The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda and PacketAGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2019, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.CALL TO ORDER B.OLD BUSINESS C.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Consider a Site Plan Review for Development Within the Bluff Creek Corridor for Property Located at 8077 Century Boulevard and Zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) D.NEW BUSINESS E.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated May 21, 2019 F.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS G.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1.City Council Action Update H.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION I.ADJOURNMENT J.OPEN DISCUSSION NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official bylaws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, June 4, 2019 Subject Consider a Site Plan Review for Development Within the Bluff Creek Corridor for Property Located at 8077 Century Boulevard and Zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1. Prepared By Robert Generous, Senior Planner, AICP File No: Planning Case File No. 201904 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 54,276 squarefoot, twostory office, warehouse and manufacturing building subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the findings of fact and recommendation. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 54,276 squarefoot, twostory office, warehouse and manufacturing building. APPLICANT Bauer Design Build / Zion Investments, LLC SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development (PUD)/Bluff Creek Overlay District LAND USE:Office Industrial ACREAGE: 5.23 acres DENSITY: 0.16 F.A.R. APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article 2, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and OfficeInstitutional Developments Arboretum Business Park Development Standards BACKGROUND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, June 4, 2019SubjectConsider a Site Plan Review for Development Within the Bluff Creek Corridor for PropertyLocated at 8077 Century Boulevard and Zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD)Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By Robert Generous, Senior Planner, AICP File No: Planning Case File No. 201904PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 54,276 squarefoot, twostoryoffice, warehouse and manufacturing building subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the findings offact and recommendation.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 54,276 squarefoot, twostory office, warehouse and manufacturingbuilding.APPLICANTBauer Design Build / Zion Investments, LLCSITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development (PUD)/Bluff Creek Overlay DistrictLAND USE:Office IndustrialACREAGE: 5.23 acres DENSITY: 0.16 F.A.R. APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 20, Article 2, Division 6, Site Plan ReviewChapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and OfficeInstitutionalDevelopmentsArboretum Business Park Development Standards BACKGROUND On May 29, 2007, the Chanhassen City Council approved the following: Preliminary and final plat for two lots and one outlot (Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition). Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor. Site Plan for a 51,800 squarefoot office/warehouse building (Mamac Systems) with a variance to permit only 32 percent building transparency on the western building elevation and with a 20foot setback variance for the drive aisle in the southeast corner of the site for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition. On September 24, 2001, the Chanhassen City Council approved Interim Use Permit (IUP) #20011 to grade a portion of the Arboretum Business Park development and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #20018 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The IUP and CUP included this property. On July 28, 1997, the City Council approved the following: the ordinance for PUD #926 rezoning approximately 154 acres from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, and the PUD #926 granting final plat approval for Arboretum Business Park. RECOMMENDATION The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 54,276 squarefoot, twostory office, warehouse and manufacturing building subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Application for Development Review Findings of Fact and Recommendation Title Sheet, Preliminary Floor Plans, Building Elevations Atlas Land Survey Existing Conditions Demolition Plan Site Plan Grading and Drainage Plan Storm Sewer Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) SWPPP Notes Utility Plan Sanitary Sewer & Water Main Utility Plan Storm Sewer Utility Plan Foundation Draintile Civil Details Landscape Plan Landscape Details Public Hearing Notice Affidavit of Mailing List CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: June 4, 2019 CC DATE: June 24, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: July 2, 2019 CASE #: 2019-04 BY: RC, RG, EH, TH, DN, JS, ET SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 54,276 square-foot, two-story office, warehouse and manufacturing building. LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition (PID 25.0680020) 8077 Century Boulevard APPLICANT: Bauer Design Build Zion Investments, LLC 14030 21st Avenue N. 7014 Willow Creek Road Plymouth, MN 55447 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (763) 999-7217 (952) 474-6200 mikel@bauerdb.com cwatkins@ccipower.com PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 54,276 square-foot, two-story office, warehouse and manufacturing building subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the findings of fact and recommendation.” Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 2 of 15 PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development (PUD)/Bluff Creek Overlay District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office Industrial ACREAGE: 5.23 acres DENSITY: 0.16 F.A.R. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a Site Plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the city must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Site plan approval for a 54,276 square-foot, two-story office, warehouse and manufacturing building. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article 2, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office- Institutional Developments Arboretum Business Park Development Standards BACKGROUND On May 29, 2007, the Chanhassen City Council approved the following: Preliminary and final plat for two lots and one outlot (Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition). Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor. Site Plan for a 51,800 square-foot office/warehouse building (Mamac Systems) with a variance to permit only 32 percent building transparency on the western building elevation and with a 20- foot setback variance for the drive aisle in the southeast corner of the site for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition. On September 24, 2001, the Chanhassen City Council approved Interim Use Permit (IUP) #2001-1 to grade a portion of the Arboretum Business Park development and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #2001-8 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The IUP and CUP included this property. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 3 of 15 On July 28, 1997, the City Council approved the following: the ordinance for PUD #92-6 rezoning approximately 154 acres from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, and the PUD #92-6 granting final plat approval for Arboretum Business Park. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 54,726 square foot, two-story, office, warehouse and manufacturing building. The building footprint is 39,779 square feet with a second floor storage/manufacturing area of 14,497 square feet. Site Constraints Wetland Protection The City of Chanhassen Wetland Inventory, the National Wetland Inventory, a review of historic aerial photography and a site visit reveal that wetland is present on the site. The applicant has submitted a wetland delineation and type determination for city review and approval. Bluff Protection There are no bluffs present on the site. Bluff Creek Primary Zone Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 4 of 15 The eastern portion of the site is located within the Bluff Creek Primary Zone. A Conditional Use Permit was approved in 2007 for development in the overlay district. This area is proposed for preservation as permanent open space. A 40-foot structure setback with the first 20 feet in buffer is required. A trail connection is required by the city from Century Boulevard to the existing trail around the wetland complex. Shoreland Management The property does not lie within a shoreland overlay district. Floodplain Overlay This property does not lie within a floodplain. ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE Size Portion Placement The main entry is located in the northwest corner of the building with a secondary access on the north side of the building as well as an entrance in the southwest corner of the building. The main entrance is highlighted with a red colored metal canopy. Material, Color and Detail The applicant is proposing the building material of multi-textured, gray and exposed aggregate, precast concrete wall panels with partition lines and banding. The concrete panels at the entrances incorporate a dark gray, sandblasted finish. The upper levels of the building are a light gray, exposed aggregate finish with the lower portion of darker random rack finish. Accent and articulation is added through the spacing of aluminum storefront systems at the entrances and lower and upper five foot by seven foot window groupings along the street frontage. Five feet by five feet upper level windows are spaced around the warehouse area of the building. However, the building needs additional articulation to break up long expansions of wall area on the north side of the building. To avoid long unbroken expanses, buildings of more than 40 feet Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 5 of 15 in width shall be divided into smaller increments (between 20 and 40 feet) through articulation of the façade. This can be achieved through façade modulation-stepping back or forward or extending a portion of the façade. Height and Roof Design The building height is 30 feet 6 inches to the top of the parapet. The parapet is topped with a dark metal coping material. The parapet is highest at the building entrance, then steps down to 29 feet 6 inches along the office spaces and steps down to 28 feet at the south end of the building. The height of the building at the loading doors on the east end of the building is 24 feet 8 inches. Facade Transparency The applicant meets the 50 percent glazing (window) requirements. Windows are provided in all office areas of the building. The windows are within anodized aluminum window frames. Loading Areas, Refuse Area, etc. Delivery and service overhead doors are located on the east side of the building facing the Bluff Creek preserved area. This side of the building is shielded by the building from the public right- of-way of Century Boulevard. Lighting The applicant is proposing 25-foot tall light poles around the parking lot as well as wall pack units around the building. LED lighting is proposed. All lighting shall be shielded and have 90 degree cut-off angles pursuant to city code. Signage The applicant is proposing signage on the north elevation of the building and a monument sign at the entrance. Wall signage is permitted on the street frontage. However, the city may approve signage on the north elevation if wall signage is not included on the west elevation. Signage must follow the standards for the IOP district. Monument signage may not be located within drainage and utility easements and will need to be moved to another location on the site or the easement may be vacated. A separate sign permit must be submitted for each sign. Site Furnishings The applicant is proposing constructing a trail as part of the development. They provide a patio for outdoor seating/picnic area in the southeast corner of the building. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 6 of 15 Landscaping Minimum requirements for landscaping at the proposed development include 4,498 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot, five landscaped islands or peninsulas, and 18 trees for the parking lot. The applicant’s proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. Required Proposed Vehicular use landscape area 4,498 sq. ft. >4,498 sq. ft. Trees/parking lot 18 trees 18 trees Islands or peninsulas/parking lot 5 islands/peninsulas 0 islands/peninsulas The applicant meets minimum requirements for trees and landscaping, but lacks landscape islands or peninsulas in the parking lot area. Bufferyard and Boulevard tree requirements: Required plantings Proposed plantings Bufferyard C – North prop. line, open space, 350’ 7 Overstory trees 17 Understory trees 17 Shrubs 5 Overstory trees 0 Understory trees 0 Shrubs Bufferyard B – South prop. line, 500’ 7 Overstory trees 15 Understory trees 22 Shrubs 7 Overstory trees 12 Understory trees 23 Shrubs Boulevard trees – 1 tree per 30’ 11 Trees 11 Trees The applicant does not meet bufferyard minimum requirements for the north property line. Staff also recommends that the applicant increase plantings to meet minimum requirements. Along the south property line, staff does not recommend adding trees to meet minimum requirements due to a lack of space. The rear wooded area on the lot is within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. This wooded area is in the primary zone and shall be preserved with the exception of the public trail connection. The plans show the removal of a large oak tree for the installation of a park trail. After an inspection of the site, it appears that a trail could be installed without the removal of any significant oak trees. Staff recommends that the trail alignment be field inspected and approved by the city prior to any removals and construction activity. The developer shall install Conservation Area signage at the edge of the preservation area. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 7 of 15 Access, Lot Frontage and Parking Location The lot fronts on Century Boulevard and proposes two access driveways. Parking is distributed on the western and northern sides of the building with truck docks located on the east side of the building. An access drive is provided around the entire building. Staff has concerns regarding the alignment of the northern access driveway with Water Tower Place. The applicant shall provide a traffic memo, prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, evaluating conflicting driving movements with Water Tower Place and the northern driveway access. This memo should contain recommendations for improvements and/or alignment adjustments. Fire Lane No Parking areas for all the curbing except those directly adjacent to parking spaces will need to be painted yellow with NO PARKING FIRE LANE signs posted per city/fire code. Miscellaneous There is only one hydrant on the property. Several are needed to meet minimum spacing requirements per MN Fire Code. The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Building plans must include a code analysis that contains the following information: Key plan, Occupancy group, Type of construction, Allowable height and area, Fire sprinklers, Separated or non- separated, Fire resistive elements (Ext. walls, Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental use), Occupant load, Exits required (Common path, Travel distance), Minimum plumbing fixture count. Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed building, including but not limited to: allowable size, protected openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when complete building and site plans are submitted. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. EASEMENTS There are several existing easements on this property as shown on the survey. Two existing drainage and utility easements are atypical. Staff believes standard drainage and utility easements associated with the lot lines are appropriate for this site. The atypical portions of the existing easements should be vacationed to avoid the need for additional encroachment easements. A permanent easement will be required to be granted over the city’s trail that will traverse through the property. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 8 of 15 PARKS & RECREATION The applicant is proposing a trail connection to the trial within Century Boulevard and the trail located within the Bluff Creek primary zone. No Park and Trail frees are being collected because there is no subdivision. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the “wetland trail”. Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters Ridge trail, the intersection of Century Boulevard and West 82nd Street, and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the City of Chanhassen to the developer upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the trail. Trail easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition (formerly Outlot C, Arboretum Business Park) shall be dedicated to the city to accommodate the “wetland trail”. UTILITIES The developer will extend sanitary sewer and water service to the building from the existing utility lines in Century Boulevard. This will include the wet-tap of the existing 12-inch DIP water main in the street to establish an 8-inch C900 service connection for water, and the core drilling into an existing sanitary sewer manhole in the street to establish a 6-inch PVC service connection for sanitary sewer. All work within the public right-of-way, including the connections to the public utilities, will require permits through the city accompanied by traffic control plans. Prior to working within the public right-of-way and the connection to any public utility main, the applicant’s contractor shall contact Public Works to schedule a preconstruction meeting. All call-outs on construction plans that reference a detail shall be updated to incorporate the sheet the detail is illustrated on and the detail number referenced for construction. This will promote clarity between public improvements and private construction (e.g. curb details, gutter details, pavement details, etc.). Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 9 of 15 GRADING The applicant is proposing to grade the site to accommodate the construction of an industrial building. Through the proposed grading plan, drainage will be routed away from the building into a series of catch basins and stormwater pipe located in the parking areas, and directed to an underground storage and treatment device. Grading for a public trail will be conducted within the Bluff Creek Primary Zone under the approved 2007 Conditional Use Permit for the development of the Arboretum Business Park Seventh Addition. This trail connection was a requirement by the city as passed by Resolution 2007-34 on May 29, 2007. The applicant is proposing the construction of an approximately 80’ long modular block retaining wall between the northern parking lot and the public trail. While the top of wall and bottom of wall elevations provided are less than 4’, the bottom wall elevation is noted to be “at grade.” Bottom wall elevations of the entire wall section, or below grade, shall be provided. If the wall exceeds 4’ in total height, the wall shall be designed by a registered engineer, and plans shall be submitted for review. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The proposed development will exceed one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). All erosion control shall be installed and inspected prior to initiation of site grading activities. The applicant has proposed to install a trench drain directly adjacent to the loading docks located at the east side of the building. The trench drain is designed to capture stormwater, which is then routed to an underground detention facility, then to an infiltration facility, where overflow from infiltration is routed to a wetland and subsequent stormwater pond. Staff has concerns that in the event of a spill at the loading docks, if hazardous material and/or metals are utilized at the site, Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 10 of 15 they may enter the private storm system via the trench drain. Staff recommends the installation of a gate valve downstream of the trench drain to isolate possible hazardous material from entering the storm system. The operation and maintenance plan for the storm system should include the procedure for this isolation protocol. The proposed redevelopment will need Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) permits. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Article VII, Chapter 19 of City Code describes the required stormwater management development standards. Section 19-141 states that “these development standards shall be reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the design and layout of site plans, subdivisions and water management features.” These standards include abstraction of runoff and water quality treatment resulting in the removal of 90% total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total phosphorous (TP). The applicant has proposed a sub-surface stormwater management system which includes stormwater detention and infiltration prior to discharge to a wetland and stormwater facility north of the site. Further stormwater system design details are required to assess system functionality and performance. Staff also recommends alternatives be explored to manage flow and erosion from the point discharge exiting the site to the downstream facility. Compliance Table Code Project (Control Concepts) Building Height 3 stories 2 stories 40 feet 30.5 feet (to top of highest parapet) Building Setback N* - 0' E# - 0' N - 144' E# - 309' W - 50' S - 0' W - 80' S – 34’ * There is a wetland buffer setback: 30 feet building, 15 feet parking # There is a 40-foot setback required from the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundary. Parking Stalls 84 stalls 92 stalls (Office = 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet ((11,614/1,000)*4= 46); Manufacturing = 1 per employee on largest shift (28 employees); Warehouse = 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 10,000 square feet, then 1 space per 2,000 square feet ((9,782/1,000)=10) Parking Setback N - 0' E #- 0' N - 70' E - 230' W - 10' S - 0' W - 10' S - 11' Hard Surface Coverage 70% 48% Lot Area 43,560 sq. ft. 227,850 sq. ft. (5.23 ac.) Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 11 of 15 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the site plan for a 54,276, two-story building, plans prepared by Loucks and BDH & Young, dated 05-03-2019, subject to the following conditions: Building 1. The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. Building plans must include a code analysis that contains the following information: Key Plan, Occupancy group, Type of construction, Allowable height and area, Fire sprinklers, Separated or non-separated, Fire resistive elements (Ext walls, Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental use), Occupant load, Exits required (Common path, Travel distance), Minimum plumbing fixture count. 4. Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 5. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed building, including but not limited to: allowable size, protected openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when complete building and site plans are submitted. 6. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Engineering and Water Resources 1. The applicant shall provide a traffic memo, prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, evaluating conflicting driving movements with Water Tower Place and the northern driveway access 2. Vacate drainage and utility easements except the standard 10-foot wide easement associated with the front of the parcel in addition to the standard 5-foot wide easement associated with the side and rear portions of the parcel. 3. The wetland, wetland buffer, and the Bluff Creek Overlay District on the site shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Staff recommends that the developer dedicate those areas to the city to ensure conservation of these critical areas. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 12 of 15 4. Provide a permanent 20’ easement over the trail throughout the parcel. 5. The applicant shall remove all existing fence located on the east side of the property. 6. Apply for an Encroachment Agreement for the private sidewalk. 7. Provide top of wall and bottom of wall elevations for entire retaining wall build, which includes retaining wall built below grade, i.e. bottom of wall. 8. Replace any striping removed in Century Boulevard. 9. All striping and signage shall meet the requirements of the MN-MUTCD manual. 10. Indicate lineal (running) slope design for the trail. Trail slopes shall meet ADA requirements. 11. Staff recommends the installation of a gate valve downstream of the trench drain to isolate possible hazardous material from entering the storm system. The operation and maintenance plan for the storm system should include the procedure for this isolation protocol. 12. Salvage existing topsoil and indicate stockpile location. 13. Water main fittings shall be epoxy coated. 14. Core drill to existing sanitary sewer main will require the installation of a boot at connection. 15. As the developer will be required to remove all material surrounding the existing public sanitary sewer manhole that is being proposed for connection, Public Works will inspect and determine if repair or rehabilitation of the manhole is required (e.g. rebuilding chimney, installing I/I barrier, etc.). 16. Appropriate city permits for construction within the public right-of-way shall be obtained prior to construction. Work within city streets requires a traffic control plan. 17. A preconstruction meeting with Public Works and Engineering shall be scheduled by the contractor prior to working within the public right-of-way and the connection to any public utilities. 18. Identify stockpile locations on plan. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 13 of 15 19. All call-outs on construction plans that reference a detail shall be updated to incorporate the sheet the detail is illustrated on and the detail number referenced for construction. 20. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.). 21. A SWPPP shall be submitted for review that meets the conditions of the NPDES Construction Permit 22. Provide design details for the stormwater management systems and associated hydrology models. 23. The applicant shall assess alternatives to conveying stormwater system discharge on and across City property that will not cause erosion or degradation. 24. The applicant shall demonstrate through modeling that the receiving municipal stormwater system has adequate capacity to accept the increased drainage volume. 25. Provide a planting and revegetation plan specific for grading within the bluff impact zone and the wetland buffer. 26. Provide boring locations on grading and stormwater utility plan sheets. Environmental Resources 1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet minimum requirements for the north bufferyard. Plantings shall be located between trail and parking lot. 2. The applicant shall protect existing trees to be preserved along Century Boulevard. Tree protection fencing shall be placed at the dripline or greater distance prior to any construction activities and maintained until construction is complete. Any trees that die will be required to be replaced. 3. The trail alignment within the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be field inspected and approved by the city prior to any removals and construction activity. No live, significant oak trees shall be removed for trail construction. Fire 1. There is only one hydrant on the property. Several are needed to meet minimum spacing requirements per MN Fire Code. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 14 of 15 Parks 1. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the “wetland trail.” Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters Ridge trail, the intersection of Century Boulevard and West 82nd Street, and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the City of Chanhassen to the developer upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the trail. 2. Trail easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th shall be dedicated to the city to accommodate the “wetland trail”. Planning 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the security required by it prior to receiving a building permit. 2. A separate sign permit application, review and approval shall be required prior to site sign installation. 3. The building needs additional articulation to break up long expansions of wall area on the north side of the building. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application for Development Review 2. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 3. Control Concepts Title Sheet, Preliminary Floor Plans and Building Elevations 4. Atlas Land Survey 5. Existing Conditions 6. Demolition Plan 7. Site Plan 8. Grading and Drainage Plan 9. Storm Sewer Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 10. SWPPP Notes 11. Utility Plan - Sanitary Sewer & Water Main 12. Utility Plan - Storm Sewer 13. Utility Plan - Foundation Draintile 14. Civil Details Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 15 of 15 15. Landscape Plan 16. Landscape Details 17. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-04 control concepts\staff report control concepts 6-4-19.docx COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT P lalindDivision– P.O.77rket147,BouleChanhassen,Ow CITY (HT1 CIIANIIASSENMailingAddress– .O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317IV1I IV11t+ Phone: (952) 227-1300/Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date' I3\ (c\ PC Date:6 `t I l 1 c Date: f>,I t`3 60-Day Review Date: 71a/ a Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) 1 l Comprehensive Plan Amendment 600 C Subdivision (SUB) Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers $100 Create 3 lots or less 300 CUP El Create over 3 lots 600+$15 per lot Conditional Use Permit CUP) Previously Paid lots) Single-Family Residence 325 Metes & Bounds (2 lots) 300 0 All Others 425 El Consolidate Lots 150 Interim Use Permit(IUP) Lot Line Adjustment 150 El Final Plat 700 IIInconjunctionwithSingle-Family Residence..$325 Includes$450 escrow for attorney costs)*All Others 425 Additional escrow may be required for other applications El Rezoning (REZ) through the development contract. Planned Unit Development(PUD) 750 Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way(VAC) $300 Minor Amendment to existing PUD 100 Additional recording fees may apply) El All Others 500 II ElVariance(VAR) 200 Sign Plan Review 150 I ElWetland Alteration Permit(WAP) 0 Site Plan Review(SPR) El Single-Family Residence 150 I Administrative 100 El All Others 275 0 Commercial/Industrial Districts*500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: El Zoning Appeal 100 54,852 thousand square feet) Zoning Ordinance Amendment(ZOA) 500Includenumberofexistingemployees: 44 Include number of new employees:63 1 Residential Districts 500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, Plus$5 per dwelling unit (units) the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 1 Notification Sign (City to install and remove) 200 Property Owners'List within 500' (City to generate after pre-application meeting) Previously Paid 3 per address addresses) 0 Escrow for Recording Documents(check all that apply) Previously Paid — 50 per document 0 Conditional Use Permit Previously Paid Interim Use Permit 0 Site Plan Agreement 0 Vacation Variance Wetland Alteration Permit 1 Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)El Easements( 2 easements) Deeds TOTAL FEE: $1,550 00 Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal: Proposing construction of new 54,852 sf office/industrial building with warehouse Property Address or Location: 8077 Century Blvd Parcel#: 25.0680020 Legal Description. Refer to attached ALTA survey Total Acreage:5.20 Wetlands Present? 2] Yes No Present Zoning Planned Unit Development(PUD) Requested Zoning: Not Applicable Present Land Use Designation Office/Industrial Requested Land Use Designation: Not Applicable Existing Use of Property: Vacant CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED Check box if separate narrative is attached i i I 1 ' CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Bauer Design Build Contact: Michael LaQua Address: 14030 21st Avenue N Phone: 763) 999-7217 City/State/Zip: Plymouth, MN 55447 Cell: 612) 597-3739 Email: mike.)@bauerdb_com Fax: 763) 972-8707 Signature: Date: 5-1-19 PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Zion Investments, LLC Contact Cory Watkins Address: 7014 Willow Creek Road Phone: 952)474-6200 Eden Prairie MN 55344 612)834-1225City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: atkins@ccipower.com Fax: Signature: Date: s/1 /q This application must be completed ih- I Ind must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER(if applicable) Name:Loucks Inc Contact TREVOR GRUYS, PE Address 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite#300 Phone: 763)496-6706 City/State/Zip: Maple Grove, MN 55369 Cell: 952) 334-7593 Email: tgruys@loucksinc.com Fax: Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? Other Contact Information: Property Owner Via: [' Email Mailed Paper Copy Name: Patrick L Schneider 0 Applicant Via: 0 Email Mailed Paper Copy Address: 5810 West 78th Street. Suite 150 0 Engineer Via: 0 Email Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: Minneapolis, MN 55439 0 Other* Via: 0 Email Mailed Paper Copy Email: PatrickS@calhouncommercial.com INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing. SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM] 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Bauer Design Build and Zion Investments, LLC for Site Plan approval for a 54,726 square foot, two-story, office, warehouse and manufacturing building. On June 4, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Bauer Design Build and Zion Investments, LLC for site plan approval. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development, PUD. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Office Industrial uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition. 4. Site Plan Review: a. Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; Finding: The proposed development is in compliance with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides as well as meeting the design standards for Arboretum Business Park. b. Is consistent with site plan division; Finding: The proposed development complies with the Site Plan review requirements of the Chanhassen City Code. c. Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; Finding: The site has been significantly altered by previous grading on the parcel. The proposed development is in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring 2 developed areas. The development is preserving the Bluff Creek primary zone located on the site. d. Creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; Finding: The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. e. Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and 4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Finding: The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, subject to compliance with the conditions of approval. e. Protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and traffic circulation. 5. The planning report #2018-11, dated June 4, 2019 prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. 3 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Site Plan for Control Concepts subject to the recommended conditions of approval contained within the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of June 2019. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Steve Weick, Chairman e E. Ow s Ii i Ys N—1 o 1e N0j i = 01. I-- z 5 5; zz IVO OzgqCEvv o bO s 1 8MEMi3m PJ I a iqqi I w 4 z. tO c_ 1 f R 4 I l+ a y , N g 1-0g1 l/i HI gplid$aila 119 ; t y2, v cooaaaa3eded '_; ¢'ae CI GWw elU I Z Q ohi 1Z 2 y C U ct a, Z Z o xo o z U U C CL O ffi LL cc W } W H Ur`cs Z0 CO O h r II i I. 111s 1; iE T 1 ag dia ; 1 a 8 9 aI I it i1 18 I I,. i FIs! 1$11 1 it oar0_ 6 Iii113 5 WINO, ' 11; ir 111 ' f5La D4/,I p- 11iimim&i 11,0 ,g O cyo ittr <F: uu 5 § 1 Ft 1 tlh AMri - 33 0' $ I 1 6 5 i Ji,z 0, ila i l'i g L cV-.,' 11 2,A 7,.E 80._ 53 , 53 ill 5105 1 I51 51 11 11 11 if II i 1.' 3-9 1!I 31g lif ' . 911 19 111 1 11 sig I 11 51 F I/ 11 11 1; 4 ; 51 51 53 53 53 53 L. I ili 311 31 111 1 I I-.1g! I 1 11111111i i il I 1 I L I I 1111 11... i ilq. 1- - I m-., 1.. i , 1 f, t 1 i-,, li ,. , g-,I11i ., __ IteIli'9 l'I4 i , 1196I-1 i 1 . Ii 1 0 Ir: !b - 1,01S,i I ----I ! . 1 g 1114 c,g 1 .1 ' 1 -+ -+— 6 I 1 Lli Ai 4\-i Ili N ie o a„,, . 3-,, Oj; 111 4 l _ type A 1 l'W IiQs RmWi EL yy gg ggi ° z df61 f i' l S 1 l S fl d R di s s v' I 9 i I aEi I Cr 1 9 t i i ' 1 x 4' Baa ch 1 3 Q, Oa ill ' ii 1 e isMa: u°v € z Vpp ct pyccw zw A ii t y M illLXit lai 11,1 litl 11 I t Oil EL ii h 11- li 6 01r Pi E1111 Inlil I 3 ir lei iiii MI1p113 1 4 i8 e MI F 1. ME s Ii WE S ll i111111ilin Iti 11; 1 111; 11 hi iti 1 .1'. ,, in' B e Z 9 6 s LOUCKS W:\2017\17516\CADD DATA\SURVEY\_dwg Sheet Files\S17516-ALTAPlotted: 06 /13 / 2018 1:47 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION 05/08/18 SURVEY ISSUED 06/12/18 ADDED WATERMAIN License No. Date I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of VICINITY MAP Field Crew Max L. Stanislowski - PLS 48988 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. Minnesota. 17516 MLS NRS MLS DMP/GCF 05/08/18 CONTROL CONCEPTS 8077 CENTURY BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BAUER DESIGN BUILD 14030 21ST AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY 1 OF 1 N SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED (Per Schedule A of the herein referenced Title Commitment) Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. Abstract and Torrens Property TITLE COMMITMENT EXCEPTIONS (Per Schedule B, Part II of the herein referenced Title Commitment) The property depicted on this survey and the easements of record shown hereon are the same as the property and the easements described in the Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commercial Partners Title, LLC, as agent for Chicago Title Insurance Company, File No. 54247, effective date March 21, 2018. The numbers below correspond to those in the title commitment. 1-8 & 10-16 do not require comment. 9.Easement for utilities and drainage as shown on the recorded plat of Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition and plat of Arboretum Business Park. Shown hereon around the entire site. 17.Subject to the following matters as shown on the survey prepared by Schoell Madson dated April 17, 2007: a)Encroachment of bituminous trail along the West line of the subject property. Shown hereon. ALTA/NSPS OPTIONAL TABLE A NOTES (The following items refer to Table A optional survey responsibilities and specifications) 1.Monuments placed (or a reference monument or witness to the corner) at all major corners of the boundary of the property, unless already marked or referenced by existing monuments or witnesses to the corner are shown hereon. 2.The address, if disclosed in documents provided to or obtained by the surveyor, or observed while conducting the fieldwork is 8077 Century Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN 55317. 3.This property is contained in Zone C (area of minimal flooding) per Flood Insurance Community Panel No. 2700510005B, effective date of July 2, 1979. 4.The Gross land area is 227,850 +/- square feet or 5.23 +/- acres. 7.(a) There are no observable buildings on this site. 8.Substantial features observed in the process of conducting fieldwork, are shown hereon. 9.There are no striped parking stalls on this site. SURVEY REPORT 1.The Surveyor was not provided utility easement documents for the subject property except for those shown on the Survey. 3.The bearings for this survey are based on the Carver County Coordinate System NAD 83 (1986 Adjust). 4.Benchmark: MnDOT monument JON MNDT, located in Chanhassen, 0.25 mile south along Trunk Highway 41 from the junction of Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5 in Chanhassen, at Trunk Highway 41 milepoint 6.9, 83.5 feet north of a power pole, 26.0 feet west of Trunk Highway 41, 81.02 Feet north of reference mark 1, 2.0 feet east of a witness post. Elevation = 1027.44 (NGVD29) Site Benchmark: Top nut of fire hydrant located on the westerly side of the site along the westerly side of Century Boulevard. Elevation = 975.95 (NGVD29) 5.We have shown underground utilities on and/or serving the surveyed property per Gopher State One-Call Ticket Nos. 181153120 & 181154099. The following utilities and municipalities were notified: JAGUAR COMMUNICATIONS (507)219-8081 CITY OF CHANHASSEN (952)227-1300 CENTURYLINK (800)283-4237 LIGHTCORE (800)283-4237 LIFETIME FITNESS (507)219-8081 CENTER POINT ENERGY (406)541-9571 MEDIACOM (800)778-9140 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC (952)492-8210 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS (877)366-8344 XCEL ENERGY (800)848-7558 i.Utility operators do not consistently respond to locate requests through the Gopher State One Call service for surveying purposes such as this. Those utility operators that do respond, often will not locate utilities from their main line to the customer's structure or facility. They consider those utilities “private” installations that are outside their jurisdiction. These “private” utilities on the surveyed property or adjoining properties, may not be located since most operators will not mark such "private" utilities. A private utility locator may be contacted to investigate these utilities further, if requested by the client. ii.The locations of underground utility lines shown hereon is an approximation based on available maps, unless otherwise noted on the survey. iii.Maps provided by those notified above, either along with a field location or in lieu of such a location, are very often inaccurate or inconclusive. EXTREME CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED BEFORE AN EXCAVATION TAKES PLACE ON OR NEAR THIS SITE. BEFORE DIGGING, YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE AT 811 or (651) 454-0002. 6.The location of wetland delineation markers, which have been determined by a qualified specialist, are shown hereon. CERTIFICATION To Control Concepts Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Chaska Gateway Partners Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, Commercial Partners Title, LLC and Chicago Title Insurance Company: This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1 - 4, 7(a), 8, and 9 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on May 4, 2018. Date of Plat or Map: June 12, 2018 ______________________________________________ Max L. Stanislowski, PLS Minnesota License No. 48988 mstanislowski@loucksinc.com 9 9 9 9 17 9 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 9 SURVEY LEGEND C1.1 REMOVE TREE TYP REMOVE TREE PER CONVERSATION WITH TODD HOFFMAN (PARK & RECREATION DIRECTOR) REMOVE BITUMINOUS PATH CLEAR AND GRUB AS NEEDED FOR BITUMINOUS PATH CONSTRUCTION REMOVE FENCE AS NEEDED FOR BITUMINOUS PATH CONSTRUCTION SAW-CUT, REMOVE, & REPLACE BITUMINOUS AS NEEDED FOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTION REFER TO UTILITY PLAN PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES DURING DRIVEWAY AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PROTECT EXISTING LIGHT POLE DURING CONSTRUCTION REMOVE & RELOCATE EXISTING SIGN COORDINATE LOCATION WITH CITY REMOVE BITUMINOUS PATH REMOVE PORTION OF EXISTING CURB & GUTTER REMOVE CURB & GUTTER REMOVE BITUMINOUS PATH PROTECT EXISTING TREES PROTECT EXISTING TREE PROTECT EXISTING TREE PROTECT EXISTING TREE PROTECT EXISTING TREES PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES DURING DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION PROTECT EXISTING TREE LINE PROTECT EXISTING TREES SAW-CUT, REMOVE, & REPLACE BITUMINOUS AS NEEDED ALTERNATE C3 REMOVALS FOR CITY BITUMINOUS TRAILREMOVE TREE TYP REMOVE TREE TYP REMOVE TREE TYP 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 9 SURVEY LEGEND C1.2 REMOVE EXISTING TREES/WOODS REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER, RETAINING WALLS, FENCE, ETC. REMOVE EXISTING MANHOLES, POWER POLES, LIGHT POLES, BOLLARDS, PARKING METERS, SIGNS, ETC. REMOVE EXISTING TREES REMOVE EXISTING UTILITIES REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVING DEMOLITION LEGEND 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND/OR RELOCATE EXISTING PRIVATE UTILITIES AS NECESSARY. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ACTIVITIES WITH UTILITY COMPANIES. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE FEATURES NOT NOTED FOR REMOVAL. 3. CONTRACTOR TO CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, STRIP TOP SOIL, AND STOCKPILE ON-SITE. REFER TO GRADING PLAN AND SWPPP FOR SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. 4.CLEAR AND GRUB AND REMOVE ALL TREES, VEGETATION AND SITE DEBRIS PRIOR TO GRADING. ALL REMOVED MATERIAL SHALL BE HAULED FROM THE SITE DAILY. ALL CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND REMOVALS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISHED UPON REMOVAL. SEE THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP). 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SITE SURFACE FEATURES WITHIN REMOVAL LIMITS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SITE DEMOLITION NOTES PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING 18 18 27 25 2 20'29.5'80.1'B612 CURB & GUTTER TYP-SEE DETAIL ALTERNATE C3 10' BITUMINOUS PATH TYP-SEE DETAIL 40' AVERAGE BUFFER AREA 20' MINIMUM BUFFER AREA 6-WETLAND BUFFER LOCATION SIGNS TYP-SEE DETAIL BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT SIGN TYP-SEE DETAIL (AVAILABLE FROM CHANHASSEN PUBLIC WORKS) DOUBLE SIDED FIRE LANE SIGNS TYP-SEE DETAIL DOUBLE SIDED FIRE LANE SIGNS TYP-SEE DETAIL BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT 218.0'26.0'18.0'20.5'11.7'5.0' 9.0' TYP 9.0' TYP 26.0'18.0'93.0'10.7'16.0'7.6'5.7'5.0'24.0'8.0'TYP8.0'TYP9.0'TYP30.0'10.0'40.1'MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL TYP-SEE DETAIL ALTERNATE C3 10' BITUMINOUS PATH TYP-SEE DETAIL 26.0'8.7' CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP-SEE DETAIL TYPICAL ADA PARKING SEE DETAIL 4 - ADA PARKING SIGN/ BOLLARD COMBO TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE PAD FOR GENERATOR SEE DETAIL COORDINATE WITH ELECTRICAL PLANS CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE STOOP COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL PLANS HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP-SEE DETAIL LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP-SEE DETAIL HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP-SEE DETAIL DOUBLE SIDED FIRE LANE SIGNS TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE PATIO TYP-SEE DETAIL HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP-SEE DETAIL HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP-SEE DETAIL LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP-SEE DETAIL MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER & BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER & BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB FLAT CURB TYP-SEE DETAIL 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB CONCRETE APRON TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP TYP-SEE DETAIL 20'R 30'R 9.3'3'R 3'R 3'R 3'R 50'R 5'R 10'R 116'R 50'R 200'R 100'R 20'R 30'R 15'R 5'R 5'R 15'R 20'R 5'R 5'R 3'R 90'R 3'R 3'R 25'R184'R 15'R 3'R CONCRETE APRON TYP-SEE DETAIL 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER & BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER & BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB PROTECT EXISTING TREES-TYP FLAT CURB TYP-SEE DETAIL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MATCH EXISTING SECTION 105'R 95'R 112'R 122'R 85'R 75'R 130'R 140'R 48'R 38'R 24'R 34'R 60'R 10'R 50'R 49'R MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS TRAIL PROTECT EXISTING TREES-TYP PROTECT EXISTING TREES-TYP DOUBLE SIDED FIRE LANE SIGNS TYP-SEE DETAIL 9.0'TYP18.0' 26.0' 18.0'6.0'CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP-SEE DETAIL FLAT CURB TYP-SEE DETAIL 10' TAPER TO FLAT CURB 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB CONCRETE PAD FOR TRASH DUMPSTER SEE DETAIL CONCRETE PAVEMENT AT LOADING DOCK SEE DETAIL CONCRETE STOOP COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL PLANS 10' TAPER TO FLAT CURB 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB 10' TAPER TO FLAT CURB FLAT CURB TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE STOOP COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL PLANS 2 - BOLLARDS TYP-SEE DETAIL 3 - BOLLARDS TYP-SEE DETAIL 31.3'67.1 ' 8.0'12.0'TRANSITION TO SURMOUNTABLE CURB SURMOUNTABLE CURB & GUTTER TYP-SEE DETAIL TRANSITION TO SURMOUNTABLE CURB CONCRETE STOOP COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL PLANS 1 - BOLLARD TYP-SEE DETAIL MONUMENT SIGN 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL C2.1 N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 SITE NOTES 1.ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE DETAIL SHEET(S) AND STATE/LOCAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS. 2.ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CURRENT ADA STANDARDS AND LOCAL/STATE REQUIREMENTS. 3.ALL CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4.ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5.TYPICAL FULL SIZED PARKING STALL IS 9' X 18' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6.ALL CURB RADII SHALL BE 5.0' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7.BITUMINOUS IMPREGNATED FIBER BOARD TO BE PLACED AT FULL DEPTH OF CONCRETE ADJACENT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND BEHIND CURB ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. 8.SEE SITE ELECTRICAL PLAN FOR SITE LIGHTING. CURRENT ZONING:PUD PROPOSED ZONING:PUD PROPERTY AREA:227,850 SF / 5.23 AC EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 305 SF / 0.007 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA:109,336 SF / 2.51 AC SITE DATA YARD (BUILDING) SETBACKS: FRONT 30 FT MINIMUM SIDE 10 FT MINIMUM REAR 30 FT MINIMUM PARKING SETBACKS: FRONT 10 FT MINIMUM SIDE 10 FT MINIMUM REAR 10 FT MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING AND DESIGN STANDARD REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM PARKING LAYOUT DIMENSIONS (90 DEGREE PATTERN): PARKING SPACE WIDTH = 9 FT PARKING SPACE LENGTH = 18 FT DRIVE AISLE WIDTH = 26 FT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS SIGNAGE AND STRIPING NOTES 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SITE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ALL ACCESSIBLE STALLS, LOGOS AND CROSS HATCH LOADING AISLES WITH WHITE PAVEMENT MARKING PAINT, 4" IN WIDTH. 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ANY/ALL DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC ARROWS, AS SHOWN, IN WHITE PAINT. 4.ALL SIGNAGE SHALL INCLUDE POST, CONCRETE FOOTING AND STEEL CASING WHERE REQUIRED. 5.ALL SIGNAGE NOT PROTECTED BY CURB, LOCATED IN PARKING LOT OR OTHER PAVED AREAS TO BE PLACED IN STEEL CASING, FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND PAINTED YELLOW. REFER TO DETAIL. 6.ANY/ALL STOP SIGNS TO INCLUDE A 24" WIDE PAINTED STOP BAR IN WHITE PAINT, PLACED AT THE STOP SIGN LOCATION, A MINIMUM OF 4' FROM CROSSWALK IF APPLICABLE. ALL STOP BARS SHALL EXTEND FROM DIRECTIONAL TRANSITION BETWEEN LANES TO CURB. 7.ALL SIGNS TO BE PLACED 18" BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8.FIRE LANE NO PARKING AREAS FOR ALL THE CURBING EXCEPT THOSE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PAINTED YELLOW WITH "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" SIGNS POSTED PER CITY FIRE CODE. PAVEMENT TYPES NOTE: SEE PAVEMENT SECTIONS ON SHEET C8.3 FOR TYPE AND DEPTH INFORMATION. LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = 80 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 92 STALLS (INCLUDES ADA STALLS) OFF-STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED = 4 STALLS PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDED = 4 STALLS ACCESSIBLE PARKING 73 23 CIVIL LEGEND 40' WETLAND BUFFER AREA = 10,645 SF 40' AVERAGE WETLAND BUFFER AREA = 10,650 SF WETLAND BUFFER DATA PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING 444448 8 88 8888888972974973969 96 9 96096595695795895996196296396496696796894 5 950 955 94 6947948949951952953954956957958959960 965 96196 2 96 3 96 4 966 9509 4 6 9 4 7 9 4 8 9 4 9 953 954 956955 959957958 9619609 6 0 9659 5 6 9 5 7 9 5 8 959 9 6 1 9 6 2 96 3 964 966961 952 951 950950951952953954 970 971 972 97397097096 7 9 6 8969 970970972973974971972975 97 397 4 1 2 RETAINING WALL ELEVATIONS TW-65.33 BW-64.50 TW-64.53 BW-61.53 TW-60.25 BW-60.00 1 2 3 967 968 9519529539549 5 0 965 962963964966967968969 970 96 6 967 968 96 9 9 6 6 968 969 97097197 1971 971 971972973 971 97 1 971971971MATCH EXISTING 71.40 71.40 71.40 71.40 67.40 67.40 67.30 67.30 67.40 67.40 69.87 69.87 71.08 71.08 71.40 71.40 71.40 71.13 71.09 70.9070.85 71.33 70.6870.84 70.59 69.98 69.80 69.27 69.69 65.94 66.10 65.04 66.06 66.45 66.68 66.61 65.70 66.07 68.47 67.92 68.72 69.27 70.10 69.69 71.4071.4071.40 71.4071.40 71.12 71.07 70.40 70.6570.86 70.86 69.25 69.57 71.18 71.1871.1870.86 71.49 72.08 72.73 73.52 74.75 73.49 72.87 74.22 74.59 74.03 72.90 72.29 73.19 71.76 71.61 71.32 70.18 71.42 70.00 71.63 70.73 69.98 69.46 69.63 69.78 69.61 68.99 ±EX 69.45 ±EX 70.73 70.69 70.81 71.28 71.12 71.40 71.3371.12 71.03 70.6770.83 70.15 70.11 69.57 68.88 69.47 70.1669.61 69.02 69.21 69.12 68.95 68.94 68.41 68.5068.51 68.28 68.18 68.14 67.98 60.73 60.53 58.35 58.15 56.01 55.81 55.24 55.24 55.04 55.04 55.24 55.04 55.24 55.04 54.40 54.50 68.35 ±EX 67.71 ±EX 67.60 ±EX 67.44 ±EX 70.10 ±EX 70.50 ±EX 67.96 ±EX 68.29 ±EX 71.72 74.76 ±EX 74.33 ±EX 73.77 ±EX 73.12 ±EX 74.19 ±EX 74.24 ±EX 75.48 ±EX 75.52 ±EX 1.3%1.0%2.1%1.8%1.8%70.6270.62 4. 5 % 2. 0 % 1. 5 %1.9%4.5 % 2. 0 % 5.0% 2.4%1.5%1.5%5.0%4.4%1.8%3.5%1.5%2.6% 2.0%4.0%4.0% 4.0% 3.0%2.8%2.7%2.3%0.7%2.0%1.5%1.7%1.1%1.1% 1.8% 1.0% 1 . 6%3.0%2.0%2.0%2.5%2.2% 2.4% 2.0%2.0%1.6%3.3%2.9%2.0%2.1% 2.1% 5.0%2.0% 2.0% 5.0% 2. 2 % 2.0%2.5%1.1%2.6% 2.0%1.8%1.9%1.1%2.0%1.3%1.5%2.0%3.1%1.5%0.8%0.3%4.4%3. 6 % 0 . 8%1.5% 0.9 % 3 ACTIVITIES MUST BE CONDUCTED SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE ALTERNATE C3 GRADING ASSOCIATED WITH CITY BITUMINOUS TRAIL 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 73 23 CIVIL LEGEND GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1.SPOT ELEVATIONS REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE GRADES, GUTTER/FLOW LINE, FACE OF BUILDING, OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2.GRADE THROUGH THE ADA AREAS OF THE PARKING LOT SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 2% SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION. 3.CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCH BASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.16 FEET. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS. 4.ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES OF TOP SOIL AND SEED/MULCH OR SOD. THESE AREAS SHALL BE WATERED/MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 5.ACTIVITIES MUST BE CONDUCTED SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE. 6.FOR SITE RETAINING WALLS "TW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT TOP FACE OF WALL (NOT TOP OF WALL), AND "BW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT BOTTOM FACE OF WALL (NOT BOTTOM OF BURIED WALL COURSES). 7.REFER TO THE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW (REPORT NO. B1801313), DATED MARCH 13, 2018 AS PREPARED BY BRAUN INTERTEC FOR AN EXISTING SUBSURFACE SITE CONDITION ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS. 8.STREETS MUST BE CLEANED AND SWEPT WHENEVER TRACKING OF SEDIMENTS OCCURS AND BEFORE SITES ARE LEFT IDLE FOR WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. A REGULAR SWEEPING SCHEDULE MUST BE ESTABLISHED. 9.DUST MUST BE ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED. 10.SEE SWPPP FOR ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS. 11.SEE UTILITY PLAN FOR WATER, STORM AND SANITARY SEWER INFORMATION. 12.SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND BITUMINOUS TAPER LOCATIONS. C3.1 PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING 444448 8 88 8888888972974973969 96 9 96096595695795895996196296396496696796894 5 950 955 94 6947948949951952953954956957958959960 965 96196 2 96 3 96 4 966 9509 4 6 9 4 7 9 4 8 9 4 9 953 954 956955 959957958 9619609 6 0 9659 5 6 9 5 7 9 5 8 959 9 6 1 9 6 2 9 6 3 964 966961 952 951 950950951952953954 970 971 972 97397097096 7 9 6 8969 970970972973974971972975 97 397 4 967 968 9519529539549 5 0 965 962963964966967968969 970 96 6 967 968 96 9 9 6 6 968 969 97097197 1971 971 971972973 971 97 1 971971971INLET PROTECTION TYP-SEE DETAIL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SEE DETAIL SILT FENCE TYP-SEE DETAIL SILT FENCE TYP-SEE DETAIL EROSION CONTROL BLANKET TYP-SEE DETAIL DOUBLE ROW SILT FENCE TYP-SEE DETAIL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SEE DETAIL ACTIVITIES MUST BE CONDUCTED SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE TREE PROTECTION FENCE TYP-SEE DETAIL PROPOSED SOIL STOCKPILE LOCATION PROPOSED SOIL STOCKPILE LOCATION TREE PROTECTION FENCE TO BE INSTALLED AT EDGE OF GRADING LIMITS ALONG TRAIL TYP-SEE DETAIL TREE PROTECTION FENCE TO BE INSTALLED AT EDGE OF GRADING LIMITS ALONG TRAIL TYP-SEE DETAIL ALTERNATE C3 EROSION CONTROL ASSOCIATED WITH CITY BITUMINOUS TRAIL INLET PROTECTION TYP-SEE DETAIL INLET PROTECTION TYP-SEE DETAIL 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 73 23 CIVIL LEGEND C3.2 SWPPP LEGEND INLET PROTECTION SILT FENCE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERN BIO ROLLS EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL 1.THE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF CONSTRUCTING A BUILDING, SURFACE PAVEMENTS, RETAINING WALL, UNDERGROUND RETENTION & DETENTION SYSTEMS, AND UTILITIES. 