intent to not encroach into the berm that is there. 6. The boulders will be used - in the boulder wall on the south side. I will have a discussion with Joe about any more potential uses as well. 7. The issue of noise was brought up - potentially a noise study. However, between the boulder wall, cedar fence, berming, and landscape and vegetation, I would think that those components will do a good job in terms of noise and anesthetic buffering. 8. Tot lot details - we show a preliminary concept with the outline of a play structure. Please let me know if you have any questions. 9. Erosion control plan and SWPPP - City to review documents that were submitted. 10. Contacting MnDot about the connection to the existing water main in HWY 7 - Lennar will discuss internally. 11. Checking for easements for water main in cul-de-sac for eastern homes - Lennar will discuss internally. SCANNED Those are the items I got out of our meeting. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, we definitely want to keep things moving and on track towards the March 18 Planning Commission date, so if we need to discuss anything (although I know we will be getting something in writing) please let me know. Thank you both so much, and have a great weekend. -Paul LENNAR' Paul Tabone Land Entitlement Mgr Ofc: 952-249-3086 Cell: 952-221-4032 Fax:952-249-3075 Email: Daul.tabone(a)lennar.com www.lennar.com 16305 36th Ave. No., Suite 600 Plymouth, MN 55446 This email is intended only for the use of the person to whom d is addressed and contains information which may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the person to whom this e-mail is addressed, or an agent authorized by such person to receive this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any examination, copying, distribution or other unauthorized use of this e-mail is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately at the e-mail address referenced above. t TTO SSOCIATES Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. To: City of Chanhassen Attn: Sharmeen AI-Jaff 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Transmittal Date: 2/14/14 Project: BOULDER COVE Location: Chanhassen Project No: 14-0105 FWe are sending to you: ®By Mail ❑ By Messenger ❑Picked up by Client No. of Copies: Sheet No.(s): Dated: Description: 7 sets Preliminary Plans 7 Landscape Plan 7 ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey 2 sets Hydrology Report 2 sets Geotechnical Report . 1 set 8.5 x 11 set of plans ❑ For your use ❑ For your information ❑ For your approval ® For your review ❑ Revised and resubmitted ® For your distribution ❑ As you requested ❑ For your processing ❑ Remarks: .:i ^' OF C-iANHAS:& RECER'EL' FEB 1 4 2U13 "44PIN:q$EI\IPLANNAGt) )f CC: Joe Jablonski - Lennar Corporation From: Cara Schwahn Otto, P.E. cara(Dottoassociates. com 9 West Division Street, Buffalo, MN 55313 • 763-682-4727 • Fax 763-682-3522 • www,ottoassociates.com SCANNED A� i ounors two 5 .. AWJ= RECEICEI EB 1 4 21J13 czSEN PLANNING OF Sal- 4 >. C v ,��rt r p "•`a10 •�0' lam/ MFt ,\ffii�. P / lli\•aYBi �� /'/ y of -NFD Irwwwnrw.Yllrwwr \A•�� ,`�r+'_'vw�. � / j / / �1 - 1 � j�0. /'� rron .uanar .rtri+laq I V -awn ul.a rgYa I Up._p I 4M-e' I �-�tl )iaga'ara I •d ' W9Y IJIII - RY gM1l l,101t..fr• l)r1.1f aq) awn Rooru . La wR.w ROOaO .,0/ • LU .lRi q� aW ) RInOfIAi wr OA9n � . YOrM9 -/ b LENNAR CHANHASSEN, MN PRELIAONARYPLAT I 14-0105 N0. 1 OF L SHEETS 2112 SCANNED � ` I \ • —Vail _ 01 / sN Own Rl 1`\ 1 \ UO R xsm LAP TAIL ]�N1K Si \1,q}XLPMMLP IT'L4 GME aPMwLr ma, � xi"a .N n.rz In OF CHANNAS Er N W _ ,.. . \ / RECENEf Boa n MN PLL aL 0 L LPn Y c-9 0 CP1e NM Wc-:i IPfN nmxt5. PToVS s A,. BEParWYPLo. MEWUGS / PALL BE CMPna" MM PK NPE 12 CWQ ,11..RI1 N,.l' 91Au BE rtPMINAreo .1 .41 .7P., WILP CR nANGEs '''��LLL 1 4 2013 x LLL y BEPMD SE ,L sr4L - C ]s 1,.r/. FEB1 1 SPWiAIIr 5[IINCLS Ps BE °' PVC 9M 20 ! sNHI BE `,::FS LouEo s rEn ooWsmEM a N.rtP smNCto & PLL NnRAPT LEV$ N14L IBE ea o P RAss s2�. \ \- i / - / / rH4RMF,SSEN PIA�ININ01�Fc� ° .4° <<� PLEK" .S 2M LOKw�o VGD CCMNCT mM OMP YMITES EIREN5W5 V4L BE PoaP.,IPP OEIK P.O.MaEN'.LL EACCDRO."rMM OGi VPLI,r PEMIi PLOILS"' ° ELF°0r{NLTC.L YI.P.Tg 61, . IIIIIEBIPIII . `L A NINI4UN PoI " " °"' " N" —@—�— BOULDER COVE �.� LENNAR PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 14-0105 - CHANHASSEN,MNISHEET NO. P OF a SHEEfS vttitN SCANNED M .n r BONN � ( I ��.//��ff. f n O r•OLTZLOT .; j; 11n, �'\` ar,OFCHANWAS. RECEIVED I y, `r / .oum�a w cs+.o.rtmo oar ranorae.on r :om �, 'a r`" •nw vrnr.ourt ..o nmm m.uew FFB 1 4 ZU13 "HAPHa4SENPLANNING ITPPT I 7 I I I ! I I I I I I I •�BLi�IM110 BIM1L TBRIF µrrT �ur ,u °'r�i O1•°�ir r�ie�uw�weao �..mn.ro L WPIMR BLERFULL BASEMENT(FBI I. WPIMFUU W�MTMO) ` ^I TYPIGLLOOItOUt (LO)�� •a.irs run =L -r r ,Er' I BOULDER DOVE '^ �iii� PRELIMINARYGRADING PLAN 140105 LENNAR ER CHANHASSEN, MN SHEET NO. 0 OF S SHEET$ Y/1P/11 SCANNED ;i ^; OF C iANHAS3EI ,aoaeurox a Ks RECEIVED FEB 1 4 Z013 ►� �---- ; � ---- ; ,,---, f" � ''1Af �HvsgEPl P(A�'NIryQ I1F-'T e,;, 10 ry ' 00 . `\` iN w ✓'' �' j VOID ' e - � / � / • . qw.... i Vr-�woT am .vnemm \ , tl CraFIN (M� - iNS \'�\ .G'a ~.. /' ". � • • e.v Y=NxmT neo e++avn yi ij''a•'r' " � a r. em e. Ce. M• rI \ µM..• .....,..... mow.... e. v..; b..s \ / /" � >A� ::. �� S SJ9M Ww�.w snw .rrW� Gr.w 6 M Y• qa. ee.. n•n Tmc LRR ! fYiT1CR_590] MENCN DRAIN OR11L BOULDER COVE PRELIMINARY STREET LENMR 85TORM SEWER PLAN 140705 v _ _ CHANHASSEN, MN SHEET NO. 4 OF S SHEETS 7I17/14 SCANNED ;i ^r OF CHANHASjEf RECEIVErl FEB 1 4 2013 II klUkIN I IU OUTLOT C _ � /11 •` 12 13 14 15 I 9 I �I { 4\ / 3 �mm Z........, .n. OU7707- q mrumm • (yam /.� I .a..�w.u.,enx.m y....w..e �4 --•- LfGFNn .«..=rmun ♦ 6♦ - �" � w�~ •m�m..v,.nw wmasa ru �•ai �p.� �uvw�..�+«..vmn u','...a,a 1: W `�O`° m �_ ��•'i/w +'� m �� BOULDER COVE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN 140105 os _ LENNAR CHANHASSEN, MN SHEET N0. s OF s SHEETS 21214 SCANNED $` H LANDSCAPE PLAN NINDSCAPE PF N ecue reer y�Ep� PRELIMINARY DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ;i �7 OF C iANHASuEf RECEIb ED --�------ - -- FEB 1 4 7011 C44 1W 4SEN PfA�NIN4 r )F:l i rpo ems`/ / m..m PW WHEWLE zs a oN� W=y 9az m�5 SCANNED c,W,, OFCHANHAS:,E RECEN EP i-1 FEB 1 4 2U13 C4g jotq%iuPLANNINGOF4 Land Title Survey l 0 SCANNED $�gttj� 9 S�' � CE�1niEA&;ai FEB 1h?013 C4MlNCS PLANNINGDFPT A Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report Proposed Boulder Cove Residential Development 62nd Street & Strawberry lane Chanhassen, Minnesota Prepared for Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC Professional Certification I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. taM Jvt. 3..icenscE W: d 12ZB ary24.�006.•'0 �: Project BL-05-06006 SCANNED Braun Intertec Corporation B R A U N Bmm Interest cmqxi,ation I Phone: 952.995 2000 1 1001 Hampshire Avenue 5 Far 952.995.2020 INTERTEC MlnneopoGs. MN 55438 Web: brouninlenec.com January 20, 2006 Mr. Roger Derrick Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC 7300 Metro Blvd, Suite 360 Edina, MN 55439 Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Boulder Cove Residential Development Church Road and Strawberry Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Mr. Derrick: Project BL-05-06006 We have completed the preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed residential development in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The purpose of the geotechnical evaluation was to assist you and your consultants in evaluating the soil and groundwater conditions for design of the proposed development. The evaluation was completed in general accordance with our Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation, dated December 13, 2005. Please refer to the attached report for a detailed summary of our analyses and recommendations. Additional attention should be paid to Section A.5, which discusses the site conditions and Sections C.2 and C.3, which outline removal of unsuitable soils and excavation depths. If we can provide additional assistance or observation and testing services during construction, please contact Marty Gray 952.995.2254 or James Craig at 952.995.2372. Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Y Marty A. Gray Project Engineer J. Craig Jr., PE Senior Engineer Attachment: Geotechnical Evaluation Report c: Cara Schwahn-Otto; Otto Associates, Inc. Georp4Cotlsge Homesteads Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 Table of Contents Description A. Introduction Page A.1. Project....................................................................................................................I A.2. Purpose.................................................................................................................. t A.3. Scope..................................................................................................................... 1 A.4. Documents Provided.............................................................................................. 1 A.5. Site Conditions...................................................................................................... 2 A.6. Locations and Elevations....................................................................................... 2 B. Results ................................................................................................................................ 2 B.I. Soil Boring Logs.................................................................................................... 2 B.2. Soils.......................................................................................................................3 B.3. Groundwater..........................................................................................................3 B.4. Laboratory Tests.................................................................................................... 3 C. Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations.................................................................... 3 C.1. Construction.......................................................................................................... 3 C.2. Discussion of Construction Recommendations, Procedures and Difficulties....... 4 C.2.a. Excavation................................................................................................4 C.2.b. Utility Design........................................................................................... 4 C.2.c. Groundwater Control................................................................................ 4 C.3. Building Pad Preparation....................................................................................... 5 C.3.a. Excavation................................................................................................5 C.3.b. Fill and Backfiill........................................................................................ 5 CA. Foundation Design................................................................................................. 6 CA.a. Bearing Capacity ......................................................................................6 CA.b. Footing Depths......................................................................................... 6 CA.c. Settlement.................................................................................................6 C.5. Floor Slabs............................................................................................................. 7 C.5.a. Subgrade...................................................................................................7 C.5.b. Vapor Barrier............................................................................................ 7 C.6. Below Grade Walls................................................................................................ 7 C.6.a. Seepage Control........................................................................................ 7 C.6.b. Lateral Earth Pressure.............................................................................. 8 C.7. Retaining Walls.....................................................................................................9 C.7.a. Excavation................................................................................................9 C.7.b. Foundations.............................................................................................. 9 C.7.c. Backfill.....................................................................................................9 C.7.d. Lateral Pressures..................................................................................... 10 C.8. Pavement Areas...................................................................................................10 C.8.a. Subgrade Preparation.............................................................................. 10 C.8.b. Proofroll.................................................................................................. to C.8.c. Recommended Assumed R-Value.......................................................... 11 C.8.d. Design Sections...................................................................................... 11 C.8.e. Recommended Materials........................................................................ I 1 C.9. Utilities ................................................................................................................II C.9.a. Excavation.............................................................................................. 11 C.9.b. Backfill...................................................................................................12 C.10. Additional Investigation and Testing During Construction................................12 C.11. Cold Weather Construction.................................................................................13 Table of Contents (Continued) Description D. Procedures ............................................. D.1. Drilling and Sampling .............. D.2. Soil Classification ..................... D.3. Groundwater Observations....... E. General Conditions ................................ E.1. Basis of Recommendations ...... E.2. Review of Design ..................... E.3. Groundwater Fluctuations ........ E.4. Use of Report ............................ E.5. Level of Care ............................ Appendices Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring Sheets ST-1 to ST-8 Descriptive Terminology A. Introduction A.1. Project Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC is proposing to develop the property in Chanhassen, Minnesota for residential purposes. The property is located south of 62nd Street, east of Church Road and north of Hwy 7. The proposed development will likely consist of multi -family homes along with associated roadways and utilities. As part of the proposed project, Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC has contracted Braun Intertec to perform soil borings and a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed residential development. A.2. Purpose The purpose of the preliminary geotechnical evaluation is to assist Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC, and their design team, in evaluating the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions with regard to site grading and construction of residential buildings. A.3. Scope The following scope of geotechnical services was established in our Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation, dated December 13. 2005. • Staking the boring locations and coordinating the locating of underground utilities near the boring locations • Conducting penetration test borings to a nominal depth of 15 to 20 feet below grade • Returning the samples to our laboratory for visual classification and logging by a geotechnical engineer • Conducting limited laboratory tests on selected soil samples • Submitting a geotechnical evaluation report containing logs of the borings, our analysis of the field and laboratory tests, and recommendations for site grading, compaction specifications, allowable soil -bearing capacity for foundation design and pavement design parameters A.4. Documents Provided Otto Associates, Inc. provided us with Certificate of Survey & Topographic Survey, dated June 16, 2005, last revised September 6, 2005, of the property showing the boundaries and topography for the property and a Concept Plan, dated November 22, 2005. Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20,2006 Page 2 A.S. Site Conditions The proposed project site is an irregular -shaped parcel of land located south of 62nd Street and Shorewood Oaks residential development, east of Church Road and Church Road 2"d addition residential development and north of Hwy 7 and west of the single family residences at 3530 Hwy 7. The site is gently rolling from high in the east central part of the site to a pond in the southwest part and of the site. There are miscellaneous small hills and berms located in the west and northwest part of the property. On the west portion of the site was a concrete bunker for various types of materials for the landscaping business located on this part of the site. There are open locations mixed with trees surrounding the area used for the landscaping business. A.6. Locations and Elevations For the project, we completed 8 soil borings across the site, denoted as ST-I to ST-8. The boring locations were selected and staked by Braun Intertec. The boring locations and elevations were measured by Otto Associates, Inc. and should be considered relatively accurate. The attached Soil Boring Location Sketch shows the approximate boring locations. B. Results B.1. Soil Boring Logs Log of Boring sheets indicating the depths and identifications of the various soil strata, penetration resistances, laboratory test results and groundwater observations are attached. The strata changes were inferred from the changes in the penetration test samples and auger cuttings. The depths shown as changes between the strata are only approximate. The changes are likely transitions and the depths of the changes vary between the borings. Geologic origins presented for each stratum on the Log of Boring sheets are based on the soil types, blows per foot, and available common knowledge of the depositional history of the site. Because of the complex glacial and post -glacial depositional environments, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. A detailed investigation of the geologic history of the site was not performed. Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page 3 B.2. Soils The soils encountered by the soil borings generally consisted of 1/2 to 3 1/2 feet of organic, clayey topsoil at the surface. Below the topsoil, the borings generally encountered a mixture of fat clay, lean clay, sandy lean clay, clayey sand and silty sand to the boring termination depths. The penetration resistances in the clayey soils ranged from 3 to 26 blows per foot (BPF), indicating consistencies of rather soft to very stiff. The penetration resistances in the sandy soils ranged from 7 to 14 BPF, indicating consistencies of loose to medium dense. B.3. Groundwater Groundwater was observed at all of the boring locations during or immediately after drilling operations at a range of 3 to 16 feet below the existing elevation, which corresponds with an elevation of 969 1/2 to 962 feet. The water encountered during the drilling was likely perched in the sand seams or the outwash soil layers. Due to the low permeability of the soils, it may take several days or weeks for a groundwater level to stabilize in an open borehole. Annual and seasonal variations in water levels should also be anticipated. B.4. Laboratory Tests Laboratory tests were completed on selected soil samples in accordance with ASTM procedures. The test results can be found on the Log of Boring sheets opposite the soil sample tested. The laboratory tests performed during this evaluation included pocket penetrometer, moisture content, moisture density test, Atterberg Limits and percent passing the number 200 sieve. C. Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations C.I. Construction We understand the proposed construction will likely include wood -framed multi -family structures with associated streets and underground utilities. The structures could have shallow to full -depth basements or could be slab -on -grade structures. We anticipate wall and column loads will be relatively light. For this report, we have assumed that wall loads will be less than 3 kips (3,000 pounds) per linear foot and columns loads, if any, will be less than 75 kips. We anticipate associated paved road and underground utilities will also be constructed as part of the project. Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page 4 It will be very important for us to review design plans as they are developed. Depending on the proposed final grade and structure type (slab -on -grade or full basement), the amount of corrective earthwork will vary. C.2. Discussion of Construction Recommendations, Procedures and Difficulties C.2.a. Excavation Based on the soil boring results, it is our opinion the proposed residential structures can be supported on spread -footing foundations bearing on medium consistency natural soils or properly compacted structural fill. However, some areas of the site will also require excavation of unsuitable soils prior to construction. Typical excavation depths at the boring locations to remove the topsoil or fill should range from approximately 1/2 to 4 feet below existing grade. Some of the soils in the soil borings were classified as fat clay. These soils generally appear suitable for building support. However, these soils should not directly support building foundations. At least 3 feet of lean clay should be used to cap the fat clay, separating the fat clay from the bottom of footings. The purpose of this lean clay cap is to minimize moisture variation in the fat clay. The fat clay has some potential to swell or shrink with moisture changes. Also, the 3 feet of compacted fill will reduce the footing stress on the fat clay. Extensive laboratory tests on the fat clay were not part of this scope of evaluation. Some of the softer zones may be subject to consolidation due to moderate foundation loads. We recommend settlement estimates be made based on proposed structure on final grade design. Additional borings and laboratory tests may be needed to complete the analysis. C.2.b. Utility Design When designing the site layout, it is possible that underground utilities such as storm pipes are designed so they will be constructed along a lot line between the houses. In these cases, houses and attached structures should not be built on or over any part of the trench backfill or near enough to the trench where footing stresses will be carried by the backfill. The footing stresses generally extend down and away from the edge of the footings at a 45-degree angle. If it is necessary to construct utilities between lots, additional analysis and recommendations should be completed. C.2.c. Groundwater Control We anticipate that perched groundwater may adversely affect construction. We anticipate sump pumps or other localized methods of temporary dewatering should be suitable for control of ground water. However, more extensive types of dewatering may be necessary if large areas of ground water are encountered or excavations extend to or below the local groundwater level. Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page 5 C.3. Building Pad Preparation C.3.a. Excavation The proposed building areas should be stripped and cleared of all vegetation, topsoil and fill. All existing utilities, foundations, slabs and other building debris should also be removed from proposed building and oversize areas. Due to the landscaping business that occupied the west part of the site, we recommend a Phase 1 ESA (Environmental Site Assessment) be performed on this site. The foundations can then be supported on the natural soils or properly compacted structural fill. Table 1 lists the recommended excavation depths at the boring locations. Table 1. Recommended Excavation Depths Bornn Surface Elevation Recommended Depth of Excavation feet Approximate Bottom Elevation Water Encountered After Drilling Elevation ** ST-1 975.8 6 9691/2 9691/2 ST-2 978.2 31/2 9741/2 962 ST-3 9 22.6 1/2 972 969 1/2 ST4 971.5 4 9671/2 9641/2 ST-5 978.1 1/2 9771/2 968 ST-6 975.6 4 9711/2 9691/2 ST-7 977.9 ll* 967 971 ST-8 1 *T— L .. _.._�. 980.5 1 9791/2 973112 u Please note the excavation depths indicated in the above tabulation are approximate and will vary. Excavation depths should be evaluated during testing prior to or during grading. If the excavation within the building area extends below design footing elevation, we recommend the excavation bottoms be extended laterally beyond the edges of the proposed footings a minimum of 1 foot for each vertical foot below the footing at that location (i.e., 1:1 lateral oversizing). This oversizing is necessary for the lateral distribution of the footing loads through the fill. C.3.b. Fill and Backfill Fill and backfill required to bring the site to grade should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 6 to 12 inches and be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on the standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698). If lean clay fill is used, it should be placed at a moisture content within 3 percentage points over and no more than 1 percentage point below the soil's optimum moisture content. Sandy fill should be placed at moisture content within 3 percentage points of the soils optimum moisture content. Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page 6 Based on the laboratory moisture content tests, we anticipate the clay soils will likely need to be dried to achieve the recommended compaction. The contractor should note that moisture conditioning of clay soils could be labor intensive and require significant amounts of time. The on -site topsoil is not suitable for fill or backfill. In addition, imported fill containing bituminous pavement fragments or other foreign debris also should not be used as structural fill. The on -site, non - organic soils encountered in the borings are generally acceptable for use as fill. However, we do not recommend using the fat clay as structural fill. If fill depths exceed 10 feet, the minimum compaction level should be increased to 98 percent. If fill depths exceed 10 feet, a construction delay may also be needed to allow the fill to consolidate. This should be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Care should be taken when filling over existing slopes that are steeper than 5H:1 V (horizontal to vertical). We recommend benches be excavated into the natural soils of existing slopes that are steeper than 5H:1 V prior to placement. The "stair step" -shaped benches are recommended to key the fill into existing slopes and reduce the risk of fill instability. Benches should be a minimum of 10 feet wide. CA. Foundation Design CA.a. Bearing Capacity Based on the soil boring results and performance of the above -described soil correction procedures, it is our opinion the natural soils or engineered fill should be suitable for support of the residential structures using spread footings sized for an allowable soil bearing pressure of up to 2,000 pounds per square foot. We recommend that strip footings be at least 20 inches wide and that column pads be at least 3 by 3 feet. This loading should provide a theoretical factor of safety of greater than 3 against localized shearing or base failure of the spread footings. CA.b. Footing Depths Perimeter footings in heated building areas should be founded a minimum of 42 inches below the nearest exterior grade for frost protection. Footings in unheated building or garage areas should be founded a minimum of 60 inches below the nearest exterior grade for frost protection. Attached garages are generally considered heated structures. CA.c. Settlement As noted in section C.2.a, we recommend settlement analysis be completed once additional design information is available. Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page 7 C.5. Floor Slabs C.5.a. Subgrade After the building pad preparation has been completed, we anticipate the floor subgrade will primarily consist of native clayey soils or compacted fill. Backfill in footing and mechanical trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. C.5.b. Vapor Barrier Excess transmission of water vapor could cause floor dampness, certain types of floor bonding agents to separate, or mold to form under floor coverings. We recommend placing a vapor retarder or barrier below the ground supported floors. Current industry recommendations are to place the vapor retarder or barrier directly below the concrete. It is then desirable to take precautions against shrinkage and curling of the floor slab. Industry practice has been to allow burying the vapor retarder or barrier below a layer of sand to reduce curling and shrinkage of the concrete, but this practice often traps water between the slabs and the vapor retarder or barrier, causing problems after a period of months. In any case, we recommend consulting with floor covering manufacturers regarding the appropriate type, use and installation of a vapor retarder or barrier to preserve warranty assurances. To reduce shrinkage and curling processes associated with placing concrete directly on the vapor retarder or barrier, we recommend: • using the largest possible maximum aggregate size and/or coarse aggregate. • using the lowest practical slump. • using the lowest necessary cement content to reduce top -to -bottom moisture differentials. • carefully curing the concrete. • optimizing the spacing of control joints. • cutting control joints as soon as practical. We recommend that the vapor barrier be inspected immediately before the concrete is placed to identify and patch holes or other potential paths for moisture vapor migration. C.6. Below Grade Walls C.6.a. Seepage Control If basement walls are constructed, we anticipate they will likely be surrounded by clayey soils. However, sandy soils may also be present along the below grade walls. If water percolates down alongside the walls, it may become perched on an impervious soil layer and then enter the basement through shrinkage Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page 8 cracks in the concrete or masonry block. Collecting runoff and discharging it well away from the foundations and sloping the ground surface down and away from the basement walls are two common methods of reducing infiltration and percolation. As a precaution against basement seepage, we recommend installing a perimeter foundation drain system. One possible system could include a perforated pipe with an invert within 2 inches of bottom -of -footing elevation. Collected seepage should be routed to a sump and then drained by a pump or gravity to a storm sewer or low area on the site. The seepage control system should include permeable material against the basement wall, such as a synthetic wall drainage system or at least 2 feet (horizontal) of permeable sandy gravel or sand backfill. The sandy gravel or sand backfill should have less than 70 percent passing the number 40 sieve and less than 5 percent passing the number 200 sieve. Some of the on -site poorly graded sands may meet this requirement. Where the sandy gravel or sand backfill extends outside the footprint of the building, it should be capped by a slab, pavement or at least 1 foot of clay or clayey topsoil. We also recommend that a drainage collection system be installed below the lowest floor grade. The system could include drainage pipe and coarse gravel. Any collected water could then be routed to a sump where it can be removed from the structure. C.6.b. Lateral Earth Pressure Backfill against the basement walls should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. Beneath steps and slabs, it should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent. The walls should be waterproofed and braced prior to backfilling. Any below -grade walls will have lateral loads transmitted to them from the surrounding soils. We recommend the following lateral earth pressures be used for below -grade wall design. These values do not include a factor of safety. A factor of safety should be incorporated as part of the design. Table 3. Lateral Earth Pressures* Active Equivalent At -Rest Equivalent Passive Equivalent Sliding Soil Type Fluid Pressure c Fluid Pressure c Fluid Pressure c Friction SP/SP-SM 30 45 400 Silty/Clayey .40 Soils (SM, 50 70 300 CL) .30 Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page 9 The sandy gravel or sand backfill should have less than 70 percent passing the number 40 sieve and less than 5 percent passing the number 200 sieve. The sand values are also based on the premise that the area 2 feet from the base of the foundation wall and up to the surface at a 60-degree angle from horizontal will be backfilled with poorly graded sand and poorly graded sand with silt. The sand drainage media should be capped with I foot of clay or a slab or pavement sloped away from the building to minimize surface infiltration into the sand backfill. C.7. Retaining Walls We understand retaining walls may be constructed on site; however, the locations and type of walls has not been determined. C.7.a. Excavation For retaining wall support, we recommend topsoil, fill and very soft to rather soft native clayey soils be removed from below the proposed retaining wall foundations. After excavation of the unsuitable soils, we anticipate the retaining walls will generally bear on properly compacted structural fill. We also recommend for excavations that extend below design -footing elevation, the excavation bottoms be extended laterally beyond the edges of the proposed wall footings a minimum of 1 foot for each vertical foot below the footing at that location (i.e., 1:1 lateral oversizing). If modular block retaining walls are used, we recommend the lateral oversizing extend outward and downward from the back of the geogrid behind the wall. C.7.b. Foundations Assuming the retaining wall foundations bear on properly compacted structural fill or suitable natural soils, it is our opinion the walls can be supported on strip footings designed using a maximum bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. C.7.c. Backnu Backfill of the walls should generally be done with granular soils. If on -site lean clay soils are used, higher lateral pressures will occur. Also, higher lateral pressures may occur due to frost heave expansion of clayey soils. We recommend backfill placed behind the walls be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of standard Proctor density. The compaction level should be increased to 100 percent within 3 feet vertically of pavement areas. Small hand -operated equipment should be used to compact the backfill directly behind the walls to avoid excessive deflection of the walls. Backfill in front of the walls should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent to limit movement. Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page 10 Drainage behind the walls is critical. Drain tile should be constructed at the bottom of all the wall(s). Either clean sand with less than 5 percent fines passing the number 200 sieve and less than 70 percent passing the number 40 sieve or sandy gravel should be placed behind the wall to promote drainage to the drain tile. We recommend the sand or clean gravel should extend horizontally a minimum of 2 feet away from the back of the wall. C.7.d. Lateral Pressures We recommend the lateral earth pressures provided in Table 3 in Section C.6.6. be used for retaining wall design. These values do not include a factor of safety. A factor of safety should be incorporated as part of the design. C.8. Pavement Areas C.8.a. Subgrade Preparation We recommend the vegetation and organic topsoil be excavated from the pavement areas. Slightly organic fill soils should also be removed within 3 feet of pavement subgrades and replaced with engineered fill below pavement areas. Some additional subcutting of very soft to rather soft native clays may be required and should be anticipated below paved areas. In areas requiring engineered fill to establish pavement grades, the excavation should be oversized at least 1 foot beyond the outside edge of the toe of the roadway embankment for each foot of fill placed below the bottom of the toe of the roadway embankment. It should be noted that the clayey soils encountered are frost susceptible. Even if these soils are compacted and appear stable, frost heave may be a problem if water is close to the freeze zone. To minimize potential frost heave, a 2-foot subcut below subgrade could be made. The subcut should be backfilled with clean sand with less than 5 percent passing the number 200 sieve, and drain tile should be installed. The engineered fill placed in paved areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor density to within 3 feet of subgrade and 100 percent within the upper 3 feet. We recommend the moisture contents of the engineered fill soils be within 3 percentage points of the optimum moisture content to within 3 feet of subgrade and no greater than 1 percentage point over the soils' optimum moisture content in the upper 3 feet. C.8.b. Proofroll Prior to placement of the pavement section, we recommend the pavement subgrade be proofrolled with a loaded tandem truck to detect unstable areas. Any unstable areas should be subcut and replaced with a drier, compactible soil or dried and recompacted. Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page I l C.B.c. Recommended Assumed R-Value Based on the borings, it appears the subgrade soils will range from lean clay to sandy lean clay. However, we anticipate the predominant subgrade soil will be sandy lean clay. These clays typically can have Hveem stabilometer R-values ranging from 8 to 20. We recommend the pavement design be based on a sandy lean clay subgrade using an assumed R-value of 10. Actual laboratory tests to determine the R value were not done as part of this evaluation. C.B.d. Design Sections The City of Chanhassen recommends the minimum pavement design thicknesses listed in Table 5 for urban residential streets. The road design should meet 9-ton pavement requirements. Based on the assumed subgrade, it is our opinion the recommended minimum pavement sections are suitable for pavement design. Table 5. City of Chanhassen Recommended Minimum Pavement Section Course Urban Residential Street inches Bituminous Wear Course 1 1/2 Bituminous Base Course 2 Gravel Base 8 Sand Subgrade 24 C.8.e. Recommended Materials We recommend specifying Class 5 aggregate base meeting the requirements of Mn/DOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation) Specification (Standard Specifications of Construction Article) 3138. We recommend bituminous base and wear courses meeting the requirements of Mn/DOT Specification 2360. We recommend the crushed aggregate base be compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend the bituminous mixtures be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their Marshall densities. C.9. Utilities C.9.a. Excavation The soils at depth appear generally suitable for pipe support. However, some areas will likely require subcutting of very soft clayey soils and replacement with sand or crushed rock. Organic soils should also be removed from below utilities. Groundwater could adversely affect utility line excavation and installation in some areas of the site. If groundwater is encountered, we anticipate it can likely be controlled with sump pumps within the trench excavations. On -site observations should be made during construction. However, other more extensive types of dewatering may be necessary depending on the depth of the utilities and groundwater levels at the time of construction. Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page 12 C.9.b. Backfrll We recommend that the utility trench backfill be compacted to the specifications previously outlined in Section C.7. Pavement Areas. However, when the moisture contents of the clayey soils are more than 3 percentage points over the soil's optimum moisture content, the minimum compaction of 95 percent cannot generally be obtained without drying the soils. We then recommend as an alternative that this fill be compacted to a specification described as "zero air voids." For this process, the contractor compacts the soils sufficiently such that the available void spaces within the soil matrix are removed. Zero air voids is acceptable when the soils have been compacted to within 3 pounds of the theoretical maximum density available at the specific moisture content as shown on the Proctor curves for the various soils. However, the minimum density obtained should not be less than 90 percent and zero air voids is not acceptable in the upper 3 feet of subgrade. Zero air voids should not be used under any houses. Using zero air voids could result in some trench settlement. Since the bituminous wear course is usually not placed for at least one year after placing the base course, most settlements could be corrected before the wear course is placed. C.9.c. Corrosion Protection The clay soils are considered slightly to moderately corrosive to metal pipe. Consideration should be given to protecting metal pipes with plastic wrap, sand cover, or cathodic protection. C.10. Additional Investigation and Testing During Construction Prior to the start of grading, we recommend a series of test pits be excavated and/or additional soil borings be taken to further evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. We recommend a geotechnical engineer or representative be on site during the site grading. At that time, the suitability of the subsurface soils for support of fill and foundation loads can be further evaluated. Excavation depths and provided oversizing can also be documented. Compaction tests should be taken during the site grading operation, utility trench backfilling within the roadway areas, utility trench backfilling near house pad areas and house foundation wall backfill operations. In general, compaction tests should be taken after about 2 feet of fill has been placed in the excavations and then at about 2-foot vertical intervals thereafter. In roadway subcut areas, we recommend a proofroll be performed before and after placement of the aggregate base. The proofroll should be performed by observing the behavior of the subgrade soils when subjected to the wheel loads of a fully loaded, tandem -axle end dump. These proofrolls should be observed by a geotechnical engineer. Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page 13 C.11. Cold Weather Construction If site grading and construction is anticipated during cold weather, we recommend that good winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading. No fill should be placed on soils that have frozen or contain frozen material. No frozen soils should be used as fill. Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM C 94. Concrete should not be placed upon frozen soils or soils which contain frozen material. Concrete should be protected from freezing until the necessary strength is attained. Frost should not be permitted to penetrate below footings bearing on frost -susceptible soil since such freezing could heave and crack the footings and/or foundation walls. D. Procedures D.I. Drilling and Sampling We performed the penetration test borings on December 22 and 27, 2005, with an auger drill equipped with 3 1/4-inch inside -diameter hollow -stem auger mounted on floatation tire drill rig. Sampling for the borings was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, "Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Sampling of Soils." Using this method, the borehole was advanced with the hollow -stem auger to the desired test depth. A 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches was then used to drive the standard 2-inch split -barrel sampler a total penetration of 1 1/2 feet below the tip of the hollow -stem auger. The blows for the last foot of penetration were recorded and are an index of soil strength characteristics. A representative portion of each sample was then sealed in a glass jar capped with a lid. D.2. Soil Classification Our drill crew chief visually and manually classified soils encountered in the borings in general accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure)." A summary of the ASTM classification system is attached. All samples were then returned to our laboratory for review of the field classifications by a geotechnical engineer. Representative samples will remain in our office for a period of 30 days to be available for your examination. D.3. Groundwater Observations Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottoms of the borings, the holes were probed through the hollow -stem auger to check for the presence of groundwater. The boreholes were then immediately backfrlled. Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page 14 E. General Conditions E.1. Basis of Recommendations The preliminary analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketch. Often, variations occur between these borings, the nature and extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations in this report should be made after performing on -site observations during construction to note the characteristics of any variations. The variations may result in additional grading costs, and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. It is recommended that we be retained to perform the observation and testing program for the site preparation, utility installation, and street construction phases of this project. This will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to the soil borings, and will provide continuity of professional responsibility. E.2. Review of Design This report is based on the preliminary design of the proposed residential development as related to us for preparation of this report. It is recommended that we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications. With the review, we will evaluate whether any changes in design have affected the validity of the recommendations, and whether our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. E.3. Groundwater Fluctuations We made water -level observations in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. These data were interpreted in the text of this report. The period of observation was relatively short, and fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, spring thaw, drainage, and other seasonal and annual factors not evident at the time the observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations. Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove Project BL-05-06006 January 20, 2006 Page 15 EA. Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of Cottage Homesteads of Boulder Cove, LLC and their design team to use to design the proposed residential development and prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. E.5. Level of Care In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Appendix - tr �i:9.5a E.at j .ems E� m•...u:..3fi� �e 1 __, \vare :sue `—L_ } � .!' A cr9�re_� '•-,e}�'• 9Saat. = I ! \6 �� } .n� \ � X9)]M ,jY.v .�.-'-vvVv. / } � \ 0�6 I �. w=LIM xanae-�iC, a'°�a)� xvan--�J' «at1 �> ! +a• �•�- i •ir> 1 xins'S" 1 / �>m.,ew 1 —1 name, +•' $ �a n.�,_ �' a .>n.r X9x.J ,Xa»t, n>-o.e isx s ` _'a"m;�..r - --`iaer Al •` 7nu .. ,,t" � " �. s "':-. - _ � _ � =°psa -.- _ _ � _ � -s>Z,�_ \` ul�}>,s: F ,r n• ri Ci / . \ ,, 't _ y ;' � _ {w ' / I \ � � -� \A, ', � Ain�-i t✓,. �) It �� ' v»� � .h �1' \\ .sv c9 / ' 28x ma 38 r-�aOf- •2Q �x _r 161 \ \ \ V / J {(�>,ti 1 . �•• '-�. \ \ " �°"*' � L /(' \\��/ »' \, I\I I +a �� / >ns. / t s �` / � ae, 1169 A f n Area ><A. \\ 1 \\ .�p>eM\\ al '�1:. wF1 _s OY9 1 /y v �' ✓>>e• > i., >s ' �` r \ RL° A�IE.I°5 (Y ALIFASLA HG eg/ 4' / / I \ Aiwwrs AQiu�i ` 12 A9�--WT se° \ p 1 \ \ � i i � / � (. � v � s nl \\ / yam+•` ni e ✓" ' t 0t9Om DRAW MFPfBI C4RreY rwr iM5 RIH. SRfWIMYI Ox OPDnr ,Y �Y VRQECT MQ >AFaIAE° Br Y4 W txOfrt W pgtCi SWER.Sgx Csa -•-•�—�"-� COTTAGE HOMESTEADS AT BOULDER COVE, LLC EXISTING CONDIPONS �� rxE urs a r>E SGrE a wrtsorA TTo 9xr ara 2-05-0052 CHANHASSEN, MN �,� SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 SHEETS loAm 1/05/06 BRAUW INTERTEC LOG OF BORING Braun Project BL-05-06006 BORING: ST-1 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC LOCATION: See attached sketch. 62nd Street & Strawberry Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota DRILLER: Mark Barber METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA Autohammer DATE: 12/22/05 SCALE: 1" = 4' Elev. Depth feet feet ASTM Description of Materials BPF WL MC qu Tests or Notes 975.8 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488 or D2487) % tsf CL LEAN CLAY with SAND, dark brown, frozen to wet. Benchmark: The (Topsoil/Possible Fill) soil borings were 973.8 2.0 4 3/4 staked by Braun Intertec and the elevations were SC CLAYEY SAND, wet, rather soft. (Alluvium) measured by Otto 971.8 4.0 Associates. CH FAT CLAY, with lenses of Silt, light olive gray to gray, wet, rather soft to medium. 4 3/4 (Alluvium) i_ e A solid triangle indicates the 7 1 1/4 groundwater level in the boring on the i date indicated. a 7 38 DD = 85 pcf a i 7 , i i i i i 7 1 i 4 SZ An open triangle in the water level 953.8 22.0 (WL) column indicates the depth at which CL LEAN CLAY, with Sand and Gravel, gray, wet, rather soft. (Glacial Till) groundwater was observed while drilling. 950.3 25.5 5 Groundwater levels Fluctuate. END OF BORING. Water observed at 20 feet with 24 feet of hollow -stem auger in the ground. Water observed at 6 feet immediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. ................4 ...,,,..."..�..,., al -I page [or] BRAUN`" INTERTEC LOG OF BORING Braun Project BL-05-06006 BORING: ST-2 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC LOCATION: See attached sketch. 62nd Street & Strawberry Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota DRILLER: Mark Barber METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA Autohammer DATE: 12/22/05 SCALE: I" = 41 Elev. Depth feet feet ASTM Description of Materials BPF WL qu Tests or Notes 978.2 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488 or D2487) tsf FILL FILL: Silty Sand, frozen to moist. (Possible Fill) 976.2 2.0 7 SM SILTY SAND, black, wet, medium. 974.7 3.5 (Topsoil) CH FAT CLAY, with lenses of Silt, brown, wet, medium. (Alluvium) 7 1 I/2 i i i 8 i e i i i 8 ' 966.7 11.5 i MLS SANDY SILT, brown, wet, medium. I (Alluvium) 6 6 1 960.2 18.0 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown to gray, wet, medium. (Glacial Till) 6 1 952.7 25.5 7 END OF BORING. Water observed at 16 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring immediately backfilled. L 6 .. _ ...,waw,,, ouwmun�um 51-L Pap 1 01 1 BRAUN' INTERTEC LOG OF BORING Braun Project BL-05-06006 BORING: ST-3 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC LOCATION: See attached sketch. 62nd Street & Strawberry Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota DRILLER: METHOD: 3 I/4" HSA Autohammer DATE: 12/27/05 SCALE: P = 4' Elev. Depth feet feet ASTM Description of Materials BPF WL MC qu Tests or Notes 972.6 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488 or D2487) % tsf 972.1 0.5 SC - CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, frozen to moist. To soil SM SILTY SAND, fine- to medium -grained, brown, moist to wet, loose. (Alluvium) 5 27 p200 = 49% 1 7 966.6 6.0 CH FAT CLAY, with lenses of Silt, brown to gray, wet, rather ° soft to medium. (Alluvium) 7 9 J 3 3 39 DD = 84 pcf i 7 i 7 t l 952.1 20.5 6 1 END OF BORING. Water not observed with 19 feet of hollow -stem auger in the ground. Water observed at 3 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring immediately backfilled. BL-05-06006 S BRAUW INTERTEC LOG OF BORING Braun Project BL-05-06006 BORING: ST-4 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION LOCATION: See attached sketch. Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC 62nd Street & Strawberry Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota DRILLER: METHOD: 3 I/4'. HSA Autohammer DATE: 12/27/05 SCALE: P = 4' Elev. Depth feet feet ASTM Description of Materials BPF WL Tests or Notes 971.5 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488 or D2487) 970.9 0.6 SC - CLAYEY SAND, coarse grained, dark brown, frozen to wet. Sc Possible Fill CLAYEY SAND, gray, rather soft. (Alluvium) 4 967.5 4.0 CL LEAN CLAY with SAND, brown, wet, medium. (Alluvium) 7 0 965.0 6.5 1 CH FAT CLAY, with lenses of Silt, gray, wet, medium. n (Alluvium) 7 A 0 0 x v `o v c 7 0 956.0 15.5 8 END OF BORING. Water not observed with 14 feet of hollow -stem auger in i the ground. Water observed at 7 feet immediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. BL-05-06006 •_ —� • ••••,••"•s••••• dl-9 -M 1 of 1 BRAUW INTERTEC LOG OF BORING I Braun Project BL-05-06006 BORING: ST-5 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION LOCATION: See attached sketch. Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC 62nd Street & Strawberry Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota DRILLER: METHOD: 3 1/4'. HSA Autohammer DATE: 12/27/05 SCALE: P = 4' Elev. Depth feet feet ASTM Description of Materials BPF WL MC Tests or Notes 978.1 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488 or D2487) CLAY, with lenses of Silt, brown. (Alluvium) Water not observed with 14 feet of hollow -stem auger in the ground. Water observed at 10 feet immediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled 12 8 p200 = 21 % 8 8 9 7 7 8 38 DD = 84 pcf BRAW INTERTEC LOG OF BORING Braun Project BL-05-06006 BORING: ST-6 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION LOCATION: See attached sketch. Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC 62nd Street & Strawberry Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota DRILLER: Mark Barber METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA Autohammer DATE: 12/22/05 SCALE: l" = 4' Elev. Depth feet feet ASTM Description of Materials BPF WL qu Tests or Notes 975.6 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488 or D2487) tsf 974.E 1.0 FILL FILL: Silty Sand, brown, frozen to moist. FILL FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium -grained, brown, moist. 18 971.6 4.0 SC CLAYEY SAND, brown, wet, rather stiff. (Alluvium) 9 969.1 6.5 1- CH FAT CLAY, with lenses of Silt, brown, wet, soft [o rather stiff. 9 (Alluvium) i i a 4 1 i > 3 i 960.1 15.5 8 END OF BORING. Water not observed with 14 feet of hollow -stem auger in the ground. i Water observed 6 feet immediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. BL-05-06" .. _ .. . —1..uv,1 unnn,u„% aib fie, ofl c C a BRAUN' INTERTEC LOG OF BORING Braun Project BL-05-06006 BORING: ST-7 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION LOCATION: See attached sketch. Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC 62nd Street & Strawberry Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota DRILLER: James Krohn METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA Autohammer DATE: 12/27/05 SCALE: P = 4' Elev. Depth feet feet ASTM Description of Materials BPF WL MC qu Tests or Notes 977.9 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488 or D2487) % tsf 977.1 0.8 FILL FILL: Clayey Sand, brown, frozen to wet. CL LEAN CLAY with SAND, black, wet, rather soft. (Topsoil) 4 974.4 3.5 CH FAT CLAY, with lenses of Silt, brown to gray, wet, rather soft to medium. (Alluvium) 4 3/4 5 a 4 - 37 1/2 a a 5 3/4 S U J 6 1 0 . 962.4 15.5 7 ' END OF BORING. Water not observed with 14 feet of hollow -stem auger in the ground. Water observed at 7 feet immediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. BL-OS-06005 st-i page 1 of t r— BRAUW INTERTEC LOG OF BORING Braun Project BL-05-06006 BORING: ST-S GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC LOCATION: See attached sketch. 62nd Street & Strawberry Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota DRILLER: METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA Autohammer DATE: 12/27/05 SCALE: P = 4' Elev. Depth feet feet ASTM Description of Materials BPF WL MC Tests or Notes 980.5 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D2488 or D2487) % 979.7 0.8 SC CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, frozen to wet. (Topsoil) SC CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, wet, rather stiff. (Alluvium) 9 976.5 4.0 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY, rather stiff. (Alluvium) to 974.0 6.5 3E '. CH FAT CLAY, lenses of Silt, brown to gray, wet, medium. (Alluvium) 6 34 PI = 20 LL = 53 i 7 S g 965.0 15.5 7 END OF BORING. Water not observed with 14 feet of hollow -stem auger in the ground. Water observed at 7 feet immediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. oiwnnngwn N1-a page 1 of 1 Descriptive Term Rev lGlal Standard D 2487 - 00 utl� Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Soils ClassificationGroup G_ Names Using Laboratory Tests ' symbol Croup Name b • o Gravels More than 50%of Clean Gravels C. t 4 and 15 C. 5 3 ° GW Well graded gravel = c 1.a coarse faction Less bun 5% fines' C <1 andlrx 1 > C >3 v GP Poorly graded gravel a o me is in retaed on Gravels with Files Fines as MLor MH GM gravel d19 m oo No More than 12%rues• Fees as CLerCH GC Clayey gravel '"if i c Sands Cleary Sands C• 2 6 and 1 5 C• < J c SW Well -graded sand° mZ i 5o%fx m moof coarse fraction Less than 5%fr-1 C< 6 andlor 1> Ce> 3 x SP Poorly oorly graded sand o )o passes Sands with Fees Fines classify as ML or FYI sm Silty, sandlas E No.4 sieve More Man 12%r I Fees Classify, as CL or CH SC Clayet, sand 'I - 5 Sits and (Jays knnp Inorganic PI> 7 aplots far, oraboveknee d •A' CL Lean •'•• PI < 4 or PIol9 bekw'A"finer i11L Slll • 1 Li[pid irla r + lass than 50 Organic Liquid liril -oven dried a Cr9aric clay' n w b �ooLiquid c 0.75 FM -not doled a prganic sitl�• iiiE" Sits and Piplots on a above'A' Fna CH Fal ' 1 PI plots below W line MH Elastic silt b r t 8z Liquid krWi 0 50 a more - Liquid limit - wen driedOrend « � ON day 9 n i knit not dried < 0.75 Or9ac silt Highty a9aic Sal- Pnmanly organic it.. dark in color and organic odor Pr I Peal a. eased on ere material Passmg the 3.in (75nvn) save. b. a field samp a con,,ne, ohs a baxders, err bon, add tin cobbles a bmddas a bon" W gi W rrerne. _c. C. = DwI D. Cr_(D.) D1p Y Do d. If sod ranlaris > 15%sal,, site seep- ro Woup rune. e. Gravels wiM 5 b I^ fin. repave dual symbols: GWG well -Waded gravel with sit GWr wel9radw gfaws, i ,,y G -Gm Poorly Waded gravef win sin GP -GC P—fy Jaded gnwsi aver lay L Nits das•ily as CLJ4L use dual symbol,,G or SC-SM g. N foes are agars. add y orgarvc Wiles' to group name_ h asod mdan9 >_ 15% gravel. add "win gravel'to group name ' i Sands win 5 W 12°1 hires reguve dual 1, nW1s sw-su we/gaded sarM with sdl SIYSC we19 adN sarM wi1M1 daY WSM PO" Jaded se'd w.n set sP-sc poorly Jaded sale with tl y _) 0 Agerberg finks pke in Ira ,,sa area. serf s a CLML. it, flay. IL a soil raNakrs 15lo 2 pfirs No. 20n. ado 1vM sans rx "wirn Wave,' whkdrever is Pedminant. 1_ a sari o)ntwis 2 30%plus W. 200, fve r nanny sard, add'saMy" to "P name. n' N soil crisip > 30% plus No 20o pedensuing, gravef, add'grav ffv'to group name. n. M 24 and plus on ma,ove-A"fire, . o. M< 4 or likes below-A'Ine -P. PI plots on erabee'A'has. p Pl Plots tlefnw W fine. MEL'. 40 EL 7 30 20 U A il 10 7 4 Y D D nC L a_ ?000 NOON NEI ••. •v a err w W 60 70 SO 90 log 110 Liquid Limit (LL) Laboratory Tests Cry density. of Wet density, pet OC Organic content,% Natural moisture content. S Percent of saturation, % Ugiuid lima, % SG limit % C 0 CohesiSpecifion, Cohesion, ps( psfPlastic Angle Plasticity index % of internal hictim Passing 200 sieve qu Unconfined compressive strength, psf qP Pocket penetrame1w strength. tsf Particle Size Men6firation tlouldws __.... _.................. over IT Cobbles ..._._._........._....... Gravel 3-to 12' Coarse .__._..__.____.. 3f4' lo 3- Fine _.. _........... Sand ___ ........ No. 4103f4" Coarse ......... No. 4loNo. 10 Medico _.._. No. 10 to No. do Foe .... ..___.. _..... .......... No. 40 to No.200 SO ._............ ......... <No. 200. PI <4 err below "A" line Clay .._..