The URL can be used to link to this page

4 Lundgren Bros. SubdivisionCITY P.C. DATE: 7-1-03 C.C. DATE: 7-14-03 Review deadline 7-14-03 CASE: 2003-7 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Subdivision - 5.93 acres into 10 residential lots and 1 outlot West of Minnewashta Parkway and west of Kings Road Lundgren Bros. Construction 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 5.93 - Gross 4.75 acres - net DENSITY: 1.85 units/acre gross 2.32 units/acre net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Lundgren Brothers is requesting a subdivision of 5.93 acres of property. This site is on the western edge of the city and abuts the city of Victoria on the west. The subdivision requires the construction and extension of Kings Road. Notice of this public heating 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. Lake Minnewashta Lake St. Joe Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY Lundgren Brothers are requesting preliminary plat approval of an 11 lot subdivision. The underlying property owner is Janet and Lowell Carlson. The property is located within 1000 feet of the shore land of Lake St. Joe a DNR classified Natural Lake. The subdivision consists of 10 lots and one outlot on 5.93 acres. Minor changes need to be made to some of the lots to meet city standards. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. BACKGROUND In 1985 the Carlson's were notified by the city that it had enacted an ordinance which required property owners having a valid non-conforming use of their property as a contractors yard were to apply for a conditional use permit. Because of the use of this property as a contractors yard, staff requested that a phase I environmental assessment be conducted. Following is a summary of the Report. "The site consists of a 6-acre lot developed with a house with a basement and 3 sheds. The eastern half of the site was used for the storage of old machinery, old vehicles, scrap metal, and various other implements and debris. The house and 3 sheds were located on the north-central portion of the site. The site is currently occupied by Carlson Excavating and has been located there since the late-1960's. The house currently located on the site was constructed in 1967. Based on aerial photographs, a farmstead was located on the north central portion of the site showing on the 1951 aerial photographs. The site was used for agricultural purposes up until 1951. This assessment has revealed no indications of recognized environmental condition in connection with the site, except for the following: · The site has been used as an excavation company for approximately 35 years · Old vehicles, scrap metal, and other debris were located on the eastern half of the site · Used vehicle fluids were observed in unapproved containers that were located throughout the northern portion of the site. · A 1,000-gallon fuel oil underground storage tank is currently in use at the site. · Illegal burning has been conducted at the site. A well and a septic system are currently in use and located at the site. Braun Interact recommends the well be properly abandoned in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health regulations, and the septic system be properly abandoned. Due to the unknown nature of the soil associated with the suspect elevation changes, areas of disturbed soil, and construction debris associated with the small building that was located on the east-central portion of the site whether it was buried on the properly or hauled away, the potential exists that material are present in the soil that require management as solid or hazardous waste and may impact future develoPment at the parcel. Examples of possible fill containments Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 3 included solid or hazardous wastes, petroleum products, and including demolition debris such as asbestos-containing material (ACM). Soil borings and or test pits may be warranted to assess potential for contaminants in the area of the site for future development were noted. A phase 1I Assessment was conducted. Five standard penetration borings were conducted. No indication of contamination was detected in the soil samples collected for the site as part of the limited Phase II. ANALYSIS The proposed subdivision will have access via Kings Road. The road will have a 60 foot fight of way and will be constructed along the entire subject site frontage. Six of the lots will have access via Kings Road and the remaining 4 lots will have access via an internal street. This street will be built as a temporary cul-de-sac. This cul-de- sac will extend in the future to serve the Kortgard property. Based on the configuration of the subject property another lot will access the extension of the temporary cul-de-sac. The extension of Kings Road will enable the six lots in the Oaks on Minnewashta (Outlot B) to be final platted. This project will have to provide utility service extension to the Oaks of Minnewashta. A sidewalk around the perimeter of the site (Kings Road) will provide access to the city park. Part of the sidewalk is in the right of way of the City of Victoria The existing home and building will be removed and the well and septic will be abandoned. The site drops in elevation towards Lake St. Joe. The elevation changes are approximately 70 feet. COMPLIANCE TABLE Block Square Feet Front Width Side Length/Width 15,000 sq. ft. 90 feet 125 feet Provided Provided Provided 1 18,278 92' 195' + 2 15,009 92' 162' 3 15,302 corner 143' 4 16,495 90' 200' 5 16,757 108'/152' 111' 6 '13,879 92' 150' 7 17,809 95' 195' 8 18,378 112' 160' 9 15,104 92' 162' 10 16,403 92' 140' 11 **Outlot 90' 144' Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 4 * Insufficient lot area ** Outlot until future extension of road While this subdivision is in the shoreland district no lots are riparian. The plat needs to be revised to ensure all lots meet the requirements. Lot 6 does not meet the minimum square footage of 15,000 square feet and Lot 9 shows a 70 foot frontage but scales to 92 foot. WETLANDS Existing Wetlands Two wetlands exist on-site: one natural wetland and one agricultural/urban wetland. Svoboda Ecological Resources delineated the wetlands in April 2003. On May 15, 2003, City staff conducted an on-site review of the wetland delineation. Wetland 1 is a Type 5 natural wetland located in the southeastern most comer of the property. This wetland is adjacent to Lake St. Joe. The portion of the wetland on the subject property is wetland fringe and is dominated by reed canary grass. The applicant is not proposing impact to Wetland 1. Wetland 2 is a Type 2 ag/urban wetland located in the western portion of the property. The wetland was created as a result fill that occurred on the property. The fill impounded water on a slope, which led to the presence of wetland hydrology, development of hydric soils and migration of hydrophytic vegetation into the area. Because this wetland was created solely as a result of actions by private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland, wetland impacts are eligible for exemption under the Wetland Conservation Act (Minnesota Rule 8420.0122 subp. 5). The applicant should apply for an exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act for impacts to Wetland 2. In lieu of an approved replacement plan, an exemption must be obtained prior to wetland impacts occurring. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) must be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures must maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. The proposed buffer widths and 40-foot setback should be shown on the grading plan. LAKES The proposed project is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Lake St. Joe and is therefore within the lake's shoreland district. Lake St. Joe is classified as a natural environment lake by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet and the minimum lot width is 90 feet. The plans for the proposed Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 5 development should show the location of the OHW of Lake St. Joe and the required 150' setback from the OHW. GRADING~ DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Storm Water Management The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Easements Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, storm water infrastructure (including swales) and storm water ponds. The swale on Lots 8 and 9 should be moved toward the rear property line as far as possible and a drainage and utility easement should be dedicated over the entire swale. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be provided from the cul-de-sac to the storm water pond along the storm sewer alignment. This easement may be vacated upon the future extension of the street and construction of a new connection to provide drainage from the street to STMH #1. Erosion Control Type m silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees are based on single-family residential development rates of $949/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 5.93 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $5,628. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,348 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $13,924 for the proposed development. Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 6 SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $19,552. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. LANDSCAPING The developer for the Carlson property development has submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 5.77 ac. or 251,283 SF 21.75 % or 56,159 SF 25% or 62,821 SF 2% or 4,865 SF The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 51,294 SF 1.2 61,553 SF 57 trees In addition, the developer must increase canopy coverage to meet the minimum twenty-five percent required. The calculations are follows: Total reforestation area (62,821 - 56,159) 6,662 SF Required canopy coverage 6 trees (one tree provides 1,089 SF of canopy) The total number of trees required for the development is 63. The developer has proposed a total of 58 trees. An additional 5 trees must be added to the landscape plan. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 7 PARK AND TRAILS The Park and Recreation Commission had the following comments. "The site is located near Roundhouse Park, which is a large neighborhood park serving the west Lake Minnewashta area. These eleven new homes will be afforded convenient access to the park by the new sidewalk depicted on the development plan. The park acquisition and/or trail development is required as a part of this subdivision. The applicant will be required to pay a one time park dedication fee of $26,400 at the time of plat submittal. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets the intent of the city code subject to the conditions of the staff report. 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 applicable plans, subject to the conditions of the staff report. 