2.THE INTENDED SEQUENCING OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1.INSTALL VEHICLE TRACKING BMP 2.INSTALL INLET PROTECTION 3.INSTALL SILT FENCE AROUND SITE 4.CLEAR AND GRUB SITE 5.STRIP AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL 6.REMOVE PAVEMENTS AND UTILITIES 7.ROUGH GRADE SITE 8.IMPORT CLEAN FILL FOR REPLACEMENT AND BALANCE 9.INSTALL UTILITIES 10.INSTALL BUILDING FOUNDATIONS 11.INSTALL CURB AND GUTTER 12.INSTALL PAVEMENTS AND WALKS 13.FINAL GRADE SITE 14.REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT FROM STORMWATER SYSTEMS 15.SEED AND MULCH 16.WHEN ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS COMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED, REMOVE SILT FENCE, INLET PROTECTION, AND RESEED ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL. 3.SITE DATA: AREA OF DISTURBANCE:4.201 AC PRE-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA:0.007 AC POST-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA:2.509 AC GENERAL SOIL TYPE:SEE GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 4.THE LOCATION OF AREAS NOT TO BE DISTURBED MUST BE IDENTIFIED WITH FLAGS, STAKES, SIGNS, SILT FENCE, ETC. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. 5.ALL DISTURBED GROUND LEFT INACTIVE FOR SEVEN (7) OR MORE DAYS SHALL BE STABILIZED BY SEEDING OR SODDING (ONLY AVAILABLE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15) OR BY MULCHING OR COVERING OR OTHER EQUIVALENT CONTROL MEASURE. 6.ON SLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER MAINTAIN SHEET FLOW AND MINIMIZE RILLS AND/OR GULLIES, SLOPE LENGTHS CAN NOT BE GREATER THAN 75 FEET. DENOTES SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1. ALL 3:1 SLOPES TO BE STABILIZED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 7.ALL STORM DRAINS AND INLETS MUST BE PROTECTED UNTIL ALL SOURCES OF POTENTIAL DISCHARGE ARE STABILIZED. 8.TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROL AND CAN NOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS OR STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. TEMPORARY STOCKPILES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SILT, CLAY, OR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ARE EXEPMT EX: CLEAN AGGREGATE STOCK PILES, DEMOLITION CONCRETE STOCKPILES, SAND STOCKPILES. 9.SEDIMENT LADEN WATER MUST BE DISCHARGED TO A SEDIMENTATION BASIN WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF NOT POSSIBLE, IT MUST BE TREATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE BMP'S. 10.SOLID WASTE MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. 11.EXTERNAL WASHING OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE. RUNOFF MUST BE PROPERLY CONTAINED. 12.NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE. 13.THE OWNER WHO SIGNS THE NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION IS A PERMITTEE AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT. THE OPERATOR (CONTRACTOR) WHO SIGNS THE NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION IS A PERMITTEE FOR PARTS II.B., PART II.C, PART II.B-F, PART V, PART IV AND APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN APPENDIX A, PART C. OF THE NPDES PERMIT AND IS JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE WITH THE OWNER FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PERMIT. 14.TERMINATION OF COVERAGE-PERMITTEE(S) WISHING TO TERMINATE COVERAGE MUST SUBMIT A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) TO THE MPCA. ALL PERMITTEE(S) MUST SUBMIT A NOT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET: A.FINAL STABILIZATION, PER NPDES PERMIT PART IV.G. HAS BEEN ACHIEVED ON ALL PORTIONS OF THE SITE FOR WHICH THE PERMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE. B.TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AS DESCRIBED IN THE PERMIT. 15. INSPECTIONS A.INITIAL INSPECTION FOLLOWING SILT FENCE INSTALLATION BY CITY REPRESENTATIVE IS REQUIRED. B.EXPOSED SOIL AREAS: ONCE EVERY 7 DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING A 0.5" OVER 24 HOUR RAIN EVENT. C.STABILIZED AREAS: ONCE EVERY 7 DAYS D.FROZEN GROUND: AS SOON AS RUNOFF OCCURS OR PRIOR TO RESUMING CONSTRUCTION. E.INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED FOR 3 YEARS AFTER FILING OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND MUST INCLUDE: DATE AND TIME OF ACTION, NAME OF PERSON(S) CONDUCTING WORK, FINDING OF INSPECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION, DATE AND AMOUNT OF RAINFALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD. 16. MINIMUM MAINTENANCE A.SILT FENCE TO BE REPAIRED, REPLACED, SUPPLEMENTED WHEN NONFUNCTIONAL, OR 1/3 FULL; WITHIN 24 HOURS B.SEDIMENT BASINS DRAINED AND SEDIMENT REMOVED WHEN REACHES 1/2 STORAGE VOLUME. REMOVAL MUST BE COMPLETE WITHIN 72 HOURS OF DISCOVERY. C.SEDIMENT REMOVED FROM SURFACE WATERS WITHIN (7)SEVEN DAYS D.CONSTRUCTION SITE EXITS INSPECTED, TRACKED SEDIMENT REMOVED WITH 24 HOURS. E.PROVIDE COPIES OF EROSION INSPECTION RESULTS TO CITY ENGINEER FOR ALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 12" IN 24 HOURS F.PERMITTEE MUST, AT A MINIMUM, INSPECT, MAINTAIN AND REPAIR ALL DISTURBED SURFACES AND ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES EVERY DAY WORK IS PERFORMED ON THE SITE AND AT LEAST WEEKLY UNTIL LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY HAS CEASED. THEREAFTER, THE PERMITTEE MUST PERFORM THESE RESPONSIBILITIES AT LEAST WEEKLY UNTIL VEGETATIVE COVER IS ESTABLISHED. 17.THE SWPPP, INCLUDING ALL CHANGES TO IT, AND INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS MUST BE KEPT AT THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BY THE PERMITTEE(S) WHO HAVE OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE SITE. 18.OWNER MUST KEEP RECORDS OF ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT, THE SWPPP, ALL INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE, PERMANENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, AND REQUIRED CALCULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. THESE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED FOR THREE YEARS AFTER FILING NPDES NOTICE OF TERMINATION. 19.SWPPP MUST BE AMENDED WHEN: A.THERE IS A CHANGE IN DESIGN, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, WEATHER OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON DISCHARGE B.INSPECTIONS INDICATE THAT THE SWPPP IS NOT EFFECTIVE AND DISCHARGE IS EXCEEDING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. C.THE BMP'S IN THE SWPPP ARE NOT CONTROLLING POLLUTANTS IN DISCHARGES OR IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT. 19.CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA A.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASH-OUT CONTAINER WITH RAIN PROTECTION PER PLAN. B.CONCRETE WASH-OUT TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH SIGNAGE STATING "CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA DO NOT OVERFILL". C.CONCRETE WASHOUT WATER NEEDS TO BE PUMPED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF STANDING WATER IN WASHOUT AREA. 20.IN THE EVENT OF ENCOUNTERING A WELL OR SPRING DURING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR TO CEASE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND NOTIFY ENGINEER. 21.PIPE OULTETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTION TO A SURFACE WATER. 22.FINAL STABILIZATION FINAL STABILIZATION REQUIRES THAT ALL SOIL DISTURBING ACVTIVITIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT DISTURBED AREAS ARE STABILIZED BY A UNIFORM PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVER WITH 70% OF THE EXPECTED FINAL DENSITY, AND THAT ALL PERMANENT PAVEMENTS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. ALL TEMPORARY BMP'S SHALL BE REMOVED, DITCHES STABILIZED, AND SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM PERMANENT CONVEYANCES AND SEDIMENTATION BASINS IN ORDER TO RETURN THE POND TO DESIGN CAPACITY. 23.RESPONSIBILITIES A.THE OWNER MUST IDENTIFY A PERSON WHO WILL OVERSEE THE SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION AND THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: CONTACT: __________________________________ COMPANY: __________________________________ PHONE: __________________________________ B.THE OWNER MUST IDENTIFY THE A PERSON WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LONG TERM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: CONTACT:__________________________________ COMPANY: __________________________________ PHONE: __________________________________ 24.THE WATERSHED DISTRICT OR THE CITY MAY HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTIONS OR AS-BUILT DRAWINGS VERIFYING PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE BMPS. SWPPP NOTES ESTIMATED QUANTITIES DESCRIPTION UNIT TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EA PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASHOUT EA SILT FENCE (STANDARD)/TREE PROTECTION LF EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SY INLET PROTECTION EA QUANTITY 2 1 2,630 4,575 14 BIO-ROLL LF NA SITE VICINITY MAP CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER SPECIAL WATERS SEARCH MAP C3.3 PROJECT SITE * EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 6" 6" 1' TO 3'ANCHOR TRENCH 1.DIG 6"X6" TRENCH 2.LAY BLANKETS IN TRENCH 3.STAPLE AT 1.5' INTERVALS 4.BACKFILL WITH NATURAL SOIL AND COMPACT. 5.BLANKET LENGTH SHALL NOT EXCEED 100' WITHOUT AN ANCHOR TRENCH NOTE: SLOPE SURFACE SHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS, SOIL CLUMPS, STICKS, VEHICLE IMPRINTS, AND GRASS. BLANKETS SHALL HAVE GOOD SOIL CONTACT. ANCHOR TRENCH (SEE DETAIL AND NOTES BELOW) OVERLAP END JOINTS MINIMUM OF 6" AND STAPLE OVERLAP AT 1.5' INTERVALS. OVERLAP LONGITUDINAL JOINTS MINIMUM OF 6" STAPLE PATTERN/DENSITY SHALL FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. DI R E C T I O N O F SU R F A C E F L O W STAGGER JOINTS DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 3016LOUCKS PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING 4444488 88 8888888SANITARY SEWER SERVICE STUB INV=961.83 (VERIFY LOCATION, INVERT & SIZE W/ MECHANICAL) CORE DRILL INTO EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE INV=957.97± (VERIFY INVERT & SIZE) 107 LF-6" PVC @ 2.00% WET TAP EXISTING 12" DIP WATERMAIN (VERIFY TYPE & SIZE) 8" GATE VALVE DUAL 8" COMBINED DOMESTIC/FIRE WATER SERVICES (VERIFY LOCATION, INVERT & SIZE W/ MECHANICAL) 15 LF-8" PVC WATERMAIN SANMH 1 RIM=971.89 INV(E)=960.21 INV(W)=960.11 81 LF-6" PVC @ 2.00% 11.25 DEG. 8" BEND 8 LF-8" PVC WATERMAIN STORM BOTTOM OF PIPE=968.67± WM TOP OF PIPE=966.21± DEFLECT WM AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION STORM BOTTOM OF PIPE=968.28 SANITARY TOP OF PIPE=958.98± STORM BOTTOM OF PIPE=962.34± SANITARY TOP OF PIPE=961.39± 170 LF-8" PVC WATERMAIN 121 LF-8" PVC WATERMAIN 103 LF-8" PVC WATERMAIN 11.25 DEG. 8" BEND HYDRANT W/ GATE VALVE 10 LF-6" PVC WATERMAIN 90 DEG. 8"X8" BEND 8"X6" TEE WM BOTTOM OF PIPE=965.83± SANITARY TOP OF PIPE=958.64± DEFLECT WM AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 73 23 CIVIL LEGEND C4.1 UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS,THE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, THE LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT , AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), 2013 EDITION. 2.ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 3.ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES. 4.ALL STORM SEWER , SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES SHALL TERMINATE 5' FROM THE BUILDING FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5.A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN WATERMAIN AND ALL UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6.ALL NEW WATERMAIN AND SERVICES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8.0 FEET OF COVER. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND SERVICES AS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 8.0 FEET MINIMUM DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED. 7.ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8.PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS: WATERMAIN C900 PVC 6" TO 8" DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER PVC SCH 40 6" DIAMETER STORM SEWER DUAL WALL HDPE 12" TO 18" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC 4" TO 6" DIAMETER 9.ALL SANITARY SEWER WYES, TEES AND SERVICES SHALL BE 6" PVC SCH 40. 10.CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OF UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM FOR ENGINEER'S REVIEW. 11.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATCH BASINS, LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714. 12.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714). APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES. 13.HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) STORM DRAINS MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714: a.PIPES 4-INCH TO 10-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. b.PIPES 12-INCH TO 60-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM F2306. c.ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. d.WATER-TIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING 444448888 8888888INFIL 1 53"x41" PERFORATED ARCH CSP UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM (1,055 LF TOTAL) TOP OF PIPE=961.58 OUTLET=959.97 INV=958.17 CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DOWN TO NATIVE SOILS CLASSIFIED AS POORLY GRADED SAND W/ SILT OR SILTY SAND (SP-SM, SM) ESTIMATED TO BE AT AN ELEVATION OF 961± ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SYSTEM AND 951± ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR TO BACKFILL WITH FREE DRAINING GRANULAR MATERIALS (100% PASSING 3-INCH SIEVE AND 0-20% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE) UP TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SYSTEM. DET 1 54" CSP UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM (350 LF TOTAL) TOP OF PIPE=964.54 OUTLET=960.04 INV=960.04 111 LF-18" HDPE @ 1.0% OUTLET INV=959.97 FES 1 W/ TRASH GUARD AND GROUTED RIP-RAP INV=958.88 CB 10 RIM=968.88 INV=961.16 SUMP=958.16 15 LF-12" HDPE @ 4.5% INLET INV=960.48 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=969.58 INV=958.17 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=970.38 INV=958.17 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=971.51 INV=958.17 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=972.30 INV=958.17 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=971.98 INV=958.17 CBMH 20 RIM=970.18 INV(S)=964.92 INV(W)=961.16 SUMP=958.16 INLET INV=960.48 15 LF-12" HDPE @ 4.5% CBMH 21 (18" NYLOPLAST) RIM=970.00 INV=966.00 54 LF-12" HDPE @ 2.0% 25 LF-4" PVC DRAINTILE SLOPE TO DRAIN TYP-SEE DETAIL CBMH 32 RIM=969.25 INV=964.32 12" ROOF DRAIN STUB 4 LF-12" HDPE @ 2.0% INV=964.40 (VERIFY SIZE, INVERT & LOCATION W/ MECHANICAL) 12" ROOF DRAIN STUB 4 LF-12" HDPE @ 2.0% INV=964.40 (VERIFY SIZE, INVERT & LOCATION W/ MECHANICAL) CBMH 31 RIM=970.65 INV(N)=964.32 INV(E,W)=963.81 102 LF-12" HDPE @ 0.5% CBMH 30 RIM=970.40 INV=963.62 SUMP=960.62 37 LF-12" HDPE @ 0.5% 80 LF-12" HDPE @ 3.9% INLET INV=960.48 STORM BOTTOM OF PIPE=962.34± SANITARY TOP OF PIPE=961.39± 25 LF-4" PVC DRAINTILE SLOPE TO DRAIN TYP-SEE DETAIL INLET INV=959.97 OUTLET INV=960.04 OCS MH 40 RIM=970.35 WEIR=964.46 6"X6" ORIFICE=960.04 INV=960.04 14 LF-12" HDPE @ 0.5% 14 LF-12" HDPE @ 0.0% 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=969.93 INV=960.04 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=967.48 INV=960.04 CB 50 RIM=969.27 INV=964.39 SUMP=961.39 21 LF-12" HDPE @ 4.5% INLET INV=963.44 25 LF-4" PVC DRAINTILE SLOPE TO DRAIN TYP-SEE DETAIL 25 LF-4" PVC DRAINTILE SLOPE TO DRAIN TYP-SEE DETAIL CB 60 RIM=965.04 INV=961.54 SUMP=958.54 19 LF-12" HDPE @ 0.5% INLET INV=961.44 CB 70 RIM=965.70 INV=962.20 SUMP=959.20 14 LF-12" HDPE @ 1.0% INLET INV=962.06 TRENCH DRAIN 80 NEENAH R-4999-CX BOLTED RIM(W)=967.30 RIM(E)=967.30 INV(W)=966.30 INV(E)=966.14 OUT=964.14 INLET INV=963.32 41 LF-12" HDPE @ 2.0% 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 73 23 CIVIL LEGEND C4.2 UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS,THE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, THE LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT , AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), 2013 EDITION. 2.ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 3.ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES. 4.ALL STORM SEWER , SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES SHALL TERMINATE 5' FROM THE BUILDING FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5.A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN WATERMAIN AND ALL UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6.ALL NEW WATERMAIN AND SERVICES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8.0 FEET OF COVER. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND SERVICES AS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 8.0 FEET MINIMUM DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED. 7.ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8.PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS: WATERMAIN C900 PVC 6" TO 8" DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER PVC SCH 40 6" DIAMETER STORM SEWER DUAL WALL HDPE 12" TO 18" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC 4" TO 6" DIAMETER 9.ALL SANITARY SEWER WYES, TEES AND SERVICES SHALL BE 6" PVC SCH 40. 10.CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OF UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM FOR ENGINEER'S REVIEW. 11.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATCH BASINS, LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714. 12.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714). APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES. 13.HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) STORM DRAINS MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714: a.PIPES 4-INCH TO 10-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. b.PIPES 12-INCH TO 60-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM F2306. c.ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. d.WATER-TIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING 4444488 88 8888888COORDINATE WITH MECHANICAL FOR INTERIOR DRAIN TILE CONNECTIONS TO EXTERIOR DRAIN TILE SYSTEM CONNECT TO UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM ABOVE INV=960.04 38 LF-6" SOLID PVC SLOPED TO DRAIN 445 LF-6" PERFORATED PVC DRAINTILE 410 LF-6" PERFORATED PVC DRAINTILE 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 73 23 CIVIL LEGEND C4.3 UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS,THE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, THE LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT , AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), 2013 EDITION. 2.ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 3.ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES. 4.ALL STORM SEWER , SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES SHALL TERMINATE 5' FROM THE BUILDING FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5.A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN WATERMAIN AND ALL UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6.ALL NEW WATERMAIN AND SERVICES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8.0 FEET OF COVER. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND SERVICES AS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 8.0 FEET MINIMUM DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED. 7.ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8.PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS: WATERMAIN C900 PVC 6" TO 8" DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER PVC SCH 40 6" DIAMETER STORM SEWER DUAL WALL HDPE 12" TO 18" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC 4" TO 6" DIAMETER 9.ALL SANITARY SEWER WYES, TEES AND SERVICES SHALL BE 6" PVC SCH 40. 10.CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OF UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM FOR ENGINEER'S REVIEW. 11.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATCH BASINS, LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714. 12.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714). APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES. 13.HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) STORM DRAINS MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714: a.PIPES 4-INCH TO 10-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. b.PIPES 12-INCH TO 60-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM F2306. c.ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. d.WATER-TIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. DRAWN 3/2018 LOUCKS PLATE NO. EXTERIOR FOUNDATION DRAINTILE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOTE: SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR FOUNDATION DRAINTILE ON INTERIOR OF BUILDING. PIPE DETAIL 160° 90° 1 4" DIA. HOLE TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL 2" MIN. 2" MIN.6" MIN. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION APPROVED FREE DRAINING BACKFILL MATERIAL (SEE SPECS) COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE MNDOT 3149.2H NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOUNDATION (SEE STRUCTURAL)6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL C8.1 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL C8.2 VAN ACCESSIBLE 60"48"18" DIA.36"TYPICAL ADA PARKING SIGN / BOLLARD COMBO 12"x18" STANDARD HANDICAP PARKING SIGN WITH SEPARATE 'VAN ACCESSIBLE' PANEL. GREEN LETTERING AND BORDER ON WHITE BACKGROUND. SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY SHALL BE 4"x4" AND BE WHITE ON A BLUE BACKGROUND. USE HARDWARE PER SIGN SUPPLIER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. HC SIGNAGE PER MINNESOTA RULES 1341.0502 12"x6" STANDARD 'VAN ACCESSIBLE' PANEL. GREEN LETTERING AND BORDER ON WHITE BACKGROUND. 2" DIA. 6' LONG MIN. GALVANIZED SCHEDULE 40 STEEL PIPE. EMBED IN CONCRETE FILLED BOLLARD 6" DIA. SCHEDULE 40 GALVENZIED STEEL PIPE 6' LONG MINIMUM HEAVY DUTY HDPE DOME TOP DECORATIVE SLEEVE BLUE OR YELLOW IN COLOR. AVAILABLE FROM BOLLARDSNSLEEVES.COM OR EQUAL. COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE. NOTES: 1.BOLLARDS TO BE PLACED 12" BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR SIDEWALK (REFER TO SITE PLAN.) 2.MAINTAIN PLUMB UNTIL CONCRETE IS SUFFICIENTLY CURED. 3.HOLD CONCRETE FOOTING BELOW GRADE OF FINISHED CONCRETE TO CREATE FINAL PAVING PATTERN AS SHOWN ON PLANS. 4.SIGN CENTERED AT HEAD OF PARKING SPACE - MAXIMUM OF 96" FROM HEAD OF PARKING SPACE. DRAWN 03/2017 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2038ALOUCKS6"18"6"VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF UP TO $ 200.00 PARKINGRESERVED TYPICAL ADA PARKING STALL STRIPING DRAWN 03/2017 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2037LOUCKS LCC 4" WIDE PAINTED LINES, TRAFFIC WHITE 4" WIDE PAINTED LINES, 18" O.C., @ 45 DEG. TRAFFIC WHITE (AISLE TO CONTAIN THE DESIGNATION "NO PARKING" COMPLYING WITH MSBC 1341.0502 IF ACCESS AISLE SIGNS ARE NOT SHOWN REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR ADA PARKING SIGN LOCATION REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR ACCESS AISLE SIGN LOCATION (AISLE TO CONTAIN THE DESIGNATION "NO PARKING" COMPLYING WITH MSBC 134.0502 IF ACCESS AISLE SIGNS ARE NOT SHOWN) REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR STALL DIMENSIONS 40"PROVIDE PAINTED INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY AT EACH DESIGNATED HANDICAP PARKING STALL. CENTER SYMBOL IN STALL. HC SIGNAGE PER MINNESOTA RULES 1341.0502 ALL LINES 4" WIDE 8" DIAMETER NOT TO SCALE 67.5° 5° 36" TYPICAL ADA ACCESS AISLE NO PARKING SIGN / BOLLARD COMBO "NO PARKING" DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. LOUCKS60"48"18" DIA.36"ATTACH SIGN TO POST WITH APPROPRIATE STAINLESS STEEL BOLTS, WASHES & NUTS. (TYP. AT TOP & BOTTOM OF SIGN) 2" DIA. 6' LONG MIN. GALVANIZED SCHEDULE 40 STEEL PIPE. EMBED IN CONCRETE FILLED BOLLARD 6" DIA. SCHEDULE 40 GALVENZIED STEEL PIPE 6' LONG MINIMUM HEAVY DUTY HDPE DOME TOP DECORATIVE SLEEVE BLUE OR YELLOW IN COLOR. AVAILABLE FROM BOLLARDSNSLEEVES.COM OR EQUAL. COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE. NOTES: 1.BOLLARDS TO BE PLACED 12" BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR SIDEWALK (REFER TO SITE PLAN.) 2.MAINTAIN PLUMB UNTIL CONCRETE IS SUFFICIENTLY CURED. 3.HOLD CONCRETE FOOTING BELOW GRADE OF FINISHED CONCRETE TO CREATE FINAL PAVING PATTERN AS SHOWN ON PLANS. 4.SIGN CENTERED AT HEAD OF PARKING SPACE - MAXIMUM OF 96" FROM HEAD OF PARKING SPACE. 5.PROVIDE (1) SIGN PER ACCESS AISLE 6.HC SIGNAGE PER MINNESOTA RULES 1341.05026"18"R28"R68" R12" 12" 28"3/4"7"10.5"SURMOUNTABLE CURB & GUTTER SPECIFICATION NOTES: 1.UPON COMPLETION, CURBING SHOULD BE SPRAYED WITH A MEMBRANE CURING COMPOUND PER MNDOT 3754. 2.EXPANSION JOINTS AT MAX. SPACING OF 200'. 3.CONSTRUCT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT 2531. PAVEMENT SECTION VARIES MIN. OF 4"MINIMUM 1' BEHIND BACK OF CURBAGG. BASE UNDER CURB (IF TOTAL THICKNESS OF SECTION ALLOWS) AGG. BASE VARIES 6.5"DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2014LOUCKS SLOPE GUTTER TO MATCH PARKING LOT DRAINAGE (3/4" PER FT. TYP.) TIP GUTTER OUT AS REQ'D PAVEMENT SECTION VARIES MIN. OF 4" 3/8 " LIP MINIMUM 1' BEHIND BACK OF CURBAGG. BASE UNDER CURB (IF TOTAL THICKNESS OF SECTION ALLOWS) 7" 12"8" AGG. BASE VARIES 1/2" RAD. 20" FLAT CURB AND GUTTER (12") SPECIFICATION NOTES: 1.UPON COMPLETION, CURBING SHOULD BE SPRAYED WITH A MEMBRANE CURING COMPOUND PER MNDOT 3754. 2.EXPANSION JOINTS AT MAX. SPACING OF 200'. 3.CONSTRUCT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT 2531. DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2012LOUCKS BOLLARD 1/2" CROWN 1" CROWN 3'-6"3'-0"6"24" DIA. 2,500 PSI CONCRETE 6" DIP, CONC. FILLED, PAINTED OSHA YELLOW DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2039LOUCKS 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL C8.3 OUTLET 48" TO 72" DOGHOUSES SHALL BE GROUTED BOTH ON THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. PRECAST MANHOLE SECTIONS C OUTLET ELEVATION PIPE SIZE WILL VARY OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE - WEIR/ORIFICE INLET PRECAST BASE SLAB INLET ELEVATION A B 1 960.04 OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE ELEVATION TABLE OCS NO.A 6" E TOP OF WEIR ELEVATION WEIR TO BE REINFORCED WITH AT LEAST #4 REBAR, 12" ON CENTER. WEIR/ORIFICE E TOP OF WEIR ELEVATION H DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 4318LOUCKS RIM - (EMERGENCY OVERFLOW) D 2" 0"-8" 2" ORIFICE OPENING SIZE - F INVERT ELEVATION - G 960.04 B 960.04 C 970.35 D 964.46 E F G 6x6 H 960.04 48" ORIFICE OPENING SIZE - F INVERT ELEVATION - G1'-4"VARIABLE6"3"6"4.0' OUTLET FLOW 3'MIN.2" 0"-8" 2" NYLOPLAST SNOUT STRUCTURE OR APPROVED EQUAL. CONCRETE ADJUSTING RINGS, MIN. 4" - MAX. 10" NOTE: 24"x36" SLAB OPENING FOR NEENAH R-3067 CASTING WITH D.L., D.R. OR TYPE V GRATE. 27" ɸ SLAB OPENING FOR NEENAH R-3250 & R-1733 CASTING. SUMP CATCH BASIN / MANHOLE MINIMUM SLAB THICKNESS IS 6" FOR 14' DEPTH. INCREASE THICKNESS 1" FOR 4' OF DEPTH GREATER THAN 14'. PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE SECTIONS WITH "O"-RING RUBBER GASKETS. SLAB TOP TO BE SET IN A MORTAR BED. 6" PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB. STEPS 16" O.C. ON DOWNSTREAM SIDE. EXTRUDED ALUMINUM OR STEEL REINFORCED COPOLYMER PLASTIC.6"DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 4304LOUCKS SECTION A-A PLAN SECTION B-B DIA. 2' 2'1 4 LDIA.B B AA RIPRAP 48 15 42 36 30 24 18 12 20 8 10 12 14 18 16 8 >48 22-28 30-40 26 5 6 8 12 22 14 5 IV IV III III III III IV III III MINIMUM RIPRAP REQUIRED GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE IV EXTEND 1' UNDER APRON RIP-RAP OUT FROM THE APRON SHALL NOT BE HIGHER THAN THE APRON INVERT. GROUTED RIPRAP 1' (12"-27" DIA. PIPE) 1.5' (30" AND LARGER PIPE) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE IV NOTE: ONE CUBIC YARD IS APPROXIMATELY 1.4 TONS. RIPRAP 1' (12"-27" DIA. PIPE) 1.5' (30" AND LARGER PIPE) 6" GRANULAR FILTER MATERIAL 32-40 32 5 7 10 13 27 17 5 CMP/HDPE QUANTITY (C.Y.) RCP QUANTITY (C.Y.) DIA. OF PIPE (IN.)L (FT.)CLASS 6" GRANULAR FILTER MATERIAL GROUT GROUT DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 4309LOUCKS 957.67 958.17 962.08 961.58 FREE DRAINING ANGULAR WASHED STONE NON LIMESTONE/CARBONATE MATERIAL 5/8" MIN. PARTICLE SIZE. THE MAXIMUM LOS ANGELES RATTLER LOSS SHOULD BE 35% PER AASHTO T-96 AND NO GREATER LOSS THAN 10% PER AASHTO T-104 MAGNESIUM SULFATE SOUNDNESS TEST ON THE NON-IGNEOUS PORTIONS AND AS MODIFIED BY THE MNDOT LABORATORY MANUAL (MNDOT 2005) COMPACT TO MIN. 90% STANDARD DENSITY PER AASHTO T-99 PLACED IN LIFTS OF 4-6" INSTALL CMP PIPE PER ASSHTO M-36, AASHTO SECTION 12 OR HDPE PER ASTM D2321 (CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW) UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM (INF 1) SCALE: N/A GRANULAR BEDDING, ROUGHLY SHAPED TO FIT THE BOTTOM OF PIPE, 6" IN DEPTH. NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WRAPPING SIDES OF TRENCH & PIPE. 2" BIT. WEAR COURSE, MN/DOT 2360 SPWEA240B TACK COAT, MN/DOT 2357 2" BIT. NON-WEAR COURSE, MN/DOT 2360 SPNWB230B 6" AGG. BASE, CLASS 5 OR 2 MN/DOT 3138 APPROVED SUBGRADE FINISHED GRADE 12" SELECT GRANULAR, MN/DOT 3149.D STANDARD BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE V, MN/DOT 3733.2 DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2031LOUCKS 2.5" BIT. WEAR COURSE, MN/DOT 2360 SPWEA240B TACK COAT, MN/DOT 2357 2.5" BIT. NON-WEAR COURSE, MN/DOT 2360 SPNWB230B 8" AGG. BASE, CLASS 5 OR 2 MN/DOT 3138 APPROVED SUBGRADE FINISHED GRADE 12" SELECT GRANULAR, MN/DOT 3149.D HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE V, MN/DOT 3733.2 DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2032LOUCKS 8" COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE CL. 5 OR 2 MN/DOT 3138 APPROVED SUBGRADE FINISHED GRADE 8" CONCRETE MN/DOT 2301 CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION NOTES: 1.CONCRETE SHALL BE REINFORCED WITH FIBER REINFORCEMENT FOR INCREASED TENSILE STRENGTH. PRODUCT SHALL BY NYCON-XL-200 OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2.CONTRACTION JOINS SHALL BE SPACED AT A MAXIMUM OF 8 FEET APART. JOINT SHALL BE SAWED TO A DEPTH OF 1 4 TO 1 3 OF SLAB THICKNESS. 