-_..._ <No_ 200. PI> 4 and on or above'A- fine Relative Dergiy of C011eSlefr9es Sags Very loose .---------------- _.._--------- 0 to 4 BPF Loose..._... ...................... _.... _. 5 to 108PF Mednml dense ..................... _... 11 to 30 BPF Oerrse __....._.._..._..._._.......... 31 0 50 BPF Verydense ...............__.___..._.ova 50 BPF Consistency of Cohesive Sods Verysoft...._..............................0 to t BPF Soft _..__..._........ . ................ 2 to 3 BPF Rather soft ._._._......._..........._.4105 BPF Medium _ ..................... _........... 6108 BPF Rather stiff .... ................. _......... 9 to 12 8PF Sufl _._.___._...._----------------- 13ID 16 BPF Very stiff _. _......._._._..__ 17 to 30 BPF Hard .__. ._.. _....._ ....... 30 BPF Drilling Notes Standard penetration test bongs were advanced by 3u' cr6_' ID hollow -stem augers unless noted otherwise, Jelling rater was used to clean out auger prior to sampling orgy where indicated on logs. Standard penetration test borings are designated by the prefix'ST- (Spul Tube). All samples were taken with the standard 2' OD spliHube sampler, ex- cept where noted. Power auger bongs were advanced by C or 6" diameter cords acus- flight, sold -stem alters- Sod classifications and strata depths were in- fenred from disturbed sartpies augered to the surface and are, therefore, somewhat approximate. Power auger borings are designated by the prefix'B' Hand auger bomlgs were advanced manually with a V' or 3T diam- eter auger and were limited to the depth from which the auger could be manualywilMrawn. Hand auger borings are indicated by the prefix"H' BPF: Numbers indicate bows per fool recorded in standard penetration test, also known as "N' value. The sampler was set 6" into undisturbed soil below the hollow -stem auger. Driving resistances were then counted for second and thhd 6" increments and added to gel BPF_ Where they differed significantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/72 for the second and third 6' ncramenls, respectively. WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required. WR WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods alone; hammer weight and dnviflg not required. T W indicates thin -walled (undisturbed) tube sample. Note: All tests were con in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. BRAUN INTERTEC HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR BOULDER COVE Chanhassen, Minnesota February 13, 2014 Otto Project No. 14-0105 Prepared for: Lennar Corporation Prepared by: '�i7 OFGiAM1HA$;)FAI RECEIVED FEB 14 2013 CH*'HFs3E;, I PLAVMy aMrr( TTO /-`\ SSOCIATES Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. 9 WEST DIVISION STREET - BUFFALO, MN 55313 - (763) 682-4727 - FAX (763) 682-3522 SCANNED Volume Control Narrative BOULDER COVE Lennar Corp. ' The existing soils on this property have been determined to be a limiting factor in meeting the one inch volume abstraction requirement. Braun Intertec's soil borings indicate type D soils throughout the site (refer to attached Geotechnical Evaluation ' Report). Two of the borings show a layer of type B soils above type D soils; One in the location of the proposed wet pond and the other near the proposed filtration basin. ' In comparison to the 2005 multi -family development approval, this single-family plan is showing the proposed street pulled further south to expand the northern basin area. The intent was to provide infiltration in the north -central portion of the site where the ' type B soil was found in boring #5. In October of 2013, an additional test pit was taken in the proposed basin to determine ' the feasibility of infiltration. The results indicate that the infiltration rate would be on the order of 0.06 inches per hour for the area. (refer to attached letter by Braun Intertec dated October 31, 2013) Once it became evident that infiltration on the site is infeasible, Lennar stepped up their landscaping design in an effort to provide additional volume abstraction. They are ' proposing 124 new trees in addition to other plantings throughout the site. They are also preserving the existing berm and trees along the north side of the site. We are proposing a filtration basin and wet pond to meet the phosphorus calculations Braun Intertec Corporation now Hampshire Avcnue S Minneapolis, MN 55418 October 31, 2013 Mr. Jason Palmby The Excelsior Group P. 0. Box 294 Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Stormwater Basin —Estimated Infiltration Rate Boulder Cove Residential Development 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Mr. Palmby: Background Information Phone 952.99r,20ou Fac: 9,52.995.2020 Web- hrauninlertee,com Project BL-13-07153 Boulder Cove is a proposed single family residential development. In January, 2006, a Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation report was issued by Braun Intertec Corporation for this site under Braun Intertec project number BL-05-06006. Soil borings performed for that report found the soils generally consisted of 1/2 to 3 1/2 feet of organic, clayey topsoil at the surface. Below the topsoil, the borings generally encountered a mixture of fat clay, lean clay, sandy lean clay and silty sand to the soil boring termination depths. Currently, preliminary development plans prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. show a proposed infiltration basin near the middle of the north side of the site. A previous soil boring in this area (ST-5) found what appeared to be a silty sand layer to about the 8 1/2 foot depth which was underlain by a fat clay layer to at least the 15 1/2 foot depth at which the boring was terminated. Most of the other soil borings at this site had found thinner layers of silty sand and more of the fat clay and lean clay soils. To assist in determining the feasibility of using the silty sand layer for infiltration, a test pit was excavated in the proposed infiltration basin area to further explore soil conditions and, if appropriate, perform a double ring infiltration test to determine the soil's infiltration rate. Test Pit Soil Conditions A backhoe excavated a test pit at the location of the proposed infiltration basin on October 14, 2013 The test pit was excavated to about 4 feet below the approximate proposed bottom elevation of the infiltration basin, or about to the 6 1/2 foot depth. Soils observed in the sidewalls and bottom of the test pit were as follows: 0-4 1/2 feet: From the ground surface to about the 4 1/2 foot depth, the soils consisted of a surficial layer of dark brown, clayey and silty sand topsoil over mixed silty sand and clayey sand fill soil in a dark brown and black color. The Excelsior Group Project BL-13-07153 October 31, 2013 Page 2 4 1/2 -61/2 feet: Layered fat clay and lean clay. These clays were mottled gray brown and gray and were in a stiff condition. Discussion Based on the test pit, the silty sand found in Boring ST-5 appears to be a fill soil placed in the past to fill an excavation. Also the silty sand layer was thinner at the test pit location than at the soil boring, indicating the lateral and vertical extent of the silty sand is variable. The silty sand may just be a relatively small pocket of granular soil. The soils exposed in the test pit bottom (which is the approximate elevation of the infiltration basin bottom) were fat and lean clays and would be very slow draining. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recommends a Design Infiltration rate on the order of 0.06 inches per hour for this soils type. Based on our visual classification of the exposed soils, we agree that this relatively slow infiltration rate would occur in these areas. General Comments In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Thank you for making Braun Intertec your geotechnical consultant for this project. If you have ' questions about this report, or if there are other services that we can provide in support of our work to date, please contact Henry Vloo at 952.995.2238 (hvloo@braunintertec.com) or Gregg Jandro at 952.995.2270 (gjandro@braunintertec.com). ' Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION ' HenryMfoo, PE Associate -Senior Engineer ' 49� / R.1Y`Ylo, PE, PG ' Principal Engineer, Vice President c: Ms. Cara Otto; Otto Associates 1 BOULDER COVE Lennar Corporation Otto Project No. 14-0105 February 12, 2014 Volume Abstraction F Volume Abstraction = 1" x 3.4 acres = 12,342 CF imum Volume Abstraction required = 0.5" x 3.4 acres = 6,171 CF Proposed Filtration Basin Volume Below Overflow=13,687 CF Proposed Volume Abstraction = 13,687 CF = 2 = 7,178 CF Tree Preservation AV = 53,713 SF preserved x 0.10 x 1" = 448 CF Planting of New Trees Species No. Avg % Interceptor Maple 36 8 Linden 7 12 Oak 6 10 Evergreen 44 10 Ornamental 31 10 AV = (0.5)(%])(Canopy Area) x 1 inch Per City Code: 1 Tree = 1,089 SF Canopy AV = 536 CF Total Proposed AV = 8,162 CF (0.66" of Rainfall Over Site) I BOULDER COVE Lennar Corporation Otto Project No. 13-0425 February 12, 2014 1 ' Phosphorus Calculations (per Appendix L ofMNStormwaterMonuol) L = PRvCA(0.2) Rv = 0.05 + 0.0091 ' 1 = % Impervious ' Lpre = 26 (0.05 + 0.009 x 9.72)(0.3)(13.38)(0.2)= 2.87 Ib/yr ' Lpost = 26 (0.05 + 0.009 x 25.41)(0.3)(13.38)(0.2)= 5.82 Ib/yr Removals: LR = (Lpost)(BMPre)(%DA served) LR bio: (5.82)(0.5)(0.30) = 0.87 Ib/yr LR wet pond: (5.82-0.87)(0.5)(0.89) = 2.20 Ib/yr Total Lpost = 5.82-0.87-2.20 = 2.75 Ib/yr allLTA iLr-AON/ Runoff (cfs) • AREA TO NORTH 2 Year 10 Year 100 Year Existing 2.80 6.03 9.81 Proposed 2.71 4.92 8.25 . AREA TO WEST 2 Year 10 Year 100 Year Existin8 6.42 12.00 23.65 Proposed 2.61 6.78 21.41 6R Existing Area E5 / Area to North 6S 7P / Existing Area E6 Area E6 Depression `2$ Area 7 drainage 3$ Area drainage A drainage o-� 4R o-- 3R o-� 2R 4� 1R 4P north ditch one north ditch 2 north ditch 4 north ditch 3 NM ditch outlet 4S 5R Existing Area E4 Area to West Su4 Reach Ao Link 14--0105 EXISTING Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. H roCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type/1 24-hr 2 yr Rainfa11-2.80" ' Printed 2/13/2014 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Area 1 drainage Runoff = 1.43 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.148 af, Depth= 0.61" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description 0.440 99 pavement 2.500 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B 2.940 70 Weighted Average 2.200 74.83% Pervious Area 0.740 25.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 25.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Area 2 drainage Runoff = 1.81 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.247 af, Depth= 0.45" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description ' 0.250 99 pavement 6.300 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B 6.550 66 Weighted Average 5.544 84.64% Pervious Area 1.006 15.36% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 30.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Area 3 drainage Runoff = 1.41 cfs @ 12.40 hrs, Volume= 0.216 af, Depth= 0.45' , Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" ' Area (ac) CN Description 0.220 99 Pavement 5.500 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B , 5.720 66 Weighted Average 4.840 84.62% Pervious Area 0.880 15.38% Impervious Area ' ' 14-0105 EXISTING Type // 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) t35.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 4S: Existing Area E4 ' Runoff = 6.42 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.682 af, Depth= 1.42" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description 2.160 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 3.000 84 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG D 0.600 98 Paved parking & roofs ' 5.760 85 Weighted Average 5.160 89.58% Pervious Area 0.600 10.42% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.5 300 0.0285 0.26 Sheet Flow, ' Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.80" 15.2 350 0.0030 0.38 Shallow Concentrated Flow, 34.7 650 Total Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7 0 fps ' Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Existing Area E5 Runoff = 2.80 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.346 af, Depth= 1.35" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description ' 2.150 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.320 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.600 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D ' 3.070 84 Weighted Average 2.750 89.58% Pervious Area 0.320 10.42% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 20.6 215 0.0170 0.17 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 22.1 80 0.0140 0.06 Sheet Flow, ' Woods' Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2 80" 42.7 295 Total 1 1 14-0105 EXISTING Type 11 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" ' Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCADV 10.00 s1n 03113 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solufions LLC Pane 4 Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Existing Area E6 Runoff = 1.38 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.081 af, Depth= 1.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description 0.740 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.050 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.050 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.840 81 Weighted Average 0.790 94.05% Pervious Area 0.050 5.95% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope ,nin) (feet) (f /ft) 12.3 120 0.0191 Velocity Capacity Description 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Reach 1R: north ditch one Inflow Area = 2.940 ac, 25.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.61" for 2 yr event Inflow = 1.43 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.148 of Outflow = 1.41 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.148 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 4.2 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 2.00 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.4 min Avg. Velocity = 0.77 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 6.3 min Peak Storage= 205 cf @ 12.25 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.33' Bank -Full Depth= 4.00' Flow Area= 16.0 sf, Capacity-- 101.38 cfs 2.00' x 4.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5 ? Top Width= 6.00' Length= 290.0' Slope= 0.0099 7' Inlet Invert= 987.22', Outlet Invert= 984.36' 14-0105 EXISTING Type 11 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 sin 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Reach 2R: north ditch 2 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.50" for 2 yr event Inflow = 3.22 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.395 of Outflow = 3.15 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.395 af, Atten= 2%, Lag= 5.3 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 2.64 fps, Min. Travel Time= 3.0 min Avg. Velocity = 1.09 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 7.3 min Peak Storage= 573 cf @ 12.34 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.53' ' Bank -Full Depth= 4.50' Flow Area= 19.1 sf, Capacity-- 131.73 cfs 2.00' x 4.50' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5 7' Top Width= 6.50' ' Length= 480.0' Slope= 0.0105'P Inlet Invert= 983.90', Outlet Invert= 978.88' Summary for Reach 3R: north ditch 3 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.50" for 2 yr event Inflow 3.15 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.395 of Outflow 3.15 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.395 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.4 min ' Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity- 4.03 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.2 min Avg. Velocity = 1.68 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.6 min ' Peak Storage= 47 cf @ 12.39 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.36' Bank -Full Depth= 5.00' Flow Area= 22.5 sf, Capacity-- 303.44 cfs ' 2.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5'P Top Width= 7.00' ' Length= 60.0' Slope= 0.0363 T Inlet Invert= 978.67', Outlet Invert= 976.49' 14-0105 EXISTING Prepared by Otto Associates, En t! CAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 Type 11 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" ' & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 ,D Software Solutions LLC Pane 6 Summary for Reach 4R: north ditch 4 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.50" for 2 yr event Inflow = 3.15 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.395 of Outflow = 3.07 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 0.395 af, Atten= 3%, Lag= 6.4 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 2.74 fps, Min. Travel Time= 3.5 min Avg. Velocity = 1.11 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 8.7 min Peak Storage= 651 cf @ 12.44 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.52' Bank -Full Depth= 4.00' Flow Area= 12.8 sf, Capacity= 79.20 cfs 2.00' x 4.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.3P Top Width= 4.40' Length= 580.0' Slope= 0.0118'/' Inlet Invert= 977.76', Outlet Invert= 970.94' Summary for Reach 5R: Area to West Inflow Area = 20.970 ac, 15.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.43" for 2 yr event Inflow = 6.42 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.756 of Outflow = 6.42 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.756 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Reach 6R: Area to North Inflow Area = 3.910 ac, 9.46% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.12" for 2 yr event Inflow = 2.80 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.364 of Outflow = 2.80 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.364 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Pond 4P: North ditch outlet Inflow Area = 15.210 ac, 17.26% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.48" for 2 yr event Inflow = 4.37 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 0.611 of Outflow = 0.18 cfs @ 24.46 hrs, Volume= 0.073 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 719.0 min Primary = 0.18 cfs @ 24.46 hrs, Volume= 0.073 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 14-0105 EXISTING Type/1 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/1312014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 7 Peak Elev= 968.56' @ 24.46 hrs Surf.Area= 9,840 sf Storage= 25,214 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 1,033.7 min calculated for 0.073 of (12% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 838.2 min ( 1,773.6 - 935.4) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 966.00' 63,780 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 966.00 9,840 0 0 968.38 9,840 23,419 23,419 969.00 9,840 6,101 29,520 970.00 9,840 9,840 39,360 971.00 12,000 10,920 50,280 972.00 15,000 13,500 63,780 _Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 968.38' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 60.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 968.38' / 967.78' S= 0.0100'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.17 cfs @ 24.46 hrs HW=968.56' (Free Discharge) tl=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.17 cfs @ 2.17 fps) Summary for Pond 7P: Area E6 Depression Inflow Area = 0.840 ac, 5.95% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.16" for 2 yr event Inflow = 1.38 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.081 of Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 16.97 hrs, Volume= 0.018 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 295.3 min Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 16.97 hrs, Volume= 0.018 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 978.20' @ 16.97 hrs Surf.Area= 9,785 sf Storage= 2,802 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 481.7 min calculated for 0.018 of (22% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 341.0 min ( 1,190.0 - 848.9) Volume Invert Avail.Stora a Storage Description ' #1 977.53' 3,883 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store ' (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic feet) 977.53 0 0 0 978.00 5,375 1,263 1,263 ' 978.20 9,685 1,506 2,769 978.30 12,600 1,114 3,883 ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 978.20' 48.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 140105 EXISTING Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type/1 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" ' Printed 2/13/2014 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 16.97 hrs HW=978.20' (Free Discharge) tl=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.02 cfs @ 0.15 fps) ' 14-0105 EXISTING Type/1 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HLdroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 ' Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Area 1 drainage ' Runoff = 4.00 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.359 af, Depth= 1.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 0.440 99 pavement t 2.500 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B 2.940 70 Weighted Average 2.200 74.83% Pervious Area ' 0.740 25.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, ' Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Area 2 drainage Runoff = 6.19 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.659 af, Depth= 1.21" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" ' Area (ac) CN Description 0.250 99 pavement 6.300 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B ' 6.550 66 Weighted Average 5.544 84.64% Pervious Area 1.006 15.36% Impervious Area Tr Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 30.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Area 3 drainage ' Runoff = 4.86 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.576 af, Depth= 1.21" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description ' 0.220 99 Pavement 5.500 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B 5.720 66 Weighted Average ' 4.840 84.62% Pervious Area 0.880 15.38% Impervious Area 14-0105 EXISTING Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 35.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 4S: Existing Area E4 Runoff = 12.00 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 1.266 af, Depth= 2.64" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 2.160 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 3.000 84 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG D 0.600 98 Paved parking & roofs 5.760 85 Weighted Average 5.160 89.58% Pervious Area 0.600 10.42% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 19.5 300 0.0285 0.26 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.80" 15.2 350 0.0030 0.38 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fos 34.7 650 Total Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Existing Area E5 Runoff = 5.36 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.652 af, Depth= 2.55" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 2.150 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.320 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.600 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3.070 84 Weighted Average 2.750 89.58% Pervious Area 0.320 10.42% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.6 215 0.0170 0.17 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 22.1 80 0.0140 0.06 Sheet Flow, Woods: Liqht underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.80" 42.7 295 Total 14-0105 EXISTING Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Existing Area E6 Runoff = 2.73 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.160 af, Depth= 2.29" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" Area (ac) CN Description 0.740 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.050 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.050 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.840 81 Weighted Average 0.790 94.05% Pervious Area 0.050 5.95% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 12.3 120 0.0191 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Reach 1R: north ditch one Inflow Area = 2.940 ac, 25.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.46" for 10 yr event Inflow = 4.00 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.359 of Outflow = 3.97 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.359 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 3.1 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 2.77 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.7 min Avg. Velocity = 0.97 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.0 min Peak Storage= 415 cf @ 12.22 hrs ' Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.62' Bank -Full Depth= 4.00' Flow Area= 16.0 sf, Capacity= 101.38 cfs 2.00' x 4.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding ' Side Slope Z-value= 0.5 T Top Width= 6.00' Length= 290.0' Slope= 0.0099'P Inlet Invert= 987.22', Outlet Invert= 984.36' 14.0105 EXISTING Type 1124-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Reach 2R: north ditch 2 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.29" for 10 yr event Inflow = 10.13 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 1.018 of Outflow = 10.04 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 1.018 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 3.9 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity-- 3.68 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.2 min Avg. Velocity = 1.38 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.8 min Peak Storage= 1,309 cf @ 12.29 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.07' Bank -Full Depth= 4.50' Flow Area= 19.1 sf, Capacity= 131.73 cfs 2.00' x 4.50' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5P Top Width= 6.50' Length= 480.0' Slope= 0.0105 '/' Inlet Invert= 983.90', Outlet Invert= 978.88' Summary for Reach 3R: north ditch 3 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.29" for 10 yr event Inflow = 10.04 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 1.018 of Outflow = 10.03 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 1.018 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.3 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 5.77 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.2 min Avg. Velocity = 2.14 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.5 min Peak Storage= 104 cf @ 12.33 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.73' Bank -Full Depth= 5.00' Flow Area= 22.5 sf, Capacity- 303.44 cfs 2.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5'P Top Width= 7.00' Length= 60.0' Slope= 0.0363 7' Inlet Invert= 978.67', Outlet Invert= 976.49' 14-0105 EXISTING Type/1 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Reach 4R: north ditch 4 ' Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.29" for 10 yr event Inflow 10.03 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 1.018 of Outflow = 9.89 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 1.018 at, Atten= 1%, Lag= 4.5 min ' Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 3.82 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.5 min ' Avg. Velocity = 1.40 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 6.9 min Peak Storage= 1,502 cf @ 12.36 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.11' ' Bank -Full Depth= 4.00' Flow Area= 12.8 sf, Capacity= 79.20 cfs 2.00' x 4.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding ' Side Slope Z-value= 0.3'/' Top Width= 4.40' Length= 580.0' Slope= 0.0118'f Inlet Invert= 977.76', Outlet Invert= 970.94' Summary for Reach 5R: Area to West Inflow Area = 20.970 ac, 15.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.33" for 10 yr event ' Inflow 12.00 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 2.322 of Outflow - 12.00 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 2.322 at, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min ' Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Reach 6R: Area to North ' Inflow Area = 3.910 ac, 9.46% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.30" for 10 yr event Inflow = 6.03 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.749 of ' Outflow = 6.03 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.749 at, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Summary for Pond 4P: North ditch outlet Inflow Area = 15.210 ac, 17.26% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.26" for 10 yr event ' Inflow 14.60 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 1.593 of Outflow 2.86 cfs @ 13.30 hrs, Volume= 1.056 at, Atten= 80%, Lag= 54.6 min Primary = 2.86 cfs @ 13.30 hrs, Volume= 1.056 of ' Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 14-0105 EXISTING Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type // 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" , Printed 2/13/2014 Peak Elev= 969.16' @ 13.30 hrs Surf.Area= 9,840 sf Storage= 31,123 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 292.2 min calculated for 1.056 of (66% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 168.8 min ( 1,065.1 - 896.4) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 966.00' 63,780 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 966.00 9,840 0 0 968.38 9,840 23,419 23,419 969.00 9,840 6,101 29,520 970.00 9,840 9,840 39,360 971.00 12,000 10,920 50,280 972.00 15,000 13,500 63,780 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 968.38' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 60.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 968.38' / 967.78' S= 0.0100 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=2.86 cfs @ 13.30 hrs HW=969.16' (Free Discharge) t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 2.86 cfs @ 4.46 fps) Summary for Pond 7P: Area E6 Depression Inflow Area = 0.840 ac, 5.95% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.29" for 10 yr event Inflow = 2.73 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.160 of Outflow = 0.93 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 0.097 af, Atten= 66%, Lag= 11.6 min Primary = 0.93 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 0.097 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 978.24' @ 12.23 hrs Surf.Area= 10,832 sf Storage= 3,173 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 206.9 min calculated for 0.097 of (60% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 94.0 min ( 923.3 - 829.4) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 977.53' 3,883 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 977.53 0 0 0 978.00 5,375 1,263 1,263 978.20 9,685 1,506 2,769 978.30 12,600 1,114 3,883 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 978.20' 48.