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 physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 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 will be served by adequate urban infrastructure contingent upon conditions specified in this report. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions in this report. Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 8 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of records. Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure contingent upon conditions specified in this report. Additional easements will be required as part of the subdivision. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lake of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of dedicated and improved public streets. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems and not ISTS (individual sewer treatment system). d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Carlson Property, including 10 residential lots, 1 outlot as shown on plans dated May 16, 2003 and subject to the findings of the staff report and the following conditions: 1. The developer shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 63 trees to be planted. A minimum of two deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. o The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear yard areas. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 1, 7, 9, 10, Block 1 prior to any construction. The developer shall apply for an exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act for impacts to Wetland 2. In lieu of an approved replacement plan, an exemption shall be obtained prior to wetland impacts occurring. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The developer shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. The proposed buffer widths and 40-foot setback shall be shown Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 9 on the grading plan. The plans for the proposed development shall show the location of the OHW of Lake St. Joe and the required 150' setback from the OHW. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, storm water infrastructure (including swales) and storm water ponds. The swale on Lots 8 and 9 shall be moved toward the rear property line as far as possible and a 20' drainage and utility easement must be dedicated over the entire swale. 10. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be provided from the cul-de-sac to the storm water pond along the storm sewer alignment. This easement may be vacated upon the future extension of the street and construction of a new connection to provide drainage from the street to STMH #1. A minimum 20-foot easement is required for the storm sewer pipe between STMH//2 and STMH #1. 11. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type m silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. 12. Based on preliminary estimates, the water quality fees for the development are $5,628 and the water quantity fees are approximately $13,924. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $19,552. 13. Approval of the sidewalk and utility easements must be received from the city of Victoria. 14. The demolition of structures on the site must be done in accordance with MPCA guidelines and permits must be obtained from the city prior to demolition. 15. The on-site sewage treatment system and well must be abandoned in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and a permit must be obtained from the city. 16. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 17. All lots must be provided with separate sewer and water services. Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 10 18. The applicant will be required to pay a one time park dedication charge of $26,400 at the time of plat submittal. 19. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 20. A temporary easement is required for the paved portion of the temporary cul-de-sac which is outside of the right-of-way. 21. Revise the street right-of-way to 60 feet along the westerly side of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and add a temporary cul-de-sac at the south end of the development. 22. Staff recommends that Type m silt fence be used adjacent to the edge of the wetland. Also, add an erosion control blanket on the north slope of the pond. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas are required to be restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading completion. 23. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 4. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2003 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. 25. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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 must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 26. Add thefollowing City of Chanhassen Latest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002,1004,1005, 1006,1009,2001,2002,2101,2109,2109A, 2110,2201,2202,2204,3101,3102,3104, 3106,3107,3108,3109,5200,5203,5205,5206,5214,5215,5240,5241,5244and 5300. Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 11 27. The retaining wall along the east side of Lots 10 and 11 shall be moved out of the drainage and utility easement. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. 28. On the utility plan: Show sanitary sewer flow direction. Show the watermain and sanitary services stubs including eight services for the north side of Kings Road (Outlot B). Show sanitary sewer pipe class, length, slope and type. Show watermain pipe class and type and call out the fittings. 29. On the grading plan: Add a storm sewer schedule. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. Show the storm sewer invert and manhole rim elevations. Show the storm sewer pipe slope, length, class and flow direction. Show a minimum of 75-foot rock construction entrance. 30. Revise CBMH #1 with a 2-foot sump. 31. Add street lights to the plans. 32. Add a pedestrian curb ramp and sidewalk along the east side of Lots 5, 6, and 7. 33. Supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff. 34. Revise plans: Lot 6 shall have a minimum square footage of 15,000 square feet and Lot 9 shall have a minimum 90 foot frontage." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Hearing notice and property owner list 3. Letter from Carver Soil and Water dated June 2, 2003 4. Memo from Mak Sweidan, Engineer dated June 4, 2003 5. Preliminary plat and landscaping plans dated May 16, 2003 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Comstruction ADDRESS: 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 TELEPHONE (Day time) (952) 473 - 1231 OWNER: Lowell & ~O..e,f..'~' Carlson ADDRESS:4141 Kings Road Chanhassen, MN 5533 TELEPHONE: (952) 474 - 7211 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* X Rezoning ,,, Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* ;ubdivision* $600 + $15 per lot Final Plat $250.00 Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easement~ X Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment otification Sign ~l~..~ E~scrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost ($50 CUPISPRNACNARiW AP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTALFEE$ 1 ,700.00 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries-of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. **** NEW MEETING DATE -JULY 1,2003, 7:00 P.M. ***** NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Subdivision Request APPLICANT: LOCATION: Lundgren Bros. Construction 4141 Kings Road NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Lundgren Bros. Construction, is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide 5.93 acres into 11 single family lots on property zoned Residential Single Family, and located at 4141 Kings Road, Lundgren Bros. Construction. What Happens at the Meeting: 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: 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. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 227-1139 or e-mail kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 5, 2003. Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® ROBERT a & DEANNA M BUNKELMAN ~,191 RED OAK LN -_-XCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD A HIRSTEIN & MARY C GABRIEL-HIRSTEIN 4182 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN W & BRENDA B HACHTMAN 6984 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EDWARD J & LORI J KLING ¢169 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHELDON N & RUTH N TANG 6951 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS R & JANEEN K LANO 6991 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE A & PATRICIA S BONG 4137 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KEVIN D & ANN M HATLESTAD 4166 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LOWELL E & J CARLSON 4141 KINGS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN L & LEANNE D ZELLER 4119 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HOWARD D & ANN M ANDERSON 4150 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID J & MARGARET L BORRIS 4071 KINGS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PATRICK J & DARLENE M LANGEN 4107 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN J & KARIN D MAAS 4151 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JON M & ELIZABETH A HAUSAM 4134 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 NATHANIEL R JOSEPHS & STEPHANIE J JOSEPHS 4118 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LINDA A SCOTT & SUSAN E MORGAN 4031 KINGS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JERRY L & KRISTIN L KORTGARD 3901 GLENDALE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL R CARROLL & DEBBRA A CARROLL 4089 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 FRANK V & JULIE M ORR 4102 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JERRY L & KRISTIN L KORTGARD 3901 GLENDALE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKET BLVD PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALAN D HARRIS & JACQUELINE L HARRIS 4086 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL P HANNAFIN & MICHELLE M HANNAFIN 4198 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RAYMOND K & TERESA B NICHOLSON 6971 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ALEKSANDR & ELLA GORSHTEYN 6931 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAMS DEVELOPMENT INC 102 5TH ST W SUITE 1 CHASKA MN 55318 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® CARVER '!946 ~,nty s~ 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN 55387 Phone: 952-442-5101 Fax: 952-442-5497 CDIISERVATIOIi DISTRICT htto://Ww~.co.