3.1 1 4" X 15" EPOXY COATED DOWELS SHALL BE PLACED 12" OC AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE SLAB ACROSS ALL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS. DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2033LOUCKS 12" SELECT GRANULAR, MN/DOT 3149.D CONCRETE SIDEWALK SECTION 4" CONCRETE WALK MN/DOT 2521 4" GRANULAR MATERIAL MN/DOT 3149 DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2034LOUCKS 53"x41" ARCH PERFORATED CMP PIPE 53"x41" ARCH PERFORATED CMP PIPE 53"x41" ARCH PERFORATED CMP PIPE 6" 12"17.7" 6" 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL C8.4 1 PRODUCT TO BE OLD WORLD RETAINING WALL WITH FULL HIGH CAP BLOCK EMERSON BIKE RACK SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" MANUFACTURER - LANDSCAPE FORMS www.landscapeforms.com 800-521-2546 CONCRETE SURFACING COLOR TO BE STANDARD POWDER COAT COLOR TO BE SELECTED BY OWNER. BIKE RACK TO BE LANDSCAPE FORMS MODEL EMERSON OR EQUALBOTTOM VIEW 30"12 3/4" 20" 3 1/2" 2 3/4" 6" CAST ALUMINUM FRAME SET SCREW FOR SECURING COVER PLATE STAINLESS STEEL LEVELING GLIDES 1/2" HOLES FOR ANCHORING - SURFACE MOUNT PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 3 C8.4 WETLAND BUFFER LOCATION SIGN CONSERVATION AREA SIGN PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING 4444488 8 8 8888888972974973969 96 9 96096595695795895996196296396496696796894 5 950 955 94 6947948949951952953954956957958959960 965 96196 2 96 3 96 4 966 9509 4 6 9 4 7 94 8 9 4 9 953 954 956955 959957958 9619609 6 0 9659 5 6 9 5 7 9 5 8 959 9 6 1 9 6 2 9 6 3 964 966961 952 951 950950951952953954 970 971 972 97397097096 7 9 6 8969 9 7 0 970972973974971972975 97 397 4 967 968 9519529539549 5 0 965 962963964966967968969 970 96 6 967 968 96 9 96 6 968 969 97097197 1971 971 971972973 971 97 1 9719719711 QB NS 4 ABS 3 BO SOD NS SM 1 SOD SM 2 SM 1 40 SD 27 GF SM 2 4 WB SM 1 4 WB SM 2 7 TY 30 WG 15 TY SM 2 6 PB SOD SM 1 5 AC 5 AC 3 TH 6 AC 1 KC 12 AC 1 SGM 1 AE 1 AE SOD SOD 12 AC 17 SG 2 KC 1 QB2 TH LANDSCAPE EDGING TYP. LANDSCAPE EDGING TYP. LANDSCAPE EDGING TYP. LIMITS OF IRRIGATION TYP. LIMITS OF IRRIGATION TYP. LANDSCAPE EDGING TYP. ALTERNATE C3 STABILIZATION ASSOCIATED WITH CITY BITUMINOUS TRAIL LANDSCAPE EDGING TYP. DECIDUOUS TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE SIZE AE 2 ACCOLADE ELM Ulmus `Morton`B & B 2.5"Cal BO 3 BURR OAK Quercus macrocarpa B & B 2.5"Cal KC 3 KENTUCKY COFFEETREE Gymnocladus dioica B & B 2.5"Cal PB 6 PAPER BIRCH Betula papyrifera 25 gal SGM 1 SIENNA GLEN MAPLE Acer freemanii `Sienna Glen`B & B 2.5"Cal QB 2 SWAMP WHITE OAK Quercus bicolor B & B 2.5"Cal WB 8 WHITESPIRE BIRCH CLUMP Betula populifolia `Whitespire Sr.`B & B 8` HGT ORNAMENTAL TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE SIZE ABS 4 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY Amelanchier x grandiflora `Autumn Brilliance`B & B 1.5"Cal TH 5 THORNLESS HAWTHORN Crataegus crus-galli `Inermis`B & B 1.5"Cal SHRUBS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACING AC 34 AUTUMN MAGIC CHOKEBERRY Aronia melanocarpa `Magic Carpet`5 gal 24" HGT 48" o.c. GF 27 GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC Rhus aromatica `Gro-Low`5 gal 24" SPRD 48" o.c. CONIFEROUS SHRUBS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACING SG 6 SEA GREEN JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis `Sea Green`5 gal 18" SPRD 60" o.c. TY 22 TAUNTON YEW Taxus x media `Taunton`5 gal 18" SPRD 48" o.c. PERENNIALS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACING WG 30 ROZANNE GERANIUM Geranium `Rozanne`1 gal 24" o.c. SD 40 STELLA D` ORO DAYLILY Hemerocallis x `Stella de Oro`1 gal 24" o.c. GROUND COVERS CODE COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SM 2 DECORATIVE STONE RIP RAP GREY TRAP ROCK RIP RAP SIZE - 5"-12" OVER FABRIC NS NATIVE SEED BWSR SEED MIX 36-211 SM 1 STONE MULCH WASHED GREY TRAP ROCK 2.5" 3" DEPTH OVER FABRIC SOD TURF SOD PLANT SCHEDULE 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 L1.1 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENT (470 TOTAL LF) 2 CANOPY TREES PER/100' UNIT (ONLY NEED 75% OF REQUIREMENT) TREES REQUIRED = 7 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED = 7 4 UNDERSTORY TREE PER/100' UNIT (ONLY NEED 75% OF REQUIREMENT) TREES REQUIRED = 14 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED = 9 6 SHRUBS PER/100' UNIT (ONLY NEED 75% OF REQUIREMENT) SHRUBS REQUIRED = 21 TOTAL SHRUBS PROVIDED = 23 DUE TO EXISTING PLANTINGS ON OR VERY CLOSE TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE IN THE BUFFER YARD, MINIMAL PROPOSED PLANTINGS ARE PROVIDED TO AVOID OVER PLANTING AND ENCOURAGE LONG TERM HEALTH OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL. LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIREMENTS (56,225 SF OF VEHICULAR AREA) PROVIDE 8 SF OF LANDSCAPE AREA PER 100 SF OF VEHICULAR AREA LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIRED = 4,498 SF TREE REQUIREMENTS (4,498 SF OF LANDSCAPE AREA) PROVIDE 1 TREE PER 250 SF OF LANDSCAPE AREA TREES REQUIRED = 18 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED = 34 FOUNDATION PLANTINGS SHRUBS AND TREES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ALONG BUILDING FOUNDATION GENERAL NOTES CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID. HE SHALL INSPECT SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK. VERIFY LAYOUT AND ANY DIMENSIONS SHOWN AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANY DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN AND/OR INTENT OF THE PROJECT'S LAYOUT. ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK OR MATERIALS SUPPLIED. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING ROADS, CURBS/GUTTERS, TRAILS, TREES, LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS. ANY DAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTION / MATERIAL INSTALLATION BEGINS (MINIMUM 10' - 0" CLEARANCE). ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE LAID SO THAT TRENCHES DO NOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. EXISTING CONTOURS, TRAILS, VEGETATION, CURB/GUTTER AND OTHER EXISTING ELEMENTS BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME. THE ALIGNMENT AND GRADES OF THE PROPOSED WALKS, TRAILS AND/OR ROADWAYS ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCALIZED TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND TO MINIMIZE TREE REMOVAL AND GRADING. ANY CHANGE IN ALIGNMENT MUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL L2.1 SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" PERENNIAL PLANTING Perennial.Dwg LOOSEN ROOTS OF PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR MULCH - SEE SPECS.3" DEPTH EDGER - SEE SPECS. 12" DEPTH (MIN). LOAM PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPECS. VARIES SEE PLAN TO PLANTING EDGE VARIES - SEE PLAN 4 L2.1 SHRUBS TO BE PLACED SO THAT MULCH - 3" DEEP - SEE SPEC LANDSCAPE FABRIC - SEE SPEC. PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPEC. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING LOOSEN ROOTS OF ALLCONTAINERIZED PLANTS. EDGE VARIES - REFER TO PLAN REFER TO PLAN 18" MIN. SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL EDGING MATERIAL - SEE SPEC. BUILDING WALL (TYP) TOP OF CONTAINER SITS FLUSH WITH PROPOSED GRADE. 3 L2.1 Coniferous Tree.DWG EDGE VARIES - SEE PLAN WOOD STAKE (OPTIONAL) MULCH - 4" DEEP - PER SPECS. MULCH MUST ROOT BALL SET ON MOUNDED SUBGRADE SAFETY FLAGGING - ONE PER WIRE POLYETHYLENE STRAP 16"x2" POLYPROPYLENE OR HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PERIOD. STAKING IS SUGGESTED, BUT POSITION THROUGH THE WARRANTY MAINTAINING ALL TREES IN A PLUMB THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" PLANTING. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TESTING PERCOLATION RATES PRIOR TO CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT REQUIRED. ANY STAKING MUST IN A.N.A. GUIDELINES FOR STANDARD CONFORM WITH PRACTICES AS DEFINED PRACTICES IMMEDIATELY IF POOR DRAINAGE EXISTS. REMOVE ALL FLAGGING AND LABELING IN 8-12" LIFTS AND SATURATE SOIL WITH PLANTING OPERATIONS. PLACE BACKFILL WATER TREE THOROUGHLY DURING FROM TREE. AFTER PLANTING IS COMPLETE. PRUNE ANY DAMAGED BRANCHES WATER. DO NOT COMPACT MORE THAN NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN PLUMB. NOT BE IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK. 2 x ROOT BALL WIDTH 2 L2.1 EDGE VARIES - SEE PLAN WOOD STAKE (OPTIONAL) SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL SAFETY FLAGGING - ONE PER WIRE TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH POLYETHYLENE STRAP 16"x2" POLYPROPYLENE OR HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PERIOD. STAKING IS SUGGESTED, BUT POSITION THROUGH THE WARRANTY MAINTAINING ALL TREES IN A PLUMB THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" PLANTING. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TESTING PERCOLATION RATES PRIOR TO CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT REQUIRED. ANY STAKING MUST IN A.N.A. GUIDELINES FOR STANDARD CONFORM WITH PRACTICES AS DEFINED PRACTICES Deciduous Tree.DWG IMMEDIATELY IF POOR DRAINAGE EXISTS. REMOVE ALL FLAGGING AND LABELING IN 8-12" LIFTS AND SATURATE SOIL WITH PLANTING OPERATIONS. PLACE BACKFILL WATER TREE THOROUGHLY DURING FROM TREE. BRANCHES AFTER PLANTING IS COMPLETE. PRUNE DAMAGED AND CROSSING WATER. DO NOT COMPACT MORE THAN NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN PLUMB. 2 x ROOT BALL WIDTH MULCH - 4" DEEP. NO MULCH IN CUT BACK WIRE BASKET CONTACT WITH TRUNK - SEE SPECS. ROOT FLARE EVEN WITH OR JUST ABOVE GRADE. 1 L2.1 LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION: COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE. NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL COMPLETE GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. WHERE SOD/SEED ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD/SEED SHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURB, ETC. SEED ALL AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING OTHER THAN THOSE AREAS NOTED TO RECEIVE SOD. SEED SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MULCHED AS PER MNDOT SPECS. SOD ALL DESIGNATED AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING. SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR IN DRAINAGE SWALES, THE SOD SHALL BE STAKED TO THE GROUND. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 5 CANES AT THE SPECIFIED SHRUB HEIGHT. ORNAMENTAL TREES SHALL HAVE NO V CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 3' ABOVE ROOT BALL. STREET AND BOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. ANY CONIFEROUS TREE PREVIOUSLY PRUNED FOR CHRISTMAS TREE SALES SHALL NOT BE USED. ALL CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL BE FULL FORM, NATURAL TO THE SPECIES, WITHOUT PRUNING. PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES. ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED AND STAKED AS SHOWN ON PLAN. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE ALL STAKING OF PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO ANY AND ALL DIGGING. NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTED OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND/OR QUOTATION. ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED IN FIELD. SHOULD AN ADJUSTMENT BE ADVISED, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON INSTALLATION WITH DRIED BONE MEAL, OTHER APPROVED FERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING SOIL PER THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS OR MAY BE TREATED FOR SUMMER AND FALL INSTALLATION WITH AN APPLICATION OF GRANULAR 0-20-20 OF 12 OZ PER 2.5" CALIPER PER TREE AND 6 OZ PER SHRUB WITH AN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION OF 10-10-10 THE FOLLOWING SPRING IN THE TREE SAUCER. ALL PLANTING AREAS RECEIVING GROUND COVER, PERENNIALS, ANNUALS, AND/OR VINES SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 12" DEPTH OF PLANTING SOIL CONSISTING OF AT LEAST 45 PARTS TOPSOIL, 45 PARTS PEAT OR MANURE AND 10 PARTS SAND. ALL AREAS RECEIVING SEED OR SOD MUST RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 6" DEPTH OF TOPSOIL. TOPSOIL TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE UNDERLYING SOIL DURING FINAL SITE GRADING. SOIL SURFACES COMPACTED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND REMAINING PERVIOUS UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION MUST BE DECOMPACTED THROUGH SOIL AMENDMENT AND/OR RIPPING TO A DEPTH OF 18". AVOID DISTURBING UTILITIES, TREE ROOTS AND OTHER EXISTING VEGETATION. ALL PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER PLANTING DETAILS. WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE CORRUGATED PVC PIPING 1" GREATER IN CALIPER THAN THE TREE BEING PROTECTED OR QUALITY, HEAVY, WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO 12-1 AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER 5-1. BLACK METAL EDGER TO BE USED TO CONTAIN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, AND ANNUALS WHERE BED MEETS SOD/SEED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL SHRUB BED MASSINGS TO RECEIVE 3" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH AND FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER. ALL TREES NOT IN PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE A 4' DIA. TREE RING WITH 4" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. WOOD MULCH TO BE DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. ALL ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 3" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH WITH NO WEED BARRIER. SPREAD GRANULAR PRE EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR EQUAL) PER MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER ALL MULCHED AREAS. MAINTENANCE STRIPS TO HAVE EDGER AND MULCH AS SPECIFIED/INDICATED ON DRAWING OR IN SPECIFICATION. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS CONCERNED OR PERCEIVES ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT SELECTIONS, SOIL CONDITIONS OR ANY OTHER SITE CONDITION WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR GUARANTEE, HE MUST BRING THESE DEFICIENCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCUREMENT AND/OR INSTALLATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION OF ALL LANDSCAPE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ON-GOING MAINTENANCE OF ALL NEWLY INSTALLED MATERIALS UNTIL TIME OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A MAINTENANCE PROGRAM INCLUDING, BUT NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO, PRUNING, FERTILIZATION AND DISEASE/PEST CONTROL. CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. WARRANTY (ONE FULL GROWING SEASON) FOR LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BEGIN ON THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF PLANTING OF ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED. REPRODUCIBLE AS-BUILT DRAWING(S) OF ALL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION AND PRIOR TO PROJECT ACCEPTANCE. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE THE APPROPRIATE DATES FOR SPRING PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION AND SEED/SOD PLACEMENT IS FROM THE TIME GROUND HAS THAWED TO JUNE 15. FALL SODDING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 - NOVEMBER 1. FALL SEEDING FROM AUGUST 15 - SEPTEMBER 15; DORMANT SEEDING IN THE FALL SHALL NOT OCCUR PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1. PLANTING OUTSIDE THESE DATES IS NOT RECOMMENDED. ANY ADJUSTMENT MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. CONIFEROUS PLANTING MAY OCCUR FROM AUGUST 15 - OCTOBER 1 AND FALL DECIDUOUS PLANTING FROM THE FIRST FROST UNTIL NOVEMBER 15. PLANTING OUTSIDE THESE DATES IS NOT RECOMMENDED. ANY ADJUSTMENT MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. PROTECT ALL EXISTING OAKS ON SITE SCHEDULED TO REMAIN. IF EXISTING OAKS ARE DAMAGED IN ANY MANNER, ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND IN THE ROOT SYSTEM, AN ASPHALTIC TREE PRUNING PAINT SHOULD BE APPLIED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WOUNDING. OAKS ARE NOT TO BE PRUNED, REMOVED OR TRANSPLANTED BETWEEN APRIL 15 AND JULY 1. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF THESE DATES ARE UNAVOIDABLE. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ESTABLISH TO HIS SATISFACTION THAT SOIL AND COMPACTION CONDITIONS ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AT AND AROUND THE BUILDING SITE. MAINTENANCE STRIP AT BUILDING EDGE SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" GEOTEXTILE WOVEN BUILDING WALL SOD LANDSCAPE EDGER (TYP) SEE SPECS LANDSCAPE FABRIC ROCK MULCH - REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR MORE INFO. OR BACK OF CURB 7 L2.1 IRRIGATION NOTES: VERIFY PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUT AND CONFIRM COMPLETE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION PRIOR TO SUPPLYING SHOP DRAWINGS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLAN AND SPECIFICATION AS A PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK WHEN BIDDING. THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDER AND/OR INSTALLATION. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THAT ALL SODDED/SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A WATERING/LAWN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANT MATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS NOT TO SPRINKLE ACROSS PAVEMENT. CONTRACTOR TO INCORPORATE RAIN SENSOR INTO IRRIGATION SYSTEM. PLANTINGS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION ARE TO BE WATERED REGULARLY UNTIL PLANTING/SOD/SEED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. CITY OF CHANHASSEN STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on May 23,2019, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Corridor for Property located at 8077 Century Boulevard, zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD), Planning Case File No. 2Ol9-04 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Kim uwissen,CI Subscribed and swom to belore me thid)3J day of ,20t9. Notary Public AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE l{dbry u Subject Property olECblhor This map is neithea a l€oally leco.tbd nap nor a Survey and B nol intended to be ug€d as one. ihis map is a comrilation or aecods, infoamalioo and data located in varbus crly, @unty. sbte and ledeElofices anal olhet sources regardrng the are6 shown and is b be ufu foa relbEnce puaposes only. The City do€s not waranl thal the GeogEphc lnfonnation Syslem tGlS) Oata used to prepare this map ate eroa ftee. and the Cily doe3 not repreenl ntat d€ GIS Data can be uaed for navigatioml tracfiino or any olher purpo+ equidng oxaclrno m€a3uEment ot distance or dit€ction or p.ec&ion in the depiclion of geooraphic hatules. Tm precedang disdaimer E Plovided puEuant to Minnesota Sl,at es S,a8A.o3. SuM. 21 (m00), and the usor of this map acJ(no'vledg€s that the City shall nol be liable lor any dama96, and expessly ltBives all daim3, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harml€ss the City iorn any and all daims blought bt Ure., its employees o. agents, or third pade which alise out of lhe usefs access or use of data provided. rTAX_NAMET ITAX_ADD_LI r rTAX-ADD-L2I, rTAX-ADD-L3I (Next RecordxTAX_NAMET ITAX-ADD-LI r ITAX_ADD_L2I, ITAX_ADD_L3I F J a 5I; a -l-.1 a a7-.tI : . : rl \ "r^ l| titr Subject Property -- -I L-!.E P ObcltkrE This map is neither a legally recorded ftap nor a suNey anal is nol intended to be used as or€. This map is a ccm lation of Ecords, anfo,mation and data located in vaarous er' county. 3tate aM federal oIic6 and othe. sourc4 reg6rding the area shof,n and is to be us€d br leElenc€ purposes only. Trle Cily does not v€rad that the Geog.aphic lnbmalbn SysEm (GlS) Data used to prepaE thb map are ero. free, and the City does not represenl tBl lhe GIS Oala cen be used tor naviFttonal, tracking or any other purpo* requidno exaclinO measuEmenl of distence o. diredion oa plecisio,l in the depidion of geogGphic features. The preceding dbclaidEr is p.ovired pur3lent to Minnesota stat(lte3 s486.03, subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map ackno|tedges that 0|e City shall not be liable for any clarnagps, and e)Qressly waives all daims, and agrcea to debnd. indemnit, and hold harmle$ the Cry fiom any and all daims b.ouoht by User, itB ernployees or aoents, or thad pa.tes which arise out of the u3e/3 acaess or use ol data provid€d. .9 c) =-c os;feE EpsEE EgBP.hv o E= o-FcESr EESs€ = P et IEE:=Ex Qll >FE lio 6 o(,; (D o-eoi6-ll-- X o= !,lD=().=>3ee i3q >.= E.!! EEE:d:-*.e6 =6ri'ar- Ef .E.;Ppat€ [: eriNiE.O,1, doiF =id69.gc cD -c E rD iL -o fo ()c 0)(, oo(I) (.)ocooo (uo o- o()'6' o- .a Joo(u o., o() E o =tIcrt oN lc E tr 11) o.c,c(!.cq'6t; ' 0) o -go, c;c 0) o, E o)E ID o c)-o -go- 0)E o) It) o, (Ei o o =G o .9 ==o (o o)co o- -o G (E E o) lcq c n) occ(o .c o G lIoc o)o-o E(,o E o oo E Eoo Go ,(o o)g)oo- .oo =oo'd o '6 os o -! o o p ;Eqc fO m->3 fE cgQOOE F-O .o< o)o EE o'.ql 6oo do x tt8;e Eq o--c ! tr e* I Z e..Q sPsEPtbiiE:ii=E6f I Htr:hrD2(a:; aq€ crr-= g t,Baie-:Qc(EE-;E,E E E EE HE: .eEP 5=!(,FOC -o O-- N aO rC o or= :r 'Cr , >o q E=o€Eora o-c':E--.9=c') ':.E 6E'c I'E=E3ii c .9oo, !rl i)cagoo !E5E +.gl-xo'of!8-r7 =cEf o-o-(): o o-o! o- -oFoo eEe EsE o o) o.c E== =tcE ql EgE(l)Lc,o(n J -iL6:Ec.= o,oic'EOO€o N 5te "d (J _Q}E ?e!.x>m-&gic-7 -q .E 6L5Oo =F-= -F-u)?oo 6@ oa:PoH3et 3gE E E 2 F Eooo F. o o, oN o olF o2dl o o = t-F. o)-o E(5 -c clo oI o a !o CPOo3oqr ajc= o-ooq)E} o> =ooQ o- floEq) ooc9 o(,tocooq) -E'(E; EolDco(!'69 Qfoc oE a- 9,fo) a3u) 6- oc liq co o a(scIq = = = l c o EE:EEEE.aEEi EgiitEeiiiiEi ggiieEaEaEigi EEg;EEEEgIIEi iiiiEEgEiiEii s;Ets:Eg;e!i€ EEE=€€ESg:PgF ' q E E E g!! 9 e E q : g 6 5 .q E E e E -s ! : E 3 6 5 6 z 3 9t6t !Ee P ,;<3e "5Eie+Pipe E B!iPv F.. 35!E €..o9ccoo a=itE =oo() >Et.o o.o9to-J I ii)o.= o- :iSEi= .!-C }E o t!(,oJ (l6o o o- ;Er! ..sb-ri <o a, Ei: 06 {, oo ED Eoo = 9.9.:o8.9.,F-E.9oEo: E'}o. .so=oG.9f,oc28 o G o .c,o E) E(,oE rDo .=6 h.eoE!E .oEEo3tDa.= oE!ro.9docza ooEEt!E(J .g! I ci .E ,E _9 E c .o F E cioIf.- o ct) oN $oca jop rl.)fF E2 co o (5 oot*f- o -o E(!E oC =oo (5- (-) o =L Co o6 q) 8f-iOiP LCo(E g(Lo- .Y dlicoooNieEE()0)uE fro d)L -f_c €o =F6(o E(Eo--oE Y!srD !?E .!? o E o(I q) f (! C .9 Ecoo 06 B .9 It)tr c _q(L o a o op coo -JJ 6c o) E o Ec .oN =f d)c.9o o)o ol(!6 c; .9 o I o P o lt,E !!E =O >3]E CEoooE F-oFO .o< q) c)-c E9 _c- I orE[-E EE .Xg H EBeaEaE ;E:€EEE i5eEgEg EoEsEse EgEEEEIo- -o f(E([o-r6idi oE )o-o(! fo E o .= o .a c')c ooE .9 -olo, .9.c o o oo- fo- lt).cF (, a, ooo E o() cl o- .g a, =EOsEE!: EpaE;trOl,dr:-2 @ E.9 :(5 E= ohEEo>'Ezde€ :E+*Ex Qll >FE "'i o c o{,/); o o-roidoe-: o= o B-i€:it*69u a Y-a.e* =6Iie'j Eiei;I E6:* ,:! =$it coE u.969gYo)EE6aL o oEoEo- -o o fc Ec 0) ([ -cc6E. oe fo oco .o G o E c) -o :o ([, 11,o -oo 0o oocoo o) GIt) -o- oq) 0'o .9E o-oo oco o) Eo o =o o ,ct fo =$o o) oN to?c Ei c) oEc(! .c,q'6 = = ?- .9 ID ([ 0, o" o,E oo E o).c, ID o 86o()c(,(tr(0 -o o- c3!; O(,o .t: 9E96' =ho(,i-> B6>. c,s-C fc o rl) E oc ?cq co o.cco.c,q'o iI; ao'ooc-ooOrfn or aj o-orD c)E} tD >. !oaQ o^ 8: EOooc9 o(,Bocooo:p(s>EooE '= ll)oloc oE d(0JOJ a8Ao. E T = 5 3 E t I E E! a g a E * i E6 E 9 9 t I o!III z a , EE 6 a b ? & c E g I d = E o e t I P ! .3 ar ! 9 E E E d a 8 6 E & B;I9s E Eo 9 e t - a E E ! E€3 - E t E I s! 8 p e !Dr6 9 no 5 I a t I I s I 4 t 3 I 9 c q ; e t : ! E g p E E a,i ! 3 e P i E q t Eg ! EII t E E P € i I ! E 3 E P i E E .EE e .e I , t 3 9 e E g p I2 I! ! 3 g = ! 6 E{ E E E E E E g 8 3 6 ! i_ E 9 E Ig E .e H I ! 9 E a I 9 E E ! a E 5 E E E 6 n s E E eI n ; .e E 3 t & 3 t E iE CE :3 E< ET Es:6 Ba :e AE -9 6 b- e 6 E I l!q; 5E>iEi "PgFE} 999a9E e.3 $ I €5 i;E EE3 E"3 o;t! E io: :E 'A E:;iE !6a .*nEs5t ;64 3E t P 56taecle EE39t 9 E FE ;6 ts !! t a; ._EF c. o (go Eoo C! e o- ad .' -98 E5<o >gtoo'Eo. lg9tGJ I ii) ar .= f'g+,o!! .tEJ =r ....o9EEoo aD=OE3Ooo .-of(L Eo Eo 6 It)o oJJ ,rico E o) c ao N =)dlco)'6 IDa ll)5(E dl o)ca o GooJ JJo- o- aE6 dd>!t> !l>-)-J,-<J6<.!L)<CD =>-y>>-Y>3a:;sg;( dF=FF=Ftz2zzzzullrJar!uJar!d(J'(J(J'(JoNoorolJ)La<tF.(6da\r@(pIO@.rOl@O6oo6tcoF6l@ <lNSlLnorOo.!@ioo<lr,)Nm 66li1 601-,+ rl i - rl rl ^ Er -l F{ a',\ r..t FlX(n(nro(nmrn+ ra r,t rn r,t L/1 rJ)qLaLntnLnLn(n -tzzzzzzs>>>>>> ,\==-3 1t-t = th rrt tn u1 ^'<I tr th <I vl v1 =d<<F<<9d--<--a'zzzUZZ ><'E < { ? < {<orrsr-FUJUU>U(J ot!YceI,juJluaoSiFI=hi=Egg55l==F:rr,!Y e=gE==Fl<r O Ol O O FlXFr(O@FrslO<OOrr(o@@Ff\NOlicrF. o- u)l) G.U !J --.t !! LJo? !,(9!!irLl\; zL<=d.Eabio=s o-!?o, =roH-er!La.oa<;i-d5{ccd>ZE4?UZ\1'--r - d 5 F: f =63==eBFN.oZ(J.o(Jooooooc{NFl(n(Oiooooooooooooco Lrl oo !a Ln sl(oF.(ONr\r-ooooooLn u'! r/1 u1 rn utNr\Na\li\l N z E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, June 4, 2019 Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated May 21, 2019 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: E.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No: PROPOSED MOTION: The City of Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from their May 21, 2019 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated May 21, 2019 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated May 21, 2019 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MAY 21, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, John Tietz, and Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator; and Jason Wedel, City Engineer/Public Works Director PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR LOT COVER, LAKE SETBACK, AND FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3617 RED CEDAR POINT. MacKenzie Walters, George Bender and Renae Clark reviewed items contained in the staff report for this item. Chairman Weick asked for clarification on the driveway length and lot coverage. Commissioner Reeder asked for clarification on the height of the proposed structure. The applicant Pam Reimer, 3617 Red Cedar Point explained that she is the owner of the property and reviewed the design work that has been done to meet the conditions of the variances. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. Steve Gunther, speaking as a resident of Red Cedar Point and President of the Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association, discussed what the LMPA does to help preserve the water quality of Lake Minnewashta and expressed concern with the hard cover variance request and driveway length being a safety concern. Dave Bangasser, 3633 South Cedar objected to the length of the proposed driveway. Betsy Anding, direct neighbor to Pam Reimer, concurred with the comments made by Steve Gunther and Dave Bangasser regarding the length of the driveway. Dave Bishop, 3605 Red Cedar Point Road expressed concern with parking during the construction process and that the road shouldn’t be blocked for public safety vehicles, snowplows and garbage trucks. Jeff Souba, noting his family owned the property at 3617 Red Cedar Point for 90 years, supports the driveway plan as proposed. Paul Wagner, the builder for this project, provided his background information and explained that he will meet personally with all the neighbors. Chairman Weick closed the public hearing. During commission discussion the public asked to speak again. Chairman Weick re- opened the public hearing. To make peace in the neighborhood the builder Paul Wagner and the applicant Pam Reimer agreed to take 3 feet off the garage to lengthen the driveway. Dave Bangasser reiterated that he believes the minimum driveway width should accommodate 2 cars and be 18 feet in length. Chairman Weick closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Summary – May 21, 2019 2 Randall moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 17-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Planning Commission Summary – May 21, 2019 3 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER SUBDIVISION OF 1.17 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NE INTERSECTION OF CARVER BEACH ROAD AND BIG WOODS BOULEVARD. Sharmeen Al-Jaff and George Bender presented the staff report for this item. Commissioner Reeder asked about the ability to further subdivide in the future. Commissioner Skistad asked about ownership of the existing retaining wall. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. Paul Otto with Otto and Associates, speaking on behalf of the applicant, provided background information of development in this area. David Igel, 501 Big Woods Boulevard asked for clarification of stormwater, tree replacement plan, boulder retaining walls to be consistent with development in the area, drainage issues, and support of the 50 foot right-of-way. Mike Sweet, 565 Big Woods Boulevard asked for clarification on the orientation of the houses in relation to the road and how the size of the conservation easement was determined. Francesca Landon, 620 Fox Hill Drive asked for clarification on the size and location of a stormwater pond that was proposed in the past, dropping the elevation of one garage, and school district. Diane Carney, 549 Big Woods Boulevard concurred with saving as many trees as possible and keeping the right-of-way as narrow as possible to save trees. Chairman Weick closed the public hearing after Paul Otto answered questions raised by residents. Skistad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way as shown in plans stamped Received April 22, 2019 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendation: SUBDIVISION Engineering: 1. The applicant shall submit an ALTA survey illustrating the existing conditions including all existing easements on, and abutting, the subdivision prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The applicant shall add drainage arrows to the grading plan to sufficiently illustrate the route drainage will take around the buildings and throughout the site for review and approval by the city prior to grading. 3. The applicant shall provide an exhibit demonstrating how snow removal operations from the existing driveway providing access to 630 and 640 Carver Beach Road will be performed without conflict or nuisance to the proposed subdivision prior to recording of final plat. 4. A copy of the executed construction easement shall be provided to the city prior to grading. 5. Updated plans illustrating retaining wall elevations shall be provided prior to grading. Planning Commission Summary – May 21, 2019 4 6. The applicant will be required to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way (ROW) to the east abutting Lot 2, as shown on the preliminary plat as “Lotus Woods Drive”. 7. The developer shall put into escrow the cost for construction (see condition 14) of the future street construction of “Lotus Woods Drive” abutting Lot 2 prior to recording of final plat. The construction of the street will occur when the property to the north of Lotus Woods Subdivision is developed, or when the city determines it is appropriate to construct the street, whichever occurs first. 8. Lot 2’s driveway elevations and grades shall align with the future street improvement of “Lotus Woods Drive”. A detail showing the elevations and conformity of future street grades and driveway grades shall be submitted prior to grading. 9. A sign approved by the city shall be placed in the ROW at the corner of “Lotus Woods Drive” and Big Woods Boulevard indicating a future street will be constructed. 10. Updated plans illustrating the location and connection methodologies of sanitary and water services for Lot 1 will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. From as-built information, it appears there was water and sanitary laterals stubbed to the property in 1975. If these services are currently in use by an existing property, the developer shall relocate those services to avoid having private service lines running through the subdivision. If these services are not in use, the developer shall field verify their locations and serviceability prior to connecting services to the laterals. 11. A fire hydrant shall be constructed on the end of the water main extension in “Lotus Woods Drive”. 12. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the proposed public water main and sanitary sewer main extensions prior to the recording of the final plat. 13. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the grading and construction of the future street “Lotus Woods Drive”, abutting Lot 2, prior to the recording of the final plat. 14. All newly constructed public utilities shall adhere to the city’s most recent Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, and city review and approval of all construction plans shall be completed prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. 15. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required prior to construction, including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Health, and the City of Chanhassen. 16. The development of Lots 1 and 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit applications. 17. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract. Water Resources: 1. Provide an erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with Sec. 19-145 of city ordinances upon submittal of building permits for individual lot development. 2. Provide drainage and stormwater management plans as prescribed in Chapter 18, Sec. 18- 40 and Section 19-143. Planning Commission Summary – May 21, 2019 5 Parks: 1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for the two lots. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current single- family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total park fees would be $5,800. Environmental Resources Coordinator: 1. The easterly 140 feet of Lot 1 and the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 shall be covered by a Conservation Easement. 2. Tree preservation fencing will be required on each lot. Fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to the start of any construction activities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 16, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. MacKenzie Walters presented updates on city code amendments approved by the City Council and Sharmeen Al-Jaff explained that Control Concepts will be back on the agenda for site plan approval at the next Planning Commission meeting. Randall moved, Reeder seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, John Tietz, and Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator; and Jason Wedel, City Engineer/Public Works Director PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR LOT COVER, LAKE SETBACK, AND FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3617 RED CEDAR POINT. (Due to technical difficulties recording of the meeting began at this point in the staff’s presentation.) Walters: …but we did our best looking at driveway lengths and garages to estimate the number of parking provided by the different homes in the area. Staff determined that there are 77 spaces for 17 properties so an average of 4 ½ spaces are provided per property. The applicant’s proposal would provide 4 off street parking spaces. 3 in the garage, 1 in the driveway. That’s assuming the car in the driveway is parked parallel. Staff does note that if the driveway length was increased by 3 foot it would, it would create an average driveway depth of 16 feet which is the same as the average vehicle length and that would allow for perpendicular parking to be accommodated in the driveway, assuming an average sized vehicle. And then I’ll turn it over to George for more of a discussion on that. Bender: So this is an exhibit of the driveway that’s shown on the survey. It’s dimension to show the average of the 13 foot length and due to research that staff has done in the past the average length being about 16 feet and the desire to not overhang the vehicle into the roadway considering that the roadway in and of itself is only 16 ½ feet wide and that includes full width of the surmountable curb that’s on one side You know the condition that’s in there for your consideration is to have the, an additional 3 foot overall length of driveway to assist with the off street parking along the very constricted and narrow street. It is a low volume road being that it’s on the end of the point so that’s you know in it’s favor but you know at 16 ½ feet, you can get 2 vehicles by but you know hopefully they’re going slow and carefully. This is a street view of the Red Cedar Point Road. The yellow house on the right is 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The subject property. As you can tell the mailbox on the left is very close to the road. There is not a lot of additional space out there. This picture is currently looking east and the next slide will get Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 2 into maintenance of the street, specifically winter plowing. And the street curves to the left in this picture which is to the north and unfortunately Google Street View kind of stops at that point to get a real nice picture of that looking that direction. So this is oriented straight due north is facing up. This is where the street curves. The subject property is actually in this area here. In speaking with the public works department and the Superintendent that’s responsible for the plowing currently the plowing situation is that they use the subject driveway to back up into it to turn the plow around and drive out so that they don’t have to back out to the intersection to the west. The public works staff is very confident that they can effectively plow this area you know with the new proposed home and driveway as shown in the survey and not utilizing that property for that purpose. They would have to do a 3 point turn in this area and kind of back up and come back out in order to go out without having to back up. They feel that there is going to be some work in this eyebrow area that needs to be taken care of. There’s an old cottonwood tree that will need to come down. They feel that they can take down that tree safely and you know between that, cleaning up the area a little bit more and then working with two other properties. This is 3613 and this is 3616. Based on how you can see the white vehicle here is going on the driveway to 3616 and then this is parked next to a shed. There is a garage over here but you know additional parking space they’re going there. We would have to work with these two properties in order to help you know do the winter maintenance and be able to be an effective and efficient in keeping public safety moving through the area. And for that I’ll turn it over to our Water Resources Coordinator. Clark: Good evening, Renae Clark, the Water Resources Coordinator. I’ll first review the basis for the lake buffer to support the variance request. First the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources implements a shoreland management program, one of five different programs by the State that are established to protect the state’s public resources. The purpose of this shoreland management program is development and impervious surface impacts the functions and values of lakeshore and water quality increasing nutrients and runoff to lakes causing erosion, scenic degradation, and more over the shoreland zone, the upland area next to the lake and the first 15 feet into the lake. What’s referred to as the littoral zone are the most productive and important pieces of lake and lake water quality. So the shoreland management program is to protect public resources from associated changes from land use. The shoreland management program establishes minimum land use standards through state rule that communities must adopt and enforce through local zoning ordinance and MacKenzie referenced those in city code which in this case the 25 percent cover and the 75 percent setback. Minnesota statute then referenced on your screen 462 discussing planning and zoning in summary says that when evaluating variances the zoning authority shall request the property owner to address stormwater runoff, reduce impervious surface, increase setbacks, use vegetated buffers and other conservation design actions. So in considering a variance request in this case one criteria must be also consistency with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan includes a local water management plan. Within the local water management plan that was recently adopted the beginning of 2018 one of the goals and policies discusses a required 10 foot minimum buffer width for all properties and those are to be brought into conformance when permits are applied for and variances are requested to improve the property. The recommendation in the local water Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 3 plan calls for a 10 foot minimum width. Minnesota DNR guidance refers to in some places a 30 foot minimum width. The recommendation from staff for this project is a 20 foot buffer and that was discussed by water resources staff with this original application and DNR concurred with staff’s recommendation. The plan before you shows, at the top you can see the patio area in the back of the proposed home. The 20 foot buffer area is highlighted in red and that’s 20 feet from the ordinary high water level of the lake shown on the site plan. This is a picture of what that shoreline looks like. Staff’s recommendation in the variance request and buffer calls for leaving and utilizing the existing lake access which is shown in this picture. It’s approximately 4 feet in width. And then staff’s recommendation also calls for incorporating and improving shoreline restoration which includes replacing or augmenting the rip rap with native vegetation. Staff provided the applicant several resources in how to design and explain what a lakeshore buffer is and before you is a picture of a lakeshore buffer and what they can look like and here’s a second picture of a lakeshore buffer and to call out in this picture it incorporates the use of existing rock rip rap with native vegetation and then transitions into an upland buffer and this is an example of something that the property owner could do to comply with staff’s recommendation. Walters: So in conclusion based on the above the staff is recommending approval of the variance request. The conditions on that as mentioned staff believes that in order to offset the increased impervious surface or the above 25 percent impervious surface and the increase of it on the lake, towards the lake with the house widening the buffer that Water Resources Coordinator Clark discussed should be required. Permeable pavers should be required for the driveway and patio area and staff’s again overall assessment is that the requested variances are consistent with those granted to surrounding properties and the existing non-conformities present on the property. Staff is concerned about parking. Does note that the proposal provides a total of four off street parking spaces. As you may have noticed in your, sorry. Mind just blank for a second there. Staff report, staff proposed two different motions. The motion that reads with the 11 ½ foot front yard setback would be the one that provides for the driveway as proposed by the applicant to accommodate the fourth parking space. It would require a parallel park in front of the driveway. The second proposed motion requires the additional 3 feet and that reads as an 8 ½ foot front yard variance. As staff noted because of the proposed dedication of the right-of-way that first one would need to be increased to a 20 foot front yard variance and we’ve written that in the motion. We’ll be happy to clarify as needed because we understand it gets a little confusing. If you have any questions we’d be happy to take them at this time. Weick: Thank you MacKenzie. Commissioners, questions for city staff. I’ll open with one MacKenzie. I’m going to need clarification on the math on the driveway. Walters: Yep. Weick: Because there’s an added layer of confusion if we’re talking about from the, you know from the, are we measuring to the street or are we measuring to the curb? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 4 Walters: And that’s where it gets a little more confusing. So because the applicant is willing to dedicate the area of the lot currently covered by the street to the city the 20 foot front yard setback would be measuring from the curb, which would then become the edge of the property line because they would lose that 8 ½ feet. So that’s why it switches from the 11 ½ to 20 is to accommodate the fact that their front yard essentially contracts by 8 feet when they give that land to the City. But all the 11, if it’s easier to put that aside the, all the front yard setback is measured from the property line. So the driveway to the curb is about 14 ½ to 15 feet with the proposed one that is the 20 foot setback and the right-of-way being dedicated at it’s long point and about 11 feet at it’s shorter point. And then with the one being proposed for the 8 ½ foot setback then you would push everything back, the house back 3 feet and you would end up with at it’s long point about 18 ½ and then about 14 ½. Yeah 14, 14 ½ on it’s shortest extent for an average of 16 feet. Is that correct? Bender: I was trying to make sure that the question that you’re asking is getting answered and was it more the difference in the motions or was it related to what’s on the screen? The driveway dimensioning and. Weick: Yeah I’ll restate the question. Bender: Okay. Weick: If the goal was to have 16 to 18 feet roughly of parkable driveway I guess, I just want to be, I don’t know how to ask for that. I don’t know which motion necessarily covers that. I guess in my opinion if you wanted to, and I’m not saying this is mandating something. I’m just asking the question but if you wanted to park a car instead of parallel perpendicular you would need at least 16 feet to do that so that’s 16 to 18 foot seemed to make more sense. Bender: So to get to the 16 feet basically the recommendation is for the driveway length to increase 3 feet in the average part of the driveway which is right in the center where you see the 13 foot dimension. Weick: Okay. Bender: So on the widest part of the driveway, the 14 ½ feet here, that would increase an additional 3 feet to 17 ½ so you know you’d be able to get a 16 foot car in over here because it’d go from 17 ½ to about 16 ½. And then in the middle where you know a third or a second car could park, you know it’d go from about that 15 ½ to a little bit under the 13. And we have to be careful about no portion of the vehicle hanging out into the street and you know it would always be nice if there’s a, you know it’s very difficult to pull right up and put your bumper right up against the garage door. So you know in, there’s a little bit of flexibility there. So the thought in getting that fourth vehicle parked perpendicularly is you know the safest point is for it to be on this side. So if we’ve got something that’s a little bit less than an average size vehicle you know it can kind of park in the middle or if it’s a very small vehicle it could park off on the narrower Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 5 portion of the driveway. If it’s a very big vehicle, something with a trailer, you know the only option is going to be to be parking perpendicular. Does that answer your question or help? Weick: It does. It does. Bender: Okay. Weick: I mean would an option for us to consider be to maintain a curb to house minimum? So instead of allowing the driveway be a, whatever shape that is, you know it maintains a consistent… Bender: Yep. So it’d be at 90 degrees to the roadway. Weick: Yeah. Bender: And basically you would go to the average dimension which would probably be the dimension that they would have to do and if you know you certainly could recommend 16, 17 or 18 feet and the driveway to be you know reconfigured to be 90 degrees to the roadway and that would take care of the offset that you’re seeing here. And you know that is written in the city code for that to be that way. It’s not something that’s always you know enforced that way. Weick: Okay. Just glancing through my notes. If anyone else wants to jump in please. Skistad: If you move it, the driveway. You added the 3 feet, does that just push the house back? Or are you saying that they have to shrink the house? Bender: It would require an adjustment to the design of the home. The other option would be you know to allow a different dimension for the setback from the lake but you know it’s felt that that’s a pretty critical dimension. Skistad: And weren’t you right in the middle between, you went with 20 feet lake setback? So it was recommended as 10 and the full amount is 30 that the State would like. So you just went right in the middle 20. So if the did 8, 6, 17 or I mean whatever that number is. 20 minus 3. Walters: To clarify that is the buffer. The setback is the 75 foot setback but they are currently 52.9 feet from the ordinary high water level of the lake. And so they could in theory the Planning Commission could grant a variance to reduce the lakeshore setback without impacting the buffer width. City policy historically has been not to allow houses to move closer to the lake than existing closest point but that’s certainly an option that could be considered. Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Skistad: Than answers that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 6 Weick: Yep please. Reeder: I do like the idea of having at least 16 feet of parking behind the curb to the building but I’d like to hear from the proposer what that would do to the house. Weick: Sure, we’ll get there. MacKenzie for you it just, on page 8 of 16 in the packet, I just wanted to clarify the way the lot coverage is noted there. Your, on that page while you’re looking for it what you’ve done is listed out the variances that have been granted I believe in the area. And so it says for instance, are you on that page or no? Okay. If you go down 1, 2, 3, to the fourth one which I think is the first lot coverage variance which is 3705 South Cedar Drive and it says 25 percent LC. Lot coverage. Is that 25 percent plus 25 percent? Walters: Yes. All of these are, whenever we write variances we write it as the deviation from the standard so that would be a property that has 50 percent lot cover. For a little bit of context. Whenever we deal with a property that’s a non-conforming like this we use the non-conformity as kind of, as the base point because the city code allows by rights continuation of the non- conformity and rebuilding so long as there is a reduction. So what we always tell applicants is make it better. Reduce it from where it is. So if a property started with say 55 percent lot cover. Weick: Sure. Walters: We’d look at 50 percent as perhaps not ideal but still an improvement. Weick: Okay. No I just wanted, I wanted to be sure I was reading that right. And then there’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So there’s 6 of these that are listed that are lot covered, that include lot coverage variances if I’m reading that correctly. Walters: I believe so. Weick: Including the one we’re talking about tonight. Cool. I’d love to give you another chance to ask MacKenzie some questions or staff. Randall: I’m good right now. Weick: Good. Reeder: Mr. Chair one other question. Weick: Sure. Reeder: Tell me about the height of the proposed structure. Could it go higher or is it at the max? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 7 Walters: Legally it is well under the maximum. We allow structures to be up to 35 feet in height within the shoreland and we measure that as midpoint of the highest of the highest gable. I will glance at my notes but my recollection is with that measured this is at 22 feet in height. With a peak eave of 27, I apologize. I’m not finding my, one second. Yep, 27 at peak height. 22 as we measure so in absolute theory the code would allow without variance up to 35 feet midpoint of highest gable. Weick: Oka thank you MacKenzie for your presentation. At this time I would invite the applicant to come forward and tell us about the project. Welcome and thanks for coming. Pam Reimer: Should I come here? Weick: Yeah. Pam Reimer: I haven’t done this before so. Weick: You and me both. Pam Reimer: Alright. Good evening. I am Pam Reimer and I own the property at 3617 Red Cedar Point. The last applicant who was pre-approved for this exact same variance. Went through this whole process and decided not to buy it as did somebody else but I’m already all in. I’m thankful for MacKenzie Walters because he has spent many days educating and helping me through the planning process so I can build my house. To reiterate the timeline I did contact MacKenzie in January of this year to build the lot and to utilize the existing variance that was already approved. Thank you. Unfortunately my dad had a heart attack and my mom and I pretty much lived in the ICU for 2 weeks and he had another heart attack. Behind the scenes my amazing architect put together a house plan that met the approved footprint and then some. He reduced the hard cover from 36.4 percent to the approved variance of 36.3 and then he called me and said do you really need that big of a house space wise and economically for one person and can I reduce the square feet and further reduce the hard cover. I said you know me. You know what I need in the house and a dog wash in the garage for my licensed therapy dog and a service dog, and a service door for him. And yes I want to save money. He revised the plans and in a timely manner reduced hard cover an additional 1.9 percent. My builder Team Wagner not only got the survey company which did the approved variance to put our proposed house on it but he put together my house on the approved footprint with all the bids from the building parts inside and out. Met with MacKenzie 3 times to meet the city requirements by the variance deadline. He reduced the current side setback from 6 feet to 10.3 and 10.29 which is in compliance. He didn’t put in a basement or a crawl space because he hired an engineer to analyze soil samples requiring this lot to have a $70,000 boring. He arranged with their $5,000 engineer how deep the pilings would go on our already approved plan. When it was all done and said we were a month after the approved variance on my lot lapsed and MacKenzie gave me a new form and had me fill out the $528 fee and here we are. In good faith MacKenzie has covered all the conditions Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 8 and our team is willing to accept these. In good faith the City wants about 677 square feet of my lot and I’m willing to dedicate this valued at about $50,000. I will meet with Carver County and complete the right-of-way upon my variance request being approved. In good faith I have discussed the vegetation buffer with Renae. Neighbors like the Bangasser’s said no one in our neighborhood had to put that in. What rule says you have to do that? In good faith I hired an outstanding expense professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve the ecosystem. Mark Halla, owner of the Mustard Seed, he proposed a plan with the accepted, expensive vegetation and the design filters and is ecological to improve the condition of the lake. Renae liked the custom mix and suggested prairie grass as well. I have request it to go from the shore at the opening to 10 feet on both sides. Here’s a rough diagram in green. And oh I’m giving the secret away to my neighbors, you guys said there was an overhead camera that can see this? The surprise color is charcoal gray on my house. Anyway the green area shows, Renae said this shape is aesthetically pleasing and functional and I could add flag stones so the neighbors could still walk yard to buffered yard to yard. I requested it to go from the shore on the opening out to the sides. 