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 ' 14-0105 EXISTING Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD p010.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 ' Primary OutFlow Max=0.93 cfs @ 12.23 hrs HW=978.24' (Free Discharge) t 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.93 cfs @ 0.49 fps) 1 14-0105 EXISTING Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type // 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" , Printed 2/13/2014 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Area 1 drainage Runoff = 7.74 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.668 af, Depth= 2.73" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" Area (ac) CN Description ` 0.440 99 pavement 2.500 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B 2.940 70 Weighted Average 2.200 74.83% Pervious Area 0.740 25.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope min) (feet) (fttt) 25.0 Capacity Description Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Area 2 drainage Runoff = 13.03 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 1.292 af, Depth= 2.37" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" Area (ac) CN Description 0.250 99 pavement 6.300 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B 6.550 66 Weighted Average 5.544 84.64% Pervious Area 1.006 15.36% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) (cfs) 30.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Area 3 drainage ' Runoff = 10.27 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 1.128 af, Depth= 2.37" , Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" ' Area (ac) CN Description 0.220 99 Pavement , 5.500 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B 5.720 66 Weighted Average 4.840 84.62% Pervious Area 0.880 15.38% Impervious Area ' t 14-0105 EXISTING Prepared by Otto Associates, Enc HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 20121 ' Tc Length Slope Velocity ' 35.0 Type/1 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 D Software Solutions LLC Panp 17 Description Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 4S: Existing Area E4 Runoff = 18.99 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 2.020 af, Depth= 4.21" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" Area (ac) CN Description 2.160 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 3.000 84 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG D 0.600 98 Paved parkinq & roofs 5.760 85 Weighted Average 5.160 89.58% Pervious Area 0.600 10.42% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 19.5 300 0.0285 0.26 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.80" 15.2 350 0.0030 0.38 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fos 34.7 650 Total ' Runoff = Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Existing Area E5 8.60 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 1.050 af, Depth= 4.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" Area (ac) CN Description 2.150 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.320 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.600 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3.070 84 Weighted Average 2.750 89.58% Pervious Area 0.320 10.42% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 20.6 215 0.0170 0.17 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 22.1 80 0.0140 0.06 Sheet Flow, 42.7 295 Total Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2 80" 14-0105 EXISTING Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type // 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" ' Printed 2/13/2014 Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Existing Area E6 Runoff = 4.47 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.265 af, Depth= 3.79" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" Area (ac) CN Description 0.740 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.050 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.050 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.840 81 Weighted Average 0.790 94.05% Pervious Area 0.050 5.95% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity min) (feet) (fUft) (fUsec) 12.3 120 0.0191 0.16 Description Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Reach 1R: north ditch one Inflow Area = 2.940 ac, 25.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.73" for 100 yr event Inflow = 7.74 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.668 of Outflow = 7.69 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 0.668 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 2.4 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity- 3.35 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.4 min Avg. Velocity = 1.13 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 4.3 min Peak Storage= 666 cf @ 12.21 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.93' Bank -Full Depth= 4.00' Flow Area= 16.0 sf, Capacity= 101.38 cfs 2.00' x 4.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5'/' Top Width= 6.00' Length= 290.0' Slope= 0.0099 7' Inlet Invert= 987.22', Outlet Invert= 984.36' ' 14-0105 EXISTING Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type 11 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" Printed 2/13/2014 ' Summary for Reach 2R: north ditch 2 ' Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.48" for 100 yr event Inflow 20.71 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 1.960 of Outflow = 20.54 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 1.960 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 3.5 min ' Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 4.43 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.8 min Avg. Velocity = 1.60 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.0 min ' Peak Storage= 2,226 cf @ 12.27 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.64' ' Bank -Full Depth= 4.50' Flow Area= 19.1 sf, Capacity- 131.73 cfs 2.00' x 4.50' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5 T Top Width= 6.50' Length= 480.0' Slope= 0.0105'P Inlet Invert= 983.90', Outlet Invert= 978.88' ' Summary for Reach 3R: north ditch 3 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.48" for 100 yr event ' Inflow _ 20.54 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 1.960 of Outflow 20.53 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 1.960 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity- 7.03 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.1 min Avg. Velocity = 2.48 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.4 min ' Peak Storage= 175 cf @ 12.30 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.14' Bank -Full Depth= 5.00' Flow Area= 22.5 sf, Capacity-- 303.44 cfs ' 2.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5'P Top Width= 7.00' ' Length= 60.0' Slope= 0.03637' Inlet Invert= 978.67', Outlet Invert= 976.49' 14-0105 EXISTING Prepared by Otto Associates, En HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 02012 Type/1 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" ' & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 ,D Software Solutions LLC Pane 20 Summary for Reach 4R: north ditch 4 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.48" for 100 yr event Inflow = 20.53 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 1.960 of Outflow = 20.32 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 1.960 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 3.9 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Max. Velocity= 4.57 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.1 min Avg. Velocity = 1.62 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 6.0 min Peak Storage= 2,581 cf @ 12.33 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.76' Bank -Full Depth= 4.00' Flow Area= 12.8 sf, Capacity-- 79.20 cfs 2.00' x 4.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.3 'P Top Width= 4.40' Length= 580.0' Slope= 0.0118'P Inlet Invert= 977.76', Outlet Invert= 970.94' Summary for Reach 5R: Area to West Inflow Area = 20.970 ac, 15.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.62" for 100 yr event Inflow = 23.65 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 4.570 of Outflow = 23.65 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 4.570 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Reach 6R: Area to North Inflow Area = 3.910 ac, 9.46% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.84" for 100 yr event Inflow = 9.81 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 1.252 of Outflow = 9.81 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 1.252 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Pond 4P: North ditch outlet Inflow Area = 15.210 ac, 17.26% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.44" for 100 yr event Inflow = 30.40 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 3.088 of Outflow = 11.60 cfs @ 12.81 hrs, Volume= 2.550 af, Atten= 62%, Lag= 27.0 min Primary = 11.60 cfs @ 12.81 hrs, Volume= 2.550 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' 14-0105 EXISTING Prepared by Otto Associates, En HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 Type 11 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 Peak Elev= 970.82' @ 12.81 hrs Surf.Area= 11,606 sf Storage= 48,126 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 166.6 min calculated for 2.550 of (83% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 88.0 min ( 962.3 - 874.3 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 966.00' 63,780 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 966.00 9,840 0 0 968.38 9,840 23,419 23,419 969.00 9,840 6,101 29,520 970.00 9,840 9,840 39,360 971.00 12,000 10,920 50,280 972.00 15,000 13,500 63,780 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 968.38' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 60.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 968.38' / 967.78' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=11.60 cfs @ 12.81 hrs HW=970.82' (Free Discharge) tl=Culvert (Barrel Controls 11.60 cfs @ 6.56 fps) Summary for Pond 71P: Area E6 Depression Inflow Area = 0.840 ac, 5.95% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.79" for 100 yr event Inflow = 4.47 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.265 of Outflow = 3.61 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.202 af, Atten= 19%, Lag= 4.1 min Primary = 3.61 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.202 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-200.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 978.30' @ 12.11 hrs Surf.Area= 12,513 sf Storage= 3,846 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 143.8 min calculated for 0.202 of (76% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 53.7 min ( 868.7 - 815.0 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 977.53' 3,883 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 977.53 0 0 0 978.00 5,375 1,263 1,263 978.20 9,685 1,506 2,769 978.30 12,600 1,114 3,883 ' Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 978.20' 48.0' long x 10.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 14-0105 EXISTING Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type 1124-hr 100 yr Rainfall=5.90" ' Printed 2/13/2014 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=3.61 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=978.30' (Free Discharge) t1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 3.61 cfs @ 0.78 fps) PrepWMArm P] 3P \ -15- �,11S Ponsmacm B , Pmpo —Pt 11 `� Pmposetl Area P11 ss --—___—DA Q PdPaaaticam eaeb P-Wp Area P2 PipM PoM 11R •. PoNrg tl Ctlm Bmb 9S PgeObPo\ / -' \\\\777JJJ P bPom Age � P,��nsea aea P9 9R d_ O—v 4P Pon*V tl CgN Bmin � �Flo pM b PoM Farelion Bmin P.Area Pa � pR o-�A pow PoM O Po Arean PoMrg tl CtlN B. Pmpd Area Pto Pmposetl Area PS O ias FE3 O ® D❑� MBhi'4 m 1 �� Pmppsetl Area PB 8R Nv1°'�10 io4� 101�'�i3 .(a 18R A.bWe '�T"2 I� 15� I mmOnNone Area 1 banye 175 Area 2 tra�nge Subca Reach °4 Link 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 11 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Summary for Subcatchment IIS: Proposed Area P1 Runoff = 2.71 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.174 af, Depth= 1.35' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description 0.200 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.700 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.640 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.540 84 Weighted Average 1.340 87.01% Pervious Area 0.200 12.99% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.9 110 0.0100 0.12 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Proposed Area P3 Runoff = 0.55 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af, Depth= 1.42" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description 0.070 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.170 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.240 85 Weighted Average 0.170 70.83% Pervious Area 0.070 29.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 8.9 100 0.0300 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Proposed Area P2 Runoff = 0.59 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.033 af, Depth= 1.35" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 11 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, En H droCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 Area (ac) CN Descriotion Type // 24hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/1312014 0.060 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.230 80 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG D 0.290 84 Weighted Average 0.230 79.31 % Pervious Area 0.060 20.69% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' 10.6 125 0.0300 0.20 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" ' Summary for Subcatchment 4S: Proposed Area P4 Runoff = 5.21 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.343 af, Depth= 1.22" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" ' Area (ac) CN Description 1.050 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.160 77 Woods, Poor, HSG C 2.150 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C 3.360 82 Weighted Average 2.310 68.75% Pervious Area 1.050 31.25% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 15.5 200 0.0300 0.21 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" ' Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Proposed Area P5 ' Runoff = 11.80 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.829 af, Depth= 1.57" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" ' Area (ac) CN Description 2.000 98 Paved parking & roofs ' 3.850 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.500 98 pond 6.350 87 Weighted Average ' 3.850 60.63% Pervious Area 2.500 39.37% Impervious Area 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 1124-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pace 4 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 15.5 200 0.0300 0.21 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 2.3 350 0.0280 2.51 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterwav Kv= 15.0 fps 17.8 550 Total Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Proposed Area P8 Runoff = 0.74 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.035 af, Depth= 1.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description 0.100 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.180 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.280 86 Weighted Average 0.180 64.29% Pervious Area 0.100 35.71% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.8 70 0.0429 0.20 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 0.2 15 0.0100 1.50 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Watenaav Kv= 15.0 fos 6.0 85 Total Summary for Subcatchment 9S: Proposed Area P9 Runoff = 0.85 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.043 af, Depth= 1.22" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Descri 0.020 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.150 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.250 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.420 82 Weighted Average 0.400 95.24% Pervious Area 0.020 4.76% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description , iin) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.2 95 0.0330 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" , ' 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 n 2 Type ll 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 Summary for Subcatchment 10S: Proposed Area P10 Runoff = 0.96 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.051 af, Depth= 1.22" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area ac) CN Description 0.060 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers 0.040 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.400 80 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG D 0.500 82 Weighted Average 0.440 88.00% Pervious Area 0.060 12.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 9.6 110 0.0300 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 11S: Proposed Area PI ' Runoff = 1.15 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.064 af, Depth= 1.29" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description ' 0.100 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.060 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.440 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D ' 0.600 83 Weighted Average 0.500 83.33% Pervious Area 0.100 16.67% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) fft/sec) rprc� 11.0 ' Runoff = 130 0.0300 0.20 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 15S: Area 1 drainage 1.43 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.148 af, Depth= 0.61" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 11 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 11 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" ' Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Area (ac) CN Description , ' 0.440 99 pavement 2.500 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B 2.940 70 Weighted Average ' 2.200 74.83% Pervious Area 0.740 25.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 25.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 17S: Area 2 drainage Runoff = 1.81 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.247 at, Depth= 0.45" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description ` 0.250 99 pavement 6.300 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B 6.550 66 Weighted Average 5.544 84.64% Pervious Area 1.006 15.36% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 30.0 Runoff = Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 23S: FE3 3.37 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.179 af, Depth= 1.29" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Area (ac) CN Description ' 0.220 99 pavement 1.450 80 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG D 1.670 83 Weighted Average 1.450 86.83% Pervious Area 0.220 13.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 9.6 110 0.0300 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 14-0105 PROPOSED Type // 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Reach 1 R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.290 ac, 20.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.35" for 2 yr event Inflow = 0.59 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.033 of Outflow = 0.59 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.033 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.8 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 2.61 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.2 min Avg. Velocity = 0.84 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 3.7 min ■ Peak Storage= 42 cf @ 12.04 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.33' ' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 2.52 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior ' Length= 186.0' Slope= 0.0050'/' Inlet Invert= 974.93', Outlet Invert= 974.00' Summary for Reach 2R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.240 ac, 29.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.42" for 2 yr event ' Inflow 0.55 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.028 of Outflow 0.52 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af, Atten= 5%, Lag= 1.7 min ' Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 2.53 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.7 min Avg. Velocity = 0.78 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 8.6 min ' Peak Storage= 83 cf @ 12.04 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.31' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity-- 2.52 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 404.0' Slope= 0.0050 7' Inlet Invert= 976.02', Outlet Invert= 974.00' 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 1124-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Reach 8R: Area to West Inflow Area = 23.200 ac, 25.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.74" for 2 yr event Inflow = 2.61 cfs @ 12.58 hrs, Volume= 1.439 of Outflow = 2.61 cfs @ 12.58 hrs, Volume= 1.439 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Summary for Reach 9R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.420 ac, 4.76% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.22" for 2 yr event Inflow = 0.85 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.043 of Outflow = 0.81 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.043 af, Atten= 5%, Lag= 1.5 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity= 2.86 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.4 min Avg. Velocity = 0.90 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 7.5 min Peak Storage= 115 cf @ 12.03 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.39' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 2.52 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 407.0' Slope= 0.0050 T Inlet Invert= 970.54', Outlet Invert= 968.50' Summary for Reach 10R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.500 ac, 12.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.22" for 2 yr event Inflow = 0.96 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.051 of Outflow = 0.93 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.051 af, Atten= 3%, Lag= 1.2 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity- 2.97 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.7 min Avg. Velocity = 0.96 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.4 min Peak Storage= 97 cf @ 12.04 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.42' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 2.52 cfs 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, En HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 310.0' Slope= 0.0050 '/' Inlet Invert= 970.05', Outlet Invert= 968.50' Type/1 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 D Software Solutions 1 L C pnno a Summary for Reach 11R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.600 ac, 16.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.29" for 2 yr event Inflow = 1.15 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.064 of Outflow = 1.14 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.064 af, Atten= 1 %, Lag= 0.6 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 ' Max. Velocity-- 3.14 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.8 min Avg. Velocity = 1.04 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 2.4 min ' Peak Storage= 55 cf @ 12.05 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.47' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 2.53 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 151.0' Slope= 0.00507' ' Inlet Invert= 969.26', Outlet Invert= 968.50' Summary for Reach 16R: north ditch one ' Inflow Area = 2.940 ac, 25.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.61" for 2 yr event Inflow = 1.43 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.148 of ' Outflow = 1.41 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.148 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 1.8 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 2.00 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.4 min ' Avg. Velocity = 0.77 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 6.3 min Peak Storage= 205 cf @ 12.25 hrs ' Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.33' Bank -Full Depth= 4.00' Flow Area= 16.0 sf, Capacity-- 101.38 cfs 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, HydroCAD@ 10.00 sin 03113 n 2 Type/1 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" ' leers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 �droCAD Software Solutions LLC Pace 10 2.00' x 4.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5 7' Top Width= 6,00' Length= 290.0' Slope= 0.0099 T Inlet Invert= 987.22', Outlet Invert= 984.36' Summary for Reach 18R: north ditch 2 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.50" for 2 yr event Inflow = 3.17 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.395 of Outflow = 3.12 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.395 af, Atten= 2%, Lag= 2.3 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 2.63 fps, Min. Travel Time= 3.0 min Avg. Velocity = 1.09 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 7.3 min Peak Storage= 569 cf @ 12.32 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.52' Bank -Full Depth= 4.50' Flow Area= 19.1 sf, Capacity= 131.73 cfs 2.00' x 4.50' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5 T Top Width= 6.50' Length= 480.0' Slope= 0.0105 'P Inlet Invert= 983.90', Outlet Invert= 978.88' Summary for Reach 19R: north ditch 3 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.50" for 2 yr event Inflow = 3.12 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.395 of Outflow = 3.12 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.395 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 4.02 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.2 min Avg. Velocity = 1.68 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.6 min 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 1124-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Peak Storage= 47 cf @ 12.32 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.36' ' Bank -Full Depth= 5.00' Flow Area= 22.5 sf, Capacity-- 303.44 cfs 2.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5 T Top Width= 7.00' ' Length= 60.0' Slope= 0.0363 T Inlet Invert= 978.67', Outlet Invert= 976.49' Summary for Reach 20R: north ditch 4 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.50" for 2 yr event ' Inflow 3.12 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.395 of Outflow 3.04 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.395 af, Atten= 3%, Lag= 2.9 min ' Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 2.73 fps, Min. Travel Time= 3.5 min Avg. Velocity = 1.11 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 8.7 min ' Peak Storage= 646 cf @ 12.37 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.52' Bank -Full Depth= 4.00' Flow Area= 12.8 sf, Capacity= 79.20 cfs ' 2.00' x 4.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.3 7' Top Width= 4,40' ' Length= 580.0' Slope= 0.0118'P Inlet Invert= 977.76', Outlet Invert= 970.94' ' Summary for Pond 2P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.290 ac, 20.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.35" for 2 yr event Inflow = 0.59 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.033 of ' Outflow 0.59 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.033 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.1 min Primary 0.59 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.033 of ' Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 11 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Peak Elev= 978.10' @ 12.03 hrs Surf.Area= 63 sf Storage= 3 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.0 min calculated for 0.033 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.0 min ( 837.0 - 836.9 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 978.00' 888 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 978.00 0 0 0 979.00 650 325 325 979.50 1,600 563 888 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 978.00' 23.0" Horiz Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.59 cfs @ 12.03 hrs HW=978.10' TW=975.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) tl=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 0.59 cfs @ 1.02 fps) Summary for Pond 3P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.240 ac, 29.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.42" for 2 yr event Inflow = 0.55 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.028 of Outflow = 0.55 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Primary = 0.55 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.028 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 979.09' @ 12.01 hrs Surf.Area= 109 sf Storage= 5 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.1 min calculated for 0.028 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.1 min ( 831.8 - 831.7 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 979.00' 2,888 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 979.00 0 0 0 980.00 1,190 595 595 981.00 3,395 2,293 2,888 _Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 979.00' 23.0" Horiz Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.55 cfs @ 12.01 hrs HW=979.09' TW=976.32' (Dynamic Tailwater) tl=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 0.55 cfs @ 0.99 fps) ' 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, En HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 Type/1 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 ,D Software Solutions LLC Pang 13 Summary for Pond 4P: Filtration Basin Inflow Area = 3.890 ac, 30.33% Impervious, Inflow = 6.24 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume Outflow = 0.25 cfs @ 15.07 hrs, Volume Primary = 0.25 cfs @ 15.07 hrs, Volume Inflow Depth = 1.25" 0.404 of = 0.404 af, = 0.404 of for 2 yr event Atten= 96%, Lag= 179.9 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 975.03' @ 15.07 hrs Surf.Area= 10,721 sf Storage= 9,583 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 433.6 min ( 1,280.6 - 846.9) ' Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 974.00' 21,783 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) ' Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum -Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 974.00 7,800 0 0 ' 975.50 12,035 14,876 14,876 976.00 15,590 6,906 21,783 ' _Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 970.50' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 479.