¢~e,'.,....s/SWCO/SWCO mni-.htnfl Mission Statement: To provide leadership in conservation and teach stewardship of the soil, water, and related resources through a balanced, cooperative program that protects, restores, and improves those resources. June 2, 2003 Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECBVED JUN 0 5 20O3 CITY OF CHANHA$$EN Re: Storm Water Drainage from Proposed Carlson Property Development Dear Ms. Aanenson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Carlson Property development. The following comments and recommendations relate to storm water runoff during and after construction of the 5.93-acre development. Please review the following suggestions. Soils. There are two primary soil types within the footprint of the proposed development. The dominant soil type is Kilkenny with an inclusion of Angus (KB); the subdominant soil type on site is Lester with an inclusion ofKilkenny (KE2). For locations of soil types please refer to the attached soil map. Building Site Development soil descriptions are rated on the following scales. A slight limitation rating regards soil limitations that are easy to overcome; a moderate limitation is possible to overcome if good management and careful design are implemented; a severe limitation regards soil limitations that are questionable as to the use proposed. A severe limitation regards the soil properties or site features that are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special design, significant increases in construction costs, and possibly increased maintenance are required:- Special'feasibility-studies may be required where the soiliimitations are severe. Additional soil descriptions relate to erosion and storm water. KB soil Kilkenny Angus Soil Descriptions and Limitations: · Building Site Development - Shallow excavations has a moderate limitation rating due to too clayey, wetness - Dwellings without basements has a moderate limitation rating due to shrink-swell - Dwellings with basements has a moderate limitation rating due to wetness, shrink- swell - Local roads and streets has a severe limitation due to low strength - Lawns and landscaping has a slight limitation rating AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER KB soil also appears to be dominate in the proposed stormwater location. Moderate limitations for the stormwater pond could include seepage and slope restrictions. KB soils are well drained and do not have a seasonally high water table and are not subject to flooding. Average slopes of KB soils range from 2% to 6%. KB soils are subject to severe erosion if vegetation is removed. KE2 Soil Lester Kilkenny Soil Descriptions and Limitations: Building Site Development Shallow excavations has a severe limitation rating due to slope Dwellings without.basements has a severe limitation rating due to slope Dwellings with baSements has a severe limitation rating due to slope Local roads and streets has a severe limitation due to low strength, slope Lawns and landscaping has a severe limitation rating due to slope KE2 soil has very. severe erosive potential. Slopes of KE2 soils average approximately 18%. The water table depth is greater than 10 feet and stormwater runoff from KE2 soils is rapid. Erosion Control Due to the high to severe erosive potential of the soils within the foot print of the development phasing of the development and stabilization is needed. Restoration and Construction Sequencing Notes on Sheet GP-1 should be implemented in the field to protect the wetland fringe of Lake St. Joe from sediment-laden stormwater runoff during construction. Sediment Control - "J-hooks" should be installed with the silt fence along the east and west boundaries of Outlot A, Lot 11 and Lot 10. J-hooks should be installed at increments of 50 feet. The J-hooks should extend out approximately 25 feet and hook back up-slope. - Catch basin protection is needed for curbside inlets and drop inlets following installation. Mulch socks could be used for curbside inlet protection; 1-inch clean rock and fine wire mesh could be used for drop inlet protection. - An emergency overflow should be installed in the temporary sedimentation basin. The EOF could be lined with geotextile fabric and 3-inch riprap should be applied over the fabric for energy dissipation. If there are any questions regarding the above comments or suggestions please call the SWCD office. Sincerely, Aaron Mlynek, CPESC-IT Urban Conservation Technician ClTYOF C I SEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administralion Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road PhOne: 952.227,1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www,ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director FROM: Mak Sweidan, Engineer ~A~ ~'~-~ DATE: June 4, 2003 SUB J: Preliminary Plat Review for Carlson Property Land Use Review File No. 03-11 Upon review of the preliminary grading, drainage, erosion and utility plans dated May 16, 2003, prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., I recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil enginee~ ~egistered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. ~i~!~ · 2. A temporary easement is required for the paved which is outside of the right-of-way. 3. along and add a temporary cul'de-sac 2 wetland. Also, add should be appropriate and mulch 5. Installation through the City's 6. Each newly City' s The and supply escrow to approval. Permits including but not limited to Carver County, etc. with the the City conditions ~ obtained¢ alth, Watershed District, The City of Chanhassen. · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gmat place to live, work, and play. Kate Aanenson June 4, 2003 Page 2 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ¢: Add the following City of Chanhassen Latest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1009, 2001, 2002, 2101, 2109, 2109A, 2110, 2201, 2202, 2204, 3101, 3102, 3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5205, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5240, 5241, 5244 and 5300. The retaining wall along the east side of Lots 10 and .11 shall be moved out of the drainage and utility easement. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. On the utility plan: a. Show sanitary sewer flow direction. b. Show the watermain and sanitary services stubs including eight services for the north side of Kings Road (Outlot B). c. Show sanitary sewer pipe class, length, slope and type. d. Show watermain pipe class and type and call out the fittings. On the grading plan: a. Add a storm sewer schedule. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show the storm sewer invert and manhole rim elevations. d. Show the storm sewer pipe slope, length, class and flow direction. e. Show a minimum of 75-foot rock construction entrance.' Revise CBMH #1 with a 2-foot sump. Add street lights to the plans. A minimum 20-foot easement is required for the storm sewer pipe between STMH #2 and STMH #1. Add a 20-foot drainage easement for the swale along the east side of Lots 8, 9 and 10. Add a pedestrian curb ramp and sidewalk along the east side of Lots 5, 6, and 7. Supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff. Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer g:~eng~projects~carlson propertykprelininary plat review.doc CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 3, 2003 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Craig Claybaugh, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjomhom, Bruce Feik, and Steven Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Angie Auseth, Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive OATHS OF OFFICE. Chairman Sacchet administered the Oath of Office to Bethany Tjornhom and Kurt Papke. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A HOME ON PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE~ LOCATED AT 9201 AUDUBON ROAD~ ERIC THESHIP-ROSALES. Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. Let's start, no questions? No questions? Feik: Just one. Sacchet: Go ahead. Feik: Do you have any concern regarding this as it relates to the AUAR that's being done simultaneously? Do you have any concerns? Auseth: Bob could. Generous: Mr. Chairman, it should have no impact on that because it continues an existing use of the property for a single family home. At some time in the future this area may redevelop, then that's a separate process. Feik: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Is that it Bruce? Feik: That's it. Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Sacchet: No questions? I do have a couple of questions. To kind of tie on with your question Bruce. Currently this is guided in the 2020 Land Use Plan for parks, open space or office industrial. Now that does not in any way limit what happens on this property at this time? Generous: No. Sacchet: It does not? Generous: Only the zoning is limiting in this instance. Sacchet: So, okay. So there is no conflict between those two things? Generous: Long term maybe but then the second he develops. The applicant actually has a separate application to rezone the property but we're not. Sacchet: That's a separate thing? Generous: Yes, that will be coming later. Sacchet: Okay. Then I have a few more specific questions. On page 4 in the grading part. I don't know whether that's something for you Matt, it talks about potential damage to the septic tanks, piping and drain field. Is that concern sufficiently mitigated through the conditions or is that still a concern? I'm trying to understand where we are with that. Saam: I think this point was brought out more as a FYI to the applicant to be aware during construction to watch for the piping. It is shown on the survey so it should be, the applicant should be well aware of where special care needs to be taken. Don't be running over the pipes with heavy equipment, that sort of thing. Sacchet: So that'd be more an applicant question in that sense. It's not really a requirement from the city, a liability or a condition? Saam: No. No. Sacchet: Okay. That's I think all the questions I have for staff. The other one's an applicant. Thank you. With that, if the applicant wants to come forward and address the commission, please do so and state your name and address for the record please. Eric Theship-Rosales: Hello, Eric Theship-Rosales. 9201 Audubon Road. Sacchet: Welcome. Eric Theship-Rosales: Thank you. Questions? Sacchet: Okay, questions. Do you want to start with questions? Do we have questions for the applicant? Slagle: I don't have any. Claybaugh: I'd just like to dove tail the question or the comment that you made regarding the zoning. Is there a zoning proposal coming on this piece of property in the future for rezoning? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Eric Theship-Rosales: Well my plan is to, if we could go to the video on the. What I was hoping to do is to run my business out of this shed and to be able to do that, try to split the zoning this way. Zone this for a business, office industrial and keep this A2 or residential or whatever the city might propose. Claybaugh: I guess my follow up question to that then would be, is any of the business going's on, administrative elements of your business taking place in your primary residence that you're looking to expand? Eric Theship-Rosales: Yes. In '99 1 guess it was I set up a home business in my basement and I have a small office space there with my phone. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have Chair. Sacchet: Any questions Kurt? Bethany? Tjornhom: I have a clarification question I guess. When I look at the plans I see a beautiful new addition, and then I see a breezeway and then it says existing structure and I'm sorry, I didn't go out to look to see, what is the existing structure? Is that a house? Eric Theship-Rosales: Yes. It was built in 1940. It's approximately 20 feet wide and 24 feet long. Tjoruhom: So what will happen to that? Will that be remodeled or what will happen to that structure? Eric Theship-Rosales: Well ideally we'd use it for a while. Use it for the construction phase of the new home and then either completely remodel it or bulldoze it or make it smaller in order to make the driveway wider. Put a garage there. Lots of different options. It was made out of old barn board and it's seen it's better days. Tjornhom: Okay, that's all the questions I have. Feik: No questions. Lillehaug: None. Sacchet: So you're not sure yet what you're going to do with the old structure basically? Eric Theship-Rosales: No I'm not. Sacchet: Okay. I do have a few questions for you too, that kind of tie into what the framework is. Like I was kind of maybe curious when he pointed to the drawing on the table. You built, I remember you came in what, was it 2 years ago or 3 years or what, for the permit to make this bigger shed behind the structure where you now you plan to build between that shed and the old house, right? Do I have my orientation correct? Eric Theship-Rosales: I don't want to build. Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Sacchet: Well the new part. The addition to the dwelling. It's like in a space somewhere between the expanded shed and the old house, isn't it? Do I got that straight? Maybe ! didn't get that straight. Eric Theship-Rosales: Why don't we go back to the drawing. Sacchet: Yeah, why don't you show us on the drawing. So where your finger is is where you come in from Audubon, right? Slagle: No, Audubon's to the your left. Sacchet: Audubon's here. Sacchet: Okay. So that's good. I get my orientation straight. So the new shed that you added is that square thing. Eric Theship-Rosales: This here, yeah. Sacchet: That one, yes. Okay. So what is the house to the north? The structure to the north. Eric Theship-Rosales: Okay, I'll just give you a quick mn down here. The original structure built in 1940. Saccbet: Now you move up to the stuff we're adding, right? Eric Theship-Rosales: Right. Sacchet: And then you go a little further and there's another square up there. Another rectangle. That one. What is that? Eric Theship-Rosales: That's the leech field for the septic system. Sacchet: That's the septic, okay. Well that answers my questions really clearly. Okay, that's good. So you don't foresee that you have to touch that septic area much, do you? Eric Theship-Rosales: No. I think sewer and water will come some day and maybe that land can be used for a garden or something. Sacchet: Okay. That's all my questions. Thank you very much. Eric Theship-Rosales: I have a bunch of clarification questions myself. I don't know. Sacchet: Well this is your turn. That's why you're up here. Eric Theship-Rosales: Okay. Maybe this has been made moot by comments from this gentleman but I took some measurements today about the location of the tanks, etc. This is north and this is south. We have 37 feet 7 inches to this comer, which is the comer in question on the first pad coming from the house this is the existing residence north face. The line comes out into this tank and, while I made this measurement just to clarify, it's not going to be quite 10 feet to the proposed foundation line. Code requires 10 feet. It's going to be somewhere in the 8 foot range. Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Sacchet: Did staff look at that? Eric Theship-Rosales: This would be new information for them. They have approximate measurements here. Sacchet: Is staff going to be playing into the conditional use permit part for discussion? Or will that be an issue with the building permit? Generous: That's a building permit issue. Sacchet: I would so isn't it. Generous: There's a separation requirement. Sacchet: So at this point that should not be an issue. That's an aspect that you're going to have to look at when you come for building permit. Eric Theship-Rosales: I guess what I wanted to do today was maybe make sure that if I had to actually move the plan towards Audubon Road, in other words build this building a couple feet over, we should cover that today and make sure the setbacks are correct. This is 82.2 feet plus another' 20 feet to the curb. Sacchet: Yeah, that's an issue you would want to work with staff I would expect. Is that correct? Saam: Yes. I just wanted to point out if I could Mr. Chair. Sacchet: Please, go ahead. Saam: Condition number 2 does state, and I think this is what he's referring to is that the septic tank must be 10 feet from the addition. Is that what yoU're getting at? Eric Theship-Rosales: Yeah, that's code I understand. Saam: So and that I do believe is a building permit requirement. Claybaugh: Requirement yes. That would be fully enforced so. Eric Theship-Rosales: So tentatively speaking I should move the design. Claybaugh: Either that or you're going to end up relocating that tank so you're going to have to have that 10 foot separation. That isn't anything for debate. Eric Theship-Rosales: Make sure I knew that. Other conditions I wasn't clear on. Number 4. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use agreement with the city. What's that likely to be? Sacchet: Can you explain that please. Generous: Yes. It's a document that's recorded at Carver County saying that the City approves your development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the conditions that are approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Eric Theship-Rosales: Okay. So it's a repeat on this. It's not a new condition. Generous: No. Eric Theship-Rosales: Item number 5. The application for building permit shall include a haul route for removal of excavated material from the site. There will be perhaps 20 yards excavated. Sacchet: It's a standard requirement. It doesn't apply when there's like small numbers. I mean. Saam; I don't think it will be a big issue but we just want to put it out there just in case there's more than 20 cubic yards. It doesn't sound like this should be a concern though. Sacchet: It's a standard condition that we put on there if somebody has a lot of earth to move, that it can be regulated. Eric Theship-Rosales: Okay, well maybe this isn't the proper time to ask but I should ask the building department but when it comes to removing that material, we have a berm blocking the traffic noise to the residence that was installed when Audubon Road was widened. I just wonder if we could add that to the top of that? Sacchet: That's a question you can discuss with staff. I don't think this should be too much of an issue, but that's not what we're deciding here. Eric Theship-Rosales: Okay. Then one other thing I have circled here just to make sure I'm not missing anything. Erosion control shall meet the City's Best Management Practices. The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan with the building permit application. Is that likely to be expensive? Sacchet: Everything costs money. You want to address that at all Matt please. Saam: It will probably entail just installation of silt fence. Eric Theship-Rosales: Above ground? I understand there's a below ground silt fence on some. Saam: Well most of it's above ground. It gets buried so it catches the dirt off the hill. It's meant to keep your dirt and sediment on your site. We can addres~ that at building permit too. We can dash that on the plan even for you and show you where it's supposed to go and everything. Sacchet: Again that's a standard requirement. Lillehaug: $2.50 a foot. Eric Theship-Rosales: That's the kind of thing a guy with a shovel could do, right? Saam: Oh yeah. Sacchet: Pretty much. Thanks Steve. Anything else? Eric Theship-Rosales: That would be it, thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Well this is a public hearing. If anybody wants to come forward and address this item, this is your time to do so. Is there any takers? Doesn't look like anybody's moving so I assume nobody wants to address this item. I close the public hearing and bring it back to commissioners. Do you want to start Bethany? Comments. Discussion. Concerns. Tjornhom: Nothing. Sacchet: You're fine with it? Feik: No concerns. Sacchet: No concerns? Steve. Lillehaug: No comments. Sacchet: No comments. How about you Kurt? Papke: Just one. I guess I am a little sensitive to the comments of the neighbors. Are we sending any kind of a signal here in approving this that the addition is far bigger and probably of higher value than the original structure. Are we sending any signals here or constraining ourselves in the future for rezoning this as parkland by taking this action tonight? Generous: No. Sacchet: Can you address that please Bob. Generous: It would make it more expensive, if the City or anyone were to try to purchase it. I think the intent of the parks and open spaces, preserve the sloped area and the treed area on the back side of this property. So more in the Bluff Creek, close to the, behind it is that big wetland complex, the stuff adjacent to that. But this is just in, it was a wider area than we anticipated actually preserving. Sacchet: So you don't see much of a conflict with that? Generous: No. Sacchet: That's the gist of what you're saying? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. That's all I have, thank you. Craig. Claybaugh: Yeah. I guess my comments would be directed to staff. It' s similar to what Kurt had commented on and pertains specifically to the second paragraph on page 3 under the heading of background where staff identified both the, that the property's guided for the 2020 land use plan for parks and open space, office industrial. And then it goes on to reference that it is currently conducting the AUAR study of 650 acres which includes the subject site. The report didn't really bring home specifically beyond just the mention of that, of what bearing that had on this applicant. You know if there's anything at this point I should have brought it up during questions Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 to staff. I apologize for that but, I'm trying to make that connection. What was staff trying to tell us. Is them anything beyond just the mention, making us aware of it. Generous: Be aware of that and as a part of that we may look at this area. Maybe it's more appropriate that it be an office institutional type use or zoning rather than an industrial office park. We don't know that yet and that's part of what we hope the environmental study will give us some direction. Are there runoff issues? Traffic issues that are going to happen. That would need to be addressed. It's too early now, we don't know. Claybaugh: Okay. What was, they're also, if there was background on the original variance to make that a buildable lot, what the commission and council is thinking with respect to the 2020 land study and how that was going to be rezoned in the future when they approved the variance for non-conforming lot. So if you build I believe it was 1.66 acres, I would have been curious on some level to know what the thought process was at that time. To me they certainly made a commitment at that point to take it down a different path. That's what makes the reference to the 2020 land use in the AUAR all the more confusing to me. That's all the comments ! have. Sacchet: It's a good comment. Rich. No comments. Yeah, my comment is somewhat along the same line what Craig brought up. At this point we don't know exactly what's going to happen in the immediate surrounding. Obviously, what is that, northeast area is the primary zone so that would be preserved. But other than that we don't really know, is it going to be office industrial? Is it going to be medium density, high density to the south? And I think I just want to point it out because it's a little bit of a risk for the applicant in terms of what's going to be around there. Exactly how well this blends in. I mean there's an advantage of going in before it's all settled, but there's also a disadvantage so I just want to point that out. It's not up to me. I don't think it's up to the Planning Commission to resolve that but I do want to point that out. Other than that I don't see much of an issue with this and ! would welcome a motion. Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of conditional use permit #2001-5, number 2 to permit construction of a 1,4335 square foot addition subject to the following conditions numbers 1 through 9. Sacchet: There is a motion. Is there a second? Feik: Second. Sacchet: Any friendly amendments? I do have one. Condition number 7. I think there's something missing in there. The existing driveway shall act as the construction entrance. All tracking of dirt or debris from the site onto the public roadway shall be removed daily. Upon verbal. I think it should say or upon verbal notice. That's if that doesn't take place then if it doesn't take place, then a verbal notice, the City shall clear dirt or debris using contractor or the city forces and equipment charged to property owner. With my not being a native speaker it seemed like it could benefit for making this a separate distinct thing, so that's my friendly amendment. Is that acceptable Steve? Lillehaug: Sure. Papke: I have one. Sacchet: Yes, go ahead. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Papke: On point number 1. It says the system must be increased to accommodate the addition of two bedrooms. That kind of presupposes that that will be necessary. I propose that we insert the words if necessary before to accommodate. Sacchet: Accommodate if necessary the addition. How would we define if necessary? Papke: If required. Sacchet: It's not the bedroom that requires the sewage. It's the people that potentially, so how do we control that? Claybaugh: The capacity of the system determined by the number of occupants. Papke: The way this condition is written, it must be increased and I don't think, there's no data presented here that says it's insufficiently sized, to my knowledge. Unless I missed something. Lillehaug: But it is saying that there's an increase to the property. They're adding two bedrooms. Feik: But it doesn't say that the field is large enough. Papke: Right. There's no, I don't know whether there's an engineering analysis of the drain field and septic system. Sacchet: Let's see if staff can address this first. Is this, would you want to address that please Matt? Saam: This is actually a building permit, or building official issue. This wasn't a condition from engineering but I do agree that, I think it's worded a little ambiguous. I believe the meaning is after inspection if necessary it may be needed to be increased. Sacchet: That would...if necessary. Lillehaug: I accept that. Sacchet: Accepted, okay. Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. We have two friendly amendments. Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit/V2001-5 g2 to permit construction of a 1,435 square foot addition, subject to the following conditions: The on-site sewage treatment system must be inspected to determine if it is in compliance with City Code and the size of the system must be increased after inspection if necessary to accommodate the addition of two bedrooms. The compliance report must be received, and the permit to increase the size of the system must be issued, before the building permit for the addition can be issued. The septic tank must be a minimum often (10) feet from the addition. This site as well as the existing site must be protected from damage during the construction of the building. Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning construction. 4. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use permit agreement with the city. The application for building permit shall include a haul route for removal of excavated material from the site. Erosion control shall meet the City's Best Management Practices. The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan with the building permit application. The existing driveway shall act as the construction entrance. All tracking of dirt or debris from the site onto the public roadway shall be removed daily or upon verbal notice, the City shall clear the dirt or debris using a contractor or city forces and equipment and charge the property owner. All disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched within 2 weeks of grading work stopping, except in the case of temporary delays longer than 2 weeks, in which case the applicant may submit an alternate for temporary stabilization of the site for consideration by the City Engineer and Water Resource Coordinator. Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays or legal holidays. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO BRING IN FILL IN EXCESS OF 1~000 CUBIC YARDS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF PARKING LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED OI~ OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL AND LOCATED AT 6241 HAZEI.TINE BOULEVARD~ MINNETONKA 0UNIOR HIGH SCHOOL. Public Present: Name Address Stan Lim 5801 Duluth Street, Minneapolis 55422 Tom Berge Minnetonka Schools, 5621 Highway 101 Sam and Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Boulevard Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Matt. Any questions from staff? Lillehaug: Do you have a method that you're going to implement to regulate or control mosquito problems? Saam: You can maybe ask the applicant. I guess as staff we didn't see that as a huge problem. In talking with the school, it sounds like they do do some spraying but there's a fine balance between doing too much. You have some parents who are concerned with too many chemicals 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 around the area where their children are at so it's a fine line them. As I said, from a staff's viewpoint we want the pond there for water quality purposes so I don't really see it as an issue. Lillehaug: Do we do any other control measures anywhere else throughout the city? Saam: No, not that I know of. Lillehaug: What amount of material do you anticipate being excess on the site? I can direct that to the applicant too. Saam: Yeah. They gave me the number of 8,000 cubic yards. They did say that was a high estimate. They believe it will be less than that. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all I have, thanks. Papke: Question on the fence. A 4 foot tall fence is probably tall enough to keep a bicycle from tumbling down the hill but it's not going to keep a 12 year old out of the pond. Any concerns or issues with the height of that fence? Saam: I guess I looked at it with our Parks Director who regulates trails all over the city. His recommendation was a 4 foot high fence. I just went with that. To me that seems high enough. Certainly if you wanted to you could increase it as a condition, but I guess we're, as staff we're fine with the 4 foot high fence. Sacchet: Could you point out which, where exactly that fence would be because it's just a stretch. I mean they can walk around it. Saam: Yeah. Let me just go back to the old grading plan, and the pond will pretty much stay the same. Here we have the pond. The trail is right here. The slope goes down so we were going to have the fence put in along this side. Maybe curve it around there like that. There are some existing tennis courts here and I believe they do, yes, have their own fence. Papke: So there's no intent to use the fence to keep the kids out of the pond? Saam: What do you mean by out? I guess it's meant as a safety hazard. If somebody would fail and want to roll down the hill. Papke: But we're not trying to prevent the kids from heading into the pond? Saam: No. No. Papke: Okay. So it will serve the purpose of safety but it's obviously not going to be effective. Saam: Yeah, it's not meant to be a barrier type surrounding the pond. Papke: Okay. Claybaugh: Nothing new to add. Sacchet: Rich. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Slagle: Just a few questions. Getting back to the fence. I mean in your opinion is it over kill that you would consider putting a fence around a pond that's located on a school property? Saam: I guess my opinion, yeah. Just because we don't do it everywhere else or on other public properties. Churches that sort of thing. Can maybe get the school's opinion on it and their engineer, but in my opinion yeah. I don't see a need for it. Slagle: Do we have ponds in areas that close to school within the city? Saam: Well Bluff Creek is an elementary school. I know there's either a pond or creek right by there that we don't have a fence around. That's the only one that comes to mind right now. Slagle: The trail going north to Melody Hill Road. Lane. There's also a, for lack of a better term a trail that cuts over to the water tower. To sort of a, you cross the fields if you will. Saam: It's not a paved trail I believe. Slagle: No. Sacchet: It's an opening. Slagle: Yeah it's opening. My question is, is there, as long as we're going to be doing trails, is there an interest in cutting a trail over to that versus having the kids walk across soccer fields or snow covered fields or what not? Saam: I think it' s a good point and one maybe we should pose to the applicant so. Slagle: So that wasn't brought up in your discussions with them? Saam: No. No. Slagle: Okay. And then lastly, the handout we got today, can you briefly tell me from the number of parking spots and I guess just a general overview, what changed? Saam: Sure. The major change. Slagle: I mean you've got the one. Saam: I'll show you the whole one and then I'll show you the new one at the end. Basically the, well the tumaround's gone. The bus turnaround area. There's some parking up in here with this bubble being cut out is down here, and this area on this side is now it's own drive aisle for the buses. Slagle: And the applicant knows, at least according to the plan was to, the reason that we're avoiding this was because it would potentially have some impact on the stand of trees to the east. Saam: Correct. Slagle: We're avoiding that? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Saam: No. I believe, again you can ask the applicant the exact count but there will be a few trees taken out in that grove. Slagle: Okay. So basically we just got, you just got this recently too. Saam: Yesterday, yeah. Slagle: Alright. I'll wait. Sacchet: Is that it? Slagle: Yep. Sacchet: I do have a few questions too Matt. First of all, the impervious is about the same between the revised one and the one we got? Saam: Yeah. I mean percentage points. Sacchet: Not big difference? Saam: No. Sacchet: In terms of trees. It says staff report on page 10 says the proposal will result in the removal of some existing trees. Do we have any indication of how many? How big? How much trees? Saam: Yeah, you know I discussed this with our City Forester and her concerns or maybe jurisdiction had to do with the tree plantings in the median area. I asked her about the trees coming down here, if there's any requirement to replace and, but the basic answer is because it's not a subdivision. Because they're not changing or increasing really the use, it's just like if you put on a house addition, maybe you have to cut a tree down. That's the way she looked at it. So and her feelings we didn't have to require any replacement of those trees there just to redo the parking lot. Sacchet: So it's not something we can get involved with basically is what you're saying? Saam: That's the opinion I got, yeah. And I did provide her with this new plan to show her that additional trees were coming down and she didn't have any additional conditions. Sacchet: Alright. Thank you for this. That's all the questions. That is our staff report so at this point I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and make a presentation if you so wish. State your name and address for the record please. Tom Berge: My name is Tom Berge and I'm Director of Finance and Operations for Minnetonka Schools. And in terms of the project, the reason that we have this as a proposal is the traffic conditions at West Middle School are such that we have bus parking and parent drop off overlapping. There is congestion. I don't know if you've been up there during dismissal or in the early morning hours but there's usually cars jockeying for position around the buses. The kids are trying to get out of the cars to get into school and it's really created a very congested condition. During even hours when we have school activities there's a lack of adequate parking and that's creating some congestion as well. And with the proposal we'll be able to, as you've 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 seen, separate the parent and bus traffic. And when I looked at the revised plans that have been developed to address the angle parking issue, I think it actually makes for a better flow of traffic because the buses won't be back tracking against the area where kids will be crossing to get into the parking lot to be picked up by their parents. So I think it's a better layout all the way around. And in terms of additional parking, we're looking at expanding daytime parking by approximately 30 cars and evening parking will be more than that because cars would be able to park where the buses are parking for their loading and unloading so we're looking at a significant increase in the capacity of that area for evening events. As we looked at the, and I looked at the drawings for the pond and the fence, I think the fence is a good idea. I think we'll probably administratively talk about the height of the fence. Four feet might be just a tad low. I think that's one thing we need to take a look at. In terms of mosquito control, we try to control those, that issue but really it's a very sort of balance between how much you go after it and the issue of using chemicals and so forth so, unless there are other complaints we probably wouldn't aggressively go after that issue. In terms of the tree issue, we are adding a number of trees around the perimeter of that parking lot that currently aren't there. I think I took a quick count as I saw it on the screen, probably around 18-20 trees around that perimeter area and right now in that center circle drive I think there's 4 trees so there's additional trees that are being added even though the new drive may take out some trees just to provide that exit. With that I'll turn it back to you for questions. Our engineer from Inspec is here, Stan Lim and if you have technical questions I guess I'd turn it over to him. Policy questions I think I can answer that on behalf of the school district. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant. Slagle: I have just a couple. If you can take a second sir and address the, what I'll call the informal trail to the east that connects to the little path or roadway where the water tower. Is there a plan to connect as you have a trail going north? Would you cut off and go to the east? Tom Berge: Currently we don't have a plan to install a trail by that opening by the water tower. That hasn't come up as an issue. Sacchet: If I may jump in. Maybe staff could clarify whether that is really a real trail or whether it's just an access to the water tower where there happens to be an opening in the fence that people go through? Do we know what the status is of that particular? Saam: It's not a real trail on any map or any city trail, no. Kids just use it. Sacchet: Okay. Saam: They come up our gravel drive for the water tower I think... Sacchet: There's basically to the water tower and then the school left an opening in the fence and people go through it but it's not a formal connection in any form. Saam: That's my understanding of it. Tom Berge: That's accurate. Sacchet: Thank you for clarifying that, okay. Go on Rich. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Slagle: Thank you. The other question I have is with respect to the parking lot. The proposal we received today. It looks like, from what I can see, you've got the trail coming from the north. Cuffing down. I don't know if there's a map that we can pull up of the newest. We've got a sidewalk or a trail going down right there, and then it cuts over. Is there other means within the parking lot of a sidewalk? And what I'm getting at is, you've got parents, kids coming in for functions within the school or heading to the north east to the fields and I'm just trying to get an idea of what the patterns of walking would be in a traffic area. Tom Berge: Stan, maybe you can come up and point out the sidewalk layout on this. Stan Lim: My name is Stan Lim from Inspec. I'm the engineer working on this project. Could you clarify the question? Slagle: If you could just take your pen and show me in that parking lot where the sidewalks are. Stan Lim: The sidewalks are on this whole side if you, this is a sidewalk right here and down, and then this is a big open walk for the crossing, and there's another sidewalk over here. So if you park over here and parents would drop off, can basically let, so their kids can basically come across the sidewalk down the middle here. Here's the front door of the building. There is another sidewalk over here too, right here. The other side is just a landscape. Slagle: Is it running on the north, east and west type? Stan Lim: This path goes all the way to the north and then it would go up here and then, we haven't it striped it yet but...crosswalk in here and it would take you... Slagle: Okay, if I can. Just go down to where you go up. Right there and then do you have an east/west sidewalk on the north side of the parking lot? Stan Lim: No. Because there really isn't any, I guess the building's here so we wouldn't want to keep all the sidewalk where people... Slagle: Okay, I'm just wondering if people are coming to park to go to the fields as well. Stan Lim: I think there's only what two baseball fields out there. Do people, I guess I'm not sure the reason for it. Tom Berge: Baseball fields, softball fields. Stan Lim: I guess you park in here you could, you know get to this. If you park over here, the sidewalk will be here and walk north into there are some tennis courts. That way or to get to the ballfields over here, but there isn't a sidewalk... Slagle: No, no, just on the very north side of it. Right there. And the reason I ask that is because again you've got people coming to the school. I think you're well suited for that but youtve got soccer fields, softball fields, tennis courts, track. And so I was wondering if that was a consideration? Stan Lim: I guess the soccer fields are down to the south here. The athletic track on the south end off to the right. Up here I guess. Southeast comer. This would serve the tennis courts right 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 here. I guess to answer your question, you know the reason, we'd rather have green space between the parking lot and the drive. Slagle: That's it. Sacchet: Craig? Claybaugh: Nothing to add. Papke: What do we expect the maximum depth, water depth of the pond to be after a heavy rain? Stan Lim: The pond, the permanent bottom of the pond is going to be about 8 feet deep. And the pond is designed with some safety in mind as most NURP ponds. The first foot of water is going to be a 10 to 1 slope so you'd have to walk 10 feet before the water gets to be a foot deep. And then from then on it's going to be about another 7-8 feet deep. There's going to be another 2 feet of .... what we call it. That would take care of all the peak rains in case you've got a big rain. That water will fluctuate up and down within 2 feet. As the rain subsides it will go down to the normal water level again. So the normal water level would be at the top of the 10 to 1 slope and that's fairly flat I guess. And that's a safety feature of most NURP ponds you see out there. Papke: So you don't have any concerns with the kids taking a dip in the pond at some point in time? Stan Lim: You know I've talked to Matt about that and most cities don't put fences as a rule for the NURP ponds. You know we see in public parks and places like that. I've wrestled with that question myself but I asked the advice of the City of St. Paul, Eagan, the watershed districts even and they said as a rule they don't put in fences. Papke: That's all I have, thanks. Tjornhom: I had one question about the pond again. Everyone's worried about the pond. I'm wondering, is it going to or could it be used, is it designed for educational purposes also? Stan Lim: Yeah. Typically on a pond like this, a NURP pond, the first few feet of water, that would be seeded with some sort of a native grasses and typically the schools or most public places, they don't mow all the way up to the water edge so that stuff will just basically grow long and natural. You've seen it in most ponds before so I guess you could use it as a nature thing. Tjornhom: So will it be easily accessible to the children? To get down to. Stan Lim: What I've heard from most engineers and most public entities like the watershed districts and stuff, as a rule they tell you not to mow all the way up to the water's edge so that the tall grasses in itself is a deterrent to the kids going in there. I mean it will take a couple years before the grasses are growing long enough but we're talking about seeding with native grasses that will be more, that are more water born type vegetation. So and give it 2-3 years it will grow tall enough that I'm guessing 6-7 feet tall that you really don't want to walk into anyway. Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: Yes. You had mentioned that one of the goals was to separate the bus traffic from the drop off traffic. Will the bus lane then be, have signage on it for buses only during school hours or, I 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 quite frankly don't see how the division works. I still cars coming right down by the buses and dropping kids off. Stan Lim: First of all, during drop off and pick up there will be, it will be supervised by school staff, as it is now I'm sure. And we do have signs planned for, you know as they come in, school buses only. So, but it will be supervised. What we've learned in the past is, if you give people one shared entrance between buses and cars, everybody will try to go in there. If there's a distinct separation, people will most likely go into the respective paths which is what we were trying to achieve here. Feik: Okay, thank you. That's it. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: My comment again, or question would be the yardage that you anticipate being in excess to the site, is it approximately 8,000 yards? Stan Lim: Yeah, that's the combination of most of it is coming from the pond and the other one, the remaining yardage is coming from the extra sub-cut that we had to do for the bus loop. Well for all the blacktop out there .... our engineer recommended we put in about 12 inches of extra sand below the parking lot and an extra 24 inches below the bus areas and the main drive just because they have a lot of clay, bad soils out there. Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks. Sacchet: No question from my end. Thank you very much. Stan Lim: I've got just one question. Sacchet: Yeah, if you want to add anything, go ahead. Stan Lim: As far as the letter of credit from the school, being it's a public entity, a school district, do you still require that letter of credit or? Saam: I guess as far as I know. I can double check that. Stan Lim: Okay. Saam: I can check on that. Sacchet: Thank you for your presentation. Now this is a public hearing. I open the public hearing if anybody wants to address this item, please come forward and state your name and address for the record please. Sam Mancino: Hi there. I'm Sam Mancino. My wife Nancy and we live adjacent to the school. This is the school and that's us right there. From what we understand of the plan it looks pretty good. I understand the need for redirecting the traffic and the parking lot, particularly the thing that interested us was the controlling of the water runoff so we have a couple of questions that we'd like to talk through and see if we can get some help on this. In the past there has been no water control per se and everything along that southern border drops onto our property and erodes our property and is creating a real problem. We've talked to the school about it a couple of times 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 before. They have made a little change. Put in a drain, you know one of those things you can buy at Home Depot, the drain tile thing, and that's actually making it worst. So as, as long as we're now talking about you know their only draining the northern section of that parking lot, and that's going to all drop into what is an 8 foot NURP pond, and it fluctuates 2 feet in heavy rains. You can imagine the runoff that comes off the southern part where the whole ballfield is on the top part. All flows onto our property. In a heavy rain it gets pretty substantial. So we'd like to see some study on that to be able to ask the school board to be able to control that. It's starting to wreck some havoc. Nancy Mancino: Yeah, there's about a 12 to 15 foot difference between our property on the southeast border of the school property which is their soccer fields and we noticed in the last 5 years the erosion, the slope in certain areas, I don't know, sloping and erosion happening and then they did try to correct it by putting in a long piece of drain tile that actually now comes into our property. So it's gotten worst not better so we'd love to be able to have the city address that with us and with the school district and see how we can remedy that. Sam Mancino: I assume that when the school was built, we've only been here for 20 years or so but we think that when the school was built, that whole field was raised to make it level, which created quite a height differential between our property and that's the part that's creating the problem. Nancy Mancino: And there's no retaining wall or anything so there is a fence there, but there is nothing that keeps the water from coming onto our property. Sam Mancino: So if you can help us. Sacchet: May I just clarify. So if I understand it correctly, and I want to be really clear about this, there is a drain tile there but it actually. Sam Mancino: A single one. Sacchet: It actually empties into your property? Sam Mancino: Yes it does. Sacchet: That's what I wanted clear, okay. Nancy Mancino: And that's just been added in the last couple years because we said that we were having problems. We went over to the school so. Sacchet: Okay. Sam Mancino: So a couple of other quick questions that we had, and I don't know how to resolve this. You guys know how to do all that. One thing had to do with hours. 7:00 til, what was it, 6:00 work days seems workable to us but on Saturdays, could that be amended to 9:00 to 5:00? We've heard every construction on all of the developments around us and it is something with your windows open on a Sunday to Saturday when you're trying to sleep in at 6:30 or 7:00 in the morning a big Cat fires up or a Matsu or something like that. Can we push that back to about 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays? The other question was, what is the estimated completion date? t didn't really see that in any of the documentation. I would assume by the end of summer but I don't know that for sure. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Sacchet: Do we know? I believe the staff report said that the intent was to finish it before school starts. Tom Berge: August 15th. Sacchet: August 15t~, okay. Sam Mancino: And then the last piece is a nuisance thing that has to do with the garbage that's dumped over the fence from the school. There's a small fence there adjacent to the southern boundary where the big field is, and when we walk back in our woods there, we found potato chip bags. We find pop cans. We find people have taken whole dumped cans and thrown it over the fence. Tires, etc, etc. And particularly with the increase of capacity for evening events and things that are going to be happening, we'd like to see the school take a little bit more responsibility in cleaning up the...I don't know how they monitor that, if on a daily basis but I was thinking on a quarterly basis go through and police that and clean it up a little bit. Nancy Mancino: Yeah, but we just have a new garbage can there so we'd love some help on that too. Sam Mancino: So those are our questions. Otherwise it looks good to us. Nancy Mancino: And we've love to have them included in the conditions of approval. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Nancy Mancino: Any questions for us? Sacchet: Actually I have a question to staff about what was presented. Is there a possibility to connect that drain tile on the, I guess it would be the south, the eastern part of the south line. Is there a way to connect that into this drainage system that's being built? Saam: No, I don't believe so. Sacchet: Not really. Saam: But the area that the Mancino's are speaking of is well to the south of this construction area. Sacchet: It's opposite basically. Saam: Yeah. I do however think that city staff deals with drainage problems in the city every day. We could sure come out and meet with yourselves and maybe the school to try to come up with a solution to this. In my mind though it's separate from this construction. But we'd certainly as a city be willing to help correct that drainage problem in any way we can. And I would think the school would be too. Nancy Mancino: Appreciate it. Sam Mancino: Thank you, 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Nancy Mancino: Thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you. Well this is a public hearing. Does anybody want to come forward and address this item? This is your turn to do so. Seeing nobody, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Who wants to start with this one? Lillehaug: I can. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: One thing I would like to do is be a little more proactive in dealing with this potential 8,000 yards of excess material. That's going to be plus 500 trucks leaving this site. As well as all the grading on that site. Rather than, staff spoke of dust control in here but I think we should be proactive and mandate water usage to control the dust because there's going to be dust. A lot of grading. A lot of trucks. There will be dust. And the other thing is with that many trucks, again we should be proactive. 41's a pretty busy highway and during rush hour it's real busy, so we should really, I guess I'd like to maybe revise or add to condition 13 and limit any hauling to non rush hour periods. And then when we get to a condition I can elaborate on that closer. Other than that, I agree with staff that it would be good to take care of this drainage issue to the south. It would be good to take care of this right now while they're constructing this, so I would hope that the school and the city can work with the Mancino's on this and take care of this during this construction. But like staff said, I don't think it's really part of this project. ! think that's all I have, thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Bruce, you want to jump in? Feik: Yeah. I generally support, Matt I have a question though. In the hours of operations during our last working session we addressed hours of operation, and I thought there was a difference in Saturdays. Different hours between Saturdays and work days. Saam: Yeah. We're in a little Catch-22. We're revising the code currently. We want to get the Saturday hours to say 9:00 to 5:00 but currently in the code they say 7:00 to 6:00, Monday through Saturday. With a private development, when we have a DC, a development contract, we limit those to just Monday to Friday 7:00 to 6:00 and then Saturdays 9:00 to 5:00. We want to get that into the code. We haven't made that change as of yet, so that's why the conditions reflect what the code says. If you would want to change that, I guess I would be in support of that as what we're going for. Feik: 9:00 to 5:00 would be consistent with what the new code is going to be, is that correct? Saam: With what we're proposing it to be, correct. Yep. Feik: Yeah, proposed. Okay. That was it, thanks. Sacchet: Okay. Bethany. Kurt. Bruce? Feik: I'm down here. Sacchet: Yeah I figured... 