10 feet on both sides. In good faith to fulfill requirements to further reduction of hard cover both my builder and Mark used pervious pavers and will use on my driveway. In good faith to fulfill requirement of tree protection my builder shared with MacKenzie in our last meeting he’s a horticulture expert and he will go above expectations to protect with tree fencing. In good faith Team Paul Wagner, Cold Creek Construction has significantly reduced lot coverage from the already approved variance 3 months ago. In good faith I had the same setback as already approved in Variance 18-01 through February of this year 2019. I’m on the point with limited neighbors on the dead end of Red Cedar Point and the combined parking for my one car, no sports car, and any guests who have 2 more large cars and additional compact cars like my son’s Prius 4 and girlfriend’s Mini Cooper which can park perpendicular in that driveway, or in the garage in the 2 extra spots. This was approved and accepted one month after we applied and we feel strongly to not change the size of the garage. The footprint is important to me and in good faith done in pervious pavers. I’m one woman. I don’t have a big family or gatherings. I feel I’m consistent with the neighbors. Even if I make my garage smaller it’s not going to fix the problem because if people with big cars come and can’t fit in my garage it’s not going to solve the parking problem. Per MacKenzie’s report my combined 3 car garage and driveway provides an amount of off street parking similar to the average provided by other properties in the neighborhood. My life down on South Cedar Drive, I own a house down the road on South Cedar Drive a few blocks down on that road. It has a short driveway so you can either pull into a single car garage or park at an angle so as not to hang on the street so I was careful to provide parking in this house. In the City notes very few properties in the area meet the requirements of the City’s zoning code and most properties either are non-conforming uses or are operating under a variance. All the variances listed on page 7 and 8. I need storage in my garage and there’s no basement and no storage on my main living level. If my garage was reduced and the space I planned in the approved variance for my storage stuff like my Christmas Tree box. All my lake stuff. My kayak. And my car and extra stuff would be out in the driveway and as MacKenzie, my builder and Steve met yesterday and they laughed. You shrink the garage and it defeats the point of parking a big car in the garage and it’s back to the driveway for my stuff. I need my dog wash so hospital patients don’t complain that the dog smells, although the public school kids in Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 9 Paws Allowed to Read would say oooh, that’s funny. My neighbor Nancy says I’m a good neighbor and I already bought the property. I’m committed to this neighborhood. I’m committed to the survey plan that was already approved. My neighbor says hello I’m writing to support a neighbor Pam Reimer in a request for a property variance. We live just a few lots past her property at 3617 Red Cedar Point. We are new to the neighborhood but I recently visited with her and trust that she’ll be a good steward of her future home in Lake Minnewashta. We’re excited that a responsible buyer has come on to finally take care of this the way the lot deserves to be maintained. It’s a potentially beautiful lot but the old Sears cabin is run down and needs a lot of loving care and grass that Pam will provide. Her ownership will make the neighborhood better for all and I hope you agree that her plans are appropriate. It’s my understanding that Pam’s proposal offers adequate parking and it’s apparent that a proposed driveway is not unusual for our little community. If you’ve driven down our street you’ll appreciate that it’s a unique neighborhood where houses are close together. The street is narrow and everybody’s parking is limited. That’s part of the lakeside neighborhood charm. The peninsula is a dead end and it’s apparent to us already that it isn’t a street with traffic other than people who live here and their guests. It’s our understanding and experience that since we all live on a unique street everyone cooperates with each other. Case in point, one of our neighbors just gave us permission to borrow part of his driveway for 2 days to park our boat before we were able to get it into the water. I hope you and the Planning Commission will see that our street is unique and that Pam’s variance request suits the neighborhood. We feel lucky that Pam, an experienced homeowner and good neighbor on the lake will redevelop that site and we hope her variance request will be approved allowing construction of a beautiful home that will enhance our neighborhood. And that was Nancy Rennake right down from me on Red Cedar Point. In conclusion our team has been operating under the assumption that this variance was approved. We did the soil borings and measured for trusses and all the house building parts. We stayed within the footprint assuming there’s no issue with the footprint of the house and to change the whole plan is not economical. My builder is ready. The boring company is ready and we’re excited to check off number one to apply for a building permit so I ask you now for a simple majority vote that says that Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5 front yard setback on the street or just changed today because I offered to dedicate my land to you, a 20 foot land that I’m dedicating to the City of Chanhassen coma, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Thank you very much. Weick: Thank you. If you could hang on for a moment. There may be some questions from the commission or clarification. Questions? Commissioner Reeder. Reeder: Yeah my question still remains what would be the problem with having at least 16 feet back from the curb of the house? Pam Reimer: You’re taking away from my garage and my storage. Reeder: How big is the garage? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 10 Pam Reimer: It’s a 3 car garage and there’s room in the front for a dog wash. I have a therapy dog. He’s a service dog. Reeder: What’s the length of the garage? Audience: 26 by 30. Pam Reimer: 26 by 30. Reeder: 26 feet long and 30 feet wide? Pam Reimer: Yeah. And that’s all the storage. There’s no storage so, it’s got all, I have like 20 bins. I have Christmas. Thanksgiving. Extra clothes. Waders. I have bins of things and they’re all on shelves now and they need a place to go and I’m not going to put them out in the driveway. Then the neighbors would really complain. Garage sale every day. So thank you. Reeder: Thank you. Weick: No other questions, thank you. Pam Reimer: Thank you too. Weick: Thank you for presenting. At this time we will open the public hearing. As a reminder please come forward one at a time. State your name and address for the record and your comments on this issue. There’s some stirring. Yes, okay. Steve Gunther: Good evening. My name is Steve Gunther. I am a resident of Red Cedar Point. That area out there. I’ve been a resident there for about 21 years. We built the house in about 2003 so we’ve been through this process, although our house did not require any variances. I’m also the President of the Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association. The LMPA has been around for over 20 years and our job is to maintain and improve the quality of the lake for the residents and the users of the lake. I’m speaking kind of in both roles here. I’ll talk about the LMPA side, Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association side first. The LMPA spends a ton of money to improve the quality of this lake. We spend about 20 grand a year on treating weeds in that lake. This year we’ve donated $10,000 to Carver County of all people so that they can continue inspections of watercraft entering the lake to prevent aquatic invasive species from coming in the lake. So financially we have a big effort into keeping this lake as pristine as we can for all users. Also we have one board member who is a master water steward trained by the water associations in the State of Minnesota to help things. Put in place things like rain gardens, buffers and so on that Pam mentioned earlier so my concern as the President of the LMPA is the amount of hard cover variance requested in this lot. I spoke a year, over a year ago with the last request for a variance and pleaded with this council and maybe different members at that time to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 11 not approve the hard cover variance with the idea of preventing runoff into the lake. That being said, having this afternoon read the 60 page report from staff which came in before I came here I was happy to see that the buffer zone that I had suggested in my email is being required. That impervious pavers in the driveway and the patio are also required. That’s good news. So I think from a runoff point of view those actions and the lake side setback make me satisfied that approving the lake side setback in fine. Also happy that they’re going to take down the shed. It’s actually an outhouse believe it or not that’s been there since probably 1920 something and not ask for a variance on the side setback. Where I am largely concerned is the front setback from the road. I understand Pam’s issue that the City is taking part of her property. That’s happened to me too when they repaved the road several years ago so I understand that. You lose some of your property as a result of that but it is what it is. I mean when she bought the lot the lot lines were, the concrete or the asphalt where the road was was where it is so we’re not going to change that so I’m happy she’s going to donate it but effectively that was the property she was going to build with what was left. What I’m majorly concerned is the approval of a front street you know setback to the extent that’s been requested. The average size American car is 14 to 16 feet. A Honda Civic just for reference is 15 feet so if you know the size of a Honda Civic that’s 15 feet. Jeep Cherokee which is the car that Pam drives is 16 feet or longer depending on the model so having 11 ½ foot driveway in that spot in my mind, even if you park parallel is a safety issue. My strong suggestion is that you go with what has been proposed by staff as an option and that is, and I think it’s been brought up here as well, let’s require that that setback be a minimum of 16 to 18 feet which will accommodate you know a car parked fully in the driveway. In my mind if you do that as staff has sent in their report either reduce and you maintain the lake side setback at 52 ½ feet. That will reduce the depth of the house that’s allowed to be built to 39 feet. On an 80 foot lot, 10 foot setbacks, 60 feet wide house by 39 feet, you know depth of the house you’re at over 2,300 square feet for the size of the footprint of that house so by doing that you’re creating a house which in my mind is the modern standard house. 2,300 square feet on one level. Now I would comment that you have, I would also suggest strongly that you eliminate the 3 car garage proposal. If you look at the file that was sent out this afternoon in there there’s a map that I sent to MacKenzie which shows a printout of every lot that’s on Red Cedar Point, South Cedar, Hickory Road and you can see that the majority of the homes that are in there, it’s probably second to last page of your report here but the vast majority of the. Walters: You want to put the drawing on the document cam please. Thank you. Steve Gunther: So if Pam’s house is this 3617. This is the end of the point in this direction here. This is the area where there’s very little parking ability and turn around ability right in this spot here and these are the garage numbers of every house in the immediate area around there and you’ll see a lot of 2’s there. The next door neighbor Betsy Anding has a 1 car garage so you see a lot of 2’s there. The few homes that are 3’s or higher have extremely wide lots. 100 feet wide lots or larger, or they chose to do a side loading garage which you know puts the garage perpendicular to the road so my strong suggestion is that you push the front setback variance to 16 or 18 feet to allow 2 cars to park side by side in the driveway and then allow Pam to build a 2 car garage behind that so that gets your 4 car you know average minimum number of off street Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 12 parking spaces. A single woman, I mean she said it herself. I’m a single woman with a dog. With 1 car I’m not sure why you need a 3 car garage right. If you have 4 parking spaces with a 2 car garage as you would with a 3 car garage with a car parking sideways to it so again it’s my recommendation that you not approve. Go ahead with the lake side setback variance. Be happy with the 10 foot side setback. You know back to code if you will. Do not approve the front setback variance but go with a deeper driveway. If it’s not obvious that having an 11 ½ foot driveway with a 3 car garage on a 16 ½ foot road when snowplows are coming down and emergency vehicles are trying to get through there, it’s obvious to me that you shouldn’t have that kind of parking situation there. You get the cars off the street and put them on a standard size 16 to 18 foot driveway. And I think that’s all the comments I had. And by the way we’re friends with Pam. She was down in our house in Florida for a week. We’ve know here for 10 years or more so it’s nothing personal. It’s all let’s do what’s right for the neighborhood and let’s build a house that’s consistent with the size and scope of the neighbors that are in that very tight community. Thank you. Weick: Thank you. Dave Bangasser: Hello. Weick: Welcome. Dave Bangasser: Thank you. I’m Dave Bangasser. I live, my wife and I live at 3633 South Cedar Drive. I’ve been in the neighborhood for a long time. My wife’s family purchased the property in ’46 so we’ve got a lot of history on the property and frankly I’d rather not be here because nobody wants to object to their neighbor but much like what Steve just talked about, Pam this is nothing personal and I’m generally in favor of the plan but I do take exception to the length of the driveway. I think it’s a very bad precedence to have this short of driveway especially in that location with such a narrow road as Red Cedar Point Road is at that point and I have talked to Pam a couple of times about this topic. I really haven’t heard any other considerations other than nothing can change. There’s no alternatives. I don’t believe that. I’m in design and construction. There’s lots of alternatives to this. It’s a 47 foot deep structure. I know I’ve got storage above my attic with a stairs up to it so all those lake things, including my kayaks go upstairs in the attic of the garage. There’s lots of alternatives to this. 47 feet deep. Something can give here. I do also have to take exception to, while I generally agree that increasing the driveway width 3 feet is a step in the right direction, I don’t agree with averages. Averages don’t work when you’re talking about a 16 foot vehicle and the average depth of the driveway. Well if that middle car that’s parked in the middle perpendicular, one side of it might be inside the roadway but the other side’s sticking out the roadway and I do think it is a safety issue. We’ve got a number of vehicles, the garbage trucks back up the street to get the garbage because they can’t turn around. We’ll see how the emergency vehicles, the snowplows and I’m pleased to see or hear that you think you’ve got something figured out there but I do think it’s a safety concern and driveways are mainly for visitors. It’s one thing if it’s you and you’re parking there all the time. You can probably figure out how to make something work but Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 13 driveways are mainly for visitors that aren’t necessarily familiar with things. I have an 18 foot long driveway and I believe that is an absolute minimum and I don’t have a long vehicle. I drive the same vehicle as Pam does and with an 18 foot driveway the garage door is often getting bumped because people pull up. You can’t necessarily see the front end of your vehicle. You don’t necessarily think about a license plate sticking out the front or you don’t necessarily think about a trailer hitch. We’re on a lake. A lot of people have trailer hitches. Trailer hitch sticking out the back. I think 18 feet is the minimum for something like that because you’re not going to practically pull right up to and bump the garage door. And again with that narrow street we certainly don’t want the vehicle sticking out past the street so I just think it’s a bad precedence not to allow at least 2 vehicles to pull into that driveway perpendicular to the street so that they can get out. I will grant you that with the driveway proposed you can angle park 2 vehicles in that driveway but I don’t know how you could get out without backing up the street all the way to the intersection and that’s a safety concern that we don’t want in the neighborhood. Again I’m not aware but for the variance that was granted on this property, I’m not aware of any other variances that have been granted that would not allow 2 reasonable vehicles to be parking in a driveway and I’m hoping that’s not something that is granted here tonight. Thank you. Weick: Thank you. Betsy Anding: I am Betsy Anding and I am the direct neighbor of Pam and I really don’t have anything additional to add other than I just do want to voice my support for what Steve Gunther and Dave Bangasser have just shared. Those are my concerns as well. I think they’ve articulated them extremely well so I’m not going to regurgitate but I did at least want to add my voice that I concur with their concerns and with what they have offered as possible alternative solutions to some of the issues. Thank you. Weick: Can I actually ask you a question? Betsy Anding: Yes. Weick: When you say direct neighbor to which? Betsy Anding: I am at 3625 Red Cedar Point so the direct neighbor on the west. Weick: Is that the blue? Betsy Anding: White house with the green roof. Weick: It’s the white house, okay. Got it, thank you. I just wanted to get that in my. Audience: Beautiful house with the one car garage. Betsy Anding: One car garage and a full driveway. It fits two cars. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 14 Weick: Welcome. Dave Bishop: Hi there. My name is Dave Bishop and Nellica Knight and I live at 3605 Red Cedar Point Road. We haven’t met Pam so hi Pam. Welcome to the point. She’s right. It’s a very close neighborhood and we do cooperate a lot together. I’m going to try not to repeat anything that you’ve heard already today but we didn’t walk in at the very beginning of this so if I do please correct my misapprehensions. I want to talk to the issue of, and I believe in my heart that at some point a structure’s going to be built on this property and I welcome it because the yellow cabin that’s there, it’s useful life has well been spent. But when you do build something there is a construction process and I heard 16 ½ feet in width. I went out with my tape measurer and measured the width of that road in front of the cabin. It’s 15 feet 2 inches and I raise that because 2 houses to the west, we went through this whole process and they tore down a house and rebuilt a brand new one and we went through that construction period and we had at that point the advantage that people on the opposite side of the street had a very broad 3 car driveway so that when the construction equipment blocked the road we could actually go off the road and go around and still enter and exit but had we not had that we would have been stuck in our houses because they often had you know 2, 3, 4 construction or cement trucks or dump trucks or other related stuff taking out the entire road during this period. In addition you can see if you go further west down Red Cedar Point, up the hill and then down the hill, there’s a nice straight area there but during the construction phase people parked both overflow of us residents, visitors, swimmers from and what not, park on one side of the road. Construction would park on the other side of the road and there was only about 6 ½ feet between them to actually go so there was a lot of difficulty so I’m suggesting to you that if this comes in with a variance that you address in the variance process a construction alternative that will ensure that the road isn’t blocked so that we have ambulance and fire and all of us have itinerate schedules at that end of the point. Coming in late at night, early in the morning and during the day and we’d just like to make sure that we can get in and out during that period. I think somebody mentioned the issue of snowplowing and garbage and I don’t know what you have talked about on that issue but in my experience snow got thrown onto the gravel parkway of the cabin because that was a nice empty place and nobody was parking there and I am curious about where the City plans to put the snow once we have taken that significant area out of storage spots because everybody else has landscaped to the hilt there. Thank you. Weick: Did you want to respond? Bender: Yeah I can respond to some of that. Weick: Sure yeah. A direct response would be great. Bender: I’ll address the public safety comments first. I did speak with the Fire Marshal about this. From a public safety perspective no parking will be allowed on Red Cedar Point Road, Hickory Road, South Cedar Drive, or any other road in the vicinity that is less than 26 feet Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 15 during you know any demolition, construction or development phases of the lot. This is you know the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal were both discussing this and they are well aware of the problems that have occurred out there previously. They’re also well aware that this will be a, probably a routine battle to try to enforce this. We would expect that the CSO is probably going to be out there quite often trying to communicate delicately and enforce this. But the thought for construction traffic and construction workers is that they are going to have to find another place to park. They will have to come to the lot, drop off their supplies. Their tools. Their equipment. Unless they can pull into the lot and be out of the roadway they will not be allowed to stay there. For the second part which was more related to the plowing and the maintenance, I’ve spoken with the public works staff. The street superintendent that’s responsible for plowing the area and they do realize that this lot has been used in the past and that you know with the proposed construction they’re not going to be able to use the, this area. Knowing this they’ve thought through the process. Come up with alternatives in order to be able to not only move the snow and navigate the plow but also to store the snow. There is a large cottonwood tree out there for example that would have to be removed by public works in order to help create space and that’s in the, near the eyebrow area that’s in the right-of-way right in this area. There will be some other clean up that will have to be done. There will have to be communications that are made with the neighbors in order to help facilitate this. Summer and winter parking conditions may be a little bit different but you know they are confident that they can manage this situation with this lot redeveloping. That’s all I have. Weick: Thank you. Please. Jeff Souba: My name is Jeff Souba. My family owned the lot at 3617 for 90 years and I think that the plan that Pam has and for her needs their driveway is adequate. I don’t think she should have to make things smaller. I think for a single person living in that house you’ve got enough driveway there that she can get by with her guests either parking in the garage or on the property and I don’t think she should have to make any changes over what she’s already done to the plans and what she originally planned on doing. I just wanted to say that. Weick: Appreciate that. Thank you. Paul Wagner: My name’s Paul Wagner. I am the builder for Pam Reimer so if anything I just thought it’d be a good time to let all these neighbors know who they’ll be dealing with and I’m really easy to deal with. There’s 43 years of a licensed home builder. 75 projects on lakeshore. I’m a licensed horticulturist and a 20 year veteran of the fire department so I have a lot of respect for narrow dead end roads in the middle of the night. Lately in the neighborhood there’s a lot going on with landscapers and construction and I think everybody kind of bends a little bit. Otherwise you can’t do anything in that neighborhood. You’d better be driving slow because you’ve got nowhere to drive fast. It’s a dead end. As far as safety and meeting the needs of the neighborhood during construction I will personally be there every day and nobody will have any issue with any of my people. If you go to my website you’ll see 43 years of customers that have nothing but good to say because that’s how I do thing. My name is Paul Wagner. I’m going to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 16 give everybody information on myself. I will personally go around and meet all the neighbors. Let them know who’s doing what and how we’re doing it. They’ll have a phone number and a contact so that if there is an issue it will get addressed immediately but the end result is we want a beautiful home for a beautiful person in a beautiful neighborhood with beautiful neighbors and happy neighbors and when I leave the neighborhood and I run into somebody at the Dairy Queen I want them to wave to me. Not with a single finger so thank you and I look forward to hanging out with everybody here. Weick: Thank you. Anyone else would like to come forward now would be the time. Give everybody a chance but seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing portion of this hearing and open the floor for commissioner discussion. We’ve heard a lot this evening. There’s certainly a lot in front of us. I will sort of remind you there are 3 items in the variance for consideration so it includes the front yard setback which includes the driveway and there’s a couple of options there as written by the City. There’s an option for the variance as it was previously approved. There’s also a version that adds approximately 3 feet to that. By adding it makes the driveway longer if that’s an accurate way to say it by approximately 3 feet. So there’s that portion of the variance. The second is the lakeshore setback and the third is the lot cover variance. One thing that we didn’t really discuss if we are, it sounds like, it was suggested and accepted to use permeable pavers. That would in theory, assuming they’re maintained, improve the lot coverage would it not? Clark: Commissioners yes, the pervious pavement acts as a permeable surface if maintained offsetting the effect of a hardscape variance. Weick: Yeah. So that’s not accounted for in the official request of this variance which sits at 9 ½ percent. I did some very bad math but you could almost cut that in half with the use of the pervious pavers. I want to use the terminology right. That would get it in that 28 to 29 percent range actually. Roughly. Which is significantly less. The other consideration that you know we’ve talked a lot about, and I’ve thought a lot. I happen to be, I happened to hear this case previously as well and the 3 car garage was always something to me that I struggled with in my head but I sort of thing of it as a shed, right? So is it a better use to have a shed like this or to have a separate standing structure that you’re going to try to build somewhere else on the property? Probably not. In my mind I think this is probably a better you know storage is an issue. This is probably a better use for something like that than trying to approve a variance for a stand alone structure somewhere else on the property in my opinion if it’s already sort of captured within the existing building. Just those are some of my thoughts off the top of my head. Hopefully that gave you guys a chance to think about something as well. What are you thoughts? Randall: You ready? Weick: Yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 17 Randall: Alright. So I agree with you. I remember dealing with this back, was it January? Weick: A little over a year ago. Randall: And walking away from it I know we approved the variance but I had issues with it because of the garage. Personal experience, I spent a year looking for my lot so I could build a 6 car garage so that was a requirement for me. I found the lot that I was able to do it. I was looking at city lots. These small lots but due to the hardscape percentage, the setbacks and everything I was limited on what I could do. I feel like this house is, I love the house. I love the location and everything like that but you’re trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Maybe this isn’t the lot for this type of home because it’s requiring so many variances on it and I get the whole storage thing. You can ask my wife. She thinks I’m a hoarder but to get your stuff stored you have to come up with creative solutions and I’m worried about that driveway aspect of it. Is it creating a precedent that we’re going to be allowing this over and over again? But you get into these neighborhoods where you’ve got a small lot like this property’s been in the previous family for 90 years. So in 1927 did they envision that? Or 1928. Weick: You don’t have to do the math. It was a long time. Randall: Yeah so 90 years ago like I said. Things have changed. These lots are desirable. This was way out in the country at that time. Things have changed. We’re in an urban area. Suburban area now. My concern with it, I just remember last time walking away from that approval and I had issues with it and then this came up again and now it’s kind of a time to rehash some of those things and, and it’s too bad the variance lapsed because it would have been nice to keep it going for then we wouldn’t have had to deal with this again but I’m going to have a hard time voting in favor for it. I just feel like changes can be made. I mean I had to restrict some things at my house that I didn’t want, or I wanted but I couldn’t do it because of my hardscape percentage and that type of thing too so I could stay within bounds so that’s kind of my thought about it. I did think the property owner, I think she brought up some, she’s worked out a lot of the issues. The parking. She’s worked out that a little bit you know with cars and how that’s going to fit on her property understanding that’s going to be a hardship. She lowered the hardscape percentage which was great. I think it’s good, I don’t have any on the lake side of it. I don’t have any issues. It’s just that one side. Is that driveway going to be too short? And that’s all I have to say. Weick: Is there a number that you would feel more comfortable with? Randall: I would still like to have the more, the bigger setback for a full sized car to get into the driveway. That’s what I would like. I get what you’re saying about the shed and not having a detached, something later but if it means doing a 2 car garage with more room in the back for storage or going up I’ve got a car lift in my garage so I can lift stuff up and there are options out there that you can do so I think some of those would be, should be explored. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 18 Weick: And I would say we, I mean we shouldn’t get in the business of trying to design it. Randall: No. Weick: We really should be focused on if it should come down to if we believe that, if we believe the driveway length is important really to park a car perpendicular that’s really what we should, you know what that ends up doing to the design of the house is less of, I mean we’re certainly not here to design that house. Whether it’s a 2 or 3 car garage. I think it’s important that we make a decision on the length of the driveway though. Randall: But you know we go back to that case with the gentleman with the fire truck, he wanted a variance. Came back. Did some redesign work and we knew that he had worked with us on that and he was able to show that he did that for us so is that one of those cases where this still can be adjusted a little bit and make everyone a little bit more happy. Maybe so, I don’t know. Weick: Thank you. Sure, jump in. We’re informal here I hope. Reeder: First of all there’s certainly a beautiful house compared to what’s there now. Sort of sad to see what might be the last outhouse in Chanhassen disappear. I don’t know if that’s the historical society has looked at that or not but. Pam Reimer: It’s for sale. Reeder: I’m okay with the variance on the lakeshore side. I’m okay with the lot coverage that’s being offered. The one concern I have is the parking situation. I think we have to look at this property as a property that’s going to be owned for the next 50 years by 6 different people and the size of cars that people own now that are going to move into it really doesn’t matter. The question is will this house provide enough parking in the long run for anybody that wants to live there including somebody like me that has a long truck that would want to park in front of my house so my concern is the driveway setback. I would be comfortable. I’m not comfortable with the average idea proposed by staff. I’m more comfortable with the building line being setback 16 feet from the back of the curb. That I understand would make it an angle but that’s I think a doable thing. You could certainly if you want a 3 car garage you can make one of the garages shorter than the other garage I mean if that’s a problem. I think the proposed garages are pretty adequate at 23 feet and if it had to be reduced I don’t think that’s a real major problem so I would not vote for the front yard variance as proposed. I would vote for a total of 16 feet all the way across the lot. Weick: Thanks. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 19 Skistad: I think the homeowner has, or the land owner has made, has tried to meet everyone’s expectations and has worked really hard to do that and I don’t think the driveway is ideal but I also think that she worked it out and I guess I would be in favor of the plan as she has it. Weick: As she has it? Skistad: Yeah. Weick: So quite a few opinions across the 4 of us here. So I hear, okay. I guess leaving the. Skistad: I guess the only other question would be if we moved the driveway 3 feet back and we just allowed the setback to go, the house to go back 3 feet. That would be, you know if that, if her whole house could just move back 3 feet. Weick: Well certainly they would have to redesign. Reeder: I don’t agree with moving the house 3 feet toward the lakeshore if that’s what you’re suggesting. Skistad: That’s what I would suggest. I mean if that’s the. Reeder: Because it’s already in line with the house next door. I think it’s just about exactly and I think that’s as close as we should go to the lakeshore. Weick: It would mean, if we were to add feet to the driveway it would take away, it would be a zero sum so we would take away from the garages and I’m not quite sure if this is probably offset but it would be a one for one. Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Weick: Yep. Reeder: Let me ask staff. Could they overhang the second story in reducing the, and increasing the size of the driveway or what’s the setback line? Walters: In variances there is no architectural encroachment. That being said it is something you could stipulate. You’d like the use of a cantilever and it requires some writing but it’d be doable. If that answers your question. Reeder: I think so. Maybe they could come up with some creative options that would keep the upper level of the house the same relative size and just reduce the garage size as needed to accommodate a longer driveway. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 20 Walters: I would want to consult with the city attorney on that. My understanding is the front yard, when we grant a variance we establish basically a box that they can work in. I don’t know that we’d have the ability to put a control that would prevent them from altering the design of the house up to the front yard setback and our code specifies that for a variances to front yard setback is for all architectural features. Eaves, cantilevers, etcetera. Weick: I think we discussed that last time. No. Walters: I strongly suspect not but would, yeah. Weick: But again I’d reiterate for me I think the decision that each of us needs to make is whether we believe the driveway needs to be longer or not. Whether there’s adequate, whether we believe there’s adequate space for whatever considerations each of us have. Whether it’s safety or you know cars hanging out in the street or whatever it might be. Skistad: What’s the current driveway? Weick: This one that’s here in the picture? It’s deep to the house. It’s probably 20 feet. Randall: Yeah if you look at the page with the color. Jeff Souba: It’s probably more than 20. Reeder: No it’s more than 20. Weick: 30 feet, yeah. Jeff Souba: You can park an entire row of cars facing the street and then another set of cars facing sideways in front of them. We’ve put 13 cars in that driveway and not have anything imposing on the street. Weick: I remember that’s all hard cover out there today so not ideal. The whole thing yeah. The whole front. Are you looking to answer or are you just getting paper? Walters: I was driving the survey to answer the question about how far back the gravel goes. Weick: Okay. Walters: Looking at reference points I would say just shy of 30 feet on the west and just a hair over 30 feet on the east. Weick: Other questions or comments from commissioners. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 21 Randall: By code what’s the minimum driveway length? Walters: Not specifically addressed but it would generally be the length of the front yard setback so in residential single family a property that met zoning code would have a 30 foot long driveway. I believe the smallest I can remember in a PUD I believe we allowed 20 and that was not including the right-of-way. That was going to property line. Randall: Okay. Because I think about like what they are for like some of the townhome complexes and that type of thing. They have pretty short driveways there but I don’t know what the minimum would be. Walters: Again I believe we try to keep them around 20. I can’t recall any that go below that. Sharmeen might have a better memory than I on that one though. Al-Jaff: 20 feet regardless of townhouses or single family and the subdivision that’s going to appear before you after this along Big Woods Drive the front yard is 20 feet on some of those homes. Randall: Okay. Weick: Okay. And I did, when I was out there on this property the next door neighbor on the other side has a relatively short driveway. They actually had an SUV parked in the driveway tucked up against the garage door and had you know less than a foot. I kind of walked it off, whatever and it was 16ish feet so very similar to what you’re speaking to which is just mandate a car’s length. That setup was very similar to what you’re talking about. And seemed to work. You could fit two cars there so. At least visually it gave us a picture of what that might look like. Without any, I mean it sounds like we’re hung up on the driveway obviously. It didn’t to me sound like anybody had, I mean I’m very thankful that the buffer and the shoreline restoration is, and use of pervious pavers is part of this construction moving forward. That’s fantastic for the lake. It significantly reduces the hard cover as I mentioned before which is awesome. And to me I’m with Commissioner Reeder, I think it’s important to have the space for an average you know SUV type vehicle to fit in front of that house perpendicular to the street. That’s my opinion. But we can you know certainly entertain if one of my fellow commissioners has a motion we can talk about that. We can look at it. We can. Paul Wagner: Could we, could we just make… Weick: Absolutely. Randall: Please come forward. Weick: If it would help yes. Do I need to reopen the public? I will officially reopen the public portion of the hearing. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 22 Paul Wagner: I apologize. I just talked with Pam and there’s nothing like having good neighbors so Pam and I would agree to keep peace in the neighborhood and make this all work, I can do some adjustments in that third stall for her doggy deal and stuff and storage and the storage up so we’ll be, we would take 3 foot off the existing plan of the garage. Weick: Thank you. Thank you also Pam. Randall: What would we need to change the approval to? Weick: You wouldn’t there is, there is one written for that I believe. Walters: Forgive me I would have one question just for clarification for the building and the applicant. Would that still be with the dedication of right-of-way or would that be with an easement granted? It’s, it will change the math of the variance that needs to be granted. Skistad: Was it for the small garage? I was a little confused on that. Paul Wagner: We would keep everything as discussed. Walters: So that’d be with the dedication? Paul Wagner: Correct. Walters: Okay. So then that would work out, so the Planning Commission would look at the motion ahead. Instead of the 8.5 foot front yard setback there would be 8.5 feet added to that to essentially account for the right-of-way that’s being seated to the city and it would then become a 17 foot front yard setback variance. Similar to how with this one with the dedication it went from 11.5 to have the shorter driveway. The 8 ½ moved it up to 20. This one would be adding 8 ½ and this would not be with an easement condition but the dedication of the roadway to the City. Weick: So it’d be 17 ½? Walters: It’d be 8 ½ plus. Bender: 8 ½ and 17 correct. Walters: Always check with the engineers for the math but yeah. Weick: Thank you. Audience: What does the driveway have to be now? …middle of the road but… Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 23 Walters: That is what I was getting at sir is because their road would no longer be on the property we would shift the front yard setback, back to accommodate for that. It would have an average driveway depth of 16 feet would be the average depth. Bender: I guess one question I would have is are we talking average depth or are we talking orienting the driveway to be completely perpendicular to the roadway so that you would have 16 feet on both sides. Dave Bangasser: Is the public hearing still open? Weick: It actually is. I didn’t close it after the. Dave Bangasser: In my opinion. Weick: Can you come up to the? Thank you. Dave Bangasser: As I stated before but in my opinion averages don’t work if part of the vehicle’s sticking out from the road. And I don’t know exactly whether another 3 feet does it or not because the survey doesn’t show us that. My suggestion would be to set some minimum driveway length and to go with that. To me I don’t care if the third stall is less than that. To me I think it’s important precedence to say a minimum of 2 cars wide that is some minimum depth. Personally I think 16 is too narrow. I already told you that I have 18 feet with the same vehicle and I think that is really a minimum but that’s my opinion and up to your judgment. Weick: Thank you. And I will close the public hearing at this point. I apologize. But those are important, those are both important comments to add. Reeder: Mr. Chairman if they did an average of 16 how many cars could we park? How many 16 foot cars could we park there? Bender: Technically you get one. If the driveway is as oriented as it currently is proposed. Reeder: So it would be 17.9 on the one end there? Bender: Yeah you’d get a little, for the car that would be parked in the middle you’d have a little bit less than 16 on this side of it. You’d have a little bit extra here. You’d have enough on this side of the car. You’d have a little bit less than this full 16 feet here. The only other. Weick: So as I’m reading this I add 3 feet to. Bender: Each of those. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 24 Weick: 14.6, 13, and 11.6 and that’s the, that would be the new depth of the driveway. It would be 17.6, 16 and then very short next to them. Bender: And then 14 ½ yes. Reeder: So at least 2 of them would be 16 feet. Weick: He’s saying it’d be tight. Bender: It’d be a little bit less on, for the middle. The vehicle that would be parking in the middle. To get that fifth car spot. It’d be about 15 1/2 because of the angle of the road and the driveway is not completely perpendicular to the street. It’s possible that you know the garage door could maybe be orientated a little bit to match the angle of the road and still keep the front but again you’re getting into design at that point which probably is not your jurisdiction but you know. Weick: But we could say, we could, correct me if I’m not but you could maintain a 16 ½ foot. Pick a number. Bender: Yeah. Weick: You could say from the curb the driveway needs to maintain X feet. Bender: Yep and I’m just, I know it’s important to the applicant who already has the home designed and especially the foundation design to be able to leave the building corners at their current location. Weick: Got it. Bender: To not add expense for the redesign of the hiloco piles. And you know maybe an adjustment to the front of the building like we have heard earlier tonight that there are alternatives to be considered. That would help orientate the structure to the, the front of the garage to be parallel to the roadway. To achieve that 16 foot average dimension. Weick: Thanks. Do you need to hear more? Do you? Randall: Is the public hearing closed? Weick: Yes it is. Randall: I’m glad that they were able to add 3 feet. I mean it shows that it’s doable. It added a lot bigger spot on that very end. Just by doing that created a lot more space which I was happy about so if that’s included I’ll be voting for it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 25 Reeder: Are you saying increase it by 3 feet? Randall: Yeah. Reeder: I can live with that. That wouldn’t be my first choice but. Randall: I know. It’d be better if it was deeper. I’d like to see more conforming but I’m glad them came back 3 feet. That added a lot more space in my opinion. It’s still going to be tough to park cars out there but. Weick: You’ll get one. Randall: For sure yeah. Weick: For sure. And then the other one will be potentially at an angle there. Randall: Plus they still have 3 garage spots too. Weick: Right. Randall: So. Reeder: My only concern about that is the next one that comes before us that says well look what you did to this. You did an average or you did it less than 16. That’s why I’m more comfortable with 16. That’s a good number. Paul Wagner: If that foot would make a big difference to everybody then let us move the house one foot closer to the lake. Pam Reimer: Yeah and my grandmother lived to be 106 so I’m going to live a long time… Paul Wagner: You’ve got to keep in mind we’re still complying with the impervious surface. In fact we are better than the last time for the. Pam Reimer: Yeah…2 percent. Paul Wagner: And now by eliminating 3 feet and then going to pervious pavers on the driveway we are more than accommodating the impervious surface. Pam Reimer: And you’re going to help pay for that right? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 26 Weick: Thank you. We can entertain a motion if you all are comfortable with this as it reads. I am also open to discussing it further. Randall: I’m willing to make a motion if there’s no more discussion. Okay. Make a motion the Chanhassen City Council. Weick: This is it. Randall: This is it right here, okay. Weick: This has, it doesn’t change the setbacks in the back yard. Randall: But it changed to 17 feet in the front. I just want to make sure. Weick: Right. Which is the addition of the. Randall: The Chanhassen City Council approves the 17 foot yard setback at 2.2, or I’m sorry. 22.1 foot lakeshore setback and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance for the construction of a single family house subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. So shouldn’t it say Planning Commission, not City Council? Walters: Apologies issued. That was sloppy on my part. Randall: Okay. Alright I’ll re-read it then. The City, the Chanhassen City Planning Commission approves a 17 foot yard setback, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance for the construction of a single family house subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. Weick: We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Reeder: I’ll second that motion. Weick: We have a valid motion and a second by Commissioner Reeder. Any further comments for the record before we vote? I would add, as I have before and I know it’s already on the record but the actual lot coverage is significantly less than 9 ½ percent with the agreed use of pervious pavers and there’s also discussion to use the buffers in the shoreland restoration as proposed by our Water Resources Coordinator which is also a fantastic addition to the project as well. We have a motion and a second. Randall moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 17-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions: Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 27 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Weick: The motion passes with a 4 to 0 vote. If anybody would like to appeal this motion they may do so within 4 days of this decision. Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 28 The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER SUBDIVISION OF 1.17 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NE INTERSECTION OF CARVER BEACH ROAD AND BIG WOODS BOULEVARD. Al-Jaff: Thank you Chairman Weick, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is, my apologies. We don’t have a monitor here so George will be going to. The application before you is for a subdivision and a variance. The request is to subdivide a 1.17 acre into two lots for single family detached houses. The property is located northeast of the intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and Carver Beach Road. One of the things that we need to point out specifically dealing with existing conditions out there. There are two homes located east of this parcel. The addresses are 640 and 630 Carver Beach Road. Those two parcels share a cross access driveway that straddles the northerly property line of the subject site. And we will talk about that later in more detail. Just a brief background. So back in 2006 this parcel that extended from Carver Beach to Lotus Lake appeared before the City. It was subdivided into two parcels. The easterly portion which contained a single family home was sold and the remaining 1.17 acres is what remains vacant and is before the Planning Commission for further subdivision. So this is a fairly simple two lot subdivision. The parcels are both, the lot area width and depth all exceed the minimum requirements of the city code. The parcels are guided single family and this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As part of the subdivision the applicant is dedicating right-of-way and it is in compliance with all of the ordinances. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions. One of the things that we need to highlight is that the existing parcel is a high quality woodland typical of the Big Woods. A type of forest dominated by sugar maple and basswood. To preserve the existing woods and retain the wooded feel of the neighborhood staff recommends the easterly 140 feet of Lot 1 and the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 be covered by a conservation easement. The Comprehensive Park Plan requires that homes be, a park be located within half a mile of residential subdivisions. In this Carver Beach Park serves this development and some of the amenities that can be found at the park are swimming beach, playground, fishing pier, trails and there’s also a parking area for individuals that wish to drive out to the park. At this point I need to turn it over to Assistant City Engineer George Bender to address access among other issues. Bender: So for Lot 1 the access is off of Carver Beach Road. It’s fairly normal and consistent. Not much to discuss there. The access for Lot 2 is a little bit different. Due to the grades that are out there this driveway is proposed to come off of the new right-of-way. There are in association with this driveway that’s along here and existing easements there is difficulties in carrying the road through the subdivision to the northerly lot line as would be a normal process. As such alternatives have been considered and the proposal is to serve the home off of the new right-of- way but allow the driveway to go through the right-of-way. The sewer and water mains would be extended beyond the driveway but not impact the existing easements that are in place to utilize the driveway by this lot and this lot. And at the time that further development occurs to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 29 the north the driveway would be torn out within the right-of-way and replaced with a street that would be extended all the way over to the north to the Fox Path Road that’s to the north. The developer would be required to provide an escrow to pay for the extension of the street and the removal of the driveway. There is no knowing how long development will take to the north. If the, or if that escrow became not enough to build the road the differences would be as written in the staff report would be put on the future developer. The utilities as discussed would be, there’s already stubs out of Big Woods Boulevard that was recently reconstructed. They would be extended beyond the driveway to allow for and be sized for the future development but they would get beyond the driveway but yet not impact the existing easement. The watermain would become a dead end. It would have to have a fire hydrant on the end of it to facilitate flushing and other maintenance. The other thing to note about this from a maintenance perspective is the City would not plow the driveway or be responsible for the maintenance due to the driveway being within the right-of-way. That would be a condition. Another part of this slide discusses the drainage and utility easements along the south side of Lots 1 and 2. You’ll notice that they are abnormal. There has been future stormwater improvements designed. They’re not part of this two lot subdivision because it is a two lot subdivision. But in the future drainage and utility easement is being granted so that they could be added as necessary when the property to the north develops. It would become the responsibility of the City to do that. There are some concerns related to that existing driveway and how they will impact this two lot subdivision. Especially from a drainage perspective because the area to the north is higher in grade than the area to the south and everything generally is sloping towards Big Woods Boulevard. So the blue arrows that are shown are basically showing drainage flow patterns that are aimed at the houses. There would be a requirement for the developer to provide an exhibit to show how drainage would not impact the home, selected home sites and you know primarily concerned with snow melt and plowing. How that would occur so that the two homes that are constructed would not be at the mercy essentially of being downhill of that. Staff is comfortable with the drainage as exhibited in the flow patterns for Lot number 1. We do have identified some concerns with Lot 2. We don’t feel that they are major concerns. We feel that with a little bit more detail that this could be easily correctable but it is noted. We’d also like to see a driveway exhibit be provided and that’s noted in the staff report to show how in the future when the road is extended, not only does it meet code for grades but how the driveway will tie into it and also meet the maximum of a 10 percent slope restriction. Regarding retaining walls. Three new retaining walls are proposed on this site. They do not have top of wall and bottom of wall elevations shown on the proposed plans. That would need to be added. It is a condition that is noted in the staff report. In addition any retaining wall that would be over 4 feet in height would be required to be designed by a professional engineer. Any retaining walls that would encroach on a drainage and utility easement would be required to file for an encroachment agreement and the existing retaining wall that’s along Big Woods Drive is within the property would be within the drainage and utility easement so that will have to be looked into from filing an encroachment agreement and looking at you know who owns that retaining wall. And that’s the end of my presentation at this time. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 30 Al-Jaff: So one of the things that I need to clarify just a little bit more. The driveway that is serving the two parcels east of the subject site. There is a cross access agreement. It has a life of 99 years. I know that the developer as well, or the owner of the property as well as their engineer and staff have communicated with the neighbors to explain to them the options and the neighbor to the north basically does not wish to have any development, doesn’t want to be part of development at this time so one of the questions you asked me Chairman Weick at the beginning was the date on this application. It was 2017 and that’s when we started working with Mr. Eidsness. He submitted his application then trying to resolve all of these issues. All of these matters has taken quite a while. With that said staff is recommending approval of this application and we will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Weick: Great, thank you very much. At this time if there’s any questions for staff from the commission speak up. Randall: I have none. Weick: None? Randall: None. Weick: Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: Mr. Chairman, trying to figure out why they are building two huge lots instead of, if you just look across the street on Big Woods Boulevard why wouldn’t they put 5 lots in there? Tell me about the conservation easement that you have. Al-Jaff: Sure. One of, when they appeared before the City these parcels, you can only fit two homes. If you look at the lot area, lot depth, lot width. Also there are some steep grades on these two parcels so first blush you look at it and you say it makes perfect sense to come off of Big Woods Boulevard. The fact is they’re depth will not work so they would have to come before you with variances. Reeder: What’s the? Al-Jaff: They would need 125 foot minimum. Reeder: Depth from Big Woods. And what do they have? Al-Jaff: It is less than, it’s 105. Reeder: 105? Al-Jaff: 106. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 31 Reeder: Okay my concern is that we’re setting ourselves up for a variance in the future if they come back in and try to subdivide these lots to get more lots on these houses. You talked about a conservation, how’s that work? Al-Jaff: So basically with a conservation easement they, and this is an area that they had not intended to grade. They won’t be able to remove the trees and it would preserve these, the overall area as wooded. If you look across the street with Big Woods we do have similar easements. They are not as wide and what we did is we allowed the, these parcels to have a reduced front yard setback in lieu of, so their front yard is 20 feet but their rear yard setback is 40 feet and within that 40 feet is where they have their conservation easement. Reeder: Okay so we have a conservation easement here that’s the City’s in control of and would not ever allow anything to happen? Al-Jaff: I’ve learned a long time ago to say, I never say never. But it is basically what happens is if there is a diseased tree for instance then they will go and meet, work with the City Forester and ensure that it is removed. If there are dead trees the same is true. But can they clear trees, clear cut trees out of that area? The answer is no. Reeder: And they can’t come in for a subdivision? Al-Jaff: No. You can only fit two lots into that area so no. They can. Reeder: Without a variance. Al-Jaff: Without a variance. Reeder: Because of the depth. Al-Jaff: Correct. Reeder: Clearly they have more lot area than you need for these two lots. Total area. What’s a normal lot size? Al-Jaff: 15,000 square feet. Reeder: 15,000 and these lots are? Al-Jaff: So one of them is 17,000 and the other one. Weick: 27.9. I think. On page 10 of 12. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 32 Al-Jaff: Yes. In addition to the lot depth that’s going to become an issue, or a problem. Again the grades on these parcels are not very conducive to accessing off of Big Woods Boulevard. Hence you will see retaining walls in multiple areas. There are fairly large drainage and utility easements and that’s where we will have potentially future drainage utilities. So between all of these things it’s unlikely that you will be able to fit another parcel. Reeder: Okay it’s beautiful. I love it just the way it is. That’s fine. Al-Jaff: Thank you. Weick: Any questions for the City? Skistad: I guess the only thing that confused me was the retaining wall that we don’t know who owns it? Does that have to be answered first? Bender: I don’t believe it has to. That can be worked out with the final plat. Reeder: Who built it? Bender: I couldn’t answer that question at this time. Weick: And it meets, other than the variance for the right-of-way this meets all of the. Al-Jaff: It exceeds everything. Weick: It meets and exceeds all of the requirements for a preliminary plat. Okay thank you. At this time I would invite the applicant to make a presentation if you would like. Just state your name. Paul Otto: I’m Paul Otto with Otto and Associates. I’m representing the applicant. If you have questions for him I can answer. I’ll be fairly brief on this. I think it is pretty straight forward. You’ve all realized that. A couple of the things. The retaining walls if we need to pull them out of the easements I think we can. What we did with the homes on this and the proposed grading as we wanted to give an idea of how that would look. These would be custom design as most of Chanhassen is but the easterly home, we actually have a dropped garage so that garage is dropped from the main floor farther than you normally would in a home and we are proposing to pull grade up on the north side of that home so we can get it to drain around there. We’ll certainly provide more detail on that and then as well the, why the garage is dropped is because we actually, there’s a lot of history in this. I first looked at this property and all the properties to the north in 2006. We laid it all out. I’ve got a design for the whole thing so this was the first part of it and that driveway there needs to be dropped to fit into the future road so we’ll certainly provide that to city staff as well. Other than that I think we’re onboard with everything. The retaining wall that’s at the intersection there was built with the project to the south. We Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 33 happened to have done that. The little piece there was an outlot of that project and then that got attached to the north so that’s how that got there. What easements are there or not I don’t know. We haven’t seen title work yet. Maybe that will have something in it. Maybe not so I don’t know if you have any questions for me. Weick: Certainly open it up if there’s any commissioner questions. Any questions? No, thank you very much. I’m sure it’s going to be beautiful. Lots of trees in there. At this time we will open up the public portion of the hearing if anyone would like to come forward and provide comment on this project you’re welcomed to do so now. You would go to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Yes please. David Igel: Good evening Chairman and commissioners. My name is David Igel. I live at 501 Big Woods Boulevard and my wife Rachel and I actually developed Big Woods Boulevard so I have a little bit of the history. Paul was our engineer of record and probably knows more of the details and I’ve known Mr. Eidsness and he’s been working on this for some time as well as city staff. You know I think overall we were hoping that the entire property would develop at the same time. I think it would make for a better flow. I think everybody probably feels that way but as it is I think done properly it’s going to be a nice addition to the neighborhood. I did just have a couple of questions on it and I think that this has changed a little bit in design since the last time I talked to city staff so I’ll try to be brief here but maybe if some of those questions could be answered. There’s not going to be stormwater ponding or anything added at the present time? Is that correct? It’s just planned for future? So does the existing stormwater system on Big Woods that flows both east and west, those calcs are done and that will handle the existing hard cover I presume? Bender: Yes. David Igel: Is that right? Okay. The one, let’s see. I just wondered if those trees are the final location. The additional trees that I think are required by the, to keep the canopy. Is that the final position for those to be planted or could they be, if not instead of trees being used to provide screening from the house into the trees that are going to be kept in the conservation easement, if those could be dropped on the lower side to provide screening from Big Woods ma be a consideration and that wouldn’t necessarily have to be put in but I haven’t had a chance to talk to the applicant to this point. That would be one comment I would have. With the retaining walls, the existing retaining walls which were put in when Big Woods was put in were all made of boulders and my thought on it, and perhaps the City and the engineers have a different feel for it. I think as a matter of consistency, and maybe the applicant would have a different feel for it as well but as a matter of consistency it’d be nice for those to be retaining walls as well. Made of boulders just as a matter of consistency coming across. I don’t know if that’s been considered. And then the one thing I would just like to add, and it’s probably not part of this process but because of the grade that does come down and I think it was touched on with the erosion control, that is going to be really important. The last house that was built on Big Woods at the end was uphill from the cul-de-sac and the retaining pond in my driveway that actually runs down into Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 34 my garage wasn’t properly maintained. There’s actually some weird water tables in there so the, a spring was kind of feeding the water behind. Contractors were in there. Did some work. They cut the retaining, or the silt fencing that was holding, we had several thousand gallons that ran down into the pond, into the driveway, into my garage so I would just say that special care be taken of that. I’m sure that that’s the intent of the applicant and engineer but that I think is going to be really critical because if a big storm comes down that’s going to silt up all of the catch basins. All of the underwater piping and then of course the new retaining pond or the new area to the west. The one variance which I think that’s probably the only thing that you have much discretion on here of being a 50 foot wide for the right-of-way for that future road I think is a great idea and if that could ever be made any more narrow so fewer trees could be taken out in this area. We had a 50 foot variance on our’s and I think that would have been better if that would have been more narrow because a lot of trees were taken out there. You come from a 20 foot wide cart path coming in there to what’s probably a larger boulevard than is necessary and the fewer trees and the fewer, the less excavating that needs to happen up there for that new road or for the driveway would I think be beneficial to the whole neighborhood. Thank you. Weick: Great, thank you. And as a note all the comments that are made become part of the public record so your comments and suggestions will be part of the public record for this case. Please. Mike Sweet: Thank you. My name is Mike Sweet. I live at 565 Big Woods Boulevard. Kind of right straight across from the easterly lot there and I was wondering if there’s any stipulation regarding the orientation of the two houses. Do they face Big Woods Boulevard or do they face you know the westerly one facing Carver Beach Road and the other one facing the other way? Because you know all the houses on the south side of Big Woods Boulevard face and it just seems odd to me if the other houses were facing east and west so that we’re looking at the side of that house and that it would maybe negatively impact the property values of the houses on the south side of Big Woods Boulevard. So is there any stipulation for that or is that not something you can stipulate? I mean you just kind of divide up the lots and let people build houses, whichever orientation they want. Weick: You know we’ll keep track of the questions and then we can certainly pose them to the applicant. Mike Sweet: Okay. And so that’s one concern that I had. And the other thing is just to reiterate to leave as many of those trees as possible. They’re just beautiful. Just full of maple trees and really a nice spot over there. I’d hate to see too many of those taken down. I don’t know if the conservation easements, if the size of those is cast in stone or why, how we came up with the size of those but if they could be as large as possible we’d appreciate it. Weick: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes please. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 35 Francesca Landon: Hi, my name is Francesca Landon and I live at 620 Fox Hill Drive so I’m actually north of the woods completely and our house looks out to the woods so I’m in favor and I appreciate that you guys try to keep as much of the trees as possible within that. I had a quick question because if I recall correctly I thought the original plat from years and years ago that I had talked to you on the phone about, I thought this area served as a holding pond, is that correct? About it because there was going to be like the wetland on the upper side and I thought that there was a holding pond on the south side of this entire wooded area. Al-Jaff: There was. Francesca Landon: To serve as like the storm but it was much bigger if I can recall. I was trying to track down any of the old paperwork but I couldn’t find it. My question with that is from that larger amount then to adding all the hard cover and everything like that is the proposed storm, sorry. I’m spacing here. Is that going to be enough for these two houses as well as what you guys are planning for in the future? Weick: Okay and we’ll pose it because there’s different people that have to answer certain questions so. Francesca Landon: Yeah. And then my other question is for I’m sorry I forgot your name. You had said that the second house, the Block 2 I think, that on the north side of the house you were going to be dropping the garage because of the upgrading needed on the north side of the house but how does that affect the driveway that’s currently there for the two houses? And I think that’s my other one. Oh actually I’m sorry, I do have one more. Because of the weird school district lines I was curious. Would those be Carver County schools or Minnetonka schools? It’s kind of off topic but I think that was jut it so yeah, thank you. Weick: Thank you. Would anyone else? Oh there you are. I wasn’t looking I’m sorry. Diane Carney: No problem. Diane Carney. I live at 549 Big Woods Boulevard. I won’t go into it. My questions are similar to what’s already been said by our neighbors here which is retaining the trees. They’re so beautiful and they’re in full bloom and as many as can be retained as possible. And I live directly on that Lot 4 directly across from that new road and just to reiterate Dave’s point on keeping that as narrow as possible to try and preserve. There’s some really big trees right on that corner so that’s all I have. Thank you. Weick: Thank you. Seeing no one else come forward, would you be willing to answer some of the questions? That’d be great. I kept track of some of them but to just kind of rattle them off. One is the trees that will be added. Would there be consideration to adding trees to screen on Big Woods Boulevard? Paul Otto: Yeah and one thing that I wanted to point out and I didn’t right away which I should have is that these, the homes and the lots themselves will be sold and those will be custom Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 36 designed by whoever buys them so the City will have to handle reviewing the building permits to be in accordance with that so it’s probably going to be more up to those owners because one of the last things we want to do is come in there and clear cut these trees and plant these new ones and it doesn’t work into their home or somebody says, I mean I’ve seen people do a lot of different things and they say I want to see something completely different and design around maybe some of those trees so that will happen with the actual owners who frankly I mean I work for developers. It’s a business. They will probably have more sensitivity to that as well. Weick: Which could then also affect the materials you would use for retaining walls I would imagine. Paul Otto: Correct. That would be the same thing. That would really be up to the homeowner. They will be all on private property so. Weick: Yeah. Obviously if they could consider what some of the neighbors are saying to keep some of the consistency that’s always something to keep in the back of our mind. I think there was some, a request for care during construction especially for the runoff. Paul Otto: Yeah so for the construction portion of it what we will be responsible for is the utilities and that access and probably will be building that driveway up there just to help salability out so we will, staff has commented we need a little more erosion control on that. Weick: Okay. And then orientation of the homes. Again it’s probably up to the person who owns. Paul Otto: Yes. Why they’re in there like this is because that grade is coming down to the road. We could come off of Big Woods Boulevard but you’re going to be looking at a tuck under type garage home and that’s not as desirable at least in this area and probably you know it can be done and that’s not to say they couldn’t do it on these lots but this is a little bit easier for a buyer to see and visualize. Weick: Okay and then I think the last one for you was a question around dropping the driveway and if that, how that would affect I think the long driveway. Paul Otto: Yeah I didn’t really explain that correctly. So we’re going to, so we’ve got our house foundation and you’ve got trusses above that but you’ve got your house foundation and your outside grade is set by that. We’re going to drop the garage down I think, I can’t remember what it is. It’s a foot or foot and a half from that. And then on the north side of that we’re, what we show on our plan is that would actually be block on that north wall in the garage so that we can keep the grade of the north wall higher than the half a foot below the garage floor is what I’m trying to, what I tried to explain. Weick: Yep. Perfect. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 37 Paul Otto: Your stormwater pond question. Weick: Yes. Paul Otto: I can help with that because we did that design. We can only work with the properties that we have. When we did that design we, all of these property owners in this whole block were in agreement at that time and had hired us to look at that and the place that made the most sense was at that intersection because it’s the lowest on the property. We don’t have that now. What we have done is we’ve shown city staff that if you look at this development as a whole we can accommodate this new road in those easements but it will not handle the rest of the water to the north so the property owners to the north are going to need a pond on their own property. We ponded on our site for that road and extension for the future but we haven’t accounted for anybody else’s water. Weick: Okay. Paul Otto: Just to be clear. Weick: Okay. Great, well thank you. Paul Otto: Thank you. Weick: Appreciate it. And then I think the one last one was do we know the school district? Al-Jaff: I will check that information and make sure it’s available at the, when we update the report to the City Council. Weick: Great. I’m not sure if I closed the public hearing but I will. Public hearing is now closed and I will open this up. Oh did you want to? Yeah come on. We’ll open it back up. I have to do things semi-officially so. Francesca Landon: No and I, and maybe it’s just not clear for me. Weick: Yeah. Francesca Landon: From everything that I’m hearing it sounds like in the future regardless of what I would like, is that this area is going to be constructed. Personally I’d love it to just be trees forever. I know that’s not going to happen so knowing that information where are we going to be putting that extra pond that you had just talked about? Where is that going to go if this isn’t an option anymore? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 38 Weick: I think that would be the responsibility of whoever is developing the property to the north. Is that a fair? Bender: I would agree with your statement. Maybe to add a little bit to that. Weick: Please. Bender: And Paul correct me if I’m wrong but there’s a low area and it’s kind of shown in some of the grade lines here that was previously going to be a pond and would likely be considered as a future pond site and that’s about as far as I can go with it. Weick: Okay. Francesca Landon: I’m just going to comment on that. Weick: Yeah go ahead. Francesca Landon: Because that pond is directly across from my house and I look at it every day. Currently that pond, especially with all the rain and the snow that we’ve had has kind of made it’s own trail and has started going down to the fire hydrant so that’s actually a spot that’s already low but it fills up very quickly, especially in the spring and it doesn’t have anywhere to go. It just trails down to Fox Hill and Carver Beach corners so just to keep that in mind. Weick: Thank you. I think that’s good information. Mike Sweet: One more quick comment regarding orientation. Weick: Sure. We’re going to get it all in. Mike Sweet: The orientation of the houses. I understand that it doesn’t make sense because of the grade the driveways really can’t come off of Big Woods Boulevard. They need to come in from the sides but if the houses could still be oriented to face Big Woods Boulevard. I realize this will be determined by the developer and the homeowners and stuff but if they could face Big Woods Boulevard it would seem more like a neighborhood so that all of our houses aren’t looking at the side of a house across the street then it seems like kind of a hodge podge you know put together thing. It’d be nice if they faced Big Woods. Weick: No that’s great feedback. I’m going to pause because I have rushed it too much. But this is really good conversation and important to get on the record for the development. So seeing nobody else come forward I am going to close the public hearing and I can open it up for commissioner discussion at this point. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 39 Randall: I just had one thing. MacKenzie did we talk about the facing of the homes? Didn’t we change something with that recently where you know because there’s these lots like that where they determined where the front of the house was going to be. Walters: Yep that was an ordinance amendment for a private streets and while it allowed the establishment of a front yard setback, the front yard setback does not dictate how the house is oriented design wise. Randall: Okay. Walters: It was just a you know a structural thing for driveways, etcetera and that was mostly targeted towards dealing with pre-existing development patterns and existing houses as they were built. Randall: Okay. Now does the one house on the west is that going to have a Carver Beach road address or is that going to have a Big Woods Boulevard address? Al-Jaff: It will have, if accessing off of Carver Beach it will have a Carver Beach address. Randall: Alright. Al-Jaff: Both of those parcels are corner lots. They would need to maintain a 30 foot setback from the right-of-way for Big Woods and Carver Beach as well as the future extension. Randall: Okay. That was all I had. Weick: Okay. Reeder: Quick question looking at this new road heading down toward Lot 4. …in a situation with the headlights going in the Lot 4? And I know that’s already situated there. Bender: Could you say that one more time? Reeder: If we’re going to put a road through directly across from Lot 4 here, we’ve got headlights heading right toward that guy’s house which sometimes people are concerned about. Bender: I see where you’re coming from. I don’t believe I understand completely which house you’re, are you talking the house that’s going to be at the end on. Reeder: No I’m talking about the Big Woods lot number 4 directly across the street from, yeah. Bender: Oh right here, okay. Eventually yes there would be headlights going at that house with that street platted through there. Best I can tell ya. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 40 Reeder: Looks like we’re setting up a problem. I don’t know what the solution would possibly be though because you’ve, you actually had that street entrance already established there right. So you assume that Lot number 4 knew it when they bought it. Bender: That is correct. We were, to talk about headlights a little bit. And it is addressed in the staff report a little bit in relation to the driveway that’s along here. We were thinking that the new houses on Lots 1 and 2 may also see headlights coming in and it is discussed in there as part of the drainage concerns of maybe using some sort of a privacy fence to help address that concern for as long as that driveway is there. Sharmeen correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that that cross access agreement went into effect in 1971. Al-Jaff: Correct. Bender: So it will be 99 years later or 2070 so approximately 51 years from now that that will expire if new agreements aren’t reached. Al-Jaff: The other thing that could potentially happen is the property to the north actually comes in for subdivision and at that time we would vacate that easement. Reeder: Okay. Weick: Comments, questions? Certainly entertain a motion if you feel like moving in that direction. Anything? Randall: I did the last one. Weick: Thank you. Skistad: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way as shown in plans stamped Received April 22, 2019 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendation. Weick: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Randall: Second. Weick: Second from Commissioner Randall. Any further comment on this case before we vote? Skistad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way as shown in plans stamped Received April 22, 2019 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 41 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendation: SUBDIVISION Engineering: 1. The applicant shall submit an ALTA survey illustrating the existing conditions including all existing easements on, and abutting, the subdivision prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The applicant shall add drainage arrows to the grading plan to sufficiently illustrate the route drainage will take around the buildings and throughout the site for review and approval by the city prior to grading. 3. The applicant shall provide an exhibit demonstrating how snow removal operations from the existing driveway providing access to 630 and 640 Carver Beach Road will be performed without conflict or nuisance to the proposed subdivision prior to recording of final plat. 4. A copy of the executed construction easement shall be provided to the city prior to grading. 5. Updated plans illustrating retaining wall elevations shall be provided prior to grading. 6. The applicant will be required to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way (ROW) to the east abutting Lot 2, as shown on the preliminary plat as “Lotus Woods Drive”. 7. The developer shall put into escrow the cost for construction (see condition 14) of the future street construction of “Lotus Woods Drive” abutting Lot 2 prior to recording of final plat. The construction of the street will occur when the property to the north of Lotus Woods Subdivision is developed, or when the city determines it is appropriate to construct the street, whichever occurs first. 8. Lot 2’s driveway elevations and grades shall align with the future street improvement of “Lotus Woods Drive”. A detail showing the elevations and conformity of future street grades and driveway grades shall be submitted prior to grading. 9. A sign approved by the city shall be placed in the ROW at the corner of “Lotus Woods Drive” and Big Woods Boulevard indicating a future street will be constructed. 10. Updated plans illustrating the location and connection methodologies of sanitary and water services for Lot 1 will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. From as-built information, it appears there was water and sanitary laterals stubbed to the property in 1975. If these services are currently in use by an existing property, the developer shall relocate those services to avoid having private service lines running through the subdivision. If these services are not in use, the developer shall field verify their locations and serviceability prior to connecting services to the laterals. 11. A fire hydrant shall be constructed on the end of the water main extension in “Lotus Woods Drive”. 12. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the proposed public water main and sanitary sewer main extensions prior to the recording of the final plat. 13. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the grading and construction of the future street “Lotus Woods Drive”, abutting Lot 2, prior to the recording of the final plat. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 42 14. All newly constructed public utilities shall adhere to the city’s most recent Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, and city review and approval of all construction plans shall be completed prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. 15. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required prior to construction, including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Health, and the City of Chanhassen. 16. The development of Lots 1 and 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit applications. 17. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract. Water Resources: 1. Provide an erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with Sec. 19-145 of city ordinances upon submittal of building permits for individual lot development. 2. Provide drainage and stormwater management plans as prescribed in Chapter 18, Sec. 18- 40 and Section 19-143. Parks: 1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for the two lots. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current single- family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total park fees would be $5,800. Environmental Resources Coordinator: 1. The easterly 140 feet of Lot 1 and the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 shall be covered by a Conservation Easement. 2. Tree preservation fencing will be required on each lot. Fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to the start of any construction activities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 16, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Weick: You all are doing a great job. That’s my presentation for you. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: Any administrative presentations or City Council action update? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 43 Walters: Just wanted to let you know that the two code amendments you had forwarded onto the City Council were passed on the consent agenda on May 13th. Staff is still working on the kennel ordinance. This is the busier time of the year so it could be a little while before I can get to it but we will try to turn that around as quick as we can. Beyond that I don’t believe. Al-Jaff: Control Concepts will be appearing before you at your next Planning Commission meeting. It’s a site plan with a conditional use permit because you are within the Bluff Creek overlay district. Weick: Got it. Is that the only one for next time so far? That you know of. Al-Jaff: Yeah. Walters: I believe yes, yes it is and the deadline’s lapsed so you should be good. Bender: They’ve also seen that one before. Al-Jaff: Correct. Weick: I know it sounds familiar yeah. Is that the one with the path? They’re back. That’s my favorite one. Okay well I won’t miss that one. Can I ask, I don’t know how to appropriately adjourn the meeting. Do we need a motion? Al-Jaff: You need a motion to adjourn. Weick: And we vote on it. Al-Jaff: Correct. Weick: Okay thank you. Do we have a motion to adjourn? Randall: Motion to adjourn. Weick: And a second? Reeder: Second. Randall moved, Reeder seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 44 Prepared by Nann Opheim PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, June 4, 2019 Subject City Council Action Update Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: G.1. Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support Specialist File No: ATTACHMENTS: City Council Action Update City Council Action Update TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2019 Discuss Applebee’s Site Redevelopment City Council to consider additional parking alternatives The minutes for these meetings can be viewed from the City’s website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links. g:\plan\forms\development forms\city council action update.docx