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 ' Inlet / Outlet Invert= 970.50' / 968.50' S= 0.0042 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 974.00' 1.000 in/hr Exfltration over Surface area #3 Device 1 975.40' 23.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.25 cfs @ 15.07 hrs HW=975.03' TW=969.13' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Culvert (Passes 0.25 cfs of 10.13 cfs potential flow) �2=Exfltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.25 cfs) 3--Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Inflow Area = 11.760 ac, Inflow = 14.47 cfs @ Outflow = 2.56 cfs @ Primary = 2.56 cfs @ Summary for Pond 5P: Pond in Area P5 32.82% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.42" 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1.390 of 12.60 hrs, Volume= 1.370 af, 12.60 hrs, Volume= 1.370 of for 2 yr event Atten= 82%, Lag= 31.2 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 969.40' @ 12.60 hrs Surf.Area= 25,171 sf Storage= 21,299 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 249.5 min calculated for 1.370 of (99% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 235.3 min ( 1,199.3 - 964.0 ) 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 11 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD010.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 968.50' 101,161 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 968.50 22,500 0 0 969.00 23,675 11,544 11,544 970.00 27,420 25,548 37,091 972.00 36,650 64,070 101,161 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 968.50' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 968.50' / 968.40' S= 0.0050'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 966.00' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Device 1 971.10' 48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=2.56 cfs @ 12.60 hrs HW=969.40' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 2.56 cfs @ 3.32 fps) �2�rifice/Grate (Passes 2.56 cfs of 8.07 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond 9P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.420 ac, 4.76% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.22" for 2 yr event Inflow = 0.85 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.043 of Outflow = 0.85 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.043 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Primary = 0.85 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.043 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 973.82' @ 12.00 hrs Surf.Area= 119 sf Storage= 7 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.1 min calculated for 0.043 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.1 min ( 841.8 - 841.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 973.70' 391 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 973.70 0 0 0 974.00 290 43 43 974.50 1,100 348 391 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 973.70' 23.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.85 cfs @ 12.00 hrs HW=973.82' TW=970.92' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 0.85 cfs @ 1.15 fps) ' 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type 1124-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" Printed 2/13/2014 ' Summary for Pond 10P: Ponding at Catch Basin ' Inflow Area = 0.500 ac, 12.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.22" for 2 yr event Inflow 0.96 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.051 of Outflow = 0.96 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.051 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min ' Primary = 0.96 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.051 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 973.13' @ 12.02 hrs Surf.Area= 169 sf Storage= 11 cf ' Plug -Flow detention time= 0.1 min calculated for 0.051 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.1 min ( 843.1 - 843.0 ) ' Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 973.00' 635 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 973.00 0 0 0 ' 974.00 1,270 635 635 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 973.00' 23.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.96 cfs @ 12.02 hrs HW=973.13' TW=970.47' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' t11=0rifice/Grate (Weir Controls 0.96 cfs @ 1.19 fps) Summary for Pond 11 P: Ponding at Catch Basin ' Inflow Area = 0.600 ac, 16.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.29" for 2 yr event Inflow = 1.15 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.064 of Outflow = 1.15 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.064 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.3 min tPrimary = 1.15 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.064 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 tPeak Elev= 972.45' @ 12.04 hrs Surf.Area= 186 sf Storage= 14 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.1 min calculated for 0.064 of (100% of inflow) ' Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.1 min ( 840.9 - 840.8 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 972.30' 1,785 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 1 Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) ' 972.30 0 0 0 974.00 2,100 1,785 1,785 t Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 972.30' 23.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type // 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=2.80" , Printed 2/13/2014 Primary OutFlow Max=1.15 cfs @ 12.04 hrs HW=972.45' TW=969.73' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=06fice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.15 cfs @ 1.27 fps) Summary for Pond 22P: North ditch outlet Inflow Area = 11.160 ac, 17.62% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.62" for 2 yr event Inflow = 3.55 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 0.575 of Outflow = 0.08 cfs @ 24.66 hrs, Volume= 0.034 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 738.3 min Primary = 0.08 cfs @ 24.66 hrs, Volume= 0.034 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 968.50' @ 24.66 hrs Surf.Area= 9,840 sf Storage= 24,622 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 1,123.2 min calculated for 0.034 of (6% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 920.5 min ( 1,822.9 - 902.4) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 966.00' 63,780 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 966.00 9,840 0 0 969.00 9,840 29,520 29,520 970.00 9,840 9,840 39,360 971.00 12,000 10,920 50,280 972.00 15,000 13,500 63,780 _Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 968.38' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 60.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 968.38' / 967.78' S= 0.0100 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Primary 970.80' 5.0' long x 15.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.68 2.70 2.70 2.64 2.63 2.64 2.64 2.63 Primary OutFlow Max=0.08 cfs @ 24.66 hrs HW=968.50' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) �1�ulvert (Barrel Controls 0.08 cfs @ 1.70 fps) 2=13road-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Printed 2/13/2014 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Proposed Area P1 Runoff = 4.92 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.316 af, Depth= 2.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Area (ac) CN Description 0.200 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.700 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.640 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.540 84 Weighted Average 1.340 87.01% Pervious Area 0.200 12.99% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) 14.9 110 0.0100 Velocity Capacity Description 0.12 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Proposed Area P3 ' Runoff = 0.97 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.051 af, Depth= 2.55' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Area (ac) CN Description ' 0.070 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.170 80 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG D 0.240 85 Weighted Average ' 0.170 70.83% Pervious Area 0.070 29.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 8.9 100 0.0300 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Proposed Area P2 Runoff = 1.07 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.059 af, Depth= 2.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 03113 © 2 Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. )12 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description 0.060 98 Paved oarkina & roofs 0.290 84 Weighted Average 0.230 79.31 % Pervious Area 0.060 20.69% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope min) (feet) (f /ft) 10.6 125 0.0300 HSG D Capacity Description Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" ' Printed 2/13/2014 0.20 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 4S: Proposed Area P4 Runoff = 9.81 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.641 af, Depth= 2.29" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Area (ac) CN Descriotion 1.050 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.160 77 Woods, Poor, HSG C 2.150 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3.360 82 Weighted Average 2.310 68.75% Pervious Area 1.050 31.25% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 15.5 200 0.0300 0.21 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Proposed Area P5 Runoff = 20.37 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 1.444 af, Depth= 2.73" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Area (ac) CN Description 2.000 98 Paved parking & roofs 3.850 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.500 98 pond 6.350 87 Weighted Average 3.850 60.63% Pervious Area 2.500 39.37% Impervious Area 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 15.5 200 0.0300 0.21 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 2.3 350 0.0280 2.51 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps ' 17.8 550 Total Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Proposed Area P8 ' Runoff = 1.29 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.062 af, Depth= 2.64" t Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" ' Area (ac) CN Description 0.100 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.180 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D ' 0.280 86 Weighted Average 0.180 64.29% Pervious Area 0.100 35.71% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.8 70 0.0429 0.20 Sheet Flow, ' Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 0.2 15 0.0100 1.50 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15 0 fps ' 6.0 85 Total Summary for Subcatchment 9S: Proposed Area P9 ' Runoff = 1.58 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.080 af, Depth= 2.29" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Area (ac) CN Description ' 0.020 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.150 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.250 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D ' 0.420 82 Weighted Average 0.400 95.24% Pervious Area 0.020 4.76% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 8.2 95 0.0330 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" , Printed 2/13/2014 Summary for Subcatchment 10S: Proposed Area P10 Runoff = 1.78 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.095 af, Depth= 2.29" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Area (ac) CN Description 0.060 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers 0.040 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.400 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.500 82 Weighted Average 0.440 88.00% Pervious Area 0.060 12.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (f /ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.6 110 0.0300 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 11S: Proposed Area PI Runoff = 2.11 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.119 af, Depth= 2.37" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Area (ac) CN Description 0.100 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.060 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.440 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.600 83 Weighted Average 0.500 83.33% Pervious Area 0.100 16.67% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 11.0 130 0.0300 0.20 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 15S: Area 1 drainage Runoff = 3.80 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.342 af, Depth= 1.40" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" ' 14-0105 PROPOSED Type /l 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 21 ' Area (ac) CN Description 0.440 99 pavement ' 2.500 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B 2.940 70 Weighted Average 2.200 74.83% Pervious Area ' 0.740 25.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) ' 25.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 17S: Area 2 drainage 1 Runoff = 5.83 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.626 af, Depth= 1.15" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" ' Area (ac) CN Description ' 0.250 99 pavement 6.300 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B ' 6.550 66 Weighted Average 5.544 84.64% Pervious Area 1.006 15.36% Impervious Area ' Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 30.0 Direct Entry, 1 Summary for Subcatchment 23S: FE3 ' Runoff = 6.16 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.330 af, Depth= 2.37" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs ' Type II 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Area (ac) CN Description 0.220 99 pavement ' 1.450 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.670 83 Weighted Average 1.450 86.83% Pervious Area ' 0.220 13.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 9.6 110 0.0300 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 1124-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 ©2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 22 Summary for Reach 1R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.290 ac, 20.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.46" for 10 yr event Inflow = 1.07 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.059 of Outflow = 1.06 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.059 af, Atten= 1 %, Lag= 0.7 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity= 3.07 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.0 min Avg. Velocity = 0.96 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 3.2 min Peak Storage= 64 cf @ 12.04 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.45' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 2.52 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 186.0' Slope= 0.00507' Inlet Invert= 974.93', Outlet Invert= 974.00' Summary for Reach 2R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.240 ac, 29.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.55" for 10 yr event Inflow = 0.97 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.051 of Outflow = 0.93 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.051 af, Atten= 4%, Lag= 1.5 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 2.96 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.3 min Avg. Velocity = 0.88 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 7.6 min Peak Storage= 127 cf @ 12.03 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.42' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity-- 2.52 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 404.0' Slope= 0.0050 T Inlet Invert= 976.02', Outlet Invert= 974.00' 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 Summary for Reach 8R: Area to West Inflow Area = 23.200 ac, 25.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.70" for 10 yr event Inflow = 6.78 cfs @ 13.10 hrs, Volume= 3.285 of Outflow = 6.78 cfs @ 13.10 hrs, Volume= 3.285 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Summary for Reach 9R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.420 ac, 4.76% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.29" for 10 yr event Inflow = 1.57 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.080 of Outflow = 1.52 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.080 af, Atten= 4%, Lag= 1.4 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 ' Max. Velocity= 3.36 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.0 min Avg. Velocity = 1.03 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 6.6 min ' Peak Storage= 184 cf @ 12.02 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.56' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity-- 2.52 cfs ' 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 407.0' Slope= 0.0050 T Inlet Invert= 970.541, Outlet Invert= 968.50' Summary for Reach 1 OR: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.500 ac, 12.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.29" for 10 yr event Inflow = 1.78 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.095 of Outflow = 1.74 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.095 af, Atten= 2%, Lag= 1.1 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 3.46 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.5 min Avg. Velocity = 1.10 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 4.7 min Peak Storage= 156 cf @ 12.04 hrs ' Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.61' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity- 2.52 cfs 14-0105 PROPOSED Type H 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" ' Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solubons LLC Pnnp 9a 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 310.0' Slope= 0.0050'P Inlet Invert= 970.05', Outlet Invert= 968.50' Summary for Reach 11R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.600 ac, 16.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.37" for 10 yr event Inflow = 2.10 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.119 of Outflow = 2.09 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.119 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 3.60 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.7 min Avg. Velocity = 1.19 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 2.1 min Peak Storage= 88 cf @ 12.04 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.69' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 2.53 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 151.0' Slope= 0.0050 T Inlet Invert= 969.26', Outlet Invert= 968.50' Summary for Reach 16R: north ditch one Inflow Area = 2.940 ac, 25.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.40" for 10 yr event Inflow = 3.80 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.342 of Outflow = 3.76 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.342 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 1.4 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 2.73 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.8 min Avg. Velocity = 0.96 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.0 min Peak Storage= 400 cf @ 12.22 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.60' Bank -Full Depth= 4.00' Flow Area= 16.0 sf, Capacity-- 101.38 cfs 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 1124-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 25 2.00' x 4.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5'P Top Width= 6.00' Length= 290.0' Slope= 0.0099 T Inlet Invert= 987.22', Outlet Invert= 984.36' Summary for Reach 18R: north ditch 2 ' Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.22" for 10 yr event Inflow 9.51 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 0.968 of Outflow - 9.41 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.968 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 2.0 min ' Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 3.62 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.2 min Avg. Velocity = 1.37 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.9 min Peak Storage= 1,249 cf @ 12.28 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.03' Bank -Full Depth= 4.50' Flow Area= 19.1 sf, Capacity= 131.73 cfs 1 2.00' x 4.50' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5 'P Top Width= 6.50' ' Length= 480.0' Slope= 0.0105 'P Inlet Invert= 983.90', Outlet Invert= 978.88' Summary for Reach 19R: north ditch 3 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.22" for 10 yr event ' Inflow 9.41 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.968 of Outflow 9.41 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.968 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.1 min ' Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 5.66 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.2 min Avg. Velocity = 2.12 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.5 min 1 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 1124-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD RO 10.00 s/n 03113 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 26 Peak Storage= 100 cf @ 12.28 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.71' Bank -Full Depth= 5.00' Flow Area= 22.5 sf, Capacity- 303.44 cfs 2.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5 T Top W idth= 7.00' Length= 60.0' Slope= 0.0363'P Inlet Invert= 978.67', Outlet Invert= 976.49' Summary for Reach 20R: north ditch 4 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.22" for 10 yr event Inflow = 9.41 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.968 of Outflow = 9.28 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.968 af, Atten= 1 %, Lag= 2.1 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 3.76 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.6 min Avg. Velocity = 1.39 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 7.0 min Peak Storage= 1,433 cf @ 12.31 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.07' Bank -Full Depth= 4.00' Flow Area= 12.8 sf, Capacity= 79.20 cfs 2.00' x 4.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.3 T Top Width= 4.40' Length= 580.0' Slope= 0.0118'P Inlet Invert= 977.76', Outlet Invert= 970.94' Summary for Pond 2P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.290 ac, 20.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.46" for 10 yr event Inflow = 1.07 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.059 of Outflow = 1.07 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.059 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Primary = 1.07 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.059 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 27 Peak Elev= 978.14' @ 12.02 hrs Surf.Area= 93 sf Storage= 7 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.1 min calculated for 0.059 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.1 min (819.9 - 819.8 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 978.00' 888 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 978.00 0 0 0 979.00 650 325 325 979.50 1,600 563 888 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 978.00' 23.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=1.07 cfs @ 12.02 hrs HW=978.14' TW=975.38' (Dynamic Tailwater) tl=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.07 cfs @ 1.24 fps) Summary for Pond 3P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.240 ac, 29.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.55" for 10 yr event Inflow = 0.97 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.051 of Outflow = 0.97 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.051 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Primary = 0.97 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.051 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 979.13' @ 12.01 hrs Surf.Area= 159 sf Storage= 11 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.1 min calculated for 0.051 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.1 min (815.2 - 815.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 979.00' 2,888 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 979.00 0 0 0 980.00 1,190 595 595 981.00 3,395 2,293 2,888 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 979.00' 23.0" Horiz Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.96 cfs @ 12.01 hrs HW=979.13' TW=976.43' (Dynamic Tailwater) tl=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 0.96 cfs @ 1.20 fps) 11 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HydroCAD Softw, Type lI 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" ' Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 LLC Pane 28 Summary for Pond 4P: Filtration Basin Inflow Area = 3.890 ac, 30.33% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.32" for 10 yr event Inflow = 11.66 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.751 of Outflow = 1.64 cfs @ 12.58 hrs, Volume= 0.751 af, Atten= 86%, Lag= 31.0 min Primary = 1.64 cfs @ 12.58 hrs, Volume= 0.751 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 975.57' @ 12.58 hrs Surf.Area= 12,515 sf Storage= 15,706 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 459.3 min ( 1,288.4 - 829.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 974.00' 21,783 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 974.00 7,800 0 0 975.50 12,035 14,876 14,876 976.00 15,590 6,906 21,783 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 970.50' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 479.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 970.50' / 968.50' S= 0.0042'f Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 974.00' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #3 Device 1 975.40' 23.0" Horiz Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=1.64 cfs @ 12.58 hrs HW=975.57' TW=970.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) L1=Culvert (Passes 1.64 cfs of 10.66 cfs potential flow) �2=Exfltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.29 cfs) 3=0riflce/Grate (Weir Controls 1.35 cfs @ 1.34 fps) Summary for Pond 5P: Pond in Area P5 Inflow Area = 11.760 ac, 32.82% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.54" for 10 yr event Inflow = 25.20 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2.489 of Outflow = 5.87 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 2.466 af, Atten= 77%, Lag= 29.0 min Primary = 5.87 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 2.466 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 970.00' @ 12.56 hrs Surf.Area= 27,410 sf Storage= 37,017 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 198.2 min calculated for 2.466 of (99% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 185.5 min ( 1,145.7 - 960.2 ) ' 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Printed 2/13/2014 Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 968.50' 101,161 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 968.50 22,500 0 0 969.00 23,675 11,544 11,544 970.00 27,420 25,548 37,091 972.00 36,650 64,070 101,161 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 968.50' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 968.50' / 968.40' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 966.00' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Device 1 971.10' 48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=5.87 cfs @ 12.56 hrs HW=970.00' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) tl=Culvert (Barrel Controls 5.87 cfs @ 4.14 fps) 2=06fice/Grate (Passes 5.87 cfs of 10.41 cfs potential flow) 1 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond 9P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.420 ac, 4.76% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.29" for 10 yr event Inflow = 1.58 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.080 of Outflow = 1.57 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.080 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Primary = 1.57 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.080 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 973.89' @ 12.00 hrs Surf.Area= 179 sf Storage= 17 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.1 min calculated for 0.080 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.1 min ( 823.8 - 823.7 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 973.70' 391 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 973.70 0 0 0 ' 974.00 290 43 43 974.50 1,100 348 391 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 973.70' 23.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=1.57 cfs @ 12.00 hrs HW=973.89' TW=971.09' (Dynamic Tailwater) tl=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.57 cfs @ 1.41 fps) I 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type // 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" ' Printed 2/13/2014 Summary for Pond 10P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.500 ac, 12.