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Claybaugh: There's only two left. Me and Rich so. I would just like to add to the excellent points that Steve made with respect to being proactive. One of the concerns that I had that I didn't hear addressed was just in terms of what the sheer amount of haul material coming out of there, that the drive down to 41 be swept on a regular basis and silt controlled. Because there's going to be a lot coming off of those trucks and it's all going to get washed down onto 41, so incorporate that as well. I would be in favor of supporting the 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday. I remember part of our code compliance review and just wanted to note that I could certainly empathize with the Mancino situation. Unfortunately with respect to the drainage issues and the garbage over the fence, those aren't things that we can address in this particular forum or venue. We'd like to encourage obviously the school district, people involve to take a good close look at that and work in good faith. And reiterate what's been said already with respect to having the equipment on site. Now would be the opportunistic time to address that issue so that's all my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Rich. No comments. I don't have too much extra to add. We heard the concern about the mosquito control. I think that's in the hands of the school. I don't think we need to get involved with that. In terms of the request from the Mancino' s, I think the erosion is a significant issue and makes perfect sense to address it while there is equipment out there, so I could support something like work, applicant work with staff to address that issue and then basically look to the responsibility of the applicant to work that issue. Since we are in the process of revising the conditional use permit code to reflect that Saturday will be 9:00 to 5:00, it would be consistent in my opinion that we put that in at this point. And I think your concerns Steve about the non rush hour and the dust control is certainly appropriate, considering the considerable amount of hauling that's going to have to take place. The garbage over the fence, I think that I would see that as an issue between the school and the neighbors. That really doesn't play into the application in front of us. That's my comment. With that, I would be willing to take a motion. Feik: I'll make a motion. Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce. Feik: Planning Commission approves Interim Use Permit. Sacchet: We need to say Planning Commission recommends approval. Feik: Recommend approval. Sacchet: Is that correct? We're not approving. We're recommending approval. Alright. Feik: Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit //03-2 with the following conditions 1 through 7, 9 through 21 with number 13 modified to indicate that hours of operation shall be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. And you worked out some language over here so I'll let you deal with that later. Lillehaug: And then add additionally. Feik: I think we need to. Sacchet: We need a second first. Did you second? Lillehaug: I second it.. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Sacchet: You did? Lillehaug: I do now. Sacchet: Alright. So we have friendly additions? Lillehaug: Sure. A friendly addition to 13. Additionally trucks hauling material to and from the site shall be limited to non rush hour traffic times from the periods of 6:00 to 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 6:00 p.m., or revised as such from the city. Feik: Okay. Sacchet: Is that accepted? Feik: Absolutely. Sacchet: Any other ones? Lillehaug: Another friendly amendment. Water shall be used for dust control. Feik: Okay. Saam: Steve what was the second, if I could interrupt. What was the second hour period? You said 6:00 to 8:30 and. Lillehaug: 6:00 to 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 6:00 p.m. Would you concur that those are typical hours? Maybe before I add them you could. Sacchet: Would we be able to do something like applicant work with staff.9 Because do we need to be that specific? I see that is. Lillehaug: They are pretty specific rush hour times. That's a busy road. Sacchet: But then if the applicant work with staff they could, I mean I personally think we don't need to be specifying the hours at this point. Those are more detail than we need right now. Claybaugh: Typically pretty standard hours that are specified. Sacchet: That's pretty standard, okay. Claybangh: Civil engineering fn'ms for construction projects but again we can hear from the applicant if that's appropriate at this stage or. Sacchet: Well let's try to go through our process. Lillehaug: Let me add to that. And/or approved by the City and County. I think it is a County road. Is it a County road? Saam: State. State highway. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Lillehaug: It's a State highway. Saam: Yeah, and we didn't, I guess we didn't mention that. We haven't received comments so they will still apply though because it's a state road so. Sacchet: So it's really a State issue in terms of that part? Saam: I think it's a combination of the City and the State. Lillehaug: The State may impose those restrictions. I guess. Sacchet: You'd like to have the specifics? Lillehaug: Yep. Sacchet: Okay. And you accepted that? Feik: I accept the specifics actually yes. Sacchet: Any other? Claybaugh: Yes, I had a friendly amendment. I just wanted the drive down to 41 monitored and swept as required to mitigate silt washing down onto 41. Feik: The drive lane, or the driveway. Claybaugh: Yeah, the street sweeping of the driveway down to 41 as part of the truck haul route down to 41. Feik: Require to keep the dirt. Claybaugh: It needs to be monitored for excess soils and silts so all that comes off the truck as they're hauling down to 41 doesn't get washed down onto 41 in terms of silt. Feik: I'll accept that. Sacchet: Accepted? Any other ones? I would like to add one, applicant shall work with staff to address the erosion problem to the south on the eastern half of the property. Is that acceptable? Feik: Matt, what's the distance between the parking and the erosion problem to the south? This is a significant distance away. Can we reasonably link these or not? Saam: I guess in my opinion, like I said, I think it' s a separate issue that the staff can work with the residents on. But this is up. Feik: It' s hundreds of yards, is it not? Saam: Excuse me? Feik: It's hundreds of yards. It's a long way. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 Sacchet: It's a whole soccer field. So we'd better address it separately, is that what we're saying? Saam: In my opinion, yeah. Slagle: We can just assume too, if I can throw out. Sacchet: Please. Slagle: I'm sure the school district will work with the neighbors. Saam: And I'll certainly mention it as the city staff and we can contact the Mancino's. Sacchet: I think that's acceptable. Feik: Should we withdraw the amendment or? Sacchet: Well you didn't accept it. That takes care of that. Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. A couple friendly amendments. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit/t03-2, subject to the following conditionS: 1. The applicant shall provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $8,400 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration and compliance with the interim use permit. The applicant must also pay the City an administration fee of $296 prior to the City signing the permit. 2. Storm sewer sizing calculations will have to be provided for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 3. The applicant must provide a proposed haul route for review and approval. 4. If excess material will be hauled to another site in Chanhassen, a separate grading permit will be required for the other property. 5. All disturbed areas as a result of construction are required to be reseeded and mulched within two weeks of site grading. 6. A rock construction entrance must be installed at the beginning of the driveway construction. 7. Add a four foot high chain link fence to the west side of the proposed bituminous path along the entire length of the pond. Deleted. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the Watershed District and MnDot, if applicable. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003 10. The apPlicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey prepared by a professional engineer upon completion of excavation to verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the proposed plan. 11. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be re-spread on the site as soon as the excavation is completed. Top soiling and disk mulch seeding shall be implemented immediately following the completion of excavated areas. 12. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MPCA and EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a problem warranting such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. 13. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday, and prohibited on national holidays. Trucks hauling material to and from the site shall be limited to non rush hour traffic times periods of 6:00 to 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 6:00 p.m., or revised as such from the City Engineer working in conjunction with the State. 14. The applicant shall be responsible for any and all road damage sustained from the truck hauling and construction activities. 15. Use the City's standard outlet control structure for the pond outlet, as per City Detail Plate #3109. Also, add the other following Detail Plates to the plans: 5300 & 5301. 16. Show the NWL and HWL of the proposed pond. 17. Show the proposed grading for the new bituminous path for the entire distance to Melody Hill Road. 18. Revise the drive aisle widths of the eastern parking lot to be 26 feet in width, as per city code. '19. Building Official conditions: ao The plans must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. Provide plans and details of the accessible parking space signage for review. A plumbing permit must be obtained before beginning work on the site utilities. 20. The applicant shall verify the hawthorns planted on the south side of the parking lot have adequate growing space and protection if planted within the sidewalk. 21. The applicant shall make the minimum inside width of all landscape islands 10 feet. 22. Water shall be used for dust control. 23. The driveway shah be monitored and swept as required to mitigate silt washing down onto Highway 41. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 25