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.29" for 10 yr event Inflow = 1.78 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.095 of Outflow = 1.78 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.095 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.3 min Primary = 1.78 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.095 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 973.20' @ 12.02 hrs Surf.Area= 256 sf Storage= 26 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.1 min calculated for 0.095 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.1 min ( 825.1 - 825.0) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 973.00' 635 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 973.00 0 0 0 974.00 1,270 635 635 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 973.00' 23.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=1.78 cfs @ 12.02 hrs HW=973.20' TW=970.65' (Dynamic Tailwater) t11=0rifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.78 cfs @ 1.47 fps) Summary for Pond 11 P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.600 ac, Inflow = 2.11 cfs @ Outflow = 2.10 cfs @ Primary = 2.10 cfs @ 16.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.37" 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.119 of 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.119 af, 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.119 of for 10 yr event Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.3 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 972.53' @ 12.03 hrs Surf.Area= 278 sf Storage= 31 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.1 min calculated for 0.119 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.1 min ( 823.4 - 823.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 972.30' 1,785 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 972.30 0 0 0 974.00 2,100 1,785 1,785 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 972.30' 23.0" Horiz Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads ' 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 11 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.10" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 H_ydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 31 1 Primary OutFlow Max=2.10 cfs @ 12.03 hrs HW=972.52' TW=969.95' (Dynamic Tailwater) ' 't-1=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 2.10 cfs @ 1.55 fps) Summary for Pond 22P: North ditch outlet ' Inflow Area = 11.160 ac, 17.62% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.40" for 10 yr event Inflow = 10.30 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 1.298 of Outflow = 1.71 cfs @ 13.46 hrs, Volume= 0.758 af, Atten= 83%, Lag= 69.5 min ' Primary = 1.71 cfs @ 13.46 hrs, Volume= 0.758 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 ' Peak Elev= 968.97' @ 13.46 hrs Surf.Area= 9,840 sf Storage= 29,190 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 332.6 min calculated for 0.757 of (58% of inflow) tCenter -of -Mass det. time= 199.9 min ( 1,076.0 - 876.1 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 966.00' 63,780 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 966.00 9,840 0 0 969.00 9,840 29,520 29,520 970.00 9,840 9,840 39,360 ' 971.00 12,000 10,920 50,280 972.00 15,000 13,500 63,780 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices ' #1 Primary 968.38' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 60.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 968.38' / 967.78' S= 0.0100 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 1.77 sf ' #2 Primary 970.80' 5.0' long x 15.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.68 2.70 2.70 2.64 2.63 2.64 2.64 2.63 Primary OutFlow Max=1.71 cfs @ 13.46 hrs HW=968.97' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1--Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.71 cfs @ 3.96 fps) L 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type 1124-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" ' Printed 2/13/2014 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Proposed Area P1 Runoff = 8.25 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.539 af, Depth= 4.20" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.200 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.700 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.640 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.540 84 Weighted Average 1.340 87.01 % Pervious Area 0.200 12.99% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope min) (feet) (ft/ft) 14.9 110 0.0100 Description 0.12 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Proposed Area P3 Runoff = 1.59 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af, Depth= 4.30" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.070 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.170 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.240 85 Weighted Average 0.170 70.83% Pervious Area 0.070 29.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 8.9 100 0.0300 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Proposed Area P2 Runoff = 1.78 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.101 af, Depth= 4.20" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 11 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" ' 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, En HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 Area (ac) CN Description Type // 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 ,D Software Solutions LLC Pane 33 0,060 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.230 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.290 84 Weighted Average 0.230 79.31% Pervious Area 0.060 20.69% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) ' 10.6 125 0.0300 0.20 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 4S: Proposed Area P4 Runoff = 16.91 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 1.116 af, Depth= 3.99" ' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" tArea (ac) CN Description 1.050 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.160 77 Woods, Poor, HSG C ' 2.150 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3.360 82 Weighted Average 2.310 68.75% Pervious Area ' 1.050 31.25% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.5 200 0.0300 0.21 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Proposed Area P5 Runoff = 33.09 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2.390 af, Depth= 4.52" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Area ac) CN Description 2.000 98 Paved parking & roofs 3.850 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.500 98 pond 6.350 87 Weighted Average 3.850 60.63% Pervious Area 2.500 39.37% Impervious Area 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 1124-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" , Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 34 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description , (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 15.5 200 0.0300 0.21 Sheet Flow, ' Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 2.3 350 0.0280 2.51 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15 0 fps 17.8 550 Total Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Proposed Area P8 Runoff = 2.09 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.103 af, Depth= 4.41" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.100 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.180 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.280 86 Weighted Average 0.180 64.29% Pervious Area 0.100 35.71% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 5.8 70 0.0429 0.20 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" 0.2 15 0.0100 1.50 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 6.0 85 Total Summary for Subcatchment 9S: Proposed Area P9 Runoff = 2.69 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.140 af, Depth= 3.99" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.020 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.150 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.250 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.420 82 Weighted Average 0.400 95.24% Pervious Area 0.020 4.76% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ' iin (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 8.2 95 0.0330 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" ' ' 14-0105 PROPOSED Type Il 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 35 ' Summary for Subcatchment 10S: Proposed Area P10 ' Runoff = 3.05 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.166 af, Depth= 3.99" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.060 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers ' 0.040 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.400 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.500 82 Weighted Average ' 0.440 88.00% Pervious Area 0.060 12.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope ' (min) (feet) (fUft) 9.6 110 0.0300 ' Runoff = Capacity Description 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 11S: Proposed Area P11 3.56 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.205 af, Depth= 4.09" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.100 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.060 83 Woods, Poor, HSG D 0.440 80 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG D 0.600 83 Weighted Average 0.500 83.33% Pervious Area 0.100 16.67% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 11.0 130 0.0300 0.20 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" Summary for Subcatchment 15S: Area 1 drainage Runoff = 7.98 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.687 af, Depth= 2.81" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 11 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" 14-0105 PROPOSED Type Il 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 36 Area (ac) CN Descriotion 0.440 99 pavement 2.500 65 2 acre lots 12% imp HSG B 2.940 70 Weighted Average 2.200 74.83% Pervious Area 0.740 25.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Description 25.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 17S: Area 2 drainage Runoff = 13.46 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 1.332 af, Depth= 2.44" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Descriotion 0.250 99 pavement 6.300 65 2 acre lots, 12% imp HSG B 6.550 66 Weighted Average 5.544 84.64% Pervious Area 1.006 15.36% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 30.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 23S: FE3 Runoff = 10.40 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.569 af, Depth= 4.09" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Area (ac) CN Descriotion 0.220 99 pavement 1.450 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.670 83 Weighted Average 1.450 86.83% Pervious Area 0.220 13.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 9.6 110 0.0300 0.19 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.80" ' 14-0105 PROPOSED Type 1124-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HvdroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paoe 37 Summary for Reach 1R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.290 ac, 20.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.20" for 100 yr event Inflow 1.78 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.101 of Outflow = 1.77 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.101 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.7 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 3.47 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.9 min Avg. Velocity = 1.08 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 2.9 min Peak Storage= 95 cf @ 12.03 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.62' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity-- 2.52 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 186.0' Slope= 0.0050 T Inlet Invert= 974.93', Outlet Invert= 974.00' Summary for Reach 2R: Piped to Pond ' Inflow Area = 0,240 ac, 29.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.30" for 100 yr event Inflow 1.59 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.086 of Outflow 1.54 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af, Atten= 3%, Lag= 1.4 min ' Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 3.37 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.0 min Avg. Velocity = 1.00 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 6.7 min Peak Storage= 185 cf @ 12.03 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.56' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 2.52 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior ' Length= 404.0' Slope= 0.0050'/' Inlet Invert= 976.02', Outlet Invert= 974.00' 14-0105 PROPOSED Type Il 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 38 Summary for Reach 8R: Area to West Inflow Area = 23.200 ac, 25.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.27" for 100 yr event Inflow = 21.41 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 6.331 of Outflow = 21.41 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 6.331 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Summary for Reach 9R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.420 ac, 4.76% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.99" for 100 yr event Inflow = 2.68 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.140 of Outflow = 2.57 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.140 af, Atten= 4%, Lag= 1.5 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 3.66 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.9 min Avg. Velocity = 1.16 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.8 min Peak Storage= 286 cf @ 12.02 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.84' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 2.52 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 407.0' Slope= 0.0050 T Inlet Invert= 970.54', Outlet Invert= 968.50' Summary for Reach 10R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.500 ac, 12.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.99" for 100 yr event Inflow = 3.04 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.166 of Outflow = 2.72 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.166 af, Atten= 11%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 3.65 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.4 min Avg. Velocity = 1.24 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 4.2 min Peak Storage= 243 cf @ 12.01 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.00' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 2.52 cfs 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, En HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 310.0' Slope= 0.0050'P Inlet Invert= 970.05', Outlet Invert= 968.50' Type 1124-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 ,D Software Solutions LLC Paoe 39 Summary for Reach 11R: Piped to Pond Inflow Area = 0.600 ac, 16.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.09" for 100 yr event Inflow = 3.56 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.205 of Outflow = 2.66 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.205 af, Atten= 25%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 ' Max. Velocity-- 3.67 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.7 min Avg. Velocity = 1.34 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 1.9 min ' Peak Storage= 119 cf @ 11.97 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.00' Bank -Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 2.53 cfs ' 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 151.0' Slope= 0.0050'P Inlet Invert= 969.26', Outlet Invert= 968.50' Summary for Reach 16R: north ditch one Inflow Area = 2.940 ac, 25.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.81" for 100 yr event Inflow = 7.98 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.687 of Outflow = 7.93 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.687 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.9 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 3.38 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.4 min Avg. Velocity = 1.13 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 4.3 min Peak Storage= 680 cf @ 12.21 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.95' Bank -Full Depth= 4.00' Flow Area= 16.0 sf, Capacity-- 101.38 cfs 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2.00' x 4.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5'P Top Width= 6.00' Length= 290.0' Slope= 0.0099'P Inlet Invert= 987.22', Outlet Invert= 984.36' Type 1l 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" ' Printed 2/13/2014 Summary for Reach 18R: north ditch 2 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.55" for 100 yr event Inflow = 21.27 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 2.019 of Outflow = 21.09 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 2.019 af, Atten= 1 %, Lag= 1.4 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 4.46 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.8 min Avg. Velocity = 1.61 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.0 min Peak Storage= 2,271 cf @ 12.26 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.67' Bank -Full Depth= 4.50' Flow Area= 19.1 sf, Capacity-- 131.73 cfs 2.00' x 4.50' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5'P Top Width= 6.50' Length= 480.0' Slope= 0.0105'/' Inlet Invert= 983.90', Outlet Invert= 978.88' Summary for Reach 19R: north ditch 3 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.55" for 100 yr event Inflow = 21.09 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 2.019 of Outflow = 21.09 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 2.019 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.1 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 7.08 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.1 min Avg. Velocity = 2.50 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.4 min 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, En HydroCADO 10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 Type Il 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 Peak Storage= 179 cf @ 12.26 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.16' Bank -Full Depth= 5.00' Flow Area= 22.5 sf, Capacity-- 303.44 cfs 2.00' x 5.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.5'P Top Width= 7.00' Length= 60.0' Slope= 0.0363 T Inlet Invert= 978.67', Outlet Invert= 976.49' Summary for Reach 20R: north ditch 4 Inflow Area = 9.490 ac, 18.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.55" for 100 yr event Inflow = 21.09 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 2.019 of Outflow = 20.88 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 2.019 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 1.8 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Max. Velocity-- 4.60 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.1 min Avg. Velocity = 1.64 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.9 min ' Peak Storage= 2,635 cf @ 12.29 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.79' Bank -Full Depth= 4.00' Flow Area= 12.8 sf, Capacity= 79.20 cfs ' 2.00' x 4.00' deep channel, n= 0.030 Earth, grassed & winding Side Slope Z-value= 0.3 '/' Top Width= 4.40' Length= 580.0' Slope= 0.0118 'P Inlet Invert= 977.76', Outlet Invert= 970.94' Summary for Pond 2P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.290 ac, 20.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.20" for 100 yr event Inflow = 1.78 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.101 of Outflow = 1.78 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.101 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Primary = 1.78 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.101 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 14-0105 PROPOSED by Otto Associates, Engii )10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 H, 71 Type 11 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 D Software Solutions LLC Paae 42 Peak Elev= 978.20' @ 12.02 hrs Surf.Area= 131 sf Storage= 13 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.1 min calculated for 0.101 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.1 min ( 804.7 - 804.6 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 978.00' 888 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 978.00 0 0 0 979.00 650 325 325 979.50 1,600 563 888 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 978.00' 23.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=1.78 cfs @ 12.02 hrs HW=978.20' TW=975.55' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=0rifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.78 cfs @ 1.47 fps) Summary for Pond 3P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.240 ac, 29.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.30" for 100 yr event Inflow = 1.59 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.086 of Outflow = 1.59 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.3 min Primary = 1.59 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.086 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 979.19' @ 12.01 hrs Surf.Area= 222 sf Storage= 21 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.1 min calculated for 0.086 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.1 min ( 800.3 - 800.2 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 979.00' 2,888 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 979.00 0 0 0 980.00 1,190 595 595 981.00 3,395 2,293 2,888 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 979.00' 23.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=1.59 cfs @ 12.01 hrs HW=979.19' TW=976.57' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=0rifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.59 cfs @ 1.41 fps) ' 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, En HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 Type 11 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 ,D Software Solutions LLC Pace 43 Summary for Pond 4P: Filtration Basin Inflow Area = 3.890 ac, 30.33% Impervious, Inflow = 19.98 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume Outflow = 9.31 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume Primary = 9.31 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume Inflow Depth = 4.02" 1.304 of 1.304 af, = 1.304 of for 100 yr event Atten= 53%, Lag= 10.4 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 975.99' @ 12.24 hrs Surf.Area= 15,526 sf Storage= 21,643 cf Plug -Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 304.8 min ( 1,118.1 - 813.4 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 974.00' 21,783 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 974.00 7,800 0 0 975.50 12,035 14,876 14,876 976.00 15,590 6,906 21,783 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 970.50' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 479.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 970.50' / 968.50' S= 0.0042 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 974.00' 1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #3 Device 1 975.40' 23.0" Horiz Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=9.30 cfs @ 12.24 hrs HW=975.99' TW=970.75' (Dynamic Tailwater) t*l�ulvert (Passes#9.30 cfs of 10.34 cfs potential flow) 2xfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.36 cfs) =Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 8.95 cfs @ 2.51 fps) Inflow Area = 11.760 ac, Inflow = 45.48 cfs @ Outflow = 11.27 cfs @ Primary = 11.27 cfs @ Summary for Pond 5P: Pond in Area P5 32.82% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.29" 12.12 hrs, Volume= 4.204 of 12.58 hrs, Volume= 4.180 af, 12.58 hrs, Volume= 4.180 of for 100 yr event Atten= 75%, Lag= 27.8 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 971.08' @ 12.58 hrs Surf.Area= 32,400 sf Storage= 69,364 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 161.0 min calculated for 4.180 of (99% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 152.5 min ( 1,053.8 - 901.4) 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. H_ydroCADO 10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Type II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" ' Printed 2/13/2014 Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 968.50' 101,161 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 968.50 22,500 0 0 969.00 23,675 11,544 11,544 970.00 27,420 25,548 37,091 972.00 36,650 64,070 101,161 _Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 968.50' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 968.50' / 968.40' S= 0.0050 'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 966.00' 18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Device 1 971.10' 48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=11.27 cfs @ 12.58 hrs HW=971.08' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) tl=Culvert (Barrel Controls 11.27 cfs @ 6.38 fps) 2�rifice/Grate (Passes 11.27 cfs of 13.66 cfs potential flow) 1 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond 9P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.420 ac, 4.76% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.99" for 100 yr event Inflow = 2.69 cfs @ 12.00 his, Volume= 0.140 of Outflow = 2.68 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.140 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Primary = 2.68 cfs @ 12.00 his, Volume= 0.140 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 973.96' @ 12.00 hrs Surf.Area= 256 sf Storage= 34 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.1 min calculated for 0.140 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det, time= 0.1 min ( 808.0 - 807.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 973.70' 391 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 973.70 0 0 0 974.00 290 43 43 974.50 1,100 348 391 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 973.70' 23.0" Horiz Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=2.68 cfs @ 12.00 hrs HW=973.96' TW=971.35' (Dynamic Tailwater) tl=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 2.68 cfs @ 1.68 fps) 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, Engineers & Land HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 @ 2012 HvdroCAD Softw Type 1124-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 LLC pans AS Summary for Pond 10P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.500 ac, 12.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.99" for 100 yr event Inflow = 3.05 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.166 of Outflow = 3.04 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.166 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.4 min Primary = 3.04 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.166 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 973.29' @ 12.02 hrs Surf.Area= 366 sf Storage= 53 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.2 min calculated for 0.166 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.2 min ( 809.4 - 809.2 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 973.00' 635 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 973.00 0 0 0 974.00 1,270 635 635 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 973.00' 23.0" Horiz Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=3.04 cfs @ 12.02 hrs HW=973.29' TW=971.05' (Dynamic Tailwater) tl=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 3.04 cfs @ 1.75 fps) Summary for Pond 11P: Ponding at Catch Basin Inflow Area = 0.600 ac, 16.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.09" for 100 yr event Inflow = 3.56 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 0.205 of Outflow = 3.56 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.205 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.4 min Primary = 3.56 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.205 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 972.62' @ 12.03 hrs Surf.Area= 395 sf Storage= 63 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 0.2 min calculated for 0.205 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 0.2 min ( 808.0 - 807.8) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 972.30' 1,785 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic feet) 972.30 0 0 0 974.00 2,100 1,785 1,785 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 972.30' 23.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads I 14-0105 PROPOSED Prepared by Otto Associates, En HdroCAD®10.00 s/n 03113 © 2012 Type 1124-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.00" ' & Land Surveyors, Inc. Printed 2/13/2014 ,D Software Solutions LLC pang 4R Primary OutFlow Max=3.56 cfs @ 12.03 hrs HW=972.62' TW=970.26' (Dynamic Tailwater) t1=0rifice/Grate (Weir Controls 3.56 cfs @ 1.85 fps) Summary for Pond 22P: North ditch outlet Inflow Area = 11.160 ac, 17.62% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.78" for 100 yr event Inflow = 22.69 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 2.589 of Outflow = 10.00 cfs @ 12.77 hrs, Volume= 2.048 af, Atten= 56%, Lag= 29.8 min Primary = 10.00 cfs @ 12.77 hrs, Volume= 2.048 of Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 970.38' @ 12.67 hrs Surf.Area= 10,658 sf Storage= 43,243 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 184.5 min calculated for 2.048 of (79% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 96.0 min ( 952.1 - 856.1 ) Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description #1 966.00' 63,780 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 966.00 9,840 0 0 969.00 9,840 29,520 29,520 970.00 9,840 9,840 39,360 971.00 12,000 10,920 50,280 972.00 15,000 13,500 63,780 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 968.38' 18.0" Round Culvert L= 60.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 968.38' / 967.78' S= 0.0100'P Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, straight & clean, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Primary 970.80' 5.0' long x 15.0' breadth Broad -Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.68 2.70 2.70 2.64 2.63 2.64 2.64 2.63 Primary OutFlow Max=10.00 cfs @ 12.77 hrs HW=970.34' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) �1�ulvert (Barrel Controls 10.00 cfs @ 5.69 fps) 2=13road-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 1 1 F 1 1 1 NOTES- I- Grates to be made in (2) pieces 2. All metal shall be hot —dipped —galvanized Hole see mans 968.4 Hole g° Smooth Bar --I ® 4" o.c. each way Structure Requires (2) - Piece Grate Per Drawing 12"min. — N.W.L. 48"min. See Detail A —A r57"0 O.D. 1 1/4"xl" Flat Steel. (4) 1/2" 0-13 UNC Hex Head Stainless Steel Bolts With Nuts and Washers 1/4" Steel Plate 9"tol2" 971.1 DETAIL A -A 151 100 32 LF fo 18" RCP Sia '0e Monolithically NOTES: Poured Concrete 1. Standard pipe bedding required on both inlet & outlet pipes. 2. Tie last three joints. Use two tie bolt fasteners per joint. REVISED:1 —10 FILE NAME: G: \ENC aff OF g W1911= POND OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE PLATE NO.: 09 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 3109 25' - SPILLWAY ELEV.-971.1 968.0 NOTES: 1. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC OVER ENTIRE SPILLWAY PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF RIPRAP. 2. INSTALL CLASS III RIPRAP ONE FOOT DEEP OVER ENTIRE SPILLWAY 6' CLASS III �.J ' 71.10 (TOP OF RIPRAP) RIPRAP 4' SPILLWAY DETAIL (AT POND BANK) RIPRAP SPILLWAY INSTALL CLASS III RIPRAP ONE FOOT DEEP OVER FILTER FABRIC a RIPRAP SWALE DETAIL uRist. beau'Se Exist. , A'x" house%' Etev, yo se h exist. is� fF EFer 979-t� Fir Eiev. E79.5 1 taa 5W � � 979.29 __m___ t v` g�3f.97 Tnuinn n //A IA jr-IA/A C _.....�. .� Exist. rvu4 v4 vC_ rrn.-%r7 in Exist- ....._.... ...W._ ay� -m"- ._,P.=F7v� house t FF Etex t ( L^-• , I I ( \ 5�6 OJE .��P E7,t5gE� EtP,�t�NE 10 ttAsl PROPERI s -- bit. ro LIN 5 976� 979.0 8 �"p:eisi. fir. OPIw _ Set PK NoN- _. _ - - _ 2e 97775 980 house O rug f " _ .9.5 H 97 F� i 9 ro rfs 0.4 � � 97A0 ca m .`. ----974 FB f \1I TF= 98e.0 TF=9i5 i wo ` 8P 6 j is yg5 LL=97Z4 LC=976.0 LL=974.3A� LLa97 ,o ssy. At0 10 - R0E55�5 s �� F�6� �j• y 5 982 1 Se✓c PG ! 984 Fonk �S_E•r, . SEWER / q5 ,..' .... g• C-900 DRIB WM \ 80,4f Swie9 i P Off i �e g p 4 O ` t. 971.18�19' �qBT, 2.67 98 0 �� • �JA'ca a � 19Y 9Q4�0 sj r ��>9 -`-`r r_8 980.3 _ '� N p � �� w .09 9 � ,,.••.,--- r./ F0 1 3. 0. G`99i` � 1 ,�E110 R. 5 � � � ✓ �,,, f�%� � i (_ ` 98`r$8 0 0y. 9g4 EIV g (� 1� h n (,958.y0' -' f . G(F s91i J(1 of 16' V- U ��gy Ex: � . � F 9 �,. " >9 83 S'g9�� 0 9� 9 98� ., '" G �. � .-� ,mod � �• ` � // ` 00 GO �C7 q 919�6 9 j •' �Z �/ �7/7 1' 977.7 f f� �tSS \ G IV Z7 1000 �` 9 978 , r' ✓0 % 1 f�//� � . RE 1 9 � 10 �\ s L=974. t 73.6 06 CP a (` au 9 le 0 7 '1, 11• n Fx Etev. Vi 0 �n c, � � •V di _ 978.04 ..� �� \\ \95 """T-3 i t'9y1Z� 97 IV 4r 19&5 C7 / 50 von 'f 0) s / J Exist. �, •, }3iC'g. 970,87 ,e.� . �Aq� ��att'tp� / t ttt�. e` e��7 it ,,. LQ u > I exist. I Ohara Exist. ` house' house FF etev, house Exlst. I 33 < = 17 i- etsv. 79. ?4 F Etc s Ff stay hour 9i9.7t 979.2-9 �9.a4 Eiev. j— ra - = r.J .- sanitary manhole ,` X 97.i 7 ._------+;.-�, .„„7 f e#n #n #r"rein "' irn �� I i Rim = 976-f9 n� ►% V � � � 11/v n� X 976..E In v. 96_,,�,9i5 e f 7 V V Exisf. rv#l# v# r�_ rvr-`..%(7 #r-� exist- �. 7 0 house FF Etv. IY gF f stay. f w 978.4t i� = 979.,6 l II F (" £xTst. X977,96 =- I 6t v� I .� x°Q77.A / I gig" t I sanitary manhole 0 } X.974,37 � \ ` Rim = 976.03 x 975.2 . ♦• / 0 1 1 # 914a. '`• �F- % 67 NE & SW !n v. = 958.83 i X 976, i' X 9i6' 4' -`, 979,45 t sonic y m Whole-...` """ - X975t i, "`i S£ Inv-96345 { ` `" x974.64 O .,." �---`..�.,,.�,. ..w.J` ; X978.6.� .+ � 7 . o r �X s 97T��i'g Rim 977.04 - - 7� -'' -9 l � Y i 70 25% 2. t { Inv - 959. 3 ex#s t-2T'Tson. se - " t_ . z== "sc� / ;,7- 4 levee south a bit. rood e _ 269 s _ ti._• -.._ 25. iar� tss �y.� Sh 10• ��,,�„�^'" ,2f.� __ -,. ^., �^exisi. Rr. - r f t- 9 f a ro a 21 south I- Sef PK No# .6 / noose {x �yc rw 6� e�. / s 1p�l�ne ate ray* F �t oPro f a 982. _ f t tr`CX J43 a 7�.0' T..., ...r,.-l`- ,J+.'�_ _ «.. eog a „.s= b y „"' / atkw0y 's \ ..%,.•,.�,-.t``-•Jt...✓Y...�`-- ,✓-�,.°., E's i`ax 1Sz g.47%a, t i �,.�� Xgeo,46 / if z 7 X980,fa JA X 976, 975,36 _ 9� 82 } r a >sz r 6i 9Yi.9 i/ rx 98' �7 ��/� d ✓ 111 154,1 X 979.2 e+. \ w.S X97509 AREAE4= // / \� Y� ( r1 � �` 2s ! l P F r \\ p}P m 1ff c / / t retainirt 975.46 / / �/ ,z6. a_ , 6d'. ' w 7 t to w/ \ I av°.,. w wall 678 _ t ,:a 8&, % 0- / 1 . /F 975.z /r / / t r G �.. "f, 77, 7,3v "`"ynY _ry 3G,y `3 8. - a 8z. i,3 r£ .✓ „''` FW' gI / s75 ?6 �oncre!e 2C#4 ✓� .... � , .. p / X 975.39 w tfs- n c ✓\ / e \ F r` M x shy 29 93 975.t' l ffir y T29 % .32f3�i X 974,51 / 1 ...•_ t \ \ \ 9Fo�� 4 3s f tt 88t7.5jy �1� t r gas / ' / 976, 61 7 ` rz 4 ze� P ..._..._.. l f� Qg C t� . l /conorefe - .2 T %? / / i^'- z-"^,,, 1' r•^ �;'�4 £^�c s 25 r-`� % 96£�.4 i / q�q i i#-' �.� , F, F 1 � L• �- zaz � / •% 2r ear \ � T"� '� � w z26 X 975. l3 'O A __._.. X 7 - ?C 9. / X9T4.38 X97f/T7 i rq \ \ �6` tiff ca4 0286 .52 ,.r is 15, 975 � \ ' p > i pit i X�r4 X f ,�y +..st / 7 •i"` �.-- "[ ¢ as, ��, g \� ~'`'`� �y ,w^,, F." r.�"r / r"� fo GA r r S . ,. X 9XT+s9 t } �` •"wr ,, $ -. ` r"" ri S Wv' c,� X s74.93 040 �, � 76 .510 \\ 97€, � � x977,36 �•✓ :,�--�- —` sr9`dcA�e �\ 2 �i � .97Cx 0.3 977 sanitary mjnhd/e X97,"4 "\� \ > _ \ ✓'''''-✓ G/ \ Rim = 97392 sz. i t2,2 `�, - r�-''� f' 8 s \ �' I t. 6+ ry d'q 976.57 / X9.4 e% a - s-.,»-'-- fit! \ eXtQgpn? r7 \ 7 T 97 Y f#i / \ / nor sanitary manh�'e � �7 / "^.- `"'-- � 7/ Rim--��71.�6 9i2.59s72.:3 < ✓' _g // x 977. X 970,24 / ExistWag- . x it I 9osenent 76 It 0)3 I DRAINA E MAP (1 -60 ) I 41 �r , -- - J OF CHANHA O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 02/20/2014 11: Receipt No. 00 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Lennar 16305 36th Ave Plymouth MN 55 Boulder Cove 3670 Hwy 7 -------------- Subdivision Notification S Variance GIS List Total Cash Credit Cd Change C i\NNFC February 14, 2014 Ms. Sharmeen AI-Jaff Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen MN 55016 Dear Ms. AI-Jaff: LENNAIZ %�' �' OFCyghrlgS.iE �ECEIb'E�i FES 1 4 201 "V0 S%i 1 P&4IIINOI1F"I Lennar Corporation is pleased to submit an application for a Preliminary Plat for the Boulder Cove property at this time. The package consists of the following materials: • Completed and signed Planning Application • Application Fee of $1,684 (to be paid with Lennar Credit Card) • Written Community Narrative • Architecture Brochure & Samples— Landmark Series • Project Plan set (7 full-size sets, 1 set of reductions) containing o Preliminary Plat o Preliminary Utility Plan o Preliminary Grading o Preliminary Street & Storm Sewer Plan o Tree Preservation Plan o Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan The project plans will be sent to you directly from Otto Associates; you will also be receiving the plans digitally. Please contact me with any questions and I look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Paul J. Tabone Land Entitlement Manager Lennar Corporation 16305 36th Ave N • Suite 600 • Plymouth, MN 55446-4270 SCANNED LENNAR.COM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ju��TTuHij��(C`�ntN Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF C11Lll111lIUSLN Mailing Address -P.O. Box : (9 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300 /Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Date FileciA= — 14 60-Day Review Deadline: `� - I �- I Planner: SAS Case #vAo14-09 Section•• - • • (check all that apply) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ......................... $600 ❑ Subdivision ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on -site sewers ..... $100 ❑ 0 Create 3 lots or less ....................................... Create over 3 lots ......... $300 .`...O6 .$600 + $15 per lot ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Metes & Bounds .........................$300 + $50 per lot ❑ Single -Family Residence ................................ $325 ❑ Consolidate Lots .............................................. $150 ❑ All Others......................................................... $425 ❑ Lot Line Adjustment......................................... $150 ❑ Final Plat' ......... ............................................... $250 ❑ Interim Use Permit 'Requires additional $450 escrow for attorney costs. ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence.. $325 Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. ❑ All Others......................................................... $425 ❑ Grading z 1,000 cubic yards ........................... UBC ❑ Rezoning ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100 ❑ All Others......................................................... $500 ❑ Sign Plan Review ................................................... $150 ❑ Site Plan Review ❑ Administrative.................................................. $100 ❑ Commercial/industrial Districts* ...................... $500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area Include number of existing employees: and number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts ......................................... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit ADDITIONAL REQUIRED FEES: Notification Sign ................................................... $200 (City to install and remove) X-I S = -2-tct Property Owners' List within 500......... $3 per address (City to generate - fee determined at pre -application meeting) ❑ Escrow for Recording Documents.. $50 per document (CUP/SPRNACNARM/AP/Metes & Bounds Subdivision) Project Name: Boulder Cove ❑ Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way................... $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) ❑� Variance............................................................... $200 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Single -Family Residence ............................... $150 ❑ All Others ....................................................... $275 ❑ Zoning Appeal ...................................................... $100 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment ............................ $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. (Refer to the appropnate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) TOTAL FEES: $ 25q(6 Received from: Date Received: Check Number: Section 2: Required Information Property Address or Location: 3670 HWY 7 Parcel #: 250050600 & 250050510 Legal Description: Please see on preliminary plat Total Acreage: 13.38 Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes ® No Present Zoning: RLM- Residential Low & Medium Density Requested Zoning: RLM - Residential Low & Medium Density Present Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Requested Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Existing Use of Property: Currently vacant land Description of Proposal: Please see Community Narrative ❑� Check box if separate narrative is attached K31 SCANNEC 3CANNED Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Lennar Corporation Contact: Joe Jablonski or Paul Tabone Address: 16305 36th Avenue No. Suite 600 Phone: (952) 249-3000 City/State/Zip: Plymouth, MN 55446 Cell: Email: joe.jablonski@lennar.com; paul.tabone@lennar.com Fax: Signature: Date: 2/14/14 PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Premier Bank Contact: Andrew Nath Address: 2866 White Bear Ave N Phone: (651) 855-1114 City/State/Zip: St Paul, MN 55109 Cell: Email: anath@premierbanks.com Fax: Signature: Date: 2/14/14 This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Otto Associates Contact: Cara Otto Address: 9 West Division Street Phone: (763) 452-7291 City/State/Zip: Buffalo, MN Cell: Email: Cara@ottoassociates.com Fax: (763) 682-3522 Section 4: Notification Who should receive copies of staff reports? Information *Other Contact Information: 0 Property Owner Via:❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name: ❑� Applicant Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address: ❑ Engineer Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: ❑ Other' Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email: SCANNEr, %I "' OFC-IAhrKS,-&' RECFI%,E!) Boulder Cove Community Narrative FEB 14 2013 Chanhassen, MN I. Location The Boulder Cove property (site) is located in the City of Chanhassen, MN along Highway 7 (HWY 7) between Church Road and Shorewood Oaks Drive. West 62nd street is located to the north of the site. Refer to the location map below. II. Context The Boulder Cove site is currently vacant. The property was used for agricultural purposes until the late 1990s and was later occupied by a landscaping company until approximately late 2006 or early 2007. Old equipment, dilapidated structures, and debris such as chunks of concrete, asphalt, scrap metal and wood have been left on -site. Single family homes border the subject property to the north. HWY 7 and single family homes border the site to the south, and single family homes also border the site to the east and west. The property that borders the site to the north is located in Shorewood, MN and contains Single Family residences. The zoning classification for the Boulder Cove property is RLM-Residential Low and Medium Density with a Comprehensive Plan land 1 SCANNED use of Residential Low Density. Properties to the south, east and west are zoned RSF-Single Family Residential with Comprehensive Plan Land Uses of Residential Low Density. III. Development Description General Overview Lennar is pleased to submit an application for subdivision of the Boulder Cove site into 31 single-family lots with a proposed landscaped buffer along the northern and southern edges to provide visual and noise reduction screening. It is Lennars intent to clean up waste that has been left behind prior to beginning construction of single family homes. Outlot A includes a tot lot while preserving a large specimen oak tree located in the southwestern portion of the site. Outlots B and C provide seasonal drainage areas. Phasing is to be done in one stage, as shown on the proposed preliminary plat. Access & Traffic Access to the Boulder Cove neighborhood will be provided through a paved local street that terminates in a cul-de-sac. The proposed local street extends from West 62nd Street, the community's northern border. The proposed local road ends in a cul-de-sac and the roadway itself exceeds the City's standard length of 800' for a cul-de-sac. A variance is being requested for the length of the local road and is explained in more detail below. According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9t6 Edition, a single-family home produces approximately 9.52 vehicular trips per day. The proposed Boulder Cove Neighborhood would produce approximately 295 additional vehicular trips, which is less than the 371 daily vehicular trips that would have been produced by the previously -approved 39-lot subdivision. Open Space Lennar recognizes the importance of integrated open space planning. Open space is provided for functional and passive use. Three outlots totaling 3.20 acres are proposed, constituting approximately 24% of the site. Outlot A contains a tot lot or pocket park for use by residents. Outlots B and C provide seasonal drainage basins and landscaped amenities with visual appeal. Landscaped buffers are provided along West 62nd Street and HWY 7 to provide visual and noise reduction screening from the residences to the north and the highway to the south. Sewer & Water Service Boulder Cove is located in the MW-1 sub -district of the Minnewashta Sewer District. Existing infrastructure includes the MCES Shorewood Interceptor that runs adjacent to the property within HWY 7. City Sanitary Sewer lines are located along the northern side of the site within West 62nd Avenue. It is anticipated that the proposed community will tie into and be served by the existing sewer and water system infrastructure in the area. 2 IV. Design Review Lennar prides itself on our home designs. With five series of homes, and 6 to 14 models and floor plans in each series, coupled with hundreds of exterior and interior options, each home feels custom -designed by the owner while still meeting local requirements for setbacks, architectural colors and materials, and landscaping and ,; r hardscape elements within the community. Lennar has successfully constructed several communities within the City of Chanhassen. Among these communities are Pinehurst, Camden Ridge, and Reflections. The vision for Boulder Cove would include similar architectural styling and exterior treatment to Reflections. Lennar's Landmark Series is anticipated for the Boulder Cove neighborhood. This series consists of 13 floor plans with typically 4 bedrooms, 2 to 4 bathrooms, and 3 car garages. Anticipated price points would be in the low to mid $400,000 range. of our house plans are included in this submittal. will be available to consumers. V. Land Use & Conformance Analysis Comprehensive Plan Colors consist of warm earth tones like greys, beiges and browns, or neat, clean solids, such as reds or whites. High quality materials will be used on the exteriors. The materials may consist of a variety of stone, brick, or wood composites. These composites allow for a natural looking finish while providing maximum durability to withstand the elements over the life of the home. Some of the architectural accents included are porch pilasters, accented shutters and fascia boards, soffit eaves, decorative brackets, accented trim, and dormers. Samples Please note this sampling does not constitute all plans that The Comprehensive Plan Designation of the Boulder Cove Site is Residential Low Density, which consists of low -density, single-family detached housing. Page 2-3 of the Comprehensive Plan states that net densities within this category range from 1.2 to 4.0 du/ac. There are several zoning applications within the low density category including RSF, R-4, RLM, and PUD-R. The proposed site plan has a net density of 3.05 du/ac, which implements the Comprehensive Plan density for this land use designation. The Comprehensive Plan also lists goals and policies regarding new development within Chanhassen. The goals and policies directly implemented by the proposed community are discussed below. Chapter 2 — Land Use Goal: Achieve a mixture of development which will assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base 3 Policy: Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single-family neighborhoods while promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods of similar beauty. Implementation: The proposed Boulder Cove neighborhood will directly implement this Land Use Goal. The density of 3.05 du/ac implements the density designated in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. Prior to construction of homes, the site would be improved and the existing structures removed, cleaning up a trespass problem. Vegetated buffers along the northern and southern sides of the community would promote the establishment of this new neighborhood while utilizing an infill parcel within the City that is well -placed between various lake communities. Chapter 4 — Housing Goal: Provide housing opportunities for all residents, consistent with the identified community goals: • Accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental, and location of housing within the community. • A variety of housing types for all people in all stages of the life cycle • A community of well -maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing • Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs Implementation: Boulder Cove will directly implement the housing goals listed above. Homes will be available to all persons for purchase regardless of racial or ethnic background. With a $400k price point, the anticipated homes will target the first-time move -up buyer in a community adjacent to Lake Minnetonka, Lake Virigina, and Lake Minnewashta. Homes will be located within the Minnetonka School District. A Homeowners Association will be created to maintain the open space areas to ensure that the integrity of the community is maintained. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy, the proposed layout and lot configuration respects the natural environment of the community and does not encroach into natural resources or physical features. This has been achieved through the provision of several outlots that provide drainage basin spaces and some passive open space for use by residents within the neighborhood. A large specimen oak tree is also being preserved. Prior to constructing the proposed neighborhood, all existing structures will be removed, resulting in an environmental improvement on -site. The Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan specifically states on page 4-3 that the largest household type in the City is a family household — a married couple with children. The desire for family households is driving the demand for the detached single-family homes in Chanhassen. Based on the City's location in eastern Carver County and access to employment centers, family housing will continue to have a strong demand. Furthermore, page 4-6 states that over half of the City's Housing stock is more than 20 years old. Page 4-10 notes that the City has less than 1,000 acres of residential land left for development. It is anticipated that the majority of the residential land will be developed by 2020, and the growth between 2020 and 2030 will be infill rd development. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that there is demand for for -sale housing within the City of Chanhassen that will remain through 2030. As an infill lot, the community has been planned to establish a new neighborhood while taking design site constraints into consideration. The Boulder Cove neighborhood adds 31 more single-family detached homes to the City of Chanhassen on an infill property that is currently littered with trash, debris, old equipment, and dilapidated structures. Prior to construction of homes, the property would be cleaned, resulting in a visually appealing neighborhood in this area of Chanhassnen. It is the City's goal to provide a variety of housing types while promoting the integration of life -cycle housing opportunities throughout the community. Lennar would like to introduce our NextGen Series to the City of Chanhassen. This revolutionary series is a multi -generational home plan designed specifically to accommodate two adult generations living under one roof with privacy and convenience. This new home allows for a separate first floor living space that includes its own entrance, living area, kitchenette, attached laundry, and garage. It is not a detached guesthouse or simply an extra bedroom, but a separate space to be locked from the main house, or to offer easy access depending on family needs. This could include care for elderly family members, care for children with disabilities, or visiting family members such as college students or guests traveling from abroad. The result is a 5 bedroom, 5 bathroom home that creatively satisfies a variety of housing needs while fitting with the architectural styling and development regulations of the neighborhood. Chapter 6 — Parks and Open Space Goal: Provide a balanced park system which includes neighborhood parks, community parks, special use facilities, preserve areas, regional facilities and schools. Goal: Create a city-wide trail and sidewalk system that connects neighborhoods to parks, schools, and other community destinations. Implementation: The proposed site plan for Boulder Cove will directly implement the goal above. Three outlots are proposed within the neighborhood, totaling 3.20 acres in seasonal drainage basins and passive open space while preserving a specimen oak tree. Outlot A includes a tot lot/playground area in the southwest corner of the site, and outlots B and C provide seasonal drainage. Although the open space and drainage areas may not be counted by the City as open space, the proposed 3.20 acres of open space constitutes 24% of land that makes up the community. The proposed open spaces preserve existing vegetation, protect natural resources and provide residents with access to existing natural areas close to home, all while maintaining buffers between existing neighborhoods. A sidewalk is also provided along Strawberry Court which facilitates pedestrian access up to 62"d Street West. Chapter 7 — Transportation Goal: To create an integrated multi -modal transportation system which permits safe, efficient and effective movement of people and goods while supporting the City's development plans, and complementing the metropolitan transportation system that lies within its boundaries. 6i Roadway Policy 2: New roadway facilities should be constructed in conjunction with new developments and designed according to the intended function. They should be planned and designed to be compatible with the surrounding environment. Roadway Policy 4: Residential street systems should be designed to discourage cut-thru traffic, to promote the connection of neighborhoods, and to be compatible with other transportation modes including transit, bicycle and walking. Subdivisions: As a part of platting, each development should provide dedication and improvement of public streets consistent with the standards found in city ordinances. The city will promote the provision of street and pedestrian connections to maximize safety and ease of access. Buffers: Sufficient setbacks and/or berming should be designed into all development projects adjacent to major public roadways. Neighborhoods: It is the City's policy to require interconnections between neighborhoods through the construction of local streets to foster a sense of community, to improve safety, and to provide convenient access for residents Implementation: The proposed neighborhood at Boulder Cove will directly implement the transportation goal and policies above. A local road is proposed for access connecting to 62nd Street to the north. The local road is designed to meet City requirements, resulting in safe, efficient, and effective access and mobility for future residents. Because it is designed to meet City requirements, it is compatible with the existing roadway network in the area. The proposed local street terminates in a cul-de-sac, serving only the homes at Boulder Cove. Boulder Cove will eliminate 2 existing connections to HWY 7. It will also result in 8 less units from the previous approval resulting in 76 fewer daily vehicular trips than the 39-lot subdivision that was previously approved. The local street also includes a sidewalk for pedestrian access throughout the neighborhood. Buffers are located on the northern and southern sides of the community to provide privacy. Homes on the south side of the community are also located closer towards the front of the lots along Strawberry Court to allow for a larger rear setback and buffer area backing up to HWY 7. A 6-foot privacy fence will also be installed along HWY 7. Zoning The Boulder Cove site has a zoning classification of RLM (Residential Low and Medium Density). The intent of the "RLM" District is to provide for single-family attached or detached residential development on land guided residential —low or medium density in the city's comprehensive plan with a maximum net density of eight units per acre. Compliance with development regulations for single family residences within the RLM Zone are shown below: 2 Requirements and Setbacks BoulderLot - Zoning .. Section 20-645 Compliance Minimum lot area : 9000 sf H Minimum lot frontage: 50 feet H Minimum lot depth: 110 sf H Maximum lot coverage: 35% H Setbacks: Front Yards: 25 feet - Rear Yards: 25 feet H - Side yards: 5 feet garage side; 10 feet house side - Minimum separation between structures: 15 feet Maximum Height: 35 feet H The proposed subdivision map for the Boulder Cove site implements these development regulations. All lots exceed the 9,000 square foot minimum lot size, and 65-foot lots are proposed. All lots are deeper than 110 square feet and impervious site coverage is below the 35% maximum. A spreadsheet is included with this submittal package. Proposed building areas meet all required setbacks and proposed homes are 2-stories, which is beneath the 35-foot height limit. Variance A variance is being requested to allow for a road longer than 800' because the site is constrained due to shape, size, and proximity to a major highway. Pursuant to City Code Section 20-58, the request for a variance complies with the findings in the following ways: • The variance would allow for development consistent with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. • The site is constrained; practical difficulties include access, soils that make development challenging, shallow groundwater depths, and the overall size and shape of the site. • The requested variation is not based on economic considerations alone; the variance for the proposed access road is due to the fact that that Minnesota Department of Transportation will not approve an access point on to a highway (HWY 7). Boulder Cove also eliminates two existing connections onto HWY 7. • The constraints of the site are not due to circumstances beyond owner control, nor were the constraints created by the current land owner. • The variance, if granted, will not alter the character of the locality; it would allow for a neighborhood on an infill piece of property and the property that will be cleaned prior to construction of proposed homes. VI. Summary Lennar has historically worked successfully with Chanhassen City staff to deliver several notable communities within the City. We look forward to working closely with City staff on this opportunity and eliminating blighted land while establishing another community that both the City of Chanhassen and Lennar can be proud of. 7 OF EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED HOMES BYLENNAR' A better way to build a home with the highest standard of quality. A better way to save money and the environment. A better way to control your home and have peace of mind. Now imagine a home that does it all. A home that takes everything to a new level of quality, energy efficiency, technology and simplicity. Home Automation Included Energy -Efficient Appliances Included • Luxury Features Included Lindbergh ti A 6 i AiL x L' i-A 4 0 F LENNAIT 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 • 952-249-3000 The Lindbergh 2 Bedrooms 2 Baths � ;tt 1,902 Sq. Ft. Total el - EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED HOMES LENNAR.COM Mars and elevations are artist's ran anngs and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennarreserves the right to make charges to these Floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should net be used as representation of the home's precise or actual sae. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding "under we or 'Washed area' or any other description or modifier of the square footage we of any homes a sMMand description of the maser in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright O 2012 Lennar Corporation. I.ennararW the Lennarkgoare registered service marks of Lemrar Corporation andfor its subsidiaries Q MN Bid, ❑c# BC001413 3112 9-� The Bristol 8 LENNAR' 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 The Bristol 4 Bedrooms 4 Baths 3,836 Sq. FtJotal • 121 IV IRTTH IN O'S INCLUDED NOM 15 LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are amst's rendedrgs and may contain spoons. which are rat standard on all models. Leerrvv reserves the rght to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, amens""% arW elevations wrhora pnor notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are ap hnraoale and should not be used as representation of the hone'S precise or actual sizefuy statement, verbal or writer, regarding `under air" or "hniehed &W or any other dewnphon or modifier of the square footage we of any home Is a shorthand descnphon of the marsler In which the square fai was esnrnated and should rot bo canstaied to rndoate certanty. Copyright U120121 enrar Cogombon. Lnnnarmtdthe L.onrarogoare registered service mxM1s of Lerrw Corporal ands his subsgranas. 7 Ri f MN Bid,. LOA 8=4133112 8/13 t:-i-1i,d The Pillsbury i �� s�ll�.a , ' L 1 1 ILIA LENNAM 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 The Pillsbury 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,230 Sq. Ft. Total /1 EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED H O M E S LENNAR.COM plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should net be used as representation of the home's precise or actual s". Any statement, verbal or written, regarding "under air' or "finished area" or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner In which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright R 2012 Lennar Corporation. Lennarand the Lennarlogo are registered service marks of Lon C &ration aB000t41eu6sidiuur: 7 = E The Sinclair y LENNAIT 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 The Sinclair 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,469 Sq. FtJotal • el. EVE R Y T N I N G' S INCLUDED HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contan options, which are not standard on all models. Lerner reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding "under we' or 'finished area' or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of do manner In which the square footage was .mimated eid should not be construed to '/ The Sinclair II i C Z��® i IJ ii iS .. �.utr--C / LENNAIZ 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 The Sinclair II 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,564 Sq. Ft. Total • e2 EV ERTTX TO INCLUDED HOMES LENNAR.COM Putts and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these Floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations witiwut prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding "under aii or "finished area" or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any horse is a shorthand description of the manner In which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright ® 2012 Lerner Corporation. Lelnarandthe Lennar logoare registered service marks of Canner Corporation and/or as subsldiades. MN Bldr. Lich BCDO1413 3112 The St. Croix 0 i III ii A t Ica rL U L LIE d C LENNAM 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 B The St. Croix 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,719 Sq. Ft. Total EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED HOMES LEMMAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding "under air' or "finished area" w any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner In which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright 4 2012 Lennar Corporation. Lennarandthe Lennar logoara registered service marks of Lennar^ Corporation and/or Its subsidiaries. 7 = f MN Mr. Lick B=1413 3r12 61A .W s,T,e w The St. Croix II A I' iu ;;� Xb O MI L M 9 C LENNAM 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 The St. Croix II 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,806 Sq. FtTotal • ¢2 EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. My statement, verbal or written, regarding "under air' or "finished area" or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright ® 2012 Lennar Corporation. LennarandtheLennarlogo are registered service marks of Lerner^ Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. u MN Bldr. Lich BOD01413 Y12 6A W The Taylor LENNAIT 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 The Taylor 4 Bedrooms 3 Baths 2,660 Sq. Ft.Total • e2 EVE RYTH I NO'S INCLUDED HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings � I and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the fight to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevators without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and slrould not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding 'under air' or 'Twished area" or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner In which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright C 2012 Lamar Corporation. Lennarand the Lennar logo are registered service marks of Leumar^ Corporation andror its su=anes 1 = f MN Bldr. Uc# B0001413 3112 W&M The Kellogg Z7: Ni LMB Lr C =� 1 LENNAM 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 • 952-249-3000 The Kellogg 4 Bedrooms 4 Baths 3,112 Sq. Ft. Total • ¢2 EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED' HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain optkms, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the hcme's precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding "under air' a "finished area" or any other description or modifier of the square footage slze of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to Indicate certainty. Copyright Cr) 2012 Lennar Corporation. LennarandtheLennarlogoam registered service marks of Lennar ^ Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. to MN Bldr. tJc# BCOD1413 3/12 A, The Washburn LL Imo^ 1 tj , �t i w LENNAR' 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 • 952-249-3000 The Washburn L 4 Bedrooms 4 Baths 3,328 Sq. FtJotal • ¢2 EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lerner reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Staled dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used a5 representation of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding "under air" or "finished area" or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner In which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to Indicate certainty. Copyright ® 2012 Lennar Corporation. Lennarandthe Lennarlogoare registered service marks of Leruar po Corration andfor its subsidiaries. la MN Bldr. Lic® BODD1413 3112 The Snelling I L." ? I C F S C LENNAIT 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 The Snelling 1 4 Bedrooms 4 Baths 3,270 Sq. Ft. Total E V ERYTH ING'S INCLUDED HOMES LENNAR.COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lennar reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding 'under air" or "finished area" or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shortharM description of the manner In which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to Indicate certainty. Copyright ® 2012 Lennar Corporation. Lennarandthe Lennarlogoare registered service marks of Lennar Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. Q MN Bldr. tic# BC001413 3112 Am 01/2013 i i NEXTGEN'" THE HOME WITHIN A HOME" Independence z, ti18" -OW ,® - �,��. tea'.• s: , r NEXT G E N" THE HOME WITHIN A HOME' LENNAIT 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 The Independence 5 Bedrooms 5 Baths 2 Stories 3,200 Sq. Ft. EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED H O M E S LENNAR_COM Plans and elevations am artist's renderings and may contain options, which are not standard on all models. Lonna reserves the right to make changes to these floor plans, specifications, dimensions and elevations without prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home's precise or actual size. Any statement, verbal or written, regarding 'under air' or "finished amm' or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner In which the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to indicate certainty. Copyright ® 2012 Lennar service marks of Lennar^ n and/or its subsidiaries. I.1 icp SCl10t4133/12 AM ., NEXT G EN THE HOME WITHIN A HOME The Genesis 5 Bedrooms 5 Baths 2 Stories 4,296 Sq. Ft. E V ERYTN I NO'S INCLUDED NOM ES LENNAR"COM Plans and elevations are arbst'S rendenngs and may contain options, which are not standard on all models, Lunn Hermes the night to make charges to these floor plans, Specil'KEtgns, *n-co bns and elevators without pner notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the homes precise or actual size. Any statement. verbal or written, regarding "under at" or "finished area" or any other desIXlptlen or modifier of tie square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in which the square tentage was estimated and should not be construed to kWrate certainty. Copyright ® 2012 Lerner Corporation. Lennarand the Lennarlogo are registered serves marks of Lerver Corporation and/or its subsidiaries. Q MN Mr. Uc# BOW413 Y12 NEXT G E N" THE HOME WITHIN A HOME- i NEXTGEN, THE HOME WITHIN A HOME' Genesis h B i R' -_ NEXTGEN" THE HOME WITHIN A HOME" LENNAIZ 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 i NEXTGEN THE HOME WITHIN A HOME" Evolution B ..fir,, s , •'Y �r I w mr,ft_ NEXT G E N" THE HOME WITHIN A HOME- LENNAM 16305 36th Avenue N., Suite 600, Plymouth, MN 55446 952-249-3000 NEXTGEN` THE HOME WITHIN A HOME" The Evolution 2 Bedrooms 1 Stories 2,498 Sq. Ft. EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED HOMES LENNAR_COM Plans and elevations are artist's renderings and may contain options, which are net slandard on all mtdeis. Lerner reserves the right to make changes to these floe plan% specilicatons, d rnensons and elevalons wNwut prior notice. Stated dimensions and square footage are approximate and should not be used as representation of the home'S precise or actual size Any statement. verbal or winter, regarding 'under air' or 'finished area' or any other description or modifier of the square footage size of any home is a shorthand description of the manner in wruch the square footage was estimated and should not be construed to Indicate certainty. Copynght 0 20121.ennar Corporation. Lonnarard the Lennar logo are registered servre marks of Lerman^ Corppaeon and/or its subsidiaries. u MN BUT. jc# BC001413 3112 p3,,:,• E�w Wi ji- NEXTGEN- THE HOME WITHIN A HOME- AAinIi%Ir-IA/A^I ITA IVI11 VI VL"_ vvn.:T7 1n Exist. house 598.20 deed 596.40 m 1J`J`�1 m r, 3 \ T � N N o ££ 931 \ d N 6 \ /v/ East line of CHURCH ROAD SECOND ADD17ION do R.L.S. NO, 15 i i 9 8• 5 0 / Cl C z �'l m -...-..-•d¢ed & moos \ � deed d: moos \� 8948•0' deed & moos \ 7830'0"`/ /B m \ �'•,� 00 dead / UN ✓J / 1 r�r�.9 / 11 To U.S. Home Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and North American Title Company. This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in / accordance with the 2011 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land Title / Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(a), 7(o), 8, 11(a), 16, and 18 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on November 10, 2011. Date of,40p.. Paul E. Otto, Land Surveyor (paul@bttoossociates.com) Minnesota License No. 40062 Exist�st. Exi �_._. .I .,_. house lA IT\/ vVVI V l l Carver Count Cost Iron Monument at the N. 114 corner of Sec5, 116, y,R. 23, Car T. Carver County, Mn. a,.e / f n, LINE A Ink 6� Tank A-158 Septic C BRO R-60.1 L- 165. Chd- 11 i Mound • 7 2k. 00d 00 r / i r^ �J LOCH TION MAP /AInT Tn Ci-A l r-1 W. 62ND ST �Q r� 1Z I Title fence 2f sou of line N.6" riser th\ /,�realina �> t � �\ N8917'04NE 1025.67 0J� e+\9t99 ar .k F AIL O > � � o z PROPERTY SI TE tell' 1 Y4 Viek�xoat 00. ,Alt 4-kl y902 d 5 �� Poof 0�oea Per rN by LAKE M/NNEWASHTA N Survey 60 0 Obi •/ ")Cale: I = dU 120 180 r ,EC � El- : a M(. N SUGGESTED REVISED PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: i at 0t - StP / That part of the following described parcel lying Easterly of R.L.S. No. 15, according to the / `e^terU�e / Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. / All that part of Section 5, Township 116 North, Range 23 West described as follows, to wit: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township / 117 North, Range 23 West, thence Easterly along the North line of said Section 5, EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1: That part of the following described property. Ali that part of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a judicial landmark on the north line of said Section 5, a distance of 478.5 feet East of the South Quarter Corner of Section 32, Township 117 North of Range 23 West; thence East along the north line of said Section 5 to the Northwesterly line of the right-of-way of State Trunk Highway No. 7 which right-of-way is set forth and described in Case No. 9902 on file in the office of the Clerk of District Court, Carver County, Minnesota, • thence - e ce Southwesterly along said right-of-way to its intersection with a line drawn through the point of beginning and forming an interior angle of 90 degrees 35 minutes with the north line of said Section 5; thence North to beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Carver County, Minnesota. That lies Westerly of Line A described as follows: Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 5; thence North 89 degrees 17 minutes 13 seconds East, along the North line of the North Half of Section 5, a distance of 201.07 feet to the point of beginning of said Line A; thence South 05 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 154.51 feet; thence 165.71 feet Southerly on a non -tangential curve, concave Westerly, having a radius of 60.00 feet, a center angle of 158 degrees 14 minutes 39 seconds, a chord bearing of South 03 degrees 48 minutes 07 seconds West, and a chord distance of 117,84 feet, thence South 30 degrees 22 minutes 28 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 24.59 feet to the Northerly right- of-way of said Minnesota State Highway No. 7 and said Line A there terminating. Parcel 2. All that part of Section 5, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows, to wit: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West, thence easterly along the North line of said Section 5, Township 116, Range 23 a distance of 478.5 feet; thence south 585.2 feet; thence South 62 degrees West, 687.5 feet; thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes West, 196.6 feet; thence South 73 degrees 18 minutes West, 198.5 feet; thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes West, 795.8 feet to the North line of said Section 5; thence Easterly along said North line of said Section 5 a distance of 598.2 feet to the point of beginning, the East line of said property above described runs in a North and South direction. Excepting from above the following described parcel of land: That part of Section 5, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence Easterly along the North line of said Section 5 a distance of 478.5 feet; thence south a distance of 585.2 feet; thence South 62 degrees West a distance of 445.5 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing South 62 degrees West a distance of 242.0 feet; thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes West a distance of 196.6 feet; thence South 73 degrees 18 minutes West 198.5 feet, thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes West a distance of 795.8 feet to the North line of said section; thence East along the said North line of said section a distance of 313.7 feet to a point 284.5 feet West of the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, - thence South 25 degrees 12 minutes East 868.1 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting from above the following described parcel of land: All that part of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows, to wit: Commencing at a point which is determined as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, thence Easterly along the North line of said Section 5, Township 116, Range 23 a distance of 478.5 feet, thence South 585.2 feet, thence South 62 degrees West 687.5 feet, thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes West 196.6 feet, to a point of beginning of land to be described; thence South 73 degrees 18 minutes West 198.5 feet, thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes West 219.45 feet, thence Northeasterly 198.5 feet along a line parallel with the Southerly line of the tract conveyed herein, thence Southeasterly 219.45 feet along a line parallel to the Westerly line of the tract conveyed herein to point of beginning. Township 116, Range 23, a distance of 478.50 feet, thence South 585.20 feet; thence South 62 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 687.50 feet; thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West 195.60 feet; thence South 73 degrees 18 minutes 00 seconds West 198.50 feet; thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes 00 seconds West 795.80 feet to the North line of said Section 5, thence Easterly along said North line of said Section 5, a distance of 598.20 feet to point of beginning, the East line of said property above described runs in a North and South direction. AND That part of the following described parcel lying Westerly of Line A: All that part of Section 5, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, described as follows: Beginning at a judicial landmark on the North line of said Section 5, a distance of 478.50 feet East of the South Quarter Corner of Section 32, Township 117 North of Range 23 West; thence East along the North line of said Section 5 to the Northwesterly line of the right-of-way of State Trunk Highway No. 7 which right-of-way is set forth and described in Case No. 9902 on file in the office of the Clerk of District Court, Carver County, Minnesota; thence Southwesterly along said right-of-way to its intersection with a line drawn through the point of beginning and forming an interior angle of 90 degrees 35 minutes 00 seconds with the North line of said Section 5; thence North to beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Carver County, Minnesota. Line A is described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 17 minutes 04 seconds East, along the south line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 885.18 feet to the point of beginning of said Line A; thence South 05 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 154.44 feet; thence 165.71 feet Southerly on a non -tangential curve, concave Westerly, having a central angle of 158 degrees 14 minutes 39 seconds a radius of 60.00 feet, a chord bearing of South 03 degrees 48 minutes 07 seconds West and a chord distance of 11784 feet; thence South 30 degrees 22 minutes 28 seconds East to the Northwesterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 7 and said Line A there terminating. According to North American Title Insurance Company Commitment Number 40852-11-07596, dated October 28, 2011 at 8:00 AM, this property is subject to: A) Lis Pendens by the State of Minnesota for trunk highway purposes and rights incidental thereto, as set forth in Document dated August 28, 1952, filed August 30, 1952, as Document No. 4396; and by Final Certificate dated June 1, 1956, filed March 6, 1957, as Document No. 5992. Note: The above includes rights to erect temporary snow fences on lands adjacent thereto and includes restrictions on access. SURVEYORS NOTES: 1) The existing property descriptions are ambiguous and conflicting. i have written a suggested revised property description to correct these problems. An attorney should be contacted to discuss this. 2) The address of the property is 3670 Highway 7, Excelsior, MN 55331. 3) According to FEMA this property is located in Zone C. 4) Current zoning classification is RLM (Residential Low and Medium Density District). 5) There is no visible evidence of current earth moving work, building construction or additions. 6) There is no visible evidence of the site being used as a solid waste dump, sump, or sanitary landfill. There is on area of building debris from a demolished shed as noted on the pictorial portion of this survey. 7) This property has multiple piles of rocks, landscape supplies, and spoil piles on it. It appears it was used as a landscape contractors yard. 8) The second exception for Parcel 2 lies within the first exception. v 6 .- Z ' m N 0 tr E � 3 LM N C , M U y N 3O m��k 3 O)mti 3 C W 0o QZ LU ,C CI N Ec o T CL �k Z.o o 9- V1o'Z-ao Ma 0. 0 +� n� 3 y U O t O U J N p i ; ` Ty O c o a- O\ U o E o �w O �Ta 0 y C _>1 01 C •.• Z +� W o.`o 5 o rn'7n a° m O EL Y 0 U a) -C U ■ Room T 0 Lou, U 0 U o L W m � ♦� 3 o W � J r D 0 O c J CL C �1 -r. Q rZ p J v C� Q � o k°a 00 C V)o 41 C t rnC C O O O rn a E O +; o C O O� O N rn y o rn O 0 O o C C -° 0aCi -0 -v v o -0 0 0 04 LV J.r I bit. road NEIGHBORHOOD ID - MONUMENT pUTLOT B 979.0 .o 'cs w � m \ a9jO w / 9) `c`OT�o s 2.3t fe a 1t south PROPERTY LINE line x x--� X 978 � "� 976 978 979.5 Y. 980 \1 O U TL O T C 3 9 9.0 G \\ ^ 43NNtl�S 9 ST--7 HWL 9�8.2 97785 I I 2 o 1 X 9.5 1 HwL s7s.2 ofl!/1�ALL 1\ 8-RTD EO.F 1 0.4 g83 5 I I z o 1 CAM L c HANHASSEN T� o - 54 -978. - 1 RECEIVED \� 12 13 � 14 58 \ Q 15 \ moFc - _ 1 G=983.7 FB FEB 14 2013 •ry m :.i,.. 0• G=964.4 TF=984.0 G=982.8 O �m r / - `\ `-I.j':." LID 8 LL=987.4 LL=976.0 LL=975.1 TF 982.3 \ ESS / / FELTRq IO \ 9 \ G,gg851 LL=974.3 \ G pGG NE�tEO PERK CHANHA98ENPlAN WDEPT z� 2 8-AMH BASI411�<.:..: o' �0 2 1F=g1�,1 �S1WN ssf�1RW1�PR0 T� '1, 6 ..::..::' G.99Sy 5 LL, 982 < \ // E(O��G EGON1`4, ,v 1100� F'g1 '( 1 3-AML \ L / NE P�� EEM NgEM rn 3-AML.., V 1�• G y ey1 / 0 1 YD \ �F�,g111 8 ABM�� - steps T� 3 !' \ L 10 11 80.41 RAJ LG 5 \ 980.3 z / 6 55 plE� 18 % 0 G�9 1 9�� 1 982.67 retaining pft :....� \ lF ,915 9 82 z wall o"N10� A co �� / 20 6 982 G -+c1 0101 G f�59� 60 9 T rn J �15� • � / v,l 980.3E / m, / W NN ��T T 4 \ 0,\ o 000�11 .95 y3 G`gg5y�1 PROPER? �v / 11�G'9g52�1 I Fgsy?5 �F g 113 1F�'911 0 GE55 LINE v N \ (F ,91A 7- L GF'g51r' 11 6 Gr, N_ 975.0 / ` AG ro w �15�EREo 9-�� 0 5 Tg1 0� s c0 wQ80 (j%g95y�5 0* sg. 9 \ E(o0 Oibt / \ ` o'er �� 1 I (F .911 gsy 1 O ed98 �Tlei 5 Q Z /F, 8 1 8BOULD \ \ NN 78 ro a9 53' 3 0� 9 //� 8-BHS2 XV TOT LOT 5 77.o y \�s96 q��,y1y \ 7[��Jgpf p 5 ABM g / 3 NPO / 1 TING 50 BUR 3-BS o 1 ----�09 21 ,p \ O Fo K TO REMAI j 15 e GlF,g91�1 \ 9516p\ 915 / 95 6-BHS1 F 9 1� 977.- 091 I�5 � / s 9 �0 1 3- 2-SSC o PROPERTY LINE CEO 978• '955211 \3-ARM REMO G.- 0o s8o �F 9 �� \ \ 3 AB 91a 9 5-BHS1 / / \ 91 � 0 81,1 t 4;WO G,9g82.1 �o / 0 9�6 r 8o,4 1� ,91a 1 �^ P��\ 6' HT SOLID CEDAR / FENCE WITH 5/ LL=974.1 73.6 4 QE / CTl 3-SWO 80 5-SSC OFFSETS / X 2- L 3 �V • / fence \ \\ \ \ \ �991a� 4-BHS2 \ 966 \96j ` ` \ �•/1 / p G v \ \ \ LOT A ------- p / (.99�Ap 3-BHS2 / \ \ \ \ \ NWL 968 5 / / / / 6 4- S \ \ ST-3 6' \ 972' -ABM / \ / Approved tree wrap to be applied prior to winter 9 OULDER W -qgS season. E55 / Do not allow backfll or mulch material to come into ' contact with root collar. ID X x \ V i / / 7 8" G N 6NI / / Wood mulch or other specified material. (3" Depth) \ / 1 1 ?� Backfill with loosened soil indigenous to site. r F' / x 0 / / / X 6' HT SOLID CEDAR / 'NOTE: Tree to be staked & guyed only on \ / FENCE WITH 5' an as needed basis. / \ 6-SSC OFFSETS / I SHADE TREE PLANTING DETAIL \ \ " / PROPERTY / LEVEL LOCATION - NOTTOSCALE N 9-BHS2 / LINE / 9-B 2 / JEExIg'f G�1. / 0 \ \ p46 ��'GN / / o / \ a rRro,�L.an r / X / 1 Approved tree wrap to be applied prior to season. Do not allow backfll or mulch material to come into contact with root collar. CRITICAL ROOT RADIUS Wood mulch or other specified material. 0 t I CRITICAL ROOT ZONE wnnlry DRIVLIrvE Backfill with loosened soil indigenous to si LANDSCAPE PLAN Commercial grade black poly edger. ' Wood mulch or others specified 'NOTE: Tree to be staked & guyed P ACTUAL FEEDER ROOT SYSTEM ExTErvos WELL eavorvo THE DRIRurvc an as needed basis. NORTH 0 25 50 100 200 (FT] 4' material to be placed at 3' depth. Backfill with loosened soil indigenous to site. SCALE: FEET SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL TREE PROTECTION DETAIL SHADE TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT To SCALE NOT To SCALE SLOPED LOCATION - rvoT Tc scaLE PRELIMINARY DRAWING: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OVERSTORY CONIFEROUS AML 07 AMERICAN LARCH / Larix laricina 410 CONT 4-5' height DECIDUOUS SHRUBS (plant in groupings) BYD 10 BUD'S YELLOW DOGWOOD / Cornus sericea'Bud's Yellow' #5 CONT RTD 08 RED TWIG DOGWOOD/ Cornus sericea'Baileyi #5 CONT AMH 08 AMERICAN HAZELNUT/ Corylus amerlcana #5 CONT NATIVE PERENNIALS - UNDER PLANTED (12123 SF - 1950 SF Shrubs = 10173 SF area planting of native perennials -1655 plants (plant in groupings) - 170 SWEET FLAG /Acorus calamus 4" CONT 2.5' on center 130 SWAMP MILKWEED / Asclepias incarnate 4" CONT 2.5' on center 245 PURPLE CONEFLOWER / Echlnacea purpurea 4" CONT 2.5' on center 100 JOE RYE WEED / Eupatorlum maculatum 4" CONT 2.5' on center 100 SWITCH GRASS / Panicum mrgatum 4" CONT 2.5' on center 195 NORTHERN BLUE FLAG / Iris vesicolor 4" CONT 2.5' on center 130 WILD BERGAMOT / Monarda fistulosa 4" CONT 2.5' on center 245 BLACK-EYED SUSAN / Rudbeckia hirta 4" CONT 2.5' on center 170 BLUE VERVAIN / Verbena haslata 4" CONT 2.5' on center 170 IRONWEED / Veronia fasciculata 4" CONT 2.5' on center A. THE SOILS IN THE FILTRATION AREAS AS DESIGNATED ON THE PLANS ARE 75% COARSE WASHED SAND MNDOT3149.2J (ASTM C-33) AND 25 % ORGANIC LEAF COMPOST MNDOT 3890.2B. INSTALLATION OF SOIL DONE BY OTHERS PRIOR TO PLANTING OPERATION. B. PRIOR TO COMMENCING PLANTING, INSTALL THE C-125 COCONUT BLANKET AND PIN DOWN WITH STAPLES. C. PLANT PLANT MATERIAL IN THE INFILTRATION AREAS AS DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AND PLANT SCHEDULE. D. DO NOT INSTALL ANY SHREDDED BARK MULCH OVER THE FILTRATION BASINS. PLANT SCHEDULE I KEY I QTY I COMMON NAME / BOTANICAL NAME I SIZE IROOTI REMARKS I FRONT YARD OVERSTORY TREES ABM 08 AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE/ Acer freemanii'Jeffersred' 2.5" BE NRM 12 NORTHWOODS MAPLE /Acer rubrum'Northwoods' 2.5' BE ROL 07 REDMOND LINDEN/ Tilia americana'Redmond' 2.5' BB SGM 08 SIENNA GLEN MAPLE / Acer fremanni'Sienna Glen' 2.5" BB BUFFER OVERSTORY TREES ABM 08 AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE/ Acer freemanii'Jeffersred' 2.5" BB NPO 07 NORTHERN PIN OAK/ Quercus ellipsoidalis 2.5" BB SWO 06 SWAMP WHITE OAK/ Quercus bicolor 2.5" BB BUFFER ORNAMENTAL TREES ABS 09 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY / Amelanchierx rendiFlora'Autumn Brilliance' 6' gg Clump Form ARM 09 AMUR MAPLE / Acer Ginnila 6' BB Clump Form SSC 13 SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE / Malus'Spnng snow' 2" BB BUFFER EVERGREEN TREES BHS7 18 BIACKHILL SPRUCE / Pima glauca densata 6' BB BHS2 26 1 BLACKHILL SPRUCE / Piece glauca densata 6' BB LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. ALL PLANTING BEDS TO BE EDGED WITH BLACK DIAMOND OR EQUAL BLACK VINYL EDGING AND MULCHED WITH WOOD MULCH AT 3" DEPTH OVER TYPAR WEED BARRIER FABRIC OR EQUAL. 2. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING GOPHER STATE ONE. CALL FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO DIGGING. 3. PLANT TREES & SHRUBS AFTER FINAL GRADES ARE ESTABLISHED AND PRIOR TO PLANTING OF LAWNS, UNLESS OTHERWISE ACCEPTABLE TO GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR OWNER. IF PLANTING OF TREES & SHRUBS OCCURS AFTER LAWN WORK, PROTECT LAWN AREAS AND PROMPTLY REPAIR AT NO COST TO THE OWNER, DAMAGE TO LAWNS RESULTING FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS. 4. IF SPECIFIED MATERIAL IS NOT OBTAINABLE, NOTIFY GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR OWNER, ALONG W/ A DESCRIPTION OF EQUIVALENT MATERIAL. 5. IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND THE NUMBER SHOWN ON THE PLANT UST, THE NUMBER SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN. 6. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL WARRANTY TREES & SHRUBS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE AGAINST DEFECTS INCLUDING DEATH, POOR GROWTH, AND PLUMB ORIENTATION. 7. ALL MATERIAL SHALL BE RATED FOR APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURE ZONE AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMAN. 8. ALL LAWN AREAS TO HAVE IRRIGATION AND SOD TO PROPERTY LINES AND/OR TO BACK OF CURBS ALONG RIGHT OF WAYS. 9. SOD SHALL BE CULTURED KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS, FREE OF WEEDS & CLUMPS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR WALL WATER AT TIME OF INSTALLATION AND ROLL ALL SOD AS NEEDED TO ASSURE A SMOOTH TURF SURFACE. ALL SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STAKED. ANY SLIDING OF SOD SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 10. ALL SOD IS TO BE IRRIGATED. 11. ALL TREES PLANTED SHALL RECEIVE 3' SHREDDED WOOD MULCH SAUCERS WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4" AS SHOWN IN DETAILS. 12. ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED IF DEEMED NECESSARY AND WRAPPED AT THE END OF THE GROWING SEASON. 13. LANDSCAPE BID TO INCLUDE A COMPLETE LAWN IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS SPECIFIED. Uj 0- 4W 0 aNN� 'n N .J �r� V O z m � N � >O Z > N N - J w m m U a LL W N � W Q Q v=wv a"6y i eon _a5¢ J u LIJ W Q V U) W WCL Q Q Q _ Q O W V ►I O 0 O 2 W O a LU Q V W O ti n cov/Ai y2 v ode O WLL^ � ama O o a W z a z aF 0 y i rc i W J x 41 Y Y � e 011 N 0 3 0 W U O O Lu 0 lit 11